The Powell Endorsement

by: David Sirota

Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 11:32


I was on CNN this morning to discuss Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama this weekend. You can watch the clip here. I made the point that the endorsement is far more of a blow to John McCain than a big plus for Obama.

For McCain, Powell abandoning the GOP ship shows a significant portion of the Establishment believes he is going to lose, and that sense of inevitability is going to make it even harder for him to climb back into this race. For Obama, Powell's endorsement gives him a small bump thanks to Powell's incisive criticism of McCain, but it doesn't give him a huge positive boost on deeper foreign policy issues because Powell has destroyed his own credibility with his now-discredited United Nations speech - the one he knew was chock full of lies, the one that led us into the Iraq War, and the one he refuses to apologize for, even as it remains the single most humiliating and destructive act in contemporary diplomatic history.

As I told CNN, what's far more intriguing - and potentially troubling - is what Obama's own embrace of Powell means in terms of policy. Obama used his own opposition to the war - the war that Colin Powell helped start - as a contrast point in the Democratic primary and in the general election. He is campaigning on a promise to end the war. What does Powell's endorsement of Obama say about those promises? According to newspapers this morning, it may actually say a lot.

David Sirota :: The Powell Endorsement
The Associated Press reports that "Powell will have a role as a top presidential adviser in an Obama administration, the Democratic White House hopeful said Monday." Obama told NBC News Powell will "have a role as one of my advisers" and held out the possibility of a formal White House or Cabinet role. He also asked Powell to publicly campaign with him.

For the millions of Americans supporting Obama because of his opposition to the war, this is disconcerting, to say the least.

As CNN reported yesterday, Powell remains totally unrepentant both about his own critical role pushing us to war. For instance, he claims to have tried to stop the war, five years after giving the single most important (and discredited) speech in building the public case for war. He now claims he wants to see the war end, but it's difficult to trust the integrity of a man who denies even the most basic facts of his public involvement in creating the crisis in the first place. That Obama now seems to reflexively trust Powell suggests not foreign policy prudence from the Democratic nominee, but knee-jerk ignorance - and worse, a potential to abdicate the very antiwar themes he's run on for so long.

Clearly, Powell is in this for Powell. He sees that McCain is losing, he'd like to be relevant once again, and so he's glomming onto the Obama candidacy. And it's obvious that what's pushing Obama closer to Powell is the Establishment noise machine. Though polls show the public seeing Powell as superficially positive, there is no evidence he commands any serious grassroots following at all. That said, he is revered among professional pundits, reporters and politicians for his supposed Seriousness and Respectability (whatever that means). Indeed, the Wall Street Journal today has a good rundown of how the commentariat is celebrating Powell's foreign policy "credibility" and writing Powell's humiliating behavior out of history. Even worse, Democratic politicians are claiming - without evidence, of course - that Powell has some huge following in battleground states.

As a journalist, it sickens me that our power-worshiping press corps refuses to report the basic facts of Powell's record (though I give CNN's John Roberts credit - he made this point explicitly this morning). Really - once the Establishment graces a figure with the aura of "credibility," is there anything that figure can do (say, lead us into a war based on lies) to have that "credibility" revoked?

That said, as a progressive, I don't fault Obama for trying to capitalize on those fabricated memes about Powell, and use them in the context of the campaign. He's got 15 days until the election, and any short-term boost is a good thing.

What I worry about is the day after the election. I am concerned about a President Obama internalizing that Establishment fantasy about Colin Powell the Serious and Credible Voice - and ignoring the actual fact-based story about Colin Powell, the Most Discredited Foreign Policy Voice In Contemporary American History. We don't need another president who refuses to live in the "reality-based world" - we need a president who matches his campaign promises on critical issues like the Iraq War with an understanding of which voices will be the most reliable in making those promises a reality.


Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Powell still has credibility with 30% of voters, and they'd be supportive of McCain (4.00 / 2)
Reaching out to them is okay, IMO.

You also have to consider the symbolic effect of one of the top Bush officials supporting Obama -- it makes it okay for a lot of other people on the fence to support Obama as well.

I agree that I'd be worried if this started to impact the election. Powell has no place managing our foreign policy, so let's leave him out of it. I hope Obama has real common sense, not beltway common sense.

Even Democrats who supported the Iraq war, at least we can put them in charge of domestic issues.


"started to impact the election" = "started to impact his cabinet" (0.00 / 0)
sorry, still waking up

[ Parent ]
Good Piece (4.00 / 1)
As part of my penance of alienation, I cannot comprehend why anyone values Powell. He is a total media creation from Desert Storm. His career as an officer is speckled with things like the My Lai cover-up and his career as a SoS can be summed up with a simple tube of corn starch.

Obama is a Ben Nelson Democrat. I.E. he is a conservative Democrat who is also conservative by temperament. His administration will be an eye-opener for "Progressives" when they realize that, like Puritans, there is no Earthly hope for salvation, nor succor in this Old World.


Ben Nelson Democrat? (4.00 / 3)
Obama's not as progressive as I would like him to be, but I really don't think he's a Ben Nelson Democrat. He's nowhere near that conservative.

[ Parent ]
i tend to agree that he is not a conservative (0.00 / 0)
but in terms of how he would govern, he's shown himself so far to be a) highly risk adverse b) practical rather than idea-based c) to sway with the winds to some extent.  So ultimately, his presidency may be largely defined by the external political environment.  Which will include the political forces in Washington - what Congress looks like - somewhat more socially rooted trends like the virulence of attacks that he's going to face from the protonazi faction of the Republican  Party, the external limitations of the massive wars and deterioration of the U.S. economic and industrial policies and outcomes, and the extent and severity of both the recession and the financial crisis (which are two different things that are related to one another).

[ Parent ]
Myopic Hyperbole (4.00 / 4)
Would Ben Nelson be such an unabashed and unapologetic supporter of Roe v. Wade? Has Obama been cheer-leading the Iraq War? Would Ben Nelson have proposed the sort of progressive tax code changes that Obama has? Get some freaking perspective and look at their actual voting records.

