Always good to see the editorial page of The New York Times ratifying our This is what we said yesterday:<\/P> This is what the Times Web site said in its The editorial itself is headlined “Which Powell Is Which?” There’s no gainsaying that. It We also said of Mr. Waffles: <\/P>
\nof course. It cannot be as blunt as we were about Colin Powell, but its considered opinion this
\nmorning is pretty much the same. <\/P>
\n
\nSo he warned our dopey Maximum Leader about owning Iraq. Let’s not make
\nthe U.S. Secretary of State a hero. Isn’t he the man of principle who went to the U.N. with
\nso-called proof of WMD in Iraq, which he in fact doubted? Didn’t his
\ndecision to go to war for all intents and purposes had already been taken?<\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
\nthought the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea, his inaction is puzzling and disappointing.” Such
\npuzzlement. Such disappointment. Can’t you see the sorrowful looks in their faces as the
\nladies and gentlemen of the editorial board gather for their meeting in the clubby
\natmosphere of the Times building’s 10th floor? <\/P>
\n
\nnotes:<\/P>
\nWhat we seem to have once again with Mr. Powell is a desire to have it both
\nways, to be seen as a loyal member of the Bush team, but also as a wise man who knew all along
\nthat the Iraq war would be a mistake. If the Woodward version is correct, Mr. Powell should have
\nspoken up more than a year ago.<\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
\nNot to put too fine a point on it, is he not the guy who went along with “the
\nGestapo,” his own term for “the civilian conservatives in the Pentagon loyal to [Dick] Cheney,”
\naccording to Bob Woodward’s “Plan of Attack”?<\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n