See How Powell Lined Up Votes, starting with his President's @ http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/09/international/09POWE.html Excerpt: "For the moment, admirers and many critics are praising his negotiating skills. "This is a tremendous victory for Powell," said a Republican senator close to him. "When you look at Rumsfeld's position and Cheney's position on going to the United Nations, there's no doubt that Powell won."
Looking back on the last three months, diplomats involved in the negotiations on Iraq say his efforts were sometimes undercut by words and actions of the Bush administration. Those diplomats cite the continuous American calls for "regime change" in Iraq - not mentioned, they added, when negotiations got intense - as well as lingering bad feelings in Europe over Mr. Cheney's and Mr. Rumsfeld's criticism of the value of inspections, and confusion over allegations of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Also creating problems for the administration was its decision to release a national security strategy in September calling for pre-emptive strikes against American enemies." KWC Outgoing Mail Scanned by NAV 2002 Harry, I think you are too kind to Pres. Bush. You assert that he 'backed down' on a couple of things at the UN and 'got his way.' Leaving aside the inherent contradiction between these two statements, it is clear, if you have been following the debate, that Bush and his brain trust did NOT get what they wanted, at all: they did NOT want to have their war planning brought under UN controls; they did NOT want the issue of disarmament and inspections to rear up again; the last person they wanted to see donning his traveling shoes was Blix; they do NOT want to see 'regime change' (what a euphemism!) fade from the international and national discourse. Yes, it is true that the Bush administration compromised to get what they could, but it is not a compromise that they wanted. Instead, it was Powell who emerged as the primary architect, and Bush/Perle/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld/Kristof who were, at least for the moment, 'defeated.' Now, I will say that I see Bush as more influenced by the rest than they by him. If the liberals and intellectuals in this country had just reached out to Bush three-four years ago instead of looking down their noses at him, they might well be the ones influencing him today. Bush is malleable, and in this perhaps you see the elements of compromise and 'win-win', and to this extent, I would agree with you. But it is not a malleability that works in service to a clear ideology; it is one that works in service to whoever has his ear. And those that have won his ear are those who are kind to him. The Christian fundies and right-wing hawks figured this out some time ago; the liberals still prefer to bash him. I do hope that Powell changes his mind and stays on, and shudder to think what things might be like if Wolfowitz or Perle replace him. Best regards, Lawry