Purity trolls are so much worse than concern trolls.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!


[ Parent ]
Campaigning on ending the war (4.00 / 1)
Obama has shown no signs of changing his position on Iraq no matter who criticizes him, from either side.  Right or wrong, he's always been in favor of keeping some level of "residual forces" there, even after Richardson increased the pressure from the left in the primaries by calling for all troops to be pulled out.  Obama has also stuck to his 16-month timetable, which looked even more solid when Maliki endorsed it after Obama visited Iraq.  Even the ongoing negotiations between the Bush administration and the Iraqis have a target date for removing US troops by the end of 2011, which is closer to Obama's position than to McCain's.

So I don't see any reason to think that listening to Powell is going to cause Obama to change his position on Iraq, any more than listening to Biden (who also supported the war) is going to.


We'll be out of Iraq immediately (0.00 / 0)
We can't afford a useless war at this point. The economics will force Obama to bring the troops back immediately, whatever his inclinations. I expect the troops to be back by summer, with Obama using the expiration of the UN authorizing resolution (without which our troops are technically there illegally) as cover.  

[ Parent ]
the problem is that obama has capitalized on the "wrong war" idea (4.00 / 3)
the debate he has created is between iraq and afghanistan, not "war" and "not war."  This is a problem.  Would you rather be in an 16 year boondoggle in Afghanistan than Iraq?  Does it really make a difference in terms of who dies and who lives?  That's, I think the question for progressive critics of Obama.

[ Parent ]
The question of what to do now in Afghanistan is a tough one (4.00 / 1)
But, both substantively and politically, criticizing the decision to invade Iraq as having distracted us from Afghanistan in the almost immediate aftermath of 9/11 is certainly an approach that I support.  Getting the people who actually attacked us was worth a real military effort, not a half-assed one.  

[ Parent ]
well that's where we differ :) (4.00 / 1)
i've come to disagree, though i hadn't always in the past.  The people who attacked  the U.S. were a multinational, somewhat decentarlized group of salafi violent political extremists who took shelter with the Taliban.  The debate over whether criminal justice operations rather than a military invasion was more appropriate simply didn't exist in the u.S., and the war was conducted largely to sate a feeling of revenge, imo.  It has the same features of torture, violence against civilians, etc.

There were plenty of other good reasons for undermining the Taliban, many of which lots of progressives pointed out before it became popular for the rightwing to use women's rights arguments to bolster hideous wars.  But that's not why it was done and there's never been a real debate since the war started on whether it was the right approach since we had an even worse (and profoudnly more moronic) approach substituted in its place.


[ Parent ]
How could we get bin Laden solely with criminal justice operations? (0.00 / 0)
The Taliban wasn't exactly eager to turn him over.  In that circumstance, I think the "Bush Doctrine" as some were defining it immediately after 9/11--state sponsors of international terrorist attacks should be held accountable just like the terrorists themselves are--actually made sense, both as a matter of deterrence and as a matter of achieving justice for the attacks.

Pretending that military operations should always take precedence over law enforcement methods in fighting terrorism, as Bush always insisted, is of course completely stupid, as is waging preventive war against regimes just because they maybe/kinda/sorta/possibly could do something bad to us someday in the future.  But it wasn't inevitable that going to war in Afghanistan was going to devolve into all that nonsense.      


[ Parent ]
You've Got This All Wrong (4.00 / 3)
The Taliban were crumbling in their opposition to turning over bin Laden.  And Bush hadn't even really tried going the criminal justice route.  If anything, we invaded in order to pre-empt the possibility of the criminal justice approach working, and denying us the excuse to go to war.

OTOH, a dedicated criminal justice approach would have centered around the disgrace that bin Laden brought upon the reputation of Islam.  An impressive quorum of Islamic authorities could have been brought together to issue a proclamation calling on all Muslims as a religious duty to turn over everyone suspected of involvement, and to offer any evidence and testimony they might have.  This would have been an eminently sensible, pragmatic, and effective approach to take.  Don't forget, there were innocent Muslims who died at the WTC on 9/11, just as there had been in the 1998 attacks (the response to which Clinton bungled just as badly.)

If we really had grown-ups running our foreign policy, this is the sort of response we would have taken, and bin Laden would have been in custody within a matter of days--weeks, at most.  The trial would have been broadcast world-wide, and the family of every Muslim who died that day would have testified about their relative, making their innocence perfectly clear, thus destroying every shred of bin Laden's rationale.

Not only would this have prevented the elevation of a gang of thugs into the status of "holy warriors," it would have ensured that no child born for at least 50 years would ever be given the name "Osama."

That's how the criminal justice approach could have worked.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Not sure I agree with your assessment of where the Taliban was (0.00 / 0)
In any event, some of what you're talking about was also advocated by Wes Clark in this article from 2002, and I agree with the common things between his approach and what you're talking about.

[ Parent ]
It's True That Going To War Was The Wrong Approach (4.00 / 3)
But if we were going to use the military, then invading Afghanistan and capturing bin Laden was at least in the ballpark of reasonable actions.

Invading Iraq was not.

Returning to focus on Afghanistan now, however, is a totally different kettle of rotting fish.  It's no longer Fall, 2001.  The instant sympathy of the world is no longer with us.  All the moral complexities that might conceivably have been relegated to the back seat for a blitzkreig in Afghanistan then are in the forefront to stay right now, and it doesn't matter if we camp out in Afghanistan for two years or twenty, with 20,000 troops or 200,000, or even 2,000,000.

In short, Obama's Mideast policy now seems to be "Make the same fundamental mistakes more effectively, and use a fountain pen, instead of crayons."

His embrace of Colin Powell only serves to make this "perfectly clear," in the words of another great American war criminal.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
i totally agree (4.00 / 1)
i'm banking on the idea that obama  will meet some peope who will talk some sense into him before his administration makes permanent the destruction of afghanistan and extends it into Pakistan in the name of Democracy the same way that Bush did in Iraq.

albeit with a fountain pen.


