Colin Powell-No Integrity

I agree with all that, except when it comes to making the case for war in the UN.

There, it seems, as far as I am able to tell, he knowingly lied.

Now, I cannot make windows in men's souls, but, on balance of probability, I think these were big, hairy, important lies.

I do not seek to condemn a person for lying - but lies of this magnitude, though they had little effect, seem to me a be at least a major lapse.

I find it very likely that he was offered an option -- lie, or exit ignominiously. And I think that he chose to stay and mitigate what he could mitigate rather than just being completely out of the picture.

That's one of those rock and a hard place decisions -- there was probably something he could have done that was more clear-cut, integrity wise, but I would bet there was a TON of behind-the-scenes jockeying, concessions he managed to get, etc., that make this balance out on the positive side of the integrity scale.

Would such an exit have been ignominious?

I see your point, Soz - I am not trying to argue in black and white......

Well, that's a judgement I haven't made. I care less about lies than do most people, you probably remember a discussion we had back when I was in Brazil for my reasons for that.

But let's assume he did for simplicity.



And here there is a judgement on the validity of the lie. More on this later.



Corrie Ten Boom (sp, I know this must be an sp) knowingly lied.

But you do not fault her because you agree with her motivations and her judgement on the lie's validity.

I allege that many project their own judgements onto Powell in alleging a lack of integrity on his part.

They assume a similar position of the war itself.

Powell might not have agreed with the war but then again he may have, his "quiet dignity" is such that he doesn't like to make his personal opinion the issue.

He may have disagreed with the WMD justification but have agreed with the humanitarian motivations.

He may have seen it as a fait accompli and sought only to minimize the damage and to steer the rest of it as best he could.

On this last point I think he would have sound reasons. Simply put I do not think there was anything he could have done to stop the war. His appeal to the UN could have had more to do with minimizing the deliberate rift some of the hawks were trying to create in the UN.

To me, the damage done to the UN and international diplomacy was the main damage done by the war. And if the war was a fait accompli (which I do think it was long before his address to the UN) his actions might have been justified to him on the basis of damage control.

All this assumes that he knowingly lied, a judgement I have not made.

In our sorta-maybe Westminster system, members of the cabinet are politicians - they are called Ministers.

If caught out in a lie, they are supposed to resign - most particularly if caught lying to one of the houses of parliament - this is supposed then to be automatic.

Of course, they wiggle and such - but, in the end, if there is reasonable proof of lying, they fall on their sword.

This meant that acccusations that they had knowingly presented "sexed-up" intelligence to their houses of parliament (and the public) were extremely serious for both Howard and Blair. They both avoided the sword, by wiggling about how much they knew, and what was reasonable to know.

Ministers sometimes resign if they really cannot go along with what their party is doing - a really prominent shadow minister did so not long ago.

I guess I am just used to major, found-out, lies resulting in the axe - and to people resigning in protest at their leader's actions...

Who is Corrie Ten Boom?

Not sure how Powell maybe/probably lying to the UN was damage control?

"The Hiding Place", she lied to Nazis to protect Jews from slaughter.

Oh - yes - and I ended up agreeing with the particular lie we were discussing too.

Yes, I do not like lies, ethically speaking - but I accept that there can be highly ethical ones, or ones that keep us alive and safeish, which can over-ride a general anti-lying stance.

I amn't being a lie-Nazi.

Dlowan, "ignominious" in that I believe there would have been some level of blackmail attached to it... "If you resign, we will say ____, or leak ____," or whatever. Not that resigning would be ignominious in and of itself, but that if he did, the Bush administration would not let him get off lightly.

I see the maybe/ probably lying to the U.N. not as damage control per se as much as something he needed to do to keep some influence -- and that the influence he weilded enabled the actual damage control.

How did it control damage?

A lot of damage happened, to be sure. Don't want to say he controlled it, in terms of reined it in -- mitigate was the word I used earlier, and is a better word for what I am getting at.

I wish I could remember details -- I don't, right now. There were several diplomatic overtures that I thought, at the time, "I bet that was Powell." Visits, invitations, concessions, that sort of thing. Diplomacy, at all, really -- the Bush crew strike me as being singularly, "We're gonna do it our way and if they don't like it, tough. We ain't gonna pander to them." Yet some diplomacy (and this is what I don't remember, will look up if need be) did take place.

Er, I know that - what I am trying to understand (without meaning to be a pain in the bum about it) is how Powell presenting a passel of untruths to the UN about WOMD (whether he knew they were untrue, or not) mitigated anything?

Because (as I'm suggesting, and don't know nothin' for sure of course), it was a CONDITION of his retaining his position, to be able to do the diplomatic stuff. If he didn't lie, bye-bye Powell, and then nothing but "If you they don't like it, tough."

hmmmmmmm

I sense that you are unconvinced...

Btw I'm not necessarily saying that this was all spelled out. That there was some conversation that started with Powell saying, "My principles have been compromised by serving in this morally corrupt administration, I shall be leaving shortly," and like Rove or someone grabbing him by the lapels and saying, "Yeah well if you do that pretty li'l wife of yours will..."

But I DO think there was an understanding, that he had to play along or get out, and that getting out wouldn't be pretty.

My problem with Powell is not where I think he is disloyal to those who outrank him, but that he is too loyal. Instead of following his own vision (if he really has one) he does as he is told. For instance, in Vietnam he tried to brush American atrocities under the rug shortly before the massacer at Me Lai (I forgot how to spell it) became publicly known. I don't see him as a leader, but a yes man.

Hmm, I see what you mean, Edgar, and I think it is kind of two sides of the same coin, that some of us see as a positive thing -- the lack of ego, the willingness to concede small things in order to make the big picture happen. (I didn't know about My Lai...?)

I think that's what he thought he was doing for quite a while in the Bush adminsitration, and then realized he couldn't make the big things happen, either. He's been really marginalized.

Powell has always been a shielded person, moved ahead of others because higher ups had him marked for a rise to the top early on. He functions as part of a system, not his own person.

I agree with this but also see all efforts of his at UN inclusion as damage control as well.

The world was faced with an indiotic ultimatum.

"Sanction our war or be irrelevant."

The irrelevance would be that the US would wage war without UN sanction. This is what ultimately happened and it undermined the UN greatly.

The UN members stated that to "rubber stamp" our war is another brand of irrelevance.

To me, Powell's efforts to include/pursuade the UN sought to minimize the undermining of the UN that the hawks dream of.

If the UN sanctioned the war there would be less damage, his efforts to include the UN could be argued to be efforts to preserve its relevance.