I don't mind that the Canadian liberal party opposed to the war in Iraq. But we kept hearing from Canada that it was about the "principle" of the thing. Which principle? That the UN didn't go along? I agree, but I see the UN as having been at fault for promising one thing and doing the opposite. Which principle applied? The principle that the war would kill people? What if it saved lives? The principle that you shouldn't attack anyone who isn't an immediate threat to you? Then why did Canada join us against Hitler? He wasn't an immediate threat to them or us.

Anyway, we later learned that the "principle" which guided French opposition was apparently l'argent -- cash, moolah, money, in the form of the old-for-food kickbacks and slush funds, and promised future oil revenues. Some principle.

So I guess I shouldn't be surprised -- though I'm not arguing it was tied to the war -- that the Canadian liberal party was that the same time very being very responsive to the same kinds of, uh, principles...

The numbers of people and amounts of money involved in the Gomery inquiry are larger than previously known.... This study finds that at least 565 organizations and individuals are identified.... The people identified in these reports and testimony are politicians and bureaucrats (government insiders), and political party members and business people (government outsiders). This paper finds that almost all of them have an exclusive financial link to the Liberal Party of Canada (hereafter referred to as the Liberal party). They donated at least 40 times more to the Liberal party than to all of the other main political parties combined from 1993 to 2003.

According to Captain Ed, for each dollar a group donated they were paid back 50 times in unearned financial benefits, all at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. A very profitable principle to uphold!

And, just as French PM Chirac's party embezzled French tax revenues by funneling them into his campaign, so also the Canada's Liberal party charged their own national police in order to get access to "principled" Prime Minister Chretien, and then used the proceeds to keep themselves in power.

Why elevate "International Opinon" as the most important criteria? Who cares about the posturing of provably-corrupt politicians like those who opposed the war in Canada, Germany, France, and the "moral" stances of brutal authoritarian regimes like those in Russia, Syria and China? Why is that supposed to matter more to us than the Danes, Poles, Italians and Brits?

Why on earth do we keep looking to such people for moral guidance?

Before my international visitors get their undies in a bundle, I should point out that I'm not trying to say the US is completely corruption-free. My point is that invoking "international opinion" is lazy. That's only a positive moral argument to the extent that the people whose approval you crave are themselves moral. If you're pandering to a room full of crooks and bullies, then you're just a crook and bully yourself.