It seems to be bred in the bone of some liberals that there is nothing that can't be done if only you do it as a group. What is done, how it's done, why it's done, is all irrelevant.

I have heard serious people state that our war would have been "moral" if the U.N. had been in charge. That somehow the dead civilians would be less dead, the damage less severe. That the same actions currently being undertaken by the present coalition would be somehow "blessed" if only Kofi Annan and the "right" nations were involved.

Kerry sees "collective action" as an end, not a means. I have seen no rational answer for what would actually be different, what would be improved, if only we had more Europeans involved.

You could make a case for our monetary costs being reduced. Whose fault is it that pledged support isn't showing up?

You could make a case that more of the casualties would be non-American. Would this win the war?

No doubt Kerry's speech will impress perceptual mentalities, but it doesn't hold up to analysis.

Kerry has a long history of being anti-military. He will bail on this war as soon as he can manage it without being blamed for it, and has already proven many times that just because he says something in a speech, doesn't make it what he believes.