But seriously, I am conflicted about Powell. I want to believe he had the country's best interested at heart. But, I don't necessarily buy the brave-soldier defense for his sticking around. I still maintain that there was a peak during the lead-up to the war in Iraq where he could have done much more to express his dismay at the abandonment of a multilateral approach (by resigning) than he could have or did by sticking around. Despite being continually ignored and circumvented by the administration, the fact remains that for many people he represented a key point of legitimacy for that administration, especially for those that held out some hope for a genuinely multilateral strategy. He could have resisted or resigned, which could have turned a spotlight (however dim) on how dramatic the shift to the neoconservative/unilateral agenda was, and maybe cast some doubt on its wisdom. Instead, he was complicit, taking falsehoods and exaggerations to the UN, making a mockery of the institution, and making himself look like a fool in the end.
I think that article hints at that, too:
"He has stopped short of quitting already not just because he's a good soldier, but because that's not what ambitious Cabinet officers do in American politics. Those who resign in protest usually write themselves out of power for all time."
Hm, sacrifices his ideals and motives for fear of losing power. There's a word for that -- what is it.. oh yeah. Tool.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-02-20 05:13 pm (UTC)It almost made me feel bad for him. I think they nailed it: "so much ambition derailed, so much accomplishment nullified."
Then I remembered that Colin Powell is a tool.
But seriously, I am conflicted about Powell. I want to believe he had the country's best interested at heart. But, I don't necessarily buy the brave-soldier defense for his sticking around. I still maintain that there was a peak during the lead-up to the war in Iraq where he could have done much more to express his dismay at the abandonment of a multilateral approach (by resigning) than he could have or did by sticking around. Despite being continually ignored and circumvented by the administration, the fact remains that for many people he represented a key point of legitimacy for that administration, especially for those that held out some hope for a genuinely multilateral strategy. He could have resisted or resigned, which could have turned a spotlight (however dim) on how dramatic the shift to the neoconservative/unilateral agenda was, and maybe cast some doubt on its wisdom. Instead, he was complicit, taking falsehoods and exaggerations to the UN, making a mockery of the institution, and making himself look like a fool in the end.
I think that article hints at that, too:
Hm, sacrifices his ideals and motives for fear of losing power. There's a word for that -- what is it.. oh yeah. Tool.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-21 02:37 am (UTC)Re: Powell tools
Date: 2004-02-21 03:41 am (UTC)But then I remember his presentation to the UN, and I stop and think -- OK, maybe he just sold his soul.
And then I remember Mother Night and I wonder if there's a difference. I should re-read that.
Re: Powell tools
Date: 2004-02-21 05:54 am (UTC)Re: Powell tools
Date: 2004-02-21 06:12 am (UTC)test m_zabina@yahoo.com
Date: 2004-10-05 08:55 pm (UTC)m_zabina@yahoo.com