Looks like Mary McGrory, columnist for the Washington Post, is one of those whom I described yesterday as viewing Colin Powell as a “light in the darkness” of the Bush administration. In yesterday’s column she offers her credentials as one who was “clinging tightly to the toga of Colin Powell”, wishing he would oppose the war outright rather than just advise against it.

But she has seen his transformation, and the reasons for it. And now, after his presentation of evidence to the UN, she’s starting to see the truth.

I wasn’t so sure about the al Qaeda connection. But I had heard enough to know that Saddam Hussein, with his stockpiles of nerve gas and death-dealing chemicals, is more of a menace than I had thought. I’m not ready for war yet. But Colin Powell has convinced me that it might be the only way to stop a fiend, and that if we do go, there is reason.

The minds, they are a’changin’.

Hal Lindsay provides another instructional history lesson. When you hear people comparing the UN to the League of Nations, this is why.

Basically, Colin Powell tipped our hand (slightly) to the world yesterday. Hussein’s going to plug whatever intelligence leaks he can, now that he knows what some of them are. So the Bush administration was putting quite a bit on the line in revealing what they knew, and that’s one thing that should speak in their favor when it comes to who to believe; Powell’s pictures or Iraq’s denials.

But a guest on “Fox & Friends” this morning (don’t recall his name) added an angle to the presentation I’d not thought of (nor had Steve, E.D. and Brian). Given what we know about Iraq’s weapons programs, other regimes in the region must now be wondering what we know about their programs. He said that the video of the MIG with spray tanks attached was probably the one thing that got other ambassadors thinking, “If the US knows that much about Iraq, what do they know about us?” Saudi Arabia is already showing signs that they understand that, having submitted a new proposal to the UN Security Council for one more “last chance” to have Hussein leave or be overthrown. When you hear the blustering from Mideast government officials, just consider that.

The thing that interests me the most is that Powell, whom the left has embraced as some sort of lone voice in the darkness in the midst of a Republican administration, is thoroughly convinced that we must proactively work to remove Saddam Hussein, rather than wait for some sort of attrition to occur. (I wonder if some in the UN plan on just passing resolutions until he’s dead.) And what convinced him was the very evidence he presented. But those on the left that have considered Powell their political soul mate now conveniently doubt him (or at least ignore him) when he starts making a convincing case for “the other side”.

Case in point: The Daily Kos has been utterly unconvinced by the evidence (which is not surprising; he reflexively disagrees with anything that comes from the Bush administration). But just recently, on January 16th, he was confused as to why Colin Powell is a Republican given his position on a number of issues and his actions as a member of Bush’s cabinet. The obvious question is; what does Kos think of Powell now?

When a Republican senator votes against the party line, he’s called “principled” by the left. Now let’s see what happens when this “lone voice in the darkness” realizes he’s been in the light this whole time.

I haven’t been able to get to the Goldberg piece today. Hopefully tommorrow.

Did you see this headline in your morning paper: “Discretionary federal spending to rise in 2004 by more than double the rate of inflation”? Funny, neither did David Frum.

France is now proposing that we, essentially, turn the inspectors into detectives, possibly “doubling or tripling the number of inspectors”. If they Iraq doesn’t comply, we’ll just…keep inspecting. They claimed that the inspections are working, although since we know there are weapons unaccounted for and the inspectors haven’t uncovered them, what do they mean by “working”?

Was he listening?

Bill Kristol on Fox News Channel: What kind of world will we wind up in if we say to dictators, “If you make nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, we’re too scared to do anything about it”?

(Answer: Extremely dangerous.)

Just a thought…

UN 1441 said that Iraq would face serious consequences if they did not comply. Given France’s & Germany’s position, do they intend to say that passing another resolution would constitute “serious” consequences? What do they really mean by “serious” consequences?

The best visual aid presented by Powell was the one showing which countries are in the strike area of Iraqi weapons, given that Iraq has not limited the range of their missiles. Kinda brought the point home, I hope.

The best idea presented was that Iraq had changed not one iota since before UN resolution 1441 (indeed for the past 12 years and 17 resolutions). How will one more resolution or more time make things any different?

For perspective, Scott Ott has a list of items that Colin Powell did (or really, should have) added to his UN presentation that would really get Democrats on board. Too funny, yet too true. (Found the link via InstaPundit.)