While certain reactionary individuals pretending to themselves that they are “progressives” or whatever continue to block John Bolton’s nomination as UN Ambassador because of Bolton’s alleged “bad manners,” the really bad manners of the United Nations itself continue to be revealed, thanks, as per usual, to Claudia Rosett.
And today, as we learn about the hideous suicide murders in Erbil, she reports the UN ugliness is mounting.
But the documents provided by BNP [the French Oil-for-Food bank] under congressional subpoena and examined by The New York Sun suggest to congressional investigators that some of these mistakes involved the rerouting of money through a global web of companies linked not only to terrorist funding and arms trafficking but also to anti-sanctions campaigning and front operations for the Iraqi regime itself.
In other words, the UN Oil-for-Food program, which was meant for starving children, was financing both terrorism and a terror regime. Meanwhile, the likes of Barbara Boxer and Chris Dodd are concerned that an “ill-tempered” man has been nominated to clean this up. This is what “liberalism” has come to? How do these people look at themselves in the mirror?
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
35 Comments
1. Ron:Where was Mr. Volcker when this congressional investigation was going on? Why didn’t Mr. Volcker come up with this information? We should have been reading this in some of his reports but instead we get the informaiton from an article in the New York Sun by Claudia Rosett. Maybe we shouldn’t be to hard on Mr. Volcker however, this could be information that was shredded by Mr. Annan’s right hand man Mr. Riza and Mr. Volcker didn’t know about it. This is the bank that Mr. Boutros-Boutros Ghali personally picked to handle the “Oil for Food” money. Why didn’t Mr. Volcker do the obvious in an investigation, why didn’t he follow the money trail? Another question that might be answered is just who owns BNP Paribas and who owned it when this was happening?
May 4, 2005 - 9:20 am 2. Ron:More on http://acepilots.com/unscam/archives/002006.html BNP Paribas, it has an interesting history and some say that it really isn’t a French Bank at all but a Canadian one during the time of the major rip offs. Now that the serious investigators are involved rather than an enabler like Mr. Volcker who seems to obfuscate rather than elucidate we will find out a lot more than Kofi Annan and Volcker really wanted us to know.
May 4, 2005 - 9:33 am 3. David Thomson:ì…we get the informaiton from an article in the New York Sun by Claudia Rosett.î
The New York Sun probably doesnít earn one percent of the revenue generated by the New York Times. Jason Blair had the audacity to expense his bar bills—and the Times paid them. I suspect that the Sunís reporters can barely expense a subway ticket to an interview. The Times is truly disgracing itself.
May 4, 2005 - 9:35 am 4. Silicon valley Jim:How do these people look at themselves in the mirror?
Cross-eyed. The same way they look at everything else.
The New York Sun probably doesn?t earn one percent of the revenue generated by the New York Times.
Its circulation, at approximately 50,000, is less than 5% of that of the Times, at just over a million. Revenue may well be only 1%; the Times probably gets much more advertising revenue per issue.
May 4, 2005 - 11:45 am 5. Soldier's Dad:Simple Answer -
Bolton is not suited for a position at preschool, reform school yes.
It was nice being a child in preschool, believing that all in the world was good.
Some people however didn’t learn the lessons of sharing and caring taught in preschool.
They ended up in “reform school”…which had meany ill-tempered teachers.
Half of the UN is controlled dictators, who didn’t learn “sharing and caring” in preschool.
Who should we send to the UN?
May 4, 2005 - 12:19 pm 6. Terrye:I was also very sorry to hear about the suicide murders in Iraq.
This has been a good and bad week for them. I wonder who the terrorists are paying over there to get access to these people and where the money comes from.
They don’t have decent drinking water but money can always be found for murder and mayhem against civilians.
As for Barbara Boxer and Dodd and their ilk, Thomas Jefferson could be after the job and if Bush nominated him they would raise Hell about it.
Given the choice between doing their job and being partisan obstructionists, the job comes in a slow second.
