Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

Colin Powell is the most over rated man in America today.

He does not have integrity, he just plays that on TV.

He was sent to Viet Nam to investigate credible allegations of atrocities, and his entire report was character assassination against the accuser.

He was hip deep in the Iran Contra coverup, and was the water carrier for Nixon and Reagan.

He's a suck up without any real honor. It's just finally becoming more generally known.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/21/politics/21WEAP.html

C.I.A. Admits It Didn't Give Weapon Data to the U.N.
By DOUGLAS JEHL and DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON — The Central Intelligence Agency has acknowledged that it did not provide the United Nations with information about 21 of the 105 sites in Iraq singled out by American intelligence before the war as the most highly suspected of housing illicit weapons.

The acknowledgment, in a Jan. 20 letter to Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, contradicts public statements before the war by top Bush administration officials.

Both George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, and Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, said the United States had briefed United Nations inspectors on all of the sites identified as "high value and moderate value" in the weapons hunt.

The contradiction is significant because Congressional opponents of the war were arguing a year ago that the United Nations inspectors should be given more time to complete their search before the United States and its allies began the invasion. The White House, bolstered by Mr. Tenet, insisted that it was fully cooperating with the inspectors, and at daily briefings the White House issued assurances that the administration was providing the inspectors with the best information possible.

Powell in particular is the most disturbing victim; Bush most likely owes his presence in the oval office to Powell; remember that for weeks before Powell accepted the offer during the campaign, Bush kept crowing about the fact that Powell was getting ready to climb aboard the campaign bus.

Powell spent his whole career building his rep; Bush threw it aside after extracting every last ounce of utility from the shriveled husk of Powell's respectability.

His dog and pony show in front of the UN was particularly humiliating; we were all expecting some smoking gun reminiscent of the UN missile crisis intel; all we got were pics of a couple vans and a crack vial held up to the camera.

In retrospect, that crack vial may explain any number of mysteries...

Mr. Belafonte was right. It's really sad.

As Matthew points out, Powell's entire career has been perpetrated on carrying water for the GOP/Defense establishment, all the way back to Viet Nam (where he played an important role in covering up the My Lai massacre).

It's also a particularly Republican form of kow-towing - under Clinton, he fought Gays in the military and Balkan intervention to the point of insubordination. The fact that someone could stand so strongly against action in Yugoslavia yet be buffaloed by Cheney and the neocons into throwing the entire main force strength of the US Army into an open-ended and unnecessary Iraqi adventure does not speak well of his integrity.

People who were disappointed that Powell wasn't the Lone Voice of Reason in the Bush administration haven't been paying attention - Powell would make his objections known, and then carry out the policy as ordered, like the good soldier that he is.

The most telling image of George W. Bush is one from the election campaign, which now seems forgotten. He appeared on the Letterman show, and the day afterwards Letterman showed a clip from a camera that was rolling through the commercial break. One of his producers came to the desk to sort out material for the next section. While she was there talking to Letterman, W. casually took off his glasses, reached out and casually took hold of the corner of her long cardigan, and used it to clean his glasses. He didn't even look at the person attached to the cardigan.

Of course, in the grand scheme of things, this is a minor incident, but it encapsulates the man and his sense of entitlement. He really does think he is above other people. He really does think other people are basically there for his use and to do his bidding. Powell is just one more object to be used and thrown aside when no longer needed.

Colin Powell owes his career to the GHWB, Cheney, etc. He is very loyal to this and you will never find any space between him and the Bushes. His and our misforune.

"The Tragedy of Colin Powell - How the Bush presidency destroyed him."

The Bush presidency did not destroy Colin Powell. Colin Powell destroyed Colin Powell.

The Secretary of State owes a duty of allegiance to his country which comes before his duty to the President. By going before the entire world and making a case for war based on sham evidence, and thereby severely damaging our government's credibility, Powell put his allegiance to the President's perverse agenda before his allegiance to the country.

An honorable man would have resigned.

There is a commonality between Colin Powell and Wesley Clark. Both are masters at the political game -- in the military. But the political game in civilian politics has entirely different rules, different strategy, and of course, different winners and losers. In the military, once your buddy makes a move, you cover him; even if it was a dumb move to make. In civilian politics, it appears that you can't count on that kind of support. If you stumble, you fall, and that's that.

