| | | >> You're saying that they couldn't control Colin Powell when negotiations with the Iranians were involved but they COULD control Colin Powell when they had him go in and make a FOOL of himself in front of the world by talking about all those "sophisticated" mobile labs and missiles which never really existed????
I don't think it was a matter of "controlling" him. He is, in my opinion, a truly great man -- although I lost a some respect for him after he supported Obama for a second term, particularly against a highly qualified individual like Romney -- but I understand it. Still, he is obviously one of the finest people to serve the country.
Powell wasn't "controlled" by the Bush Administration in the runup to the war. He wanted more diplomacy, but he had told GWB he would support the war effort if diplomacy failed. Diplomacy failed and Powell supported the war even after it became difficult. Obviously, there were problems between Powell and Cheney because Cheney was a hardliner while Powell was more liberal.
Neither of these men were (are) pushovers. They both had strong opinions. When the so-called "overture" occurred, Powell was more aligned with the EU3 position than with others in the Bush administration, that's all. I don't find anything unusual about that, but some in the administration, according to what I've read, felt like the EU3 was making pushing a rather weak approach and Powell was closer to their position than to Bush's and others.
I do think Powell is pretty liberal and may didn't fit in that well; but Bush knew that going in. Bush was never about choosing people who would all agree on everything. He was a very strong president and believed it was important to have diversity of opinion. That's why he ended up with a hardliner like Cheney, a liberal like Powell, and a moderate like Rice. They really were among the most qualified people in the country, but you have to expect these people to disagree on things from time to time. |
|
