Why didn't you just say so?

Today on "Meet The Press" Condi Rice said the U.S. decided after the September 11th attacks not merely to pursue and destroy al Qaeda, but to take a "bolder approach."

Fine, but why didn't you just say so in the first place, Condi? Condi's words reflect this White House's latest spin on the reasons it hopes the "common people" will accept for war with Iraq and whoever else is next. But the majority of us know our exploits in the Middle East are for oil and multinational corporations' profits. The story of Haliburton, after all, is nothing new, but the revelation of Haliburton's actions, almost in real time, is a phenomenon rarely seen on a large scale. We are witnessing the failure of propaganda, and the savvy among us despair over an administration's inability to lead.

Most wars are predicated on fabrications that demonize enemies. The approach typically distracts the masses from recognizing the real roots of war, and powerful nations have built their power by skillfully fooling the world. The trick has always been to be a good liar. The history of war is rife with tales of financial opportunism that made the nations that waged these wars rich, but the history in textbooks has steadfastly turned a blind eye to war's most popular fuel.

The Bush Administration's ham-fisted ways have earned us the official badge of "rogue nation." This label is a testament to a White House's inability to convince beyond our borders. Politicians ought to bullet-proof their messaging before leading our nation into war. A warring nation like ours, if we want to prevail, needs its allies and citizenry drunk on believeable lies, not inferior, transparent mendacity.