Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[David Minton <dminton AT mindspring.com>]

On 10/3/04 3:03 PM, "Don Rua" <rua AT mindspring.com> wrote:

> Thanks to both David and Lee for putting those tables together. It is
> definitely interesting to note, but I would give a word of caution to 
> non-Bush
> supporters, or Kerry-backers:
> 
> -- The coalition numbers are poor when contrasted to our recent experience 
> and
> knowledge of the Afghan and Iraq 1 wars. Note that a Bush was running the
> store for those as well, so it's a weak argument to think that Bush is
> oblivious to the process or value.
> 
> -- But the real issue in the numbers is not what the totals are, but whether
> Kerry would have bigger numbers in Bush's stead. Do not underestimate the
> Republican's fear of this scenario: Let's say Kerry was in Bush's shoes, and
> it is time to back up the umpteenth deadline from the UN regarding Saddam.
> Kerry starts doing his world tour to build a coalition, and he's told
> basically the same thing by France, Germany, Russia, China, etc., namely: 
> "We
> don't want any part of this war. Wait for a UN mandate, don't go."
>    So, does Kerry magically whip together a huge coalition when Bush 
> couldn't?
> Does he get numbers that are double those in David's table? NO. Instead, 
> Kerry
> doesn't go. He lets the global community set the timetable of our national
> security. Maybe he sends a few scud missles as a symbolic "I'm tough!" move
> like Clinton did each time Al Queada marched along their path against us 
> with
> the Cole, embassies, etc.
>   I think that is the real question. We will never know if someone else 
> could
> have put together a better coalition, but the real fear in some voters minds
> is that if the UN doesn't decide we should do it, we don't. That Kerry would
> never have the nerve to do what our leaders thought was necessary, unless 
> the
> global community gave him 'permission', putting all our defense on the
> character and talent of their leaders, not ours. That Kerry brings us to the
> day dreaded for so long, where the US does what it is told, by delegates 
> that
> we have no opportunity to elect. We cease to follow our own guidance. We 
> cease
> to look at circumstances, judge for ourselves, and act.

Sorry you seem to have missed the entire point of the tables. If Bush had
said "we are invading Iraq on our own, because no other nation has the
intestinal fortitude to join us," that would be one thing. But instead, Bush
disagreed with Kerry that the invasion was "American-run" but instead a
coalition of 30 nations, pointing out Poland. My table, showed that Poland
has 2,400 of its 200,000 plus military in Iraq. Lee was kind to make my case
for me (while trying to dispute it) that the US has about 12.4% of its
military in Iraq, while Poland about 1.1%

Here is the quote from the transcript (from Fox News, so it must be
correct):

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134152,00.html

KERRY: The United Nations, Kofi Annan offered help after Baghdad fell. And
we never picked him up on that and did what was necessary to transfer
authority and to transfer reconstruction. It was always American-run.

Secondly, when we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain,
Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do
better.

BUSH: Well, actually, he forgot Poland. And now there's 30 nations involved,
standing side by side with our American troops.

And I honor their sacrifices. And I don't appreciate it when candidate for
president denigrates the contributions of these brave soldiers.

You cannot lead the world if you do not honor the contributions of those who
are with us. He called them coerced and the bribed. That's not how you bring
people together.

Our coalition is strong. It will remain strong, so long as I'm the
president.


This is not the first time Bush and company have inflated the contributions
of the Coalition. I can't find the quote, but I recall Chaney claiming the
current coalition is larger than that of the Gulf War--by use of fuzzy math.
Since the current coalition is only half the size of that during the first
Gulf War, it is theorized he used the number of countries, rather than the
number of troops contributed to come up with his determination.

David