A Blot??

September 8, 2005 6:43 PM

In an interview with American ABC TV news to be broadcast on Friday (US time), Colin Powell , former Secretary of State, describes his speech to the UN Security Council on Iraq's WMD capabilities as "a blot" on his record. "I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and (it) will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now," [Powell] said. Finally, some recognition of this fact, albeit two years too late.
posted by Effigy2000 (60 comments total)

The man recognizes he made a mistake. Clearly there's no place for someone like that in the Bush White House.
posted by clevershark at 6:49 PM on September 8, 2005

I used to eally like the guy, then despised him for being a puppet/shill for the current administration. Now I find that I can like him again.

Wow, if the other side of this political climate were only so willing to rethink their position instead of calling it flip-flopping, maybe this world wouldn't be such a shithole.
posted by Kickstart70 at 6:51 PM on September 8, 2005

But he still did it . . . so, am I supposed to feel sorry for him now? I don't get it.
posted by Boydrop at 6:52 PM on September 8, 2005

I still have no respect for him. He's only "recognizing his mistake" now that popular opinion has turned against the war.
posted by brundlefly at 6:53 PM on September 8, 2005

Painful because had he not traded his hard-earned credibility to the wrong parties, I would have paired him up with Obama for some kind of crazy party-line-busting dream ticket for the 2008 Presidential race.

Alas.
posted by Mercaptan at 6:53 PM on September 8, 2005

I always knew powell was a liar, but i got the sense that it at least bothered him and I always wanted to like him. this makes it a little easier.

"The man recognizes he made a mistake."
I don't think it was an oopsie. Im all but completely convinced that he KNEW he was being dishonest. He even says "It was painful." This makes him one of them but at least there is a sliver of humanity lurking in him someplace.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 6:53 PM on September 8, 2005

SEE ALSO.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:05 PM on September 8, 2005

(And like that former Secretary of Defense, who also was a quiet opponent of a war that bears striking similarities to our current debacle, would but for a minor little blot on his record have a legacy that would under any other circumstances have ranked up there in the annals of American history along with the Greats, but is instead buried in ignomy and disgrace.)
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:09 PM on September 8, 2005

He's a life-long Soldier. It's impossible for him to say "No" to the POTUS no matter how wrong. I feel bad for lifers, only in that they, in order to be very successful, have to give up alot of personal character in order to make room for the new one, the dedicated military man. Very sad, I know a lot of guys like this.
posted by snsranch at 7:12 PM on September 8, 2005

It's impossible for him to say "No" to the POTUS no matter how wrong.

On the contrary, it is his responsibility. He swore to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That oath is not an oath of fealty to a supreme ruler, it is to the people of this goddamned country.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:15 PM on September 8, 2005

posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:16 PM on September 8, 2005

I give up, M. Davis. What am I looking at?
posted by brundlefly at 7:19 PM on September 8, 2005

Isn't that a flaming trainwreck?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:24 PM on September 8, 2005

Oh, never mind. I get it. A burning bridge, presumably lit by Mr. Powell.
posted by brundlefly at 7:25 PM on September 8, 2005

That would be a burning bridge, as indicated by the URL.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:26 PM on September 8, 2005

brundlefly gets it.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:26 PM on September 8, 2005

I think Harry Belafonte had his and Condi's numbers long ago.

brundlefly, I believe that's a burning bridge...
posted by rob511 at 7:27 PM on September 8, 2005

rob511 (and Harry), can't we be colorblind about anything, ever? Why can't this be about a man, rather than a black man?

I appreciate the spirit in which Mr Belefonte said what he did, but i wholly and utterly disagree with it. Powell was a soldier and a public servant who had to choose in order to resolve a conflict in his sense of loyalty and duty, and he chose wrong. The amount of melanin in his skin is not the issue, except for people who can't ever stop making it the issue.
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:34 PM on September 8, 2005

Mr Tenet "did not sit there for five days with me misleading me," he said.

Of course, someone else did. But I'm not telling! I'm a good little soldier.
posted by fungible at 7:45 PM on September 8, 2005

I never liked Colin Powell. I still don't. I did respect Condi Rice at some point in the past. I don't now. I think it's interesting that the Bush Adminstration has managed to complely trash the reputations of it's two prominent black cabinet members.

George_Spiggott:

Why shouldn't we talk about race? Powell's life story was a big part of his appeal to conservatives and liberals alike and being african american was integral to his history. Are we suppposed to ignore that? One day we may live in color-blind society but I haven't any signs of that day coming yet.
posted by rdr at 7:47 PM on September 8, 2005

The issue was never about color, in Powell's case, unless you're willing to make the case that his marginalization was the result of same, a difficult position given Condi "ice was mother's milk to me" Rice was on the other side of the field.

That said, given the stakes--obvious then, painfully obvious now--at play, Powell, had he dissented with the majority view, should have resigned as the honorable man his supporters claim he is. It does no-one any fucking good to say "Oh God, I was so conflicted" after tens of thousands of Americans have been killed or maimed. It does help if, particularly as a military man, you step back before the fact and say, "No, this isn't right and I can't support it." Particularly given that he was never a GOP apparatchik and had no particular institutional loyalties or debts to honor.
posted by the sobsister at 7:49 PM on September 8, 2005

On the contrary, it is his responsibility.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:15 PM PST on September 8 [!]


That is a great point, and well taken. I can't seem to think of an example, however, of any acting or former U.S. General Officers disobeying a direct order from the POTUS.

But hey, prove me wrong! I'm willing to learn somthing.
posted by snsranch at 7:51 PM on September 8, 2005

I don't see how Bush has trashed Condi's reputation -- she seems to be completely at home serving the administration's aims. Powell, on the other hand, was not, to judge by this and his famous "this is bullshit" outburst. Unlike Condi there seem to be depths to which he won't readily stoop. He stooped anyway, but it's always been clear that he knew it. And it's also clear that the Bushies never really considered him one of them, though again, not for reasons of race but because his principles, though somewhat malleable, were still too evident to them.

As for race, I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about it -- I'm not one to tell anyone what they can talk about. I'm asking why it's so important to some people. I look at Colin Powell and I see a man. I never take any note of his race until someone else mentions it, and most of the time it seems to be a personal issue with them rather than anything to do with him.
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:54 PM on September 8, 2005

Did McArthur disobey a direct order?
posted by rdr at 7:55 PM on September 8, 2005

"But hey, prove me wrong!"

I don't know about disobeying a direct order, but not all generals are doormats.
posted by 2sheets at 7:56 PM on September 8, 2005

It was painful. It is painful now.

If he is saying it was painful, is he at least acknowledging that he knew he was lying at the time?

I'm not as charitable in my opinion of Powell. He was someone who could have said the right thing at the right time, and people would have listened (what was that General Casey line from Mars Attacks about keeping his mouth shut and good things were bound to happen?), but instead he participated in a huge-scale fraud; a lot of people at that time knew this was the case--if he didn't, it demonstrates incompetence; if he did, it points to his dishonesty.
posted by troybob at 7:57 PM on September 8, 2005

snsranch,
When things are working as they should, the saying "No" would happen behind closed doors and, if nobody gets fired, some new plan is developed and we never hear about the disagreement.
posted by winston at 7:58 PM on September 8, 2005

This is someone who had a hand in trying to whitewash My Lai. He was never honest or honorable.
posted by ursus_comiter at 8:04 PM on September 8, 2005

2sheets, I havn't finished reading that but I will.

And it's also clear that the Bushies never really considered him one of them

That's because he is just a damn soldier. He is just a tool for the admin the same way the soldiers in Iraq are. Had he not done his job (lying), he would have been washed out forever.

Not to apologize for him, just trying to give examples of the military mind-set.
posted by snsranch at 8:04 PM on September 8, 2005

To me Rice's reputation was shot when she testified before the 9/11 commission. I might not be representative of mainstream political opinion.
posted by rdr at 8:13 PM on September 8, 2005

I like Powell. He's got something of the Greek hero about him, the poor son of a bitch. It's so appetizing watching him recognize his big mistake.
posted by Hobbacocka at 8:16 PM on September 8, 2005

"He was someone who could have said the right thing at the right time, and people would have listened..."
Posted by troybob at 7:57 PM PST on September 8

Anyone who's read Bob Woodward's Plan Of Attack, as I am in the process of doing, would know that there were many times Powell spoke out about what was going on behind the scenes, and tried to counsel Bush to not neccessarily do what many in the administration (such as Rumsfeld and particuarly Cheney) expected him to do. I'm not yet up to the part where the UN Speech is discussed, but I'm eager to reach it, especially now, in light of his admission that it was and will forever be a "blot" on his record.