May 4, 2005 - 12:25 pm 7. David Thomson:ìIts (New York Sun) circulation, at approximately 50,000, is less than 5% of that of the Times, at just over a million. Revenue may well be only 1%; the Times probably gets much more advertising revenue per issue.î
The New York Times is being scooped by a publication that is barely keeping its head above water. It is similar to Shaq OíNeal being challenged by an adolescent. The Times does not even seem to care. Their editorís competitive juices apparently do not start to flow until a particular story can hurt the Bush administration. I truly believe that this multibillion dollar scandal would be off the radar screen except for the new media.
ìI was also very sorry to hear about the suicide murders in Iraq.î
This may sound very cold, but the terrorists in Iraq are not even murdering an average of 300 people a week. The population of the overall country is roughly 26,074,906 million (July 2005 est.). My math skill are not the best, but this means that far less than 1/10 of 1% of Iraqís citizens will likely be victimized in 2005. There is no reason to become demoralized over the recent violence. The war is over. Iraq is merely pursuing the last remaining terrorists.
May 4, 2005 - 1:11 pm 8. jerry:Terrye:
After their defeat in 2002, the Democrats decided that their failure to be the anti-Bush was the cause of their defeat. For the most part it began as pure polemics. However, over the next two years the Democratic leadership, driven by the candidacy of Howard Dean and the continuing success of President Bush, ended up believing their own rhetoric. Their reflexive rejection of everything Bush (so Palestinian-like of them) has driven them to support any idea, policy, group or nation that will damage the President no matter what the cost to the nation. Having embraced Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda they now must look for their own enemy because deep down inside most Democrats know that their actions and policy prescriptions place them on the side of tyrants. They are now in the process of inverting their own hate and projecting on to the “right wing Christian Dominionists” who now “control” the Republican Party. In another time they would be holding aloft the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and shouting about the Jewish conspiracy to control the world. Actually, the moveon.org crowd that now dominates the Democratic Party leadership has been all but doing this for several years now.
May 4, 2005 - 1:16 pm 9. Joseph (formerly Samuel):I agree with jerry 100%, and it is unreal the predictions of Bush’s and the Republican’s demise. Of course to them and their unrealistic hopes they somehow fashion as reality this demise will also be capped by them being tied to the misfortunes of Tom Delay and flushed down the political toilet. As a former Democrat I will tell you the opposite is true, the Democrats are in a very precarious position as their success in every facet of politics, domestic and foreign depends on the failure of others whether it be the Military, Iraqi’s or GOP Politicians, and spin of the MSM only makes it worse as it just feeds the “liberal cocoon” and lends false hope.
Many friends and family members wait in gleeful anticipation for this to happen yet they so easily forget! The one fact about this Administration is that Bush’s approval ratings have never dipped below the mid-forties, even in the worst of times, which is incredible if one understands history. Every other modern President has dipped well below 40 percent, even Reagan and no President has had such a solid baseline of support as Bush has since Eisenhower.
People can keep waiting all they want for this to happen yet it won’t because the Dems offer nothing! I hated the Republicans in the 1990’s but let us remember that Clinton’s success was based upon passing 7 out of 10 of that dreaded “Contract With America” and the mean old Republicans obliged him. The Democrats offer nothing equivalent, hell they can’t even come to support progressive changes in Social Security that is weighted to give more to those on the lower rungs of the system. Larry Sabato is right when he points out the high percentage of hard base that supports this man. He starts at a guaranteed 45% and just needs to shift the public 5% on most issues, those that don’t understand this are foolish.
