Colin Powell's endorsement is worthless

Colin Powell was wrong about Bush, wrong about Iraq, and is still not abjectly apologetic about either. When Tom Brokaw played the clip of Powell saying "Dick Cheney will be a great vice president" etc. at the 2000 RNC, his question was whether Powell regretted making that speech. The real question to ask after that clip is why anyone should assign any value to his endorsement of any subsequent presidential ticket. As digby said, only the Villagers will care, and they will care deeply because Colin Powell is very serious.

Joe Scarborough made the point in the roundtable that the effect on the news cycle itself will help Obama because McCain needs as much positive attention as possible, but I still resent being asked to care what Colin Powell thinks about anything until he owns up to what he did.

Bloomberg: Rice Says She's `Proud' of Decision to Invade Iraq

This is the woman who represents the relatively sane wing of the Bush foreign policy team.

Response to reader_iam

At her visually pleasing blog, reader_iam responds to my post on Obama's Iraq statement yesterday, in which I note that Obama "would be able to do whatever he wanted with the troops as president":

"How interesting an observation and acceptance is that, from someone ostensibly so opposed—conceptually and on principle—to any such easy insouciance with regard to the powers of the presidency? One has to wonder if the blogger is so focused on reassuring some that it's the intentions and goals which matter that he's failed to notice the concession. Which makes him different from those he eschews (for careless assumption of an entitlement to power and a smug 'tude toward implementation) and any more worthy of planting his flag on high ground—how, exactly?"

To respond with my characteristic "insouciance": That's Article II for ya! I'm not conceding anything I disagreed with before. I've never argued that Bush is acting outside his power by keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely. It's his assertion that his Article II power authorizes him to violate statutory laws (like FISA) if he deems it necessary for national security, his use of torture, his signing statements that purport to reserve his "right" to break the laws he's signing, and the general lawlessness of his administration that I object to. His Iraq policy per se is awful but not unconstitutional.

I don't have a "smug 'tude" towards implementation. I want our troops withdrawn from Iraq. I didn't think Bush should have invaded, etc. My point was that, unlike on legislative and legal matters, the president doesn't need Congressional approval (or approval from the generals, who answer to him) to withdraw troops, so Obama can make gestures in the direction of being more inclined to leave them there than he really is.

Making moderate noises

So Obama's talking about listening to the "commanders on the ground," which is a Bush phrase that means leaving the troops in Iraq while abdicating responsibility for the decision.

If I were the raging purity troll I sound like on the FISA stuff, I'd be concerned, but I'm okay with this. For one, as Matt Yglesias points out, Obama has from the beginning left himself plenty of wiggle room on the withdrawal timeline, so there's not the same flat self-contradiction as there was on FISA.

Second, he's not selling core American values down the river. The questions of exactly when and how to withdraw troops from Iraq are practical ones. And even on the issue of Iraq the logistics are much less politically fraught than the judgment questions of "Should we have invaded?" (BO no, JM yes) and "Should we withdraw our troops soon?" (BO yes, JM no).

Given the high awareness and relative popularity of those conflicting positions, Obama might as well try to sucker as many war supporters into voting for him as possible. He's just gotta make it clear that he's no pansy. He's not going to take his army and put it away, like a good little boy after playtime. He's gonna confer with the death dealers and see if any more death needs to be dealt before he slowly, at his leisure, removes the boot from the neck of our adversary. That kind of thing.

At the end of the day, he'd be able to do whatever he wanted with the troops as president, and I don't see any suggestion outside certain corners of winguttia that he's secretly resigned to the idea of keeping a massive troop presence in Iraq for years and years.

Sad but true

Marc Ambinder: "For enough Democrats, Clinton represents enough change... Obama represents more change, certainly, but the perfect isn't the enemy of the good when there are other factors to consider."

It's frustrating that so many Democrats believe the party's second-most enthusiastic supporter of the Iraq War represents "enough change." It would seem to call into question just how important the war is as an issue, despite all the polls that until recently had it #1. But people seem to think of her as a foreign policy dove no matter what she does. A poll in December found that Democrats in the three early states trusted her the most on Iraq. The most, despite her obviously disingenuous insistence that she doesn't bear any responsibility for enabling it.

How stupid are Democrats? Polls say very.

My Ryan Crocker conspiracy theory

The U.S. Ambassador to Iraq was on "Meet the Press" this past Sunday (transcript). Watching him, I was struck by how meek and ineffective his presentation was. Looking and sounding like a slightly more youthful Peter Gammons, Crocker was so slow to come up with good answers to Russert's questions that I think Timmy took them on a decided turn for the fluffy in the second half.

Whatever might be said of the Bush White House, they are good at showmanship, and this guy was a glaring exception. I indulged in the sneaking suspicion that he was not given the Ambassadorship to lead any diplomatic effort in Iraq. Because if there's anything more ingrained in the administration than showmanship, it's an aversion to any form of diplomacy other than threatening varying degrees of economic or military action.

What they would want in an Ambassador to Iraq is a guy who seems genuine and hardworking but nonetheless helps convince the American people that diplomacy leads nowhere. I think Crocker fits that bill.

Crazy, right? I thought so too, but now I'm really starting to wonder. In today's WaPo: "Embassy Staff In Baghdad Inadequately Staffed, Rice Is Told"

Told by Crocker, that is. Some choice quotes:

"Simply put, we cannot do the nation's most important work if we do not have the Department's best people," Crocker said in the memo.

But surely our resolute Ambassador is making progress with the cards he was dealt, right?

"He's panicking," said one government official who recently returned from Baghdad, adding that Crocker is carrying a heavy workload...

What goes totally unmentioned in the article is what vital diplomatic efforts are being hindered by the lack of HR staff. But some things are crystal clear:

"They need a cohesive, coherent effort on all fronts," the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

Well I can see why, if he's going to drop bombshells like that.

Anyway I still, even after reading this article, don't have any proof that the White House is throwing the game at the U.S. Embassy. In fact, Crocker appears to be extremely, if not uniquely, qualified for the job. But this article sure makes him sound like the fall guy, and judging by his MTP performance he is perfect for the role.