Secretary of State
Colin Powell and his aides have made no bones about the fact that his inaccurate presentation to the United Nations was the lowlight of his career. Does his successor not grasp the perils of misrepresentation? Does anyone around her not realize that the price paid by the State Department for lack of candor is quite different than the stakes for someone running for office? I mentioned the other day that she really must not be playing word games on the torture issue, but all the reports from Europe suggest that she is being less than direct with every word on the subject of torture including, to paraphrase Mary McCarthy about (I think) Lillian Hellman, "the" and "and" and "but."
Advertisement
I used to think Colin Powell would have made a good president. One act of cowardice, however, can tarnish beyond repair things that took a lifetime to polish.
So the "house nigra" ran off de plantation, and Massa Dubya needed another dress-up prop.
And now she finds out that to wear the pretty dresses and live in de Massa's house, there are some other "duties" she must perform, and she seems a bit uncomfortable with them.
That's how it is when you dance with the Devil.
December 7, 2005 5:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care if you're black or white, can we PLEASE stay away from the slave/master analogies? It's offensive and unnecessary.
December 7, 2005 5:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's definitely something about words going on. Joe Brinkley reporting from Bucharest for page A1 of today's New York Times, Rice Is Challenged in Europe Over Secret Prisons:
Not a coincidence, I think, that if you follow that story to page A25, you will find much more coverage on the topic, filling another print page:
Also, for those interested in nuance on this all, there is some very interesting opining on renditions on a blog by a ex-C.I.A. Malissa Mahle here. (Hat tip for that to member "JustPlainDave" at agonist.org.)
December 7, 2005 6:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that as long as anyone is working for the Bush Administration they will, as a part of their job requirement, have to lie. Anyone who has studied this Administration can see the misrepresentations, distortions and outright lies that have been dealt by them to the public since 2000. Condi Rice works at the pleasure of the Administration and it is likely she will toe the line at saying what they tell her to say. It just makes our credibility go down and down. Sadly, America is beginning to look like the boy who cried wolf -- what is tragic is that if there really is a threat to be dealt with, there is every possibility no one will believe our government, including its own citizens. The lies and distortions have been that overwhelming.
December 7, 2005 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
This may have been a low point in Powell's life, but it still does not excuse him. And if it now bothers him all that much, then he can redeem himself by going public, or at least behind closed doors to Congress, and tell what he knows about the lying facts that led us into this war. Otherwise, he's still a player.
December 7, 2005 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Colin Powell and his aides have made no bones about the fact that his inaccurate presentation to the United Nations was the lowlight of his career.
He was only obeying orders....
December 7, 2005 6:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Andre Crabtree III:
I agree with you that Notrol's analogy presentation was in bad taste. I don't always go for "censoring" people about using such analogies, though. It's just that the specific one of calling "Uncle Tom" is often counter-productive. That's because I happen to think that what some label as "Uncle Tomism," in itself can be in certain instances much more productive than more confrontational methods.
It remains to be seen what Condi Rice is up to at State, mho. Bash her thoughtlessly with a broad brush at your own peril.
December 7, 2005 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Offensive? Really?
What seems to be missing in the discussion is while Dubya looks forward to sipping mint juleps on Trent Lott's rebuilt front porch, the only individuals in his cabinet that have to carry the fouled water on the international scene for him are black.
Did Mr. Negroponte have to make the Iraq lies to the UN? No.
Has either Five Deferment Dick or The Rummy been outside the cozy confines of the American Enterprise Institute or the Pentagon to dirty their hands with the no-torture lie? No.
Maybe because I'm not black I shouldn't comment on the black experience. Fair enough.
But because I am white, it's entirely within my experience to call out a white racist.
This is not about a "slave mentality" on the part of Powell or Rice- it's about the callous choices made by the one with the "master mentality".
Powell had his doubts, and (I suspect) the creeping feeling he was being set up as a throwaway. Listening to Condi's parsing and implied threats to any country that might question the US on the issue, one can sense her unease. Is there a little voice reminding her that lying is wrong? Whatever inducement caused her to not "believe her lyin' eyes" when it came to Powell's fate, she chose not to see these guys for what they are.
I hope she enjoys the dance now, 'cause her reputation and career are at stake- a very high price indeed.
