Why no one should listen to Colin Powell *UPDATED*
Bookworm on May 06 2009 at 10:09 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
Let me open this post by stating my biases honestly: I hate Colin Powell. I think he is in significant part responsible for the Second Gulf War, because he was one of the loudest voices telling Bush Sr. to abandon the First Gulf War without pressing onto Baghdad itself. And, incidentally, that also made him responsible for the appalling massacre Hussein committed against the Kurds in the wake of the Gulf War, since they had risen up in reliance on America’s promises to support and protect them.
I also think he’s a cowardly weasel because it’s obvious that he was behind most of the nasty George W. stories in Bob Woodward’s 2004 book about the Bush administration’s decision to go to war. Every story in there was both an attack on Bush and an exculpation of Powell. It was obvious that Powell was the source for information about private meetings, because in each telling he was presented as Saint Colin. If he had a problem with the White House, he should have said so publicly, and not hidden behind a media attack dog.
Okay, now that you know how I feel about Powell the man, let me ask you why anyone should listen to Powell, the ostensible “conservative.” This is an issue today because Powell, in a speech to a group of corporate executives, launched a scathing attack against Republicans:
“The Republican Party is in deep trouble,” Powell told corporate security executives at a conference in Washington sponsored by Fortify Software Inc.
***
He blasted radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, saying he does not believe that Limbaugh or conservative icon Ann Coulter serve the party well. He said the party lacks a “positive” spokesperson. “I think what Rush does as an entertainer diminishes the party and intrudes or inserts into our public life a kind of nastiness that we would be better to do without,” Powell said.
He also said that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain’s running mate last year, is “a very accomplished person” but became “a very polarizing figure.” He said the polarization was created by Palin’s advisers.
Those are conclusions, of course, and Powell is entitled to his conclusions. What’s fascinating, and makes him worth ignoring, is the premise underlying the conclusions:
The party must realize that the country has changed, he said. “Americans do want to pay taxes for services,” he said. “Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less.”
In other words, Powell is saying that Republicans need to embrace high taxes and large government, which would pretty much make them liberals, not conservatives.
There are some bright lines in the world. I’ve never been a fan of Jews for Jesus because they strain definitional credibility. The big, bright dividing line between Jews and Christians is whether you believe that Jesus was a humanist and a rabbi, or you believe that Jesus was the son of God and the long awaited Messiah. Once you accept Christ as the messiah, you’ve become a Christian. Calling yourself a Jew for Jesus is just another way of saying a “Christian who used to be a Jew.”
In the same way, one of the big dividing lines in the American political system is whether one wants more government or less. Statists (aka progressives, liberals, Democrats) want more; Individualists (aka conservatives, Republicans) want less. Calling yourself a tax and spend Republican is pretty much the same as saying you’re a big government progressive who used to be a conservative.
As it is, I believe Powell is also dead wrong in his belief about the American people and their desire for a socialist style tax and spend government. He doesn’t recognize that there is a tipping point beyond which Americans will not want to be taxed and taxed — and that’s because the ones who are being taxed are not the same ones receiving most of the services. If money from all were being put in a collective pot from which all benefitted, Powell might have a point. However, since money from the workers is being put in a pot that benefits the non-workers, there’s going to be workers’ revolt. We just have to hope that this revolt strikes when the worker’s constitute at least 51% of the population.
UPDATE: Rick, at Brutally Honest, is also umimpressed by Powell’s career guidance.
Related posts:
- When a huge liberal tree falls out of the forest, will anyone listen?
- Americans! If you’re going to ignore us, at least listen to them.
- How to listen to Hillary *BUMPED*
Email This Post To A Friend
33 Responses to “Why no one should listen to Colin Powell *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m glad you mentioned the massacre of Kurds made possible by Powell, in which after we called on the Kurds to rise up against Saddam and they did, we cleared Hussein to fly in helicopters and machine gun the Kurds while we watched.
I have never forgiven Powell for that, and consider it the most dishonorable act of our country in recent history.
I don’t think that was the Kurds…that was the Shia south of Bagdad who were massacred.
