Some in this forum have said that American security demands that people like Richard Clark and Paul O'Neill tell the truth about the state of US Security all the time, regardless of circumstance or Administration pressure, and that, if they say one thing while in office, and another out of office, they are opportunistic liars.

Well, I read an interesting article yesterday in the Washington Post. It hints that Colin Powell may be lying to us as well, but that, when it comes to working in the White House, you just suck it up and do as your told, at least publicly.



Hmm, I've heard this somewhere, before....Oh, yes! From Paul O'Neill, and Dick Clark, and Whitman, and Beers, and many others. Now, Powell has said he will step down at the end of this term.

Questions for Debate:

If Powell does step down, and becomes critical of Bush's foreign policy, and the Iraq war, will this hurt his credibility? Will he be seen as just another "disgruntled" former employee?

Would critical revelations by Powell be more damaging to this administration than Clark's or O'Neill's? Why or why not?

I don't think he will be come critical, for the record. But I'll admit that isn't the question.

If Powell does step down, and becomes critical of Bush's foreign policy, and the Iraq war, will this hurt his credibility? Will he be seen as just another "disgruntled" former employee?

No, I think more than anything the Marshall example proves Powell to be just what he says, "A loyal soldier". And for people saying that he should have stood up and challenged Bush, Cheney, Rummy & Wolf, that just denies reality. You simply don't do that and have a career in Washington, or the military for that matter and he's handcuffed by both loyalties. If he does become critical, I think his general track record (pun not intended) speaks for itself and he can legitimately say "I tried to be the voice of reason. I failed."

Would critical revelations by Powell be more damaging to this administration than Clark's or O'Neill's? Why or why not?

It would be incredibly damaging. More so than any prior. We was/is a principle and had unfettered access to the President. If he saw the insanity that I think took place there at times and wanted to call it out after the fact I think it would have the effect of "pantsing" Bush at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.

That being said, I don't think Powell would do it. He doesn't seem the type. Though money can have a way of changing someone's mind.

Doc

This topic is based on innuendo, but I'll bite:

If Powell does step down, and becomes critical of Bush's foreign policy, and the Iraq war, will this hurt his credibility? Will he be seen as just another "disgruntled" former employee?
Powell has incredible integrity. I think it is entirely possible that it will come out the Powell was against the War on Iraq. It wouldn't surprise me a bit. What would surprise me is if Powell came out and bad-mouthed the President.

Disagreements are going to happen, especially in something as serious as war. If Powell's voice was heard before the decision was made, that we can honestly say that a discussion of both sides of the issue was had.

Would critical revelations by Powell be more damaging to this administration than Clark's or O'Neill's? Why or why not?
As I said, Powell's stature is head and shoulders above any other "whistle blower" so far. Of course it would be more damaging. It would also highly surprise me if it happened. I would frankly be surprised if the guy who went to the UN with the evidence would subsequently say he didn't know about the war. As I said, he may have had disagreements, but that is not earth shattering in and of itself. I would be highly suspicious if the entire administration was gung-ho pro-war before it started.

I don't see Powell back for a second go-round as Secretary of State if Bush wins, but I don't think he's going to write a tell-all book either.

Powell will go back on the six-figure lecture circuit and never say a discouraging word about George W. Bush in public. I'm not so sure that will extend to Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney though. Powell's protests to the contrary, it is obvious to me that Bob Woodward got it right when he described the frosty relationship between Powell, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Let's not forget long before he became the Secretary of State, Powell was a general in the military and that's where you learn to respect the office if not necessarily the man occupying the office.

I'm more worried that Bush will put a neo-conservative warhawk like Paul Wolfowitz in Powell's place.

Powell will remain loyal once he leaves office. Unlike some others, he understands the meaning of the word. These pukes who cant wait to 'tell all' once they're out of office are wastes of oxygen.

If an issue isnt serious enough for you to resign then you should keep your mouth shut. This isnt about politics, its about life.

