Skip to comments.Dissing the Alamo (National Review columnist says Powell Should be Fired)
Posted on 11/18/2002 7:57:30 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
NOV. 18, 2002: DISSING THE ALAMO Powell Disses the Alamo: Colin Powell should have been fired yesterday literally. The Washington Post yesterday posted its first excerpt from Bob Woodwards new book, Bush at War. Like Woodwards book on the Gulf War, The Commanders, Bush at War is essentially an edited transcript of Powell leaks, all of them calculated to injure this administration and undermine its policies on the very eve of military action against Iraq.
For more than a year, weve been reading nasty little stories in the papers about Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld and condescending stories about President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice. Careful readers have understood that these stories emanated from the State Department but until now, Powell has taken care to protect his personal deniability. Now he has abandoned that polite pretense.
In the Woodward piece, Powell scorns the president for his Texas, Alamo macho. (I guess Powell thinks Col. Travis should have negotiated.) Powell complains with Senate Democrats that acting against Iraq would suck the oxygen out of the anti-terror campaign. He denigrates Rice, snidely observing that she had had difficulties keeping up with what Bush was doing. When the president over-rules him, Powell complains that he thought he had a deal as if cabinet members bargain with their president rather than taking orders from him. Powell repeatedly praises himself or repeats the praise of others: We learn from him about a personal call from Rice in which she compliments one of his presentations as terrific, and we hear via Woodward that Powell is smooth, upbeat ... eloquent. Amazingly, Powell even manages to insert into this long uncontrolled soliloquy of accusation against his colleagues a complaint that they sometimes leak against him!
[Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage] had heard from reliable media contacts that a barrage was being unloaded on Powell. ... The White House was going to trim Powells sails; he was going to fail. Armitage said he couldnt verify who was leaking this, but he had names of senior people in Defense and in Cheneys office. Thats unbelievable! Powell said.
There is no sin in a cabinet officer dissenting from the policies of his president. Nor is it necessarily wrong for him to take his dissent to the country. But before he makes his dissent public, he should resign and if he wont resign, he should be sacked. Instead of representing the United States to the world, Powell sees his job as representing the world to the United States. Its time for him to go.
Homeland Security: My wife and I took the Acela train from Washington to New York City on Sunday morning. My wife, who is not quite so convinced of her personal invulnerability as I am, was more than a little disturbed by the total absence of any security procedures. The conductors barely glanced at our tickets; they never asked for any ID this on the very first weekend after the FBI announced the threat of massive imminent attacks on American transportation network and national symbols.
But then, maybe the Amtrack conducts knew what they were doing. Whatever country Amtrak is a symbol of it aint America. Brazil maybe.
Single Payer, Part Deux: Fridays post on the merits and demerits of single-payer health systems like Canadas provoked an avalanche of e-mail far too many to respond to each individually. Im truly sorry about that. Im sorry too about the typographical errors in the post, which concerned a number of the e-mailers: I write these diary entries very late at night or very early in the morning, and my fingers do sometimes stumble.
Let me try here to reply to the main criticisms I received.
1. My friends over at the New Republic point out that Canada spends only about 9% of its GDP on healthcare as against Americas 14%. The long delays in treatment that Canadians suffer can therefore be blamed not on the system itself but on Canadas failure to fund the system adequately.
This line of defense is often heard in Canada itself. I sometimes think that the words, We need more government funding, should appear on Canadas coins in the spot where the words E Pluribus Unum appear on Americas. Heres the answer.
a) The gap between Americas spending on patient treatment and Canadas is not as big as the raw percentages might suggest. For example, Americas 14% figure includes the cost of the vast American medical research program. The budget of the National Institutes of Health alone - $27 billion in fiscal 2003 is larger than the total healthcare expenditures of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec combined. (The provinces are the main funders of Canadian healthcare; Ontario and Quebec are the two biggest provinces, home between them to more than half of Canadas population.) Canada does little medical research. In healthcare as in defense, Canada piggybacks for free on Americas costly efforts.
b) Much of the differential between the cost of the Canadian and American systems is achieved by the brutal squeezing of the incomes of doctors and nurses. While this may have some impact on staff morale and may contribute to a reduction in the skill level of medical staff, it has little relevance to the issue of waiting times.
