Posted on 02/05/2003 1:32:05 AM PST by kattracks
It's almost impossible to overstate the importance of Secretary of State Powell's Security Council briefing on Iraq today.Since Powell already has said he will present "no smoking gun," he probably won't change many minds abroad. Rather, his words likely will spawn a slew of eye-of-the-beholder responses: Those who favor war will declare Powell's evidence the final proof of Saddam Hussein's horror; those opposed will say it's inconclusive.
But Powell's other audience will be here at home, and that audience could well be swayed. A new poll released Monday by Gallup found that close to nine in 10 Americans say Powell's presentation will be important in determining their views about attacking Iraq - and 60% say his remarks will be "very important."
More, given the high degree of public skepticism about a new war, most Americans probably will believe whatever Powell says. When asked whom they trust more when it comes to making the nation's Iraq policy, 63% of Americans said Powell. Only 24% answered President Bush.
That startling result makes Powell an incredibly powerful force, one that may have been deliberately weaponized - but slowly, to maximize its impact.
Until just recently, the administration was talking Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and acting Powell. The bellicose defense secretary led the rhetorical charge against Saddam while the calm secretary of state was portrayed as the moderating influence that pushed Bush to work through the UN.
But now, Powell's views are virtually indistinguishable from Rumsfeld's (or Bush's). Hence the question: Were the past months of internal discord, so feverishly covered by the media, real or confected? Was the Rumsfeld-Powell split a contrived good-cop, bad-cop routine designed from the start to build the credibility Powell now enjoys?
We may never know. But if it was all a devilish ploy, it has worked - as Gallup shows: At the end of the day, and that's pretty close to where we are now, Powell either has finally surfaced his long-held but cleverly concealed support for toppling Saddam or he has seen the same light that Rumsfeld and Bush have seen from the start.
Eve of war
It's possible, too - as long as I'm speculating - that Powell was used. It's possible that the White House savants, knowing all along that the President never would bend, also knew that Powell eventually would have to climb aboard or risk irrelevance - in which case he might have had little choice but to resign on principle, a course they reasoned a career soldier would abhor on the eve of war.
Now back to Powell's other audience. While the secretary's comments may not in themselves cause a wholesale shift in world opinion, the U.S. strategy has been working better than most could have expected.
For a long while, the anti-war coalition led by France appeared to be making headway. But the tables have been turned and it's France - and Germany - that are now isolated in Europe.
Last week's letter from eight European leaders supporting the U.S. position on Iraq was a major blow to France. Now, unless he wants to be on Bush's merde list forever, French President Jacques Chirac is going to have to find a way to soften his hostility to hostilities.
France most fears being marginalized. So while Chirac probably never actually will endorse a war, he could use Powell's presentation to move away from his current "No" and remain neutral if and when the U.S. presses for a new Security Council resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.
Which means that whether by design or not, and both at home and abroad, Powell is Bush's most fearsome weapon.
If the Secretary of State is not authorized automatically to do this, and to use his judgment about presenting public evidence, something is wrong. I'd take that as a vote of no confidence, if I were Powell, that his boss doesn't come forward to part the secrecy waters.
And if Powell didn't want to come back post-bellum for a second Bush term, I wouldn't blame him. This is shabby treatment. The president has the power to stop it, and he hasn't chosen to do so.
It's a Cowboy thang.
They wouldn't understand.
I love this. The media still doesn't catch on to the No-Duh school of Politics.
At any rate, I think Powell has some serious information to impart today, and people like your friend should pay attention.
Intelligence folks are ALWAYS leery of declassifying data, because it gives away sources and methods. That can result in (a) degraded technical intelligence as the bad guys realize that they are being watched and act accordingly, or (b) dead agents.
If the Secretary of State is not authorized automatically to do this, and to use his judgment about presenting public evidence, something is wrong.
Statutory requirement here--Powell would have to run the agency that has the intel.
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.