Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Government Politics

Colin Powell Resigns 269

Posted by timothy from the complications-abound dept.
Anarcho-Goth writes "It is all over the media now. Secretary of State Colin Powell has resigned 'effective at your pleasure.' He says that he only planned to hold the position for one term anyway, but I'm sure the rumor mill has other ideas. This makes 6 resignations since the election. My local TV news described it as the most important position to resign so far. Isn't Secretary of State the most important cabinet position, period? Articles from CNN, The UK Guardian, The Associated Press, and Fox News."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Colin Powell Resigns More

Colin Powell Resigns

Comments Filter:
  • speculated on for longer than that, that Gen. Powell would resign if President Bush were re-elected.
    • Longer than that. Remember back when Bush was putting together his first cabinet? Everyone wanted Powell, but he kept sending signals about not wanting to spend so much time away from his family. In the end he went for it anyway, but even then most people were saying it would be for one term at most.

      Maybe if he'd had a bigger role in the Administration he would've stayed on, but it seems Condi Rice has had his job in all but name for the past year or so. Maybe Powell just likes to stay out of the lime

  • Bleh. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Neil Blender ( 555885 ) <neilblender@gmail.com> on Monday November 15, 2004 @07:46PM (#10825171)
    This was news last year. More than a year ago he said he would resign after one term. article [washingtonpost.com].

  • BBC analysis (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 15, 2004 @07:50PM (#10825202)
    The BBC provides a brief but interesting discussion of the "disengagement of Colin Powell" [bbc.co.uk].

  • Replacement will send signal (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Malfourmed ( 633699 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @07:53PM (#10825244) Homepage
    Powell's replacement will - I think - send a strong signal about the strategy a Bush 43B administration will pursue.

    A moderate (like one of the current favourites for the job, John Danforth, the current US ambassador to the UN... though I don't know enough about him to know if the description is accurate) will imply that there will continue to be a level of debate between the neoconservative and less revolutionary wings of the administration.

    On the other hand, appointing someone like Paul Wolfowitz to the job (another name bandied about, along with that of Condoleezza Rice*), will signal a continuation and even escalation of a unilateralist, force-based foreign policy that was pretty much dictated by the Pentagon for the last four years anyway.

    (*Not sure how I feel about Rice. I suspect she's not quite as extremist as she's often painted as being. She is - I think - on record as saying she's not interested in remaining in her NSA position and that she's considering a return to academia. She's also a favourite to replace Powell but appears to prefer to take over Defence rather than State. She's a doer, not a talker, and doesn't like all the pomp and ceremony associated with the foreign affairs position.)
    • In any other administration, Condi Rice would seem less moderate than she does in this administration. Rice in State isn't the choice I'd make, but compared to Wolfowitz (now THAT would be a statement), she's acceptable. The scary thing is that Wolfowitz is being bandied about for NSA.

      • In any other administration, Condi Rice would seem less moderate than she does in this administration.

        True.

        Rice in State isn't the choice I'd make, but compared to Wolfowitz (now THAT would be a statement), she's acceptable. The scary thing is that Wolfowitz is being bandied about for NSA.

        And given the news that has just broken that's a lot more likely now. Scary indeed.

        Rice, despite her reported dislike of public engagements, seems to be capable of exercising a great deal of charm. Having her be t

    • It will be Rice.

      http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2 00 2091276_webpowell15.html
    • Powell's replacement will - I think - send a strong signal about the strategy a Bush 43B administration will pursue.

      I agree. The man who serves as our representative abroad will send a strong message to the rest of the world. So who will Bush pick? Well, I think that to tell the rest of the world just exactly how much the current Administration respects other countries, will carefully consider their suggestions, and cares about the people of all nations, President Bush will have the United States' diplo

    • Re:Replacement will send signal (Score:4, Insightful)

      by coaxial ( 28297 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @10:32PM (#10826360) Homepage
      Powell's replacement will - I think - send a strong signal about the strategy a Bush 43B administration will pursue.

      A moderate (like one of the current favourites for the job, John Danforth, the current US ambassador to the UN... though I don't know enough about him to know if the description is accurate) will imply that there will continue to be a level of debate between the neoconservative and less revolutionary wings of the administration.

      Yeah, and moderate Colin Powell really influenced this administration's foriegn policy didn't he? Powell was nothing more than window dressing. He was marginalized from the very beginning. So much so that the week before 9/11 Time magazine's cover story was "Where have gone Colin Powell?". Any moderate (read non-neo-con ideologue), will be marginalized as well.

