THE POWELL SPIN

Unsurprising pro-Powell spin by Bill Keller of the Times Magazine Sunday. I’ve never believed that Powell was shut out of the administration – he is much closer to Bush than many seem to think – but I don’t see, and am still not persuaded by Keller, that Powell is now in control of the administration’s foreign policy. Yes, he’s an important player in the diplomatic front for the war on terror, but haven’t the events of the last two weeks undermined him yet again? The campaign in Afghanistan must surely have strengthened the hands of Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz – as the news that the administration is now extending its list of targets seems to suggest. Wouldn’t a profile of Rummy be more appropriate now? The most revealing tidbit of the piece, however, was the almost hysterical tone of the emails from former president Bush. It’s unarguable that Powell first opposed using force to repel Saddam from Kuwait, that he vastly over-estimated Iraq’s military capabilities, and that he betrayed the rebelling Iraqis by cutting the war short before Saddam had been toppled. So why does GHWB call Powell’s opposition to force “a grossly unfair, insupportable lie”? I guess it depends on exactly when Powell opposed force. Once ordered to deliver, I have no doubt that Powell did as he was told. But what about before? That’s the critical point, surely: not Powell’s military skills but his political and strategic judgement, which has been demonstrably wrong on every major foreign policy intervention in the last decade. But Powell, like many “moderate” Republicans, cannot bear to say he was once mistaken, and his real contempt seems to be for those within his own party who favor a more hard-headed approach to foreign affairs. Powell’s rolling of the eyes at Ronald Reagan’s legacy speaks volumes about Powell’s overweening arrogance, a quality not likely to be undermined by Keller’s source-pleasing Valentine. Too bad. And way too predictable.