If you read Bob Woodward's book, "Plan of Attack" you will learn that Powell was not totally against going into Iraq, but had reservations and cautioned Bush and others on several occasions about the possible consequences, etc. Bush asked Powell during one of their many conversations if his reservations about invading Iraq would prevent his support and Powell assured Bush that if the final decision was to go to war that he (Powell) would support and stand by the President's decision. I would almost be willing to bet the family farm that there is deep respect between Powell and Bush that neither would think of abusing. Powell, among others in the administration, is no whiner and self-serving puppet...if he could not support Bush's final decision...he would have resigned and Bush would have accepted it with regret but in agreement.

As for O'Neil....(off topic but want to straighten out some rumors)...he announced to Bush that he would not and could not support a second round of tax credits. Bush had been urged on previous occasions to fire O'Neil because he wasn't always on the same page as the administration when he made the talk show scenes and for other reasons. Bush did not fire O'Neil when he told Bush that he couldn't support him on the second round of tax credits. Rather, Bush reorganized his Treasury team, asked O'Neil to stay on until after his replacement was in office before he resigned, to which O'Neil agreed to. When Bush announced Snow as his new Secretary of Treasury, O'Neil was in the audience and was thanked for his outstanding service by Bush. I saw the TV event myself...and O'Neil was in the audience while Bush was introducing Snow as the new Secretary of Treasury.

And I am willing to bet the family farm that we will not read a sensational "kiss and tell" book from Colin Powell. He is above that tripe. Also, I can't find the source but months ago, I read in some conservative article that Powell had agreed to sign on as Secretary of State only for four years due to family obligations. I also read that Condi Rice would be there for only four years, and that George Tenent would be resigning at the end of the year. Don't know about Rumsfeld.

Colin Powell is a class act. Whether he decides to publish something less than flattering regarding the Bush administration after he leaves is ultimately up to him. If he does, I am prepared to believe what he writes.

Of all the people who recently have parted ways with the Bush adminstration and those who might do so, I think Colin Powell, by virtue of the fact that he served for so many years in the Army, is the best able to "suck it in" when he encounters the slights endemic to politics inside the Administration. He is a patient man of principle.

While others want to smear those who have published the so-called kiss and tell books, I will not. I will just say that they are made of different stuff than the long-suffering retired general and current Secretary of State. They were probably unaccustomed to being marginalized and ignored, each having established himself before joining the Bush administration. They probably had little reason to practice humility in their backgrounds.

If Powell does decide to publish a book, though, the Bush administration will indeed have cause to worry. But I think Powell probably will not do so.

If Powell does step down, and becomes critical of Bush's foreign policy, and the Iraq war, will this hurt his credibility? Will he be seen as just another "disgruntled" former employee?

My first thought is , no, but I cant really answer this question seriously because I believe Powell will never do such a thing. He reminds me of Oliver North, albeit possibly without Ollies beforehand knowledge that he was going to be the fall guy from the start and prepared himself for it. Both gladly accepted, as officers and soldiers at this level , they had a job to do, which first and foremost is to protect and serve thier leader no matter what, and accept any and all critisizms for it.

I believe Powell was put up by the admin as the most likely to convince, as weak as the presentation was, everyone in america and the UN on Iraq. Powell was the only diplomat on the issue, it only figures he would be the most viable candidate to be believed. This put him in a very precarious position and he did what was asked. He put himself on the line and in real danger asking for a second Resolution which did not pan out. He is a rouge in this admin and the only reason he is still there is because he could be used as a voice of what was ultimately false diplomacy. Noone else in this admin had/has any diplomatic tact which can be exploited to any extent except Condi Rice, and they peddle her out to every TV spot they can manage.

In a second Bush term, Powell will have little use and will most likely be dropped. He put himself up to fronting falsities for the admin and can no longer be believed. A second term has no option for a 3rd, so he becomes obsolete and unnecessary as the push for more wars continues. How the admin will go about his character assasination is only speculative, maybe he will just resign " to spend more time with his family", which is the usual terminology and least damaging.

