My foreign policy analyst Digby, who as far as I know did not begin that career as a Gap Model, has this take on U.N. speech:
The debate continues with Bush's speech not really being a definitive win for one side or the other, IMO.
The neocon argument has been that we must assert a right to unilateral pre-emption because our overriding goal is to preserve our status as the world's only superpower. John Bolton, Cheney's mole in the State department has said "There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is an international community that can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that is the United States, when it suits our interests and when we can get others to go along."
So by going to the UN at all, and using the argument that Saddam has flouted UN resolutions as a reason for war, Bush conceded that it has legitimacy as an institution, something that the vulgar empiricists like Bolton, Perle and Cheney have been denying for years. Bush could have attempted to form a coalition outside the auspices of the UN or continued to ignore international opinion altogether. That is a win for Powell.
On the other hand, Bush did not shut the door on unilateral action and continued to claim that the new US doctrine of "pre-emptive regime change" is valid, even though he was appealing to the UN for support. This is slightly confusing but basically, it means that he'd like to have the UN's approval for what he's going to do anyway, a la Bolton. The neos still have sway, it seems, so Powell has not won the argument entirely.
However, if the UN and perhaps the US congress were to put forth the bubbling idea of coercive inspections and Bush feels pressure to go along, then the neocons will have suffered a tremendous setback because we will have agreed to the idea that the US goals with respect to Iraq are disarmament rather than regime change.
They will not give that up easily. The concept of "pre-emptive regime change" is the cornerstone of their global strategy.
So, the debate rages on.