[ Parent ]
What do you think we should have done in response to 9/11? (0.00 / 0)
Going even more off topic, but I'm curious.  

[ Parent ]
See My Comment Above (4.00 / 2)
Short version: We should have enlisted the Islamic world to help bring him to justice as an act of attonement and purification. And we should have made his murder of innocent Muslims a centerpiece of the case against him.

This ain't rocket science.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
This is an unmitigated plus for Obama and says nothing about the future administration (4.00 / 12)
First of all, I think Powell is far more popular in the country as a whole than you acknowledge.  Even while he may have credibility issues in some circles, he has plenty of credibility with most Americans, notwithstanding his UN speech and any other role he played.  Whether or not s deserved, I don't doubt his popularity.

Second, I see absolutely no downside in the suggestions that he could play a role in an administration, principally because I don't take those suggestions at face value.  Finally, even if Powell is or would be a trusted adviser, I do not believe that is any signal about the type of policies that will be pursued.  Unlike our current president, I have faith that Obama will be able to listen to different viewpoints and still make an independent judgment.


Exactly right (0.00 / 0)
The one big positive about Obama is his ability to listen.  Maybe this is an illusion, but he strikes me as someone who will respond to organized movements making rational policy arguments.  We just need to show Obama - like the candidate himself said to the Latino community - that we can back up leftist positions with electoral and financial support.  

[ Parent ]
It might be a plus (4.00 / 3)
for Obama, but what's good for Obama isn't necessarily good for progressivism.

The embrace of one of the Bush officials responsible for both the war in Iraq and the Torture State complicates (to say the least) the effort of progressives to tell the truth about what happened during these dark years--to say nothing of the (admittedly far-fetched) effort to seek justice and accountability for what happened during these dark years.


[ Parent ]
Exaggerating our importance (4.00 / 6)
Powell has destroyed his own credibility with his now-discredited United Nations speech -

I have to agree with the other poster that I think we tend to exaggerate our own sense of importance sometimes here on the blogosphere. Powell is currently enjoying an 80% approval rate. That's an 8 and a 0.

Your comments that Powell has "destroyed" his credibility should have been qualified with the statement "to a small portion of the progressive community" in order to be accurate. Powell's pluses far outweigh his minuses.

Simply the fact that the right-wing are immediately going into full-fledged attack mode calling his endorsement "racist" should let you know how powerful his endorsement is. A white man can endorse a white man and no one questions it. But when a black man endorses a black man, there has to be racial undertones to it? Seriously? The repubs are really desperate and grasping at straws here. We should be applauding their demise.  


Weird comment (4.00 / 2)
We all know he's popular because we all can read the results of an opinion survey. Bush once also had popularity ratings in the 80s--did that mean he was "credible."

By the way--and this is a question for everyone entirely untroubled by Obama's embrace of Powell-let's assume Condi had similar approval ratings, can we assume you wouldn't mind Obama signing her up as advisor?


[ Parent ]
hmm (4.00 / 1)
I didn't think credibility and popularity meant the same thing.

[ Parent ]
they don't (0.00 / 0)
but they usually amount to the same thing.  Do you typically find you like a politician but consider their views not worth much?  

[ Parent ]
Approval (2.00 / 2)
I'm not saying you guys are wrong for your viewpoints of Powell, I'm just saying you can't apply your viewpoints to the rest of the populace.

We are talking about an election here, which is, by definition a popularity contest. Saying that there is a difference between popularity, approval and credibility is rather disingenuous. I don't think many people with "credibility" problems are "approved" of.

The definition of approval:

NOUN:
  1. The act or an instance of approving.
  2. An official approbation; a sanction.
  3. Favorable regard; commendation.


[ Parent ]
A "Der Spiegel" blog on who Collin Powell could have been (4.00 / 2)
"The truth is that Colin Powell was the first Barack Obama. He was the first national black leader who was universally accepted as a potential leader of America. He transcended race, and did it with such power and panache that he made it seem easy and irrelevant. It almost made him the first black American president."
http://www.spiegel.de/internat...

Well, this would have prevented president Dubya. And his may have prevented Powell from losing his ethics and dignity, too. It's a sad story.


It's still not clear to me that he could have gotten the GOP nomination (4.00 / 1)
As popular as he was (and still is), being pro-choice is really an enormous political obstacle to getting the Republican nomination.  Try to think about it this way: if a national military figure of Powell's stature had revealed after retiring from the military that he was a Democrat (and I don't count Wes Clark, he was nowhere near as popular nationally as Powell), but that he was anti-abortion, would we have been falling over ourselves to nominate him?  Or would we have said, "glad to have him on board, but can't we nominate someone else?"

[ Parent ]
I think there was still room for dissent in 1996 (4.00 / 1)
I don't know whether being pro-choice alone would have spiked him, but I suspect not, given the other advantages. I'm pretty sure the fundies didn't have full control at that point. There would also have been a lot of people crossing party lines if Powell had thrown his hat in the ring. The GOP would look very different today.

[ Parent ]
The fundies hadn't taken over? After '94? (4.00 / 2)
I don't agree with that.  In any event, being pro-choice is tough for a very large number of Republicans to accept in a presidential candidate, not just among the fundie base.

And beyond that, Powell has never run for anything.  It's really, really hard to parachute straight from the military into electoral politics at the presidential level.  Powell certainly had enough national support to make a credible run for it if he had chosen to, but I really don't think it's so clear that he could have gotten the nomination.  


[ Parent ]
On what distant alien planet... (4.00 / 4)
...does the party of Sarah Palin choose Colin Powell as its presidential candidate?

Southern strategy, anyone?


[ Parent ]
yeah (4.00 / 2)
If the Republican party was capable of nominating someone with the image and reputation of Powell (never mind the real concerns of his actual behaviour), then we probably wouldn't be in this mess.

There's a reason he abandoned his presidential ambitions, and it's because he realized that it was na ganna happn for him.


