Respectfully, I really think “heaping praise” is a pretty big overstatement of what’s going on with my post, and I make the assumption you’re talking about mine since you didn’t link to anything else. I mean, all I’ve said is that he’s gained my respect back because he’s brought some honesty back into this debate. If that’s heaping praise, then so be it.

Now, I realize that many seem to not really care how we went about selling the war because they believe Saddam shoud have been taken out years ago. But I did care, do care and will always care because it threatens our credibility to use preemptive action again. I don’t understand why the pro-war crowd doesn’t seem to fully appreciate this “credibility issue.” Of course we’ll always have more credibility than a dictator, but do you really think we can just keep pushing secondary cases for invasion as the primary when the REAL primary reason is blatantly obvious to all?

And can you imagine us trying to sell a war like this again? I honestly don’t think we can’t do it. Many in the world think we’re liars, and now Powell has essentially admitted that we weren’t really being honest. That’s a big deal and a step in the right direction towards getting our credibility back.

Lastly, my comment about getting his respect back was addressing all of his comments. Some of his sentiments are voiced by the administration and some are not. In my book, he’s come a long way from his days defending obviously flawed arguments. The others are still stuck in a very intellectually dishonest place and until they own up to that, they’ll never really be able to gain my respect.

“What we didn’t do in the immediate aftermath of the war was to impose our will on the whole country, with enough troops of our own, with enough troops from coalition forces, or by recreating the Iraqi forces, armed forces, more quickly than we are doing now.”

So he doesn’t say “don’t go to war.” He doesn’t say “use a lighter touch.” He says “impose our will on the whole country.” I’ll leave it to you to imagine what that might look like, in terms of shooting looters or handling Fallujah. And I’ll leave it to the people now applauding Powell to decide whether they want to applaud that, too.

In the longer view, Rumsfeld’s war plan in Iraq tossed out the whole Powell “doctrine” of overwhelming numbers. Naturally, there’s a degree of personal rivalry here, and I cen well imagine Powell is in some sense gloating inside — though too much of a gentleman and too concerned for his nation to say anything about it — as the whole world sees that enough troops to overthrow Saddam wasn’t enough troops to pacify the country and secure its borders.

He said that there was little option now but to continue investing in the Iraqi Armed Forces. Despite his hesitation about the war � “I’m always a reluctant warrior� � he said that he was glad that Saddam and his regime had been removed.

Voicing concerns about the possibility of civil war, he said: “A way has to be found for the Sunnis to be brought into the political process. You cannot let . . . Iraq devolve into a mini-state in the north, a larger mini-state in the south and sort of nothing in the middle.�

I[m curious; what do you see in that that you don’t also read in Pres. Bush, Condi Rice, or anyone else who takes Iraq seriously.

I’d be more curious to hear Powell’s thoughts on his role in the 1991 decision to allow Saddam to stay in power after driving him from Kuwait and chasing him halfway back to Baghdad. I wonder if he considers that, too, a “blot” on his record.

But then again, he had nothing to lose and everything to gain. I am glad however that he came straight about his speech in the UN, even at the time I thought there was a flicker of distaste in his face as he read it.