Plan Of Attack portrays Powell extremely positively. It shows a man who did everything he could do to slow, if not stop, the march to war, but who was hamstrung by the actions of a rabid Cheney and a committed Rumsfeld. I think that he probably did do all he could, and that the speech probably was very painful for him to deliver. But it dosen't excuse his actions. At least now he has had the guts to publicly acknowledge that his actions were wrong, and that gives him some credit back, at least in my book.
posted by Effigy2000 at 8:19 PM on September 8, 2005

Troybob: what in the world are you talking about? He is not saying that he was lying, but that he was mistaken. You understand the difference, right?
posted by esquire at 8:24 PM on September 8, 2005

yeah, i know the difference...my question had to do with his use of the past tense...it was painful...if he was confident at the time in the information he was presenting, why would he now characterize it as painful? of course, was might refer to the intervening period after the star of the war when he realized the truth--perhaps that is made more clear in context of the full interview broadcast.

at the time when the argument was being made for war, i had the general impression that if powell had come out and said that he did not agree with it (apparently as he was saying behind the scenes), it would have greatly reduced the general support for war...maybe this is too simple a view, and i'll accept that...but my point is more that if he really did not want the war to go forward, he had enough ears elsewhere, if not in the administration itself, to make that process more difficult...
posted by troybob at 8:32 PM on September 8, 2005

Two years and thousands of deaths later, I'm supposed to forgive your "blot?" Fuck that.

You could have stood in front of the UN and told the truth -- that the US had no evidence, that there was no reason for war. Yes, Bush would have fired your ass on the spot. But, by God, then I'd treat you with honor.

Now? You've got a lot of antonement to do before I'd even consider forgiving you. Bob McNamara at least had the decency to resign, though both he and you should have stood and fought in public the disasterous policies being implemented. But at last Bob McNamara resigned.

You went in front of the world, and you spoke the Adminstrations lies, and now thousands are dead, and more are dying.

Fuck you, Colin Powell. I hope every soldier's death rides on your soul, night after night. I hope your treason brings you misery until the day of your death. And then, in hell, I hope the souls of those thousands of dead Iraqi torture you for all eternity.

You want honor? How about that oath you swore? "To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Wash that stain clean, sir, and maybe we can talk about honor. Right now, you're just "following orders." Newflash, Mr. Powell: It didn't work in Nuremburg, and if there is any justice left on this hell we call Earth, it won't work for you.
posted by eriko at 8:50 PM on September 8, 2005

I think it's interesting that the Bush Adminstration has managed to complely trash the reputations of it's two prominent black cabinet members.

I find it interesting some of the things the bush administration is blamed for. I'm not sure their reputations are actually trashed (on mefi sure, real world, not) but if they are it's their own fault. They made choices. They're not victims, unless bush has some jedi mind trick thing goin' on that I'm not aware.
posted by justgary at 8:55 PM on September 8, 2005

Powell can go fuck himself. It's not a blot on his record, it is his fucking record, in my book. He should have fucking resigned either (a) instead of doing the speech, or (b) as soon as the WMD report came out.

And anyone who pusses out by not confronting him with his "this is bullshit" comment when interviewing him (incuding Jon Stewart, whom I love) is a punk.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:58 PM on September 8, 2005

I agree with your sentiment, eriko, I really do. It's a shame that Powell didn't take the opportunity at the UN to say what was on his mind, and it's just plain horrible that the lies of the Bush administration has caused so much pain and suffering and death.

But I don't think Powell is asking for forgiveness. I think he's just publicly acknowledging that he made a pretty big mistake. And given the mistake, that takes cajones. It dosen't excuse his actions, not by any measure. But it does give him back a mere fraction of what used to be his pre-speech credibility, I believe.
posted by Effigy2000 at 9:16 PM on September 8, 2005

justgary writes "I'm not sure their reputations are actually trashed (on mefi sure, real world, not) but if they are it's their own fault. They made choices."

Yeah. If only they'd chosen not to voluntarily associate themselves with the Bush administration their lives would surely be very different indeed.
posted by clevershark at 9:29 PM on September 8, 2005

i've always wanted to like powell, really, i did. there is something about him that seems decent, you know? but there was his white-wash of my lai all along. ok, so he was young then. people make mistakes when they're proud of an organisation of which they are part, and which they do not want to believe guilty of a horrible crime.

but he wasn't young anymore when he made that UN speech. once again, he let his loyalty to a group rule over honesty.

no, it's not just a "blot". it cost lives. it's a character flaw. and yes, i am sure that is painful to somebody who's basically decent.
posted by piranha at 9:37 PM on September 8, 2005

[Powell] said he felt "terrible" at being misinformed. However, he did not blame CIA director George Tenet. Mr Tenet "did not sit there for five days with me misleading me," he said. "He believed what he was giving to me was accurate."

