The hope of a quick end to the war in Iraq was scuttled by (1) poor diplmacy, or (2) bad planning, or (3) backstabbing by the Fifth Column from France? Michael Ledeen, writing in the New York Sun (also National Review Online), says it is for the third reason--France. Clearly, after 8 or 9 days of war, the lack of the Northern Armored front to distract and harry Saddam means that a prospectively short war won't happen. The consequence will be--if it hasn't already--more Coalition deaths, especially US and UK, as well as more Iraqi deaths since the Ba'athist regime is now revealed to be not merely authoritarian but totalitarian (e.g., existing in the hearts and minds of fanatical supporters like the Fedayeen, as well as a terrorised populace awaiting the death of its cult leader before they rise up). "Primary blame for the defeat of the measure [permitting a US-led Northern Front in Iraq] lies with the opposition [party]— the secular, Kemalist parties that have governed the country since Ataturk. "Contrary to expectations, the opposition, responding to orders from party leaders, voted unanimously against the government’s position. "The leaders insisted on a disciplined 'no' vote because of pressure — some would call it blackmail — from France and Germany. "The French and German governments informed the Turkish opposition parties that if they voted to help the Coalition war effort, Turkey would be locked out of Europe for a generation. As one Turkish leader put it, 'there were no promises, only threats.' "One can describe this behavior on the part of our erstwhile Old Europe allies only as a deliberate act of sabotage against America in time of war." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/875881/posts THERE'S BLOOD ON THE HANDS OF THE FRENCH!!! --Orson
