GQ Exclusive: Colin Powell Wants Out

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/05-04-2004/0002166707&EDATE=

GQ Magazine on Powell's Frustration With the Bush
Administration, His Battles With the Pentagon,
His 'Real' Relationship With Vice President Dick Cheney,
and Whether He'll Return For a Second Term

NEW YORK, May 4 /PRNewswire/ -- Secretary of State Colin Powell is
exhausted, frustrated, and bitter, uncomfortable with President George W.
Bush's agenda, and fatigued from his battles with the Pentagon, reports GQ
magazine writer-at-large Wil S. Hylton in the June 2004 issue of GQ magazine.
Hylton's exclusive article, "Casualty of War," in which he talks with Powell
and his closest friends and colleagues openly and on the record, is available
online at http://www.gq.com.

Highlights from the article include:
Powell's chief of staff, Larry Wilkerson, on whether Powell will return
for a second term: "He's tired. Mentally and physically. And if the president
were to ask him to stay on -- if the president is re-elected and the president
were to ask him to stay on, he might for a transitional period, but I don't
think he'd want to do another four years."
Powell's mentor from the National War College, Harlan Ullman on Powell's
discomfort with the Bush team: "This is, in many ways, the most ideological
administration Powell's ever had to work for. Not only is it very ideological,
but they have a vision. And I think Powell is inherently uncomfortable with
grand visions like that ... There's an ideological core to Bush, and I think
it's hard for Powell to penetrate that."
Ullman on Powell's relationship with Vice President Dick Cheney: "I can
tell you firsthand that there is a tremendous barrier between Cheney and
Powell, and there has been for a long time ... It's like McCain saying that
his relations with the president are 'congenial,' meaning McCain doesn't tell
the president to go f*ck himself every time."
Ullman on National Security Advisor's Condoleeza Rice's comments that
Powell and Cheney are "on more than speaking terms," and that they're "very
friendly": "Condi's a jerk."
Ullman on Powell's pre-war presentation before the U.N.: "The trade-off
was 'Go to the U.N., go to Congress, slow this thing down; it's not going to
be regime change, it's going to be weapons of mass destruction.' And for that,
Powell stayed a loyal member of the administration."
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage on Powell's presentation pre-
war presentation before the U.N.: "It's a source of great distress for the
secretary."
Rice insists that Powell had not been sent to the U.N. per se, because he
was the only one who could have made the speech, and says: "There's really
nobody else that can do it ... Everybody said it would have to be Colin ... We
wanted to have enough of a profile. It was an important presentation. So we
wanted to have enough profile."
Hylton reports that Rice described Powell as enthusiastic about the
presentation, spending four days and nights at CIA headquarters and scouring
the evidence against Saddam Hussein for ways to punch it up. She tells Hylton:
"He wanted to be sure that we put in the best, strongest aerials we had, both
from the point of view of the ones that were best documented but also the ones
that were going to be punchiest."
But Armitage and Wilkerson describe Powell's four-day immersion at the CIA
in very different terms -- not punching up the evidence but frantically
scouring it for mistakes and faulty intelligence.
Armitage on Powell's preparation for his U.N. presentation: "Four days!
And three nights! The secretary is a man of honor! He values being credible.
To be credible, you have to be able to stand behind what you say. That's why
he fieldstripped it." Armitage refers to the process, common in Vietnam, of
tearing up smoked cigarettes so they will decompose quickly and leave no trace
for the enemy. "On the last day and night [at the CIA], the secretary called
me, and he said, 'I need a little extra reinforcement.' So I went out there
and spent Sunday and Saturday night with him. He needed someone. He was the
voice throwing everything out, and he wanted another loud voice at the table."
Wilkerson describes those four days at the CIA as a battle, with Powell's
team scrambling in the final hours to save the general from humiliation: "I
was down at the agency as his task-force leader, and we fought tooth and nail
with other members of the administration to scrub it and get the crap out."
Wilkerson on the neocons: "I make no bones about it. I have some
reservations about people who have never been in the face of battle, so to
speak, who are making cavalier decisions about sending men and women out to
die. A person who comes immediately to mind in that regard is Richard Perle,
who, thank God, tendered his resignation and no longer will be even a
semioffcial person in this administration. Richard Perle's cavalier remarks
about doing this or doing that with regard to military force always, always
troubled me. Because it just showed me that he didn't have the appreciation,
for example, that Colin Powell has for what it means ... I call them utopians
... I don't care whether utopians are Vladimir Lenin in a sealed train going
to Moscow or Paul Wolfowitz. Utopians, I don't like. You're never going to
bring utopia, and you're going to hurt a lot of people in the process of
trying to do it."
Wilkerson on using sanctions against Cuba: "Dumbest policy on the face of
the earth. It's crazy."
Wil S. Hylton's article, "Casualty of War," is available online at
http://www.gq.com, and will be available on newsstands in New York and Los Angeles on
May 18, and nationwide on May 25. GQ is the leading men's general-interest
magazine and part of Conde Nast Publications, Inc.
 

rickn

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
7,064
0
0
His reputation has been soiled working for this administration. Who can blame him. I always thought of him as presidential material. I've since lowered my opinion
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0

No, but thanks for adding credence to this thread with that Associated Press story.

