Was this an article on a cabinet officer or a puff piece on a rock star? There is not one neutral or negative comment.
"The dilemma here is that these aren't just personal disagreements bred out of ambition and strong personality," he added. "These are deep, philosophical differences between two very different views of America in the world. One is a traditional conservative view; the other is a radical break with 55 years of a bipartisan tradition that sought international agreements and regimes of benefit to us."
Ah, I get the contrast, the Wise Men of State vs. the Right-wing Lunatics of the NSC.
Mr. Powell's approach to almost all issues, foreign or domestic, is pragmatic and nonideological. He is internationalist, multilateralist and moderate
Well, silly me, here I had supposed that both multilateralism and unilateralism were, in there way, ideologies. But Todd Purdum has corrected me -- only unilateralism is ideological. Multilateralism is nonideological and pragmatic.
Edward S. Walker, a former assistant secretary of state who now heads the Middle East Institute, a Washington policy institute, said Secretary Powell "is extremely loyal to the president, but he does not give up on his own approach.
"It's the way he is. He after all has as much experience at the Washington game as anyone. I know a lot of people question his effectiveness, but he's a very effective advocate for his point of view, and he just never gives up."
It's an interesting definition of loyalty. Isn't loyalty in an organization usually defined as arguing for your own position before the policy is decided, but then loyally supporting whatever the boss decides on? Is it loyal to never give up your own positions? Definitely a fine line to walk here.
Andrew Sullivan is scathing and quite funny on this column.
This poem in praise of Colin Powell - he's brilliant, such a great guy, a traditional conservative (as opposed to knuckle-dragging right-wing loonies), widely loved, adored even, a rock star abroad, a civil rights icon, and on and on and on - must surely be self-parody. There's nothing new in it. The Times even almost gives Richard Holbrooke a joint by-line. I know it's July, but this piece of Powell-spin truly ranks as one of the all-time greats of vapid media puffery. Every paragraph has a cliche. Count 'em. Then there is this weird locution:
"As one of the world's most admired celebrities for more than a decade, with approval ratings that rival President Bush's, Secretary Powell has special status — and singular political value — in a Republican administration supposedly eager to demonstrate its commitment to compassionate conservatism."
So is Todd Purdum saying that the administration doesn't even want to appear to be eager to be seen as compassionately conservative? Or is Powell part of this fraud? But how can it be fraud if the administration isn't actually eager to perpetrate it? Dizzying. |
