. . . American power is vital to [the Europeans'] national security . . . .

Somehow, I sense that in the absence of a few further words in support thereof this foundationless construction might not stand reality's gentle prodding.

Ms Mort asserts:

Yes, the Bush Administration's foreign policy is a disaster--but for Europe to offer itself as a counter to American hegemony even one iota, it has to promote a policy of sane interventionism, not blanket anti-Americanism. 

It strikes me as hard, if not impossible to promote sane interventionism (whatever that is) against the background of insane interventionism.  This is rather like expecting to hear a solitary zither against the background of the International Amateur Tuba Players' Association tuning up for a go at "A Night on Bald Mountain".

There may have been a brief moment of international consensus on a benign and helpful interventionism in the 1990s.  It may have lasted through the early days of the overthrow of the Taliban.  That consensus was weakened perhaps beyond redemption for the near future by the hubris of Bush/Cheney and their disdain for "old Europe".  Given the news of the pep rally of the "War Lords" about which I heard a bit on NPR this morning, I'm not sure that consensus will last out the year.

aMike

Jo-Ann,

How well do you know Europe? Have you done research on the feelings of the Europeans towards Americans over the past 6 years? If you have, you would understand why Europe hates America as a nation and does not distinguish between Bush and the American people.

America has made a big mistake by telling lies to the world community, intimidating world leaders, blackmailing poor nations, kidnapping of foreign citizens, torturing and killing of many innocent civilians.

Americans pay taxes to the American government and whatever misdeeds the American government has committed; it reflects badly on the American citizens. The World views America as one entity and nothing else. America’s credibility and integrity among the world community are tarnished.

About 3 years ago, Robert Byrd angrily told the Bush Administration that America had isolated itself from Europe and it would take many years to repair the damage. He was right about this and right now, America is feeling the effects of dominating other countries and showing little respects to the sovereignty of other nations. It is about time America shows diplomacy rather than brutal force to gain the respects of the world community.

It isn't easy trying to understand the multinational and unilateral goals of European nations outside the traditional borders of NATO. This made much more sense in the Cold War, and there are nostalgic Cold Warriors at many diplomatic receptions, with the Americans and former Soviets toasting one another with "you were such great enemies."

From the left side of the Atlantic, one can muse about first intervening in the Balkans, and now various stages of EU candidacy for FRY republics.

Policy toward Africa is especially challenging. There have been mentions of NATO intervening in Darfur, and, while humanitarian factors are real, how does this fit with the NATO mission? France is always a special case, with Chad a client state and thus fairly involved with Darfur -- but French forces do not appear to be crossing the Sudanese border. The French ELF company is involved in Sudanese oil exploration, while other countries such as Sweden and Austria have pulled out over human rights issues. Italian and German companies variously supply industrial technology to Sudan, with the German railroad firm, Thorsalen, speculatively building railroads to Uganda and Kenya in a way that might strongly support the non-Arab south of Sudan.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Howard,

I love to see your writing. Howard, somehow I have this feeling that you have been stalking me. Are you working for the US government as a decoy or a neutralizer? Whoever you are working for, I still love you.

Anyway, if you look carefully at Robert Byrd’s words “I weep for my country”, he did not say “my family and my relatives” or “my party” or “my constituents”, he specifically said “my country”. He is just an American and he does not represent 300 million US citizens and why did he say “my country”. The reason is very simple, the American government represents the American people in their foreign policies. This practice is universal.

Howard, I do not think that you are stupid but I do think that you have not traveled widely to enrich your world knowledge and experience. I strongly encourage you to travel and live in different countries and only then we could have a rational discussion. Your posts seem to be a third party’s experience.

I love you, Howard.

Stalking? Work for? Do you know someone that would pay me to post here?

Given the criticism I post of the policymakers of the US government, but indeed often separating out the role of civil servants and soldiers, the idea that I am working for them is, to put it mildly, unfounded.

You quote Robert Byrd as speaking of "my country", and then get rather unclear about whether the statement is or is not representative of all Americans. Tell me, in the little upset between about 1940 and 1944, did Vichy or the Resistance represent all of France?

