[Question_Assumptions]

So what is the point of this charade?

The point of the charade would be to have voices that have credibility with different groups ultimately giving the same message. Powell has credibility with the diplomats and doves. Rumsfeld has credibility with the hawks. But neither is ruling out war and both will end up supporting the president. When it comes time to tell the doves to sit down and shut up, Powell will have the credibility to do that while Rumsfeld won't. That's why I think his UN presentation was so effective. People would have been more dismissive of someone like Rumsfeld. I'll worry about Powell if he steps over the line and starts criticizing the President. As long as he's a good soldier, I'm willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt that he knows how to use him.

[Consort]

The charges that Bush is rushing to war and that he is a cowboy are ringing hollow since he went to the UN. It turns out that the spin is the reality.

[Joe Hadenuf]

I think that Powell and Rumsfeld are playing a great game of "good cop/bad cop". Because Powell publicly pushed for diplomacy and UN involvement

Maybe I am missing something here.

So what is the point of this charade?

The point of the charade would be to have voices that have credibility with different groups ultimately giving the same message. Powell has credibility with the diplomats and doves. Rumsfeld has credibility with the hawks.

LOL...Interesting scenario, but for some reason, I don't think that was the plan......The good cop bad cop thing. IMHO, I tend to think they were fragmenting and the focus was blurred.