c) The Canadian population is demographically different from Americas in important ways. The average age of the Canadian population is lower than that of the United States. There is less obesity in Canada, fewer premature births, fewer victims of assault and attempted homicide. Canadians also drive fewer miles per year than Americans. These differences impose costs on the United States that the Canadian system does not bear. Even under exactly identical health-care policy regimes, one would expect health-care expenditure in the United States to be significantly higher than in Canada.
d) Advocates of single payer often cite Canadas lower expenditure on healthcare as an argument in favor of the Canadian system. Then, when confronted with the evidence of the Canadian systems failure, they admit that Americas 14% is not all frittered away on advertising and obscene HMO profits that it does indeed buy superior care. But if the American system is not riddled with waste that single-payer will squeeze out, then extending a single-payer system to cover the entire U.S. population will be just as hugely expensive as conservative critics fear.
2. Many readers have pointed to Canadas high average life expectancy as proof that its healthcare system cant be all bad. But (see point c above) theres much more to public health than a healthcare system. Hike cigarette taxes and life expectancy will rise, no matter how lousy the hospitals are. The test of a healthcare system is not life expectancy of the population as a whole its the life expectancy of people once they get sick. Here Canadas record is not so good.
3. Some cosmopolitan readers note that other single-payer systems, Germanys usually, deliver more satisfactory results than do Canadas and Britains. Thats true precisely because the German system is much more decentralized and offers more choice (and demands more responsibility) than do Canadian Medicare or Britains NHS. Some socialized healthcare systems are more socialized than others, and the more socialized they are, the worse they do.
4. Yes, yes, yes, Americas healthcare system is flawed. Its overly litigious, it discourages people from changing jobs, it is often wasteful, and it abandons too many people to charity medicine. Yes, yes, yes, Americas healthcare system which probably should not be called a system at all is in need of reform. The question is not, Is America perfect? The question is, Would single-payer be an improvement? And the answer to that question despite Al Gore is no, no, no.
This is hilarious. Everyone knows Condi is not the brightest banana in the bunch. Now we know that even Powell knows it! Ha ha ha!
Oh boo hoo hoo, I guess your sheep of a wife would be thrilled if our government issued Soviet internal passports, so that the authorities could keep track of her every movement. Unbelievable how quickly stupid Americans like this embrace authoritarianism.
In his book on Iran Contra Woodward claimed to have direct quotes from CIA director William Casey. At the date and time Woodward claimed to have interviewed Casey, Casey was comatose on his death bed in the intensive care ward at the hospital. NO VISITORS WERE ALLOWED.
Woodward is a proven liar. National Review believes Woodard. That tells you all you need to know about National Review.
My favorite issue of National Review was the issue just before the 1980 election. It went to great lengths to show how bad the Reagan campaign had been run. National Review predicted a great re-election victory for Jimmy Carter because of all the inept mistakes Reagan had made. Reagan won in a landslide of such proportions that Jimmy Carter conceded 10 minutes after the polls closed on the east coast.
You seem to not understand the role of Secretary of State. His JOB is maintaining diplomacy and keeping communication open with the other side until the minute the president decides diplomacy will not work anymore. Powell is the "good cop"... the one that can still get a seat at any table. We need a "good cop" and a "bad cop" in international relations... and Dubya has both in Powell and Rumsfeld.
Powell is performing the job that has been given to him, with the full blessing of the president. How many times does Bush have to say that?
The excerpts I have seen of this book indicate that Woodward has put his own thoughts in the heads of Powell, Rice, et al. It is not believable.
For example, I cannot envision President Bush waving his finger in the air and saying he "loathes" Kim Il Jong. Loathe isn't eactly a West Texas word.
Woodward was given access to write a series on the immediate aftermath of 9'11, which was very complimentary. Obviously, pressures at Simon and Schuster, the newspaper, and the press corps in general have caused him to embellish this series into a book with some digs and attampt to cause a division in the administration.
It is beyond foolish when conservative pundits allow those such as Woodward to push their buttons and cause them to rant in public. It feeds the influence of the liberal media and allows them to think that they are calling the shots. It also wastes the time of the administration having to answer questions about these silly stories.
