Coalitions...

This is a snippet from Andrew Sullivan's excellent deconstruction of Kerry's and Dean's Iraq positions...

KERRY: This president has done it wrong every step of the way. He promised that he would have a real coalition. He has a fraudulent coalition.

Fraudulent? How was fraud involved? The United States was quite open to anyone participating in a coalition of the willing to topple Saddam and remove the threat from WMDs. The invitation was open, candid, and answered by many countries, including several who are longtime allies of the U.S., notably Britain, Australia, Japan, and Poland. The Bush administration didn't condition war against Saddam on getting a universal coalition, or even on getting a precise and blanket U.N. sanction. So why the term "fraudulent"? Is Kerry implying that the alliance that formed against Nazi Germany--Britain, the U.S., Australia--was also somehow fraudulent? And is it prudent for a potential future president to belittle America's firmest allies in this way?....

It's appalling to me that it is acceptable in some circles to tell the most bare-faced lies to attack the Bush Administration. Attacks justified because "Bush lies!"

"Fraudulent coalition" forsooth. Wasn't it Gore who disdained having Fiji in the coalition? It's easy for pompous elitists to sneer, but the Fijan's fought with distinction in WWII, and in Malaysia and other British campaigns later. Their honorable friendship seems to me worth more than that of certain larger nations, who have lost all concept of honor.

Wasn't it Groucho who said that "I don�t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member?" That's the position of the Democrats. Anyone who's with us is by definition beneath contempt, and therefore no one's with us. Actually, what they want when they talk of "coalitions" is precisely what France wants and the State Department and CIA want....for us to be unable to DO anything.