Lagniappe - I don't quite know what to make of the sudden vocal presence of Bush I's cronies in the debate over Iraq. A week or so ago, Brent Scowcroft wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal that has been painstakingly analyzed and discussed as proof of a fissure in the conservative camp over what the Iraq strategy of the U.S. should be. Today, in the New York Times, James A. Baker III, another of Bush I's intimates, has added to the mix, only this time seemingly to undo what Scowcroft had earlier done. What does it all mean? Well, I'm not sure what this back-and-forth among conservatives portends for the ultimate Iraq policy of the U.S., but what it does tell us more and more clearly is that Bush I is unwilling to let Bush II do his own thing on this issue. Daddy is setting the tone on this debate, for good or ill; and I just don't like the odor of this leadership "behind the throne." Most of the country didn't bargain for Bush II, and we certainly shouldn't be subject to the shadow presidency of Bush I, though it seems, unfortunately, to be shaping up this way.