"There was a right way to do this and there was a wrong way to do it. And the president chose the wrong way because he turned his back on his own pledge to build a legitimate international coalition, to exhaust the remedies of the United Nations in the inspections and to go to war as a matter of last resort." (emphasis added) |
I was wondering how the Democrats were going to respond to Bush's State of the Union Speech where he had this outstanding paragraph:
"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 -- (applause) -- Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. (Applause.) As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners, or dismiss their sacrifices." |
It seems that they are going to dismiss the efforts of our partners by referring to them as an illegitimate coalition. This makes one ponder, "What is a 'legitimate' coalition to Kerry?" Obviously, he only thinks that the actions the UN approves of are legitimate. He would put our ability to defend ourselves in the hands of Kofi Annan and an organization where "free" countries can be paid off, the voice of a dictator is equal to the voice of freedom, and our enemies have a vote. This does not make sense. Only a Democrat could come up with a way to "spin" the largest coalition of countries to ever agree on an international war action as being an illegitimate coalition.