      Powell has tarnished his own reputation, by not resigning years ago.

      • Yeah, and moderate Colin Powell really influenced this administration's foriegn policy didn't he?

        He had some. but nowhere as much as a SoS should have had. Foreign policy under the Bush administration has substantially been driven out of the Pentagon.

        Powell was nothing more than window dressing. He was marginalized from the very beginning. So much so that the week before 9/11 Time magazine's cover story was "Where have gone Colin Powell?". Any moderate (read non-neo-con ideologue), will be marginalized

        • He had some.

          He got them to make a presentation at the UN and propose a resolution authorizing the war. Of course they said "screw you UN" when it became obvious they didn't have anywhere near enough votes.

          The biggest lie was the "We're trying to strengthen the UN, by ignoring it." Yeah. I'm going to believe that the very people that have argued that the UN is worthless and the US should pull out of it, are now all of all sudden big fans of the UN.

          If he writes a book called I Argued Against It And W
    • On the other hand, appointing someone like Paul Wolfowitz to the job, will signal a continuation and even escalation of a unilateralist, force-based foreign policy that was pretty much dictated by the Pentagon for the last four years anyway.

      Dictated by the Pentagon?

      OK, I've got to dig up some sources on this but weren't there a lot of high level generals that were critical of the current administration's adventure in Iraq?

      If not over the question of to invade or not to invade, but of the conduct?

      Wasn
  • Most cabinet members only stick around for one term (or less). Clinton replaced Warren Christopher with Madeleine Albright. See wikipedia [wikipedia.org] for historical Secretaries of State.
  • Yeah, I'm of the ignorant new generation, so sue me. But seriously, has anything like this ever happened? A close/disputed election, with the administration massively changed between terms? Is there any precedent for what we're seeing, and what did it mean last time?
    • Clinton replaced Warren Christopher with Madeleine Albright.
    • But seriously, has anything like this ever happened

      The election being close, not all that often. So far as disputed, I wouldn't go that far this time out. Last election was disputed into december. This one was disputed largely by CNN until Kerry conceded. Those continuing to clammor for a recount are without precident, and while they do have a valid issue, a recount is very unlikely to change the outcome of the election.

      As far as cabinet members leaving, Yes, and often. Bill Clinton lost 7 cabinet m
    • A close/disputed election

      The margin of victory this year was 34 votes. That's really not all that close. Compare to 2000. Also, this election was not remotely disputed.

      with the administration massively changed between terms?

      Cabinet-level officers serve at the pleasure of the president. They come and go frequently. Second-term Cabinets usually end up being very different from first-term Cabinets.

      Is there any precedent for what we're seeing, and what did it mean last time?

      There is extensive precedent, and all it means is that serving in the Cabinet is hard work.
      • Also, this election was not remotely disputed.

        Begging your pardon, but yes it certainly was. /. ran a story a few days ago about how Badnarik, Cobb, and Nader are gathering funding for a recount in several key states. Not to mention the fact that the discrepancy between exit polls and actual results was larger than usual. Yes, I'm re-hashing old material...sue me.

  • Powell's replacement is Rice! (Score:5, Informative)

    by xmas2003 ( 739875 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @07:57PM (#10825276) Homepage
    UPDATE: Being reported that National security adviser Condoleezza Rice is to replace Colin Powell as secretary of state in his second term.

  • Another Slashdot typo! (Score:3, Funny)

    by theantix ( 466036 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @07:58PM (#10825284) Journal
    When well those darn editors ever get it right? It's Fox "News".

  • Nothing Special (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dr. Bent ( 533421 ) <ben&int,com> on Monday November 15, 2004 @08:00PM (#10825296) Homepage
    4 cabinet members, including the Secretary of State, resigned [cnn.com] after Clinton was re-elected in 1996. A shakeup in the cabinet is standard operating procedure after an election. The world has changed (a lot) in four years. To think that the same exact people are the best ones for the job doesn't make sense.

    Of course, the same thing could have been said about Bush, but we won't go there....
    • It seems to me that after 4 years of 16 hour days and all the responsibility and pressure, any person would want to resign.

      It's often just a matter of needing to get back to their families.

      No one is suprised that Powell quit, but it shouldn't be suprising or shocking that others haven't done so. Clinton did indeed change a lot of his cabinet between his first and second terms, as well as during.

