Posted on 01/14/2005 12:50:32 PM PST by SJackson
BARRY SCHWEID AP Diplomatic Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Baring one of Washington's worst-kept secret, Secretary of State Colin Powell's deputy said he and Powell sometimes went public with their dissenting views to try to influence Bush administration policy.
Richard Armitage, who leaves along with Powell at the end of President Bush's first term, described the process as using the "bully pulpit.''
"Differences of opinion are something you as a citizen and I as a citizen should value in your government,'' Armitage said in an interview with National Public Radio's "Morning Edition'' on Thursday. "You really want it.''
Powell and Armitage, whose friendship was forged decades ago, share foreign policy views that are distinctly more moderate than those of Bush and other key presidential advisers. They also made far more use of media interviews and speeches to promote U.S. foreign policy than their predecessors.
Armitage made clear in the interview that the public appearances had another design, as well -- to reflect and register the views of the State Department as well as influence the shaping of policy.
"When Secretary Powell speaks or when Rich Armitage speaks, we're putting out our views. And we will do so respectfully, of course,'' Armitage said according to a text released Friday by the State Department. "This is what the president paid us for, to bring him our views.''
"And, of course, he can agreee with us or not, as he chooses,'' Armitage said.
Armitage offered no examples of specific areas or issues of disagreement, although his response was to a question that suggested that Powell and he had been at odds with other top administration officials on policies involving North Korea and the Middle East.
Powell is known to have pushed for negotiations with North Korea over its nuclear weapons programs, a strategy Bush adopted after months of review at the beginning of his first term. On the Middle East, Powell sometimes sought more flexibility from Israel, than did the White House, in dealing with the Palestinians.
"You don't want a government that sees everything the same way,'' Armitage said. "That would be bad -- it would lead to bad government, in my view.''
You seem to be saying it wasn't Powell rather his staff that resisted the administration's policies. That's possible, these statements don't come from Powell, rather his "staff", Armitage. However he's Secretary of State, it's his responsibility to run the department. Something someone with military experience (and Armitage has extensive military experience as well, Annapolis grad, Viet vet and years at Defense) should be able to do. Unfortunately some of the "disagreements" with GWB pertaining to the middle east came directly from Powell's mouth. A General should know better. He did a much better job on Iraq, irrespective of his own opinions.
Theoretically. Their job, in public, is to execute policy set by the President. Disagreements belong behind closed doors, not in interviews with the press.
But you don't want a bunch of loose cannons running around State, making foreign policy, either.
Powell and Armitage have it ass backwards. The President paid them to give their views alright, but the President never wanted them to undermine his foreign policy decisions once the President had made a decision after listening to many views on any number of subjects.
"When Secretary Powell speaks or when Rich Armitage speaks, we're putting out our views. And we will do so respectfully, of course,'' Armitage said according to a text released Friday by the State Department. "This is what the president paid us for, to bring him our views.''
"And, of course, he can agreee with us or not, as he chooses,'' Armitage said.
"When Secretary Powell speaks or when Rich Armitage speaks, we're putting out our views. And we will do so respectfully, of course,'' Armitage said according to a text released Friday by the State Department. "This is what the president paid us for, to bring him our views.''
"And, of course, he can agreee with us or not, as he chooses,'' Armitage said.
"When Secretary Powell speaks or when Rich Armitage speaks, we're putting out our views. And we will do so respectfully, of course,'' Armitage said according to a text released Friday by the State Department. "This is what the president paid us for, to bring him our views.''
"And, of course, he can agreee with us or not, as he chooses,'' Armitage said.
Quotes:"When Secretary Powell speaks or when Rich Armitage speaks, we're putting out our views. And we will do so respectfully, of course,'' Armitage said according to a text released Friday by the State Department. "This is what the president paid us for, to bring him our views.'' "And, of course, he can agreee with us or not, as he chooses,'' Armitage said.
The Armitage quotes don't exactly match the title. Armitage could well have been talking about their differing views at a closed door meeting. No quoted mention of taking the differing views public.
That was in the olden days. It's part of the U.N. executive branch now.
Sure he did, he just didn’t give examples of specific areas or issues of disagreement
From the article.
he and Powell sometimes went public with their dissenting views to try to influence Bush administration policy---public
described the process as using the "bully pulpit.''---that clearly implies public pronouncements.