That's strikes me as very lame.

Powell's UN presentation may have been impassioned, but it was very weak on hard, relevant facts, which is really all that it should have contained. It was so bad that it actually helped cement my then-developing notion that the "threat" posed by Iraq was entirely cherry-picking and fabrication.

That is to say, the case Powell made against Iraq was so flimsy, I have a very hard time believing that Powell (or Tenet, for that matter) ever believed it either. These remarks about "painful" and "blot on my record" too-conveniently dodge around the specific question of whether Powell (and Tenet) actually believed the firehose-sized serving of raw sewage he turned out to be spouting.

There were a few news reports at the time claiming that Powell had flat refused to present some proposed material to the UN, saying "I'm not reading this -- this is bullshit." If that's true, it casts a very different light on his attitude about the proceedings at the time, and hints that maybe a more thorough, more explicit, and more forthcoming explanation might not be entirely amiss.

The whole thing makes me very sad, because I really want to like Powell. Most of the things I've read or heard about him make him out to be a thoughtful and reasonable man, something in very, very short supply in this administration.
posted by Western Infidels at 9:45 PM on September 8, 2005

Mod note: To me Rice's reputation was shot when she testified before the 9/11 commission.

"I believe the title was Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." video

So much perjury. Warning: frightening closeup of Ms. Rice
posted by kirkaracha (staff) at 9:48 PM on September 8, 2005

"a blot" on his record

On his record? A blot? This is a man who was once touted as the future first black president. That speech to the UN is a pox on his career. As piranha says, it's almost insulting to hear his actions called a "blot" -- he alone could have turned the tide of the war buildup by resigning and speaking out. He would have saved lives.
posted by VulcanMike at 9:48 PM on September 8, 2005

George_Spiggott: The amount of melanin in his skin is not the issue, except for people who can't ever stop making it the issue.

applies to

rdr: I think it's interesting that the Bush Adminstration has managed to complely trash the reputations of it is two prominent black cabinet members.

Whose reputation, black or white, has gone unsullied by this association?
posted by Aknaton at 10:05 PM on September 8, 2005

"... he alone could have turned the tide of the war buildup by resigning and speaking out. He would have saved lives.
posted by VulcanMike at 9:48 PM PST on September 8

How true is that assumption though, really? We've all seen what happens to dissenting voices. Most of the time they speak out, we in the Left herald them as great, and then FOX news and the 'liberal media' tear them apart, make them out to be nutjobs, and the Administration's plans continue on as normal.

It would have been a coup, I'm sure, to have had Powell tell the truth at the UN and resign, but would it have stopped the war and saved lives? I'm not so certain.
posted by Effigy2000 at 10:09 PM on September 8, 2005

Are we about to witness the atonement of an imperfect man?

AFP: Former secretary of state Powell critical of US response to Katrina

"There was more than enough warning over time about the dangers to New Orleans. Not enough was done. I don't think advantage was taken of the time that was available to us, and I just don't know why," he said.

Hmmm.
posted by edverb at 10:12 PM on September 8, 2005

edverb: heh. Thanks for that link. This whole interview sounds like it'll be one big "Fuck You" to the Administration from Powell. Almost makes me wish I could see it, but alas, I live in Australia, so it's unlikely I ever will.
posted by Effigy2000 at 10:15 PM on September 8, 2005

if powell had come out and said that he did not agree with it (apparently as he was saying behind the scenes), it would have greatly reduced the general support for war

he alone could have turned the tide of the war buildup by resigning and speaking out. He would have saved lives.

What Effigy2000 said. Have we forgotten the spectacular rate, especially post 9/11, that dissenters were demonized, no matter their profile nor how reasonable their commentary? I mean come on -- Bill Maher states that the terrorists in question didn't seem like cowards and he's instantly UnAmerican. I'm not saying that Powell had no choices here -- far from it. But to suggest that a resignation and dissent would have done anything more than eliminate him from a power structure that probably had precious few dissenters to begin with... I imagine that he (rightly) considered himself more valuable as a voice of reason on the inside than another outside dissenter, no matter how high-profile.

