"Last Fall, they set out to build a coalition much like the genuine coalition that Bush I built for the Gulf War: Significant direct participation by many countries, and abundant financial support from many more; and with the enthusiastic approval of the UN. They failed miserably, and so this talk now of a "coalition" is dishonest spin to try and paper over that failure."

As I recall the events. The Bush Adminstration had reached the same conclusion as the Clintion Adminstration: Regime change of Iraq. From this conclusion plans were made and other countries were consulted. There was two different approaches. One was to go it alone. Which meant, get as much cooperations from as many nation as possibly, but mostly be dependent on US power (and leadership) to bring it about. The second approach was to add going through the UN first (but at same time make it clear that the US postion was that Saddem's regime must comply the resolutions which required Iraq to rid itself of WMD and this would be verified by the UN. In other words allow Saddam one last finally chance to comply with the UN resolution. The Bush adminstration opted for the second option. He when to UN, the state Dept managed to line up 15 to zip resolution which basically said Saddam had one last chance or face dire consequences. Now the French (and others) went along with this resolution because they knew that the US was willing to invade Iraq and change the regime, so the resolution was a way of delaying this action and perhaps to get Iraq to comply. At the passing of 1441, the US postion was it didn't "need" further resolutions. [The US wasn't giving up it's "right" of changing the regime in Iraq by going along with this resolution. The British postion was that they would want a further resolution before the possiblity of joining with the US in attacking Iraq. Both these "postions" weren't part of 1441, but were declaration of "how" both parties "interpreted" the resolution {and were responses to "other" interpretations- or a different way to say this after passing the resolution, each UN representive gives their "spin" on the resolution they have just passed}]. Now, the US wanted to "help" the British, so they wanted to go for second resolution. But it was known (by some) that France would block any resolution authorizing war with Iraq, others thought if Iraq did not comply with 1441 then France could be convinced otherwise. Now, obviously Iraq did not comply with 1441, but some "claimed" they were hopeful that Iraq *would* comply if more time was given. Waiting for Iraq to comply wasn't acceptable by the US, it was already determined the Iraq probably would never comply with the UN resolutions (that's why regime change was thought to be the only solution).

"As for Rummy, let's not forget that he's the darling of the Right for, among other things, tossing diplomacy out the window and insulting the erstwhile allies whose support we were courting. Why praise him now for dishonest dissembling?"

Rummy is the darling of the press. That's because he actually sometimes actually gives a straight answer. He's smart- and he has a sense of humor. Rummy is simply doing his job- he represents the men in uniform. He acts in the interest of his soldiers, and soldiers generally like straight answers and want to know exactly where you stand.