"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...


Perhaps he's reacting subconsciously to Bush's repeated claims that we
have
60 or 80 in the coalition. Don't ask for a specific number - it's close
to
one of the numbers I mentioned and it's not important. In terms of large
material contribution (relative to the size of each contributor's
POTENTIAL
contribution), the actual number is closer to 2. If you include any
country
that's sent more than a dozen humans, it's what....maybe a dozen?

A dozen is quite a few times more than none. What he's reacting to is
the fact that he was wrong (yet again) and can't bring himself to admit
he misspoke. And instead of simply saying he misspoke, he'll continue
to drag himself down the rabbit hole of stupidity trying to defend a
statement that's obviously false. That's his MO.

Steve

Well, I guess I'm interpreting things my own way: In terms of a military
result, it probably didn't matter how many were in the coalition. But, the
military result was the easiest part of this mess. The hardest part is still
with us, and it really would've helped if we had more than a handful of
helpers. The 50-75 countries who've agreed to just keep quiet are basically
fluff. Meaningless. Not a coalition.