Skip to main content


Yes suh! Yes suh! Right away suh!

Mr. Powell sir, you are a liar and an apologist for a crooked regime known as the George W. Bush administration.  I charge you with these offenses based on the following:

Exhibit A: April 9, 2004 State Department briefing:

QUESTION:Can I ask -- change the subject to Iraq? I'm wondering if the -- your announcement today that you're lifting the ban on exports of lethal military equipment to Iraq, if that was timed to coincide with the one-year anniversary of the fall of Baghdad.

MR. ERELI: I'm not aware that it was. I think it's, you know, something that's been in train, but I don't have any indication that it was timed for that.

QUESTION: Given the violence there, you think it's a good idea?

MR. ERELI: I think that what we're looking towards and what's motivating us is the looking forward to a transfer of sovereignty on June 30th and, you know, taking the measures necessary to be able to deal with a sovereign Iraqi author -- a sovereign government in Iraq, in the way that we deal with other sovereign governments.

QUESTION: Which means a --

QUESTION: So this isn't necessarily --

QUESTION: Which means a well armed or an adequately armed army and police force?

MR. ERELI: Exactly.

QUESTION: This is to authorize in case you need to send the Iraqi forces something. At the hearing you and I were at yesterday, and the Secretary spoke, you remember he agreed with the observation that the place is just -- you know, there are tons of weapons all over the place, that it's a very --

QUESTION: An ammo dump.

QUESTION: "It's an ammo dump," was the phrase. Do you really think they need more weapons in Iraq? Or is it what I think it might be, that should you find Iraqi security needs a Weapon A or Weapon B, this gives you --

MR. ERELI: This is -- this is an authority that gives us an added tool to -- in our bilateral relationship with the future Iraqi government.

QUESTION: All right. Can I ask you about something the Secretary said yesterday? And I hope I'll remember to ask every now or then, or maybe we could ask you to tell us about milestones. But he said two things about it.

In response to skepticism that Iraq would be ready for transition and whether the Administration is really making thorough preparations, and really to Senator Leahy, who wants more consultation -- he wants more than that, but let's put that aside for a moment -- he said he will, the State Department will be sending people to Congress to keep them informed, to brief them. And he said, you know, we're moving ahead with the excellent preparations.

I was going -- I could ask you if you could tell us about milestones when they appear. Have you chosen an ambassador? Have you decided where the embassy is going to be located? There was talk of a palace, of a leftover building. Can you point to -- I know it's only yesterday that he testified, but can you provide any details either of plans to brief Congress and examples of headway toward transition? Landmarks, milestones, things that -- I don't expect anything's happened since last night, but, you know, I'm looking for things -- you haven't chosen an ambassador, which doesn't necessarily mean you haven't done other things.

MR. ERELI: I think planning -- as we discussed in the last briefing on Wednesday, planning is proceeding, I think, pretty rapidly, pretty deliberately toward opening an embassy, toward making the arrangements to deal with a sovereign Iraqi government as opposed to a Coalition Provisional Authority.

As far as the embassy itself goes, I believe we gave a background briefing some time ago, several weeks ago --

QUESTION: Yes, I was there.

MR. ERELI: So you would know that there has been a site determined for where the embassy will be once sovereignty is turned over. As we discussed on Wednesday, we are advertising positions to staff the embassy and we are receiving more applications than there are positions, so that it would be safe to assume that the embassy will be, I think, well and ably staffed, to, you know, assume its duties and its responsibilities well before the June 30th date.

As far as milestones to point to, or actions, I think there have been a couple over the last few days. You have seen ministries, responsibilities for ministries transfer from the CPA to Iraqi ministers, whereas before, it was a Coalition Provisional Authority figure running the ministry with Iraqi advisors or Iraqi -- other Iraqis working there.

We have handed over control, or CPA has handed over control, for ministries to new Iraqi ministers. And they will be running the ministries. And this is a good example of things in train and in place before the June 30th date, so that when June 30th comes, they will have been up and running and doing things beforehand.

There was -- this has been done with the Ministry of Defense; it's been done, I believe, with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education. There has been a new National Security Council formed and Mr. Senor, I think, spoke to that in his briefing today, where he announced who would be the head of this National Security Council, bringing together the Ministry of Defense, security services, to coordinate issues relating to security and stability in Iraq.

So you are seeing a number of actions in a number of areas, all leading to the same conclusion, that there is a process underway whose aim is to create a viable, sovereign authority that can assume control of Iraq on June 30th. I would also point out that Mr. -- Ambassador Brahimi is in Iraq putting together the structure, talking to Iraqis, with the aim of putting together the structure and the process, the mechanisms for a Iraqi -- interim Iraqi government that would take over on June 30th.

So these are all pieces of the machine moving forward that, I think, need to be looked at in their totality.

QUESTION: Adam, follow-up --

QUESTION: Follow-up on this --

QUESTION: Talks about --

MR. ERELI: Let's go -- in the front.

QUESTION: The Secretary yesterday said in his testimony that he hoped that as a result of agreements with the Iraqis and as a result of UN resolutions that may be passed, that there would be limits, constraints, on Iraqi sovereign powers when this new authority takes over.

One example that he gave a little earlier was that they hoped to negotiate an agreement under which Iraqi defense or armed forces would be under U.S. command. So they might have an Iraqi Defense Minister, but he's not going to be able to command his own troops.

And I wonder if there are other examples of where you hope that you will be able to constrain the sovereignty of this new Iraqi authority?

MR. ERELI: Yeah, it's not our intention to create a -- an Iraqi government that's operating with one hand tied behind its back. The intent is to create a Iraqi sovereign government that is fully capable and fully empowered to run the affairs of the country.

On the subject of the defense forces, I think this is primarily an operational issue; that, you know, it is our expectation that, at the invitation of the new sovereign authority, our forces are going to remain in Iraq to help provide security after June 30th; and that in the exercise of that responsibility and in the exercise of that duty, given the state of the Iraqi forces, it makes sense to put them under the operational control of the U.S. commander because that's where the capabilities lie.

But I would not -- I would look at it in those -- in that context.

QUESTION: Do you know of other areas, other than the military, where you're looking to limit the sovereignty?

MR. ERELI: No, I don't

Did you see it? Did you get it? Just as I posted several days ago, the United States IS NOT GOING TO TURN OVER full sovereignty to the Iraq people.  Not even Chalabi.  How can you be a sovereign nation with a foreign power in control of your military? Obviously, you can't.

Uncle Tom Powell gave three interviews the same day.  Let's examine them.

Exhibit B: ABC interview:

MR. JENNINGS: Is the insurgency stronger than you thought it was? A great many people on the ground think so.

SECRETARY POWELL: What we've seen over the last few days is stronger than anything we had seen previously, and I must say it was more than I had expected to see at this time. But nevertheless, I think our commanders have got a handle on it, they understand it and they're going to be able to deal with it.

MR. JENNINGS: Do you think what's happened is a good thing in some respects? The insurgents have stuck out their heads, and now you get a chance to kill them?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, to some extent that is a good thing in that they've stuck their heads up and they're having their heads taken off. We will see in the days ahead what the effect of this week's activities have been. But it's important for us to get the security situation under control, all of these places back under coalition and Iraqi control, and get back on our plan to build up the security forces, get on with reconstruction, get on with the political process and not lose sight of what we've accomplished over the past year and what our objective remains to be. And that is, a despotic regime is gone, Saddam Hussein is in jail. The Iraqi people have a chance for a better life -- they want a better life. They have told us so. The polling tells us so. They don't want to see this kind of turmoil in their country. And I hope that they will increasingly make that view felt against these al-Sadr Shia criminals in the south, as well as the remnants in the Sunni Triangle.