Both Powell and Rice have disappointed me. At the risk of sounding racist, I’ve begun to wonder if the racism during the periods in which they were raised have affected their ability to be aggressive. They seem to get to a certain point and then unable to step the step beyond. Rice at least seems loyal – and only history will tell if the backing down she seemed to do as SOS was her own failing or Bush’s. I suspect we’ll never hear a word against Bush from her lips, though. And that’s to her credit.
I’d hoped Powell might be a presidential candidate – but if so, it looks like he’d be in the wrong party. He’s definitely a Dem, though like Lieberman, he may have a sticking point with them on a matter or two. He’s another RINO at the very least.
Looks like it was both Shias and Kurds; here is what the PBS timeline says:
During the war, President Bush repeatedly calls for Iraqis to rise up against Saddam. Within days of the cease-fire, Shia Muslims in the south of Iraq, close to the allied front lines, take up arms against Saddam. In the first heady days of the uprising, the rebels control the streets.
Saddam quickly moves loyal forces and uses armed helicopters to suppress the uprising in the south. U.S. troops can see the fighting from their positions, but are ordered not to intervene. There are estimates that tens of thousands of Shia Muslims were killed.
A few days after the Shia uprising begins, the Kurds start a rebellion in northern Iraq. While the southern uprising had been somewhat incoherent, the Kurds have political leaders who can shape the revolt. As the rebellion gathers momentum, Kurdish leaders who had been living abroad return. They hope to trigger a coup against Saddam that will result in a new Iraqi leader who will let the Kurds run their own affairs.
Saddam’s forces soon attack the rebels, who are not supported by Washington, which had decided against backing an uprising that might lead to Iraq’s breakup. The rebel forces are hopelessly outgunned. As Kurdish cities are shelled, there is panic among the population. The cities of Kurdistan empty and a million people head towards the mountains in an attempt to reach the safety of Turkey and Iran. Again, U.S. forces, who see the exodus, are ordered not to intervene.
Powell’s personal and professional conflicts are laid out in paragraphs 2 and 3. The unanswered question, with so much at risk, why would he enter a military career, knowing that it is political.
Powell was a professional soldier for 35 years, during which time he held a variety of command and staff positions and rose to the rank of 4-star General. In his autobiography My American Journey, Powell mentioned several officers he served under that inspired and mentored him. As a young Colonel serving in Vietnam, for example, Powell was very close to General Henry “Gunfighter” Emerson. Powell said he regarded this man as one of the most caring officers he ever served under. Emerson was somewhat eccentric personally. For example, he insisted his troops train only at night and made them repeatedly watch the television film “Brian’s Song” to promote racial harmony. Powell always professed, however, that what set Emerson apart was his great love of his soldiers and concern for their welfare. In the early 1980s, Powell served at Fort Carson in Colorado. It was there that he had a major clash with General John Hudachek his commander. Hudachek was a dour, prickly man who disliked Powell. He said in an efficiency evaluation that Powell was a poor leader who should not be promoted. Many of Powell’s supporters have said this was pettiness and spite on Hudachek’s part. His last assignment, from October 1, 1989 to September 30, 1993, was as the 12th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest military position in the Department of Defense. During this time, he oversaw 28 crises, including Operation Desert Storm in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. During these events, Powell earned a reputation as being a very dovish military leader. He rarely advocated military intervention as the first solution to an international dispute, and instead usually prescribed diplomacy and containment. Powell mentioned in his autobiography that he is haunted by the nightmare of the Vietnam War. He felt the leadership was very ineffective. Powell served a tour in Vietnam and was badly injured when he stepped on a bamboo “punji stick”. The massive infection nearly killed him and it shortened his tour. It was also during his Vietnam service that Powell was decorated for bravery. He single-handedly rescued several men from a burning helicopter.
He was opposed to the majority of George H.W. Bush Administration officials who advocated the deployment of troops to the Middle East to force Iraqi president Saddam Hussein to withdraw his armies from neighbouring Kuwait, believing the dictator could instead be contained through sanctions and a buildup of forces around Kuwait, a plan soon dubbed Powell doctrine.
