So, Mark. Once one has taken a position, one should never veer from that position? Is that your belief? Suppose Powell felt he could gain more from those who disagreed with him by compromising a bit and perhaps persuading them to move more in the direction he felt the administration should go, rather than digging in his heels? If you recall, Bush was talking much more hawkishly a month ago than he is today.

Is it possible Colin Powell could be responsible or at least partially responsible for that? Frankly, I think that may be the case. From what I have read and heard, Bush (who really isn't as dumb as most of my liberal friends on the Mudcat think he is) likes to hear opposing views and encourages it. He makes the final decision, but only after considering all the arguments from both sides.

Powell never said, I don't think, that invasion of Iraq was totally out, as far as he was concerned. He did urge going through the United Nations (which Bush did), and urged building a coalition (which Bush is attempting to do).

If one takes the position that nothing should be done about Iraq, that Saddam should be left alone to build whatever arsenal he wishes to, then I suppose it's a moot point.

Be that as it may, I don't see how one could interpret what Belafonte said about Powell as anything other than that Powell was an "Uncle Tom" because he didn't agree with his POV.

L.H.: I think I asked the question before, but no one replied. Since you brought it up again perhaps you will answer it for me: what does Harry Belafonte have to lose by making the statements he made? Why do you and others think it took such great courage? He is a very rich man. He is beholden to no one. He will get gigs when he wants them. Enlighten me.

DougR