I thought you might be interested in a statement made by Secretary of State Colin Powell yesterday.

Remarks at World Econonic Forum...



It's worthwhile to read all of it here

I pulled out a few snippets but I hope the statement will be read in its entirety before judging it.

What say you?

I say the same questions can be asked about nuclear and biological weapons missing from Russia or being built without our knowlege. They are horrible weapons that we should be working to eliminate a need for. But face it, lot's of bad people have them. What if's wouldn't work to convict someone in one of our courts and it isn't enough to convict a country and go to war.

No one is saying we should stop searching for these weapons or stop watching Saddam. But none of this is a good reason to start a war and may still not answer those questions.

So basically you will make any excuse not to go to war. Just say that.

Darcaine

To my knowledge, though Russia has had WMD's for many many years, it has never used them. Saddam has.

................................

Secretary of State Colin Powell has demonstrated his belief that the US should go through the UN and apparently it was his voice that President Bush listened to in late summer, early fall, when he agreed to go to the UN Security Council for a resolution.

Despite being a general (was it four stars?) Colin Powell has shown himself to be an ameliorating influence in the center of power. At least that's how it comes across to me. Now, this man with experience on both sides - military (both as a commander and as a soldier) who knows the horrors of war - and as a head of the State Department (which historically is at odds over methodology with the Defense Dept.) - is telling us that statecraft is not working.

I listened to his press conference yesterday, in which he said that everytime Iraq has been offered a way out, an avenue of compliance, a road toward peace, it has chosen otherwise.

Coming from Secretary of State Colin Powell, this is compelling.

Yes, basically any excuse given will not be enough for me to think we need to go to war on this issue. Unless of course, Saddam were to attack us which we all know he won't no matter how afraid of him people like to pretend they are.

Yes, yes more comments like this. This is simple and forthcoming and in its own way persuasive.

Now persuade the UN Security Council and tell all to the American people before we go to war.

I, being a stickler, still do not see the proof that this is part of the war on terrorism. But this type of language is the way I would rather this administration conduct its business.

I have respect for Powell. I would be much happier if he were the President instead. But, I feel that whatever Powell is ever allowed to say comes directly from Bush's mouth.

I really do believe that Secretary Powell has the pride, the power, the credibility and most of all self-respect that if he disagreed - especially on an issue of this importance - he would resign rather than say what he doesn't believe.

Perhaps on an unimportant issue, he might be willing to go along - but not on war. Not on sending soldiers to a battlefield upon which he himself, first hand, knows the horrors.

He wouldn't be able to live with himself, and I think we do him a disservice to conclude otherwise - especially without proof.

I like Powell but as a military man he is going to follow orders, whatever they may be, from his commanding officer who is Bush. Soldiers do not just choose what they will and won't do.

Again, I like Powell but I believe he is in an impossible position and is doing his duty. I guess proof isn't too much to ask, on either side of this argument.

Danya - Secretary of State Colin Powell is retired from the military. His pension and his honors are safe and cannot be taken away from him if he should disagree with President Bush. It is not unheard of for cabinet secretaries to resign when they find themselves in an impossible position. Perhaps he might have done so had President Bush not taken his advice to go to the UN Security Council - we don't know - but it is a possibility.

Secretary Powell is a man of integrity - I don't think his integrity has ever been called into question. Are we calling it into question now?

Like I said, I respect Colin Powell and he is more convincing than the rest. But I am still skeptical on the motives and the need for war. As much as I like him he has given nothing new to convince me. It will take someone that is completely out of Bush's loop of control to convince me at this point, something that can't be disputed.

The reason being that for a year now we have been hearing nothing but accusation and rhetoric. There have been promises of proof that have never been given. The fact that it's being notched up and spread by more people changes nothing.

Basheva wrote:


Aside from my opinion of Powell or war, I don't think the logic in this paragrah plays through. A career soldier is appointed Secretary of State, so he has "experience on both sides?" What if a career diplomat were appointed Secretary of Defense, and then made the comment that we should fall back to diplomacy, that military action was unecessary? People would most likely criticize him precisely for his lack of experience on the military side. Some might say that putting a military man at the helm of the State Department doesn't really make sense, and it's not surprising, then, when he calls for action.

I think you have a well thought out argument about Powell, and of all the people in the administration, I agree he has the most integrity. I just don't see this as a support for it.

Generally speaking (no pun intended ) - the Department of State and the Department of Defense are at opposite ends of the methodology in forging and implementing foreign policy.

Sometimes the military is used in conjunction with statecraft, when it is purposefully used as a threat. But, the actual use of the military represents to the State Department people a recognition that statecraft has failed. War results when diplomacy fails. When the Department of Defense takes over it's because the Department of State did not accomplish the task, again generally speaking. This is not to fault the State Department - it may not have been their fault. As Secretary of State I bet Colin Powell would much rather have been successful.

Secretary Powell is in a unique position of not only having served on the battlefield himself as a soldier, but also as a commander of people. In the upper echelons of the military, command level, there is as much diplomacy at play as "I order you to do this." Often a general at this level is as much a diplomat, as much a "people person" as a commander of people. A true commander doesn't just order people - he leads them. To do that he must have earned their respect and trust.

It was not by accident that General Eisenhower was where he was. He was a consummate politician. Who else could have gotten along with Churchill, Montgomery, Roosevelt, Marshall and De Gaulle?

Secretary Powell brings a unique perspective and set of talents to his position.

Whether you have seen the proofs you require to change your position - is of course your personal right. But apparently he has seen proofs to change his position. That's of interest to me.

To finish up my earlier comment, I would be a much more comfortable person if Powell (now that I have seen him in action because I think he has the relative independence from the administration to carve out his own path) or McCain as President. I am going to take the logic of Powell's comments to another thread.