` :::I don't see Dowd's article as a ``slam``; on the contrary, it's on-point criticism. From the article: ``Mr. Senor is emblematic of how much trouble America blundered into in the Middle East  trillions wasted, so many lives and limbs lost  because of how little we fathom the culture and sectarian politics. We're still stumbling in the dark. We not only don't know who our allies and enemies are, we don't know who our allies' and enemies' allies and enemies are. As the spokesman for Paul Bremer during the Iraq occupation, Mr. Senor helped perpetrate one of the biggest foreign policy bungles in U.S. history. The clueless desert viceroys summarily disbanded the Iraqi Army, forced de-Baathification, stood frozen in denial as thugs looted ministries and museums, deluded themselves about the growing insurgency and misled reporters with their Panglossian scenarios of progress.`` In light of last week's events (advances by Sunni terrorists in western Iraq, collapse of the Iraqi state army, Iranian revolutionary guards reinforcing Shiite Iraq militias) aren't Dowd's words truer than ever? I agree that Dowd can be snarky at times, but that doesn't preclude allowing her criticisms in Wikipedia articles. And I note she writes for the NY Times, a well-respected newspaper.   `