Reason’s Nick Gillespie and several other folks have pointed out this AP report that examines Colin Powell’s speech to the UN Security Council making “the case” for war in Iraq. Nick thinks the report is pretty devastating. I’m not so sure, but his observation gets at a larger point.

I’m painting with a broad brush here, but supporters of the war felt they didn’t need Powell’s case at the UN, they were just hoping he wouldn’t screw it up or would stifle the critics. They always felt there were much larger issues at stake, issues justifying invasion besides those outlined by Powell. And for opponents of the war, it mattered very little what Powell had to say, they were just hoping that he might blow it and thus slow the momentum leading to war. Again, because larger issues were at stake, issues for which no detailed Iraqi threat would justify an invasion.

Iraq is one small albeit important part of a larger debate over America’s role in the world, how it should assert itself and in what ways, and in what ways it legitimate to attempt to rearchitect the world so that it is favorable to freedom and peace. And within that context, Powell’s “case” really was, in some sense, irrelevant.