So there must be another side to the guy. We could check out Ashworth and Sampley's analysis of the guy [apparently two reputable journalists (I think that's what I read).
They claim his Bronze Star was wrongly awarded because the guys he rescued weren't in an actual war zone and his Purple Heart was for some trivial injury. If correct in this, then we can reasonably assume his other honours and awards were legitimately earned, or they would have exposed them, too. At one point they challenge his reputation as the 'mastermind' who won Gulf War I - an accolade generally made by many nations after the war. They criticise this as wholly undeserved because '....if his victory and strategy were so good why is Bush no longer in power and Saddam Hussein is?' So now we have a fact we can use as a benchmark against which we can judge the other claims they make: i.e. a statement of such staggering naivety - no it's worse than that - it's puerile beyond belief. So the authors of the article believe a General dictates the political system by which a Western democracy operates.
But there is another, more telling, issue on which 'neutrals' can judge the man. Not the fact that Arab and western nations in the coalition trusted him to lead the war against Hussein; no, it's the fact that when proposed as Secretary of State by the President his appointment was unanimously approved by the Congress of the United States of America. So, Powell is a man, no doubt plagued by the various weaknesses that we are all subject to. But if he's as 'black' [sorry about the pun] as he's painted by A & S then the 'neutrals' are led to only one conclusion: the entire US congress doesn't contain one solitary individual who has the honesty, courage and integrity to stand against an unworthy man. Is there any sane person who could actually believe that? I don't think so.
So we can read A & S: we can consider the actions of the US Congress; then we can draw some typeof reasonable conclusion.
Well, some may read A & S and be taken in - I doubt that anyone without an axe to grind would give them the time of day. I still perceive him as intelligent, articulate, and would make as good a president as some of the less worthy characters we've seen in that post over the years.
A & S? Well, my guess is they aren't objective investgative reporters. If I wanted to waste my time I could do a bit of digging but I've got more important things to do - like having a c**p.
So who are they? I wouldn't be surprised if, in their spare time they wear white sheets and their hats have a point - which is more than can be said for their beliefs.

