Once again, even with the U.N.'s cooperation, the U.S. will shoulder almost 100% of the cost of the war and re-construction.

Once again, Bush is pursuing assistance, not because the U.S. needs "bailed out", but for international approval, to further legitimize U.S. authority during reconstruction, and because liberal/Democrat opposition has insisted on seeking U.N. assistance, with the threat of with-holding military/re-construction funding if Bush does not request U.N. assistance. But I really think it's better to do the job correctly ourselves, rather than give anti-American countries inside the U.N. the opportunity to politically undermine the democracy we've already spent so much to do correctly in Iraq. The U.N. wasn't with us before the war, I don't trust them not to try and screw things up, just to humiliate the U.S.

France, Germany and Russia were the three nations to whom Saddam Hussein's government owed the largest debt.
Gee, why did these nations oppose invading Iraq?
Out of the goodness of their hearts?
Or because they were reaping large profits by (while violating U.N. sanctions) doing business with Iraq?
It is not for an altruistic defense of international human rights and international law that Germany and France opposed the war. It was for their own self-interest.

A self-interest that is in opposition to the interests of the United States, and of a Democratic Iraq. At this stage, I wouldn't trust these nations to to assist in Iraq without undermining our occupation and reconstruction.

And I also love the revisionist complaint that the "U.S. should have waited till the U.N. was on board" before invading Iraq. As Bush said in his 3/17/2003 speech, other nations (France and Germany) were not negotiating their cooperation to invade Iraq, they said they would veto ANY resolution to invade Iraq. Bush made the decision to invade when he saw there was no further hope of U.N. cooperation.
But again, this reality has been re-spun by liberals, into a fantasy version of the truth.

Likewise, the fantasy that the U.N. is "bailing out" the U.S. is another revisioniost fantasy.

Once again, the U.N. promises a maximum of 20,000 troops, and probably a lot less. (As compared to a U.S. occupation force of 148,000). So where is this massive "bailing out" allegation coming from. Every source I see --who isn't a Democrat Senator or Congressman posturing in front of the TV cameras-- says things are going better in Iraq than the bitter liberal/Democrat opposition leads us to believe.

I'll take the word of the people interviewed on the ground in Iraq, and directly involved inside the Bush administration. Their comments make more sense than the shrill panic-laden whining I hear from the Democrats.
In addition to Bremer, Cheney, the imbedded reporter for the Wall Street Journal, and others I've listed (most with links), I also saw Colin Powell interviewed last night for the entire hour on Charlie Rose, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs on Meet the Press.

I'll take their informed logic over that of a bunch of liberal spin-meisters, who have been trying to trash Bush with one unfounded allegation after another, since the day he took office.
I'm really fed up with the bitter crying of wolf by Democrats.