There is a certain irony to the observation that professional soldiers are more trustworthy than professional politicians.

Irony aside, the lack of trustworthiness is expected given the recently-discovered genetic link between politicians and nematodes.
A Worm's View of Human Evolution

Colin Powell at least tried. And I'm curious about what it was that kept him from adopting the Cheney-Rumsfeld line a hundred percent. Was it the tradition and momentum of State Department having an effect on him? Was it that his military background made him see military matters more realistically?

By the way, if I recall/understand correctly, Colin Powell's son was appointed FCC Chair. Was he the best choice for the job or was that some sort of political appointment with a taint of nepotism (spell?) in it?

The book on Colin Powell is here:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/powell.html

Powell was always the loyal soldier. Up to his armpits in Iran Contra (read the report) he kept his mouth shut and was saved from prosecution and embarassment by the Bush pardon of his boss Weinberger.

Is it not clear why ONeill Powell and Whitman all failed? They were not brought on board to succeed! They were brought on board to flack for George W Bush. They were brought on board as so much window dressing, to give a smile and a pleasant face to the darkest Bush policies, rollbacks in environmental protection, tax cuts for the wealthy and the new isolationism. They were the distractions from the real policies of the Bush administration. Those three were not brought into the administration to make policy. They were brought in to be the slaves to the policy. When ONeill did not get with the program, he was replaced by Snow who has no trouble ignoring his own past concerns about deficits, repudiating the numbers of his own economists and shilling for the failed trickle down economic policies that afflict our country.

Whitman had the rug yanked from under her feet and was continually beaten down, not allowed to get back on her feet. The EPA job is one of the toughest in any administration. The only thing worse is childbirth. All good EPA decisions leave no one satisfied with the outcome. Mr Bush does not care about environmental policy and prefers to leave it to his corporate buddies to police themselves. It was a mistake for Whitman to give up her post for EPA. Had she declined, Mr Bush would have been free to appoint another toady like Gale Norton, perhaps a Helen Chenowith type only too happy to rub elbows with corporate interests and ready to leap on the gravy train upon her exit from office.

Powell owes the political career he still has to the pardons granted by the Bush41. Powell has never been one to stand up for principle if it challenged his loyalty. By that standard, Powell has not failed, he has succeeded. He has maintained his loyalty and fealty to his political master. A few misleading statements to the UN or our allies is a small sacrifice to promote the policies of Mr. Bush. Any Bush Secretary of State would have eventually become totally ineffective because of loss of credibility from being undermined by Bush and other in the administration. Powell was very successful in managing to keep his credibility for over half of the Bush presidency. It was only once Mr Bush lost all credibility with our allies that the fortunes of Mr. Powell sunk with his master. Do you think Powell is a multilateralist like Clinton was? Do you think Mr. Powell had an agenda for molding the world and international alliances? Think again.

I take a more sympathetic view of Colin Powell as a somewhat decent and smart man attempting to navigate the corridors of power but feeling that he had to compromise in order to make a difference inside the system. Other military men have often criticized Colin Powell as being more of a political operator than a military minded soldier. Indeed, his ennunciation of the Powell doctrine essentially is an extremely cautious engagement policy coupled with the use of overwhelming support.

Powell is and never was a star or exceptional man. His reputation lay mostly in being sensible and moderate, while being able to carry out political programs for his bosses. In Suskind's book, Paul O'Neill describes Colin Powell asking intelligent questions and pursuing policy nuances. However it's clear that he's always preferred working from the "inside".

I genuinely believe that Colin Powell visited the CIA for several days and worked with them intensively going over Iraq intelligence. I also believe as was reported at the time, that his presentation to the UN rejected strongly several of the more outlandish claims that Dick Cheney and co. attempted to foist on him. He wasn't completely asleep at the wheel.

However Colin Powell had no real expertise on intelligence or WMD. It showed. He went for the moderate choices in his presentation, not knowing because of his lack of expertise that splitting things down the middle was asking to be completely discredited. This was because his options weren't splitting the difference between truth and misinformation, it was splitting the difference between incompetence at the CIA and blatant misinformation in the Pentagon.