Perhaps I do stalk those that make rather silly stereotypes and generalizations. You seem to generalize that all Europeans hate America, which is contrary to my own experience, surveys, and direct multilateral work. I suppose that isn't inconsistent with assuming all Americans agree with the government that represents them, regardless of the message sent by the 2006 Congressional elections.

For better or for worse, the US does not have a parliamentary system, so there is no way, short of impeachment, for the electorate to show no confidence in the Administration -- other than at the next election. Perhaps you are projecting the assumptions of parliamentary systems onto the US.

There is much good and much bad about both the US and Europe, but neither are leader-states with totally compliant populations. Historically, I believe Europe had several of those, or attempts to have them, in the 20th century.

You keep telling me I have not traveled. Unless you've sneaked into the house, my passport is in the top dresser drawer. As a replacement for one pickpocketed in Paris, it doesn't have all my travel stamps.

My involvement in international groups such as the Internet Society (invited panelist at the last Stockholm meeting), the Internet Engineering Task Force, the International Society for Infectious Diseases, etc., is a given. One of the professional books I have written is now in a Chinese edition. I have worked for multinationals and routinely worked with European, and sometimes Asian and Australian, colleagues.

You are smug, uninformed, and condescending about my exposure to the world. Tell me, why should I assume that we could have a rational discussion in the future, when my posts to you tend to correct your stereotyping and irrationality, "Mr. Smith"?

Incidentally, as far as verifiability, I use my own name for posting, and have on the Internet and its predecessors for several decades. Have you?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

If you have, you would understand why Europe hates America as a nation and does not distinguish between Bush and the American people.

My anecdotal experience does not match this, as I was over in Italy not too long ago.

Both Italians and other Europeans seemed to like me (of course, that has a lot to do with my good looks and charming personality...heh heh), but I was more often than not asked: "Please tell me...just what is wrong with your President?"

My impression is, they can and do distinguish between "Bush" and "Americans." Again, anecdotal...

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Howard,

I love you even more when you are upset. Anyway, Robert Byrd is a man of vision and he could see things that you could hardly see. He knows what damages the Bush administration has done to the country and the citizens. He did not distinguish himself as an individual, he regards himself as an American and part of America.

I have reviewed your posts and I do not think you have traveled and lived in foreign countries (perhaps for vacations or military deployments but not serious enough to understand foreign countries and cultures).

With my years of experience in researching within America and other parts of the world, I can tell you for a fact that many people around the world resent America and Americans. Those who traveled a lot would have known this.

Canadians are very careful whenever they travel overseas because they are often mistaken to be Americans. I am saying this not to piss you, my research has found that Americans tend to walk over other cultures and thrash native religions, and, sometimes, mock Christianity in other countries. In 2005, at a Nato meeting, the GWB was told by the French President to stayed out of EU and not meddle with these countries. GWB was there to ask for more money and he only received a few million dollars.

In Peru, the US secret service thrashed the Peru Secret service and forced the Peru President to change a dinner hosting in honor of the US President. There were fights between US and Peru secret services before the dinner. The incident was broadcasted worldwide about US secret service bullying the local host in foreign country.

Now, Russia is also not happy with America. This is very strange because for the past few years, Putin has been regarded as GWB’s best friend.

I am a good researcher and a very proud one. I love you Howard.

Re: Canadians are very careful whenever they travel overseas because they are often mistaken to be Americans.

This is silly. What does an American look like? Well, maybe he's white. Unless of course he's Black or Hispanic or Asian. Heck, anyone in Europe could "look" like a (white) American for the very good reason that they may have distant American cousins. Likewise anyone in Western Africa could look like a Black American, and so forth.

Re: I am saying this not to piss you, my research has found that Americans tend to walk over other cultures and thrash native religions, and, sometimes, mock Christianity in other countries.

Americans mocking Christianity? Huh? usually the charge is that Americans take their religion too seriously.

It is good that you raised the question of “what does an American look like”. I am very happy to explain.

There are 2 things to look for in the crowd: first the accent and next the behavior. American accent is uniquely different from other English speaking countries like England, Scotland, Ireland or New Zealand. Americans inflect on different syllable of a word. Canadians have very similar sounding and that’s why there are often mistaken to be Americans.