[ Parent ]
just to add a sidenote (0.00 / 0)
he could have left the Republican party to run for president.

just saying.


[ Parent ]
Yeah, under Bush, the 90s already look like an alien planet! (0.00 / 0)
But it's true, republican powerfuls really were wooing Powell for the '96 campaign. Clinton's polls were strong, and prominent right wingers weren't exactly falling over themselves to run against him. I guess a strong group inside the GOP believed it was a hopeless endeavour and decided they could as well do something for the image of the party by supporting the candidacy of an African American who didn't have much of a chance to win anyway.  

[ Parent ]
I have no problem with (4.00 / 3)
Obama cheerfully accepting Powell's backing. I have a little problem with him calling Powell a "great American." I have a medium-sized problem with Powell playing a role in an Obama admin. I'd have a huge problem with him having a cabinet position.

I appreciate the discussion of Powell's selling the war, but I wish there were more discussion about this complicity in torture.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/...

ABC News reported tonight that President Bush's most senior and trusted advisers met in "dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House" beginning in 2002 to approve the use of "combined" interrogation techniques (the joint use of harsh interrogation techniques). Those tactics included whether detainees "would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding."

Members of the National Security Council's Principals Committee - Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, George Tenet, and John Ashcroft - approved the use of these techniques. "Sources said that at each discussion, all the Principals present approved.

There can be no doubt: Colin Powell approved the torture of suspects.

With Obama's embrace of Powell, we can once and for all end this silly talk about an Obama justice department prosecuting Bush officials for War Crimes.  



I still fail to see (4.00 / 2)
how approval from a known and deadly liar comes out as a plus for Obama or anybody else. Obama's perpetuation of the Powell PR bullshit is the most discouraging thing he's done yet. There has to be some point where integrity trumps even winning an election. Obama brings up serious doubts about his values when he can renounce the likes of Wright and Ayers but ignore the very real war crimes of Powell.

I'll still be voting for Obama, but with a lot less sense of hope than would have been the case a week ago.


show me more politicians that say this: (4.00 / 4)
Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian.  He's always been a Christian.  But the really right answer is, what if he is?  Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America.  Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?  Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America (MSNBC).

And I'll be with you on rejecting powell.  This is what more of Obama's surrogates need to be saying if Obama himself can't (which he has decided he can't, apparently), and yet, they don't.  Why?

Full post from my coblogger here.


[ Parent ]
Great statement. (4.00 / 1)
Does it make up for killing a few hundred thousand Muslims for no reason at all? And being absolutely unrepentant about it? Not for me.

But I do agree that Obama and the rest of the Dems should be saying what Powell said, instead of reacting as if being Muslim is a scurrilous accusation.


[ Parent ]
but they don't (4.00 / 1)
hence powell is not an unmitigated failure.  The same way that Bill Clinton has yet to apologize for killing a few hundred thousand Muslims through sanctions for no reason.

[ Parent ]
Seriously? (4.00 / 2)
It's worse than FISA? Worse than the bailout? Worse than support for clean coal? Saying "Hey, thanks for the endorsement" from a guy with an 80% favorability rating is that big a sin?

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

[ Parent ]
What does favorability have to do with it? (0.00 / 0)
Palin had favorability ratings approaching that level at one point, too, as I recall. That does not make her a "great American" as Obama called Powell. So you'd be OK with Obama praising any toxic wingnut -- Cheney, David Duke, Glenn Beck, say -- as long as they got high favorability?

I could sort of understand arguing that Powell is not really a war criminal, or that lying to start an invasion of a country that did nothing to us is not so bad. The favorability argument just doesn't make sense -- though you're certainly not alone here in making it.

To answer your question, yeah, I think it's worse than all of the above because it's dishonest. FISA and maybe clean coal are major-league failings, IMO, but can reflect honest disagreement. For Obama to do the rhetoric about how this war never should have started and then pal up with the propagandist whose lies enabled it constitutes cognitive dissonance at best. It suggests that he doesn't think the killing, the torture, the lies are all that important. It doesn't get much worse than that, as far as I'm concerned. I'll still be voting for him in hopes that this is just a misjudgement in the heat of a campaign. But it doesn't feel as good as it used to.


[ Parent ]
*rolls eyes* (0.00 / 0)
Palin's favorability ratings were never that high, and Powell has been on the scene and popular for years, not weeks.

So, words are more important than actions now? FDR pushed a progressive agenda while speaking like a moderate.

Seriously, expecting Obama to denounce Colin Powell, and then getting all depressed when he doesn't, is BAT-SHIT FUCKING CRAZY. It'd be like going out on the stump and declaring that he hates baseball. That's basically what you're asking for here. I can understand disagreeing with his words about Powell, but you're being ridiculous. I mean, the guy has an election to win here.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!


[ Parent ]
Some of us still think (4.00 / 1)
that politics is only a means to much more important ends. You seem to think winning an election is the end in itself. Obama doesn't have to denounce Powell. He also didn't have to praise him. You want to spin this as moderation. I don't think openly praising war criminals is moderation. But you apparently have little or no problem with what Powell did and has no remorse for. That's your problem, but I'd have liked to expect better from Obama.

[ Parent ]
To Really Grasp How Odious Powell Is (4.00 / 4)
People should check out what investigative reporter Robert Parry (of Iran/Contra fame) has to say about him.  Parry had a contract for a book on Powell that was cancelled when Powell decided not to run for President in 1996 (see, he's not a total dummy).

There's a separate Colin Powell archive at Parry's Consortiumnews website just full of minty-fresh reality-based goodness.

Or badness, really.  Or the goods on the bad and the ugly.

Whatever.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


again, the question for me is (4.00 / 1)
if this standard is going to be applied to powell, why not mccain, why not biden, why not wesley clark, why not george bush I, why not bill clinton, why not hillary clinton for that matter, why not obama for that matter (for speaking well of henry kissinger).

This criticism is not directed at you Paul because I know you critique very evenhandedly and appropriately, our differences in perspectives on America notwithstanding, but in some reactions from the progressive blogosphere where Powell is defined entirely in his relationship to  the Bush Administration while other American politicians (i.e. White ones) are often given a free pass or bare criticism on militarism and imperialism.  It strikes me as a doublestandard.


[ Parent ]
Fair-ish point (0.00 / 0)
Obama, for example, wasn't asked to distance himself from Bill Clinton's support for torture in the from of torture courts.

But as semi-intelligent people, we can draw distinctions. For me, there's a meaningful distinction between people who supported the war (and who support imperialism generally) and members of the Bush administration who lied us into war and who put together the torture state.

As for your claim that this our complaints about Powell are racist, I assure you we'd also be objecting if Obama had embraced Dick Cheney.


[ Parent ]
see here is the thing (0.00 / 0)
to me, the equivalent of powell is not Dick Cheney.  Dick Cheney is a machiavellian bastard and a neocon.  The equivalent of Powell is Richard Clarke or Warren Buffett or Bill Gates or Bill Clinton or George HW Bush or Wesley Clark, imo.  He's a "realist" member of the elite who, as a good soldier and with a fair amount of naivete, enlisted himself and supported an agenda that was really fucked up.  But a lot of members of the American elite did so at the beginning, from the Democrats in the Senate and the House that enabled the commencement of the war to those that have allowed it to continue on without taking a strong stand.

So maybe it's just a differenc of opinion on the role of powell, but I see him as closer to a member of the first category that you presented rather than the second category in who he is, rather than what he has done (in the last 8 years).  He REALLY fucked up and is, additionally, also a machiavellian bastard like most other members of the American elite, but not a Cheney.  

So I do see a double standard at play, especially since Powell is among the few, as I pointed out above, that has presented a centrist (for Americans) but strong critique of the racism inherent in this campaign on both sides.  It's a real contribution.


[ Parent ]
WTF??? (4.00 / 2)
Dr. a, you don't seem to be familiar with Powell's past history, particularly re My Lai and Iran/Contra.

Nor do you seem to realize how every one of the principles in the so-called "Powell Doctrine" was violated by the Iraq War--something that sets Powell quite apart from all the other enablers of that horrendous crime.

Do you have a Chris-Matthewsesque man-crush on Powell?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
However, Powell is no Cheney (0.00 / 0)
They are still on different levels of evil. In that regard Doc is right.

[ Parent ]
okay okay i'll go do my research before i spout off further (0.00 / 0)
i thought it would be useful to have a discussion about race :)

[ Parent ]
Powell's Whole Career Is Based On Race (4.00 / 1)
He's risen through the ranks by being the exemplary subaltern.

His real history is not a distraction from a discussion of race.  It's the proper foundation for it.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
i wasn't accusing you of trying to distract from a discussion on race, paul (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Now, come on, Powell ain't no Clarence Thomas!!! (0.00 / 0)
Do yo have evidence for him being promoted because of some kind of "affirmative action"? All stories I ever read about him concede that Powell is intelligent, hard working, and a great leader, despite his other shortcomings.  

[ Parent ]
You Need To Read Robert Parry (0.00 / 0)
The link I posted this morning.

All you know about Powell is the official story.

Time to get real.

p.s.  Clarence Thomas is a red herring of your own devise.  There is a long history of loyal black servants rewarded for their roles in keeping order for their white masters--not just here in America, but all across the world.  Many of them were quite skilled and diligent in their work.  Clarence Thomas is am inadvertant lampoon of this tradition.  Powell is an exemplar.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Two points: (0.00 / 0)
"All you know about Powell is the official story"
No mindreading, pls - you don't know what I know about Powell. I've read lots of news reports about him in the last 18 years or so, among them the personal account at the "Der Spiegel" blog I posted here upthread. Obviously, while there sure is much stenographing of the "official story" by the authors, there is also independent observation and judgement in them. Sry, but your statement totally overshoots the mark.

"Clarence Thomas is a red herring of your own devise."
Uh, I have a translation problems with this, but, seriously, MY own devise? Did I just invent him??? I seem to remember that there have been lots of bloggers painting Clarence Thomas as a premier example for someone whose carreer was tremendously boosted by the fact that he's both African American and conservative, and who refuses to acknoledge this in any way. I'm hardly the first one.

As for the Parry story, I'll check it later in the day. Sounds interesting.


[ Parent ]
Hmm (4.00 / 3)
You're far too generous to Powell.

While other so-called realists with ties to Bush I like Brent Scowcroft were loudly opposing the war, Powell was selling it with lies at the UN.

While pols of all stripes--including for a while John McCain--were speaking out against torture, Powell was approving it.

I could write an excellent novel depicting Colin Powell as a decent and honorable good solider who tragically found himself supporting policies he abhorred. But that's an explication not justification. In some ways his culpability may be higher than that of other officials because he probably could have single-handily prevented the war and saved us from much for this horror.

I appreciate your being on the lookout for double standards--God knows we're too tolerant of imperialists of all stripes--but Powell has played a unique role in our recent dark history.


[ Parent ]
what's unique about it? (0.00 / 0)
Compared to Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neil, Congress, or others who belatedly came to reject the premises of the Bush Administration after they realized what wackos they were?  how could he have singlehandledly prevented a war that was building in momentum for 10 years, 20 years?  Moreso than if the U.S. had actually removed its military presence in Iraq between the end of the first phase of the Gulf War (under George HW Bush) and the beginning fo the second phase (under George W Bush)?

[ Parent ]
He Could Have Gone Before The UN And Told The Truth (4.00 / 2)
Pretty simple.  War over before it can start.

And as for the claim that it was

a war that was building in momentum for 10 years, 20 years

none of the other realists believed this was the case.  Invading Iraq and overthrowing Sadam was pretty much an indicator of neo-con nuttiness.

Sure, others would give lip service to it.  Who didn't want Sadam gone?  But who didn't also know there would be a huge downside as well?  Amongst the so-called "realists" Powell had a unique position, and he played a decisive role in enabling the neo-con madness.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
yeah by building i meant (0.00 / 0)
that military presence had been maintained, domestically neocon power had been building within the republican party, and the shock event of 9-11 were all contributing factors.  Otherwise, phase 2 never would have gotten off the ground.

[ Parent ]
Congressional votes were disgusting, too. (4.00 / 1)
But they're not equivalent to getting up before the UN and spewing lies in the service of evil. Powell was not some congresscritter, he was the fucking Sec of State. If he didn't know what he was talking about he shouldn't have said it. This was not some video game -- it was about mass murder that he enabled. You evidently don't think that was so bad. And neither does he.

Powell didn't just support an agenda, he put his integrity on the line to promote it and his integrity was destroyed. He has never publicly regretted what he did. To me his pious posturing makes him even worse than Cheney and Bush. But since you've now descended to race-baiting to defend him, it's become clear that there's no point in continuing this discussion.


[ Parent ]
really? (4.00 / 2)
a congressional vote to give a blank check to invade a country on the basis of flimsy evidence is not as bad as going before the u.n., a body that does little on wars except give a stamp of approval to certain actions and not give one to others and is dominated by the u.s. in any case?  congressional votes to allow the war to continue were not more problematic than that speech?  failure to disavow said congressional votes were not as bad?  Not making the argument that opposing the war is the BEST way to support the troops is not worse than the UN speech?

I could go on, but i think you see my point.  A lot of people are complicit in enabling this war.  As noted above, I'm going to go do my research now to see what I think of Powell's role and whether I'm being too generous on the basis of what I have looked at before and his present actions.

Powell's other failings notwithstanding, he has shown an awareness of his capacity to err profoundly.  I would like to see Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden say something like this about this issue (maybe they have):

When asked if he feels it has tarnished his reputation, he said, "Of course it will. It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now."

Among the reasons I mention those two and not Republicans is that I don't expect the assholes to stop being assholes - I expect the delusional to stop being delusional.  His endorsement of Obama and statements like these, for a member of the militaristic American elite, is a step in the right direction.


[ Parent ]
i love how if anyone brings up race (4.00 / 1)
it's automatically race baiting.  I'm presenting a perspective that includes a possible race critique.  You can agree or disagree.  It doesn't mean that you have to $hut up or that I do.

[ Parent ]
What Standard Are You Talking About??? (4.00 / 2)
I'm talking about an entire career built on lies and deception.  The first stallment of Parry's series carries this introduction:

December 17,  2000
Behind Colin Powell's Legend: Part One

Editors Note:

On Dec. 12, a 5-4 vote by the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court awarded George W. Bush the presidency. To do so, the conservatives applied "equal-protection" safeguards that historically had protected blacks and other minorities from discrimination.

In this case, however, "equal protection" was used to stop the counting of votes -- many from African-American precincts -- that likely would have given Al Gore the victory in Florida and thus the presidency.

As Bush's strategy was underway, retired Gen. Colin Powell -- one of the nation's most prominent African-Americans -- met with Bush at his ranch in Texas. Based on the available record, Powell did nothing to dissuade Bush from his course of action, which effectively disenfranchised the 90 percent of the African-American voters who cast their ballots for Gore.

On Dec. 16, four days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Bush appointed Powell to be secretary of state, the first African-American who would hold that post. As he has at other times in his military-political life, Colin Powell advanced his career by staying silent in the face of what many other African-Americans considered a gross injustice.

In view of these new developments and the questions they raise about Colin Powell's character, we are presenting an updated version of a series - "Behind Colin Powell's Legend" - that originally appeared at this Web site several years ago.

It's precisely this pattern of moral dereliction of duty that has made Powell such a model negro for the empire, and thus, so widely beloved.  The lies grown stale in the white rulers' mouth are born anew in him.

If you can't see the racism implicit in this foundation of Powell's public career, my only question for you is, "Where is the real dr anonymous, and what have you done with him?"

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
i need to find out more, you're right (0.00 / 0)
What I'm reacting to is that virtually every prominent American politician of the past 15 years hasn't participated in promoting racism or homophobia or sexism?  "End welfare as we know it" The deaths in Iraq from the sanctions were worth it?  But why the virulent critique of the Powell endorsement?  Is it really that much of a single-issue campaign for people?  I understand if it is, because I react strongly to some issues more than others too.

I'm just saying that the issue is more complicated than Democrats and Republicans, Bush and not Bush, and to reject the usefulness of powell's endorsement out of hand while never even talking about henry kissinger a bonifide war criminal and how Obama was fawning towards him is a problem.  It's the context that's the problem, and the actions that people take in that context are how we should evaluate them.  I think you're doing that fairly with regard to powell and the Bush Administration and it's a compelling argument.  But I don't think that this post is doing that and I don't think that some of the comments are doing that - as a result I think that some of the uses to which Powell can be put today (the same way that Bill Clinton was) are being missed as a result and further that it's an unfair doublestandard that I react to as a person of color, though that might not be the motivation behind it (for example, if it is a single-issue thing on the War, then fine, I can accept that).

Ultimately, I suppose it comes down to what you see as Powell's role in the Bush White House.  I don't think he's another Clarence Thomas or Sarah Palin- maybe Condoleeza Rice is an equivalent, though she seems  to be so profoundly idiotic that I have trouble dealing with her.  I guess I should apply the same standard to Powell, but then, hasn't he just joined the Democrats?  And what does that make the Obama/Hillary Democrats?

The real dr. anonymous thinks that in an ideal world Obama would be a GREAT Republican candidate for president and wishes there were a bonified progressive/socialist/feminist to run against him (preferably someone like Audre Lorde but I'll take anyone who shares the sensibilities and reacts responsibly) as a Democrat, but he accepts that this is a long time coming in these parts and is trying, uninformedly as usual, to look at things as they are, at least here, given where he is coming from.