Are you really sure you want to say that? As you know, NR was founded by William F. Buckley, who singlehandedly did more to revive the conservative movement than any other living American.
But anyone who denigrates the Alamo by using an Alamo reference just to denigrate a Texan, especially his own POTUS, is not sufficiently thoughtful in his role as a Secretary of State (or even as JCS Chairman).
Powell is just trying to insinuate that our POTUS is not sufficiently thoughtful to be a good POTUS. But I frankly suspect that President Bush is more thoughtful than Powell realizes.
(And I say that as someone who doesn't agree with Bush on some matters. I think he has some blind spots. But I still respect him more than Powell seems to respect him.)
Again, I think Powell is the one who is not being thoughtful enough. The Alamo was a bigger deal than Powell realizes. And it really is part of being a Texan, even if Powell doesn't get it. It is a conscious ideal of courage among Texans, not just a matter of an unsupported Texas machismo.
My bottom-line point is that we are not all Audie Murphys down here in Texas, but Colin Powell is certainly no Audie Murphy.
The whores that they are..
I think the president is a big boy that doesn't need you thinking for him. He has said he is happy with Colin Powell, and I respect them both.
Good grief find someone on the other team to attack. It would get us further.
True. Inside sources report that W's actual words were: "I harbor an aversion to Kim Il Jong to the point of abhorrence."
It is possible for a magazine to be both conservative and clueless. Clueless means gullible and naive, which are two of the characteristics I see in this colummn.
Do you not understand that Powell is an excellent Secretary of State? Not only has he successfully negotiated the Security Council UNANIMOUS decision, but he also got Musharraf on board early on, which contributed to the success of the Afghanistan campaign. He has managed to weave a good delaying tactic in the Palestinian crisis, which has allowed Israel to continue to hunt down terorists. In addition, he has managed to get a huge coalition working with us on the war on terror. The man travels constantly, dows NOT undermine our foreign policy, and does exactly what the president wants.
All of the carping about Powell is ususally from unnamed sources (no doubt State Department Clintonista career types) and should be ignored.
Cite evidence that Powell undermines our foreign policy. I bet if you go back and look at the articles you will find they are either from the Post or the NY Times.
My point is that if real heroism is required at high levels of government in our current mess, I would expect it to come from our National Guard POTUS, not from our ex-JCS statesman.
Powell, both Colin and Alma, are good friends of Rice. Alma Powell came from the same Black Birmingham social set that the Rice's circulated in, with young Condi in tow. They are close friends.
Powell would not put down Condi like this. It's not in him.
That's how I can tell that this book is a lie.
Be Seeing You,
There are two things you know about any man who uses his middle initial in his name. First he deep down thinks he is inferior. He must use an initial to stand out. Secondly he thinks the people he is trying to impress with look up to a middle initial.
Would it imrpress you if I became Common F. Tator?
A person who tries to impress others with the size of his vocabulary does not think his thoughs will impress. He believes himself to be so inferior that he must impress with the size of his vocabulary and not the power of his thoughts.
All William F. Buckley has ever done is try to take credit for being the brilliant thinker behind the revival of the Republican party. He is not. He impressess the unknowing, ignorant and less bright. He does not impress much of anyone else.
He is also strongly against a new war on Iraq.
Correct. Look at the initial backers and contributers to National Review. Communists almost to the man (McManus' book goes into this in great detail). All of them. Aside from a couple of CIA types. There is nothing conservative about NR. Never has been. They have had a few good writers off and on, but as soon as they stepped out of Buckley's globalist reservation, they were given the ax.
If President Bush said "loathe" in a tape, I would be interested to know where Drudge got the tape.
Chris (section 9) brings out a point I had forgotten...that Alma Powell and Condi Rice are friends.
There is a great deal of mischief making in the Washington press. They do not get the 24/7 schmoozing that Clinton gave them, and they resentful. I would direct you to Bill Sammon's book on the war on terr, Fighting Back. There was no hint of this type of undermining in Sammon's book (although there was a lot of stuff which shows how odious Dana Milbank is...HA!).
When they washed your brain they didn't get it clean. What did they use, Woolite?
I still can't get over him using that word. How odd.
I would think it would be better to make your case against Powell on a thread that isn't asking us to form an opinion based on a writer accepting the characterizations of Bob Woodward.