Next, their behavior: Americans tend to dominate and regard other cultures as inferior and they would stand out from the crowd as the leader. This is due to the poor American education and the superior attitude of the American culture towards other nations. This behavior separates the Canadians.

Next, not all Americans are Christians and with so much publicity of child abuse by the American Catholic churches, some Americans traveling overseas mock the Christians as naïve. For those who mock them, they may not be Christians or Christians whose innocence have been abused.

Howard,

I do not have the links to the French and Peru incidents. I believe in 2005, after the presidential election, GWB went to a Nato Meeting and was told to get lost by the French President. GWB was trying to meddle with EU. As to Peru, it was broadcasted worldwide, I don’t keep things like this. I travel light, you know what I mean.

Next, not all Americans are Christians and with so much publicity of child abuse by the American Catholic churches, some Americans traveling overseas mock the Christians as naïve. For those who mock them, they may not be Christians or Christians whose innocence have been abused.

I would like you to read posts and speeches by Robert Byrd and Ted Edwards. They have very good analysis of the world, very different from yours and more objective, informative and superior.

I am a good researcher and I strongly believe in that. With traveling and objectivity, I abstain myself from the issues and allow the speakers to speak freely and then I would ask them for the reasons leading to their conclusions. I also ask them about their past and education level and whether their past has anything to do with their current views.

I am proud of what I do.

I love you, Howard.

Another news of America's credibility in question.

VIENNA: Intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to United Nations inspectors by US spy agencies has mostly turned out to be unfounded, diplomatic sources in Vienna say.

I am sorry about “Ted Edwards”, it should be “Edward Kennedy”.

Howard,
Just a word of advice: once you have vaporized the corpse with anti-matter, you can stop.

sPh

Many of the variations on that theme do not consider military history. It is fair to say that the high command levels of France have tended not to excel since the days of Napoleon. Many do not realize that De Gaulle, as a colonel and junior general, was a tank theorist on a par with Guderian, Patton, Fuller and Tukachevsky, and a field commander able to stand with Patton, Guderian and Zhukov. He never achieved high military authority, branching, as his personality probably required, into politics.

As far as the courage of French fighting men, my major complaint about the red-trousered poilus of 1914 was that their bravery was too suicidal, and they were ill-served by commanders that could not (along with other Allied generals) understand even WWI technology.

While Foreign Legionnaires, at the enlisted level, are not usually French, their leaders were often distinguished. While Capital Danjou died early in the Battle of Camarone, he inspired his men.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Howard,

I guess you are trying to mock me for your failure to understand world issues. I am sorry that I can’t help you with that.

It is important that you read Robert Byrd and Edward Kennedy’s speeches. Their speeches are indeed superior than yours. I am not saying you are not a good analyst, I still believe you do not have any real understanding of the world.

I love you, Howard.

Understood. I doubt 1 REP would have mutinied in Algeria had it not had a fairly substantial number of French-identified legionnaires. One can look at the names at Camerone, and get the sense, somehow, that they were not Slavic.

Looking for good generals depends on your cutoff date after Napoleon. There were some very good ones in the American Civil War. I tend to regard Joe Johnston's defense of the Atlanta railroad, against heavy odds, a triumph at least at the operational level, although operational -- between strategic and tactical -- wasn't well recognized at the time. Grant and Sherman were a strategic team, admittedly using attritional methods, but, in many respects, using a new concept of war. Irregular operations don't fit neatly into the hierarchy, and many would argue today that special operations tend to be strategic. That said, I'd argue for Mosby. Lee, I'm afraid, was an incredibly inspirational and charismatic character that did not reach the heights of strategy.

I would argue that quite a few generals, of assorted nations, did well without overwhelming superiority. Perhaps as a reverse argument for WWII, how did the Fredendalls and the Lucases do so badly? In WWI, some of the best generals were Commonwealth, but not British: Currie of Canada and Monash of Australia. Byng, a Briton, wasn't bad, but I suspect one of his greatest achievements was recognizing Currie's talents and letting him use them. I'm afraid I can't think of any strategists of distinction in WWII. Pershing showed leadership but not strategy, but I'd note a young Patton's early sense for armored warfare.

