Colin Powell?

I did say "to a lesser extent."

Yes, you did. And you're not obliged to hope that Colin burns in Hell, either. I will address your challenges to my line of thinking, too. But first...relevant digression!

I finished reading Joe Wilson's book "The Politics of Truth:..." Monday evening. Not a perfect book, but very interesting. If it had only been about the "16 words" lie/exposure and the subsequent revenge against him and his wife, it would have been a pretty skinny book. As luck would have it, he had a lot of other biographical material in the queue for possible publication. The result was something like 4-5 books in 1: "My time as a ski bum, my time as a diplomat in Africa, my time in Europe, my time in Iraq before Desert Storm, my time in DC, and my time dealing with the whole yellow-cake uranium lie".

Parts of the book are a bit self-congratulatory (basking in George H W Bush's acclaim as a hero) but how do you write something autobiographical without some risk of that. The right wing will no doubt hurl at Wilson's more recent reveling in the company of leftists like Warren Beatty and Norman Lear.

Overall, though, it is a very interesting book throughout. Lots of African Cold War/post-colonial political history and a *very* interesting look behind the scenes in Baghdad leading up to the Gulf War. And it would seem that he was pretty kick-ass. A hero maybe?

More recently, Wilson is completely pissed and says so. He resorts to borderline name-calling and insult, but, in my court, I will allow it. His anger is justified.

Why digress on this here? Just to emphasized that the most effective recent critics of the Neocon Vulcan agenda were hardly the Warren Beattys of the world, rather it is the Wilsons, the Richard Clarkes, the Paul O'Neils (and now the Anthony Zinnis). Either conservatives or centrist careerists with service across several administrations. I admire them. I thank them.

You really think he had ANY shot at stopping the war?

A sure chance? No. ANY chance? Absolutely.

In THIS political system? What could he have possibly done?

Resigned. In public, with a coherent explanation. Pull an Elliott Abrams or (less effectively) a Cyrus Vance. Make himself available to appear before congressional committees. Remember those votes in the House and Senate where the Democrats rolled over and handed Shrub the unbelievably open-ended authorization (on false premises) to go to war? What might have happened to those votes?

He was completely outnumbered, and everyone knows that you can't go out on the world stage and dissent from the rest of your country's leadership.

Why not? It was his responsibility. He neglected it. Outnumbered? Not sure. The public face of this administration is 3 faceted: Bush, Powell, and Rumsfeld. Sure, other constituencies are aware of Cheney (for good or ill) and Rice, but few "average" citizens see beyond the innocent, homey, Alfred E. Neuman countenance of Shrub to really see the Wolfowitzes and Perles. So the Neocon war party hammers along through their American Enterprise front people and media types like David Frum. And, for a long, long time, they lied essentially unchallenged in the runup to this catastrophe.

Powell *counseled* some caution -- played Cassandra with respect to the "post-war" morass we are seeing now -- and he agreed with Pentagon concerns about force strength, yet he went to the UN with a case that was essentially bullshit to *advance* the likelihood or war, not reduce it.

Imagine what public opinion might have been like had Powell, instead of adding his prestige to this adventure, subtracted it. Even if he *threatened* to resign, might the war had been delayed 3-6 months? Where might that have led? When the chips were down, he was more interested in being Secretary of State than in telling the truth or in helping his country avoid what will prove to be the single biggest national mistake in our history*.

If you do, not only is your case drowned out by the rest of the people (including your boss) who are against you, but it makes the country look like it doesn't have unified leadership. Yes, everyone knows disagreements happen behind closed doors, but the Secretary of State speaking out against the direction of the President could create a really bad situation.

I would submit that the Secretary of State *not* speaking out against that direction has inestimably helped create a much worse situation.

I agree that at some point you have to take a stand, but it was going to take a lot more than just Colin Powell to stop this train's momentum, and I'm not sure who would have stood with him if he did decide to take a stand.

Imagine Colin Powell shaking hands in a photo op with Robert Byrd.

My only reason for including Powell is because he's the highest ranking individual left in our Government that isn't a mindlessly-led automaton. He occasionally speaks out against things. No, he never takes it as far as going out to the UN and denouncing the war, but he hits the Sunday talk shows and occasionally drops a hint or two that he would do things any differently if he had any kind of power at all. He's also indicated that he'll be leaving after he serves this term, which sends a message on its own (even if he's forced to say it has nothing to do with current policy, we all know better.)

Some say that Powell doesn't dislike the media portrait of him as a "tortured figure". That doesn't do anything for me. Not a mindlessly-led automaton? When you bend over the table and let Cheney and 30 other hawks give it to you -- and then say "General Powell reporting for duty, sir!" -- I think you have other problems. What a disgrace.

He has *lots* of money. He doesn't need to be Secretary of State. I think that any argument that he somehow achieved more by staying within the administration has been proven completely false. He did nothing to challenge neocon agenda whether in Iraq or Israel/Palestine, and he is still dancing as they are the ones fireing the bullets at his feet. Darn, resigning on principal might have even propelled him to the front of the pack of Republicans as our collective NyQuil wears off and Neocon influence (we hope!) wanes.

Anyway, I also found this story interesting. An author and a retired General, both vocal Bush supporters in the past, are quite critical of the path we're going down with the Iraq war. Neither is going too far out on a limb, and I don't think either would come out and vote for Kerry, but again, it's a very powerful statement when someone who's supposed to be "part of the gang" comes out, however sheepishly, against what's happening.

Somebody is sure to criticize Zinni and/or Clancy for trying to sell books!

[digression again....]

It is a funny thing. With regard to Richard Clarke's book, a friend said "Well, interesting information. I just question the timing." If someone has a critical story to tell, must they suppress it just because they might make money? When would be a *good* time for Clarke to publish? After the November election?

Anyhow, I wish Colin had decided to write a tell-all book this year. When he writes one *next* year, I will spit on it.

The Rush types always spout how people against the "BFU" (Big F*ck Up) are against America -- always apologizing for the USA when we shouldn't be -- that we are ashamed when we should be proud. I don't really see that, but I have to confess I *am* ashamed, and it ain't just Abu Graib. So here goes, as sincerely as I can make it sound:

I'm really sorry, Afghanistan.


Jim


*"biggest mistake in our history". OK, I didn't include slavery, a much *bigger* mistake, since we eventually came to our national senses, and there were things to be proud of in that recovery. Vietnam? Huge mistake. Millions killed. Yet I submit that, if only from the standpoint of pure national self-interest, our situation in the world has been harmed more severely by this big, big, mistake and that the injury will take much longer to heal.