Colin Powell: Examining a Key Player in the Bush Administration

Powell also connected al Qaeda to Iraq. He said, “Leaving Saddam in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world.” He called the relationship that exists between Iraq and al Qaeda a “nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder.” 26Powell was convincing. The evidence was convincing. Powell concluded with statements about how Iraq remained in “material breach of its disarmament obligations” and he reminds the Council that Saddam has not taken his last chance that was graciously given by the UN, and now it is time to act. March 20, 2003, the US launches a full invasion of Bagdad, Iraq despite the failure of the US to convince the UN to authorize the use of force.

In April of 2005, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq, Charles Duelfer, wrote that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing. He concluded that “After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD related detainees has been exhausted.” There were no WMD’s. The U.S. military's first and only study looking into the connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda showed none. The Pentagon released a report that concludes that after reviewing about 600,000 captured Iraqi documents and looking at interviews of key Iraqi leadership there is no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.27 This meant that the argument Powell presented at the UN was based on unreliable intelligence. The “concrete intelligence” turned out to be anything but. Many of the sources Powell was given to back up the information he presented, were not credible.

The sources given to Powell had been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) as not reliable, unfortunately, these flags on the intelligence never made it to Powell. The CIA and the DIA have opposing accounts of where there was a lapse in communication. The CIA uses a seemingly “bureaucratic defense”, claiming that they never received a formal memo expressing doubts about the sources. The DIA clams that there was more than enough communication between the two intelligence agencies about the creditability of the sources. A DIA official said, "Believe me, there are literally inches and inches of documentation" including "dozens and dozens of e-mails and memos and things like that detailing meetings" where they questioned the credibility of the sources. Powell mentioned that he believes that key CIA officials knew about the faulty intelligence and did not inform him.28 In 2004, Powell made a powerful assertion that “the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading."29And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it," he added. Powell believes that these officials were in the room with him, helping him to solidify his presentation before speaking to the Security Council. Powell said in an interview given in 2008 “There were people in the room that knew that burn notices hadn’t gone out”. Powell’s reputation was seriously jeopardized because of this unreliable intelligence. He had a major interest in an investigation to uncover the true source of the miscommunication and how he falsely justified the war. "Powell has made it clear that he wants to know how this could have happened," a Bush administration official said in 2004. 30

Eight days after Bush was reelected, Powell was fired from his position as Secretary of State. He received a call from Chief of Staff, Andrew Card. "The president would like to make a change," Card said. Bush wanted Powell’s resignation letter dated two days from the date of the phone call, November 12^th. Bush also wanted him to stay in his position until his successor, Condoleezza Rice, was confirmed by the Senate.31 Powell had mentioned indirectly that he did not intend to stay into a second term in the summer of that year. This led to some confusion on whether he had been fired or resigned from the position but years later it is clear that Powell would have stayed throughout the rest of Bush’s time in office, but was not welcome too. For Powell, this was the end of the battle between him and the administration on foreign policy. Rice replacing Powell signifies Bush wanting to stream line the opinions within the administration. Powell was the voice of negotiating, diplomatic strategies and multilateral approaches on the foreign affairs of the US. Where Powell contracted and objected many of the views of Bush and others in the administration, Rice would uphold the policies and beliefs of Bush without digression. When Bush announced Rice as Powell successor, the feeling that Bush picked Rice because she would uphold his view of foreign policy was apparent by his remarks. "The secretary of state is America's face to the world, and in Dr. Rice the world will see the strength, the grace and the decency of our country," he said. Powell typed up his resignation letter on his home computer, but after the White House found a typo, he was told to rewrite it. For whatever reason, possibly out of insult, Powell wrote the letter of resignation as if it was his choice to leave the administration. He wrote, “Dear Mr. President: As we have discussed in recent months, I believe that now that the election is over, the time has come for me to step down as Secretary of State and return to private life. I, therefore, resign as the 65th Secretary of State, effective at your pleasure."32 One can assume that Powell felt betrayed by the Bush administration yet again as he was loyal to the end.

In 2005 Powell did a revealing interview with Barbra Walters. He says that learning about the false intelligence was “painful” for him. He calls his speech to the UN a permanent blot on his record. “I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world”. He said that it was “devastating” to learn that some intelligence agents knew the information he had wasn’t reliable and they did not speak up. 33These feelings of betrayal affected Powell then and would affect his political ideology later.

