Tis true that if one is referred to as a "widely respected, straight shooter", one is a hack. But many odious hacks are neither widely respected nor straight shooters. I think it has something to do with the adjective political.

Don't forget the previously-annual fawning over Gerald Ford surrounding the GOP convention. Ford's who's claim-to-integrity was to shield his ex-boss from a well-deserved criminal prosecution at the cost of his presidency (and nearly his life).

Makes you wish for the likes Spiro Agnew. Not the slightest pretense of integrity. He took the money, you got the favors. Politics at its purest.

The list of examples of this phenomenon is pretty much unending. Didn't Gore tale Lieberman as VP because as a man of integrity he was widely respected for his straight shooting about Clinton's sex life? Lieberman may not be an odious hack of Ford's standing, but he is an odious hack nonetheless.

On the subject of Ford's pardon of Nixon: We have seen Mayors and Governors go to prison. What would be the big deal of seeing a President or former President go to prison?

HONORABLE AND DISTINGUISHED, the best of the best, that's OUR George, that's OUR Dick. (1-202-225-0100--that's OUR Nancy)

The worst is when the press labels somebody "tough" or "smart". That's when you know you've got a particularly vicious little sociopath on your hands.

Wonderful word, "odious." Just sayin'.

I'm thinking of classifying my income tax due as odious debt - at least, that $100 per month per family portion of it that's contributing to mass murder in Iraq. And maybe the similar amount that funds the NSA, too.

Seems odious to me. I'm done classifyin'.

Ah, ritualistic glorification of high-ranking military men. And they say patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel...

Well, odious. On the ground odious with Glocks odious and paperwork odious expedited by the entire odious Washington chain of odious bureaucratic command.
Wolf Brigade odious.
Odious Petraeus odious Casteel odious El Salvador odious Columbia. Bremer Negroponte Petraeus Steele Casteel - odious.
Honduras odious.
Nicaragua odious.
Guatemala odious.
Buncha dead odious unimportant odious deadwood odious beings. Odious odious odious. 'Specially them odious tontos up in the odious jungle. Them odious union organizers. Odious teachers. Nuns in unmarked graves, odious.
Odious in the 70's odious in the 80's odious in the 90's, odious right up to ten odious seconds ago.
Odious Petraeus odious Wolf Brigade. Little odious heartless scumsucking inhuman odious bastard.
Wolf Brigade Steele Casteel Petraeus - so goddamned odious you can smell 'em with your eyes closed.

"Odious Debt"
That could be an ironical situation; "Sorry, Dubya, but you gotta take one for the team. We have to try you and find you guilty, or else hand over all our assets to the Chinese".

What would be the big deal of seeing a President or former President go to prison?

The distance between presidents and the executed action is many levels deep. To prosecute the president you'd need to expose the conspiracy of many and show that the operation of government is conspiracy as a matter of routine.

The gentle sensibilities of the US can't handle that. It's bit too paranoid.

Governors and mayors are far removed and can be compartmented to the lunatic fringe regional electorate. Jesse Ventura, the governator, or other weirdos that we elect in that group. The presidency -- the head of US government in court, or doing a perp walk, would do grave damage to the credibility of the country and to our psyche. It just won't happen. You won't even see the conspirators that are caught red handed in jail. We learned from the Nixon affair.

This is either rank cynicism or allergy to nuance. The issue isn't what the WPC thinks, but what do a person's professional colleagues and subordinates think. When in uniform Colin Powell scored high by this measure. The problem with becoming a high-level government functionary is that you're going to be savaged and second-guessed by people who could never, in their wildest dreams, walk in your shoes. No such thing as an honest mistake in that environment -- it's all venality, all the time.

This is either rank cynicism or allergy to nuance. The issue isn't what the WPC thinks, but what do a person's professional colleagues and subordinates think. When in uniform Colin Powell scored high by this measure.

Depends where one stands. I for example would not think that one could get an honest (free and frank) assessment from a highly rigid and authoritarian institution like the military.

For example, some people in the military may think that black officers are products of affirmative action, others may think that officers in general are careerminded suckups, and still others may think that officers routinely throw their troops under the bus for their own personal gain and aggrandizement -- but they would be unable to say that because of the organizational rigidity, organizational inertia or UCMJ. So it could be possible to assume that the military peers and underlings were just in luv with Powell.

Since I'm not in the military, I can be free to openly opine that Petraeus doesn't deserve undue influence on national policy just because he's a general that right-wingers are lining up to fellate. Looks to me like he's prepping for a presidential run down the line (after the Democrats lose this war for America).

But it could be allergy to nuance also, I guess.

From Harpers:

Lieutenant Commander Diaz reminds us of the powerful words of Justice Brandeis:

Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole of the people by its example. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law and invites every man to become a law unto itself. It breeds anarchy. To declare that the end justifies the means would bring terrible retribution.

It breeds anarchy. Anarchists want to breed anarchy, but they're terrible at it.

So when the government does the work for you, you should step back lest you hinder their effort.

You don't get this opportunity often.

Angryman, thanks for coming clean but it was hardly necessary; it was obvious right away that you had never served in the military. It's anything but "a highly rigid and authoritarian institution" -- you've been watching too many Hollywood movies -- and the personalities of senior officers become well-known and are widely discussed among the rank & file. Powell was very well-regarded when he was climbing the final rungs back in the 1980s. By contrast, everyone also knew that his contemporary, H. Norman Schwartzkopf, was a thin-skinned screamer who had been put out to pasture at CENTCOM, only to luck into a most unexpected opportunity for glory. Them's the breaks.

Jon, I envy you your expert knowledge of how the WPC works, so I won't comment on how a government functionary needs to be both personally decent and a "giant political hack" to make the grade with them. Seems an unlikely combination, although I admit a certain former DCI does spring readily to mind.

Re. Powell, your bill of particulars is, well, yours. I never paid much attention to Iran/Contra, but it's clearly a stretch to tar him with covering up massacres in Vietnam. He was, I believe, a young major (on his second tour) in a grueling staff job as an assistant operations officer, asked to check out the paper trail at the Americal Division HQ for an alleged incident that happened well before his time, found nothing, and now guys like you won't let him off the hook.

I also don't believe he knowingly told lies to the UN.

It's anything but "a highly rigid and authoritarian institution" ...

He-he. You do realize I come to ATR for the yuks? Thanks dude.

Powell was very well-regarded when he was climbing the final rungs back in the 1980s.

It was my understanding that US Army strength of the 1980s to the late 90s was typically 600,000 winnowing to 400,000 annually. I figure you could speak for yourself and your clique at best, but then you may have had an ongoing sensing session with them all. Some people are more productive than others, so it's possible.

From your quick assessment, I assume you served in some responsible capacity allowing you to see into the hearts of your troopies.

By contrast, everyone also knew that his contemporary, H. Norman Schwartzkopf, was a thin-skinned screamer who had been put out to pasture at CENTCOM, only to luck into a most unexpected opportunity for glory. Them's the breaks.

Well, I look on some discussions, or lack of them, as deferral to sacred cows, you know.

So what's does that sensing session vibe say about Petraeus? Presidential mettle?