Who Is Buried in Bush's Speech?

Tartar, More than likely a lot more than he suspected when he accepted the position. He's not known to back-track, but the man's ability to keep swimming forward would be difficult for anyone in his position. Gotta give him that much! c.i.

Indeed CI.

Bill -- didn't Clinton ask Powell if he was interested in a cabinet position (can't remember which one)? I looked for info on this and couldn't find it, but I could swear that he did and Powell rejected his offer.

I remember something about Powell have other things to do, or something - yes, I believe so. This was in the beginning of the Clinton years.

I have a vague recollection that Clinton did make Powell an offer, and was refused. Powell was openly courted by Gore and Bush.

Powell was a keynote speaker at the Republican convention that nominated Bush. He said he agreed with some Dem policies, but could not, in good conscience, affiliate with or work for the slate of Democrat principles, notably defense. That's when he made his public committment to the GOP.

(I was proud of his pretty long speech about the work the GOP needed to do re: racial relationships. He did NOT mince words. A very memorable moment.)

Liberty, This is probably what you're looking for. http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/CPowell.htm
c.i.

Thanks c.i., can always depend on you - I had that Powell speech locked up, but the link is no longer valid <sigh>

Thanks, c.i. (I was beginning to wonder if I was imagining things).

I should probably take back the statement that the decision made him partisan, because that's probably just part of my demolished "Powell-is-perfect" fantasy and I hoped that he would end up on the dem side rather than with the others.

I didn't realize Powell had balked at a VP role, because his wife was afraid he's be assassinated. He would have been a great President.

And, I just read that Clinton was wanting to tap him for Secretary of Something, but Gore stopped him--not wanting to face a strengthened Powell in an election later...

Powell continues to defy labels. I remember him bristling at being called a dove. He said "I work very hard to avoid war. When I do this--you call me a dove. When all else fails--and war is ahead, you call me a hawk." (paraphrasing) I think he's a neat guy.

a
Are you talking about this Colin Powell?



FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum" [ Last | Latest Posts | Latest Articles | Self Search | Add Bookmark | Post | Abuse | Help! ]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Colin Powell: Not the Man You Think

Government Editorial Keywords: COLIN POWELL ARMITAGE WEINBERGER CARLUCCI MY LAI IRAN-CONTRA
Source: U.S. Veteran Dispatch
Published: Oct/Nov. 1995 Author: Tom Ashworth / Ted Sampley
Posted on 12/19/2000 15:33:06 PST by Askel5

Colin Powell: Not the Man You Think


October/November1995 Issue
By Tom Ashworth and Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch


Wherever he goes, people hail Colin Powell as the four-star general who masterminded the lopsided U.S. victory over Saddam Hussein. Some say Powell is an icon and compare him to Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower. Many view him as a serious contender for the Presidency of the United States. Powell is no icon and he is certainly not an Eisenhower. His "monumental victory" in the Persian Gulf is a myth.

Yes, on the surface, Powell's Gulf War strategy appears to have been brilliant. With the support of a 30 country coalition and untold billions of dollars, Powell organized half a million U.S. personnel and with almost no causalities gunned down tens of thousands of Saddam's Iraqi invaders. His armies then easily drove what was left of Saddam's army out of Kuwait.

So, if Powell's strategy was so brilliant, why has Saddam Hussein outlasted Bush and why is Saddam the head of a formidable army that is still threatening Kuwait? The reality of Powell's hollow victory rushes straight to the surface with the simple fact that the Gulf War ended inconclusively.

Why didn't Powell, as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, insist that President Bush demand the unconditional surrender and total destruction of Saddam's military capability? Just imagine what the state of the world would be today if Eisenhower had agreed to stop the war against Hitler after the Nazis were forced out of Western Europe during WWII.

Where was the great "icon" when Secretary of Defense Les Aspen was refusing to send a handful of tanks to protect American forces in Somalia for fear of negative political spin in Congress? Why did Powell and his deputies refrain from publicly expressing any concern or outrage about Aspen's deadly political decision that resulted in the decimation of a U.S. ranger company and elite Delta Force operatives?

The answer is in a Senate Armed Services Committee report into the incident. The report criticized Powell and his staff for bending to political pressure by making a decision against sending AC-130 gunships to support the American troops.

