<Here.

Although it is not the intent of the writer, I think this article reveals the political motivation of much of the controversy over the current Iraq crisis.

Just one example:

...In diplomacy, style is often substance. Consider this fact: the Clinton administration used force on three important occasions—Bosnia, Haiti and Kosovo. In none of them did it take the matter to the United Nations Security Council, and there was little discussion that it needed to do so. Indeed, Kofi Annan later made statements that seemed to justify the action in Kosovo, explaining that state sovereignty should not be used as a cover for humanitarian abuses. Today Annan has (wrongly) announced that American action in Iraq outside the United Nations will be “illegal.”

I suppose one could postulate that Clinton's free pass from Europe and the U.N. on similar military actions was due to his different "style." One could also postulate that he got away with it because unlike Bush, he was a fellow leftist. One of the "team." But that's just a side comment on my part.

A lot of things to think about in this article. It would take a long time for me to comment on all of it. But the idea that all of a sudden George W. Bush has completely on his own totally screwed up American relations with the world is not accurate. There has been a lot of other influence on this as well.