Yeah, Lee didn't have a particularly great 2005, although I don't think it was as crap as people make out either. Basically he had an up and down Ashes where he was occasionally very good (Lords, day 3 at Edgbaston, day 5 at Old Trafford etc) and occasionally extremely poor (day 1 at Edgbaston, and he fell to bits on the final day at The Oval as well). It's a bit simplistic to say his Ashes was rubbish because he averaged 40, because going into the last test his average for the series was 32 or so, which is about par in a fairly high scoring series, certainly not shocking. It declined badly when Pieteresen belted him, but it's worth keeping in mind that Lee could have had Pietersen out a few times earlier in that day. I don't actually disagree with your criticism of him in the year as a whole, but it's pretty dumb to make a series of complaints and just move on to something new when someone contradicts you, and it doesn't make people very inclined to hear your opinions.
On the subject of Lee generally, after the Ashes he had a poor Super Series and with Australia dismantling their team he sought some help from a few people, mainly Mark Taylor, and made a big deal about reviewing his approach to bowling in test cricket, concentrating more on line and length and so on. Since then he's taken 42 wickets @ 24.19 in 8 tests, with an economy rate of 3.17 and a strike rate of 45.86. Not dominant or anything, but solid figures against some decent opposition all-round. More importantly, he's actually deserved the wickets and bowled extremely well for them, and if anything been a little unlucky, particularly in the MCG and SCG tests against south Africa. He's turned a pretty big corner I think, and if he keeps it up (which obviously he might not), he'll be a class bowler in the future.
How unfortunately right you were! And how unwittingly you foresaw some of the problems!