In this case, being the "reasonable" guy trying to stick it out and move things along was an absolute disaster. His reputation, slowly built up over many years, of trying to have it both ways - be reasonable and yet carry out political agendas - on one hand publicly seeming like a smart trustworthy guy and on the other rising because of his ability to serve his bosses well ... it fell apart.

As long as what his bosses asked him to do wasn't too outrageous or they weren't willing to cast him aside after services were rendered, it worked. Behind the scenes he gained influence and rose, while in public he seemed more and more reliable in a world of often openly ideological or ambitious men. However, the oldboy's club rules don't apply anymore.

In Suskind's book there is a nice anecdote in the beginning. In it, Bush is telling Paul Oneill they want him on board. Bush interupts Oneill in the middle of Oneill's laundry list of why he shouldn't be Treasury secretary (where Oneill lists all the things he would later get fired for) ... Bush stops Oneill in order to demeaningly ask Andrew Card why Bush's lunch of cheeseburgers are late.

Andrew Card has been a loyal Republican and served in as Suskind points out Reagan and Bush41. The line goes:
"You're the chief of staff. You think you're up to getting us some cheeseburgers?"

As Oneill stated, this gave him pause because how a leader treats his own people especially at the bottom of the totem pole is a character issue. And this wasn't some snot nosed intern. This is Andy Card, a man who has dedicated his life to service to the Republicans.

Oneill should have taken the hint and walked away. However the book describes realistically how I think anyone could have been swept away. Afterall, Bush the conventional wisdom had it would be cautious because of his lack of a strong electoral mandate and he'd promised to be a "compassionate conservative".

someone here earlier mentioned the Letterman bit where Bush43 uses the person's sweater to clean his glasses while completely not seeing her as a human being. I think that anecdotes like this really are indicative of GW Bush. It's not just that he treats people like things to be used and discarded, but that he is willing to do so even to men who have dedicated their lives to service or to the Republicans.

That's not just entitlement, that's verging on sociopathic.

the analysis that he has flubbed any possible future democratic nomination strikes me as absurd, do people generally serve in cabinet positions in administrations of one political party, hoping to be the presidential candidate for the opposing party?

On sending Baker to deal with Iraq's bilateral debt .and .. I do not think this should be interpreted as a lack of confidence in Powell. Baker has dealt with debt before, it is a technical issue where Powell has no expertise, and I suppose that W. (or whoever explained to W. that this was important) decided to raise the profile of Iraq's debt.

What about Hubbard and Mankiw, and any other academic economists who have served Bush? Do they have any reputations left? Was it worth it, to serve as window dressing, just to get an impressive entry on their resumes?

Colin Powell probably saved us from another crisis on the Korean Peninusla, and who knows on what other issues his good judgement and moderation saved the day, when Wolfowitz and company might have taken us over the edge?

Give him credit. I know people here in DC who almost literally pray for the man's health. He is the one decent element in the foreign policy apparatus.

Joseph Yaroch:
"There is a commonality between Colin Powell and Wesley Clark. Both are masters at the political game -- in the military. But the political game in civilian politics has entirely different rules, different strategy, and of course, different winners and losers. In the military, once your buddy makes a move, you cover him; even if it was a dumb move to make. In civilian politics, it appears that you can't count on that kind of support. If you stumble, you fall, and that's that."

Joseph, Powell has been in DC since, IIRC, 1971, when he was a Nixon administration White House Fellow (if that's the program name). He spent the majority of his career as a DC general. He observed numerous changes of administraation, cabinte shuffles and foreign crises. For him to be ignorant is hard to believe.

Oldman:

"I genuinely believe that Colin Powell visited the CIA for several days and worked with them intensively going over Iraq intelligence. I also believe as was reported at the time, that his presentation to the UN rejected strongly several of the more outlandish claims that Dick Cheney and co. attempted to foist on him. He wasn't completely asleep at the wheel."

Powell made it to four-star general. I start with the assumption that he's not innocent in the ways of the CIA and intelligence massaging. And in at least one case - the aluminum tubes - his statements contradicted the experts.