I mean, come on -- look what they did to Plame. You think the admin wouldn't rubbed Powell's nose in My Lai just to destroy him publicly? Say he's lost his nerve because of the overwhelming guilt. For goodness sake, these people aren't above making shit up. When they've actually got something, they're not going to let it slide.
posted by dreamsign at 10:33 PM on September 8, 2005

It's a bridge, burning.
posted by Mach3avelli at 10:34 PM on September 8, 2005

Wow, Dreamsign, I was about to mention Mai Lai because no one else had. Thanks!
posted by klangklangston at 10:53 PM on September 8, 2005

I don't know that Powell could have stopped the war, but he would have had a big impact in a geopolitical sense. Could the UK have entered the war with Powell saying 'this is bullshit' AND 1 million people in the streets of London?

Powell is nothing like any of the other people that the junta has smeared.
posted by Chuckles at 11:00 PM on September 8, 2005

They did a job on Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke, both of whom had good reputations and had worked for administrations under both parties. But neither of them were household names. Whereas anyone who didn't know who Powell was probably didn't know who the mayor of their own city was either. The Bushies would have have had a much harder time bringing the smackdown on him. He could have made a difference.

I'd like to think, charitably, that he was simply incapable of understanding that loyalty to the president and loyalty to his country might require opposite things.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:09 AM on September 9, 2005

"You could have stood in front of the UN and told the truth -- that the US had no evidence, that there was no reason for war. Yes, Bush would have fired your ass on the spot. But, by God, then I'd treat you with honor."


Yes, but you'd be alone. The list of people who have actually stood up and done exactly that is wearingly long now, and in EVERY LAST CASE, the whitehouse spin machine has turned their (often impeccable) names to slime, and most of the country (even people who oppose and despise the administration) come to believe they were just some sleazy / incompetant / vindictive / misinformed / lying / self-aggrandizing nobody.

It's absolutely stunning how badly and permanently each and every one gets smacked down. Internationally announcing on prime time TV that they were a pedaphile would leave them with more credibility than what is left once the admin machine is through with them.

It stuns me all the more because it's obvious that the administration falsely and maliciously smears people to defang their whistleblowing, yet it still works. I guess the "where there's smoke, there's fire" fallacy is really deeply ingrained in us.
posted by -harlequin- at 1:01 AM on September 9, 2005

You know what this is? it's just another version of the Blair-style apology. The "I'm not really apologising for anything but I know that popular opinion thinks I lied through my teeth, so for the sake of my public image and because I know that I can still delude people that in a democracy a display of feeling is enough in terms of accountability for critical decisions that have huge consequences, I'll pretend I'm apologising while in reality I'm not".

These people don't know painful.
posted by funambulist at 1:59 AM on September 9, 2005

What, unfortunately, keeps getting buried in these reports is that Powell found himself caught in the middle of a longstanding battle of wills between the CIA and the DOD--a power struggle that existed long before Bush got to office and which continues to chew people up and spit them out. It's a pity that people have convinced themselves that D.C. is born anew with each administration.
posted by gsh at 4:10 AM on September 9, 2005

What burns me up the most is that only Colin Powell could have persuaded the U.N. His reputation was immaculate--blotless if you will. The man whom to all the world represented sober thinking was sent in to do the dirty work of a knee-jerk reactionary with absolutely no credibility.

His story reminds me of Benedict Arnold... because we believed in him so much, his betrayal to truth cuts that much deeper, and forgiveness is that much more elusive. Maybe McNamara will be your friend, you fucking murderous traitor.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:11 AM on September 9, 2005

This sounds like the type of apology given in advance of a run for the presidency.

Powell-McCain in 2008.
posted by caddis at 5:52 AM on September 9, 2005

I look at Powell, the same way I do Clinton.
"What a friggin' pity."

They could have done great things. But they will always be remembered for that one mistake.
posted by slf at 12:24 PM on September 9, 2005

Powell is nothing like any of the other people that the junta has smeared.

That's only because he's still pre-smear.

What burns me up the most is that only Colin Powell could have persuaded the U.N. His reputation was immaculate--blotless if you will.

Good point.

His story reminds me of Benedict Arnold... because we believed in him so much, his betrayal to truth cuts that much deeper

Careful, that's an actual Patriot you're talking about.
posted by dreamsign at 4:00 PM on September 9, 2005

Colin's has plenty of blots. In addition to what's mentioned he also had a hand in Iran-Contra.
posted by john at 2:20 AM on September 11, 2005