You:

I disagree, that conclusion is based on the facts, diplomacy can only cover up so much bovine guano before the truth of the matter comes forth.

The fact that the oil ministry and the oil fields were the only things US troops guarded in Iraq immediately following the invasion is pellucidly clear evidence of our true intentions with respect to that country.

Reply:

Yes, regarding our true intentions.

To clarify, by 'diplomacy' I meant working multilaterally via various nations' diplomatic services, NGOs, business interests, etc, to solve perceived problems - as opposed to unilateral bullying. Probably incorrect usage on my part reflecting inadequate vocabulary skills. Having said that, do you still think we are in disagreement?

PS-I don't assume that diplomacy is a tool for obfuscation.

PSS-I also seem to have developed a newfound ineptitude for html

Do you also disagree with what I consider my main point: about "perpetual war?"

Two things to keep in mind:

1) There is no such thing as accurate information, only varying degrees of inaccuracy.

2) Everyone has an agenda.

If you are wanting a more nuanced and hands on look at what is going on in Iraq I would suggest you try the following military blog:

http://www.intel-dump.com/

The posters there are mostly erudite and experienced military officers, many of whom have done tours in Iraq.

LWM

I'm not sure I meant the dual objectives in the way you think. I'm just talking about the Iraq situation, not general domestic or international dominance. Of course, they sought dominance all along, as it is in their nature not just to win and succeed, but to eradicate opposition completely.

To achieve the global military dominance (empire), they must first achieve domestic political dominance over those who espouse Svensker's excellent restatement of the founders' intent wrt to foreign policy. If they were as effective at the former as they have been at the latter, this might all be moot.

They sound like Jacobins and totalitarians and Trotskyites, don't they?

Perhaps we need a Sen. McCarthy to convene a HUAC... maybe not.

For DCLaw1:

Could it not be that control over oil supplies per se was not as important as having a primary influence over oil allocations? In an open market -- sans OPEC, etc. -- is there any real doubt that China could outbid virtually everyone else? Considering the number of foreign exchange dollars they're sitting on, and the source of most of them, it seems to me very likely, and very ominous, if you claim to be committed to a New American Century.

Admitting that we're awfully far away to be running the show in the Middle East, China is even farther, and unlike us, at present lacks the military and logistical infrastructure to maintain permanent bases there.

If the neocons were as smart as they're supposed to be, they should -- without being any less ruthless -- be thinking of this intervention as a 20 year stopgap, while American industry comes up with some other way to generate energy supplies consistent with a continuation of our present consumption levels. If they were to fail at bread and circuses, in other words, they'd run the risk of having their stranglehold over domestic politics threatened in a major way.

Sadly, I don't believe that they're that smart. I'm not sure that anyone in the ruling or chattering classes is that smart, and I'm virtually certain that no one in this country, with a few exceptions, is smart enough to see how fundamentally our whole approach to the future must change, if we're to have any hope of having a future at all.

That there'll be other wars over oil seems a certainty. No doubt wars over water and other commodities will be fought as well. Certainly, we're not the only fools around. Look at Mr. Putin, who seems to think that controlling the gas pipes into western Europe will restore to him all the glories of the vanished Soviet empire.

Well, this started out as a series of leading questions, and ended up being a screed. If it isn't exactly a testament to my expertise, it's at least a true measure of my concern. Who is really minding the store, DC, and how badly must it go before we're forced to consider a going-out-of-business sale?

Nixon may have been delusional enough to talk to portraits in the White House, but even he finally recognized that the public had turned against the war.

Nixon knew it all along. He ran, and won, in 1968 on a peace platform. Three months later, Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat, rose in the Senate to say "Mr. Nixon said he had a plan to end the War in 100 days. I wish to inform the President that he has two weeks left."

And then there was the quote, immortalized by Simon and Garfunkel in their "7 O'Clock News/Silent Night", "Former Vice-President Richard Nixon...also said that opposition to the War in this country was the single greatest weapon working against the U.S."

Bush gets it, he always has got it. He doesn't care because he thinks he's right. He already is on record as saying (when he fired Rumsfeld) that it is okay to lie to get things done.

It is apropos to what Glenn is talking about to quote Warren Rudman at the Iran-Contra hearings. Sorry for the long quote, but it is instructive in the current context (from Men of Zeal):

...I can tell you myself, Colonel North...as one who has with reluctance on occasion but in the final analysis found there was no other solution, voted for that aid to the contras--the people in this country just don't think that's a very good idea. And that is why this Congress has been fickle and vacillating...

...I want to point out to you, Colonel North, that the Constitution starts with the words, "We, the people." There is no way you can carry out a consistent policy if we, the people disagree with it, because this Congress represents the people.

The President of the United States, the greatest communicator probably we have seen in the White House in years, has tried for eight years [to gain American support for the Contras] and failed; you have tried, and I thing probably failed...and this relatively obscure senator from New Hampshire has tried with no success at all....

I guess the last thing I want to say to you, Colonel, is that the American people have the constitutional right to be wrong. And what Ronald Reagan thinks or what Oliver North thinks or what anybody else thinks makes not a w[h]it.

...There comes a point when the views of the American people have to be heard.

(My emphasis)

Dick Cheney was sitting right there, in the room, on the committee, when a member of his own party said this. It makes no difference whether these people think they're right. They have no right to be right.