Why won't President Bush go to the United Nations to ask for international peacekeepers to help out American soldiers in Iraq, who are suffering enormously from continuing Saddamista attacks?
Senators Ted Kennedy (search) and Carl Levin (search) — two stalwarts of the anti-war Democratic left — are demanding to know why the president won't go to the U.N., saying — believe it or not — that U.S. soldiers are dying because of the president's arrogance.
I want a show of hands. Who wants to shunt aside our 300 dead soldiers and turn their victory over to the French?
I see Kennedy and Levin have their hands up. Who else?
Seriously, that's what it is. Saying the U.N. should take over Iraq is saying the French would take over Iraq.
The French are running the Security Council (search), plain and simple. With their hostile attitude toward the U.S., they will get what they want or they will veto.
Why do you think the Indian government suddenly backed out of sending a division of troops to relieve a division of Americans?
First, India saw that things on the ground in Iraq are rough. Second, it smells a lot like a certain Francophone European country made a call to say, "Hey, don't get involved."
The French are letting America twist in the wind, hoping it comes crawling back to the Security Council to ask for aid. And the French are trying to make certain no other nation jumps in to help the U.S. unless it passes under the their upturned noses.
Why are American troops dying? Because Saddamistas are shooting at them. Also because the arrogant anti-war Euros want to declare a victory somehow, and having America appeal to the U.N. is just the ticket.
What do you think? We'd like to hear from you, so send us your comments at firstname.lastname@example.org. Some of your emails will be featured on the air or on our site.
• Looking for previous My Word columns?