And I think that was Reed's point.
December 7, 2005 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh c'mon.
That's so Old Europe. If it weren't for brie, BMW's, and Prada bags, who'd notice they still exist?
December 7, 2005 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that Condi particularly cares about a legacy the way that Powell does. From what I can tell, she very much seems to see herself as the White House's person at State, not as a representative of the State Dept. Success & legacy in those terms will be measured by how well she carries out the Adminstrations agenda.
December 7, 2005 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that her career and reputation were on the line when she was NSA, and she seems to have bungled that just well enough to get promoted.
December 7, 2005 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that Condi particularly cares about a legacy the way that Powell does. From what I can tell, she very much seems to see herself as the White House's person at State, not as a representative of the State Dept. Success & legacy in those terms will be measured by how well she carries out the Adminstrations agenda.
I don't think that goes far enough. Powell was corrupted, if you will, by a career in the military, where there is some concept of honor and loyalty to the country. This world view betrayed him, I think, when it came to White House politics -- he could try to be a cheap whore, but he could never quite lower his price enough. Rice doesn't have that problem. She understands, and quite well, that the coin of the realm in this White House isn't the good of the country, but toadying to Bush. She has a corporate mindset, where what is rewarded isn't loyalty to the organization, but loyalty to your superior.
December 7, 2005 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Colin Powell and his aides have made no bones about the fact that his inaccurate presentation to the United Nations was the lowlight of his career.
Powell is also on the record saying he rejected a draft of the speech given to him by Cheney-aide John Hannah, which is the one the White House wanted him to read to the UN. Powell called the contents of the Cheney draft "bullshit."
Question 1: what was in that draft speech?
Question 2: shouldn't the contents of the draft be public, given that the White House wanted it read to the world?
Question 3: given the debate over Cheney's manipulating of intelligence, isn't the draft signficant?
Question 4: does anyone on Powell's staff still have a copy?
December 7, 2005 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Condi's remarks are so carefully parsed that it probably took a room full of WH lawyers who have undergad English degrees to write the text.
Although the weaseling can sometimes be so deceptively simple....
"We do not torture," or more elaborately,
"We do not use European airports to transport prisoners for the purpose of torture."
December 7, 2005 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is nwhy it's hard to find any decent human beings with any self-respect working at the top levels of the Bush administartion.
December 7, 2005 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure she will join Bremer and Tenet as a Medal of Honor winner.
December 7, 2005 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
First Powell then Rice, but what's really changed foreign policy-wise in the last five years?
When Bush was against nation building, before he was for it.
What did Paul O'Neill mean eight months into the first term when he spoke about the need for "honest brokers", and his failure to find an "authentic discussion" about policy anywhere he dared look in the White House? Why did he make a point of telling Cheney (whom he recommended for the job of Secretary of Defense during Bush I when Bush actually wanted O'Neill for the job) that they needed to be better about keeping politics out of the policy process, and that the political people are there for presentation and execution, not creation? Why did he begin to notice that there was a small group-Cheney, Rove, Hughes and increasingly Rice- who seemed to be in charge by default? Why was he concerned that they were mostly about politics, and not evidence and analysis?
Do the answers to any of these questions inform our present standing in the world?
December 7, 2005 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's so Old Europe. If it weren't for brie, BMW's, and Prada bags, who'd notice they still exist?
The Soviet threat that motivated U.S. bases no longer exists. And the Europeans don't seem to be that eager for keeping them there. Yes, some former local U.S.-employees would be paid for by European social security instead, but that would equal to drops in the ocean of wealfare expenditures, and who would notice the difference?
So why not redeploy the troops and agents?
It seems it would reduce embarrassment both in Washington and in European capitals.
And it would emphasize that it's time for the Europeans to take care of the defense of their own territory, wouldn't it?
December 10, 2005 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
It just makes our credibility go down and down. Sadly, America is beginning to look like the boy who cried wolf -- what is tragic is that if there really is a threat to be dealt with, there is every possibility no one will believe our government, including its own citizens.
This is what I believe the European allied governments fear the most. That we one day will face a danger that really would call for us fighting together, maybe for our survival, but that the continents by then have drifted too far apart in terms of ideological differences, distrust and mutual bitterness.
December 10, 2005 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink