What Did Powell Know, and Why Isn't He Subjected to the Pelosi Treatment?

Sunday morning Colin Powell went on "Face the Nation", ostensibly to debate the future of the Republican party. But late in the interview, Powell was walked, oh so delicately, into the past by moderator Bob Schieffer. The general was asked what he knew about the use of waterboarding and other "unpleasant things," to use last week's Cheneyism, and Powell gave what in Washington is known as a non-denial denial.

Here's what he was almost denying: an ABC news report, one of several such reports, that pinpoints Powell as a member of the Principals Committee which met frequently to approve, in excruciating detail, what should be done to whom in the pursuit of interrogation enhancement. Why were the Secretaries of State and Defense and the National Security Advisor (Ms. Rice, at the time) dragged into such close-up work deep in the muck of detainee abuse? Because the CIA was even then getting cold feet about being hung out to dry if Cheney ever started losing the argument, and wanted high-level fingerprints all over the operation.

In other words, for the same reason that Republicans have been spending the past two weeks trying to checkmate Nancy Pelosi -- to spread the web of guilt for these practices widely enough that no one individual, or few individuals, can be factually, or politically, held responsible.

So, why was General/Secretary Powell treated with such kid gloves on this question? Why hasn't he been given the "Full Pelosi", hammered by questions about what he knew, and what he personally approved? Is it because Washington has already forgiven and/or forgotten Powell's role in making the final "close" on the sale of the Iraq War? In D.C., apparently, Powell's credibility has experienced seamless reweaving.

That just leaves the rest of us.

Comments

[Infostream]

Powell's selling of the Iraq war is indefensible, but some still defend it? Outside of the 60 Minutes brainwashed public (see below), real intelligence had inspectors on the ground, and unobstructed by Saddam, finding nothing. Obviously the logical thing to do is wait and see if they find anything, UNLESS you want a war, in that case you have to rush into it before it becomes obvious your reason is baloney. Powell was the guy with the most credibility, they used him well, and he went along with it.

Fun fact: The press conference following Powell's shill job was set up in front of the UN's tapestry reproduction of Picasso's Guernica. At the last minute they realized it was too much truth to have in the background of the lies and covered it with a curtain.

[Cheesemelt]

Never mind DC, Harry.

With his bravura PowerPoint performance at the UN, in the run up to the second Gulf war, Powell is now and forever damaged goods. His only real purpose is to serve as some kind of moderating voice within his own party.

A party that has no interest or use for him any longer, other than to say look at our token black man war hero. Had he disobeyed Bush when it mattered, he would be a great man. Instead, now he's a defeated warrior taking potshots from the bleachers.

[Robert Cantor]

complex analysis, Powell is 'good' because he is not as bad as the bad. Powell has many critics who chart his Zelig like proximity to so many of the worst Neo Con Crimes of the past 40 years.

[HansB]

Well, Powell knew, and Pelosi knew, and I knew, and everyone who looked beyond the US propaganda machine for their news knew. And not just about prisoner abuse.

When poor dudes were picked up in Afghanistan or Pakistan and sent to Guantanamo because they had been sold, or because the guy next door wanted their car and could get it through a simple false denunciation, I knew.

When the US presented forged documents to make the case for war against Iraq, I knew and so did everyone else. When the US accused Saddam of protecting an Al Qaeda base when in fact it was the US air force which prevented Saddam's army from liquidating said base, I knew and so did everyone who could read a map.

When American soldiers joined in the post-Saddam looting, I knew and so did the non-CNN watching world. When some units took to shooting Iraqi civilians like hunters shoot quail, for the fun of it, I knew, well before the winter soldiers' testimony confirmed it. When US snipers shot at everything that moved in Fallujah, be it women, children or Red Cross/Red Crescent ambulances, I knew, and so did most people.

When the occupation of Iraq turned into one huge thievery, where the only thing debatable was whether it was the US taxpayer or the Iraqis who were being ripped off the most, I knew and so did everyone who could count.

And yet, George W. Bush was re-elected.

[Bladernr1001]

Do you guys just refuse to face the facts?

It was taken as fact that Saddam had WMD's as far back as the early 1990's. Many pols are on the public record as saying that Iraq possessed WMD's for the last 15 years or so. Even Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, Powell....­everyone..­.both dem and rep.

Did you see the 60 minutes piece last year interviewing the FBI guy that debriefed Saddam? He clearly reported that Saddam in fact purposely lead the world to believe that he WMD's. He did this to deter Iran from contemplating an attack on Iraq, according to the report.

If you are going to perpetrate this black helicopter conspiracy stuff at least back it up with supportable facts.

[HansB]

Of course he pretended to have WMDs to deter Iran! I never said or thought anything else.