As an officer, Powell also values loyalty very highly, and as a result, does not usually undermine policies he disagrees with after they are implemented. Thus, while initially opposing the plan that would become Operation Desert Storm, Powell nevertheless supported it once it became official policy, and gave it his full dedication.
Powell’s successful career within the military has not been entirely free of controversy, however. During the Vietnam War, Powell, as deputy assistant chief of staff at the Americal (the 23rd Infantry Division) with the rank of Major, was charged with investigating a detailed letter by Tom Glen (a soldier from the 11th Light Infantry Brigade), which backed up rumored allegations of the My Lai massacre. Powell’s response was largely seen as a cover-up; he wrote: “In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent.”
Another controversial part of his career is that Powell also had an operational role in the illegal Iran-Contra affair, acting as the initial coordinator for selling missiles to Iran in exchange for American hostages.
I once admired and had great hopes for Colin Powell but, alas, that was then and this is now. Powell is seventy-two years old. His time on the stage is spent. I can’t agree on his endorsement of more government – I’d like to see radically less government. I certainly believe in a strong central government, a Hamiltonian view; but government remains strong by remaining within its Constitutional limits. And now Powell is one of a league of political figures I’d like see ushered from the stage.
Maybe the difference was that the Kurds succeeded, the Shia didn’t.
I too had some hopes for Powell, although I always considered him a “political” General and possibly an Equal Opportunity success. I a a little suspicious of Generals who served as White House Fellows, etc.
I do not necessarily hold the first Gulf War against Powell anymore than a number of others. But, he did prove that he was a reluctant warrior, at best.
Sadie, I do not know where you gleaned the information/opinion that Powell is a loyal officer who supports policy even if he has opposed it. Were you still citing Powell’s book?. I soured on Powell because he seemed singularly inept as Secretary of State and demonstrably disloyal to President Bush.
I, too, had hopes for Condelizza Rice. Those hopes also faded. I think she was terribly over her head as State; and possibly as NSA. I am afraid that she is just not a leader or manager at that level. She has not turned on Bush, yet; and hopefully will not since he was extraordinarily supportive and loyal to her.
Powell backed Obama and only very late in the campaign at that.
The courage of racial convictions does not equal unit cohesion or what has built the US military into such a power house where the only skin color and greed that matters is your branch’s uniform colors.
Oldflyer:
Info gleaned from factbug.org
“he was a reluctant warrior”
I agree. So why would he have entered politics in the W.H. and why now casting aspersions, knowing full well it would go to print, etc.
I think I have the answer to my own question above .
It comes in the form of the to be released book by Elizabeth Edwards and my immediate response – WHY? Who would want to write about personal family issues on such a broad scale.
It’s the same mindset. The need to be in the limelight, to have their big say, the need to set their triumphs and failures in order. Induced to do so by aging, health problems or ego.
Many years ago, I was interviewed for input on a biography of a family member. I could have spilled the beans, so to speak and made it a better seller than it was. I didn’t have to think long and hard about limiting my participation. What was the point..what was said, done, whoever suffered, survived or bloomed in spite of so and so is over and done with. If there are residual issues that remain with family members, it is for them to resolve in their own place and time.
Bookworm,
I am worried about you; you are losing it. You’re mad because Obama has a “super-majority” who disagree with you, because some Jews won’t deny thier forbears when they accept Jesus, and because Collin Powell has noticed what most of the rest of us see: the Republicans lost because Obama was the best choice for what Americans need now.
You need a vacation. I hope you get one before your health fails. Life is too short to have to be right about everything. Republicans aren’t, Christians aren’t, Democrats aren’t, Jews aren’t, and neither are you.
Lighten up. Take a bubble bath. Buy yourself flowers. Cry. Oh heck, eat chocolate!
Eat chocolate if you like Bookworm, but despite what Helen says you are right about Colin Powell and Lord help us, you are also right about Barack Obama.
It is quaint that some people still think that Obama’s election is a positive event for the future of democracy in America. Some are clearly slow on the uptake–or spend too much time watching MSNBC.