MR. JENNINGS: What about Muqtada al-Sadr? People have been warning for months about this 30-year old rebel cleric. What's the plan now?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, the plan is to deal with his militia, the Mahdi militia as they are called, and increasingly defeat them and squeeze him. And we hope that he comes to an understanding in the very near future that he is not going to stop the coalition or the Iraqi Governing Council from moving forward.

MR. JENNINGS: Isn't that ridiculous?

SECRETARY POWELL: I wouldn't say it's ridiculous. I'd say that the Governing Council has been at work. Ambassador Bremer has been meeting with them on a regular basis, and Ambassador Brahimi of the United Nations is in the city now working with members of the Governing Council.

Ok, recap time.  Iraq has no government other than the one America approves of.  That's the simplest way to put it.  So how can Sadr be an "outlaw"?  How can he have committed a crime when as a citizen he has no say in the laws of the land?  Where are these laws written down?  If he gets arrested, what are the rules of court he must follow?  Do you get me yet?  The only "crime" Sadr has committed is protesting the closing of his newspaper by Bremer, an American, despite the fact Powell says we're there to bring the Iraqi people "a better life".

Exhibit C: CNN interview:

MR. BLITZER: Mr. Secretary, thanks very much for joining us. Honestly, did you expect a year ago, when we saw that statue of Saddam Hussein go down in Baghdad, that a year later it would be as violent and as dangerous as it is right now for U.S. military personnel?

SECRETARY POWELL: No, but we knew that there would be those who would stick with the old regime, the old despotic regime that filled so many mass graves and caused such trouble. And those elements haven't been fully dealt with yet, but they will be dealt with.

Let's see, Sadr's father, an extremely respected Ayatollah (religious leader) was murdered by Saddam Hussein.  And yet he's fighting the US because he supports Saddam?

MR. BLITZER: Is there any wiggle room in the June 30 handover of sovereignty from the Coalition Authority to the Iraqis?

SECRETARY POWELL: We're sticking with June 30. We think it's the right date. We think it's achievable. Ambassador Brahimi, the United Nations representative, is in Baghdad now working with Ambassador Bremer and the coalition -- or the Governing Council to look at models of what this interim government might look like.

And so we're going to continue to drive ahead with that work. There's no point delaying it. While the security situation gets stabilized by our military forces, let's keep driving straight forward with our reconstruction efforts and with the political process.

MR. BLITZER: Is June 30 a goal or is that set in concrete?

SECRETARY POWELL: It is our goal, it is an achievable goal, and it is the goal that we're working toward.

Handover what to whom? That's the question NEVER asked of Mr. Powell.  What will be handed over and who will it be handed over to?  If the US "hands over power" to Chalabi and he in turn has the military totally under the power of the US, has anything been "handed over"? And if the US picked Chalabi (or whoever else), what's the difference between the US being in power and US-picked Iraqis?

Exhibit D: Fox interview:

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, it's been a tough week, let's be clear about that. But I still believe that most Iraqis are with us, most Iraqis are delighted that Saddam Hussein and that evil regime are gone. Most Iraqis realize that the United States and its coalition partners are there to provide security, and after providing security, we're going to provide reconstruction activity and we're going to put this country on a democratic footing; and we're hard at work on that process.

We have these elements: the Shias in the south, some of them, anyway, under the leadership of Moqtada al-Sadr; and some of the Sunnis remaining up in the triangle who are resisting us. And it's been a tough week for us, but they will be defeated.

So who killed the 10,000 Iraqis who have died in the past year? Poisonous snakes? Who provided security for them?  Who provided security for the 600+ American soldiers who have died and the thousands more who have been injured? WHO exactly is safe and secure in Iraq today? Anybody? Is Bremer safe?

MR. CAVUTO: Sir, yesterday you had given some indications that maybe this June 30 deadline might not come across quite as we planned, that Iraqis who wanted full and free control might have limited sovereignty. What did you mean by that?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, the fact is that after sovereignty has been returned to them, it's pretty well understood that the military forces of the new sovereign government would be operating under the direction of the coalition forces, because you have to have unity of command. You can't have two military forces operating independently of one another. So to some extent, they would yield some of their sovereignty to our military commanders. I think that's well understood from the conversations we've had with the current Iraqi Governing Council.

MR. CAVUTO: So, Secretary, does that mean that we are rethinking this whole 30th deadline?

SECRETARY POWELL: No. Not at all. And I don't think I said anything yesterday, nor has anyone in the Administration said anything to suggest that we are.

It was always understood that when the 30th of June came, and we transferred sovereignty at that time, our forces remain. We will have a large military presence there after 30 June. The Iraqi interim government will not yet be capable of providing security throughout the whole country, so the coalition will keep a large force in being after the 30th of June, and it will have working with it and under its direction those Iraqi security forces that are up and running on the 30th of June. That's a sensible way to approach the security problem.

Why exactly is that sensible? By the way, did you notice Powell doesn't tone down the words when talking to Fox News, because he knows their viewers don't give a shit if Iraq is a slave colony for Massah Bush and Uncle Tom Powell for the next 50 years.  They're "just stupid Iraqis" right?

Exhibit E: NBC interview:

MR. BROKAW: Candidly, Mr. Secretary, it's been a year now since the war ended. Aren't you surprised by the depth of the continuing anti-American feeling and the efficiency, really, of the insurgency to fight back against American forces?

SECRETARY POWELL: I didn't think it would be this intense, but nevertheless, I think it is controllable and manageable and we have the forces to deal with it. And I think we'll get behind this week that has been a tough week for us. And maybe if they came out to celebrate in their own warped way, this first year of liberty, this first year of freedom.

Remember what they are for: They're for dictatorship, they're for despotism. And remember what we are there for: We're for freedom, we're for democracy, we're for turning over sovereignty, we're for helping the Iraqi people reconstruct their country and we will stay the course.

Let's see, THEY are for "dictatorship".  Why would al-Sadr be for dictatorship when Hussein killed most of his family including his father? Has Sadr ever said he wants to be the dictator of Iraq? Has al-Sistani and the other "remnant Sunnis" called for an imposition of a dictatorship? No.  Actually all I've ever heard any Iraqi under the sun (including Kurds) call for IS democracy you asshole.  Meanwhile Iraq currently has no democracy.  So who is preventing democracy in Iraq, Sadr or Powell? Sistani or Bremer?

SECRETARY POWELL:We've accomplished a lot in the last year and I don't think it should be underestimated or people should have a feeling that we haven't gotten a lot out of the last year; we have. A dictator has been removed, a horrible regime has been removed, mass graves are no longer filled, and we are on the road to putting in place an Iraqi government that will be committed to democracy as reflected in the administrative law they passed, and we're going to help them, we're going to stick with it. But we're going to have to have the patience to deal with weeks like this and the patience to deal with better weeks that are coming.

Mass graves are no longer filled? You piece of shit maybe you ought to visit the morgue in Faloojah.  I guess 600 graves to be filled in one week isn't "mass" enough for you.

Anyway, that's a brief analysis of the utter pile of horse manure that Secretary of State Uncle Tom Powell has been peddling to the American people over the weekend.

God help us all.

Peace

-Soj

Originally posted to Soj on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 03:31 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  great diary (3.46)
    Horrible Diary title.  The Uncle Tom is offensive.  He is not being an apologist for BushCo's race policies.

    My 2 cents.

    •  Thanks (3.50)
      I guess it's just been a rough day and I lost my cool.  Cannot even imagine how sending black children to die in Iraq is far greater numbers than white children wouldn't be considered racist, but there you go.

      Wonder how many Halliburton and KPH and Bechtel executives are black too... hmmm....

      Night and day, you can find me Flogging the Simian

      by Soj on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 03:37:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  To me a mistake (none)
        to use that title because your diary slices and dices Powell's BS beautifully.

