The line of the night from the SOTU (which Pelosi must have missed as she just repeated the ‘unilateral’ lie), was the following:
Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners, or dismiss their sacrifices. From the beginning, America has sought international support for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.
I stood up and cheered.
BTW- The Pelosi response is hilarious.
*** Update ***
Harry has some thoughts.
Vinny
Pelosi obviously didn’t see or hear the speech because her response has been utterly clueless.
Jon H
I agree.
If we had waited to get a ‘permission slip’, we never would have sunk the Iraqi Atlantic fleet before it reached Manhattan and leveled the city with it’s 16″ guns.
Phew.
Oh, wait. That never happened. There was no threat.
M. Scott Eiland
I suspect that Harold Ford Jr. will be getting a promotion come January–and if the House Democrats have any sense of honor, they’ll offer it along with a groveling apology for passing him up in favor of this non-entity in the first place.
Dana
I agree, the permission slip line was the best. I actually clapped, here at home!
TM Lutas
John H – I look forward to the organization and scholarly examination of Iraq’s intelligence files. It took, I believe 3 years for them to dig out the cables that finally fingered Alger Hiss as a Soviet spy.
I expect equally interesting information from Iraq’s files and I don’t expect it to emerge any quicker.
drew
Bush certainly has a pair of brass ones. Did he not say the Kay report confirmed pre war claims?
The British presence in Iraq is the only one of note, these other countries forces are so small and so limited in what they are allowed to do they are rendered usless.
Pelosi is an awful speaker….please give her job to Ford.
David Blue
drew said: “The British presence in Iraq is the only one of note, these other countries forces are so small and so limited in what they are allowed to do they are rendered usless.”
Useless to who? The Americans want all the help they can get, and they say thank-ee kindly, so I guess it’s not useless to them. For those contributing, every other contributor to the common cause is good news. We’d all rather be in on a winner than a loser, and every pair of hands helps. For the Iraqis, this all goes directly to their security and welfare, so by common sense standards (which I admit don’t necessarily apply in the Middle East) it’s useful to them.
The UK is great, they deserve special respect. But that shouldn’t imply disrespect for others. Particularly others who have taken casualties and held firm, as for example the Italians have.
Tom Grey
Drew, WHERE, exactly, have Frog or Kraut troops been so militarily large that the US troops in that area could not have done the job without them?
The point is the Left lie of “unilateral”. Every time you see, read, or say Bush was unilateral, there’s an OBVIOUS lie, that is also disrespectful to all the countries in Iraq.
Dean
Consider the war in Korea. How “multilateral” was that (waged under UN auspices and all).
The Commonwealth, as a whole, contributed less than a division, w/ Brits and Canadians the largest force.
France? A battalion.
Filipinos? A battalion.
The only other country that had forces larger than a battalion was the Turks (a brigade). It’s hard to imagine, w/ all those US forces, that the various battalions contributed all that much, either. (Brits and Turks aside.)
The South Koreans, of course, were the largest forces around (but then, it WAS their country after all). And even they were entirely equipped by us (re-equipped, really).
So, after Korea, when was the last time we fought in a multinational group where we WEREN’T the largest contributor?
Tongue Boy
Unilateral = under the leadership of the U.S. no matter the number and power of its Coalition partners.
Multilateral = must receive the French seal of approval, no matter how vital to national security or the number and power of all other Coalition partners.
If that doesn’t make it *all* clear, try this: France can shove one lousy, leaky aircraft carrier into the water, so all other Coalition partner contributions are meaningless and they deserve all manner of insults. When are you people EVER GOING TO LEARN?!?!
Pootie Tang
So, after Korea, when was the last time we fought in a multinational group where we WEREN’T the largest contributor?
Well, in Afghanistan, we’re the single largest contributor, but we’re in the minority overall. We have ~11000 troops, there’s about 10000 French, and a similar amount of British. Canada and Germany also have numbers in the 1000’s.
CadillaqJaq
Apparently Bush doesn’t agree that France and “multinational” are synonymous. Me either, and his “permission slip” remark was hilarious, except to the Dems in attendance who sat silently.
As far as Pelosi/Daschle: after listening to too many reruns of Dean’s screaming left over from Monday night, this was too much. Pity the honest folks who are Democrats and have to claim this bunch of losers as their leaders/potential leaders.
jack
There is an aspect to this ‘unilateral’ issue that I don’t think the Democrats are considering at all.
They are repeatedly, persistently and publically referring to many of the major allies of the US as unimportant, insignificant and useless. The UK, unimportant? Japan? Spain? Look at that list and ask how they will react if someone who’se spent the past 2 years belittling them gets into office.
All of Nancy’s ‘true’ allies will still hate us, they never liked us to begin with–and all those who supported us will suddenly be staring at a bunch of EU/UN asskissers.
Talk about ‘going it alone’
Kat
Did anyone else notice when the Dems aplauded the tax cuts expiring? I thought that was quite gauche of them.
drew
A great example of multilateralism whould be Gulf War I. The United States ended up paying less than 10% of the costs in that particular conflict. This war we a footing a very large portion of the bill.
Dean
Drew:
First, so you supported the first Gulf War? I thought that was “blood for oil,” too?
Second, I think that that war was unique, insofar as by some estimates, the US made a profit out of that war (thanx, in no small part, to hefty Japanese, Kuwaiti, and Saudi “contributions”). But if the measure of a war’s success is the extent to which we don’t pay, then I’m curious: was Kosovo a great example of multilateralism? I don’t think we got $1 outta our allies. How about Korea? (Ditto.) World War II?
