Isn’t it about time someone did the math, the accounting in terms of cost benefit? The US has used what 250-300 Billion bucks in Iraq since 2003 and accomplished what? Well besides general civil war and destabilizing the entire Middle East region, they have achieved exactly the opposite of what they said they would achieve. Namely they significantly increased the Iranian sphere of influence in the region, and have reduced Iraq to precisely that state every expert said would happen if Saddam Hussein were removed from power—civil war or at least anarchy. That is why the US didn’t invade Iraq in the first Gulf war. The UN corruption through the Oil for Food program was in terms of costs peanuts compared to what we see the present war costs are in Iraq (around 12 billion over 10 years), while it offered what was once the primary global security strategy of the US, and was one of the primary justifications for the forward readiness of the American military namely stability (that is our world wide deployment of the military was said to be justified because it served as a deterrent to any would be regional rabble rouser thus offering more favorable conditions for trade). It is most likely for this reason—global stability—that the previous Generals who were responsible for this region of the world were against any invasion of Iraq. While I know little of international affairs it takes no genius to see that regional stability in the Middle East means enhanced business conditions for the entire world in terms of considerably lower oil prices. Thus if we see our national security strategy in terms of that which secures our interests, and we recognize the fact that our nation is a trading state, then president George Bush has seriously damaged our national security interests while he has weakened the underlying structure of our system of alliances because he has made everybody worse off without making anyone better off (unless you are an oil nation or oil company)—I wonder what Pareto would say of this? The UN provides important aid globally, while it attempts to minimize the use of force and thereby increases stability. The UN conflicts with the US in that its interest is global for the sake of bettering humanity; while the US interest is not in bettering the world but rather is egotistical—national interest. As long as global stability is the American security constraint then conflict with the UN is minimal, but the Iraq War obviously has some other objective and this objective is unknown, or is at least not stated in any believable form.

I'm not sure what ticks me off more, the weird and random way the writer for Tulsa World plunked down the note about Inhofe's UN view in the midst of an article about Iraq, or the apparent lunacy that's overtaken the Senator from Oklahoma, or the complete failure by either to explain just what the heck Inhofe is talking about!

Inhofe is another Bush Republican trying to keep up the support for the corrupt crime ridden Bush Admin. Karl Rove has made him the latest speaker for Bush.

Lindsey Graham has been pulled out of the nest of Republican speakers.

Southerners are mentally incestuous they just keep repeating the same message, Karl Rove's message. The most efficient thing the Repugs could do was stop all speakers and just let Karl Rove talk all day long on Rupert Murdoch's Fox News and EWTN, the Catholic cable channel.

I'm a Catholic but most certainly not a fundamentalist as are most Catholics who do the bidding of the Vatican and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. All of whom are committed to changing, warping and shaping US domestic and foreign policy.