An October 30, 1995 political poll revealed that Powell would vault ahead of Republican presidential front runner Senator Robert Dole should the retired general decide to run for president. Behind the scenes, former President George Bush is privately cheerleading for the man he appointed chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Political power brokers and mentors of Powell, such as Frank Carlucci, Casper Weinberger and Richard Armitage, are also lending their influential support. The all-powerful Establishment media has effectively blown a blizzard of free publicity to the man many in Washington consider "the insider's insider." Couple that with Powell's uncanny ability to attract supporters largely unaware of his fundamental viewpoints and his true history as a military officer and it becomes apparent just how formidable a Powell presidential candidacy could be.

Consequently, all voters should take a closer look at the man who could be chosen to lead our country into the 21st century - a man one Washington observer likened to a thoroughbred horse about to be entered into a race for which he has been skillfully groomed.

As an Army officer, Powell's superiors considered him a consummate "team player." They could count on Powell to haul their water despite any contradictory feelings he may have had. Powell's blind loyalty was demonstrated during a second tour in Vietnam (1968-1969), where as deputy assistant chief of staff for operations G-3 at Americal Division headquarters in Chu Lai, he was asked to handle a potentially embarrassing letter a young soldier had written to Gen. Creighton Abrams, commander of all U.S. forces in Vietnam.

The soldier had written about rumors of a massacre that Americal Division soldiers had committed in the hamlet of My Lai 4 in South Vietnam. Although he did not mention My Lai in the letter, the soldier complained that Americal soldiers were indiscriminately killing Vietnamese civilians. Such acts, the young soldier warned, "are carried on at entire unit levels and thereby acquire the aspect of sanctioned policy."

Several days after he received a copy of the letter, Powell sent a memo to his superior, the adjutant general, making the outrageous claim that the young soldier had not given enough specifics upon which to base an inquiry. The purposely blind Powell said the soldier's charges were false except for "isolated instances." He wrote that "relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese are excellent." Powell's damage control efforts soon proved fruitless and the My Lai massacre burst onto the world stage like an atomic explosion, severely damaging the U.S. war effort in Vietnam. On the orders of Lt. William Calley, soldiers from the U.S. Army Americal Division had indeed indiscriminantly gunned down an entire village of men, women and children.

Although Powell's attempt to cover up the massacre was unsuccessful, he had at least proven his willingness to do what was necessary to please his bosses. For his two tours of duty in Vietnam, Powell, who was never exposed to serious combat, was awarded the Purple Heart for a minor foot wound he received after stepping on a "punji stick." He was later awarded a Bronze Star for heroism and the Soldiers Medal for pulling two men free from a non-combat related helicopter crash.

After returning from Vietnam, the ambitious young officer attended George Washington University, courtesy of the Army, and received an MBA degree. A year later, in 1972, Powell was one of 17 persons hand picked by Washington insiders from more than 1,500 military and civilian applicants for White House fellowships. He was assigned to work for Frank Carlucci, who was at that time deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Casper Weinberger, budget director. The two became Powell's champions in Washington's power circles.

Powell was just beginning to earn his degree in political treachery studying under Carlucci and Weinberger when President Richard Nixon made a politically convenient decision to ignore high level intelligence which told of large numbers of American prisoners of war being held back as hostages by the communist Vietnamese and their Laotian puppets after the war ended. Nixon's decision to declare all "missing" Americans dead caused a controversy which has plagued Washington decision makers to this day.

From his first days in Washington, Powell spent the majority of his military service working as an aide to his mentors. He rose rapidly through the military ranks, carefully getting his "ticket punched" with the right assignments and making the right contacts. He became a thoroughbred Washington insider in a military uniform.

In 1977, during the Carter administration, Powell, now on the fast track, was made full colonel and senior military aide to Defense Secretary Harold Brown's special assistant, attorney John Kester. Powell was transferred, in 1979, to the Department of Energy, where he served as the assistant to the secretary. Later that year, he was transferred back to the Pentagon to serve as the senior military assistant to the secretary of defense until 1981.

Soon after, Powell's handlers moved him again, assigning him for another brief tour in a real military unit as the assistant division commander of the 4th Infantry Division. Early in the Reagan administration, Powell was recalled to the Pentagon as top military aide to his mentors, the new deputy defense secretary, Carlucci, and later to the secretary, Weinberger. Carlucci, Weinberger and Richard Armitage (then assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs), are said to have given Powell his advanced degree in political manipulation, deceit and treachery.