  • 8 resignations... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Johnny Mnemonic ( 176043 ) <mdinsmore&gmail,com> on Monday November 15, 2004 @08:01PM (#10825308) Homepage Journal

    I count 8 resignations: 4 in the cabinet today, and another 2 senior CIA officials. Plus, Ashcroft and another CIA official earlier. Was there another cabinet level that resigned earlier?

    I don't know what this means; but I think it means something. I sure don't recall this many resignations for Clinton's second term...?

    • I know what this means... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jayveekay ( 735967 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @09:20PM (#10825885)
      It means that it was a lot more fun to take over and run a country with a huge budget surplus and a military that is not slogging through a protracted insurgency in a foreign country. Remember the good old days of 2000?

      With the treasury plundering complete, and insufficient resources to invade any more countries for the forseeable future, the next 4 years just aren't going to be nearly as much fun as the first 4. So, it's a good time to ditch any responsibility for trying to fix the mess and cash in with some lucrative private sector job, perhaps in lobbying or something else that allows you to convert your legacy government connections to cash.

      Mod me -1, Troll, Insightful.
    • I count 8 resignations: 4 in the cabinet today, and another 2 senior CIA officials. Plus, Ashcroft and another CIA official earlier. Was there another cabinet level that resigned earlier? I don't know what this means; but I think it means something. I sure don't recall this many resignations for Clinton's second term...?

      In a completely unrelated story, after Bush won re-election rats were seen scurrying desperately away from the White House as fast as their little legs would take them...

  • "I just can't take the lying anymore! ARRGH!!!!!"

    • Re:What his Resignation Speech should have been (Score:5, Interesting)

      by flyingsquid ( 813711 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @10:24PM (#10826310)
      Seriously. I saw the webcast of a speech he gave at Princeton University. It was part of a conference honoring the author of a policy called "Containment", the concept which had guided the United States against the Soviet Union during the cold war... and also the strategy used by Bush and Clinton against Saddam Hussein. Basically, it's less risky to contain the threat than to engage it head-on. It was Orwellian to see him lauding this idea, after (rather defensively) saying that the invasion of Iraq was justified because Saddam Hussein had the "intention" to produce WMD... steadfastly defending the idiocy of Bush's policies to the end. Kinda pathetic. But it seems he's got a military man's idea of honor: do what you're told, as well as you can, and don't question orders, no matter how idiotic and insane.
    • Well, I didn't think the article would have been accepted if I had said that, or that he felt humiliated when he was forced to lie to the United Nations.

      So I went with "the rumor mill has other ideas" instead.

  • Hindsight? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dshaw858 ( 828072 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @08:15PM (#10825395) Homepage Journal
    I wonder if many republicans are thinking that maybe they shouldn't have voted for Bush, due to what appears to be lack of confidence even within his cabinet...

    - dshaw

    • Re:Hindsight? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Phillup ( 317168 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @08:31PM (#10825531)
      If they could think...

    • Re:Hindsight? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by tclark ( 140640 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @09:07PM (#10825779) Homepage
      If they had wanted to signal their lacks of confidence, they would have resigned before the election.
      • If they had wanted to signal their lacks of confidence, they would have resigned before the election.

        Unless, perhaps, they felt confident that Bush would lose? Also, it would be a complete slap-in-the-face to resign during an election period. I don't think they hate Bush, but are just not happy with his strategies and don't believe they'll work.

        Of course, I could be totally off on this (as I have been before), and since I can't call up Ashcroft or Powell to ask him, we may never know. Unless they write
    • I wonder if many republicans are thinking that maybe they shouldn't have voted for Bush, due to what appears to be lack of confidence even within his cabinet...

      As others have already pointed out, change in cabinet is not uncommon at the start of a second term.

      The same thing happened with Clinton apparently.

      But then, I'm an anarchist, and I think Clinton was a lying bastard, scum of the earth.... err, I didn't care for him much either.
  • Bush plans to reorganize the various Departents so that instead of each Department being overseen by a single Secretary, now all the various deparments will be directed by a unified Cabinet Board of Directors. This is being done to facilitate cross-departmental communications and to better defend our country against the terrorists.

    The Board will consist of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condaliza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz and Carl Rove. They will serve on the Board until we win the War On Terror.

    I, for one, wel

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) * on Monday November 15, 2004 @08:29PM (#10825519)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I'm sorry, what does this have to do w/ Colin Powell?