        Maybe the anger was the font of the eloquence, but if it wasn't, you've got great skill.  Package it right and you'll make, for me, many great points for our side.

      •  Wrong (3.50)
        The US military is all volunteer. The military integrated the more than a decade before American society. The meritocracy of military service has always drawn high numbers of minorities because there is LESS racism in the military then in society at large. Vietnam-era drafts were racist but the current volunteer military is not. Racist is killing 10,000 Iraqi civilians in a conflict unrelated to fighting Al-Qaeda.

        Criticize Powell's actions all you want but if you make baseless racist charges calling Colin Powell "Uncle Tom" and excuse it because "you had a rough day" don't expect to be taken seriously.

        Your argument is as stupid as calling Madeleine Albright and Janet Reno President Clinton's bitches when they spoke on his behalf. Is Condileeza Rice somehow worse then Henry Kissinger because she is an "Uncle Tom"? Your "Uncle Tom" rhetoric is foolish and wrong.

        "If we should fail?" "We fail! But screw your courage to the sticking-place, And we 'll not fail."

        by joejoejoe on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 04:01:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He mentioned Powell (4.00)
          not Rice.

          Rice was legitimately selected because she is a legitimate neocon idiot. There is a difference.

          My other Drunken ravings| ABB 2004! Kerry! Edwards! Dean!

          by cdreid on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 04:21:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Rice and Kissenger (none)
            My point is Rice and Kissenger both had horrible records as NSA. Why cloud the issue by adding in Rice's race or Powell's race? Attack the actions of leaders based on the record and leave the racist rhetoric to the hard right.

            "If we should fail?" "We fail! But screw your courage to the sticking-place, And we 'll not fail."

            by joejoejoe on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 06:03:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You make good points (none)
              but see that elephant in the corner?

              Its racism in america. Visit the black section of your town sometime soon and tell me something isnt deeply disturbingly wrong in this country. And people like Powell and Thomas are dangerous weapons in the arsenal of the racists imho

              My other Drunken ravings| ABB 2004! Kerry! Edwards! Dean!

              by cdreid on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 01:09:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "the black section of your town" (none)
                Racism is a huge problem in this country and I'm comfortable talking about it and I've seen it firsthand. I've lived in Chicago, New York, and in Florida - not on the North Shore or in SOHO but in "the black section", "the puerto rican section", or more recently "the guyanese section" of Queens, NY. When the FBI comes to my neighborhood to investigate arson at a mosque how should I fit in the "Uncle Tom" perspective on racism? The problems I make cliches like "Uncle Tom" foolish.It's 21st century ignorance I see - and plenty of people on the left and right are too weak and insular to examine their own reasons for their arguments.

                "If we should fail?" "We fail! But screw your courage to the sticking-place, And we 'll not fail."

                by joejoejoe on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 04:15:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You're right (none)
                  And uncle tom arguments shouldnt be everyday things. But you shouldnt ban them from discourse or deny something is a duck when it walks talks and quacks like a duck.

                  Its not "acceptable" to call our judicial system openly racist, but it has been statistically proven. Its not acceptable to call our police forces openly racist, but they are. Its conventional wisdom that ghettoes are the result of ".azy shiftless minorities" or whatever yet every race and group i can think of has lived in ghettoes at one time. its not acceptable to talk about structured class warfare on the working class in america but it very very clearly exists. YOu cant even note blatant racism without screams of "playing the race card". The gop knows we do this and they use it. They demonise, redefine, or spin one of our ideas,beliefs, or facts and it is the left, not the right, enforcing hte speech code the right wants. Its a recipe for failure.

                  We shouldnt limit ourselves like that.

                  My other Drunken ravings| ABB 2004! Kerry! Edwards! Dean!

                  by cdreid on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 06:03:13 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  no, that isn't right (none)
          while i think SOj's use of "uncle Tom" here is a bit too much hyperbole, lets not claim that our military is 100% voluntary.  The fact is that most of the military personnel are strongly compelled into service as a direct result of their economic circumstances.  To them the military is an out where there aren't many other "outs" available.  In truth this is more class based than race based but since poverty in our country is still largely dicated by race it is institutionalized racism.

          I'm Howard Dean Fired Up! Now what? Air America Radio!

          by seamus on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 05:41:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Mike from NJ (none)
      I'm a troll for thinking Colin Powell is not an Uncle Tom?

      Boy, talk about defining deviancy UP.

      Have it your way.

  •  Agreed (3.80)
    The comparison is offensive.

    Anyone who understands the racial dynamics of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" will see no comparison.

    If a white person follows the orders of his boss, he's just a kissass. But if a black person follows the orders of his white boss, we invoke a racial epithet?

    That's not kosher.

    "The system gives you just enough to make you think you see change. They will sing you right to sleep then they'll screw you just the same." Ani Difranco

    by Jonathan4Dean on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 03:38:55 PM PDT

    •  Hey did you know (2.63)
      Uncle Tom Powell was in Haiti on April 5, 2004 where he stood side by side with puppet president Latortue and did not condemn him for praising people in jail convicted of massacres against Aristide supporters?

      Did you know Uncle Tom Powell was in Haiti in 1994 and praised Raoul Cedras, the dictator who overthrew Aristide?

      What does he have to do before he betrays every person on the face of the planet?

      WHAT IS POWELL GETTING OUT OF THIS?

      Night and day, you can find me Flogging the Simian

      by Soj on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 03:40:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  that doesn't make him an Uncle Tom (3.90)
        by calling him an Uncle Tom you merely serve to pidgeon hole black people into a particular set of opinions.  The race the Powell is betraying is the Human Race.
    •  I'm fighting for Whitie! (1.00)
  •  racist references (none)
    Your two (by my count) references to "Uncle Tom Powell" and reference to "massah Bush" completely defeat your diary.

    I see your last diary referred to "Sambo" in terms of Haiti. Why do you have trouble making your case when blacks are involved without resorting to racist references?

    •  Because (3.33)
      Powell is playing directly into that negative stereotype, I would guess.

      "...the desert waves seem to break against this shore in a foam of blood." Freya Stark

      by theoria on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 03:44:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How is he playing into the stereotype? (none)
        what, exactly, does race have to do with the issues here?
        •  At the risk of falling into your trap (3.33)
          I say it does because he's acting like the good servant in a house full of rich, uppity white folks.

          "...the desert waves seem to break against this shore in a foam of blood." Freya Stark

          by theoria on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 03:47:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But but but (4.00)
            not because he's black!  I don't follow the point at all.

            Powell is not doing it because he's back and they are white.  He's doing it for whatever cowardly reason he's doing it.

            Frankly, Powell can be accused of alot of things, but being an Uncle Tom is not one of them.

            Now Clarence Thomas, that's another story.  

          •  It's not my trap (4.00)
            I'm not the one that used the references. And did you happen to see soj's captions under the picture?

            your comment: he's acting like the good servant in a house full of rich, uppity white folks.

            Please. That comment has no value except to be offensive.

            •  For you (4.00)
              ...it has no value but to be offensive. For me, it describes the man and his actions pretty accurately. For him to have gotten where he's gotten, only to sell-out in such a way is tragic. He could have made a difference, but instead chooses to peddle Bush's bullshit. And it is a choice.

              "...the desert waves seem to break against this shore in a foam of blood." Freya Stark

              by theoria on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 03:58:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And his race (3.33)
                has what to do with his sellout?

                Your post is no answer at all to the question  why you insist in viewing Powell's sellout through the prism of Uncle Tom.

                •  I'm baaack... (none)
                  Sorry, I had to get out of the office.

                  I am viewing this through the prism of Colin Fucking Powell, a sellout disgrace that happens to be black. If lawn ornament on the White House grounds happens to describe his fucking ass, then so be it. He's a disgrace, and he's earned a disgraceful label.

