Democrats Alienating America's Allies?

[sabo]

P.S. Blair has performed better than Bush in rebuffing claims that the war was unlawful, which perhaps demonstrates that the UK took a hard look at the UN, the legality of their actions, and planned their steps carefully. This is an indication that the UK was not led by the hand, as some like to believe.

I agree, I was visiting England last year and all my friends there could talk about was how Blair is in Bush's back pocket. But let me tell you something stormbind, there are alot of Americans who think it's the other way around. In reality Bush is in Blairs pocket

 

[Steph]

Our french friends seem to be forgetting the actual cause of the rift. It wasn't as with Canada who refused to become involved in Iraq from the outset.
It was because Colon Powell had thought that U.K/U.S.A had reached an understanding with the French only for the French to back out at the last moment. Leaving him with the feeling he had been stabbed in the back. I'm sure the French had good domestic policy reasons for doing this but a betrayal is a betrayal.
Subsequently accusing the Bush administration of uni-lateralism seems to be a bit rich considering their action wouldn't be if wasn't for French perfidy.
The way in which the Americans approached the U.N. was crass and worthy of rebuke .....but not treachery as the French seemed to think.

Oh, I remember this espisode. In fact, there was a very interesting TV documentary about this UN crisis, where they interviewed top diplomats (Powel, Strraw, Fisher, de Villepin, but also Blix and some others). I don't remember the exact wording, but here is what happened. I suppose you will aceept the explanation, as it was made by a British diplomat?
France wanted a second resolution. The British to. The US didn't. Bush was supposed to make a speech about that. But as usual, he screwed his speech, and change a few words. The problem is this words gave the impression he was OK for a second resolution. You know how the French love to study in details everyword of declaration, it's our national sport. Well, Bush mistakes made us think he was agreeing to a second resolution. So we said to Powell we were happy with the speech. But the French position has never ever change in ANY thing ; we have always been against an intervention with only one resolution. All the French official declaration went in this way.
So when the day of the actual discussion came, big surprise on both side : the French didn't understand why the Americans no longer wanted a second resolution, and the Americans didn't understand why we didn't agree with them.
And that's how an error in a few words lead to a big misunderstanding. There was no French betrayal.
The only betrayal I can see is the decision to call off the vote 5 minutes before the meeting, and calling the press to explain how France made the vote impossible, without even telling the French ambassador first.

 

[Benderino]

Instead of a poll, I want people's written replies to this question, from people from countries like the United Kingdom, Poland, Italy, Australia, Korea, and all of the other allied nations in Iraq. Whether you were for or against the war in Iraq is irrelevant to this question.

Does it offend you, or do you feel insulted when leading Democrats criticize President's Iraq policy as "unilateral," "go it alone," or some other demeaning term that America's Democratic party uses?

I think it's shameful that men like John Kerry are insulting our true allies, the ones that are sticking with us through the good times and bad.

Now to those of you who do believe this was "unilateral," who, in countries, needs to support the operation before it becomes legitimate? I think I've narrowed it down to the two, but I'll let you take shots at it.

It was these governments that supported us, but overwhelming not their people. Most Italians, Poles, Brits, etc. are against it.

 

[samildanach]

Oh, I remember this espisode. In fact, there was a very interesting TV documentary about this UN crisis, where they interviewed top diplomats (Powel, Strraw, Fisher, de Villepin, but also Blix and some others). I don't remember the exact wording, but here is what happened. I suppose you will aceept the explanation, as it was made by a British diplomat?
France wanted a second resolution. The British to. The US didn't. Bush was supposed to make a speech about that. But as usual, he screwed his speech, and change a few words. The problem is this words gave the impression he was OK for a second resolution. You know how the French love to study in details everyword of declaration, it's our national sport. Well, Bush mistakes made us think he was agreeing to a second resolution. So we said to Powell we were happy with the speech. But the French position has never ever change in ANY thing ; we have always been against an intervention with only one resolution. All the French official declaration went in this way.
So when the day of the actual discussion came, big surprise on both side : the French didn't understand why the Americans no longer wanted a second resolution, and the Americans didn't understand why we didn't agree with them.
And that's how an error in a few words lead to a big misunderstanding. There was no French betrayal.
The only betrayal I can see is the decision to call off the vote 5 minutes before the meeting, and calling the press to explain how France made the vote impossible, without even telling the French ambassador first.

Yes. I have to say I think have seen broadly the same documentary only IIRC the British Ambassador to the U.N. felt that George Bush had made the mistake deliberately. Whether he did I don't know....but I don't subscribe to the popular myth that he is stupid.
Colon Powell and the French and British diplomats would have been hard at it in the corridors. There surely could have been no misunderstanding between them as to what each other meant. It is very odd. {conspiracy theory} The British,French and Americans set up the apparent rift for their mutual interests-what they are is any ones guess.{conspiracy theory}