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:

These numbers were taken from http://gi.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_16.html

Iraq Peak Troop Strengths:

These numbers were taken from http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/levin/levin200409281110.asp

Copyright © 2004