Armitage, who Powell now claims is his best friend, has been linked by various news reports to CIA sanctioned arms and drug trafficking during the mid-'70s while working for a U.S. government agency based in Bangkok, Thailand. And, that's not all. Syndicated columnist, Jack Anderson, reported in the Mar. 13, 1986 issue of the Washington Post that the President's Commission on Organized Crime had questioned Armitage about his relationship with a Vietnamese refugee who was convicted in 1985 of running a major gambling operation in Arlington, Va. Armitage had written a letter on official Defense Department stationary urging the Arlington County Court to "show mercy" on the refugee whom he acknowledged was a friend.

Powell, the team player, sided with Armitage when these issues blew up in the press and today continues to stick by his best friend. But, Powell's damage control activities have not been limited to Armitage. He played an active role in White House damage control following the tragic loss of hundreds of marines when the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up. (Marine guards had been forced to stand guard duty with empty rifles).

Powell also helped with damage control after the U.S. government's failed attempt to kill Libya's Moammar Khadafy - a bombing raid which instead killed one of the Libyan leader's children.

In January 1986, the political general again blindly obeyed his superiors and secretly transferred U.S. TOW missiles to Iran without the approval or knowledge of Congress.

Fortunately for Powell, his powerful mentors successfully camouflaged and explained away his not so insignificant role in what later became known as the Iran-Contra affair. Powell had his "ticket punched" again in June 1986 when he was temporarily given a much coveted military assignment as the commanding general of the 75,000-member 5th Corps in Frankfurt, West Germany. After only six months of service as a real commanding general, Powell's handlers recalled him to the White House when the Iran Contra affair exploded. Reagan administration damage control experts scurried to replace the disgraced Bud McFarlane giving the job to the trusted Carlucci. As he had done in the past, Carlucci summoned Powell to his side, naming him deputy national security advisor.

During this assignment, the political general was involved in a secret telephone conversation with a senior aide to Vice President George Bush that reeked of treason. The call, concerning an effort Ross Perot was making to attain the release of live American prisoners of war believed to be held by the communists in Indochina, was documented and will darken the name of Colin Powell throughout the ages.

According to a declassified memorandum detailing the call, at 3:40 pm on March 21, 1987, Powell became engaged in the conversation during which the Bush aide asked Powell to check out certain details pertaining to the Perot effort. Powell said he would call back. The memorandum, which was written by the Bush aide, shows that Powell called back at 3:55 pm and reported that the Vietnamese communists had not been cooperating with the U.S. government on the POW/MIA issue for "the last few months."

According to Powell, the Vietnamese apparently believed that there was "a 'bigger deal' coming soon who will be bearing gifts and so our people [the U.S. Government] have been stiffed." Undoubtedly, that statement refers to Perot and the positive reaction of the Vietnamese to his attempt to secure the release of live American prisoners of war.
The memorandum continued to quote Powell saying, "We still believe it is not wise for Ross to go . . . after 14 years they [the Vietnamese] have denied live Americans . . . if they were to produce live people, can you imagine what will be asked for?" Apparently the potential political and economic cost of recovering living American prisoners was considered too high. The abandoned Americans were to be allowed to quietly die in the communist prisons of Southeast Asia.

Who was the "we" Powell was referring to when he said "we do not believe it is wise for Ross to go?" Was it the Carlucci, Weinberger and Armitage insider political clique? Near the end of the memo, Powell is quoted as saying, "our policy interests are not served by Mr. Perot's interests at the moment." What policy interest was "not" being served by Perot's effort to bring live POWs home and whose policy was it? It certainly was not that of President Ronald Reagan, Powell's commander-in-chief. Throughout his administration, Reagan had stated emphatically that the POW/MIA issue was the nation's "highest national priority."

In late 1987, Colin Powell, still the consummate team player, was appointed the National Security Advisor to President Reagan and served in that prestigious post until 1989. Then, as had happened before, Powell was sent off for a four month tour in a military command. This time, for a brief period in 1989, he became Commander in Chief at Forces Command, Ft. McPherson, Ga. Shortly after Powell assumed that command, President Bush over the objections of the military's top brass reached well beyond their ranks and pulled his thoroughbred political general to the top, appointing Powell as the U.S. military's top officer - chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"I believe the entire professional military establishment was disturbed by his appointment," said Admiral Eugene Carroll. "Looking at General Powell's career record, it is clear that he was picked out early for a more important role in life than getting his boots dirty." During 1992, Powell's Pentagon had the singular honor of proving that it was a team player for the Bush administration.

