It is instructive to contrast the personal styles of Cheney and Powell. I've seen both interviews, and the comparison is instructive. Both are capable men of considerable intelligence, but the resemblance ends there. It is ironic, but their differences precisely mirror the schism now developing in the Republican party.

What strikes me as particularly remarkable is that at one time both worked for the same man, the President of the United States, nominally their superior but clearly inferior to both in intelligence and the ability to formulate and articulate complex ideas. There must have been some fascinating conflicts going on in the White House during that administration, with (I presume) Cheney and Rumsfeld arrayed against Powell (and possibly Rice), as both sides maneuvered to mold and guide their President through some of the nation's most difficult times, while holding almost totally opposing views and instincts.

What is sad is that a stronger president might have accepted this conflict as an advantage, using it to form a synthesis of opposing ideas upon which to forge an effective foreign policy. Executives often tend to gather about themselves (even if they consciously do their best to avoid it!) armies of yes-men that tell them what he wants to hear and not what he needs to know. Here was an opportunity to avoid that impasse by having true differences of opinion that could be thrown against each other so that a coherent and truly creative plan of action could emerge.

The events of history bear witness that this did not happen. But that history is not yet complete, it is still being written, and the interviews of these two men and much of what is happening now in Washington is the struggle over who will write that final history.

The sad note is that the central figure in this great drama, the President himself, seems to have made only a token effort to add his interpretation to that history. He has become a recluse, a tragic figure, and both his former associates and the nation itself seem to be doing everything they can to isolate him. Almost every President has at some time during his term a photograph of himself taken, alone in an empty office, usually with his back to the camera, with the implied weight of the world on his shoulders and only the immense loneliness of the job apparent in his posture. This is the only way I can now visualize President Bush now.

I find it difficult to be critical of him any more. He was a man of modest gifts, and of simplistic philosophy, clearly in way over his head. But I do believe he was trying to do his best, and willing to do whatever it took to serve his country well. It was the American promise: succeed or fail, but work hard and never quit, and never take no for an answer. And he did do that. It just wasn't enough, and he was failed by his closest advisors. Still, in his place, I don't think I could have done any better, or worked any harder, or suffered any more for my failures than he did for his.