Oh, and the Haiti intervention, w/ almost nobody except our people going in, that’s gotta hurt!
bg
Dean, I think it’s pretty easy to grasp that multilaterism and worthiness are two different things.
megapotamus
Umm. But isn’t it the anti’s who say the beef is the uni nature of the thing over Kerry et al’s multi? Whether or not the war was “worthy” of doing, of the costs, of the controversy in a Big Picture sense is the argument the antis DON’T want. As Bob Kerrey said so well and so recently, in ten years, you will have a hard time finding anyone who says it wasn’t worth it.
Dave
The entire point of being a multilateral liberal is that even if an action is obviously worthy and needed, it is MORALLY WRONG unless action is arrived at through consultation and consensus. Contrarily, any decision NO MATTER HOW HEINOUS OR INEFFECTUAL that is reached through consensus is automatically acceptable, and its proponents are induvdually blameless. Examples: Bush is evil for ignoring consensus and deposing Saddam, no matter how many mass graves are turned up (or how complicitous certain members of that consensus were); Kofi Annan is blameless in acceding to the massacres in Rwanda because there was no consensus to do anything about it.
drew
Dean-
“First, so you supported the first Gulf War? I thought that was “blood for oil,” too?”
Straw Man. My support for either war is not the issue here.
“But if the measure of a war’s success is the extent to which we don’t pay, then I’m curious: was Kosovo a great example of multilateralism?”
I’m not saying multilateralism is an indication of success, Bush said that!!!!!!!! I’m calling him on his false statement.
btw, we had NATO in Kosovo and we helped get rid of Milosovic without killing any of our soliders. A similar campaign in Iraq coupled with a revolt of southern Iraq Sunni’s would have resulted in regieme change. (Something like a british and American enforced no-fly zone over the entire country coupled with air support) If conditions were not right for such a revolt a war at a better time would have been good.
Stop it with the WWII and Korea comparisons please. Different time and place thus no value in those comparisons.
Dave-
I believed that Saddam post-9/11 would have to disposed at some point. My problem with the Bush administrations approach was their lack of good timing. I would have waited until Saddam did something stupid (failing the revolt situation i outlined above) like kick out inspectors or a movement troops to the Saudi border like he did in 1994. Since Saddam didn’t pose a immediate threat I think waiting would have been prudent.
drew
I’m just saying Bush’s little statement in the SOTU was incorrect. The forces are not currently internationalized. We are carrying almost all the burden. In Afganistan we have many partners.
The above scenorios I laid out would have resulted in reigeme change, while improving our standing in the world and lowering the cost of american life and money. All this could have been accomplished without endangering our national security, I think it would have enhanced our security.
Dean
Drew:
Please indicate which part of France’s categorical refusal to accede to any use of force, as indicated to the Brits and resulted in the Brits siding w/ us, suggests the opportunity for more action.
Please indicate how long you would have maintained very large forces in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (keeping in mind that those forces were on unaccompanied tours, meaning that they could not remain in place for over a year before Army policies on personnel rotations would have sapped them).
Please indicate why the Shi’ites would have revolted, given our failure to support them in ’91. For that matter, why, since they were already under a no-fly zone since ’91, they didn’t revolt earlier?
Please indicate why the Shi’ites who revolt, in your scenario, would not create a stand-alone country (which some of them are militating for now), and why the very destabilizing effect that is feared now would have been avoided.
Please indicate why Saddam’s regime would have fallen, even IF the Shi’ites successfully revolted and seceded? Certainly, please indicate why Uday and Qusay would not have then come to power?
I trust, btw, that the election of Milosevic back to his nation’s parliament has not escaped your notice? Or that the outcome of his trial has hardly been concluded?
drew
Dean,
“Please indicate which part of France’s categorical refusal to accede to any use of force, as indicated to the Brits and resulted in the Brits siding w/ us, suggests the opportunity for more action.”
I don’t predicate this on the French.
“Please indicate why the Shi’ites would have revolted, given our failure to support them in ’91. For that matter, why, since they were already under a no-fly zone since ’91, they didn’t revolt earlier?”
Well first they hated Saddam with a passion, notice how they basicly like us in southern Iraq. Second if the no fly zone was extended to the entire country the shi’ites would be protected from any air offensive Saddam could put up. Our air support would have been a great help.
“Please indicate why the Shi’ites who revolt, in your scenario, would not create a stand-alone country (which some of them are militating for now), and why the very destabilizing effect that is feared now would have been avoided.”
Even if this splitoff occured it would be more stable than the current situation, i.e. NO influx of foreigners to blow shit up.
“Please indicate why Saddam’s regime would have fallen, even IF the Shi’ites successfully revolted and seceded? Certainly, please indicate why Uday and Qusay would not have then come to power?”
Well the Shi’ites wouldn’t want Saddam or Uday or Qusay directly to their north.
“I trust, btw, that the election of Milosevic back to his nation’s parliament has not escaped your notice? Or that the outcome of his trial has hardly been concluded?”
Does anyone doubt he will not be conviced and imprisioned, seems to be that is enivitable.
Let it be known I am not a peacenik. My view on the war matches up closely to the views of Matt Yglesias and John Edwards. Regieme change was a good policy, but I think Mr. Bush made his case poorely (where are those WMD?) and should have waited.
We have hit a point where i am getting bored with this little discussion, I will not respond further on this thread.