According to a September 18, 1995 U.S. News and World Report article: President Bush had been presented with a "dilemma" in 1992 - how to help keep Vietnam's communist leaders from losing face because of an unexpected and embarrassing appearance of detailed POW/MIA records and photos, whose very existence the communists had long denied. What could Bush do to help the Vietnamese communists out of their embarrassing predicament? Bush's answer - U.S. government officials would secretly create "a public relations script" for the communists. The action agent would be Colin Powell's Pentagon.

U.S. News and World Report detailed the Bush administration's solution: "According to a secret Pentagon memo dated Oct. 7, 1992, Hanoi was advised to 'begin with a public announcement by your government, noting that for the last several months, Vietnamese officials had embarked on countrywide unilateral efforts to recover archives, records, photographs and remains of unaccounted for Americans.'"

Can it be believed? Gen. Colin Powell, the United States' highest ranking military officer, who described himself in 1993 during Memorial Day ceremonies at the Vietnam Veterans memorial as "the senior Vietnam veteran on active duty," helped create a lie that protected the communist Vietnamese from having to explain why they had blatantly lied about their knowledge of America's Vietnam veterans still missing in action. Less than two weeks after Bush and Powell created the lie, the Vietnamese communists parroted it back in a news release. Bush then quickly announced "a significant, real breakthrough" and bragged about Vietnam's "unprecedented cooperation."

Powell's loyalty to his mentors and fellow insiders is now paying off. He talks daily about his upcoming presidential race with best friend Richard Armitage - a man many believe to be most responsible for the failed attempts to recover living American prisoners from Indochina. Powell says that he would trust Richard Armitage with the lives of his children. Other Americans did and they lost. Meanwhile, Powell's handlers appear to be ready to race their thoroughbred. Newsweek reports that George Bush "is privately talking up his old general," Casper Weinberger is "making behind-the-scenes calls" and Frank Carlucci is "rounding up" uncommitted Republicans.

Editors note: Tom Ashworth is a former marine captain helicopter pilot with combat service in Vietnam. He has a MA in political science from the University of Arkansas and has done extensive research on the POW/MIA issue. He was a witness at the 1986 Senate hearings on the POW/MIA issue.

Ted Sampley is a ten-year veteran of the U.S. Army who served seven years as a Green Beret. He served two combat tours in Vietnam and is publisher of the U.S. Veteran Dispatch. Sampley is a long-time veterans activists who testified before the 1990 Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs.

Powell was a great figure at one time. He is now damaged goods!!!

Powell proves the adage that "You can fool some people all of the time and all of the people some of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Still, he is the best the Bush regime has to offer!!!

Yeah, let's give Colin Powell a little slack. Anybody else in his shoes would've caved in a long time ago. I'm sure he's still the only guy in this administration that brings sanity to an otherwise hawkish cabinet. c.i.

Bill
What is worst:
What is better the best of the worst or the worst of the best.

Add Joseph Wilson to the White House list. That situation is getting uglier by the day. Does the WH realize the picture they're beginning to present of themselves? Each time they engage in some other smear, it only seems to lead to more questions.

Bill - I don't know - for real - about Powell being such a great figure. I think he was the one who leant some dignity and authority to this admin, but who, with any self respect, allows himself to be used and humilitated in so many ways, and then comes back for more? Tartarin was talking about the son - Michael Powell. Maybe they're more alike than dis-similar. Whatever it is, I've lost all respect for the man, and have begun to look at him since the Gulf War in a new way.

I never really had a lot of respect for Powell, as I remember. Others seemed to. I figured I didn't know enough about him to judge him and sat back. He's not a bad guy but he is corrupt -- if only because he's a willing party to corruption.

I haven't been able to keep up here this week as much as I'd like, so someone may have already posted this article from The NY Times on the 22nd.

I'm thinking of this thread as a place to discuss the question of this administration's honesty and adherence to democratic values. So if you haven't already read it and/or discussed it on some other thread, here it is. It seems the evidence is collecting and it's damning of this adminstration.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/22/opinion/22KRUG.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=


July 22, 2003

Who's Unpatriotic Now?

