Powell: Good soldier
or spineless hack?
Your blogstress has gotten weary of the excuses made for Colin Powell, former U.S. secretary of state and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Powell remained in the administration for the entire first term, despite numerous momentous actions by Bush he is said to have opposed. The latest to revisit us is his assertion, reported here by Bloomberg, that he had recommended that the U.S. invasion of Iraq be carried out with many more troops than it was.
Why do the media insist on giving this guy a pass, pretending that he acts solely from a place of honor -- a soldier honoring the chain of command? Because Powell appeared to be a moderating force in the administration (he was not), many grew attached to the retired general as evidence that the Bush administration fell short of embodying absolute evil. And after the Viet Nam disgrace, liberals tend to bend over backwards to try to prove their respect for the military. Further, as one of very few African-American generals, he is admired for what was surely a challenging ascent into the military's highest ranks.
However, if Powell were so honorable, wouldn't he have just turned in his State Department badge rather than take part in policies he believed to be wrong? Instead, he held onto his power for as long as he could, and likely served for more than a decade as the confidential source for stories that spoke to his wise disagreement with his bosses. Now, in an effort to secure his legacy, Powell makes news at least once a year with comments about how the president ignored his sage advice. In short, Powell is a weanie.
Not that his weaniness doesn't ocassionally serve a larger purpose. His interview this weekend with Britain's ITV threw current Secretary of State Condi Rice on the defensive, which is exactly where your cybertrix likes to see Madam Secretary.
Comments