It is also quaint that some people think that in a two party political system in which elections are usually decided by margins of less than 5%, the members of the party out of power should abandon their basic beliefs.
I am not completely clear on whether Jewishness is a matter of race, religion or a combination of both, so I don’t know if your irritation is justified. But, I respect your right to be irritated.
I am afraid that irritation is going to be a constant among Americans who believe in the principles that this country was founded upon. It is going to be especially hard on those who believe in the rule of law; and equality before the law. We are clearly entering “make up” time.
“Make up” time.
Oldflyer, I wish I had said that.
Helen says,
Bookworm, I am worried about you; you are losing it. You’re mad because Obama has a “super-majority” who disagree with you
Sounds sort of like all those Democrats who are so, so, so very concerned about the Republicans, that they have rushed to all the TV and radio shows, to offer their heartfelt advice about how the Republicans can recover from their disaster. Such kindness, such overwhelming concern!
But then again, maybe Helen truly is worried about our Book! I’d better read some more of Helen’s post…
Collin Powell has noticed what most of the rest of us see: the Republicans lost because Obama was the best choice for what Americans need now.
Translating, Helen is saying, “Colin Powell is right, Book, and you are wrong, wrong, wrong. So get over it already. “What most of the rest of us see” means, “what you, Book, cannot see.
Such kindness.
Super-majority?
Obama won by a relatively small margin; a fraction of the margin Reagan won by, certainly not super or even a mandate.
And today, despite how media treats his numbers, his popularity is fairly middling. Interestingly, while most Americans like him and want to give him a chance, a super-majority disagree with his policies, especially his economic decisions.
Frankly I would have expected people to support the interventionist economic policies, but perhaps they remember where that led us last time better than I thought.
Ronald,
“Super majority” was quote from Bookworm’s post http://www.bookwormroom.com/2009/05/04/power-corrupts/
I was merely stating something that seems to be getting under her skin.
You’re mad because Obama has a “super-majority” who disagree with you
Obama has a super majority of Congress freaks and cult addicts. He has a bare majority of American voters. Better than George Bush in 2004 and that was with an Iraq that Bush had yet to fix. Obama can’t even get any popular now that Bush has provided him a calm and productive Iraq. He’s going to crash on Afghanistan instead.
I was merely stating something that seems to be getting under her skin.
Had you studied Communist brainwashing and psychological ploys you might have gotten somewhere with this line. As it is, you get a fail here.
You need a vacation.
Democrats needed a vacation from sanctioning the killing of women and children in Iraq. They didn’t take one.
Now they want us to take a vacation so as to give Obama less inconvenience? As if we have not seen this before.
The Kurds succeeded because General Norman Schwarz…- lobbied for a no fly zone.
Colin Powell seemed more interested in a decisive career victory than he was interested in the political repercusions to the indigenous people.
All military leaders that inevitably end up at State have certain qualities in common.
1. They are not believers in Total War.
2. They are not particularly concerned with the fates of indigenous tribes or governments.
3. They inevitably fauk up like a nuclear dirty bomb.
4. They inevitably believe in diplomacy, while at the same time being willing and eager to use the brute force approach of tacking on enough numbers that the enemy will (theoretically) give up.
So remember this the next time some idiot Leftist wants to talk about bush breaking the military. Bush senior fielded 500,000 American troops, even if you don’t count the Arab auxiliaries and mercenaries that were tagging along. Clinton pulled out of Somalia, bombed the Chinese embassy and Kosovo, and cut the military to the bone. Bush junior then came on the scene and had this “broken military” all of a sudden. Due to nothing more than the attempts of the Left in hamstringing our common defense, aided and abetted by the numerous propaganda ideologies going around talking about Iraq “breaking the US military”.
What’s really broken is people’s common sense. They need to get waterboarded so that they understand the reality under the watery illusions.
[Let me start over.]
Bookworm,
I am worried about you. You seem to be over-worked and more upset than usual. I hope you get a vacation from the stress before your health fails. Life is too short to have to be right about everything. No one is. [No hidden agenda. No one means no one.] I notice you asked for guest bloggers. Good move.
