Optional

Well, actually, yes there is. You're supposed to be honest when speaking to the UN. An oft-broken rule, I'm sure, but nonetheless... Also, while the speech was meant primarily to sway the UN, it was ALSO meant to sway the American public, and as it turns out that second goal was accomplished highly effectively.

Shortly after that speech was given, I met my boss back at the office after hours for a demo of some code I'd been writing for the company at home, and the topic of Iraq came up. He was skeptical, he said, of the entire thing.... Until Colin Powel gave his speech. Colin was such an honest man, ya see, such an honorable man, ya see, that if HE was convinced, well, that was enough for my boss.

In deference to the current economy around here (with particular reference to the difficulty involved in securing a new job should boss man get too pissed off with me), I just agreed and carried on with the demo.

Point is, by having Colin Powel give that speech, the administration was effectively lying to to the American public... And there are ALL KINDS of rules about THAT, written and unwritten.

-me

LymanLover

Optional,

Is there literally a rule in the U.N. Charter about honesty? Not trying to be confrontational..

capsaicin67

I think I would have NOT focused on saying that there were WMD. I would have played my Powell card more wisely and focused on selling the point that it was time that we bring the noncompliance and obstruction of the Iraqis to a decisive conclusion, and that we need to find out once and for all what their WMD status was because we couldn't tell with confidence, and that their general obstruction of allowing the world community to know that status was unacceptable in light of the growing threats of intl terrorism . I would have further suggested that leaving the Hussein regime in place was wrong in many ways, and that stability in the ME was difficult until there was a change. I would have openly acknowledged concerns about conflicts of interest and oil and came up with an approach that could have shown some respect for those concerns. I would encourage the Saudis and Co. to present a roadmap to democracy, and I would say out loud that there will not be peace in Israel/Palestine until a noreligious govt shares the land with all and they learn to live as one country. So on and so forth.....

Wiploc

Do you suggest that what we did had something to do with helping the Iraqis?

Are you for conquering every country that has conditions worse than Iraq's?

Will you agree that next time Bush wants to conquer a country he should at least tell us why before he does it?

Doesn't it scare you that the American people jumped quickly behind a war without caring what the purpose was?

crc

Maugan

There is no way to peer into his mind that I know of, but the most complelling motives for bin Laden seemed to be: #1, driving a wedge between Islam and the west. #2, driving a wedge between the US and the rest of the world.

Also, Saddam was declared several times by bin Laden to be an infidel that should be run out of Iraq.

Also, on the recruiting front, Al Queda (and many other anti-west terrorist groups) would like to ensure that the next generation of youth contains a large dose of the anti-US hate that is so prevelant internationaly any time we move military strength in modern times.

Now, obviously this isn't the manifesto of Al Queda above, but these are core interests of theirs. It seems to me that bin Laden's goals are not being thwarted very effectivly lately. In fact, they seem to be developing disturbingly nicely.

auto-da-fe

It is interesting to note that today the Democractic Leadership Council said this about the hunt for WMD's

Jane Harman went on to say:

Now she is no pundit. She is not some op-ed writer either. she is a ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. You would think that she is in a position to know. Since she is a democrat, I find it hard to beleive she is just toeing the line on this.

Credit to Fox News for th above quotes

Ron Garrett

First of all, just to be clear, the majority of Democrats aided and abetted Bush in this oil grab and are now scrambling for cover just like he is. Bush is now saying others are trying to revise history on the WMDs. Not me! He and his boys said the Iraqis had them and we knew right where they were. What a bait and switch artist.

Who benefits form the oil grab besides BP Amoco, the modern Standard Oil the Bush family has served for four generations? Who benefits from Iraqi oil reconstruction other than giant corporations with immediate ties to the White House? (Halliburton's bill has already doubled and it's only the second month.). This was "Teapot Dome" style commerce for the privileged few, plain and simple.

What would I have done differently? A decade of simple containment had worked pretty well. We weren't worried about what a murdering despot Saddam was when we supplied him for his war with Iran. Rumsfeld wasn't worried about it when he met with Saddam to negotiate a $7BUS pipeline deal for Halliburton. We don't go about intervening for the sake of "the people" or we would have invaded the Congo long since. They have no oil. We haven't invaded Saudi Arabia or Syria. They've done more to support world terror than anyone. George W. Bush doesn't give a good goddamn about our own children, let alone Iraqi children.