I disagree with PE that Powell (today) is a 'class act'. (Sorry) I used to think it, but now I see him as a shill. I don't know what happened with Powell, except that he was the only voice of reason in this admin., now he just panders. I suppose maybe its like many, in- now that we are there we'd better make the most of it and support it, but to me his words are as empty as Bush's and Rumsfelds, a bunch of continuous lies.

Would critical revelations by Powell be more damaging to this administration than Clark's or O'Neill's? Why or why not?

Absolutely it would be more damaging, but it will not happen unless the admin tries to blame Powell for something and they would be stupid to do so. Powell is a stalwart soldier and officer and also seen as a tactical diplomat. I believe he will take the blame and go down in flames rather than consider himself above 'country'. He might defend himself, but never harm internationally the view of the US. Yet if the Admin tries to blame him for anything at all, they will have a much bigger credibility gap, domestically and internationally.

GQ is going to have a feature on Powells unhappiness with the admin soon. They also inteviewed many of his close friends and his former mentor. The short version I read said the story will focus on how tired Powell is and how hard he tried to edit the junk out of the UN speech.

I saw the excerpt on Drudge. It seems Powell wants out and his chief of staff spared no words about his disillusionment with the admin., and their efforts to 'punch up' the Iraq evidence which allegedly was very stressful to Powell (to maintain his reputation.)
Its still up, as of this post @:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories....02166707&EDATE=

Here's a link to the article Santasdad references:

Friend Says Powell Uneasy With Ideologues

Despite the headline, Powell never slams the administration and feels it is doing a good job in a lot of areas:



Powell's friend actually says:

Not a slam on Bush, really, just a difference of how the men think.

After reading the GQ article, I'm convinced that Colin Powell will not be back for a second term as Secretary of State no matter what happens in November.

Powell never beat the drums for war like Cheney, Wolfowitz or Rumsfeld. He, more than anyone else in the Administration, understood that you don't deploy the military might of the United States for anything less than precise reasons.

The article is well worth taking the time to read. It's a fascinating look into how Powell is a man apart from the Administration.

I can't see Powell becoming a prominent opponent of a future Bush administration (not least because I am not yet convinced there will be another one), for reasons alread ycited here.

I could imagine him making some carefully worded statements that could be interpreted as critical by those who choose to look for criticism, but I'd bet that if he did it would be quite specific.

I don't think he would want to put a foot wrong, because I could imagine him as a future Republican presidential candidate with a chance of winning, which, after Bush II and excluding other dynastic gubernatorial Bushes, would seem to be in short supply. Whether his current career aspirations include that at the moment, I don't know, but who can see the future?

Powell appeared in the last few weeks with Ted Koppel and confirmed that he would not return as SecState if Bush were re-elected. Well, check that. I re-read the transcript and he's far more coy about it than I recall. Selective memory I guess.

Here is the transcript of the Koppel/Powell interview http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/31769.htm

Edit: as a side note, I just finished the Woodward book and my respect for Powell has been restored since that horrid performance at the UN prior to the war. I truly felt for him and Richard Armitage as they fought the battle for diplomacy amidst the fever for war. I have no doubt that if he were to write a tell all, it would be a best seller before it even hits the shelves. At this point I'll keep dreaming about a McCain/Powell ticket.

Doc

Yes, by a certain segment of the population that seems to have blinders or blindfolds on. The rest of us will likely either read the book or go by reviews of such, taking Powell's views as one of the most dependable sources.



I'm frankly at a loss as to how this administration could be further damaged. Maybe some independents would solidify a voting decision?

It's too late to get a book out there that would impact the coming election, but Powell will likely publish some kind of work about his experiences with the Bush administration. It'll be historically significant to do so and perhaps will help future administrations to avoid ideology traps.

These debate questions sparked a vision thing in me: I see Powell and Clarke getting together to do something political, perhaps create a better Republican party? Or will they both be Demos? I don't know. Just a side thought.