  • Condi will replace him (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dan_sdot ( 721837 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @08:31PM (#10825527)
    Condi will replace him [go.com].
    This is no suprise, though. Powell has been talking about a one term job for a while. This isn't really too big of news, cabinet members very often only stay on for one term.

  • Don't get so excited (Score:2, Informative)

    by edbarbar ( 234498 )

    State Colin Powell's future plans. "The Washington Post" reports today that Powell recently reaffirmed his intention to serve in the Bush Cabinet for no more than one term.

    Aug 23, 2003
  • On the bright side, Ashcroft is also resigning... what are the chances that his successor will re-expose the statue of justice? Or better yet, what are the chances that his successor will not regard the Constitution as little more than toilet paper?

  • I can't wait for the memoir (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wheelbarrow ( 811145 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @10:23PM (#10826308)
    The Republican Party today is an uneasy coalition of the personal freedom economic laissez faire folks and the biblical literalists. They need each other to win but both pretend the other is not there.

    Perhaps Secretary Powell was tired of pretending that the biblical literalist elephant was not under the table. His memoirs will be a great read.

  • Help! Where's the spin? (Score:5, Funny)

    by spitzak ( 4019 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @10:24PM (#10826313) Homepage
    I can't possibly form any intelligent opinions without spin! But for some reason it is missing. I just need two things explained about all these resignations:

    1. The left needs to explain why this is proof that Bush's second term will result in the destruction of life on this and several nearby planets.

    2. The right needs to explain why this is proof that Bush's second term is the second coming of Jesus and a new era of enlightenment.

    All I'm seeing is reasoning and sensible conjectures! That's no fun! I want assinine extreme examples! Please help!
    • That's no fun! I want assinine extreme examples! Please help!

      Well, I could try to tie this in with my theory that John Kerry is the Anti-Christ, but if that theory was true, then he should have won.

      Then again, the popular vote means nothing. The real election is when the electoral college meets. It is unlikely, but still technically possible that they could elect Kerry.

      I suppose it is possible that George W Bush is the second coming of Jesus, but that he had amnesia, but was programmed to regain his m

  • What it means (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cookiepus ( 154655 ) on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:11PM (#10826560) Homepage
    Not that much. There are people downthread speculating on what the cabinet departures mean, whether it's a show of lack of confidence in the administration, etc. I am going to repost a comment of mine from another board which has to do with it. Sorry for recycle of a post, but since it is the same subject being discussed I felt it would be silly to write a new post saying the same thing.

    I was listening to Powell's departing press conf (well he's not really
    departing for some weeks/months) and he stated that he had always
    intended to do one term only.

    I quickly found a link [politicalwire.com] from over a year ago that said as much.

    I was trying to get into the shoes of people like Powell and
    Ashcroft. If I had done so many different things and accomplished so
    much in life, would I want to do the same exhausting thing for 8 years?
    I don't think I would, unless the position had been my life's goal.
    Since Powell came through the military, I doubt being Secretary of
    State was super-important to him. Same for Ashcroft, who was, IIRC a
    state politician up to four years ago and had nothing to do with the
    Justice dept.

    So maybe it's not so shocking that people are looking to change
    careers or retire after 4 years of doing this sort of thing, which must
    be extremely draining. The beginning of a new term sounds like a
    reasonable time to do so while giving your resignation as little
    significance as possible, whereas retiring in the middle of a term
    would be viewed as more of a protest.

  • Probably not the most important cabinet position (Score:3, Informative)

    by Fallingcow ( 213461 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @12:29AM (#10826973) Homepage
    "My local TV news described it as the most important position to resign so far. Isn't Secretary of State the most important cabinet position, period?"

    No. Common misconception. Ever since the creation of the NSC (National Security Council, AKA "The organization that is/should already be doing almost everything that the Homeland Security department has been created to do") and the beginning of the Cold War, the State Department has been diminishing in power.

    The Department of Defense (renamed from "Department of War" at the same time that the NSC was created) and the CIA are in a better position to offer near-instant results, while the State Department often takes years to accomplish even simple tasks. In the climate of the Cold War, many presidents liked instant results better, and so chose to neglect the State Department. The purges of the Anti-Communism movement pressured State Dep. officials to not "rock the boat", lest they lose their jobs, and the McCarthy and others were allowed to run rampant in the State Dep. looking for "pinkos" -- however, when McCarthy went after the Def. Dep., he was crushed and swept out of the way.