Powell wrote “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.” Bush responded with saying that criticism like Powell’s was “flawed logic” and “unacceptable.” In a Larry King interview Powell was asked, “Is torture a good idea?” Powell‘s answer was ultimately “no”. Powell said in that interview that he “won’t know for a while yet if the war is worth the price we paid”. He added that he never thought the war would “get this bad” Powell also criticized Guantanamo Bay, as he did throughout his service under Bush. He believed that Guantanamo should be closed and that it is “killing our reputation in the world”. He mentioned that it is difficult to criticize other nations in breach of human rights when we are still using Guantanamo to indefinitely detain prisoners. Powell also criticized the Bush administration as not having a structure in place to look at all points of view, insinuating groupthink was a large factor in the administration. “It was not a system which we routinely exposed all points of view.”

In a Meet the Press interview, Powell backed Democratic candidate Barack Obama for President. This meant that he was straying from his political party lines. Powell endorsement did not bring a state, nor did it bring many additional supporters, but what it brought was reassurance that he was ready to be President and that he wasn’t just for extremely left citizens. It reassured voters and gave Obama additional credibility. Powell’s choice to endorse a Democrat was another political blow to the Bush administration and Republican party. He used basic civic engagement to exercise his dissatisfaction with the Bush administration. Powell criticized John McCain, the Republican candidate, for using inappropriate tactics to discredit Obama during the campaign. Powell thought the campaigns attempt to link Obama to terrorist ties was troubling. “I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It’s not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign, and they trouble me,” he said. Powell also made the point that the Republican Party was shifting far to the right, alienating the moderate constituency. “I feel strongly about this particular point,” he added. “We have got to stop polarizing ourselves in this way.” Powell did not like McCain’s choice of Sara Palin as the Vice Presidential. “I don’t believe she’s ready to be President of the United States, which is the job of the Vice President,” Powell said. He also tied Palin to the rightward shift of the party. Powell said that he would be concerned if there were two conservative Supreme Court appointments, as there would likely be during McCain’s prospective term. McCain and Powell were close friends and share a military history so this decision was difficult for Powell. “It isn't easy for me to disappoint Senator McCain in the way that I have this morning, and I regret that.” McCain gave a response to Powell’s endorsement and said that he had "always admired and respected General Powell", continuing that he was “not surprised” at his choice either. 34

“Well, if I had to choose, in terms of being a Republican, I’d go with Rush Limbaugh”,35 Cheney said when asked who he would rather be in the Republican Party, Powell or Limbaugh. Powell and Cheney indirectly debated through separate interviews given to Face the Nation. Powell’s response to this statement was that he was in fact, still a Republican and proud to be one. Powell continued that the direction of the Republican Party was alienating more moderate members. He thought that to ensure the longevity and influence of the Party, it needed to become more inclusive then it had been in the past, reaching out to the country to expand on the party. “If they don’t reach out more the party is going to be sitting on a very narrow base. And all you can do with a base is sit and watch the world go by”. 36

Powell and Cheney also debated in that same fashion about the safety of the country under Obama. Cheney said that we are less safe under this administration. Powell rejects Cheney’s charge and his creditability by saying that "To suggest that somehow we have become much less safer because of the actions of the administration, I don't think that's borne out by the facts.” Powell defended Obama by saying that many of the programs enacted by the Bush administration were still in place now. "The Transportation Security Administration created by George Bush is still in action working in our airports.” The Office of the Director of National Intelligence was also created under President Bush and still in use today. “Our law enforcement officials are hard at work. We have gone after the enemy in Afghanistan with 50,000 more troops, more predators are striking al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in Pakistan. We have continued the policies that President Bush put in place with respect to Iraq. And so I don't know where the claim comes that we are less safe."37 Powell and Cheney have clearly different views today that are for everyone to see in the public arena. It is telling of the differences that were happening in the administration, and without a formal structure to disagree, this type of disagreement in the White House was played out behind closed doors.