[Puzzles]

"Did you see the 60 minutes piece last year..".

There you have it HansB. That is why the county re-elected Cheney/Bush. Because they take the likes of 60mins as news and facts. The myopia of this nation and what it chooses to believe. Geez.

[TLV]

Then if Saddam was using the weapons threat to deter Iran, he was - once again - on OUR side. It takes me back to all of those photo-ops featuring Rumsfeld and others shaking his hand. Glad we had this talk and cleared things up.

[RepugsOut08]

If any leaders from either party or the military, actually belived the WMDs bs, then we're in bigger trouble than I thought. No one with any ability to use logical thinking could have believed that.
After Saddam invaded Kuwait, the entire Middle East region was shaken. Saddam had a huge army, and was now on the march. The first Bush was able to get most Arab nations to not only support ousting Saddam from Kuwait, but actively joining the "infidels" in the fight! Why? Because Saddam was a clear threat!
Flash forward to 2003. If the severely weakened and contained Saddam really had WMDs, and was a threat to the US thousands of miles away, don't you think he would have been seen as even MORE of a threat to his actual neighbors?
And yet none of the Arab nations that helped us in 1990, were inclined to help us eliminate this pathetic tyrant, who supposedly had WMDs with which to threaten the entire world.
UN inspectors were INSIDE Iraq! Finding NOTHING!
Any politician, military leader or former general who TRULY bought into this garbage, and wasn't just going along even though they knew better, probably isn't smart enough to be in charge of anything that requires even an ounce of common sense.
If they knew better and went along anyway, they don't have the morals to lead. In either case, it's a sad testament that so many of these folks are still in charge, and/or being listened to.

[elfNW]

The simple answer to the headline question -- "What Did Powell Know, and Why Isn't He Subjected to the Pelosi Treatment?" -- is this.

1) Powell currently holds no political office, unlike Pelosi who holds the high profile position of Speaker of the House.

2) Given Powell`s recent repudiation of many of the positions taken by the extreme right of the Republicans, and his support of many positions taken by Obama and centrist Democrats the Democrat power base has no stomach for attacking him. And the extreme right can hardly attack him for once supporting what they still support.

[Shirley Fisk]

5/31/09
5:15pm
Alexandria,VA

And.he.doe­sn't.resem­ble.any.Ja­mes.Bond.c­haracters.­.not.that.­Pelosi.doe­s.either.

[tnlcallen]

Well said. I would also add that he isn't being a hypocrite about it. Unlike the Speaker who is now simply horrified that we would do such a thing

[Bladernr1001]

I wll add that Pelosi was clearly apprised and accepted the approach and now she is trying to deny it.....bad, bad, bad. She got caught trying to play cheap politics

[Ozarks]

Your comment "Is it because Washington has already forgiven and/or forgotten Powell's role in making the final "close" on the sale of the Iraq War? In D.C., apparently, Powell's credibility has experienced seamless reweaving". seems to ignore where Powell's ""final "Close"" argument was made. As I remember his close argument was made at the UN and there was CIA director Tenet sitting directly behind him. Remember Tenet , the WMD "Slam dunk" guy!!! Guess Powell just bought Bush Cheney bull because the purported keykeeper (Tenet) of all hard intelligence told Powell it was a "Slam dunk"

[Marlyn]

"spread the web of guilt for these practices widely enough that no one individual, or few individuals, can be factually, or politically, held responsible." ???

There IS one individual who is responsible. He has bragged that HE made the decision.
GW Bush.

[Mich929]

Harry Shearer finally says what I've been saying for years, i.e., Powell is getting away with his backing of the Iraq war and torture. This is another example of our country's genuflecting to every person who dons a military uniform, whether he or she deserves it or not. Powell's knowledge of the lead up to the Iraq war, his culpability on the war crimes pre- and post-Iraq war, and his knowledge of the Bush administration's advocacy of torture all need to be examined.

[textynn]

This whole situation is the ultimate example of a country whose ELITE is above the law. Republicans and Democrats alike have known about torture for a long long time. I've known about it for a long long time. Apparently there is no one who could stand up to the people that actually said, "Let's Torture". Who said this? Well ask any mother who is smart enough to know that her 3 year old with cookie crumbs on his lips broke the cookie jar. We've all known and we've also all known that the Democrats knew because we knew. This is stupid and apparently Americans are expected to watch while our government plays musical finger pointing until everyone realizes that they ain't gonna do anything. Surprise. No because America has never given a damn about Integrity. If we did, we would have thrown out half these Elite suckups years ago.

[jsgaetano]

Doesn't everyone know? Republicans are exempt from the law.

