As a result Colin Powell lost 100% of whatever credibility he ever had. He had been an "authority figure" and respected for his management of the First Gulf War. He could have been the first African-American to be elected president.
Now Mr. Powell will only be remembered as the White House's fool, sent to tell known lies to the UN, with an air of certainty that, up until then, only Mr. Powell had.
I have a lot of trouble with the passive voice. "Be remembered"? Be remembered by whom, Philly Steve? Colin Powell still commands a higher overall approval rating than any other public figure of recent times. Even higher than Ronald Reagan. Up in the 70 percent range.
all interested in and work towards the dream of "absolute hegemony". it is the dream of imperial elites throughout time.
You and I have a different view of what is "absolute" about "absolute hegemony". In the political sense, I see the term "absolute" as meaning "imposing by any means necessary to prevent any deviation whatsoever". I agree that the powerful elite seek a world in which the US is predominant. I do not agree that all except a very few - who so far remain unnamed - seek a world in which the US is
absolutely predominant.
The current Iraq debate provides a perfect example. More and more of the powerful elite are coming to eschew the cost of
absolute predominance in Iraq and accept something short of the "total victory" (i.e.,
absolute hegemony) that the neo-con's insist upon.
Even at the time of the October 2002 Resolution,
more than half of the Democratic members of Congress voted
against authorizing the use of force (i.e,
absolutism) against Iraq. More than half. What kind of imperial elitism did their vote represent?
Or are they, the majority of Dem's in Congress in October of 2002, perhaps the noble and notable exceptions to whom you referred?
