Today on "Meet the Press",
Tim Russert's questions continued to display a common misconception regarding the
resolution that was passed by Congress to allow Bush to go to war in Iraq.
Mr. Russert's questions imply that voting for the resolution was voting for
going to war.
MR. RUSSERT (to MR. EDWARDS):
...would you still vote to go to war with Iraq?
MR. RUSSERT (to MR. EDWARDS): I
think what confuses people, Senator, is that there seems to be a difference in
rhetoric and emphasis. Back in October of 2002, you voted to authorize the
country to go to war. In fact, you said this about Saddam: "I think Iraq is
the most serious and imminent threat to our country." "The most serious and
imminent threat to our country."
MR. RUSSERT (to MR. SALAZAR): But
knowing today that there were no weapons of mass destruction, would you as a
senator vote for a resolution to go to war?
An important fact that keeps getting
overlooked is that VOTING FOR THE RESOLUTION WAS NOT VOTING FOR DEFINITELY GOING
TO WAR.
When Bush was asking for Congress to
approve the resolution, he claimed, "Approving this resolution does not mean
that military action is imminent or unavoidable."
Click here if you don't believe me and
hear it straight from the horse's mouth.
The resolution was intended to be a
tool to add credibility to the ultimatums presented to Saddam Hussein. If he didn't
comply with the U.N. resolutions and sanctions, he'd have to contend with the U.S.,
who had already authorized the use of force. But once Congress had foolishly handed
the power over to Bush, he abandoned diplomacy and turned to a military solution.
That was the big, bipartisan mistake that Congress made. They relinquished their
authority to approve a war to Bush without demanding a plan of how he would not
only win the war, but also secure the peace afterward.
One of the most disheartening aspects
of this election has been the inability of John Kerry and John Edwards to make
simple points such as this. They've tried, but they've lacked the high profile
repetition that seems necessary to penetrate the American consciousness.
Bush also said, "If we have to
act, we will take ever precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will
act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at
our side and we will prevail."
As far as his indignant claims that
he has built a strong coalition, let's look at the numbers. For comparison purposes,
I think everyone can agree that World War II represented a true alliance.
Based on peak troop strengths, the
United States represented 26.24% of the troops in WWII. This was second to the
USSR, who had 26.67%. Great Britain, China and France all contributed over 10% of
the overall troops to the alliance.
In Iraq, the United States represents
84.34% of the troops. No other nation has contributed over 10% of the total troops.
Great Britain has contributed 5.53% and Italy contributed 2.08%. No other nations
have contributed over 2%. Moldova didn't even contribute enough to field a football
team.
Bush likes to pretend he's a leader.
In fact, he's a bully and a know-it-all. He doesn't seek out dissenting opinions
and weigh their merit. That might cause him to reevaluate his position and change
it, or "flip flop" as he likes to call it. Or, even worse, he might be
subjected to the ultimate horror, admitting a mistake. He tries to shape the facts
to his reality, cherry-picking what suits his purposes.
I have a degree in Mathematics and
Computer Science. During my math training, I was taught that you couldn't have an
agenda when doing a statistical analysis. If you did, the results will almost
certainly be skewed confirm your preconceived notion. It's the old adage,
"you can prove anything with statistics".
My point is that if you set out to
find something specific, such as evidence to support the existence of WMD in Iraq
or a link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, you probably will. You'll place more
emphasis on shaky claims than you should. This happened with the Nigerian yellow
cake uranium. You'll also believe unsubstantiated claims by people with their own
agendas.
In fairness, I'll be sure to mention
any nation that is brought to my attention to have made a significant contribution
to the war in Iraq, one that approaches or exceeds that of the United States. I
include the word "significant" intentionally. It must be something that has a
critical, direct effect on the success of the war effort, such a troops, weapons
or cash.
But I also believe that my point here
is fair. The troop numbers were surprisingly difficult to find, but when I did they
revealed a very lopsided alliance. While I suspected this, I was also prepared to
be surprised. In fact, I was surprised to find that the troop percentages were
even more lopsided in Korea, where the U.S. supplied just under 90% of the
troops. I didn't ignore any facts I found. I also made sure to compare Peak Troop
Strengths, so as to be "comparing apples to apples".
World War II Peak Troop Strengths:
Nation |
Peak Strength |
% |
USSR |
12,500,000 |
26.67% |
United States |
12,300,000 |
26.24% |
United Kingdom |
5,120,000 |
10.92% |
China |
5,000,000 |
10.67% |
France |
5,000,000 |
10.67% |
India |
2,150,000 |
4.59% |
Poland |
1,000,000 |
2.13% |
Canada |
780,000 |
1.66% |
Australia |
680,000 |
1.45% |
Belgium |
650,000 |
1.39% |
Yugoslavia |
500,000 |
1.07% |
Greece |
414,000 |
0.88% |
Netherlands |
410,000 |
0.87% |
New Zealand |
157,000 |
0.33% |
Union of South Africa |
140,000 |
0.30% |
Norway |
45,000 |
0.10% |
Denmark |
25,000 |
0.05% |
Total |
46,871,000 |
100.00% |
These numbers were taken from
http://gi.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_16.html
Iraq Peak Troop Strengths:
Nation |
Peak Strength |
% |
United States |
126,500 |
84.34% |
Great Britain |
8,300 |
5.53% |
Italy |
3,120 |
2.08% |
Poland |
2,400 |
1.60% |
Ukraine |
1,650 |
1.10% |
Netherlands |
1,400 |
0.93% |
Australia |
850 |
0.57% |
Romania |
800 |
0.53% |
Japan |
600 |
0.40% |
South Korea |
600 |
0.40% |
Denmark |
520 |
0.35% |
Bulgaria |
485 |
0.32% |
Thailand |
450 |
0.30% |
El Salvador |
380 |
0.25% |
Hungary |
300 |
0.20% |
Singapore |
200 |
0.13% |
Norway |
155 |
0.10% |
Azerbaijan |
150 |
0.10% |
Georgia |
150 |
0.10% |
Mongolia |
140 |
0.09% |
Latvia |
120 |
0.08% |
Portugal |
110 |
0.07% |
Czech Republic |
110 |
0.07% |
Lithuania |
105 |
0.07% |
Slovakia |
105 |
0.07% |
Albania |
70 |
0.05% |
New Zealand |
60 |
0.04% |
Tonga |
45 |
0.03% |
Estonia |
40 |
0.03% |
Kazakhstan |
30 |
0.02% |
Macedonia |
30 |
0.02% |
Moldova |
10 |
0.01% |
Total |
149,985 |
100.00% |
These numbers were taken from
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/levin/levin200409281110.asp
Copyright © 2004
|