A Reminder About Colin Powell...

Just a little note on Colin Powell, who many believe will appear on Meet the Press to endorse Barack Obama this weekend. If this happens, the elite media will be ablaze with stories talking about how awesome and Serious and Respected Colin Powell is. While this propaganda will be good in its short-term benefit to Obama*, it will be horrific in the long-term sense of our country's ability to recognize its worst decisions and move forward from them.

Let's just remember: Colin Powell is one of the major reasons we went to war in Iraq. In his 2003 United Nations speech, he perpetrated one of the biggest frauds in the history of international diplomacy - a deliberate and calculated fraud that, in terms of its blood-and-guts ramifications, dwarfs major scandals like Watergate. Sure, there were certainly other Bush officials who helped get us into war. But to deny that Colin Powell was a major factor in sending us into a war based on lies is to quite literally deny that the sky is blue.

The idea that being endorsed by someone like that is a good thing - well, that logic may fly in the television studios of New York and D.C., but it shouldn't fly anywhere else. A person whose most important legacy is destroying America's international credibility shouldn't be seen as a Serious or Respectable person, nor an asset to any campaign, no matter how many apologists - liberal or conservative - claim that "behind the scenes" Powell was really a good guy. He wasn't a good guy - he was one of the handful of people who knowingly lied us into a war. That the elite media imparts even an ounce of credibility to this dishonest yes-man is not a commentary on Powell's alleged positive attributes. It is a reflection of the elite media's deep disdain for the facts and truth it purports to respect.

So, just to sum up, here are two key things to remember about Powell:

1. We're probably going to hear about how "respected" Colin Powell is throughout America, but there's no evidence that Colin Powell has a huge following outside of television green rooms in Washington, D.C., or in the African American community - and there never has been such evidence. Assuming the latter in particular - without real evidence - suggests the black community is one giant monolith that reflexively supports fellow African Americans regardless of their policy preositions. I would suggest we refrain from making such blanket assumptions - it betrays an ugly stereotype of the black community as a mindless monolith.

2. The question for blind partisans should be whether Powell's endorsement helps Obama (and I'm certain there will be hand-wringing commenters berating this discussion as "hurting Obama" - because deeper issues do not matter to partisans who are totally consumed by their candidate and the latest election...by this logic, of course, if George W. Bush endorsed Barack Obama and that was somehow going to be billed in the media as a good thing, Obama partisans would say that's great by them). But the question for people involved in social movements should be whether Colin Powell is a credible voice, whether he should be a credible voice, and how to make sure he is or isn't, based on his positions on issues of importance to social movements. If you see yourself as part of the progressive movement that is against lying America into Mideast bloodbaths, then you would consequently see any effort to validate Colin Powell as an insult and a threat to the movement you purport to be a part of (and you might also be very worried about what a Powell endorsement of Obama says about Obama's stance on issues like war). Building Powell up because he happens to be endorsing the candidacy of someone you like may feel good, but it takes a steaming dump on movement goals because it imparts credibility to someone who directly undermined the movement.** So before you go out tell your friends to vote for Obama because he's endorsed by Powell, understand that by doing that, you are validating Powell (and the ideas he's all about) as a Very Important Voice - and understand further that when you do that, you have no right to complain that neocons like Powell continue to dominate our political discourse as Credible and Respected Voices.

* Again, let me reiterate for the readers who will refuse to read the whole diary, THIS IS NO CRITICISM OF OBAMA AT ALL, I don't think he needs to "reject" the Powell endorsement, and if it gets him some positive press, that's good in the short-term sense (and the partisan in me thinks that's a good thing). But - and really, I know this is difficult for blind partisans to see - this diary is about the deeper issue of why the media/political elite frame a Powell endorsement as positive (or even relevant), and why progressives cheer on that kind of framing. Put another way, this is not about Obama - it's about us. Indeed, if there's any true news value to such an endorsement, it should involve the media and activists asking why Colin Powell, a guy who deliberately lied us into war, is endorsing Barack Obama, who valiantly spoke out against that war.

**By the way, this is the same reason why it is counterproductive for progressives to praise the once-in-a-blue-moon column/statement by a wingnut that isn't crazy. It sickens me to no end that when, for instance, a lunatic like George Will says something mildly rational, the progressive blogosphere lights up with praise for George Will and excitement that a right-winger is seeing things vaguely the way we do. When we do that, we validate these wingnuts as credible voices - and thus forfeit any claim to outrage when these wingnuts are later given media platforms when they inevitably revert back to spewing extremist bile. It makes you wonder - after progressives cheer on Powell endorsing Obama, what will we say when Powell later gets all sorts of TV coverage criticizing President Obama for refusing to invade Iran? After validating him now, can we really later claim to be upset that he's getting attention?

Comments

[knowBuddhaU]

Thanks, for the reminder, brother, I needed that.

[knowBuddhaU]

I'm with you, brother. Gen. Powell has a lot to answer for. Just ask Sy Hersh, for starters.

[RoXXanne]

Seymour Hersh will probably be the first to tell you that there are numerous shades of gray between black and white.
If you didn't pick that up from his work, you actually never really read him at all...

[Anahid]

Thank you Mr. Sirota. Well said. I especially appriciate your last paragraph.