In WWII, people often forget the US Marines, and indeed the Pacific. Vandegrift was first-rate, although the entire island-hopping strategy owes much to an eccentric major named Ellis, who died a mysterious death in the twenties. Douglas MacArthur was unquestionably one of the most complex figures in American military history, absolutely had failings. The New Guinea campaign and the bypassing of Rabaul had genius at a strategic level, and, skipping forward, Korea was somewhat classic -- the triumph of Inchon and the refusal to consider Chinese intervention. Eichelbarger and Krueger had great promise. Let us not forget Spruance and Nimitz, Nimitz especially as a strategist.

On the British side, Slim.

Turning to the ETO, Alanbrooke, I believe, introduced a great deal of strategic sanity, as did (with a few faults), Marshall. I see Eisenhower as a consummate alliance leader rather than a strategist. OTOH, Marshall and Eisenhower did put junior generals like Wedemeyer into the strategic planning role.

Tukachevsky was very good militarily, although it's still not clear if Nazi disinformation, Stalin's paranoia, or both caused him to be executed as a traitor. Of the Germans, Manstein was probably the best strategist, although Kesselring is often underestimated. Again depending if you distinguish operational art from strategy, Rommel excelled at operational unless you call it strategy. I'd categorize Patton in like manner, with special reference to the Sicily campaign and the relief of the Bulge.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Much to be learned from both The Quiet American and The Ugly American, and how the popular concept swaps the roles of the protagonists. Was it Griffin's The Majors in which the US observers jump into Dien Bien Phu, behind a Frenchborn corporal who had, for hatred of Communism, joined the SS Charlemagne Legion, and enlisted in the Foreign Legion to work his way back to French citizenship?

For some reason, I keep telling myself I should read Flashman, and never get around to it. My mind wanders to Orde Wingate, who got himself killed leading from the front. Probably overrated, and, ironically, probably a British commander who committed war crimes against Arabs during the Mandate. Well...war crimes under the not-yet-extant Geneva convention. '

It's hard to think of the final victory on the Western Front as much more than the last force standing. Remember both sides had an opportunity to break through with a technical advantage, the Germans with chemical warfare at Ypres and the British with tanks at Cambrai. Neither side had an imaginative enough commander to have a pursuit force in readiness...although to go to the ACW, both WWI sides seemed brilliant compared to Meade at the Battle of the Crater.

Apropos not having the wherewithal to follow through, I was always charmed by the postwar interview with George Pickett, as the historian interviewer inquired about the loss at Gettysburg -- was it Stuart not showing up, the failure to take the Union flank early, Longstreet's reluctance to order the charge? Pickett scratched his head and said, "I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it."

There's a twist on not having the followthrough -- the commander that had the sense to plan for the contingency of a fighting retreat, such as Oliver Smith at Chosin. Yet a different flavor is the general that has no fear, and jeopardizes himself at the front line as both MacArthur and Patton did. Of course, there is sometimes the general that has no alternative, although I'd rather be a Dean acting as high-ranking infantryman than the sadness of a Percival or Wainwright. Ridgway, I believe, carried a grenade and a first aid kit not for bravado, but to set an example -- perhaps of the maxim you never need a grenade or a handgun unless you need it very very badly.

Many twists: a Fertig that really rated 2-3 stars, with MacArthur furious that he had awarded himself one to have the stature to lead Filipino guerillas.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Whoever you are, I would like to thank you. Howard is working as a covert operator to neutralize anybody who has a different opinion, particularly, on those who have a negative view of Americans in general.

I am here to present a different view, a view that not American would understand or experience. I do not work for any government and I am a freelance analyst.

Ah, but were I to do a covert neutralization, you wouldn't survive.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

You assume you spotted all the Americans. What about the covert operatives?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
*Somewhere, a village is missing its idiot.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I admit that I visited Europe last summer, and like Ronald Reagan after visiting Latin America, I was surprised to see that there are actually different countries over there. I mean, not just "some borders", but totally different political issues in different places.