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Some nonrevisionist history: On Oct. 8, 2002, Knight Ridder newspapers reported on intelligence officials who "charge that
the administration squelches dissenting views, and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports
supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive
military action is necessary." One official accused the administration of pressuring analysts to "cook the intelligence books"; none
of the dozen other officials the reporters spoke to disagreed.

The skepticism of these officials has been vindicated. So have the concerns expressed before the war by military professionals
like Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, about the resources required for postwar occupation. But as the bad news
comes in, those who promoted this war have responded with a concerted effort to smear the messengers.

Issues of principle aside, the invasion of a country that hadn't attacked us and didn't pose an imminent threat has seriously
weakened our military position. Of the Army's 33 combat brigades, 16 are in Iraq; this leaves us ill prepared to cope with
genuine threats. Moreover, military experts say that with almost two-thirds of its brigades deployed overseas, mainly in Iraq, the
Army's readiness is eroding: normal doctrine calls for only one brigade in three to be deployed abroad, while the other two
retrain and refit.

And the war will have devastating effects on future recruiting by the reserves. A widely circulated photo from Iraq shows a sign
in the windshield of a military truck that reads, "One weekend a month, my ass."

To top it all off, our insistence on launching a war without U.N. approval has deprived us of useful allies. George Bush claims to
have a "huge coalition," but only 7 percent of the coalition soldiers in Iraq are non-American ?- and administration pleas for
more help are sounding increasingly plaintive.

How serious is the strain on our military? The Brookings Institution military analyst Michael O'Hanlon, who describes our
volunteer military as "one of the best military institutions in human history," warns that "the Bush administration will risk destroying
that accomplishment if they keep on the current path."

But instead of explaining what happened to the Al Qaeda link and the nuclear program, in the last few days a series of hawkish
pundits have accused those who ask such questions of aiding the enemy. Here's Frank Gaffney Jr. in The National Post:
"Somewhere, probably in Iraq, Saddam Hussein is gloating. He can only be gratified by the feeding frenzy of recriminations,
second-guessing and political power plays. . . . Signs of declining popular appreciation of the legitimacy and necessity of the
efforts of America's armed forces will erode their morale. Similarly, the enemy will be encouraged."

Well, if we're going to talk about aiding the enemy: By cooking intelligence to promote a war that wasn't urgent, the
administration has squandered our military strength. This provides a lot of aid and comfort to Osama bin Laden ?- who really
did attack America ?- and Kim Jong Il ?- who really is building nukes.

And while we're on the subject of patriotism, let's talk about the affair of Joseph Wilson's wife. Mr. Wilson is the former
ambassador who was sent to Niger by the C.I.A. to investigate reports of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases and who recently
went public with his findings. Since then administration allies have sought to discredit him ?- it's unpleasant stuff. But here's the
kicker: both the columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine say that administration officials told them that they believed that
Mr. Wilson had been chosen through the influence of his wife, whom they identified as a C.I.A. operative.

Think about that: if their characterization of Mr. Wilson's wife is true (he refuses to confirm or deny it), Bush administration
officials have exposed the identity of a covert operative. That happens to be a criminal act; it's also definitely unpatriotic.

So why would they do such a thing? Partly, perhaps, to punish Mr. Wilson, but also to send a message.

And that should alarm us. We've just seen how politicized, cooked intelligence can damage our national interest. Yet the Wilson
affair suggests that the administration intends to continue pressuring analysts to tell it what it wants to hear.

National Security Aide Says He's to Blame for Speech Error

By DAVID E. SANGER with JUDITH MILLER

[]ASHINGTON, July 22 — President Bush's deputy national security adviser accepted blame today for allowing faulty intelligence to appear in the president's State of the Union speech. He took responsibility after revealing that the Central Intelligence Agency had sent him two memorandums warning that evidence about Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium in Africa was weak.
The deputy adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, a critical behind-the-scenes player in the Bush White House, told reporters that while he received the memorandums before the president gave a speech about Iraq in October, he had no memory of the warning three months later when the issue came up again in the State of the Union address. He said the two memorandums had been discovered in the last 72 hours.

The finger keeps pointing downward. The night porter on the third shift at the White House may end up being the culprit.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/23/politics/23INTE.html?th

Saw the Krugman, Lola, and the most interesting aspect for me was the long-term effect on the military. It's about time that a Dem candidate offered well-thought out guidelines for using the military more sensibly, efficiently, and humanely.