"However Colin Powell had no real expertise on intelligence or WMD. It showed. He went for the moderate choices in his presentation, not knowing because of his lack of expertise that splitting things down the middle was asking to be completely discredited. This was because his options weren't splitting the difference between truth and misinformation, it was splitting the difference between incompetence at the CIA and blatant misinformation in the Pentagon."

I'm sure that a four-star general would have many, many, many sources of expertise on tap for WMD's and intelligence. He'd also have seen, over decades, how intelligence compared with reality. And 'splitting the difference' is a naive method, to be used *if* there are no other alternatives and *if* there is no other information. It's too often an excuse, not a method. In the case of Saddam's WMD's, the Pentagon agency (OSP) was set up for the purpose of cherry-picking intelligence. This had been done before, *by Rumsfield*, in the 1970's, under the name 'Team B'.

"In the military, once your buddy makes a move, you cover him; even if it was a dumb move to make. "

That is correct in battle. However, when the action report is being written, attention to detail and brutal honesty are necessary to save lives and prevent similar blunders in the future. From his days in the Vietnam investigations, Powell was willing to advance his career, not by covering his comrades in battle, but by covering up for his superiors in investigative reports. HIs loyalty to his boss continued throughout his political career. He was willing to take actions that were clearly illegal in Iran Contra to obey orders from his boss. (Read the Iran Contra report). He has a career of go along, get along. That attitude serves the US well when it comes to engaging with other nations such as Korea. However, it leads to credibility problems when working for leaders who are ethically challenged.

To Powell's defense, it's hard to know where we would be today in his absence. Engaged in a wider quagmire in Syria, Iran and perhaps Saudi Arabia? On the brink of a war with North Korea? In a full fledged diplomatic and trade war with the EU? With Rummy, Condi, and Cheney in full command, it's hard to exclude any of these three outcomes confidently. So, perhaps, I should similarly give a pass grade to Mankiw, on the belief that this Administration's economic policies would be even worse in his absence. A weak kind of defense though. After all, if either Powell or Mankiw had the courage to confront Cheney and co. more openly they would probably serve their country much better. And let's not forget that this is the ultimate reward to power for a respectable policy maker, much like saving and improving life of one's patients' is the ultimate reward to being a practicing MD. (Pardon my moral clarity.)

No confrontation between Bush and the CEA, he moved them out of the WH and down the street. Mankiw confront the president. See how he was trashed by the GOP and Mr Bush abandoned him as excess baggage. Snow acts like he doesn't read his own report or care about the numbers Mankiw gives him.

CEOs understand marketing and the understand that they need a product. They spend all their time marketing and leave the details to others. We have the Dilbert administration in power.

Jean-Philippe Stijns:

"To Powell's defense, it's hard to know where we would be today in his absence. Engaged in a wider quagmire in Syria, Iran and perhaps Saudi Arabia?"

As far as we can tell, Powell had no practical influence on the decision on the war with Iraq.
The administration hasn't invaded Syria or Iran because Iraq is proving indigestible. In the case of Saudia Arabia, it might also be that this would distrupt the oil markets too much, and that SA might tell things that they know about a family with whom they've been dealing for a while.

"On the brink of a war with North Korea? In a full fledged diplomatic and trade war with the EU? With Rummy, Condi, and Cheney in full command, it's hard to exclude any of these three outcomes confidently. So, perhaps, I should similarly give a pass grade to Mankiw, on the belief that this Administration's economic policies would be even worse in his absence. A weak kind of defense though. After all, if either Powell or Mankiw had the courage to confront Cheney and co. more openly they would probably serve their country much better. And let's not forget that this is the ultimate reward to power for a respectable policy maker, much like saving and improving life of one's patients' is the ultimate reward to being a practicing MD. (Pardon my moral clarity.)"

Except that we've no evidence that Powell is a respectable policy maker at this point. He seems to be more somebody who is used when convenient, and shoved back into the closet when not.

I don't see any mystery about Powell, after reading in this interview, where he explains himself remarkably clearly.
"No, gentlemen, you don't take a post of this sort, and then resign when the man who has the constitutional responsibility to make decisions makes one you don't like."

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/26098.htm
this interview!

Would this be the same Powell who publicly opposed Clinton's gays-in-the-military policy? His loyalty wasn't apparent then.