                  "...the desert waves seem to break against this shore in a foam of blood." Freya Stark

                  by theoria on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 05:14:23 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  "Happens to be black" (none)
                    Exactly.

                    A fucking disgrace.  Exactly.

                    Not an Uncle Tom.  Which is something different.  At least for me. (See Thomas, Clarence.)

                    •  So what's the difference (none)
                      between Colin Powell and Clarence Thomas?

                      One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman. Simone de Beauvoir

                      by em dash on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 05:24:12 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Powell vs. Thomas (4.00)
                        Clarence Thomas has deliberately acted against the interests of black people for the purpose of advancement and favor from white people. Powell has not acted in that way for such motivation.
                        •  So... (none)
                          • the withdrawn funding to address the African and Caribbean AIDS crises -- the greatest health epidemic in history is not acting against the interests of black people?
                          • the lack of redress on the continuing crisis in the Sudan is not acting against the interests of black people?
                          • the carrying of BushCo's water in the lead-up to the Iraq War at the UN and the complicity in Niger/Yellowcake fraud are not acting against the interests of black people?
                          • the defunding of family planning programs in Africa, South America, and the Caribbean is not acting against the interests of black people?
                          • the failure to lead on women's health and the barbaric practice of genital mutilation is not acting against the interests of black people?
                          • the blind eye on Mugabe's resign of terror is not acting against the interests of black people?
                          • the defunding of USAID funding in sub-Saharan Africa is not acting against the interests of black people?
                          • the complicity in the overthrow of a Democratically elected president in Haiti is not acting against the interests of black people?
                          • the continued instability and lack of policy in Algeria, Cote d'Invoire, Congo, Liberia, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Sudan, Somalia, Angola, Burundi, Kenya, and Central African Republic while thugs, despots, and terorists travel unabated through these countries are not acting against the interests of black people?
                          Coulda fooled me.

                          One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman. Simone de Beauvoir

                          by em dash on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 05:59:58 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Knew it wasn't (none)
                            an honest question.

                            Nice list.  All Powell's doing no doubt and also part of a deliberate attack on blacks on Powell's part.

                            Now if Powell were white, would that list of grievances make him a racist?

                            An honest question.

                          •  black or white (none)
                            racist is racist.

                            Does it matter that Powell's step'n fetch it routine only victimizes "Africans" and "Caribbeans" and not "African Americans"?

                            One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman. Simone de Beauvoir

                            by em dash on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 06:14:44 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The BLACK MAN'S Burden (none)
                            I do not hold Colin Powell responsible for all the ills that ail black people throughout the entire world.  No black man would want the job of Secretary of State if that is the standard to which he will be held.  Did you blame Madeline Albright for every and any tragic circumstance that women faced on the earth?  Somehow, I doubt that you did.   Furthermore, nothing in your litany of Colin Powell's alleged failures of responsibilities to the dark-hued peoples of earth do I see any evidence that Secretary Powell personally gained favor or promotion in exchange for tragedy or suspicion falling upon Africa, the Caribbean, the MidEast, or South America.
                          •  Calling a spade, a spade (none)
                            Did you blame Madeline Albright for every and any tragic circumstance that women faced on the earth?

                            As a matter of fact, I do.

                            ...do I see any evidence that Secretary Powell personally gained favor or promotion...

                            He's employed as the leader of the foreign service for the sole remaining Super Power on the planet. And he carries the water for BushCo in fucking over billions of people across the world and into the waiting arms of a 7-figure post-government corporate job come January 2005. Sounds a whole lot better than a military pension.

                            I'd call that a promotion.

                            One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman. Simone de Beauvoir

                            by em dash on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 06:25:46 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Talk About Double Standards (none)
                            Did you blame Madeline Albright for every and any tragic circumstance that women faced on the earth?

                            As a matter of fact, I do

                            How bizarre.  You must have had serious issues with Benazir Bhutto, Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher,...or for that matter, Catherine the Great, and Elizabeth I.  I guess you called a bitch a bitch.

                            Sounds a whole lot better than a military pension

                            I'm sure Powell could have earned or was already earning 7 figures writing books and lecturing before he joined the Bush Admin.  

                      •  An Honest Question? (4.00)
                        I'll treat it as such.

                        Clarence Thomas was a completely uncredentialed unqualified hack who, through selling out African-Americans and their interests, rose in the GOP, and then, when Thurgood Marshall, the best lawyer of the 20th Century, the first African-American Justice of the Supreme Court retired, Thomas was chosen to replace him solely, SOLELY, because of his race, and on his record as an Uncle Tom for the GOP, was chosen as his replacement.

                        He then had the gall to accuse his opponents of a high tech lynching!!!

                        Powell, through smarts, ambition, hard work, and charm, made his way up the ranks in the Army and the national security establishment.  Did Powell's race help him? Sure.  Did it hurt?  You bet.

                        The GOP is used to having their tokens in EEOC (see Thomas) or HUD (Pierce), not in thenational security world.

                        In short, there is a world of difference between them.

                        Not to mention that Powell supports  affirmative action and Thomas does not.  Who's the hypocrite do you think?

          •  that's saying... (none)
            it's inconcievable that he actually believes these stupid policies... and that is not impossible.
          •  soj - this is not new (4.00)
            harry belafonte made these comments about colin powell a year ago.  except he called him a "house slave".

            www.cnn.com/2002/US/10/15/belafonte.powell/

            these ooooold terms are old in more ways than their age.  it's offensive.  

            as a black man, i find them ridiculous.  powell's blackness has nothing to do with his utter loss of credibility.  and i would say the reason your calling him this name is because he's not "keeping it real".  because he's not living up to what many people expect of a black man, he's immediatly a sellout.  

            it's a shallow and racist idea to call him an uncle tom for not living up to your expectations of what a black man is.

            there are good black men and bad black men.  and for that reason you should understand that in any color there are good men and bad men, and even men that don't matter.  

            if you want to discuss powell in terms of his race, why don't you choose an appropriate context.  the pathetic job he's doing as SOS doesn't seem to be that context.

            First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - Ghandi

            by madetoorder on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 05:05:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I think the pointof the diaries and the titles (4.00)
      are NOT that Soj is treating Haiti in a racist manner, but that the US government is, i.e. that to the US Haiti is the "Sambo" and that Powell as the first Afro-Carribbean Secretary of State (he's not just Black, but a native of the region) has turned his back on the region/culture/peoples of his birth in order to serve the interests of the ruling class, i.e. the US geo-political interests. Hence the "Uncle Tom" analogy, and is somewhat in keeping with the comments of Harry Belafonte a few years ago, who apparently knew more than we did when he made those comments.

      "By focusing fear and hatred on the Tutsi, the organizers hoped to forge solidarity among Hutu." -- Human Rights Watch

      by a gilas girl on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 05:08:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sure (none)
        except he was commenting on Iraq.

        I'm totally out with you on this one Gilas Girl.

        ANd I don't want top get into a shouting match, especially with you, so I'm out for a while.

        •  x (none)
          But Soj's commentary is based on the actions in not only Iraq, but also in the Carribbean, Powell just returned from there and 'guaranteed' that he would bring the Caricom recognitition of the interim "gov't" in Haiti personally.

          It was that behavior/those comments that I read as the backdrop for the Sambo and Uncle Tom comments. Or so I thought from reading the diaries.  

          No shouting matches here, it was just obvious to me that Soj wasn't making racial slurs against the Haitians.  .

          "By focusing fear and hatred on the Tutsi, the organizers hoped to forge solidarity among Hutu." -- Human Rights Watch

          by a gilas girl on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 08:48:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Jury is Still Out on Haiti (none)
        he's not just Black, but a native of the region

        Powell is not a native West Indian.  He is from the Bronx, New York.  His parents are from Jamaica.