[PammySpam]

On the press conference immediately after the MtP endorsement, Powell was asked if his endorsement would be seen as a repudiation on the Iraq War. Powell's reply? Hell, no.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fStJT2VrhdQ

[BluePride]

Exceeding please as I am with this, he could have renounced his horrible support for 'don't ask, don't tell' which is still his worst moment...

The Ballad of Johnny McCain 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDceTz3UAgI

[SkepticalHopeful]

I remember my feelings about Collen Powell being involved with the Bush people when all the terrible lies were being cast over going to war with Iraq. He was my hope for a turn around from the plans. I don't know why but I, somewhere within me, believed he would speak to truth before the administration would actually take us to war. Instead, he stayed close to those buddies. That was a blow to me and a huge disappointment (one of many to follow during these many Republican years of seriously running our now poor broken country). So, TODAY, if Collen Powell does come out for Barack Hussein Obama with his endorsement, I just may believe he is who I once thought he was, a true statesman. That can only happen if he apologizes to his/our country in the most honest, sincere way or it can't possibly matter, at least to me.

[ramblingjohnny]

The only way this endorsement could help Obama would be for him to immediately denounce and reject Powell. On the ground that he don't want anything to do with somebody who sold the lies of the Bush lunacy! Otherwise it just Collin Powell trying to regain some credibility by siding with the likely winner of the Presidential race. I am very suspicious of those late endorsement. Sound to me like a lots of peoples want to ride the winner coattails. My question to those hypocrites is simple. Obama has been running for the last 18th months. Where were you six months ago?

[JohnFromColorado]

I agree with you about not taking the endorsement too seriously. It is just political advantage that we are talking about. The endorsement by the Chicago Tribune and Colin Powell provide evidence that Obama is not what the McCain attack machine is portraying Obama to be. These endorsements don't legitimize Obama more to me. They legitimize him somewhat to the reluctant conservative voter or uninformed voter who has some reservations, but can be persuaded.

[conradplan]

Thank you David, for the reminder. I guess I sometimes fall into the trap of wanting to have Obama elected so badly (because this country needs hope and yes, CHANGE) at almost any cost, that I may end up falling into the trap that McCain has fallen into -- sell your soul to the devil just to get elected. I guess I have to trust what has gotten Obama much further than most of us ever imagined he might have -- his core, his belief that this country can be better than what we've been for the last 8 years. And also remember that Obama has not done this by himself. Millions of us progressives and even liberals (since when did being liberal become equated with being antii-American?) have decided we've had enough of the neo-cons and of clueless Bush/McCain/Palin, and we're ready to take back this country from those who have almost singlehandedly destroyed it.
I agree. Obama doesn't need Powell's endorsement. And yes, how much better it would be if Powell went beyond saying that his lies to the UN are a blot on his story, and admit that he failed to fulfill his oath of office -- as someone has already said, NOT TO BE A GOOD SOLDIER, but to defend the Constitution. Which he failed to do.
Anyway, thanks again, David. I needed your reminder.

[zenobiadarcy]

It may appear to some readers that you are dismissive of reactions expressing perceived criticism of Senator Obama. That is condescending. I may or may not, having read all your columns, conclude that you are expressing disapproval of Senator Obama. But that is besides the point in this example. Let us frame this in another context. The playing field is so flawed on all levels that not only are the supporters of the Palin/McCain rallies riled up about the implications to be drawn because of the "relationship with Bill Ayres", but the many Scarboroughs out there are using this in some manner or another. The endorsement by Colin Powell is simply to be read as an answer to the question of who is Senator Obama, in terms of the most basic acceptance as one of us. One of us meaning patriotic Americans. This Palin/McCain strategy is taking hold and to my disgust, not only at the rallies of those two. None of it is logical or fair but the objection to Senator Obama, even in the news media is so absurd that I cannot but assume the basest motives.

[XME]

Unlike Bush, at least Powell has been willing to recognize and admit his own mistakes and error in judgement. For that, I respect Colin Powell and do believe he is a good, though flawed, man.

[SaltySaltillo]

Thanks for saying this. Some of us remember quite clearly the UN game Powell played. Shameless. Agreed. Let's remember who Powell really is!

[racetoinfinity]

I am SO happy to see this column. Thank you, David!

[allonfla]

I understand why Progressives would be pissed at Powell. I was indifferent until I watched a documentary done by Frontline. It was about the run up to the war and talked about all the players, the duplicity, secrecy and downright lies. Cheney and Rumsfeld were portrayed as the ones running the show. Bush was their puppet. Condi didn't do enough and Powell's protests constantly hit a brick wall and was prevented, on many occasions from talking directly with Bush (don't ask me how they could have done that). The documentary showed that a lot of people, including Powell, were duped into going along with the war. I don't excuse them, however, but you have to acknowledge that he regrets it and has publicly said so. Remember, Biden, voted for the war also and has also admitted that it all went wrong.

[MaybeMilo]

Hmmm - part of me thinks he'll endorse McCain - the timing'd be perfect and it would be seen as going against the media's "script."

If he does endorse Obama, the right'll minimize it by saying it was based primarily on racial affinity.

OB08