Posted on 03/15/2003 9:25:31 PM PST by Destro
Powell furious at Rumsfeld's Europe insults
March 16 2003
By Aaron Patrick
New York
As America struggles to win United Nations support for deposing Saddam Hussein, new evidence of tension between US Secretary of State Colin Powell and the pro-war "hawks" in the Bush Administration has emerged publicly.
Mr Powell has let it be known that he is furious at Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for negative comments about France and Germany that appear to have stiffened their opposition to a UN resolution authorising war on Iraq.
The head of the US military during the 1991 Gulf War, Mr Powell is also unhappy with Mr Rumsfeld's offhand revelation this week that British forces in the Gulf may not join an invasion. The remark encouraged opponents of beleaguered British Prime Minister Tony Blair, one of America's strongest allies.
"Diplomacy is slipping away and Rumsfeld needs some duct tape put over his mouth," The New York Times quoted an anonymous friend of Mr Powell's as saying.
Mr Powell has been seen as the leading moderate figure in the Bush Administration, a position that has given him leverage with other countries at the UN, and helped the US win a 15-0 vote for the November resolution that launched new weapons inspections in Iraq.
But the friend said Mr Powell felt his efforts since then to find a diplomatic resolution have been constantly undercut by the Administration's hard-line "hawks".
In February, Mr Rumsfeld described France and Germany as "old Europe", a perceived insult that continues to reverberate through diplomatic circles.
Mr Rumsfeld, his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, and Vice-President Dick Cheney are seen as pushing hardest for a invasion and of being less interested in securing UN support.
In the book Bush at War, author Bob Woodward said Mr Rumsfeld had proposed an attack on Iraq at one of the first meetings of the National Security Council after the September 11 attacks. The meeting was chaired by President Bush.
Mr Powell argued that al-Qaeda should be dealt with first, and said switching the attack from Afghanistan to Iraq would fracture the international alliance against terrorism. President Bush agreed with this at the time.
The attack on Afghanistan did not provoke significant international opposition, but the US is even struggling to win the support of allies like Mexico and Turkey for launching a war on Iraq.
Mr Powell now appears to be repositioning himself in preparation for a failure of US diplomacy at the UN. Aides say he has moved from opposing an invasion to supporting action without UN support, if necessary, because of Iraq's refusal to give up its weapons and taking France's obstruction into account.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/13/column.novak.opinion.army/
The Army's Civil War
Nationally syndicated columnist Robert Novak participates in three of CNN's political public affairs programs- Novak, Hunt & Shields, Crossfire and The Capital Gang
Thursday, March 13, 2003 Posted: 6:27 PM EST (2327 GMT)
WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- As the Pentagon prepared to go to war, it was considered a 100 percent certainty there in the middle of last week that Thomas White would be sacked forthwith as secretary of the Army.
Maybe I am missing something here.
So what is the point of this charade?
The point of the charade would be to have voices that have credibility with different groups ultimately giving the same message. Powell has credibility with the diplomats and doves. Rumsfeld has credibility with the hawks.
LOL...Interesting scenario, but for some reason, I don't think that was the plan......The good cop bad cop thing. IMHO, I tend to think they were fragmenting and the focus was blurred.
The simultaneous diplomatic and militant fronts are just business as usual with the increased attention and scrutiny that is only applied to Republicans and overlooked for Democrats.
Huh?
So what should we do to UN ????
As they disappear into our rearview mirror, wave, wish them luck.....
Whatever. But I know how the media works.
BTW, I didn't realize earlier that you are in Scotland. I can therefore understand your hostility to Blair. I would probably feel much the same were I living under his socialist rule. But being an American, my primary concern is his foreign policy, which from our point of view has been exemplary. Fair enough?
The simultaneous diplomatic and militant fronts are just business as usual with the increased attention and scrutiny that is only applied to Republicans and overlooked for Democrats.
We should of never went that direction, IMHO.
I find dealing with the United Nations very offensive, as most all those anti American SOBs hate our guts....That's inordinately clear.....
We need to start treating that organization like any other common enemy.
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.