Replies

Miss Marple, with considerable respect: The Bush Administration did not put itself in a box, I agree. They were blind-sided by France, which has been actively attempting to build an anti-United States coalition. If we can believe news reports, for domestic political considerations Tony Blair needs a UN resolution authorizing the use of force. France continues to block such a resolution and doesn't appear likely to change its position.

If one has listened carefully to the President, he has said over and over again that he wants UN support (approval), but that if necessary he will lead a "coalition of the willing." That essentially means Great Britain. It also means that the President long ago accepted the premise that the United States cannot act alone for a variety of reasons.

If, due to domestic political pressure, Tony Blair found himself unable to support George Bush, then what? Chirac's real target is Blair, whom the French SOB is trying to bring to heel so that France and Germany can continue to dominate the EU (and, at some point down the road, their hope is to replace the U.S. as the world's dominant power). At the moment, Bush and Blair are badly losing the public relations war. And I do mean badly. Trust me on this point as I know whereof I speak when it comes to PR. This hurts both of them, but Blair first and perhaps worse.

The United States would, in pratical terms, be going it alone if we went into Iraq without Great Britain. None of us on this forum should underestimate the grave risks involved should events transpire in that way. And I'm not talking about military risks, but risks from a possible French-led international coalition against us.

My point is that we cannot keep sitting around giving France and the UN time to come around. As the President, himself, said, time is not on our side. The President is soon going to have to make the choice of whether or not to go or back down.