PDA

View Full Version : Colin Powells Right Hand man speaks up on adumbration


a_unique_person
21st March 2006, 07:40 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1597565.htm



COLONEL LARRY WILKERSON: If you look at our Government structure since World War II, principally since the 1947 National Security Act set up the decision-making process and the national security structure that we have today, you can find during that 50-plus-year period many times when the statutory process was flummoxed, it was adumbrated and obscured and deviated from, choose your verb. We have had accumulations of power during that period, for example, that our founding fathers would find egregious. I only need cite one when Henry Kissinger was both National Security Adviser and Secretary of State to give you some idea of how this has happened in the past. Today, what we have is the most powerful Vice President in the history of the republic. We have a Vice President who has a staff that equates to the National Security Council staff, that is the statutory staff under the law. We have a Vice President who gets numerous bites at the apple, so to speak, with the President of the United States and who has inordinate and dramatic influence on the President of the United States, through not just his own demeanour and his own feelings and opinion but also through the enormous staff that he has that, as I said, is the equivalent of the statutory staff. So, while in the past we might have had accumulation of power in a man who was both Secretary of State and National Security Adviser - we might have had different concentrations of power during Iran Contra and so forth that led to failures - we now have a unique concentration of power and it is in the office of the Vice President and it is amplified by the fact that the office of the Vice President tends to depend largely on the Defence Department when it comes to advice and consent with regard to many of the most important national security decisions and that's what I call a cabal.
.....
COLONEL LARRY WILKERSON: I think, unquestionably. I'm hearing from lieutenants, captains, majors, generals, many in uniform, many of whom were my students in years passed when I taught at the nation's war colleges. I'm hearing from the civilians who were foreign service officers, civil service and so forth in our embassy in Baghdad and I can tell you that the morale in the uniformed military is being impacted and I can also tell you that our ground forces are stretched to the point where you hear talk about withdrawal from Iraq. Within 24 months, we're going to have to withdraw from Iraq, whether the situation there, politically, economically and so forth, is adequate or not because we've stretched our ground forces to the point of breaking. We have officers who are leaving the Army and the Marine Corps now because they don't want to do a third and possibly a fourth tour in Afghanistan or Iraq. We have people who are beginning to question their leaders, just as they did in Vietnam. We have families that are beginning to fall apart because of second and third tours in Iraq. This is a situation with which I am well familiar. The signs are there and the signs are available for anyone to see, which is what makes me consider Secretary Rumsfeld an inadequate Secretary of Defence at best because he doesn't seem to see those signs, or if he does, he's not doing anything about it.



Another nail in the coffin. The US cannot win now, no matter what. It won't take much for the insurgents to hold on for a few more years. And the reason for it all is the worst president in 50 years is incapable of standing up to a cabal centred around the Vice President.

Melendwyr
21st March 2006, 09:49 PM
Incapable emotionally, intellectually, or ideologically?

Grammatron
21st March 2006, 10:18 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1597565.htm



Another nail in the coffin. The US cannot win now, no matter what. It won't take much for the insurgents to hold on for a few more years. And the reason for it all is the worst president in 50 years is incapable of standing up to a cabal centred around the Vice President.

Hey I can do that too.

<inset positive story from Iraqis>
Another step closer! US only has to hold on few more years, it's a good thing that in all the decades Bush came now to stand up to Saddam. Nothing is wrong, lalala.

Yup, BS flows both ways.:rolleyes:

a_unique_person
21st March 2006, 10:30 PM
The article quotes someone who is in a position to know exactly what is going on, and has no vested interest in saying otherwise.

Zep
21st March 2006, 11:13 PM
Well, I'm going to rain on the parade slightly, AUP.

Let's see this man's CV, from the same source:Colonel Larry Wilkerson served in the US military for 31 years, seeing action in Vietnam and also spending time in Korea and Japan. In 1989,he began working for Colin Powell - a relationship which lasted 16 years, ending only when Powell stood down as US Secretary of State at the beginning of last year. By then, Colonel Wilkerson was Colin Powell's chief of staff and instrumental in preparing his testimony and speeches leading up to the invasion of Iraq three years ago.

I think there is vested interest in this - senior military staff do not make such statements without some goal in mind, and I imagine not without approval to do so either. I sense more than just a righteously angry man making a statement of disgust.

So I'm sensing a preparation of the groundwork for Powell to make a comeback with his own team, perhaps even as a presidential candidate in 2008. This is a clear shot at making Cheney look bad, and by inference, Bush, for being a patsy. Comparisons with previous "bad times" that stick in the public memory serve to put Cheney and Bush in a similar bad light. (Not that much help is needed in that regard, but however...)

Then again, it could also be just sour grapes and bandwaggoning.

Grammatron
22nd March 2006, 01:17 AM
The article quotes someone who is in a position to know exactly what is going on, and has no vested interest in saying otherwise.

I can quote in the same way. He offers nothing new.

a_unique_person
22nd March 2006, 01:34 AM
So you already knew and accept as fact what he is claiming?

a_unique_person
22nd March 2006, 01:35 AM
Well, I'm going to rain on the parade slightly, AUP.

Let's see this man's CV, from the same source:

I think there is vested interest in this - senior military staff do not make such statements without some goal in mind, and I imagine not without approval to do so either. I sense more than just a righteously angry man making a statement of disgust.

So I'm sensing a preparation of the groundwork for Powell to make a comeback with his own team, perhaps even as a presidential candidate in 2008. This is a clear shot at making Cheney look bad, and by inference, Bush, for being a patsy. Comparisons with previous "bad times" that stick in the public memory serve to put Cheney and Bush in a similar bad light. (Not that much help is needed in that regard, but however...)

