Alliances and Iraq - The United States and France have put aside their differences to quell the mass unrest in Haiti. Are old alliances truly dead or can they again be revived for the common good of the world? They obviously can despite liberal claims. Howard Dean, John Kerry, and the New York Times claim that the Bush administration has “shredded” America’s relationships with its allies because of our “unilateral” policy in Iraq. Apparently, we haven’t. 49 countries stand with us in Iraq and 70 nations have joined with the United States to battle terrorism. But should it matter who stands with us or against us? The last time I checked our good standing with our fellow nations was not the benchmark by which we decided whether military intervention was necessary, but our measuring stick is that where there are people being threatened and oppressed we are there. An article I read by Victor Davis Hanson (Weapons of Mass Hysteria) said that we were 100,000 corpses too late when we decided to act in Iraq. The people there lived in fear of a fell, despotical ruler. Is that not enough justification for our country to act? I believe it is. As long as America fights for what is just and for those who are oppressed, we will always have the support of other nations. In a letter to Patrick Henry, George Washington wrote:

"I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others; this, in my judgment, is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home."

Good advice, Mr. President. Very good advice indeed.