As for the cheering crowds greeting us as liberators...that's long since gone and now they are just shooting at us. We've already walked away from Afghanistan and the thugs are back in control of all but Kharzai's house. We stormed in and took the oil fields, which is what Bush wanted. We had no plan for the aftermath as should be clear to everyone. People have died and are still dying so this President's cronies can make billions and write him million dollar campaign checks so he can spend the next four years robbing our country of a future for the benefit of a small group of capitalists who already have more wealth than they can possibly spend in ten lifetimes.

Some people need to wake to the fact that we are serfs to these robber barons and nothing more. GWB not only has no idea of how average Americans live, he has nothing but contempt for their stupidity, gullibility and indolence, all of which he has used to his advantage. In a way I suppose he's right. If you act like sheep and think like sheep, getting sheared and turned into mutton chops is your rightful destiny.

auto-da-fe

So then what you are advocating is that we "sheep" should be paranoid conspiracy theory freaks and assume that everything coming out of the Bush admin is lies, lies, and more lies? Should we assume the same for what comes out of the Democratic party? Should we assume the same about what other countries leaders say? Is there anyone in the world (other than you) that we are allowed to beleive?

Ron Garrett

Working in the intelligence services taught me that most conspiracy theories, particularly those involving economic warfare by oil imperialists aren't theories, and that conspiracies work because the majority of folks go through their lives minding their own business and never take the time to verify a damn thing anyone tells them, because:

A) they have other things on their mind,
B) they don't give a shit,
C) thinking is scary and hard, and
D) ignorance is bliss.

You don't need to believe anything I say Dave. All you have to do is watch how all this is playing out and you have to accept one of two propositions as I see it:

Prop 1.a - All these highly intelligent, highly educated and highly experienced government/corporate executives are brain-dead bunglers who were misled by a group of conspiratorial enlisted men and women in the analyst section at Ft. Meade who were determined to lure the unsuspecting White House into a needless war, and

1.b - The meticulous plans for bringing the fruits of freedom to the Iraqi people via the thoughtful administration of a post-Saddam Iraq were eaten by Donald Rumsfeld's dog, and

1.c. - The fact that their business partners, and corporations they have huge "blind-trust" hioldings in are raking it in, making billions as a result ot the invasion, and that they now control 40% of the global oil supply is just an odd and happy coincidence, or

Prop 2) Things are going more or less just as they planned it, and most Americans remain none the wiser and are determined to stay that way, though the world at large knows exactly what has occurred.

auto-da-fe

First, both of your two propostions assume that 1) no WMD's will ever be found, and 2) WMD were the SOLE reason for the war. Both of which are at minimum tough to prove at this junction.

Second, not to nit pick, but I would love to see some real statistics that "they now control 40% of the global oil supply", since by your tone, I assume your take on the war was that it was simply for oil and nothing else.

As far as 1b goes, I will agree that the rebuilding of Iraq is at best haphazard, and at worst a total fucking disaster (I personally lean towards the latter), but I am not so sure that it was planned that way. It may have been lacking in implementation rather than planning, though I admit, I have never actually seen the plans for the rebuilding of Iraq.

My question still stands though, whom shall we believe? I have read most everything I can on the subject, and am still a little hazy on some of the details. Much of what is written is biased spin designed to infuriate the reader in the hopes of winning converts to the authors political motivations. I cannot ascertain, based soley on available information, with no doubt, exactly what happened. I cannot say for sure wether we were mislead, or lied to, or that someone simply fucked up, and the Bush admin are innocent of the lying charges (though guilty of the incompetent charges).

Since you were in the intelligence business I would assume you know what you are talking about. However, as shown in my post earlier today, Jane Harman is a ranking member of the House Intelligence committee, and I would assume she would have first hand knowledge as well. How am I to determine which is corretct, you or her? You both seem to be qualified to opine on the subject, yet have varying views, with you on one end, and her on the other. How am I to determine, based on available information, who is correct, and who is not?