This is my new favorite quote:

In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. - Franklin D. Roosevelt

Today as I look over the news it is stunning what I see. We now, after our pre-war actions, can't even get help from the UN in Iraq. Many people believe that a multi-national force is the only chance there is for a peaceful solution in Iraq. These countries will not join us because we will not allow them to control their own troops. From what I understand what these countries want is for their troops not to be commanded by the US. Would US leaders let French commanders control ours? Hell no! So, back to what happened before the war. We are now asking for support from all the countries we offended as being appeasers. The most astonishing thing about this is that they are still willing to hlep us (there must be a whole lot of oil in Iraq!). All we have to do is give them a few concessions. But as this article shows we are not about to do that, Accord still beyond reach for UN resolution on Iraq:

"I think it is clear from the hesitancy on the US part that they would have to give up some power in running Iraq," said Stephen Schlesinger, director of the World Policy Institute at the New School University in New York. "They simply feel we sent the troops in there, we defeated [Saddam Hussein], and we are not going to let anyone participate in the rebuilding process unless they do it on our terms. It's very shortsighted."

Another article on this topic has an interesting paragraph as well, U.S. May Not Seek U.N. Support on Troops:

Powell had hoped that outrage over the devastating bombing of the U.N. compound in Iraq last Tuesday would make the council amenable to a resolution explicitly welcoming such a step.

One of those conspiracy theorists might believe that this is a convenient excuse for seeking UN support. Who was resonsible for the bomb blast at UN headquarters in Iraq? Well ask those who are in charge of security in Iraq. Gee, I wonder who Rumsfeld will blame this on?

It appears that Tony is in serious trouble. Ex-government official Clare Short is hitting him hard again, It's official - Saddam was not an imminent threat. She makes it pretty clear that Blair lied before the war about the 45 minutes:

We know through emails revealed by Hutton that Tony Blair's chief of staff made clear that the dossier was likely to convince those who were prepared to be convinced, but that the document "does nothing to demonstrate he [Saddam Hussein] has the motive to attack his neighbours, let alone the west. We will need to be clear in launching the document that we do not claim that we have evidence that he is an imminent threat. The case we are making is that he has continued to develop WMD since 1998, and is in breach of UN resolutions. The international community has to enforce those resolutions if the UN is to be taken seriously."

The saddest part of this article is when she writes about what could have been:

If there was no imminent threat, then Dr Blix could have been given the time he required. He may well have succeeded in ending all Iraq's WMD programmes - just as he succeeded in dismantling 60-plus ballistic missiles. Then sanctions could have been lifted and a concentrated effort made to help the people of Iraq end the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein - just as we did with Milosevic in Serbia.

Or if Blix had failed, we would have been in the position President Chirac described on March 10, when the issue would have come back to the security council. And in Chirac's view, this would have meant UN authorisation of military action.

The tragedy of all this is that if we had followed Jonathan Powell's conclusion, and the UK had used its friendship with the US to keep the world united on a UN route, then, even if it had come to war, a united international community under a UN mandate would almost certainly have made a better job of supporting Iraq's reconstruction. In this scenario the armed forces would have concentrated on keeping order; the UN humanitarian system would have fixed the water and electricity systems; Sergio Vieira de Mello, as Kofi Annan's special representative, would have helped the Iraqis to install an interim government and begin a process of constitutional change, as the UN has done in Afghanistan; and the World Bank and IMF would have advised the Iraqi interim authority on transparent economic reform, rather than a process of handover to US companies.

As I said earlier most people believe a multi-natioinal force would have made things considerably easier. Not paradise mind you but much better than it has gone so far. Why did we have to go then? Can you remember? He was an iminent threat. Another pre-war justification down the drain.

Analysis: Is 'Perfect Storm' Brewing for Bush?

GAO Cites Corporate Shaping of Energy Plan.

U.S. Passes Grim Milestone In Iraq.

I had to add this. The Air Is Thick With Lies. As well as this, EPA Misled Public on 9/11 Pollution
White House ordered false assurances on air quality, report says.
- posted by Mom/Dad @ 7:46 AM