Powell bundão

O editorial do New York Times de hj desce um cacete no Powell lembrando que o general era visto por todos como a voz da razão na admistração extremista do baby Bush. Mas essa imagem está sendo colocada em dúvida pelas entrevistas feitas a respeito das "revelações" do livro semi-oficial da Casa Branca escrito pelo jornalista republicano, Bob Woodward (veja PBS).

What we seem to have once again with Mr. Powell is a desire to have it both ways, to be seen as a loyal member of the Bush team, but also as a wise man who knew all along that the Iraq war would be a mistake. If the Woodward version is correct, Mr. Powell should have spoken up more than a year ago. He had, in a way, prepared all his life to oppose the Iraq policy. Like most soldiers, he'd always been reluctant to go to war, and the doctrine that bears his name is one that aims to restrict the country from any foreign adventure taken without overwhelming commitment — say, by an administration that was planning to launch an invasion and cut taxes at the same time.

Mr. Powell, who apprenticed in the vicious parlor wars of the Reagan White House, has always played the spin game well. If the Woodward book is the version of inside-the-White-House history that Mr. Powell wanted people to believe, it has done nothing to burnish his reputation. Knowing that Mr. Powell thought the invasion was a bad idea doesn't make him look better ' it makes his inaction puzzling and disappointing. It's an article of faith in Washington that Mr. Powell would not serve in a second Bush administration. The lasting impression may be this sense of disappointment in the secretary he could have been.