>>>>See my other reply, but William Safire wasn't so great.
>>>
>>>What didn't you like about Safire?
>>
>>I really enjoyed his "On Language" column and he should have stayed with linguistics.
>>
>>His all out support of the Iraq slaughter and prediction that it would be a quick war were blunders that erase anything of value he accomplished.
>
>It "could have" been a much quicker war. You can't blame Safire for that one. Bush and the men at the controls? Sure....Safire? No way


From Wikipedia:

Safire was one of several voices who called for war with Iraq, and predicted a "quick war" and wrote: "Iraqis, cheering their liberators, will lead the Arab world toward democracy."[17] He consistently brought up the point in his Times columns that an Iraqi intelligence agent met with Mohamed Atta, one of the 9/11 attackers, in Prague,[18] which he called an "undisputed fact", a theory which was disputed by the CIA and other intelligence agencies.[19] Safire insisted that the theory was true and used it to make a case for war against Iraq. He also incorrectly predicted that "freed scientists" would lead coalition forces to "caches [of weapons of mass destruction] no inspectors could find".[20]

Bush didn't write Safire's columns did he?
To be fair, Safire was far from alone among NYT "journalists" in his lust for blood in Iraq but he was certainly leading the charge.

People are dying as I type this because of what people like Safire advocated from the safety of their word processors.