I hear you, and I think we largely agree. The difference lies in what we think is the right thing to say in the current context.

In my view the context is that our country, under the control of the neocons, committed gravely immoral acts surrounding the Iraq War. These acts include, obviously, getting a million people killed but also include things like failing to challenge and even cooperating (e.g. Hillary, Biden, and all the othes who voted for the war) with the liars who commited those war crimes.

Even now when the nature of those acts has become more than clear to those who are willing to see, there has been almost no accountability for those acts. There hasn't even really been any attempt to hold anyone accountable for those acts. Hence, for example, impeachment is off the table. Neither Obama nor any other Democratic presidential candidate, other than Kucinich, made those acts an issue in the campaign, choosing instead to make small bore tactical criticisms.

What's more, the neocon bullies continue to push the Democrats around. Both Obama and Biden have jumped on the bandwagon in posturing as tough guys on the Russia/Georgia conflict, supporting policies that could lead to WWIII over non-vital interests. There's also all the torture and attacks on civil liberties that you have so ably documented.

In that context, I just think it isn't right to go out of our way to praise one of the primary perpetrators of all the acts listed above. It seems incongruous to me. And even potentially dangerous, as it helps support the impression that these men didn't do anything that wrong.

That context is just as relevant now as it was a year ago or 2 years ago or 5 years ago. In that context, it makes no more sense to cherry pick and hold up acts of war criminals for praise, than it would to praise Osama bin Laden for acts of charity he has performed.

It may be true that he did them. It may be true that they were acts with beneficial consequences. But it would simply be wrongheaded to write an article praising those acts. Just as it would be wrongheaded to write a column ignoring the fact that Adolph Hitler was an evil mad man but praising him for, I don't know, helping peasants in the Sudetanland or whatever he might have done that can be construed as good. Would you write a column praising John Wayne Gacy for being a good family man? It comes off like apologetics.

But it is even worse to do so in the case of the war criminal Colin Powell than it is in the case of Hitler or Gacy. Everyone pretty well understands that Hitler and Gacy were evil. But Americans are far from understanding that about Powell. There is no danger that we would be contributing to the rehabilitation of Hitler or Gacy but there is every danger that praising Powell feeds into his rehabilitation.

If some Hitler equivalent, universally understood as such, endorsed Obama, what would Obama do? Say that he is honored to have Hitler's endorsement in order to pick up the fascist vote? No, he would reject it, as he should. But Obama said he was honored to have Powell's endorsement. There is also talk about Powell getting a position in Obama's Administration. The clear implication is that if Obama is honored to have Powell's endorsement and is considering him for a position, then Powell must be an honorable man. And by extension, the implication is that Powell and his coconspirators did nothing dishonorable regarding the Iraq War.

And if even the liberal Obama thinks Powell did nothing too objectionable then it must be only crazy lefty bloggers who have that kind of extreme view. Hell, if even the liberal Glenn Greenwald finds Powell praiseworthy it must be only the most extreme and demented blogger types, like The Fool, who think there was anything really wrong with the Iraq War, outside of tactical errors that even McCain admits.

Do you see what I'm saying about the context? Its not like Powell's culpability is limited and being dredged up from the past. His culpability is significant, ongoing, and unrepentant. In the current context, you just shouldn't praise people like that. Even if they recently performed some actions with some beneficial consequences.

I guess its easier to write me off as a concern troll than to confront my arguments, isn't it boys?

Far from being a concern troll, I am a veteran Democratic operative. If you really think I'm a concern troll then go read my 49 pages of past letters on this blog and ask yourself what are the odds that this guy posted lefty comments for years just to set himself up for the opportunity to concern troll today?

Hell, I'll probably break down and vote for Obama. There is absolutely no doubt that Obama is 10,000 times better than McCain. There is also vanishingly little chance that my comments on this liberal blog are going turn the election against Obama.

Some people hide their true beliefs, like you boys, in the service of their heroic leaders. Others like me speak their minds honestly.

Don't blame me when -- seeing little resistance from his supporters -- Obama goes and makes the war criminal Colin Powell his Ambassador to the UN thus rehabilitating the reputation of one of the main perpetrators of the WMD Hoax and the illegal war of aggression that got launched based on that hoax. Don't blame me when the unrepentant ringleaders of that atrocity are rehabilitated and Iraq goes down forever in our national consciousness as a just war regrettably gone slightly wrong due to tactical misjudgment.

You can sell your souls, boys. I think I'll keep mine.