My short trip started in Prague (Czech Republic), then went through Poland, just passing through Belorus (but with a long chat with a Belorus citizen who was travelling with me on the train), Russia and Finland. The only common thread I could notice was that relationship with USA was not an important issue anywhere.

A digression: it was during another trip, before Poland joined EU. Because of the end of a long weekend (when Germany does not allow trucks on the road) there was a 20 mile long line of trucks waiting on Polish-German border. One had Korean registration --- now, this is long haul. (Kazachstan-Germany is quite a trip as well). Europe is actually a part of Eurasia, and one-hour ferry trip away from Africa.

John, your logic if flawed here. I strongly disagree with your assertions of threats, intimidation of world leaders, and the kidnapping of civilians. I've got a lot of friends there, and I can tell you that nobody cares about a few Islamic radicals disappearing off the streets of Europe.

However, let's say you're totally right on all points. So what? These accusations pail in comparison to Putin's decidedly heavy-handed bullying of European countries with regard to energy -- not to mention the flattening of Chechneya by Russian tanks. Then there was the poisoning of an anti-Putin agent in London with deadly plutonium. Very scary. So, using your logic Russia should be far more resented and hated on Europe's streets than America. Is this the case, Mr. Smith? Hardly.

When America attacked Serbia, you didn't hear the Europeans protesting then, did you? Why? Because they needed our help. So, non-UN mandated military action is not a problem for Europeans -- as long as they give their blessing. This would seem to be the standard.

We've seen this double-standard coming out of Europe since the Cold War. Europe seems to have, at the very least, a grudging acceptance of leftist authoritarians, if not openly embracing them in a warm bear hug. (pun intended) Let's rewind to the brutal Russian invasion of Afghanistan in the 80's. How many thousands did you see protesting in Europe? Hugo Chavez makes anti-democratic moves that would bring Bush up on impeachment charges, and the European left can't get enough of the loud-mouthed Venezuelan.

I'll wait for you to give me an explanation for this double-standard, before I tell you what the real reason is.

It's nothing wrong with your knowledge of history, as the experienced and knowledgeable individual you are. But since the U.S. aren't ruled by an elitist buraucracy advicing an enlightened despot, it matters a lot if the electorate is fed propaganda that is about as trustworthy and educating as the Soviet Union's and the Third Reich's. In theory, the common people is admittedly allowed to search for information that may be contradicting the governmental narrative, but what difference does it make when there are no authorities representing the alternative perception of reality. People, ordinary people in particular, follow their authoritative leaders.

One difference could be, though, that the individuals in the U.S. have a great deal more of a personal responsibility for what's done (in their name) by their government than had the subjects of different politburos.

/Tuomas

"Europe" do not hate America, neither as a nation nor as anything else.

No research of scientifical value published in the last half of a century shows anything halfways in that direction.

There may, however, be a loss of feeling of unity with regard to values that for much of the 20th century were believed to be shared, a loss that has been enhanced by anti-European remarks by the American diplomatic corps, its top official the Secretary of the State Department, and plenty of mass media remarks.

...and, besides, it's nothing wrong with paying taxes to an oppressive regime if that may save your life. Paying taxes doesn't make you more or less responsible for that government's atrocities. However, the United States are held to be a democracy, and hence the voters' degree of responsibility is different by a couple of magnitudes, or so.

My personal judgement (but this is strictly that, my personal stand!) is that the relative lack of political opposition against the core of U.S. behavior on the diplomatic stage, and in the world at large, has caused a lot more of disappointment and despair among nations that are the first candidates to feel aligned with America than the actual atrocities in Latin America, Afghanistan or on the Arabian Peninsula.

Thus America as a nation appears to stand united behind its government when it misbehaves around the world. The political opposition appears to represent marginal adjustments when qualitative changes would be what allied democratic nations are looking for.

/Tuomas

In some parts of Europe, there is fairly broad consensus that immigrant currents from Africa (or possibly soon also from the Mideast) is a substantial threat that maybe best is seen as a kind of security threat.

