Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Speculation that Powell may quit caps bad week for Bush cabinet
The Telegraph ^ | 6-15-02 | By Toby Harnden

Posted on 06/14/2002 10:53:20 PM PDT by Salvation

Speculation that Powell may quit caps bad week for Bush cabinet
By Toby Harnden in Washington
(Filed: 15/06/2002)

Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, is becoming so frustrated at being undermined by the White House that he may stand down after the mid-term elections, according to some American diplomats.

The damaging speculation sweeping Gen Powell's Foggy Bottom headquarters has been dismissed as unfounded by senior State Department sources, but it caps a very bad week for President George W Bush's cabinet.

 
Gen Powell could become a powerful focus of discontent outside the Bush cabinet

John Ashcroft, the attorney-general, was reprimanded for his announcement of the arrest of an alleged "dirty bomber". Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defence, was forced to make an embarrassing retreat over claims of al-Qa'eda activity in Kashmir.

But the biggest problem has been the simmering internal dispute over Middle East policy, which burst into the open when Gen Powell contradicted Mr Bush and Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, appeared dismissive of the secretary of state.

Gen Powell, who led US forces to victory in the Gulf war, is a towering figure in American politics. His domestic approval ratings top even those of Mr Bush.

The Foreign Office and continental diplomats view him as the "moderate" and pragmatic face of a unilateralist Bush administration. "It's fair to say that Powell is the one we can do business with," said one British official.

His premature departure would be seen as disastrous by the White House, not least because he could become a powerful focus of discontent if he were outside the administration.

The tensions between Gen Powell and senior figures such as Mr Rumsfeld have been exacerbated by the White House contradicting the State Department on key foreign policy issues.

Officials at the Pentagon privately accuse Gen Powell of a tendency to "freelance" and consider himself the most important figure in the administration.

The trouble began on Monday when Mr Bush gave unequivocal backing to Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, and appeared to rubbish Gen Powell's proposed ministerial conference on the Middle East.

"It totally undercut what we were trying to do and was very damaging," said a State Department source. "We have spent the rest of the week trying to reassure Arab nations that the president was misinterpreted." There was also considerable State Department anger directed towards Mr Fleischer.

On Wednesday, Mr Fleischer answered a question about whether Mr Bush supported Gen Powell's stance on a provisional Palestinian state by saying the president was "listening to a variety of people who have some thoughts to share".

He added: "The secretary [Mr Powell] from time to time will reflect on the advice that he gets, and do so publicly. Which is his prerogative, of course."

Mr Bush is expected to announce next week that he is in favour of establishing a timetable for an interim Palestinian state. But a titanic battle is going on within the administration, with Mr Rumsfeld's allies saying Mr Sharon should be given a free hand.

This appears to be Mr Bush's instinct but, as a president with limited foreign policy experience, he can tend to be pushed one way and then the other by competing advisers.

Mr Rumsfeld, who is described by his enemies within the administration as abrasive and arrogant, has annoyed the State Department with his "Rummygrams" - notes that question Gen Powell's policies or offer unsolicited advice.

One recent note from Mr Rumsfeld cited a newspaper article suggesting that Gen Powell's officials favoured lifting sanctions against Libya. "Is this true?" he asked.

The Pentagon chief has been overhead correcting Mr Powell's pronunciation of Kabul - the stress should be on the second syllable, he insisted - and poking fun at him for describing Afghans as "Afghanis".

Officials dismiss this as nothing more than jocular banter and it is true that there seems to be no personal animus between the two men. But this means that the dispute is ideological - which could be more damaging to the Bush administration in the long term.

Since September 11, Mr Bush has tended to tilt towards conservative hawks such as Mr Rumsfeld on important issues such as withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and targeting Iraq.

"He is intensely loyal to the president but there may well come a point when Gen Powell will wonder whether it is worth being secretary of state if he cannot shape American foreign policy," said the State Department official.

"After all, he can earn millions of dollars a year on the lecture circuit and still spend three times as much time with his wife."

