I suppose there are a variety of interpretations regarding Powell’s actions. I happen to think he’s a team player, but has his own views which he has aired to Woodward and Time.

Hollywood: John Kerry has made his Vietnam heroism a big deal, not the Republicans. Once he has done that everything, including the swifties, is fair game.

Kerry's Hero schtick is as phony as a 3-dollar bill. Here is an example of how a real hero talks about his decorations. Col. Charles MacDonald, USA ret, took a group of vets back to the Ardennes in 1994. When he got to a location near St Vith, Belgium he asked one of the old soldiers what he did there. The private, who won the Medal of Honor, answered that he held off some Germans there. Col MacDonald then read citation, which I cannot exactly, roughly read that the soldier in question took a 30 cal mg with his loader and held off two companies of Germans while his unit pulled back to a more secure location. During the engage, his loader was killed and he was repeatedly blown off his gun by mortar and grenades. After engaging the enemy for close to 30 minutes he withdrew to his company's new position with multiple wounds. He killed or wounded over 150 German soldiers during the engagement.

So here you have Kerry [and his fervent defenders] bragging about his three purple hearts and his chest full of medals versus a Medal of Honor winner simply saying he held off some Germans. Does that tell you something about the difference between real heroism and Kerry’s faux heroism?

Soldiers (and sailors with pretensions of soldiering) aren’t cops; they have absolutely no obligation to convince the enemy to surrender. They must accept a surrender if one if offered, and they may, at their discretion, demand a surrender to avoid further bloodshed, but there is no duty to do so. A cop is supposed to preserve the peace, using deadly force only as a last resort. A soldier is supposed to force the enemy to bend to his will by means of shock, fire and movement.

Prisoners may have intelligence value, and should be collected if possible. I think that John F’n Kerry is 20 pounds of lying sh*t in a 10 pound bag, but I totally defend his decision and actions in this case (similar to the way O’Neill defended him in 1996), though the idea that this deserves a medal is a ludicrous as the idea that he ought to have forced the guy to surrender.

Hollywood, you’ve exhibited an interesting style of argument several times today: you sweem to be willing to impute an absolute, all-or-nothing quality to any statement, so long as it serves yourt purposes.

In this case, yes, Bob Woodward did say Powell had disagreements with others in the Bush Administration. On the other hand, Powell did come out and explicitly say that he agreed with the war.

How to reconcile these? Especially since the Bush Administration pretty much explicitly endorsed Woodward’s book?

Seems to me that there are two ways. On the one hand, we might conclude that the Bush Administration doesn’t demand slavish lockstep, but rather looks for discussion, dispute, what Hegel calls “dialectic”, leading to a common plan and agreement to pursue it. Powell then is saying that he’s on board because, after discussion and dispute, he’s on board. He’s telling the truth.

On the other hand, we might, contrariwise, conclude that Colin Powell has no strength of his own convicions, and will say anything Bush tells him, no matter what he thinks and no matter what it risks in Powell’s own self-respect or the respect of others.

You can pick the interpretation you like, but I see that second interpretation as redolent of “house niggers” and “doing what Massa says” and all the other thoroughly illiberal things “liberals” have said about Colin Powell and Condi Rice in the last three years.

Meet Bob Woodward. Mr. Woodward, Charlie(Colorado). Look, Powell is playing a double game. If not, why won’t he be back on re-election?

roberts,

Uh, what were you saying? Persuade me some more. But, no name calling this time, OK?

Come on, Hollywood, you don’t think you can get away with that as an argument, do you? That Powell didn’t “sign on” for Iraq, but instead put himself out in front in the UN and on the news, before and after, out of … what? Loyalty? Because he’s a “good soldier” — continuing the ignorant notion that “soldier” means “mindless robot”?

In the face of Powell’s repeated clear statements to the contrary?

The only people who argue that Powell isn’t doing what he thinks is right are the same people who claim Powell isn’t really one of the “Bushies”. Which, frankly, always makes me wonder if there’s not more than a hint of racial prejudice underlying it.

Excellent point. Probably two of the most distinguished members of the Bush admin in terms of their military careers are Colin Powell and Richard Armitage at the State Dept. Guess what? Neither of them signed on for Iraq. Guess what? Neither of them will be around next time if Bush is re-elected. What’s that say about their feelings on the wisdom of our CIC?

Say what you will about Drudge, he often gets actual MSM attention.