[Mr. Jeeves]

The article really doesn't support the headline.

[lonevoice]

The article really doesn't support the headline.

You are so right. The article and the headline are like night is to day.

[L98Fiero]

"And Mr Bush came in for criticism too, with Mr Powell saying he "presented some positions in a perhaps overstated way, but that's how changes begin, just look at the Middle East," referring to what appears to be some democratic momentum in the region."

That doesn't sound like criticism, it sounds like support.

[Smogger]

The article really doesn't support the headline.

Gee did any of the morons castigating Powell on this thread actually read the article? Obviously not. I didn't read a whiff of criticism of Bush or Rumsfield by Powell in the article.

Read the author's reference to "clumsy rhetoric" in the first line of the article, and you should have a clear understanding of what angle the writer's coming from.

[Paradox]

The article really doesn't support the headline.This bears repeating. There are many Powell bashers here who will simply use the headline to hate him even further, but if you actually read what he said, he says some reasonable things. He thinks we may have been too belicose in the lead up to the war, thats debatable, but its nothing to hate him about. Save that for the idiots who still say "Bush lied, people died". Powell says the exact opposite.

[P-Marlowe]

The criticism does not appear to be aimed at Bush, but at the CIA (for misinformation) and Donald Rumsfeld (for referring to Old Europe). Where is the criticism of Bush? Oh, yeah, the headline.

[nuffsenuff]

The article really doesn't support the headline.

-

Not even close.

[jaydubya2]

"The article really doesn't support the headline."
Agreed. He did not criticize Bush. He says he was duped along with Bush due to bad CIA info. It's humorous how they spin it.