The Difference Between "Allies" and "allies"

What is the difference between these two:

A coalition of nations team together to oust an Arab dictator whom had been in power for decades and had orchestrated an institutionalized terror campaign against his political enemies using modern weapons. The UN passed numerous resolutions over the course of more than ten years that were not heeded by the dictator and military action was initiated to get him to comply. Military strikes were ordered with the aim to destroy his infrastructure and ability to commit atrocities against civilians.

Or:

A coalition of nations team together to oust an Arab dictator whom had been in power for decades and had orchestrated an institutionalized terror campaign against his political enemies using modern weapons. The UN passed one resolution that was not heeded by the dictator and military action was initiated to get him to comply. Military strikes were ordered with the aim to destroy his infrastructure and ability to commit atrocities against civilians.

Answer? Nothing really except the former was a description of the Iraq War in 2003 and was labeled a "rush to war" by the media. It was also described continuously as a "unilateral" action which included 46-49 countries depending on the who counted.

The latter was a description of events that occurred just this week and is being described as a multinational operation that included less than 25% of those in the Iraq forces. These are described in the MSM as attacks by "allies". Here's the Philly Inquirer front page:
Also, note that there's a propaganda effect from the MSM reporting and they actually are touting the speed in which we got this action together.

Just so you understand exactly where the liberal media stand, taking your case to the UN to oust a tyrant over the course of months and laying out each individual piece of evidence and showing numerous instances of flouting previous resolutions while building a coalition of nearly 50 nations is considered a "rush to war". Cobbling together four or five nations and rushing a resolution through the Security Council then bombing within 24-hours of its passage is a thoughtful process that met all the requirements for world opinion to be considered.

Allow me to quote the vaunted NY Times in October of 2002--four months before the coalition invaded Iraq:

Why are we being hounded into action on a resolution that turns over to President Bush the Congress's Constitutional power to declare war? This resolution would authorize the president to use the military forces of this nation wherever, whenever and however he determines, and for as long as he determines, if he can somehow make a connection to Iraq. It is a blank check for the president to take whatever action he feels ''is necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.'' This broad resolution underwrites, promotes and endorses the unprecedented Bush doctrine of preventive war and pre-emptive strikes -- detailed in a recent publication, ''National Security Strategy of the United States'' -- against any nation that the president, and the president alone, determines to be a threat.

We are at the gravest of moments. Members of Congress must not simply walk away from their Constitutional responsibilities. We are the directly elected representatives of the American people, and the American people expect us to carry out our duty, not simply hand it off to this or any other president. To do so would be to fail the people we represent and to fall woefully short of our sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution.

We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away the authority to determine when war is to be declared. We must not allow any president to unleash the dogs of war at his own discretion and for an unlimited period of time.

Yet that is what we are being asked to do. The judgment of history will not be kind to us if we take this step.

Or this at the beginning of hostilities:

The United States cannot defeat Al Qaeda without the help of dozens of other nations. The same principle applies to Iraq. President Bush may be able to win a military victory against Saddam Hussein without broad international support, but he won't be able to rebuild Iraq, much less change the political and economic dynamics of the Islamic world, without a great deal of foreign assistance.

Note that this was with a coalition of nearly 50 nations. BTW, Where is the plan from Senator Kerry to "win the peace" before starting military actions?

One imagines there will not be a 61% discount granted to anti-war groups to protest Obama's flagrant disregard of the world community as there was when President bush was in office.

It's all farce. I support our troops and wish them all God speed but the media has once again failed the standard they supposedly live up to.

I leave you with the NY Times blatant propaganda in support of the Obama administration. In Iraq, the US led the invasion to oust that particular brutal dictator and the word "allies" never appeared. Obama voted "present" on this issue and joined only because to do so would have made America seem even more irrelevant in the eyes of the world and we have this headline:

U.S. and Allies Strike Libya