October 25, 2005
Wilkerson's Sour Grapes
My noble adversary always likes to admonish us when we attack the credibility of of the messenger versus responding to the actual facts. Being the good lawyer that he is, I am surprised by this, because I thought that is what good lawyers do -- point out the credibility or lack thereof of the witness. Maybe he just doesn't like this when it is a non-lawyer doing credibility questioning.
But he is right, we should focus on the facts before we try to question a person's credibility. And I ask you, what facts has RightLeft and Colonel Wilkerson shared with us that are relevant and support his views on the Bush administration's foreign policy? What Wilkerson and RightLeft wish to do is to leverage Wilkerson's relationship to a very respected political personality, Colin Powell, and use that relationship to trash the President, hoping that the public's belief that Powell is a decent and honest man will lend credibility to Wilkerson's personal opinions which represent nothing more than sour grapes.
Colonel Wilkerson is just another inside the beltway liberal who is out for nothing more than to trash the administration with the same old liberal talking points. His article might be believable if he didn't bring up the same old worn-out liberal pabulums (e.g. Kyoto, WMD, etc.) -- elements that RightLeft chose not to include in his posting.
Wilkerson's complaints amount to nothing more than sour grapes that he and his man Powell were iced out by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Bush himself. This is typical liberal bipartisanship: If it's not my way, then let's attack it. I've read Woodward's book which makes it clear that Powell had a strong voice in the deliberations leading up to Iraq and Bush gave Powell significant opportunity to negotiate an agreement with the French, Germans, and the UN that would have avoided an invasion. The issue here is that there was nothing that was going to change at the UN and as we know now, Saddam did not have WMD, but he also didn't want to tell anyone he didn't have WMD. We had no choice but to go into Iraq and I believe history will view this as an importantly successful foreign policy victory -- not unlike winning the Cold War under Reagan. The Colonel's petulant and juvenile remarks basically reflect Powell's frustration that he could not replace Bush's foreign policy with his own foreign policy.
You may ask why is Colonel Wilkerson going public now while his former boss Powell remains quiet. Could it be that Powell has as much to lose by going public? Or is because Powell is behaving consistent with why he is such a revered hero to all of us? Colin Powell is a dedicated and loyal American who understands that even if his views are not adopted by his Commander-in-Chief, his obligation is to follow orders and execute. And this he did with great success.
It is clear that Wilkerson is out on a limb here. Recently Powell spoke at the University of Buffalo and the Associated Press (here) reports:
Wilkerson himself admits that he has had a falling out with Powell. So what we have here is not a credible Powell protégé, logically voicing why Bush's foreign policy is fatally flawed; but rather, a whining, sniveling liberal who can't stand it that his views and ideas were not adopted by his commanding officers -- the President and Vice-President -- who were elected by a majority of Americans.
But he is right, we should focus on the facts before we try to question a person's credibility. And I ask you, what facts has RightLeft and Colonel Wilkerson shared with us that are relevant and support his views on the Bush administration's foreign policy? What Wilkerson and RightLeft wish to do is to leverage Wilkerson's relationship to a very respected political personality, Colin Powell, and use that relationship to trash the President, hoping that the public's belief that Powell is a decent and honest man will lend credibility to Wilkerson's personal opinions which represent nothing more than sour grapes.
Colonel Wilkerson is just another inside the beltway liberal who is out for nothing more than to trash the administration with the same old liberal talking points. His article might be believable if he didn't bring up the same old worn-out liberal pabulums (e.g. Kyoto, WMD, etc.) -- elements that RightLeft chose not to include in his posting.
Wilkerson's complaints amount to nothing more than sour grapes that he and his man Powell were iced out by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Bush himself. This is typical liberal bipartisanship: If it's not my way, then let's attack it. I've read Woodward's book which makes it clear that Powell had a strong voice in the deliberations leading up to Iraq and Bush gave Powell significant opportunity to negotiate an agreement with the French, Germans, and the UN that would have avoided an invasion. The issue here is that there was nothing that was going to change at the UN and as we know now, Saddam did not have WMD, but he also didn't want to tell anyone he didn't have WMD. We had no choice but to go into Iraq and I believe history will view this as an importantly successful foreign policy victory -- not unlike winning the Cold War under Reagan. The Colonel's petulant and juvenile remarks basically reflect Powell's frustration that he could not replace Bush's foreign policy with his own foreign policy.
You may ask why is Colonel Wilkerson going public now while his former boss Powell remains quiet. Could it be that Powell has as much to lose by going public? Or is because Powell is behaving consistent with why he is such a revered hero to all of us? Colin Powell is a dedicated and loyal American who understands that even if his views are not adopted by his Commander-in-Chief, his obligation is to follow orders and execute. And this he did with great success.
It is clear that Wilkerson is out on a limb here. Recently Powell spoke at the University of Buffalo and the Associated Press (here) reports:
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday the United States is "not
doing bad at all" diplomatically, despite anti-American sentiment over the war
in Iraq. "If you stand back a bit," Powell told an audience at the University at
Buffalo, "you might see we have done very well in most parts of the world."
Wilkerson himself admits that he has had a falling out with Powell. So what we have here is not a credible Powell protégé, logically voicing why Bush's foreign policy is fatally flawed; but rather, a whining, sniveling liberal who can't stand it that his views and ideas were not adopted by his commanding officers -- the President and Vice-President -- who were elected by a majority of Americans.
