This is all true, but does anyone think Colin Powell would come out of retirement to save an administration that did serious damage to his own reputation? Is there any precedent in politics for such a move? To me the unlikeliness of this happening is what makes it so absurd, nevermind the fact that it is a bad idea.

Never thought much of Ford before.

Think even less of him now.

i hail from the 9th district.

Your first sentence is misleading. Ford is not a republican congressman but rather a spirited and decidedly not crazy democratic congressman.

Steve,

You sound like you are a king-maker; the power behind the throne. The General's performance at the UN was a symptom of the Bush administration. What he did there was perform as a military man does: though he may disagree with the policy and actions of his boss, he is duty-bound to carry out those things to the best of his ability. He did that. He stood up for his boss as any soldier would. If anything, given the behavior of the administration so far, his loyalty would make him more eligible!

You may not like what he did there - I know I didn't - but it was only one small facet of his career, which is what should be weighed and analyzed when considering him for any position. Rep. Ford has apparently done so, regardless of what you think of him and The General, this is what I hope the process is based on. Like a job interview, I hope his experience and prestige would win out against a micro-analysis of one event in his career. And I hope Mr. Ford has something to do with influencing whoever is chosen for the position.

Sometimes journalists lose sight of their responsibilities in favor of wielding the power of influence, offering up their opinions as if they were more important than the processes going on inside of the events they are supposed to offer us enlightenment into. The opinion of a journalist is supposed to be that of the man on the street, looking at the event as a spectator, not a player of the game.

Funny, Colin Powell didn't stand up for his boss when that boss was Clinton; he stood UP to his boss and bucked him at every turn: gays in the military and Bosnia come to mind.

He is absolutely the worst person to answer the generals' calls for the ouster of Rumsfeld.

When Colin Powell went to the UN he was Secretary of State, not a soldier.
Had he stepped down then, it is possible that many who went into a hypnotic condition would have stayed awake, but yesterday never comes back.
How could he return to a post in this administration? Unless the structural breakdown is more advanced than we know.

Steve,

Do you read Billmon? Very, very, thoughtful stuff there about the current Tehran obsession.

Ew...ew...I know, how about Hillary Clinton for Defense? Ew...ew...I know, how about Madeline Albright? Ew...ew...I know, how about Kay Bailey Hutchinson? Ew...ew...I know, how about Mother Teresa? Oh wait, I'm sorry she's no longer with us. My bad sorry.

Charles -- Thanks for your note. You are right. That sentence was misleading, and I fixed it. Harold Ford did call on Republican Congressmen -- but not other Republican Congressmen. I like him -- as I said in my post -- and have met him on numerous occasions, but I don't like this direction he is going.

Jerome -- I always respect your views. But my opinions are my opinions. I don't see myself as a kingmaker -- but I do see myself as able and practically as qualified to offer commentary along the lines of what a David Brooks, Paul Krugman, David Ignatius, or Tom Friedman offer. I will take your advice though -- and try and tone it down, but don't expect me to get out of the opinion business. That's why I write this blog. I'm also not interested in being a reporter for a guy on the street. I do want to influence things...I'm transparent about that. I felt that way about Bolton -- and will about other policy issues in the future. But you write great material and appreciate your note.

On Billmon, I must read -- I'm just behind. He is fanstastic and I read him frequently. I just have a four foot stack of bills, articles, reports, and conference planning obligations I have to weave into my other reading and work.

Thanks folks,

Steve

As Marcia pointed out, Colin Powell was not a soldier under the command of the Commander in Chief in any sense execept metaphorical when he spoke before the United Nations, making a case for war out of cherry picked and misleading intelligence, if not out and out lies.

There were only two things in his speech which I, a mere citizen who read news on the internet, newspapers, and listened to NPR, did not know enough about to know that he was misleading and mistaken in many of his points. The next day, several internet sites pointed out that the translations of the intercepted phone calls between lower level Iraqi officials were incorrect and did not support Powell's conclusions. I can't recall the remaining item.

But, now, Powell himself says he shouldn't have said what he said.

Yes, a soldier either obeys or resigns; perhaps a soldier can say he was just following orders, but Nuremberg brings that into question. Perhaps a soldier can say he might mitigate a bad decision through benign implementation. A Secretary of State? Again, obey or resign. But don't come back later to say he knew better at the time. And following orders is not an excuse.

I could not believe Ford is saying bring Powell in as SecDef!

Second on encouraging Steve to write on THE substantive issue, and dropping the Harold Ford/ gossip fluff. Let's stay focused and ignore those wishing to gain political capital by playing the fear/terror card.