    Nixon's administration saw a shift change of the NSA (National Security Advisor, head of the NSC, and the postion that Condi Rice holds) to a policy-making position, and to one more powerful in the realm of foreign relations than even the SoS. Everyone knows about Kissinger, Nixon's NSA, whether or not they know what position he held, but how many people can name his Secretary of State? Far fewer, I'd wager, and in fact I'd bet that many people would mistakenly guess that Kissinger was the Sec. of State, as he assumed many of the traditional roles of that position.

    The modern SoS is predominantly concerned with making sure that the Dep. of State runs smoothly, while the NSA sets policy from within the whitehouse and governs a data set much larger than that of the SoS. Knowledge is power.

    So, in many ways, the NSC, DoD, and CIA are much more powerful than the SD. That said, a president can always choose to give a department more or less power than his predecessors have. Perhaps that's what we'll see happen to the State Department if Rice moves there. Otherwise, it'd be a huge step down for her.
  • but we still have Donald Rumsfeld to leap inot the breach in our foreign policy.

    That sound you hear is Don rolling around on deck, scattering shot and crushing the occasional powder monkey.
  • They get their brand names to campaign for Bush, then they quit when he's re-"elected". This administration never misses a chance for a scam. Where's Osama?

  • Rice nominated. US now officially extremist (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MSBob ( 307239 ) on Tuesday November 16, 2004 @02:23AM (#10827507)
    What Lessons are there to Learn from the Outcome of the 2004 US Election?

    The post election commentary in the US is divided between questioning the accuracy of the count of votes, or wondering whether the Democratic Party had to pay more attention to discussing "moral" values as part of its election activity. Outside the US, there is discussion about whether there is some social flaw in the American character that has led them to 4 more years of a George Bush Presidency.

    While these considerations may provide a way to review what happened in the recent US election, they fail to raise questions that take a broader view. For example, such questions could include:

    • What is the nature of the two party system in the US?
    • How much leverage does this system give to the American people to determine who will be their political officials?
    • Is there some systemic problem responsible for the unbridled abuse of power both at home and abroad by the American government?
    • What is the nature of the so called American "democracy"? Are there any means for those Americans opposed to the continued occupation of Iraq to affect the actions of their government?
    • If the elections don't provide a means to have the desired effect, what will it require to create the conditions where the people have some say over the actions of their government?

    Traditionally, it is not that one can affect change in a situation unless one also tries to understand the nature of the problem. In the 2004 election, many people committed themselves to trying to replace George Bush. The call was to vote for "anyone but Bush".

    Early on the Democratic Party narrowed its sights to John Kerry as the candidate. From there on, the "anyone but Bush" meant a vote for Kerry, arguing that he could realistically defeat Bush. The Democratic Party challenged the effort of Ralph Nader to provide an alternative, removing him from the ballot in whatever states possible. The Green Party decided not to campaign vigorously anywhere that the campaign might pose a threat to the election of Kerry. Several activists who had backed Nader in the 2000 election urged voters to vote for Kerry rather than Nader this time. Despite these efforts, Bush now has a second term in the White House.

    One party, with two wings...

    One of the problems with the 2004 election strategy of those hoping to defeat Bush, is that there was a mistaken understanding of what it means to be "realistic" in the kind of "two-party" system in the US. In a country like Germany, for example, a vote for a smaller party, like the Greens, made it possible for the Social Democratic Party to win re-election in 2002. In the US, however, such a vote, as with the Nader vote in 2000, could not be combined with the Gore vote, to give the Democratic Party the White House.

    What this means, one is told, is that in the US, the votes for a candidate who is not from one of the two major political parties, are wasted votes. Thus, in the 2004 election, there was a determination to encourage a vote for the Democratic Party candidate, regardless of his position on important issues, such as the war in Iraq.

    The Democratic Party in the US has a long history of deciding that it will pursue the vote of those who might otherwise vote Republican. With no external left opposition, the Democratic Party accepts the issues as the Republican Party presents them, but proposes it can implement the Republican agenda better than the Republicans will. Though this is not necessarily true on every issue, on the fundamental issues of foreign policy, and of domestic policy issues to support that foreign policy, the two parties form one party, with two wings. Essentially, in the US, on these important issues, both the Democratic or Republican Parties, will implement the same foreign policy. (For example, Clinton carried out the sanctions against Iraq and enforced the No Fly Zones. Bush then argued that his policy of invading Iraq was just a continuation o

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close