Not trying to be snarky here, but what does the rude interference of Powell's aide have to do with his integrity?

The aide was trying to stop Powell from answering a politically damaging question — on, I’m assuming, guidance from somewhere else in the administration. Powell could have played along instead of insisting on answering it.

That suggests to me that Powell still retains his integrity (or as much as anyone can while working on Capitol Hill). Your title, as I interpret it, suggests otherwise.

I think he lost it some time in 2003. I’m somewhat heartened that he seems to be trying to find it again.

Mai Lai?

Not watching Meet the Press either, but having seen this transcript, I have a question: does anyone know what the question from Russert was?

My impression of this -- having been around a lot of young high strung government press aids -- is not that the content of the question was at issue, but that the aid was trying to forcibly manage a "satellite tour" of interviews Colin Powell was doing. Basically, I read this as someone seriously screwing up at their job. The first rule of working for people in politics is that you never cut them off during an interview unless they give you a signal to do so. And you certainly don't do it and give someone footage of it. The "they can't use it, they're editing it" comment I read as it's not a live interview, they're over their allotted time and so they are not going to use this.

Of course, what the question actually was could change that perception... however, no one goes into a Tim Russert interview on behalf of the administration not expecting some hard questions.

I gather the question was about that elusive Nigerian “yellowcake.” I haven’t watched the video yet, but here’s what Cory Doctorow has to say:

Colin Powell appeared on Meet the Press this weekend, and his appearance was marred by his press secretary moving the camera and attempting to end the interview early when Russert, the interviewer, started to ask a hardball question about the fictional Nigerian yellow-cake uranium that Powell used as an excuse to go to war in Iraq.

Most noteworthy about this event was that Powell, rebuked the press-secretary on air, demanded that the camera be trained on him again, and then answered the question, describing the intelligence he'd received as "deliberately misleading."

Here's the entire transcript:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4992558/

And here's what you posted, with Russert's attempt to ask the question, the question, and Powell's answer:

Russert: Finally, Mr. Secretary, in February of 2003, you placed your enormous personal credibility before the United Nations and laid out a case against Saddam Hussein citing...

Powell: Not off.

Emily: No. They can't use it. They're editing it. They (unintelligible).

Powell: He's still asking me questions. Tim.

Emily: He was not...

Powell: Tim, I'm sorry, I lost you.

Russert: I'm right here, Mr. Secretary. I would hope they would put you back on camera. I don't know who did that.

Powell: We really...

Russert: I think that was one of your staff, Mr. Secretary. I don't think that's appropriate.

Powell: Emily, get out of the way.

Emily: OK.

Powell: Bring the camera back, please. I think we're back on, Tim. Go ahead with your last question.

Russert: Thank you very much, sir. In February of 2003, you put your enormous personal reputation on the line before the United Nations and said that you had solid sources for the case against Saddam Hussein. It now appears that an agent called Curveball had misled the CIA by suggesting that Saddam had trucks and trains that were delivering biological and chemical weapons. How concerned are you that some of the information you shared with the world is now inaccurate and discredited?

Powell: I'm very concerned. When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully; we looked at the sourcing in the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate. And so I'm deeply disappointed. But I'm also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.

Russert: Mr. Secretary, we thank you very much for joining us again and sharing your views with us today.

Powell: Thanks, Tim.

Russert: And that was an unedited interview with the secretary of state taped earlier this morning from Jordan. We appreciate Secretary Powell's willingness to overrule his press aide's attempt to abruptly cut off our discussion as I began to ask my final question.

I'm with Scott...I think this demonstrates that Powell has quite a bit of integrity, and never really lost it.

I wouldn't say he has a lot of integrity (although more than most on Capitol Hill, on both side of the aisle... candle at night I suppose). My confusion was that I initially, and erroneously, interpreted David's post as saying Powell just lost his integrity.