In other parts of Europe, the eyes are directed towards Russia and their expected revanchism and reignited imperial aspirations.

In most parts of Europe, Climate Change is impossible not to fear being the most challenging threat against our common security on the Earth.

This boils down to a rather different approach than what's dominant in the Americas: Military power is only one of many important tools to prevent and preempt these dangers.

/Tuomas

Mike, you are correct -- the consensus will not last -- which is why moves Democrats are making right now are completely irrelevant. Iraq will not be a major political issue a year from now. The reason is that either the current strategy will be proven to work or not work. If it' shown to be working -- we'll be able to draw down troops. If it's not working, even those supporting it now will oppose continuing -- leading to a draw down of troops. Either way it goes in Iraq, a year from now, troops will be coming home.

I like your phrasing

the relative lack of political opposition against the core of U.S. behavior on the diplomatic stage, and in the world at large, has caused a lot more of disappointment and despair among nations that are the first candidates to feel aligned with America

1. It is far harder to stop the actions of an irrational government when there is no equivalent of a parliamentary vote of confidence. Impeachment is drastically more than a vote of confidence, although I've heard people equate the two. Recall, which put Schwarzenegger in as Governor of Calfornia, does not exist on the national level and only in certain states.


2. Congress does, however, have significant power if it chooses to exert it. Some Presidents have challenged that authority, such as the admittedly great Theodore Roosevelt with the Great White Fleet cruise of 1907-1909. Nevertheless, the Vietnam experience seems to have stiffened Congress at least lightly, and Presidential defiance of a funds cutoff could cause quick movement to impeachment.


3. It should be obvious that the current Administration's policies, along with unquestioned approval by a Republican-controlled Congress, led to a backlash in the 2006 elections.


4. Less obvious to outsiders, however, are other elections in 2006, where not only Republican policies challenged, but vicious and false campaign tactics. Democrats were elected Governor in Virginia and New Jersey, and polling in both states indicated that a substantial number had voted less for the Democrat and more against the Republican's tactics. Virginia, where the Governor and Lieutenant Governor are separate elections, supports the tactical backlash argument even more. The Republican candidate for Governor ran a vicious campaign and had GWB appear for him. He lost. The Republican candidate for Lieutenant Governor ran a fairly clean campaign, and won. To many political observers, this indeed was a qualitative reply from the electorate.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

This Iraq war is very different from any other war. America had intimidated and blackmailed many countries to fight a war in Iraq that was based on fictitious reasons. Many countries and diplomats had called peace and even the late Pope John Paul II had asked from restrain and told Bush via his personal representative that “God is not on your side if America attacks Iraq”.

Many Iraqis had perished in Iraq and the Muslim community around the world had voiced out to many world leaders about America’s imperialism and the death of many innocent civilians. The majority of the death was mainly children and women.

The Iraq war is an unjust war. France and Germany had strong leaders and they were able to reject America’s intimidation. Other countries like Italy and Spain were not fortunate and they were drawn into a war not of their choice but the choice of America. Now that America’s lies are exposed, people in Europe are prepared to challenge and hit back at America for misleading them into a war with Iraq.

Perhaps, an excerpt from Robert Byrd would help to explain more clearly why America has become so isolated. Quote:
“Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.
We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. “
Unquote.
I hope this would help.

Again, the assertion that America deliberately lied is fallacious. A lot of the intelligence we relied on was furnished by Europeans. They didn't trust Saddam either and most of their intelligence pointed to his possession of these weapons -- which it has since been alleged by former Iraqi military were airlifted to Syria.

Bush made a huge mistake in framing the justification based solely on WMD. There were several other reasons the int'l community had every right to get rid of Saddam -- namely 400,000 bodies we've counted so far in mass graves and the addition continues. As bad as things may be there -- there have actually been periods when it's been worse. Whether we invaded or didn't invade Iraq -- the one thing that is certain is that innocent people were going to die in that country. It was the price the Iraqi's had to pay for Saddam's continued rule.

I know of no threats or intimidation of European leaders. You can correct me, if you've got proof. We asked for their assistance -- they said no. At least we asked, which is more than you can say for Russia or China when they get ready to make a move.