14 June 2002: Confusion as White House shifts its policy on Middle East
14 June 2002: Rumsfeld in U-turn to calm anger in Pakistan
13 June 2002: Powell and Bush drift apart on Middle East
13 June 2002: US climbdown over 'dirty bomb' claim
13 June 2002: Al-Qa'eda are in Kashmir, says Rumsfeld
11 June 2002: US seizes terrorist in 'dirty bomb' plot
11 June 2002: Bush abandons Arafat as Israeli tanks again besiege his HQ
14 April 2002: White House washes its hands of Powell's struggling peace mission
22 November 2001: Bush is pulled both ways over peace plan
27 September 2001: Cracks start to show in approach to conflict
26 September 2001: Hawks gang up against Powell
Related reports  
 
 
 
 
 

External links  
 
News - White House
 
Press briefings - White House
 
Bureau of Near East Affairs - US Department of State
 
US Department of Justice
 
US Department of Defence
 
Briefing room - Israeli Prime Minister's Office
 
Palestinian National Authority
 
Global policy - Foreign and Commonwealth Office
 
Politics - Washington Post
 
American English pronunciation - EL Easton
 

Tattersalls


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush; cabinetpost; powell; secretaryofstate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-105 last
To: Austin Willard Wright
Okay, I think I see what the problem is: We're using different definitions of the word empire.
From dictionary.com:

em·pire   Pronunciation Key  (mpr)
n.
    1. A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.
    2. The territory included in such a unit.
  1. An extensive enterprise under a unified authority: a publishing empire.
  2. Imperial or imperialistic sovereignty, domination, or control: “There is a growing sense that the course of empire is shifting toward the... Asians” (James Traub).

I'm using definition #1.

You're using a different dictionary. :-)

Even definition #2 doesn't apply; Afghanistan is certainly not being brought under our authority. It's being brought under their authority, in which case it's not our empire. It's their empire. Their own little Texas-sized empire. Any other "definition" is mere metaphor.

So can we dispense of this talk of empire? If not, then we are just going to have to agree to disagree on that point.

AW, I do like your plan to hit 'em hard and get out. But you never answered my question; namely, at what point would you have gotten out of Afghanistan? Or are you one of those nuke-'em-out-of-existence guys? Me, I would have nuked about six or seven countries on 9/11 that we know are involved in the terrorism aimed at us. That's the only thing that's going to dissuade the b****rds once and for all, IMO. But that's not going to happen any time soon. You and I both know it. So, given that we're not going to be able to really hit them hard enough to actually dissuade them, that is with nukes, what would you do? Tell me. Maybe I can go along with it. :-)

One more thing, regarding "defenseism," do you really think the just the threat of retaliation is sufficient to deter a muslim nation that acquires nukes from ever using them against us? Are you willing to rely on that threat alone to stop a lunatic like bin Laden? I'm not.

101 posted on 06/16/2002 12:01:47 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Don't let the door hit ya in the colon, Colin...
102 posted on 06/16/2002 12:05:28 PM PDT by C.C. Pelican Brown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Horse pucky, this group is a team and they are each playing their parts exactly as written. The media can moan and groan all they want about there not being a strategic plan, but there IS a plan and it's being followed exactly.

Colin Powell has more than likely had a great deal to do with the formation of that plan.

103 posted on 06/16/2002 12:12:28 PM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Different dictionary? Not at all. I choose definition number 3 though number 2 would probably work too. You are assuming that an empire *has* to occupy territory and/or be predatory. I do not. As to number 3, do you have any doubt that the U.S. "dominates" the current regime in Afghanistan?

As to your question, let me first state that I can't promise utopia but neither can you. There will always be bad guys in the world and in Afghanistan. That is why we will always have to rely on lethal force for national defense.

To answer your question directly, I would have declared victory and left Afghanistan months ago albeit somewhat dissatisfied and frustrated (though not surprised) by the fact that not every single terrorist was killed or captured. If you think you can capture and kill ever terrorist by staying there for eternity, be prepared for a lot of disappointment. My choice is the realistic one.

As to nuking, I do not believe in the first use of nuclear weapons because I don't think that extermination of babies on a mass scale lies within the proper scope of national defense.

104 posted on 06/17/2002 7:48:21 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
P.S. that should be "annex" not "occupy" though one can have empire without direction occupation of every portion of the empire as the British long ago discovered.
105 posted on 06/17/2002 7:52:01 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-105 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson