A year later the US Congress begs for some sort of proof that Iraq has an evil, terrorism-supporting government. Rather than publicly supporting Sadam Hussein's opponents, the politicos talk of sending in inspectors and the condition of Iraq's program for weapons of mass destruction. Like all other terms whose connotation is not necessarily a happy thought for voters, the pundit oligarchy has given this program an abbreviation as its name: WMD. Meanwhile said pundits seem more interested in whether the Secretary of State and the Defense Secretary have divergent opinions on Iraq and inspectors than they are concerned with the very real issue of what Mr. Hussein could do with a little WMD if he has any.
As to the international alliance, the only question is: "What international alliance?" The only international alliance in existence now is the alliance that urges the US to do exactly what it has done in respect of Iraq since 1991: Sit on its hands and de facto whistle an off-key version of Dixie while Mr. Axis of Evil Hussein increases his WMD supply. France, Italy, and other European countries oppose the suggestion of regime change in Iraq because Iraq has something they like to buy (oil), and they would rather get it from Mr. Axis of Evil Hussein than deal with a time of trouble that could mean they will pay more per barrel in the short term. Everybody else will pay more for oil in the short term, too, but many of these so-called European allies seem to have a serious case of It-Is-All-About-Me-And-My-Wallet-itis. Even Germany (the twentieth century's poster child for how a state should not treat its citizens) opposes regime change in Iraq. Why? Chancellor Schroeder says it has to do with human rights issues and a lack of proof that Iraq supports terrorism. The really weird part is that quite a few German voters seem to agree with his view.