        It's not fair to say that he has turned his back on the region.  Powell was leader of the contingent that went to Haiti during the Clinton Administration to convince the dictator at that time to allow the last U.S. occupation in order to prevent bloodshed and allow Aristide's return.

        As for Aristide's most recent departure, I am suspicious of the motives of any foreign policy move by the Bush Administration.   However, it was obvious that the Aristide government was going to fall, it was just a matter of how bloody the rebellion was going to be.  It may actually have been a good thing that Aristide was 'escorted' out of the country because the rebels were on the outskirts of Port-Au-Prince and I fail to see any good that would have come in a siege of the capital and a certain flood of refugees hitting the high seas on rickety rafts heading to Florida.  

        It's actually quite a flimsy argument to claim that Powell was turning his back on his West Indian heritage by failing to save Aristide's government.

        •  Stand corrected on the "native" comment (none)
          though in my (admittedly very limited experience, having mostly to do with Toronto rather than the Bronx) many of those caribbean and afro carribbean communities have very fluid ties between the islands and the urban communities in NY-Boston-Toronto, etc. That's certianly the case in the Dominican communities, most of the Haitians I know (also in FL) and with the Jamaicans in Toronto.  So "native" is inaccurate and imprecise,  but it was used with that understanding in mind.  More precision needed.

          The jury certainly is still out on Haiti; including the build-up to how and why the Aristide government "was going to fall anyway" which is part of what I would include in my criticisms of the US - Haiti policies, not simply the events of 29 February.  

          It is precisely those kinds of questions that help me make sense of Soj's language choices, which was my purpose in posting, inaccuracies and all. That was the general intent of my post, which was not so well-informed on all the details that it should have been.

          "By focusing fear and hatred on the Tutsi, the organizers hoped to forge solidarity among Hutu." -- Human Rights Watch

          by a gilas girl on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 08:57:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Disgraceful Level of Argument (none)
    I'm sorry but this is just the dregs.  It has no place on a liberal site.
  •  Let's go to Merriam Webster (4.00)
    Main Entry: Uncle Tom
    Pronunciation: -'täm
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Uncle Tom, pious and faithful black slave in Uncle Tom's Cabin (1851-52) by Harriet Beecher Stowe
    1. : a black who is overeager to win the approval of whites (as by obsequious behavior or uncritical acceptance of white values and goals)
    2. : a member of a low-status group who is overly subservient to or cooperative with authority <the worst floor managers and supervisors by far are women...Some of them are regular Uncle Toms -- Jane Fonda>
    - Uncle Tom·ism

    Just how has Colin Powell advance human rights for ANY group? Not just black people but maybe perhaps Hispanics or Jewish women or any other minority on the face of the planet?

    How has his serving the Bush administration, including his obvious and abhorrent outspoken criticism of Aristide and support for the coup which overthrew him, helping anyone out?

    How many minority soldiers have died by Powell's shilling for Bush's war? Who lied to the United Nations? I mean bald-faced lied? How many minority soldiers and contractors died because of him?

    How has the outright corruption involved in no bid contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan helped minorities?

    How has Powell done anything whatsoever to advance the cause of any group other than rich, corporate supporters of George W. Bush and the Republican Party??

    Call me racist if you will.  I live in Georgia.  I can take it.  That word gets thrown around here on a daily basis.

    I stand by what I say and the fact that America has completely forgotten the plight of the people in Haiti, just as they ignored the fighting in Rwanda, but meanwhile obsessed over a train explosion in Spain is further proof of a double standard.

    Do I accuse everyone of that? Heck no.  Not even everyone here at DKos.  But as a nation? Yes I do.  I most certainly do.

    Night and day, you can find me Flogging the Simian

    by Soj on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 03:46:53 PM PDT

    •  I'm sorry you have to go through this. (none)
      People just have a visceral reaction to the terms you threw out there so blatantly. I don't think you are racist, not in any way. It's just some of your terminology that threw people off.
    •  Let's Go to Common Sense and Decency (3.75)
      Bringing up the race or ethnic origin of a person simply because you don't like their politics is absolute trash-talk.

      It doesn't work here, it doesn't work in Georgia, it doesn't work anywhere.

    •  but why (3.80)
      does Powell's being black mean he has more of a responsibility to advance human rights than, say, Donald Rumsfeld?

      On another note, would any war be anti-minority, given the makeup of the military? Is Powell somehow responsible for the number of minority soldiers in our (volunteer) military?

      I don't see where his race comes into it at all. Yes, I feel betrayed by Powell, who I thought was one of the few grown-ups in this administration, and who I respected for appearing to see through the bullshit and stand up against it. But I don't see his political betrayal of us as Americans as a betrayal of black people in particular - it's a betrayal of everyone who saw through the bullshit and thought that Powell was one of the good guys.

      As for the whole role-model thing, I think that a black man who is Secretary of State (not to mention, who has been floated before as a possible Republican presidential candidate, before he put the kibosh on that idea) is doing pretty darn well in the role-model department already. I don't think kids are likely to look at him and say, "but he spoke against Aristede" or "but he supported the Iraq war".

      •  Responsibility (none)
        I forget the dynamics actually in the book... but as far as a popular expression... I think it's a lot about blaming the blacks for their own problem... as if it's perfectly understandable why a slave owner should want the situation.
  •  Umm. No (4.00)
    "Who knew this deck even had a race card?"

    Supporting the establishment of a cabinet-level Department of Civility.

    by daria g on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 03:49:26 PM PDT

    •  Exactly (4.00)
      Instead of  discussing the good points made in the diary, we are talking about whether Powell is an Uncle Tom, which I reject categorically by the way.
      •  which is sad (4.00)
        because the substance of the post aside from the racially charged language is quite good.  

        that's the main reason why i don't not like terms like 'uncle tom' -- it muddies the argument one is making when you think it's sharpening it.

        First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - Ghandi

        by madetoorder on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 05:32:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  If you dont think Powell (and thomas's) race (3.00)
      had anything to do with their selections you're blind. And if you dont think that allowing a party that openly supports racists and neonazi groups to use you to gain power is being an uncle tom i think youve been studying your political correctness manuals a little too intently.

      Rice on the otherhand is a legitimately neocon idiot selected for her incompetance and dishonesty, rather than her race.

      My other Drunken ravings| ABB 2004! Kerry! Edwards! Dean!

      by cdreid on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 04:16:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Powell was not a race appointment (none)
        Powell became Powell partly because of his race, but by 2000 he stood on his perceived merits.

        Your charge is wrong and unfair as to both Powell and Rice.

        Not having known much about Rice, I had no expectations.  Powell I expected more from.

        But, understand this, Powell is a Republican who abhors the GOP recent history on race.  He said it bluntly and openly at the 2000 GOP Convention.

        •  You agree (none)
          that he was selected partially because of his race. You agree that his party is openly and proudly racist. You agree that his party used his race to their advantage. You agree that he actively supports and promotes his party. Yet my charges are unfair and wrong?

          Dont get me wrong i believe Clarence Thomas is the worst uncle tom we've seen this century. In fact i think he is most likely racist. Powell however isnt actively anti-black. He merely sell his "black superachiever" image to the GOP and allows them to use it to hide behind when their racism is pointed out in return for appointments for him and his family.

          Truth is never unacceptable to principled people. Whether it is comparisons of Bushco fascism to hitler, or comparisons of minority cabinet members who support and promote a racist party and ideology to the uncle tom stereotype censorship, even self censorship or 'peer pressure' is wrong, counter-productive and in the end serves our enemies... the racists and the right.