Then again, it could also be just sour grapes and bandwaggoning.
It's not Powell's style to do that. He spoke up in the UN to push for the war, even though he was one of the few in the administration who thought it was wrong.

Grammatron
22nd March 2006, 02:13 AM
So you already knew and accept as fact what he is claiming?

I just required evidence, but that's just me.

Zep
22nd March 2006, 02:25 AM
It's not Powell's style to do that. He spoke up in the UN to push for the war, even though he was one of the few in the administration who thought it was wrong.As I saw it, he did so because he was on the team, and he is a good team player. I suspect it's his military training - obeying orders because he has to.

But Powell is not on that team now, and while the above interview doesn't really add new data that most of us didn't know, it's the source of the data and tone of its delivery that paint the picture for me.

a_unique_person
22nd March 2006, 02:56 AM
I just required evidence, but that's just me.

We're not talking about an opinion piece here. Read the CV Zep found on him. Dubya is coming out and saying exactly the opposite, of course, but the evidence from other every where else seems to confirm Wilkerson's claims. He was the person who put together the brief for Powell to read at the UN, even then he knew it was weak. The only reason it was given any credibility was because Powell backed it. He quit the administration at the end of his service.

daredelvis
22nd March 2006, 07:09 AM
Hey I can do that too.

<inset positive story from Iraqis>
Another step closer! US only has to hold on few more years, it's a good thing that in all the decades Bush came now to stand up to Saddam. Nothing is wrong, lalala.

Yup, BS flows both ways.:rolleyes:


What positive story from Iraq??? Did they paint another school?

Daredelvis

Mark
22nd March 2006, 07:47 AM
And the Bushies still remain unmoved.

Grammatron
22nd March 2006, 11:00 AM
What positive story from Iraq??? Did they paint another school?

Daredelvis

You doubt I can find one from someone who "talked" to "people in uniform" who have opposite conclusions?

Grammatron
22nd March 2006, 11:02 AM
We're not talking about an opinion piece here. Read the CV Zep found on him. Dubya is coming out and saying exactly the opposite, of course, but the evidence from other every where else seems to confirm Wilkerson's claims. He was the person who put together the brief for Powell to read at the UN, even then he knew it was weak. The only reason it was given any credibility was because Powell backed it. He quit the administration at the end of his service.

Yes but he's talking about the present and the future, what he did in the past is not an issue here.

Zep
22nd March 2006, 05:05 PM
You doubt I can find one from someone who "talked" to "people in uniform" who have opposite conclusions?Don't doubt you can find the Whitehouse at all!

Grammatron
22nd March 2006, 05:13 PM
Don't doubt you can find the Whitehouse at all!

Indeed :)

CapelDodger
22nd March 2006, 05:22 PM
And the reason for it all is the worst president in 50 years is incapable of standing up to a cabal centred around the Vice President.
The only countervailing force was Uncle Karl Rove, and we're not hearing much from him these days. He's still mustard on the Moral Majority circuit, and his evil intelligence and pack of demons are still to hand nationally, but Dick "Head-Shot" Cheney struts the stuff. Metaphorically speaking.

When Condi runs, she'll cut both these guys adrift. She'll be on the Good Ship Bush, and they'll be liabilities. Mark my words.

Rumsfeld goes first.

peptoabysmal
22nd March 2006, 11:06 PM
Just associating Wilkerson's name with Powell doesn't mean that the two agree. I read most of the transcript (link provided) and Wilkerson keeps blathering on about how he's got the facts on how this administration went wrong, but he doesn't present any. If you find any, please let me know.

His arguments remind me of the empty-headed partisan fluff that falls out of Barbara Boxer's (http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_06_09_05ke.html)mouth. Keep in mind this guy has been disgruntled with the government for some time now (ex Vietnam vet blah blah) and is a Republican -> Democrat convert. Sort of a neo-lib.

COL. WILKERSON: Yes, I have paid a price, and it’s a high price for me. I’ve paid the price that Colin Powell and I see eye to eye a lot less than we used to. Now, that’s not to say that that wasn’t the case a lot of times anyway. The great respect I have for the man emanates as much from his ability to tolerate me in my many dissenting opinions as it does for any leadership qualities that he’s otherwise shown me, which were manifold. But at the end, I actually was physically thrown out of his office on one
occasion, and that was a first in 16 years.

It showed, I think, his exasperation and it showed his tolerance level had sunk
considerably for dissenting opinions. He’s not happy – I think that’s fair to say – with my speaking out because – and I admire this in him too – he is the world’s most loyal soldier and feels that his inveterate optimism is right and that we will overcome these problems. And I share that. However, I feel like as a citizen and as a person very much concerned with the military – it was my old home – I need to speak out.
emphasis mine.

Here's a link to one of those rare PDF's that use actual text:
http://www.newamerica.net/Download_Docs/pdfs/Doc_File_2644_1.pdf

Zep
22nd March 2006, 11:15 PM
Sounds much more like he was thrown out of Powell's office because Powell was having a bad day in it, than because Powell disagreed with him particularly.

peptoabysmal
22nd March 2006, 11:28 PM
Sounds much more like he was thrown out of Powell's office because Powell was having a bad day in it, than because Powell disagreed with him particularly.

Both, I think;
...It showed, I think, his exasperation and it showed his tolerance level had sunk considerably for dissenting opinions. ...

It also hints at a history of such behavior, not just results of a bad day.
...to tolerate me in my many dissenting opinions...

Dr Adequate
22nd March 2006, 11:50 PM
I don't know what "adumbration" means.

I surrender.