• Not too long ago, Colin Powell was legitimately described as the most trusted man in American politics. Today he is perceived to struggle in a battle to rehabilitate his credibility, the most recent effort being a Sunday appearance on Meet the Press with Tim Russert. I have been traveling, missed the show on Sunday, but I got a flavor for the reaction to Powell’s interview yesterday when I took a high dive into the political pool with a quadruple twisting plunge on MSNBC, watching Tucker, Matthews, Olberman and Scarborough back-to-back-to-back-to-back. All had pointed questions for Powell.

  CARLSON: “Colin Powell was the chief salesman of the decision to invade and occupy Iraq. So the question is, why would Barack Obama want his advice in the first place?”

  MATTHEWS: “Why didn‘t Colin Powell just resign? Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has criticized this administration since he left office. But why did he salute the boss if he did not fully support the war? Where was Powell‘s tough talk against the administration when it would have counted?”

  ROBACH (substituting for Olberman): “Have we ever heard Colin Powell say that the president and that he ultimately made a mistake in that decision?”

  HUFFINGTON (Guest on Scarborough Country): “… where was that kind of moral authority when the country needed it? “

  I found their questions to be a bit disingenuous, and distracting from the important comments that Powell made in the interview.

  Colin Powell is speaking out. This is exactly what we need him to do. The Powell Doctrine, forged from the lessons learned in Viet Nam, served this country well in the first gulf war and as a guiding set of principles for our involvement in other military conflicts. The irony of Colin Powell being a primary enabler for the US involvement in a conflict that so clearly violated the tenets of the doctrine that bears his name has not been lost on us. The only one who can solve the riddle of of Colin Powell is Powell himself.

  Powell has been a recurring topic at DWSUWF. Last September, I asked “whether Colin Powell might, in the judgement of history, carry the label of being to Iraq what McNamara was to Vietnam”. A few weeks later I wrote and posted an Open Letter to Colin Powell, concluding with this:
  

  “Your experience with the military, with this administration, with the field of conflict in Iraq, with both failed and successful US conflicts, means you are uniquely qualified to help the American people find the right path through this thicket, by shedding some light on the problem. Permit me to be blunt. As an American citizen that supported this war to a large extent because of your support of it, and your eloquent arguments before United Nations in January of 2003, I do not find it acceptable for you to withhold your assessment of the status and outlook for this war now. Quite frankly, you owe this country the benefit of your honest assessment now. You owe us your complete, unexpurgated, unvarnished view.“

  In all honesty, I did not expect Colin Powell to respond to a letter from my blog and doubt whether he ever saw it. Regardless, his statements and appearances in the MSM over the last six months have addressed many of the very concerns expressed in that letter. It is critically important for Powell to continue to publicly air his evolving perspective on the war he helped sell, as the country struggles to find a way to bring it to an end. He provides a unique and important perspective that is worthy of careful consideration by all Americans.

  Excerpted from and continued on Divided We Stand United We Fall.

  Comments Off

• 

  When mother nature attacks, we need to be ready.

  Unfortunately for my next door neighbor, we aren’t nearly as ready as we should be…
  

  GREENSBURG, Kan. (AP) — The rebuilding effort in tornado-ravaged Greensburg, Kansas, likely will be hampered because some much-needed equipment is in Iraq, said that state’s governor.

  Governor Kathleen Sebelius said much of the National Guard equipment usually positioned around the state to respond to emergencies is gone. She said not having immediate access to things like tents, trucks and semitrailers will really handicap the rebuilding effort. […]

  The Kansas National Guard has about 40 percent of the equipment it is allotted because much of it has been sent to Iraq.

  If we keep stretching ourselves thin for voluntary wars, consequences will pop up in unexpected places.

  And to add insult to injury…
  

  Four Fort Riley soldiers and a reserve police officer decided to do a good deed and head to Greensburg, Kansas, to see if they could lend a hand.

  What happened next would shock most…all five were arrested for looting cigarettes and alcohol from a store in the tornado-ravaged town, according to Fox News.

  Sharon Watson, a spokeswoman for the adjutant general’s office, said the five were arrested at a Dillon’s supermarket and were being held at the Pratt County Jail without bond.

  *sigh*

  Comments Off

• As expected, Bush today vetoed a timetable-laden war-funding measure — four years to the day after his infamous “Mission Accomplished” photo-op on board an aircraft carrier, where he declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq.

  Here’s his statement, and here’s the response from Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

  Bush laid it on thick. While correctly criticizing the hard October 1 deadline, he then moved briskly on to scaremongering.

  It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength — and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq. I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure — and that would be irresponsible.

  First, we could only wish that the insurgents would stop the attacks and sit back for six months “gathering strength.” That would give us the time we need to establish actual security and rebuild infrastructure.

  Second, he conflates Sunni insurgents with “terrorists”, as if Al-Qaeda — which represents a tiny and resented fragment of that insurgency — actually stands a chance of taking over Iraq. Not even the Sunnis stand much chance of doing that. So I guess by “terrorists taking over Iraq” he means “Shiite militias backed by the Iraqi government.”

  He then gripes about the restrictions on U.S. troop deployment following the withdrawal:

  After forcing most of our troops to withdraw, the bill would dictate the terms on which the remaining commanders and troops could engage the enemy. That means American commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C.

  Again, this is patent nonsense. All the bill does is something that is well within Congress’ purview: define the scope of the mission it is choosing to fund. You can disagree with that definition, but painting it as micromanaging makes little sense. Congress is simply defining the mission, not dictating how to accomplish that mission.

  Lastly, he (rightly) criticizes the pork larding the bill, for which Democrats should be ashamed.

  He then goes on to explain why the surge deserves time to show it can work, something I again agree with him on. But in so doing he uses carefully parsed language to imply that Al-Qaeda is a major part of the threat in Iraq instead of a minor part. For instance, he said: “It’s true that not everyone taking innocent life in Iraq wants to attack America here at home. But many do.” This implies that most — but not all — of the insurgents are terrorists, which simply isn’t true.

  Other than that, he gave no indication of where he might be willing to compromise with Congress on a bill. Not that I really expected him to — that will wait for the closed-door negotiations. But I would like some indication that he has abandoned the “my way or the highway” approach to negotiations that has been his hallmark for most of his presidency.

  On the other side of the argument, Reid said nothing of import. I’m growing less and less impressed by him. He alternates between saying and doing very little and saying and doing stupid things, not to mention the ethical and legal questions surrounding some of his business dealings back home.

  Pelosi, however, was forceful and clear.

  The president vetoed the bill outright, and, frankly, misrepresented what this legislation does. This bill supports the troops. In fact, it gives the president more than he asked for for our troops — and well they deserve it.

  They have done their duties excellently. They have done everything that has been asked of them. All of this without, in some cases, the training, the equipment, and a plan for success for them.

  The president wants a blank check. The Congress is not going to give it to him.

  Score one for the Speaker.

  Democrats, too, gave no indication of where they might compromise. Look for intense private discussions accompanied by vituperative public statements, and then a funding deal in the next week or so. Most observers agree that getting a bill passed by mid-May is the only way to prevent a major cramp in military operations. Neither side wants that to happen, and they especially don’t want to be seen as the party responsible for that happening. For now I stand by my prediction that Congress will pass a “clean” but very short-term bill — perhaps with minor and largely symbolic strings, like the waivable readiness requirement — then revisit the matter in the fall as the results of the surge become clear.

  Comments Off

RSS Feed