          My other Drunken ravings| ABB 2004! Kerry! Edwards! Dean!

          by cdreid on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 04:59:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No (3.66)
            Powell became Powell partly bacause of his race.  He was not chosen to be Secretary of State because he was black.  A significant difference.

            Is the GOP racist?  Yes.  Openly and proudly? No.

            "Truth is never unacceptable to principled people."  Give me a break.  That's silly.  People lie all the time. Politicans lie more than anybody.  Even the good ones.  Or great ones.  Like Lincoln. FDR. and a few more recent ones.

            Is anyone in the GOP a racist?  Is any black in the GOP an Uncle Tom?  My answer is no.

            Do they coddle racists?  Some more than others.  Powell happens to be one of those who do it less.  Much less.

            Powell is a foreign policy/military person. He does not operate in domestic policy areas.  Perhaps, perhaps, this is his way of living with himself.  Perhaps, perhaps, he is more comfortable with what the GOP stood for on foreign policy than what Dems have stood for.

            To be unreasonable in our descriptions, to label all Republicans as fascists and racists, and to label black Republicans as Uncle Toms, in my view, is not conducive to persuading the persuadable.

            Final note, sometimes I feel like what you wrote, but I just don't think it is so.  Not everyone has the full picture.  And we don't necessarily know what they know either.

            •  One of many reasons (none)
              He was not chosen to be Secretary of State because he was black

              I'll not comment on the "Uncle Tom" characterization and I think you have argued your position ably.  But I disagree with the above statement.  I believe (note:  it is my opinion) that one of the reasons he was chosen is indeed because he is black.  Also because he is intelligent, articulate and rather handsome.   And his history showed that he wouldn't let a little thing like ethics interfere with the agenda of his employers.

              The chips are down. Find your outrage.

              by sj on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 09:36:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  If you had read my posts (none)
              You'd note i specifically didnt call all republicans uncle toms or racists. I in fact specifically said Rice was not an uncle tom , but  rather a true believer neocon thug.

              Powell became Powell partly bacause of his race.  He was not chosen to be Secretary of State because he was black.
              Um you have that backwards there kimosabe. Powells military career was based on his abilities, not his race. You may note generals are politicians. His selection for the cabinet was due to his race and reputation.

              "Truth is never unacceptable to principled people."  Give me a break.  That's silly.  People lie all the time. Politicans lie more than anybody.  Even the good ones.  Or great ones.  Like Lincoln. FDR. and a few more recent ones
              I feel for you if you are surrounded by people who consider lying acceptable. I honestly do. Ethics matter.

              To be unreasonable in our descriptions, to label all Republicans as fascists and racists, and to label black Republicans as Uncle Toms, in my view, is not conducive to persuading the persuadable.
              I never did that. I have good friends who are conservatives and libertarians. You may note im pro ALL of the bill of rights which means i tend to be good friends with quite a few people the democratic party has forced out and into the other parties arms. And i dont deal well with racists. As i doubt you do either.

              In my opinion Powell sold out whatever principles he had for an appointment for himself and his family. Powell knows what policies destroy racism. He supervised them in the military.. which was stunningly successful at integration.. which he benefited from.

              Do they coddle racists?  Some more than others.  Powell happens to be one of those who do it less.  Much less
              Evidence? Data to back that up?

              My other Drunken ravings| ABB 2004! Kerry! Edwards! Dean!

              by cdreid on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 01:00:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Your signature line (none)
        Is very a propos.

        Supporting the establishment of a cabinet-level Department of Civility.

        by daria g on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 06:22:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I will say this much (4.00)
    I will say that I'm apparently in the minority here.  Forgive that if it sounded like a joke.

    To me, and I guess it's just to ME alone, Mr. Powell has special responsibilities that other Bush cabinet members do not.  The primary of these special responsibilities is to be a role model for other African-Americans.  He may not like it, it may not be completely fair, it may be too much asked of a normal man with normal failings, but that's the way it is.  Similar responsibilities were placed on Jackie Robinson when he first went to play baseball with the white players.

    I can document hundreds if not more cases of Powell stumping for what we today call the "neocon" position.  I know Powell covered up his involvement with My Lai in Vietnam.  I know he praised people like Raoul Cedras.  What I have never heard is the motivation.  How has Powell profited?

    Everyone from Cheney to Rumsfeld to Rice have made millions and millions and millions of dollars from their actions.  What has Powell gotten?  Why does he continue to do this?  Why does he support the trampling on the non-white non-European nations of this planet?  Why does he support so many minority soldiers going off to die in all these unwarranted wars?

    I guess it's a sign of this board that the use of "Uncle Tom" gets about 10 more comments than my more normally placid posts.  To me, the use of the phrase "Uncle Tom" means that he has failed to live up to those special responsibilities I spoke about, and in fact has betrayed them.

    Why would any little kid, black or white or anything else, want to grow up and be like Colin Powell????

    That's my 2 cents and I appreciate ALL of your comments, even the critical ones.  Seriously.

    I guess I just ran smack into the old Kos "merc" trap, where one comment outshadows everything you've ever done.

    Peace

    Night and day, you can find me Flogging the Simian

    by Soj on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 03:59:34 PM PDT

    •  Credit to his race? (3.75)
      F- that!  He owes it to his country to do better.

      He is better than this - and not because he's black but because he is.

      Powell is the most tragic figure of this Amdinistration - and I'll agree with you to this extent - because he was black and chosen compeletely and obviously on the merits.  In that sense, the sting of the BushCo incompetence does have a wider effect than it should - it is Powell's personal failure.

      That said, calling him an Uncle Tom, undeserved in my view, does throw gasoline on the fire.

      •  Armando (2.25)
        you know powells record.he is an uncle Tom and even worse.He used the fact that hes black to his advantage at every point in his life to advance himslf and allowed the republican party to use that fact openly and to their advantage.I think Harry Belaphonte was right with his discription of Powell and calling Powell an uncle Tom is tame.
        •  Oh boy (4.00)
          That is so so unfair.

          Did Powell take advantage of those pressures that gave advantage to Powell because he was black?  Sure.

          Did Powell suffer from discrimination which was equal to if not greater than those advantages?  Yes.

          Look Powell's failure now is striking precisely because we perceived him as being capable and courageous.

          Have we so quickly forgotten his 2000 speech to the GOP convention where he defended affirmative action, excoriated the GOP for its race baiting?  That was a brave speech.

          I think your charge is unfair.

          •  brave? (none)
              No way.Bravery is shown in action not speeches.What risk did he take giving that speech,None.That speech helped the very people who believed nothing in it to gain power.The people listening to that speech in that room were laughing their asses off.They had the perfect stooge on stage and they didn't even have to use black paint.That is Belaphontes point.
        •  yuck (none)
          .

          First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - Ghandi

          by madetoorder on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 05:53:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  We are paying him (none)
      to do his job. Not to be anybodys' 'role model'. So you know he was pulled on board by bushco because he Already Was a role model. He sold his soul for the position he is in and that is all it boils down to.

      How did he profit? The job he is in isnt exactly flipping burgers. And by being a cabinet member you have instant and permanent presidential candidate credibility. But most important of all.

      Please do some research into his family. Who they are and what they do. You may notice some interesting appointments for some rather incompetant intellectually and morally challenged individuals in that family.

      My other Drunken ravings| ABB 2004! Kerry! Edwards! Dean!

      by cdreid on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 04:13:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Frankly we are (none)
      all on the Bush plantation.  More is the pity.
      And pity such as Powell was pivotally placed (if not appropriate for the job he is assigned) to have stuck a pin in all the bush ballooons.

      Nothing but pity all over.

      Really all I ask is that this crowd is discredited and I have no need to bother with another global book tour from the pleasing Powells.  And others.
      Nevertheless, I am not holding my breath.