Lighten up even more, if you can. Take a bubble bath. Buy yourself flowers. Cry. Oh heck, eat chocolate!
We may not agree about the direction in which our country is going, but I do wish you well.
[Better? I stand firm on the part about chocolate. Believe me, it's a non-partisan issue.]
“because some Jews won’t deny thier forbears when they accept Jesus”
Helen, I have no desire to get into a free for all discussion about Jews for Jesus, the name alone is misleading, but you really stepped in the dog do and overstepped good manners, good taste and being a good Christian.
Do you include, all religions when making such a broad statement or is it just reserved for Jews? You are as mislead in rational thought as you are in the spelling of ‘their’. If I took your line of thinking, I would ask why your forebears denied their Judaism and left the fold for a new sect.
Helen–a specific question:
Do you think Colin Powell did the right thing when he advised Bush Sr to allow large-scale massacre of the Kurds without intervention by our forces?
Had you been President, would you have allowed Saddam Hussein to bring in helicopter gunships for the purpose of killing Kurds, or would you have ordered US air resources to shoot those gunships down?
Helen, I think you misunderstood my use of the term “make up time”.
I meant it in the sense that some people think reparations for slavery are justified–even though there has not been a slave for several generations, and relatively few people today could trace their ancestry to a slave..
I meant it in terms that union leaders think that since the work-force has walked away from them for decades, it is time to change the rules.
I meant it in terms that folks whom circumstance or personal choice have caused to fall behind financially, believe that it is time for others to share their wealth.
I meant it in terms that people who could not control their urge to spend and spend think that someone should now take care of their debts.
I assure you that I do not believe that the raw power of government should be used to “make up” for every real or perceived grievance.
Heh…Oldflyer.
I misunderstood what you meant as well. I assumed that what you meant was that Obama has no intention of following the law, much less the Constitution and now was “make it up as you go along” time…
Just to clarify my comment about Jews for Jesus. I don’t have a problem with Jews converting to Christianity, if that’s where their spiritual needs take them (although I think Jews can’t really afford to lose their numbers). I just don’t like the whole “Jews for Jesus” thing because I don’t think you can have it both ways. Since Jesus is the dividing line between Christians and Jews, you really have to pick one or the other. Once you’ve gone to the Jesus side, to the extent that Jewishness is still predominantly a religious affiliation, you’re really not Jewish any more.
>>…to the extent that Jewishness is still predominantly a religious affiliation, you’re really not Jewish any more.>>
But…Book…you consider yourself to be Jewish. And non-religious. So how…??
I’ve had this question for a long time – it’s still unanswered. How – or maybe why – does someone self-identify as a Jew if they no longer practice Judaism? _Is_ it just religious? or racial (or even just tribal as opposed to racial)? or … just what _is_ it! Is it a form of nationalism? as in “I’m Irish” even though it’s third or fourth generation since my ancestors migrated here to the US? just a form of identification of ancestry?
I sometimes get the impression that the way these Hollywood Leftists and obscene rich blokes get through life without a single moment of guilty conscience over their support for the massacre of foreigners and civilians and Americans is that they get these obscene luxury foods, spas, beauty treatments, and mansions and what not.
They go to their therapists and their therapists tell them “do exactly what Helen has told you to do”. This relieves their guilt, reminds them that life is good (for them) and that they no longer need worry about their successful genocide against the forces of liberty in such far off places as Iraq, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc.
They can forget about these things. They can forget the blood on their hands. They can switch their hearts to kinder issues, while ignoring the suffering and misery that they caused.
This was very important advice for Hollywood and the obscene rich freaks in the Democrat party. If they didn’t take a vacation, they would probably go into drugs and then they’d have to do rehab.
But I doubt this works for people of our temperament. We cannot forget nor forgive that what the Left’s crimes against others are also crimes against us, for when Leftists and Democrats commit crimes against humanity, we all suffer for it. We can re-direct our energies into more productive avenues, such as support for the Iraqi people and BUsh’s attempts to create a better future for humanity in Iraq, but we can never forget the actions, the words, and the material support of the Left for the enemies of humanity.
