What I don't know, as advocates will sift through pronouncements to find those consistent with their advocacy, ignoring inconsistencies hoping the adversaries fail to find them, is what you left unaddressed, despite your usual thoroughness. That was my point. I am unfamiliar enough with Powell's political leanings to be ignorant if he has spoken in an otherwise inconsistent pattern but if such matters have simply not been presented. That was my inartfully articulated point.

For example, I am not that convinced Powell forcefully opposed Bush's plans, as he was one of the speakers for many of Bush's plans, so it seems, he has engaged in Monday morning QBing. Because I am unfamiliar with Powell's politics I am unable to dissemble your argument, so you being academically minded, I was simply picking your brain to see what you left unsaid.

you are being difficult. If you want to argue that Powell's been too inconsistent to allow for an endorsement of any consistency, then go ahead and make your argument. No need to hint that the argument exists but back away from it. If you think I'm wrong just say so.

I must be woefully inarticulate today.

I'm asking, is there evidence to your knowledge which undermines your own argument? This is more akin to a law review article inquiry, where the reader and reviewer knows less than the author, but is simply asking the author what else is there?

My query was not an attempt to be difficult. My only suspicion about Powell, he being a politician, is that he may have covered his bases, and we may not be able to discern his true beliefs. Perhaps I am completely wrong, and you have presented the only supportable argument concerning his positions. As best I know, he doesn't have a website with clear policy positions delineating his political preferences, so it's researchers such as yourself, who can discern what his true positions might be. And this is much ado about nothing, as your probable response is you have stated what you believe and what is supportable. I merely wondered, is there anything else, not knowing.

To answer your question, Arch:

If you look at his two decade career in DC, yes he has been very consistent in his conservative foreign policy approach. He's been dubbed the "reluctant warrior" and the "master of diplomacy" and all that. The only hiccup (and it was a doozy) was in 2003 when, as Goat put it, he didn't have the balls to go public with his disagreement with Bush's desire to go into Iraq. Instead, he actively lobbied for UN support for the military action. By 2005 he was fired and back to his pre-Iraq rhetoric.

Colin Powell is no longer sure that he supports Obama.

I like how Tex settles political scores from years ago.

I should probably start doing this in some of the non-political threads.

Triumph over my enemies without them even knowing.