The latest issue of Vanity Fair (A Conde Nast publication - LMA!) with Jackie O on the cover has a huge article about the Bush cabal and the redirection of U.S. might towards Iraq. Very depressing. It reads like a good guy vs. bad guys epic with the good guy losing. Colin Powell is the good guy, the voice of reason, the one who says we shouldn't rush into Iraq and certainly without substantiated reasons. Perle, Wolfowitz, and Cheney are the bad guys who want to go into Iraq and will let nothing - not truth or honesty - stand in their way. Powell loses and ends up delivering the classic speech to the U.N. about Hussein and the dangers of WMDs. I like Powell. I may not agree with his politics but he's oozes sincerity. He doesn't smirk. He comes off very forthright and with his military background you know that he won't use the military lightly or haphazardly. In a way earlier blog I mentioned that Powell should show some major chutzpah and resign, claiming the lack of integrity in the Oval Office.

Bush comes off as a shallow thinker who wants to keep his buddies happy so Iraq it is, like a little puppy dog but with nuclear capabilities, or like a little kid playing army with the biggest set his daddy could afford. The article pretty much reinforced all the other "Invasion of Iraq" scenarios and certainly is what reality has borne out. We didn't go into Iraq for completely altruistic reasons.

And now we're in a dung heap of a lose-lose situation. Stay in Iraq and continue to be targets, continue to be symbol for terrorists to rally around. How funny that there may be more al Qaeda operatives in Iraq now than before the invasion. If we leave Iraq then we had the terrorists a symbolic victory. It will appear that they have driven us out. Maybe this can be avoided if Bush sticks to his word (for once), hands over the keys to the kingdom in June, and starts withdrawing troops in time for the election (hmmmm, do ya think?).

That combined with the perfect timing of dropping oil prices should pretty much guarantee Bush victory. Gaining the Presidency by holding America fiscally hostage over oil...

Read the following, picture Bush doing the talking and picture Cheney doing a happy dance in the background. It's from Bush latest speech.

QUESTION:Mr. President, before the war, you and members of your administration made several claims about Iraq: that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers; that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction; and that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction but, as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, we know where they are.


How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong? And how do you answer your opponents who say that you took this nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a series of false premises?


BUSH: Well, let me step back and review my thinking prior to going into Iraq.


First, the lesson of September the 11th is that when this nation sees a threat, a gathering threat, we got to deal with it. We can no longer hope that oceans protect us from harm. Every threat we must take seriously.
How about the ultra-rightwing religious nuts subverting our Government? - LMM


Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He was a threat because he coddled terrorists. He was a threat because he funded suiciders. He was a threat to the region. He was a threat to the United States.
Hussein no longer had WMDs. Which terrorists? Not al Qaeda who were proven threats to the U.S. Hussein was more of a threat to Israel not to the U.S.. If Hussein destroyed Israel, he'd be am Islamic hero for the ages. - LMM


That's the assessment that I made from the intelligence, the assessment that Congress made from the intelligence. That's the exact same assessment that the United Nations Security Council made with the intelligence.
Once the intelligence had been "cleaned up" and massaged by those wanting an Iraqi invasion. - LMM


I went to the U.N., as you might recall, and said, either you take care of him, or we will. Any time an American president says, if you don't, we will, we better be prepared to. And I was prepared to.


I thought it was important for the United Nations Security Council that when it says something, it means something for the sake of security in the world.


See, the war on terror had changed the calculations. We needed to work with people. People needed to come together to work. And therefore, empty words would embolden the actions of those who are willing to kill indiscriminately.
Huh? This from someone who knocked out the U.N. and many allies because of his unresisting plan to invade Iraq. - LMM


The United Nations passed a Security Council resolution unanimously that said, disarm or face serious consequences. And he refused to disarm.
If Hussein didn't have WMDs like he said than how can he disarm? Though Hussein was a cruel bastard doesn't mean every thing he said was a lie. - LMM


I thought it was very interesting that Charlie Duelfer, who just came back -- he's the head of the Iraqi Survey Group -- reported some interesting findings from his recent tour there. And one of the things was, he was amazed at how deceptive the Iraqis had been toward UNMOVIC and UNSCOM, deceptive in hiding things.


We knew they were hiding things. A country that hides something is a country that is afraid of getting caught, and that was part of our calculation. Charlie confirmed that.
And they hid things so well that we can't find them though we found money. - LMM


He also confirmed that Saddam had the ability to produce biological and chemical weapons. In other words, he was a danger. And he had long-range missiles that were undeclared to the United Nations. He was a danger. And so we dealt with him.
Still quoting the unconfirmed or outright false sources. - LMM


And what else was part the question? Oh, oil revenues.


Well, the oil revenues, they're bigger than we thought they would be at this point in time. I mean, one year after the liberation of Iraq, the revenues of the oil stream is pretty darn significant.
Happy dance time!!! BTW, who's buying the oil?- LMM


One of the things I was concerned about, prior to going into Iraq, was that the oil fields would be destroyed, but they weren't. They're now up and running. And that money is -- it will benefit the Iraqi people. It's their oil, and they'll use it to reconstruct the country.
So why are we spending BILLIONS of dollars to reconstruct their nation? Who's profiting here? - LMM

And let me say this again: I support our troops. I do not support the policy that put these troops in the danger they're in now. I do not approve of the current stance that if you disagree with the invasion of Iraq - if you don't blindly support Bush - then you're not a patriot. Being a Patriot means supporting those qualities that make a country great. A quality such a Freedom of Speech (and Thought), being able to openly applaud or criticize the Government, is what I support and what the Patriot Act seeks to limit. The Bush Cabal are not Patriots; they are an embarrassment and a threat to that which makes America unique, great, and proud. Ramble over.