Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Colin Powell strongly against "muddy" U.S. presence in Middle East (1983)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Sushi_lover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 10:06 AM
Original message
Colin Powell strongly against "muddy" U.S. presence in Middle East (1983)

Funny how even the most "credible" of the White House liars has failed to learn from the death of 241 Marines sacrificed by President Reagan to the objective of "presence" in the Middle East:


http://www.beirut-memorial.org/history/powell.html

Colin Powell's reaction to the Beirut Marine Barracks bombing... (pages 280-281)
....

Our Marines had been stationed in Lebanon for the fuzzy idea of providing a "presence." The year before, in June 1982, the Israelis had invaded Lebanon in one final push to drive out PLO terrorists. This move had upset the always precarious Middle East balance. The United States, consequently, was attempting to referee the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Lebanon. The Marines had been deployed around the Beirut airport as what State Department euphemists called an "interpositional force." Translation: The Marines were to remain between two powder kegs, the Lebanese army and Syrian-backed Shiite units fighting it out in the Shouf Mountains. Weinberger had opposed the Marines' involvement from the start, but lost the policy debate in the White House to McFarlane and Secretary of State George Shultz.

I was developing a strong distaste for the antiseptic phrases coined by State Department officials for foreign interventions which usually had bloody consequences for the military, words like "presence," "symbol," "signal," "option on the table," "establishment of credibility." Their use was fine if beneath them lay a solid mission. But too often these words were used to give the appearance of clarity to mud.

....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cliss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. The use of symbolism
in this administration is staggering. Over the past 3 years, we have seen a virtual catalog of symbols, images and relics from our nation's past which have been paraded in front of us, usually with the president or someone else in the administration.

There was the photo shoot of Bush making a speech at Mt. Rushmore. His face was turned so his profile matched the stone carvings on the mountainside. There have been countless photos of Bush surrounded by, almost wrapped up in the American flag. There was one photo with Powell standing in front of the Washington monument. His face was turned slightly upward with a dreamy, hopeful look on his face. Bush has appeared in front of countless paintings depicting our nation's leaders. The only thing they left out was Bush sitting in Lincoln's lap at the Lincoln memorial.

The use of words is an obvious one. We have the "Patriot Act", even though it is everything but that. We have "Homeland", "Victory", "Operation Iraqi Freedom", "Hope", democracy, mission accomplished, etc.

These words and images are being used to convey patriotic and positive images. They are being used very deliberately to convey a message. Most if not all photos taken of the president are staged. When Bush was going to appear on the USS Lincoln, the media people arrived 3 days in advance to prepare the "setting", to get the lighting, angles just right.

This is an administration which relies on history. You can hear it all the time with quotes that they use. Bush made the reference of Benjamin Franklin emerging out of Iraq. There have been lots of references to Iraq like rebuilding Germany and Japan.

I would have to assume that these people have historians who spend a lot of time doing research. They most probably have hundreds of images, quotes, historical references which fit the current situation, and present it. I would have to assume that man is Karl Rove. The similarities to another country are striking. It's not hard to figure out which one. They went down to defeat, by the way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sushi_lover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. it points to the sea change in the Republican Party

You're right. Now they are the masters of symbolism.

Before, they spoke on an intellectual level. Now they speak on a cartoon level. Bush at the Last Supper. Bush crossing the Delaware. Bush saving us from Hitler, Mussolini, and all the other evildoers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-13-03 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
3. Powell was always a Hawk!
His true colors......are just shining.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC