
![]() |
|
|
| [-] |

| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |


Comment on the $87-billion Iraqi aid bill passed by the Senate today:
"Every day, when we see these bloody headlines of American soldiers being killed, we are reminded that had this been a global coalition, ... what we're facing today could have been so much different," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.
Huh? Is he calling for international deaths? Did he know the secret way to get the French and Russians on board? Why didn't he do something?
I used to think that indeed, a "Global Coalition" could have forced Saddam to give up his WMD programs and avoid a war. Now it seems he may have been bluffing all along, thus the efficacy of such a coalition seems doubtful. (Though this does lend credence to the Tarik Aziz revelations... more from me on that later.) So in hindsight I'm not sure what Senator Durbin thinks a global coalition could have done.
Unless one reads "France and Russia on our side instead of assuring Saddam they would stop us in the UN" where he says global coalition. If he's slamming the Russo/Franco alliance then I understand.
But he's not.
Meanwhile, former Kleagle Bob Byrd of WV was the only person heard shouting "nay" in the voice vote.
Insert your own punchlines. I'm going for a run.