Colin Powell’s story adds another dimension to the Bush presidency. In the Bush administration, Powell acted as a steady hand during a time of turmoil. The Bush administration has been criticized for creating an environment within the White House that breeds groupthink, a type of thought that is intentionally avoided in other administrations. The structure within the administration inhibited independent thinking in the pursuit of group cohesiveness. The administration lost the advantages of balance by discouraging descending opinions. The administration did not take advantage of Powell’s full potential as Secretary of State; instead, they took advantage of his prestige and willingness to serve to accomplish support for the war in Iraq. Powell’s reputation was damaged because of his speech to the UN. He was able to give seemly accurate information to a hesitant body and gain support for the war. Upon invasion, the information was wrong. There were no weapons of mass destruction. The general consensus is that Powell was fooled and just as appalled as everyone else at the discovery of this misinformation, nonetheless, he was the spokes person and it was his reputation that was tarnished. His loyalty to the administration in the end left him vulnerable. It is my opinion that the Bush administration thinks that their use of Powell was a success. He was a respected choice that pleased both sides of the isle and brought credibility to the administration. The administration kept him in the “ice-box” until they could use his abilities to benefit the agenda. After he served his purpose, the administration replaced him with an individual that would be a key player in streamlining the goals and positions within the administration, making it more cohesive, to move further with its agenda. Powell’s loyally led him to be a fallen solider. To the administration he served his role and was an ultimate success, despite its lack of allegiance to the General.

---

Bibliography

Academy of Achievement . Feb 8, 2010. http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/pow0bio-1 (accessed March 10, 2010).

CNN. Aug 23, 2005. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/.

CNN. Feb 6, 2003. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript/.

Colin Powell Biography. http://www.biography.com/articles/Colin-Powell-9445708.

DeYoung, Karen. Washington Post. Oct 1, 2006. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092700106.html.

Face The Nation. Jan 4, 2009. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/04/ftn/main4697548.shtml.

Face The Nation. May 24, 2009. http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/FTN_052409.pdf.

Gallup . Feb 1, 2000. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1618/Favorability-People-News.aspx.

Gallup. Sept 17, 2001. http://www.gallup.com/poll/4906/Attack-America-Review-Public-Opinion.aspx.

Kaplan, Fred. The Slate. Feb 19, 2004. http://www.slate.com/id/2095756/.

Lewis, Michael. New York Times. Nov 26, 2006. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E3D7143EF935A15752C1A9609C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2.

Moore, David. Gallup. Feb 4, 2003. http://www.gallup.com/poll/7720/Powells-UN-Appearance-Important-Public.aspx.

MSNBC. April 25, 2005. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/.

MSNBC. May 17, 2004. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4992558/.

New York times. Dec 17, 2000. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/17/us/43rd-president-remarks-announcement-powell-s-nomination-secretary-state.html?scp=6&sq=george+w+bush+secretary+of+state+nomination&st=nyt.

Powell, Colin, and Persico Joseph. My American Journey. Random House Publishing Group, 1996.

Taylor, Rachel. The World Press. http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/.

Weisman, Steven. April 9, 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/politics/09powell.html.

Woodward, Bob. Bush At War. Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group, 2003.

---

1.) (Academy of Achievement 2010)

2.) (Colin Powell Biography n.d.)

3.) (Powell and Joseph 1996)

4.) Ibid.

5.) (DeYoung 2006)

6.) (Gallup 2000)

7.) (Lewis 2006)

8.) (New York times 2000)

9.) (Powell and Joseph 1996)

10.) (Kaplan 2004)

11.) (DeYoung 2006)

12.)Ibid.

13.) (Woodward 2003)

14.) (Gallup 2001)

15.) (Taylor n.d.)

16.) (Lewis 2006)

17.) (DeYoung 2006)

18.) Ibid

19.) Ibid

20.) (Woodward 2003)

21.) (Moore 2003)

22.) (Moore 2003)

23.) (CNN 2005)

24.) (CNN 2003)

25.) Ibid

26.) Ibid

27.) (MSNBC 2005)

28.) (DeYoung 2006)

29.) (MSNBC 2004)

30.) Ibid

31.) (DeYoung 2006)

32.) Ibid

33.) (Weisman 2005)

34.) (MSNBC 2005)

35.) (Face The Nation 2009)

36.) (Face The Nation 2009)

37.) Ibid