Republican African-Americans

Both the Times of London and Think Progress report today on Colin Powell's recent statements that he had always opposed the war in Iraq.  It makes me wonder why African-American Republicans seem to lack the courage of their convictions.

Powell has announced that he spent 2-1/2 hours in a meeting with Bush, going into a detailed analysis of how disastrous an occupation in Iraq would be.  Yet it is Powell who was perhaps the most effective salesman for the war in the administration. Many respected Powell for the ground-breaking he did for blacks in the military with his rapid ascent through his career in the Army.  People were more likely to trust his recommendation that we go to war because, unlike Bush and Cheney, he had experienced war. Since he was the architect of the Powell doctrine, where war would only be fought as a very last resort, and then only with overwhelming force, a lot of people had faith in the man.

Why then was he so ineffective in stopping the war? As psotd has noted, it would have been simple enough. All he had to do was to tell the truth at the U.N. He would have lost his job, but there would have been no war. But somehow Powell came to the cowardly conclusion that either his career was more important, or that his remaining loyal to Bush was more crucial, than the lives of 3,500 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Why would Powell choose to dissemble, unlike a General Shinseki, who did tell the truth, at the cost of his career?

One frequently hears of Condi Rice having quiet, subtle disagreements with the administration. Supposedly, she always felt that we should be negotiating more aggressively with North Korea. Her position on Guantanamo is said to be that we should close it; the sooner the better.  I've read that she wanted us to be more active in seeking peace between Israel and Palestine. Yet North Korea has more nuclear weapons than when she assumed office. Guantanamo is still open, and the situation in the mid-East has deteriorated  each and every year of the Bush administration.  When David Broder uses the word "wreckage" to describe the country's foreign policy, things are not going well,

One also has to question her responsibility for the success of the attacks on 9/11. She was National Security Adviser at the time. She had been briefed about terrorist threats by Sandy Berger and Richard Clark. She would have been aware of the change in the plans for the President's accommodations when he visited Italy, because of threats of high jacked airlines flying into the building in which he was due to stay.  After Bush and she received the P.D.B.stating that 'Bin Ladden was determined to Strike in the U.S.', did she try to convince him of its urgency?  Or, after she heard Bush dismiss the report when he told the messengers that they could back to D.C., having 'covered their asses.", did she suggest she and W go back to working out in the gym?

Clarence Thomas of course is the Republican African-American who holds the record for dissembling.  When he applied for the scholarship for black students created at Holy Cross after the assassination of Martin Luther King, did he mention his opposition to affirmative action? When he applied to Yale Law, at a time when its admission policy required that 10% of the students be African American, did he refuse to answer questions about his race? The contrast between what he said at his confirmation hearing and his subsequent behavior on the Court is startling. Yet even today, when he has the lifetime appointment, he prefers to remain silent when the court is in session, hiding a bit under Scalia's wing.

I don't know why Republican African-Americans seem so reluctant to fight openly for their convictions. I would hazard a guess that longing to be admitted to a group that is fundamentally opposed to you necessitates a lot of dissembling - but that would only be a guess. I do know that there are no black Republicans with the courage of a Martin Luther King, Jr., or a John Lewis.

(With thanks to memeorandum)

Comments

[rick]

Affirmative action, as it was used during the 1960s, was a reference to the integration of work forces. In 1968, when Thomas entered Holy Cross, there was no affirmative action (by contemporary definition) for him to disavow. In the early 70s, federal courts upheld goals for minority hiring on federally assisted projects. That was the beginnings of the bastardized affirmative action that has morphed itself to the present. This causes one to wonder about other misperceptions you may harbor about justice Thomas.

[bbbustard]

It is my understanding that when he entered Holy Cross, he applied for and received a scholarship that was only available to black students. Is this incorrect?
Hope you're barbecuing something nice - we're about to head back to New York

[rick]

I do not know whether or not he attended on scholarship. He would have been a fool not to apply for anything available. That was my motto. I was simply trying to set affirmative action in time.

I turned a 7 pound boneless prime rib on the rotisserie outside yesterday. We also steamed 4 pounds of fresh yellow and green beans. I think I made the same thing two or three weeks ago. I cook outside any day that I am home this time of year. I know you said you were away from the city for the week. Hope it was pleasant for you and Mesdames. I am certain that her saintly tolerance of your 'foibles' is not lost to you. My very best to her.

[section9]

Thomas, among others, has written decisions supporting individual rights and restricting state power that will be written about twenty years from now.

George C. Marshall said something after the foundation of the State of Israel that you simply don't understand. You expect Rice and Powell to disagree with Bush, openly, because of their skin color. I would expect this from a person of the Left. Marshall understood the role of Secretary of State, however. You do not.

Marshall's Department was (and remains) devoutly Arabist and riven with anti-Semitism. In 1947 and 1948, they were opposed to recognition of Ben Gurion's new State. Truman, on the other hand, recognized that there was a consensus among the American population that after the Holocaust, the Jews needed a homeland.

Marshall opposed the decision and argued against it, but when Truman made his decision, Marshall saluted and went along, publicly supporting his President's stance. When his undersecretaries asked him why he didn't resign, Marshall said, "at this level, you don't do such things."

When you accept the King's coin, you accept the King's decisions. You don't skulk off just because you don't get your way. Besides, much of what Powell is saying now is post-hoc justification, of that I am sure.

Rice has been much less flighty, and much less prone to leaking. Expect her to move up in Republican ranks in future. She has stood with her President and attempted to limit the catastrophic damage caused by Rumsfeld's shortsightedness and Cheney's myopic politics. Do not think that Giuliani and Thompson don't see this.

[bbbustard]

I can only hope that the boneless prime rib was not overcooked, and that your cholesterol is not overly high. Mme Bustard greatly appreciates the compliments, but luckily enjoys my foibles even more.
Justice Thomas clearly deserves additional research.

[bbbustard]

Thanks to section9 for the comment, even though I thoroughly disagree with the implication that to be anti-Israel is to be anti-Semitic. Your confidence that much of what Powell is now saying is "post-hoc justification" seems to confirm my accusation of dissembling - either then or now.
The question you raise about when it is appropriate to support a President when he is making a choice you "know" to be wrong is tough. I respect your complimenting Marshall on his loyal behavior. On the other hand, after the Nuremeburg trials, we hung von Ribbentrop - Hitler's "Secretary of State" because he did not stand up against Hitler's decisions. I am not comparing Bush to Hitler; I am asking when a Secretary of State, knowing that his leader is going astray, should try to stop him. Bush's cabinet is a symphony of yes-men - more so than almost any previous American President.