    •  Race isn't a problem in this country, right? (2.66)
      I think your take on Powell and calling him an Uncle Tom is completely appropriate given the evidence in your post and your views about his roll in the African American community (such as it is).  I mean, the Bushies are the first to point to Condi and Colin whenever they want to talk about how racially equitable Bush is.  If Bush wants to get points for hiring folks from a minority community, shouldn't those folks should be accountable to that community on some level?

      I think non-African Americans get their guilt radar all tingly when people start throwing out term racially loaded terms like 'Uncle Tom' because looking at an issue through the prism of race isn't something they mostly ever do unless the issue is specifically about race. It just doesn't occur.  The folks above who completely discount your post because you bring race into the discussion are just showing how oblivious they are to this.

      Anyway, nice post.

      •  Guilt radars?!?! (none)
        Fuck that!

        That's bullshit!

        Discount his post???  I said it was a great post.

        Complete crap from you.  you have no idea what's in my heart, nor what I'm thinking, nor what I've lived through.

    •  Wrong and Racist! (4.00)
      Powell has no more and no less responsibility than anyone else in this administration to black people.  Why is it that Colin Powell has more of a obligation to black children than Don Rummsfield?  Why let white politicans off the hook like that?  Why buy into the self-stereotype that black problems are primarily the problems of black leaders and not ALL leaders?  Why be so ignorant?  You don't realize it (or maybe you do), but placing Powell and Rice in a special category of responsibility diminishes the responsibility of all the white members of this administration.  That is the folly of using terms like "Uncle Tom".  Just say he's wrong and be done with it.  Colin Powell has lost almost all respect in my eyes as well but there is no need to drag his race into this.   AARRGGHH!!!  
    •  Powell-Haiti-Race and more... (none)
      The part of the puzzle that people seem to be missing is that it isn't so much Powell's race as it is that Powell is an Afro-Carribbean, he's from Jamaica, so that he should have a knowledge and a perspective distinctive from that of the rest of the Bushies vis-a-vis a Black, Carribbean nation like Haiti and what the egregious force of US imperialism has done specifically to those countries.  The fact that Carricom is the group Powell is taking issue with over Haiti policy, that it is led by the Jamaican PM, that Jamaica is the nation most responsible for supporting Aristide against the claims that the US forced the guy out because he didn't serve Bush Admin/US policy, that US Carribbean relations are always about race and racial issues at the same time that they are also about colonialism, economic dependence and anti-Castro and even anti-populist politics.  Its a Carribbean nation, one where race and hemispheric racial politics are front and center to the US-Haitian relations, where class structure of ruling elites vs. populist leaders are also shot through with racial politics and Powell himself is a product of the very forces that are right now churning at work in Haiti and now also Jamaica.

      I wouldn't have chosen the language Soj did, but I find her boldness in doing so admirable, given how easily pigeon holed and misunderstood it would be.  But its a whole lot more complicated that the simplistic "to call Colin Powell an "uncle Tom" in this instance is blatant racism."  

      It ain't necessarily so...

      "By focusing fear and hatred on the Tutsi, the organizers hoped to forge solidarity among Hutu." -- Human Rights Watch

      by a gilas girl on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 05:20:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Powell's 'Elite' Background (none)
        Powell himself is a product of the very forces that are right now churning at work in Haiti and now also Jamaica

        Explain what you mean by this.

        Powell's parents may be from Jamaica but he was born in New York, grew up in the Bronx, his family got their first home after winning a bet on the illegal "numbers game," and he attended City College of New York in Harlem.  So please do explain how Powell is a product of the ruling elites of the West Indies.

    •  "you just can't know," she told me (none)
      I guess I just ran smack into the old Kos "merc" trap, where one comment outshadows everything you've ever done.

      You touched a raw nerve with this one, Soj.  I know you meant no racism with your post, and that "everything you've ever done" both at dKos and at your own blog show you to be the deepest of humanitarians for people of all colors.

      Still, like Armando and others have suggested, I think your use of racially charged terms distracts even from the excellent "everything you've ever done" in the rest of your posting above.

      Once, as a moderator in a focus group held in Atlanta that happened to touch on racial issues, I made a sincere and nuanced statement intended to help everyone feel comfortable to express their opinion.  Our stenographer, an African American woman hired from a temp agency, almost quit on the spot because she found racial offense in how I phrased my comment.  She felt I was speaking code-words to subtly yet consciously ridicule her as an African American woman in the presence of the participants -- who were of various races and gender but who contained no black women.  I assured her I had no intent or even incentive to hurt her...  That my family is multi-racial, and that I'd myself been subjected to racial predjudice in a limited way when travelling abroad.

      She told me, "you just can't know what it's like for us being the continual victim of racism in America."  I had to agree with her on that.  Eventually, she came to see that I'd held no malice towards her.

      I later spoke with a couple African American colleagues about the incident.  The lesson I took away from it is that even words about race that come from my sense of ethics and humanity can wound others unintentionally -- because the divide in lived experience can create vastly different feelings and sensitivities between even decent people of different races in America.

      This thread contains a lot of lessons too.  One of them for me is that, given the sensitivities engendered by our country's historical and continuing depredations against black people -- it's better to let individual African Americans define whether any given person is an Uncle Tom to them.  In the meantime, it's quite safe and accurate for people of any color to call Colin Powell a traitor to the human race.  He's certainly been a deeply dissapointing human to me, as I once felt respect for him.

      Hear it? The Oracle cries the demise of He-Who-Lies. And the rise... of civil America.

      by Civil Sibyl on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 04:53:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I must agree - Title negates content (3.85)
    I have been shocked overall by the number of racist references found on dailyKos. I have seen numerous example refering to Powell and Rice. Call them deceptive, liars, psychopaths, or anything else, but trying to be humorous at the expense of a racial or ethnic group of people is shameful.  I thought we Kossians cared about social justice.
  •  Calling Powell an Uncle Tom (3.00)
    I can understand the need to call Powell something offensive, because he is a lying worm, serving the worst president in 100 years, helping support his warmongering corporate interests.

    But an Uncle Tom? A house negro? A step-n-fetchit? A Mandingo? An Oreo with double stuff? A low-foam half-caff  Mocha sans the whipped creme?

    Powell is just a loyal soldier. He's a machine, well trained to say what needs to be said to defend his commander. He provided cover-up for My Lai and similar Vietnam "operations", and so providing cover for Bush's lies is a small challenge.

    Powell is America:  lying, prevaricating, killing, protecting corporate power at all costs. What a hero.

  •  The PC police strike again... (3.00)
    I'm sorry guys but Powell is an Uncle Tom.  How else can you explain him flushing his credibility down the toilet in order to support Bush's policies.  I bet if you ask, many black people out there would say the same thing.  He's not looking out what's best for this country, let alone what's best for minorities or anything else, he's just a part of Bush's good ol' boy network now.  

    Kerry Express 2004- Bridge Out Ahead!

    by Asak on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 04:40:41 PM PDT

    •  PC Police? (none)
      You come to this with a preconceived notion of the basis of our objections (or at least mine).

      I don't object to the phrase "Uncle Tom."  Indeed, I used it and will use it on Clarence Thomas, where the shoe fits.

      Powell is not an Uncle Tom.  you ask the question "How else can you explain him flushing his credibility down the toilet?"

      I can think of many and Uncle Tomism is not one of them.

      Tema player, thinks he can do more good, is flat out wrong, is stupid, craven, loves the power, etc.

      People in government do the worng thing all the time.  Good people.  People you thought were good.  Bad people.

      But "Uncle Tom" is a serious charge, and I think should be levelled at those who advance themselves through their race at the expense of their race.

      Powell's follies have cost us much, as Americans.  Powell has not directly advanced his interests at the direct expense of Afircan-Americans.

      Clarence Thomas did.  And that's the difference.

