"In an interview in his State Department offices two weeks ago, Powell suggested that the inspections regime was in its infancy. "The inspectors are really now starting to gain momentum," in part because the United States had just begun providing intelligence, he said. He noted that a report from U.N. weapons inspectors due next Monday was not a final document, but only "the first formal, official report."

But this week, Powell flatly said: "The question isn't how much longer do you need for inspections to work. Inspections will not work."

In the interview two weeks ago, Powell proudly noted the "defining conversation" he had with Bush on Aug. 5, when he urged the president to make an effort to win U.N. support for a confrontation with Iraq. "He always had in his mind that it was preferable to multilateralize this," Powell said.

Yesterday, with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw at his side, Powell said it was "an open question right now" whether the United States would even seek a U.N. resolution authorizing military force. He said the administration believes it has sufficient authority under earlier resolutions, adding that even without U.N. backing, "I'm quite confident if it comes to that we'll be joined by many nations.""

Colin Powell has changed his mind on Iraq, at least publically.  There is now effectively no opposition within the Bush administration to war with Iraq.  Whether this is a further scare tactic to try and bring about "full cooperation and transparency" (as defined by Condi in a NY Times op-ed and Wolfowitz speaking at the CFR this week) or an honest change of heart we'll probably never know, but war is that much closer now.

""Every community in this country is vulnerable," Mr. Hart said in a speech at Iowa State University, which attracted a crowd of nearly 200 on a night with a wind chill of minus 25 degrees. "Not one American soldier should cross the Iraqi border until this country is prepared for the inevitable retaliatory attacks."

Mr. Hart, who was considered a centrist Democrat in the 1980's, now seems firmly in the liberal wing as he opposes the Iraqi war and criticizes the 2001 tax cuts. But the candidate known for "new ideas" in 1984 is making a pitch this time for "a primary of ideas," of which he again has no shortage. Drawing on a book he wrote recently while earning a doctorate in philosophy at Oxford, he calls for America to take on the civic virtues of a republic, as exemplified by ancient Rome and extolled by Thomas Jefferson. "

The NY Times weighs in on Hart's speech in Iowa, his role in creating the "Iowa Caucus" as political institution and his chances for the Democractic nomination.  His position on war with Iraq is one of the most sensible responses to Bush's claims of Iraqi-al-Qaeda terrorism I've heard yet.  If the axis of Iraq and al-Qaeda is so dangerous, and Iraq is inevitably going to gives its weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaeda to use against us, why is it that we are increasing the risk of it happenning before we're ready to handle the consequences?

I've also been reading his latest book, Restoration of the Republic and so far I'm intrigued by his ideas on restoring the people's faith in their government through public service, and the resulting marginalization of monied interests in the corridors of power.

[via Political Wire]