Now that Obama has taken power, conservatives can certainly go on vacation, go off the plantation, and start stocking up for their own interests. Certainly this can be called self-interest, if not a luxury. But people will not forget that simply because they are at their homes, that the reach of Obama won’t hit them and their family sooner or later. They will not forget, because they cannot forget and still have common sense. Only fools can fool themselves into believing what happens in DC won’t touch them in the far back of the wilderness in America, or even in Israel and the rest of the world.
The problems of Obama are the problems of a leaking gas stove. You can ignore it. You can leave and take a vacation. But don’t try to fool us into believing that there won’t be catastrophic negative consequences that we will all have to pay, eventually, for the price of a little “relaxation” and denial, Helen.
You’re right about me, suek. Part of it is that I’m tied to Jewish morality. The other part is that I haven’t aligned myself with any other religion. Even though I don’t practice Judaism, it’s not as if I’m worshiping at any other altar (so to speak). Finally, I’m Jewish because, God forbid there was another Hitler, I’d be killed as a Jew — which is, of course, true for the Jews for Jesus. But that’s a purely ethnic definition, however much that’s worth, while the Jews for Jesus are staking out religious territory.
How – or maybe why – does someone self-identify as a Jew if they no longer practice Judaism?
Because the Jews are like the Sikhs. They are an ethnicity complete with their own culture, political ideology, and religious practices.
You can separate out the religious practices, but not the overall culture. Just like you don’t need to be a Christian or a Catholic or a fauked up Leftist agitator to be an “American” in your cultural background.
Ymarsaker, I agree with you: “Jewish identity is a religion, but it is also a rich culture and ethnic identity. I am not sure that leaving the religion necessarily means leaving the culture and history that goes with the ethnic identity.
A big problem that I had with Colin Powell is when he intervened to stop the slaughter of Republican Guards on the “Highway of Death” during their retreat from Kuwait, on “humanitarian” grounds. Unfortunately, it was those same Republican Guards he spared that went on to conduct the genocidal attacks against Kurds and Shiites that rose up against Saddam, with U.S. (Bush Sr. and Powell) encouragement. Colin Powell embodies a classic defect in Democrat/Liberal morality – being kind to the cruel is being cruel to the kind.
“They are an ethnicity complete with their own culture, political ideology, and religious practices.”
Add to your list, the historical element as well. For many, who were born into the faith, but no longer observe, it is near impossible to separate from the historical aspect.
Additionally and possibly the glue that keeps even the secular bound to Judaism is the Hebrew language. Sometimes, even the unobservant are moved by the sound of Hatikvah.
It may be that some Christians who are moved listening to the Hatikvah are touched as well and who knows, maybe they are genetically encoded to remember that Jesus was Jewish not Christian.
Oldflyer,
I didn’t misunderstand “make up time.” I liked it for all the reasons you “meant it.”
SADIE, Huh? Being Jewish can be meant as a religion or as an ethnicity. My ancestors were gentiles. So how did they leave Jewishness? How did I?
And, believe it or not, I didn’t name the group “Jews for Jesus” nor do I know anyone in the group. The name doesn’t bother me. And I hope Bookworm won’t have a stroke worrying about what other people do. Finis honey!
Or does that overstep something, too. You missed the point: I want Bookworm to experience good health. But oh, how un-Christian of me! LOL
So how did they leave Jewishness? How did I?
When we’re talking about the ancient people who gathered Jesus and watched the Romans crucify him, why do you think we are talking about your ancestors, Helen?
You think you can trace your family tree that far back?
SADIE, Huh? Being Jewish can be meant as a religion or as an ethnicity.
My ancestors were gentiles. So how did they leave Jewishness? How did I?
Firstly, “Being Jewish can be meant as a religion or as an ethnicity” were not my words, but are in quotes because I was elaborating on another response.
No, Helen, your ancestors were Jewish (some of whom took another turn and became Christians) unless you can trace your lineage to the Romans, in which case they were godless and believed in idolatry.
Finally, if the only point you wanted to make was to want Bookworm to experience good health, you should have said just that.
But oh, how un-Christian of me! At least you said something that was correct.