Our nation is in great peril when flagrant violations of morality and International Law- Yes, even the THREAT of preemptive use of nuclear weaapons is a war crime- we are so far over the line one can no longer see it from where we are.
Democracy is but a distant memory, and we lost it
"not with a Bang, but with a few whimpers". We are about to repeat our Iraq mistake, this time in spades!

German folks did the same thing when Hitler flagrantly violated law and marched on to war. Folks pontificated on this or that, but on the large issue of morality and decision making by collaboration vs. military might they stuck their collective heads in the sand and also were unable to see the atrocities from that position.

Bill Montague [ http://billmon.org/ ] gets it EXACTLY RIGHT, regime change in Iran is attractive to Cheney as " the only way of out of an increasingly intolerable situation created by the failure of the neocons', the eventual doomed pyramid scheme of doubling on your losses, and illusioning losses into temporary gains before reality raises its amplified ugly head.

This has NOTHING to to about benefit/cost from the viewpoint of the nation as a whole, but only about benefit/cost as pertains to Dick Cheney. Let's talk about it as such.

Thanks for your note erichwwk..will take under advisement. Congressman Ford is going to be a Senator, I think, and eventually will probably run for higher office. How he "frames" these issues matters because he sets the kind of template on these matters that many pay attention to. If he is pushing the high-fear button on national security over zealously or is suggesting people for DefSec positions that undermines his voice and credibility, I have to comment because he is harming the efforts of others -- like myself -- to smarten up his party on these issues.

So, I will wade into these kinds of matters when I think that they are relevant to the substantive debates we are having.

best,

Steve

Hmmm...

I think I'm looking at the Ford proposal from a different perspective. I'm seeing it as an effort to rehabilitate The General, and nothing more. He admitted that he was wrong, so what's wrong with the idea of giving him another chance?

Now, I'm not a defense expert, nor a Republican. But I do admire Colin Powell for ALL of his career. Being as mistake-prone as I am, and seeing that a lot of alleged "absolutes" are not, I have no trouble seeing him come back to the post under any administration! I know he has his critics, but so what? He is a proven tool, and quite frankly, he's one of the only people in the Republican party who gives it legitimacy on the national level. That's just my opinion.

You know what has been ignored in all this? Why would Mr. Ford endorse a Republican for this post?

Steve, I would never expect you to change your ways, but I greatly appreciate your esteem!

Jerome -- You make a compelling point about Ford's interest in helping to rehabilitate the image of General/Secretary Powell. I think that rehabilitation is going to take some Republican muscle, but still the intent is interesting.
More later,

Steve

Mr. Ford is first and foremost a poltician. He is merely trying to gain traction among his electorate in a conservative Red state. These people are not that sophisticated to understand the nuances that Steve is promoting. He is feeding them red meat to get elected. Once elected he will become more nuanced again in his public statements. This is the guy who tried to become House Minority leader against Pelosi. He is very ambitious and single minded in pursuing poiltical power.

He is just appealing to the sensitivity of the average voters in his state, nothing more.

Powell may be a spineless wonder, but he's a smart spineless wonder who doesn't take dead soldiers lightly. For that alone, I'd vote for him twice to replace Rumsfeld. Then I'd send $100 to Howard Dean as penance.

Does being a Democrat mean you have to be wrong all the time? For those of us who desperately want a Democratic president (like Russ Feingold), Ford's remarks are ridiculous. Colin Powell pawned his credibility when he lied to the UN and to America in 2003 with his slide show, certainly the moral equivalent of McCarthy's speech about his secret list of "communists" in the State Department. Powell needs to go out to pasture. Isn't that where all tired geldings go?

And memo to Ford: The Iraq war is a disaster. Our president looks as weak as Anthony Eden after the retreat from Suez. Let Republicans defend this idiotic war. We already have one Joe Lieberman in the party...

Ford is a fool......sorry....sorry....sorry!

I also hail from the 9th district. Ford is a fool, but he doesn't have everyone fooled. Young Turk is right, he is a politician and a slick one at that. Unfortunately Steve, he is not "a very smart legislator", he is a poster boy for the typical Washington politician and if this country ever needed to get away from types like him, now is the time.

Let's see: Mr. Ford represents the 9th district on Tennessee, right? To get that job, he had to convince enough people there to vote for him, right? So how is him being ambitious a bad thing for the 9th district? How is Mr. Ford's manuevering to get a better seat at the feast detrimental to Tennessee's interests?

As for him competing with Ms. Pelosi, so what? Do you honestly think that he should not? Is that some rule I'm not familiar with, that mandates that only certain people can run for congressional leadership positions?

Do you read Billmon? Very, very, thoughtful stuff there about the current Tehran obsession.