You “Wobbly Watch” people really ought to read something more that just the New York Times and Washington Post. Try StrategyPage — you’d know we’re already at war in Iraq.
Who writes it? What sources are being cited? I’d want to see some corroboration to the speculative aspects of the report as, unfortunately, the occasionally awkward grammar and misspellings in the article undercut its authority.
Watched Wobblies never fall down?
Strategy Page is Jim Dunningan, Al Nofi, Steve Cole and Austin Bay among others if memory serves.
Thank you, Robin.
Their credentials are certainly impressive; a good proofing editor would do them well. On a side note, the messages from their forum that appear at the bottom are so weirdly…histrionic!
Powell: U.S. Not Trying to Oust Saddam
Ehhh, it’s State’s job to make ridiculous statements like that. Since September 2001 they’ve been saying the darndest things, reaching out to moderate evildoers and offering despots seven “last chances” right up until the bombs fall. I wouldn’t worry.
Who cares what WaPo says? They (and NYT, and many other newspapers in this country) are State Dept. lackeys. They live to (a) make Bush look bad, (b) make State look good, or (c) make Powell look good. They hit the trifecta here. Powell is losing the power struggle in the White House and likes to pretend he is President and gets to determine policy. He yaps too much to the wrong people about the wrong things, and should be fired. Now, more than ever, we need a hawk in that seat. For more see here.
You know, though, Powell has been presenting his “Saddam will have changed if he disarms” offer for a long time. Given a closer look, the idea looks less like Foggy Bottom pipe dreams and more like an intentional oxymoron. A disarmed Saddam Hussein? Literally, the man would need to completely alter his personality. And that won’t happen.
i used to think the same of powell until i read this. now i’m not so sure.