      It is not a PC thing and I think you should the arguments before making empty assertions.

    •  PC Police -- Guilty as Charged (4.00)
      • I am a liberal
      • I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU
      • I am supporter of MoveOn.org
      • I reject racist, sexist, xenophobic terms, even when used against people I hate.
      Call me crazy.
    •  PC (none)
      One... why should I ask a bunch of black people about... oh yeah, Powell is black.

      Defining people by their race is racist... do we bother looking up Rumsfelds racial ethnicity to add a racial criticism to make to go along with being a neocon good new boy?  And why should we bother?

      Personally, I admit I'm a little PC about racial remarks... but does that make me PC?  The terms struck me as vile when I first heard it in the mid 80's, because it's pro-dogmatic in nature.

      To be part of the Politically Correct Police I would have to take some dogma and apply it... no... I'm just trying to think of things in non-racial terms when racial terms do not pertain (you wouldn't hear me complain about talking about African-American music... per se...), and I think that's a much better way to go.

      Call the reaction what you will.

    •  Guilty As Charged (none)
      I bet if you ask, many black people out there would say the same thing.

      Well, of course that would make you an expert on the subject.

      Actually, it's not 'pc' (nice try), it's just taking racism seriously. As MLK said, "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character".

      It's important to be able to distinguish between the two. Most liberals -- in fact, most adults -- do.

  •  Powell As A Role Model (none)
    Although I vehemently disagree with his policy pronouncements during the lead up to the war and its aftermath, I do believe that it is racist to call Powell an Uncle Tom, primarily because he is not.  Not every black person who is conservative in politics is not an Uncle Tom or Aunt Jemima.

    I actually believe Powell has been a role model in spite of his stand on the war.  Powell has been active in promoting racial diversity in the diplomatic corps, even helping to establish an Institute of School of Foreign Policy at Howard University in order to train more African-American diplomats.  Powell was outspoken about human trafficking in third world countries before Bush started mentioning it for political purposes.  And Powell has often been the lone voice among prominent Republicans to speak out in support of affirmative action, using his own promotion in the Army as an example of how he benefited when racial prejudices would have stood in the way of his advancement.

    I believe Powell's predicament comes from his lifetime of being in the military and trained to accept orders and not to publicly question or defy their commanders.   I think Powell would do better to keep his reputation intact by resigning, especially since he is not the main player in shaping American foreign policy.  It's unfortunate for Powell and the nation as a whole that the Commander-in-Chief is such an incompetent and that career soldiers like Powell diminish themselves in stature for the sake of loyalty to an unworthy cause.

  •  blackcommentator.com (none)
    is a nice cold rush of air to read on Powell.  I must say.  Several articles over the recent months and a lot of time spent on Haiti.  And Haiti and Powell.
  •  soj (4.00)
    I also wanted to add that you are really great diarist and blogger that always put more solid information in your posts than I dream of attempting.

    My opinion on your title shouldn't be taken to reflect poorly on that... you are awesome.

  •  Words Are Never Wrong (3.00)
    I can't (well, yes I can) believe the volume of "Mrs. Teasdale" twittering over something that, had a comedian said it on a stage, would have been perfectly acceptable, ethnic and racial humor being basic to American culture.

    They're just words!

    (And don't give me the "but words are harmful" rap because I grew up a long time ago, and will then just feel inspired to try and "harm" you with more bad words! Words only harm those who want to be harmed by them. Period.)

    Got yer back, Soj. Glad to see that others do here as well.

    It's really a kind of "reverse racism" to call a commentary like that racist. I see racism on blogs (including here) every day, but it usually poses as "politically correct" talk, reeking of condescension. But I'd be wasting my time trying to explain that sort of thing to people who just LOVE to feel offended every chance they get, or those who love to worry aloud over other people being offended.

    Don't back down. NEVER back down from voicing an opinion. Don't fall into the "I apologize" trap. Words are words. Period. Just words. Get it?

    Participate in the Authentic Journalism renaissance at Narco News

    by Al Giordano on Mon Apr 12, 2004 at 09:13:58 PM PDT

    •  Well that misses the point (none)
      The words themselves - "Uncle Tom", were not the issue, it was the application of that epitaph to Powell's conduct with regard to shilling for Bush on Iraq.

      Accuracy matters too don't you think? Especially throwing around a pretty serious insult (yeah just words, words never hurt anybody - great so every insult, slur etc. is fair and beyond reproach in your formulation right?  That can't be a serious position to take on public discourse.  I mean we should at least try to make sure the insult we hurl is actually related to the person we throw it at?  Or does that not matter?).

      So we're reverse racists?  WTF?  What does that mean?  Overly sensitive.  Wrong.  Make too much of it.  Any of those.  But we're RACISTS because we object to what we perceive are offensive remarks.  That's outrageous. Limbaughesque even.

      BTW, I hope you're not offended.  I don't plan to fall into the "apologize trap" either.

      Finally, SOJ gets to say whatever she desires and we don't get to say we don't like it?  A lot of "twittering" in that.

    •  Re: Words Are Never Wrong (none)
      It's really a kind of "reverse racism" to call a commentary like that racist. I see racism on blogs (including here) every day, but it usually poses as "politically correct" talk, reeking of condescension. But I'd be wasting my time trying to explain that sort of thing to people who just LOVE to feel offended every chance they get, or those who love to worry aloud over other people being offended.

      Sheess, what gibberish.  Al, you'll make a fine Bush appointee to the Civil Rights Commission.

    •  Wrong - words have power and consequences (none)
      Hey Al, let's you and I head to Manhattan and yell "fire" in some crowded cinemas.  Afterwards we can enjoy coffee and pastries in one of Little Italy's fabulous cafes.  Each time we see a kindly old lady who looks even a little Italian, we'll repeat this innocuous phrase to her: "Wop! Wop! Wop! Wop! Wop!"

      The only harm to come will be to those who want to be harmed, right?

      It's all just words, afterall.  As all us writers know, they have no real effect.

      Hear it? The Oracle cries the demise of He-Who-Lies. And the rise... of civil America.

      by Civil Sibyl on Wed Apr 14, 2004 at 05:14:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Soj, you are making racist statements (4.00)
    You should be ashamed that you're basically calling Powell Bush's house nigger.

    Your statement, "Cannot even imagine how sending black children to die in Iraq is far greater numbers than white children wouldn't be considered racist, but there you go."

    IS A LIE.  From USA Today:

    The American troops likeliest to fight and die in a war against Iraq are disproportionately white, not black, military statistics show -- contradicting a belief widely held since the early days of the Vietnam War.

    In a little-publicized trend, black recruits have gravitated toward non-combat jobs that provide marketable skills for post-military careers, while white soldiers are over-represented in front-line combat forces.

    Your continued unrepentant use of the epithet tells me that you are a left-wing racist.  If a Republican said this about Joicelyn Elders back in the Clinton era, it would be branded as hate speech, and rightfully so.

    As with Kos and his earlier mercenary rantings, you have soiled, marginalized and discredited yourself.  That other liberal commenters are defending your sick point of view makes it just that much worse.  Daily Kos used to be such a good site.  So much for a color-blind society.

    •  A new twist on an old racist lie (none)
      Some opponents of the Vietnam War used to claim that a disproportionately high number of blacks fought and died in that war, too. In fact, whites accounted for 86% of combat deaths and blacks accounted for 12.5%.

      (Stats from Naval War College professor Mackubin Thomas Owens.)

  •  Don't shoot your analysis (none)
    in the foot with a stupid manuever like that. Your analysis is just fine without the racist crap. However, with it, it is intellectually and socially offensive in the extreme, and rather sad.

    "Whereever you go, there you are."

    by Thucydides on Tue Apr 13, 2004 at 12:35:18 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site