[Prattvictory2]

Powell's condemnation above all else was his indifference to the potential Iraqi casualties. It wasn't about WMD. It wasn't about freeing the Iraqi people and spreading democracy. It wasn't about any "American principles of justice."

It didn't matter to Colin Powell how many Iraqis were killed in the process of subjugating the country. Why should he care whether they were tortured?

He is as much party to it as Dick Cheney or Don Rumsfeld.

[Bladernr1001]

Most of the captured combatants were not Iraqi. They were sent by Al Quada or others to stir the pot. Geeze...quit lobbing unsubstantiated stink bombs.

[The Ghost]

That is a BOLD FACED LIE.

[breakingpoint]

It's all perceprtion, Powell was the best actor of the bunch.

His right hand man Wilkerson didn't believe the American People, let alone Congress, would fall for that test tube bit.

In a way Powell is the worst of the bunch because he was the only guy in a position of power who had any perception of integrity. He should have walked.

The only thing that protects him now is the perception that he was the "good soldier."

[Yermammy]

Powell was kept "out of the loop", which will be to his benefit if he chooses to testify in exchange for immunity in War Crimes trials. Powell got punked and THAT'S why he resigned.

[BBinMT]

He did have the position of power and supposedly, some integrity. It was obvious that he was at odds with the Bush admin., and vise versa. I don't know what he knew, but when he was ushered out of the
Secretary of States office, he was sure quiet for a long time. For me, there has always been a suspicion of that fact and little trust in his integrity.

[breakingpoint]

but he's never called out - nice gig, eh?
He's also made a career out of that it seems, more teflon than Reagan?

[Democrab]

As far as I'm concerned, since 2003, his credibility is on an even scale with the 2001 supreme court.

[Bladernr1001]

There is one cold hard fact that you leftys fail to consider about this whole torture debate. There are many many folks out there that had/have no problem with the "interrogation" methods used on suspected terrorists. Even Obama handed down his orders in such a way that he can use waterboarding or other methods if the situation warrants.

We could have drilled teeth (like in the Marathon Man movie), gouged out eyes, burnt, stabbed or many other physically disfiguring forms of torture. As it goes I would say waterboarding is a very good choice that balances humanitarian concerns against the need to extract information. It is very temporary and causes no physical deformity.

I think the dems have stirred you guys up for purely politcal purposes on this issue. All they were trying to do is make the republicans look bad....and now the whole thing is boomeranging on them....ha­hahahaha..­..its kind of funny

[sawbuck]

except for the fact that every intelligence professional interviewed is on the record as saying it doesn't work, gives bad information, has made us less safe, and the job of the military more difficult. but, as steven colbert has stated, 'don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion's'.

[Bladernr1001]

It has been reported that use of these enhanced interrogation techniques helped thwart an intended attack on the LAX airport. This could be propaganda or spin but we don't really know because only information on the instances of use have been released...not the results.

Why does Obama not want to release the result information? I think there is spin and politics being brought to bear on both sides of the issue.

[wm1]

You spit on the Constitution and rule of law; so when one of yours is of the hundred tortured to find the one guilty; look your loved one in the face and tell them how funny it all is.

[doneflyin]

Ya know the "righties" are such selfish, it's all about me people, that you'd think that they would realize that a government that approves of torture could use that torture against them.
If, for no other reason then the fact it could be used against them, it would compel them to argue against such tactics.
But then we know that thing about reality and right-wing denial.

[Bladernr1001]

Techinically, the constitution does not address this issue with regard to known enemies of the USA. To what article are you referring if you think it does.?

[DavidDial]

I have two things to say about this article.

The first is a declaration... the only useful purpose this article serves, beyond any enrichment that might accrue to the author's bank account or his ego, is that it proves once again how much the far left and far right are mirror images of each other when it comes to hunting for scapegoats to point their fingers at.

The second is a question. What the hell does the last sentence have to do with the rest of the article?

[cobraxus]

The Un speech was Powell's 3rd strike.First he tried to cover the My Lai(sic)ma­ssacre.The­n after the invasion of Panama he signed off on an executive order to bury the civilian dead(estimates at between 500-6000)in mass graves to prevent the American public from knowing the true cost of that military folly.During the past administration Powell didn't fall into either camp.He wasn't a "loyal bushie" nor was he part of the Cheney-Rumsfeld gang.The anecdote about him being locked out of a meeting for being afew minutes late speaks to the contempt and disregard GWB had for this man.My lasting image I have of Powell was of him at some international conference­:Headphone­s on intently reading the papers in front him while President Bush and Tony Blair whispered to each other and giggled like a couple of schoolgirls.Powell was completely shut out and isolated.The administration used him and he went along with it.And for the record,Bush fired Powell.He didn't resign willingly.