I saw a headline on Drudge and it links to a GQ magazine article wherein the author personally interview Powell, his chief of staff, and others in the administration.

But, go on right ahead with the R.A.M. m.o. of attacking the messenger instead of addressing the content.
 

tallest1

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2001
3,474
0
0
Originally posted by: rickn
His reputation has been soiled working for this administration. Who can blame him. I always thought of him as presidential material. I've since lowered my opinion

exactly! If he had been running for president pre-2000, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. As for now, his political career is deeply tainted and no explaining is going to get him back on the pedistal that people like me once saw him on.

But personally, this begs me to ask a question of mine that the neocons continue to dodge: If Colin Powell wrote a book, would it be credible or is a big pile of lying scum like the rest of the folks with books out?
 

xXped0thugXx

Golden Member
Feb 18, 2004
1,885
1
0
Originally posted by: tallest1
Originally posted by: rickn
His reputation has been soiled working for this administration. Who can blame him. I always thought of him as presidential material. I've since lowered my opinion

exactly! If he had been running for president pre-2000, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. As for now, his political career is deeply tainted and no explaining is going to get him back on the pedistal that people like me once saw him on.

But personally, this begs me to ask a question of mine that the neocons continue to dodge: If Colin Powell wrote a book, would it be credible or is a big pile of lying scum like the rest of the folks with books out?

i also agree, before if he was running id vote for him. Now its definately questionable, i wonder how much stuff he is hiding that has happened of recent.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Well, he's still being coy (read - loyal?) to Bush even in that interview. Powell doesn't explicitly tell the interviewer he wants to quit...it was inferred by his chief of staff and his mentor.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
Originally posted by: tallest1
Originally posted by: rickn
His reputation has been soiled working for this administration. Who can blame him. I always thought of him as presidential material. I've since lowered my opinion

exactly! If he had been running for president pre-2000, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. As for now, his political career is deeply tainted and no explaining is going to get him back on the pedistal that people like me once saw him on.

But personally, this begs me to ask a question of mine that the neocons continue to dodge: If Colin Powell wrote a book, would it be credible or is a big pile of lying scum like the rest of the folks with books out?

Lying scum of course! :roll:
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
I feel kind of bad for Powell, but he did lie on behalf of Bush to the UNSC. I don't know if he knew these were lies, but he should have known that the evidence was shaky. I would not go present something as a fact until I was fairly convinced of it myself. He should have refused or resigned. Secondly, here is a man who successfully lead the first Gulf War, but who was marginalized or ignored in the repeat.
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,999
307
126
Powell couldn't of lied if he thought he was telling the truth. Lying is built upon intentions.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
"Ullman on Powell's pre-war presentation before the U.N.: "The trade-off
was 'Go to the U.N., go to Congress, slow this thing down; it's not going to
be regime change, it's going to be weapons of mass destruction.' And for that,
Powell stayed a loyal member of the administration."

For this, Powell ruined an otherwise excellent career. I would not vote for Powell if he begged me for his vote on bended knee.

Being loyal to your country is more important than being loyal to the President.

-Robert
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
The author of the article was interviewed on CNN this morning. He was asked why did Colin Powell go to the U.N. and give that speech if it troubled him. The author replied that he was curious, too. Come to find out, Powell had gone to the CIA and spent four days and three nights going over the evidence. Powell threw out a lot of evidence, calling it, essentially, worthless. There were shouting matches and arguments and Powell came away with a small list of what he actually believed to be credible evidence. It was that information he used in his speech to the U.N.

As for Powell leaving should Bush get re-elected, the author stated rather eagerly that it was made clear to him that Powell would leave after a transitional period. Powell had directed Ullman and Wilkerson to do the interviews and gave them permission to answer the questions.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Conjur:

If Powell thought the evidence he gave to the U.N. was credible, then his judgment is dreadful. I just find that hard to believe. I suspect the truth is that the evidence he presented to the U.N. is only as far as HE would go, which was too far anyway. The guy sold his soul to the devil and is now trying to back out of responsibility because he realizes he made a bad career decision. He should be hanged for what he did....

-Robert
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
I have to go with chess9- other than the hanging part. Too bad Powell sold out. We'd all be better off if he'd handed in his resignation, hit the door running. He could be kicking Dubya's butt for the Republican nomination, as we speak...

In the Bush Admin, the price of loyalty is your integrity...
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
In the Bush Admin, the price of loyalty is your integrity...
When is the price of loyalty NOT integrity? No offense, but that was a pretty assinine point.
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,999
307
126
Powell is getting criticized for being a Team U.S.A. (ala Rummies Ruse) loyalist?
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Powell had gone to the CIA and spent four days and three nights going over the evidence. Powell threw out a lot of evidence, calling it, essentially, worthless. There were shouting matches and arguments and Powell came away with a small list of what he actually believed to be credible evidence. It was that information he used in his speech to the U.N.

But yet somehow after all that Powell is still a "liar" or he "sold out". Interesting. So the consensus is that Powell went to the UN and purposely mislead them. Why would he do that?


I knew there was an enormous amount of ignorance, stupidity and hatred on this board but I hadn't really grasped the magnitude of it until now.


<shakes head, walks away>