[ Parent ]
The Short Answer (4.00 / 1)
(1) Colin Powell is different because he's been deified in a way unlike any of the other figures you name.  This is inextricably grounded in the fact that he's a very high-level black servant of empire.

(2) He's also different because he was Bush's SoS, and without him going along with it, it's doubtful that Bush could have pulled off the invasion of Iraq.  With him in overt opposition--resigning, if necessary--the war almost certainly would not have happened.

(3) And, of course, he's different because the US military guidance that we ignored at every turn bears his name: "The Powell Doctrine."  As I've said on numerous occassions over the years, "None of this would have happened if Colin Powell were still alive."

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
the other short answer (0.00 / 0)
1) Colin Powell is not different because he's been deified in a way that's very much like how Bill Clinton was, though on different grounds.  Similarly, there were many people in power that could have raised vocal opposition along the way, but did not - Al Gore being an outstanding exception - but he was out of power.  This starts with people like Powell and goes out to the Congress and even further out.  It's on a spectrum, not a "you're responsible" or "you're not" thing.  It extends to every single leader who did not ONE IOTA of organizing to take advantage of the fact that millions of people in the U.S. and even more around the war were opposed to the war before it even started.

2) He IS different in that he had the potential to make a huge impact by withdrawing his consent.  But that is premised on the fact that he provided that consent in the first place to go along with nutjobs and assholes.  There are few people I would say this about, but for Powell, he made his mistake when he sided with the Republicans rather than the Democrats (back when there was still discussion of which party he might affiliate with) and has come around very late (only now).  There are other people who could have done many many things over the years to stop this war from happening, from Bill Clinton not maintaining sanctions and active military engagement with the troops to Tony Blair not legitimizing the international support in a way that went far beyond what Powell did.  You can also throw in unrepentants like Christopher Hitchens, Joe Lieberman, and the New Republic.

3) The Colin Powell you thought was alive, never was, imo.  I think you've actually made that case very strongly. Yes, he should have fought for his own ideas, but then how is that different from every other person that was cowed into following the Bush Agenda?  His level of power - and that's a legitimate reason to go after him - but as argued above, is it substantially different from Tony Blair's or Bill Clinton's?

So I agree with a lot of what you say, but I don't think the problem was that Colin Powell fell from grace - I think it's that like every other "Realist" member of the AMerican elite, he thought this was imperialism as usual - not a new neocon nutty imperialism that would undermine U.S. hegemony, which he, and they, support.  Still.


[ Parent ]
I Think You Meant DEMONIZED (0.00 / 0)
Colin Powell is not different because he's been deified in a way that's very much like how Bill Clinton was,

don't you???

Look, this is just tendentious revisionism on your part.  Powell's speech at the UN was the decisive political act in the whole drama of the leadup to war.  Once he spoke, Versailles was totally unified, including the "liberal" punditalkcrazy.  People were comparing it to Stevenson at the UN during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  It was totally nuts.

I'm not saying this to excuse anyone else.  But other people's guilt does not excuse Powell's nor does it give them the sort of broad prestige Powell alone had.

Furthermore, both of these statements are easily refuted in two words:

(1)

He IS different in that he had the potential to make a huge impact by withdrawing his consent.  But that is premised on the fact that he provided that consent in the first place to go along with nutjobs and assholes.  There are few people I would say this about, but for Powell, he made his mistake when he sided with the Republicans rather than the Democrats (back when there was still discussion of which party he might affiliate with)

(2)

I think it's that like every other "Realist" member of the AMerican elite, he thought this was imperialism as usual - not a new neocon nutty imperialism that would undermine U.S. hegemony, which he, and they, support

The two words: Brent Scowcroft.

Finally,

3) The Colin Powell you thought was alive, never was, imo.

That's sort of the point.  It was a joke, son!


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
don't call me "son" (0.00 / 0)
thanks.

[ Parent ]
as an addendum (4.00 / 2)
I would like to see George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Henry Kissinger, among others, described as "war criminals" as well.

[ Parent ]
It matters (4.00 / 8)
I was phone-banking yesterday, and some volunteers actually talked to undecided voters for whom the Powell endorsement was a big deal. For some, it was the thing that made up their mind. So, I can say with some degree of certainty that the endorsement gets Obama some votes in Florida.

Frankly, I don't give a shit about the fact that he was wrong on the war. I know, he sold the war with his UN speech, but there are a lot of other people that the progressive community has managed to forgive for making the same mistake. John Edwards was a netroots-fucking-hero until the affair, and he had voted for and advocated for the war. Hell, if Bush had actually followed the Powell doctrine there's a good chance we'd never had had a war, or if we did, it might have even not been a disaster.

Colin Powell has credibility with a larger chunk of the electorate than almost any other public figure. His disapproval rating is lower than Bush's approval rating. Frankly, hating Powell is a fringe view. I don't think it's unreasonable to disagree with that, but a rational person has to recognize the political winds here.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!


edwards was (4.00 / 3)
a semi-hero despite his support for the war, because of his otherwise progressive positions and rhetoric.

And surely you can see difference between a Senator who voted for the war a Bushie who helped sell it?

It's amazing to see so many Powell apologists come out of the woodwork...

I don't give a shit about the fact that he was wrong on the war

...and I say this as someone who was pleased that Obama got Powell's endorsement. Cheer for the political boost, by all means. But to
apologize for Powell's guilt in pushing the war and approving torture is nothing less than sickening.


[ Parent ]
well, even Powell said the Iraqis want a timeline (0.00 / 0)
In the same interview Sunday where he wouldn't admit what he did wrong.  Furthermore, he made it pretty clear he is done with government -- he is 72 you know. So I don't see how you can conclude anything of the type you have above.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

family (4.00 / 1)

he made it pretty clear he is done with government

Michael Powell would like to return to Washington.


[ Parent ]
ahem (4.00 / 3)
Good piece David, but:


and ignoring the actual fact-based story about Colin Powell, the Most Discredited Foreign Policy Voice In Contemporary American History.

The Nobel Prize for "most discredited voice" hasn't been awarded as the selection committee has been swamped with nominations and simply can't keep up with the load.

McCain himself is in the running here.

But Powell is the most ironic, seeing as he helped start a war in violation of multiple counts of the doctrine which bears his fucking name.


Heh (0.00 / 0)
Just as an example, is he really more discredited than Doug "fucking stupidest guy on the planet" Feith? I think David's going for some sort of hyperbole award.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

[ Parent ]
I'm mostly being (4.00 / 1)
tongue-in-cheek with the above, because I do think there is a serious difference between Powell and characters like Feith:

The former had actual credibility with many people and it was conceivable he would be a sober and moderating influence on the Bush administration.  The latter was a raving lunatic who was always going to make stupid decisions and break things, it was just a question of how much damage he could cause.

Powell was made SecState to assure the public that the Feith/Cheney complex would not run amok.  

If the award is "who fell furthest" then yes, I would probably pick Powell, though McCain has a serious case too.  


[ Parent ]
Concern Trolling (4.00 / 3)
...but it doesn't give him a huge positive boost on deeper foreign policy issues because Powell has destroyed his own credibility

This is simply untrue, and is a ideologically-biased analysis of the endorsement. This is what YOU want people to think about Powell, not how the majority really view him.
Just look at Powell's pollintg data if you need more convincing.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra


Yeah, yeah (4.00 / 3)
You're at least the 3rd commenter to seize on the word "credible". He indeed remains a credible voice on foreign policy--a fact that Sirota implicitly acknowledges. The salient point is: should he be credible?

[ Parent ]
Not my point... (4.00 / 1)
"but it doesn't give him a huge positive boost" was the quote I was focusing on. It DOES give him a huge, positive boost.

One argument is based on what the endorsement should do, the other argument is based on what is does do. I think we can all agree on how Powell should be viewed by the American electorate, but that is no excuse to lie about how he is viewed.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra


[ Parent ]
should have seen this coming (0.00 / 0)
Obama told NBC News Powell will "have a role as one of my advisers" and held out the possibility of a formal White House or Cabinet role. He also asked Powell to publicly campaign with him.
no surprise

Except that Powell told Brokaw .. (4.00 / 1)
that he won't be campaigning for Obama .. and while he'll listen of Obama calls ... he really has no desire to work in government anymore .. Brokaw tried to press him on it too .. and Powell wouldn't take the bait .. I really don't think Powell wants an official role whatsoever

[ Parent ]
Side Bet, David? (0.00 / 0)
Powell will advise President Obama on how to get out of Iraq...  

Great story, David, and good points at that TV debate (0.00 / 0)
Kudos!

Toss up (4.00 / 2)
I think it's a toss up on who's turned into the biggest concern troll, Sirota or Jerome Armstrong. Armstrong has turned into a bitter dead ender who's jealosu of every other blogger getting on the tee vee, and Sirota, because he's on the tee vee has turned into an ego maniac, who in order to be invited back has to dis Obama every chance he gets.  

Stunning (2.00 / 2)
This is pretty stunning - apparently you refused to watch the clip you are commenting on. I mean, that's the only thing that can be discerned from a comment like this. Because had you watched the clip you are fulminating about, you would have seen that the very first thing I said was that the Powell endorsement was a repudiation of McCain. You would have also heard me say that any endorsement of Obama is good for him, and that even an endorsement of Obama by Powell - who has a long record of government service - is good.

But you didn't watch the clip - or if you did, you just wanted someone to go on and say nothing other than "Barack Obama is God, and Colin Powell is the messiah." Sorry - I live in the reality-based world, and I'm going to tell the truth - I'm not going to whip up fantasies just to make partisan lunatics like you happy. If that makes me "disloyal" to your warped vision of what politics is about or worse, an "egomaniac" then I throw myself at the mercy of your kangaroo court.

Yes, I plead guilty to being a progressive before being a partisan shill.


[ Parent ]
Not really (4.00 / 1)
I live in the reality-based world

Is this the same world where you claim that Powell's credibility has been roundly destroyed outside of progressive circles?

You owe it to yourself to listen to This American Life's fantastic and common-sense explanation of the economic crisis.


[ Parent ]
Roundly destroyed (0.00 / 0)
It has been roundly destroyed by the facts - you know, those persistent things.

[ Parent ]
Now you lose credibility by (0.00 / 0)
using right wing nut taliking points.... "Messiah" and "God"

Can't believe you went there in referring to Obama.  


[ Parent ]
Republican views on Powell (4.00 / 1)
While we are discussing just how horrible of a person Colin Powell is, maybe we should take into consideration how the other side views him. Because of his "moderate" stances, neo-cons have tried to dismiss him as a RINO (Republican in name only). If he really was a neoncon, they would be embracing him, not trashing him.

Imho, people like Powell are a lot more helpful to us and more hurtful to the conservative movement because only people like him can make moderate republicans and independents think twice about their knee-jerk reaction to the heaping pile of doggy-do their spin factory shovels out to the general public.

Their attacks on Powell will turn off moderates and independents. Something that we also should be wary of during this election cycle. If you want to start trashing him again on November 5th, have at it. But as for right now, during these next two weeks, he's on our side.


No Reason to Worry (0.00 / 0)
Vague statements about "he will be an advisor" are nothing that should cause anyone a concern.  The odds on Powell returning to the cabinet are slim to none.  Would he reprise a role as the Secretary of State?  How could he?  As you have pointed out, he has no credibility and just because the US press corp loves him does not mean foreign countries would treat his word as his bond.

SecDef then?  What would be the point?  To wrap up a war that he helped to create as some sort of final act of re-establishing the Powell Doctrine?  That would be a risky move on his part and Obama has given no sign that he wants to be a "war President" and lead a "surge" into Iraq onto victory there.

No, Powell is likely to play a role as an informal advisor at best - what Clinton used to refer to as a member of the 'Kitchen Cabinet' and how harmful could he be in that role.  It allows Obama to get some plaudits for being bipartisan and it costs him nothing.


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search