They also made far more use of media interviews and speeches to promote U.S. foreign policy than their predecessors. Armitage made clear in the interview that the public appearances had another design, as well -- to reflect and register the views of the State Department as well as influence the shaping of policy. ---public interviews
Now I never heard much disagreement from Powell, even ignoring the effect on the State Dept. of the vast changes Bush directed in our foreign policy- Powell had a couple of mild turf battles with Defense in post war Iraq.
You follow Israel much more closely than I do, admittedly there could have been disagreements there that I missed.
From the article. he and Powell sometimes went public with their dissenting views to try to influence Bush administration policy---public described the process as using the "bully pulpit.''---that clearly implies public pronouncements.
I'm a why-not-use-quotes-in-full-context kinda guy. Quoting the phrase "bully pulpit" doesn't tell me anything. If a reporter has a full quote from Armitage bragging about such inappropriate behavior, why would a reporter not use that quote and instead use a measly two word phrase?
Do we have a full transcript on this?
I think he did a good job on Iraq, departmental leaks aren't public pronouncements, which was obviously the most important. The largest number of "gaffes" did relate to the "road map", where he publically contradicted the President on critical points, critical to the non-existant peace process not the US, on several occasions.
I looked for one, but couldn't find it. If a transcript turns up, I'll ping you.
Maybe I'm off base but it seems to me their differences ought to be expressed within the administration, not the public venue. If I had a guy working for me that thought like this, I'd fire him.
You can probably cite those contradictions more than most. As you probably know, one theory was that the Powell contradictions were a deliberate ploy by a unified executive branch. I would love to see evidence either way that would clarify what was going on in the case of those contradictions.
I looked for one, but couldn't find it. If a transcript turns up, I'll ping you.
Yes, please do. Thanks.
You'll never see the evidence either way. I reject that theory based on my view of GWB as a relatively straight shooter, and the well known pro Arab (Saudi) bias of the State Dept. They need jobs when they retire. On balance I think Powell did a decent job, particularly on Iraq, but he didn't address what I perceive as a major problem, restructuring State as a department fullly in accord with administration policies. Big job for Condi.
Good riddance.
To bad trash.
The president pays his cabinet officials to bring him their views--not to bring their contrary views to the public. No wonder Bush didn't allow Powell to hang around a few extra months longer. I can't wait for Dr. Rice to step into the saddle.
I reject that theory based on my view of GWB as a relatively straight shooter,
The ploy from our executive branch was not directed at Israel. The contradictions were aimed at the Pali's, their terrorist supporters and the global U.N. types. Ya know, talk nice and then watch as Israel takes out the terrorist leaders one by one -- poof!
and the well known pro Arab (Saudi) bias of the State Dept.
Not sure if Fahd and Abdullah are State Department allies. I know the MSM cringes at the thought of those guys helping us with Iraq and Al Qaeda.
I guess they love it when Abdullah trashes Israel.
Isn't this the same Powell who devised the don't go into Baghdad or take out Saddam while we can during Gulf 1 strategy?
Isn't that the strategy that has us in Iraq now finishing the job?
href=javascript:getStaticMedia('/me/20050114_me_armitage','RM,WM');
or the link at
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4283976
Coming from someone who isn’t a great fan of Powell, the AP take is complete BS. It’s based on piecing together quotes from less than a minute of the interview.
If you don’t listen, it’s mostly about Iraq, my take, we’re winning.
He admits he and Powell won't be missed, and the nation won't miss a beat because of it. And that infighting, as between Powell and Rumsfeld, is part of a vital governmental process. Say's nothing about it being public.
One great quote
Being responsible involves pissing people off.
I agree with your take on GWB as a straight shooter.
On Iraq, I have read that Armitage orchestrated the policy on the post-bellum against what Defense planners wanted. And we know that there was poor planning there. My understanding was that Defense wanted to have an Iraqi government ready to go in as soon as battle was over. Instead Armitage put in the Coalition with its US face. That cost big.
well yeah but there were alot of people including Pres Bush 41 that thought it was a bad idea and even Gen. Schwatrzkpof at the time thought so too......I just think it is unfair to pile it on one guy when there were many that felt the same way........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.