As far as the Bolton appointment, what are they looking for, Mr. Rogers or some other feel good guy to manage a group of kids? I’m sure Joe Biden would give some cute answer but in truth times are too serious for cute answers and I agree with the analogy that we a looking for a reformer and not a do-gooder, we need Bolton for the same reason we chose Dubya, he reflects his hard policy to the utmost extreme where it is utmost needed in difficult times. The Dems want this president to appoint people and judges that reflect the will of the Democrats, but I predict sooner or later as usual when even many of Bush’s own supporters start to fret and buckle Bush will have had enough and will take a few people down. Why should it be predicted any different has it ever ended any other way? This is like needing to reduce crime in NYC and saying Giuliani is just too abrasive of a man to do the job, unbelievable.
May 4, 2005 - 1:58 pm 10. Terrye:Joseph aka Samuel:
Can you imagine JFK worrying about hurting someone’s feelings at the UN? Hell, they worried Adlai would not be pushy enough with teh Soviets..
Today I heard some tired old Democrat say that all that was needed to fix Social security was for Bush to rescend the tax cut on the top 1%.
What? Back before there was a tax cut for the top 1% the Democrats themselves were talking about coming trouble for Social Security. Now it is nothing to worry about.
If that is true why not sit down and whip out a solution and bring it to the floor?
They just bitch that is all.
May 4, 2005 - 2:18 pm 11. Terrye:David:
I know it is not a large number in regards to the whole, but it scares people.
Did you see that picture of the soldier holding a dying child? Broke my heart.
May 4, 2005 - 2:19 pm 12. Bruce W.:David T. and Terrye:
All innocent death is tragic. A mutually agreed statement, I am sure.
But from the overall “future of our world” point-of-view, I think there still remains a significant time period of turmoil in Iraq within which reasonable minds can still say that it was all worth it (and, unfortunately, necessary, thanks to murderous cretins).
The future of the region and the world may well (and I think does) hang in the balance if most of the region does not “join the modern World” (as Friedman put it today). Unfortunately, the Muslim world must go through this ripping-apart in order to put Humpty back together again, in a new and improved condition. Iraq just happens to have been the first place that it really got started. And, in light of the degree of the UN madness that’s now coming to light, and the status Saddam previously enjoyed as the baddest ass in the valley, it was the right place.
If you haven’t read Friedman’s NYT piece today, it’s pretty good (not so common lately). The last paragraph is a buzz kill…and he’s said it too many times in too short a time span for it to remain interesting.
May 4, 2005 - 2:38 pm 13. David Thomson:ìThe one fact about this Administration is that Bush’s approval ratings have never dipped below the mid-forties, even in the worst of times, which is incredible if one understands history.î
I think you might need to take it one step further. These polls usually reflect views of the overall American public. Who, on a practical basis, cares about them? The real question is what are the views of likely voters! I suspect that President Bush has never fallen under 51% with these folks.
ìDavid:
I know it is not a large number in regards to the whole, but it scares people.î
I am unfortunately compelled to point out some cold, harsh facts. The MSM and their allies seem be a bunch of historical ignoramuses. One merely needs to peruse a few books regarding the major wars of the last century. The estimated killing of less than 16,000 annually in Iraq pales in comparison to the totals during WWI and II. This is merely the mopping up period.
May 4, 2005 - 2:43 pm 14. photoncourier.blogspot.com:Adlai Stevenson was pretty rude to the Russian delegate at the UN during the Cuban missile crisis. I”m fairly sure he was a Democrat.
The breed has definitely deteriorated since then..
May 4, 2005 - 2:44 pm 15. Joseph (formerly Samuel):Terrye
The truth is Democrats think they can blow smoke at some of the public and the rest is just damn ignorant anyway. The funny thing is many Democrats actually have come to convince themselves of their supposed moral high ground and superiority to the point of assuming all the benefit of doubt that comes with such status, unfortunately they lost the moral high ground years ago. Also, trust me, anyone who thinks Hillary will get the same free ride her husband got is in for a shock for the MSM can no longer control the message, and her ability to weather storms will be tested. The filter of the MSM is successfully filtering less and less each day. Hillary is scandal ridden and she will have to weather the storm, the scripts she follows by and well staged photo-opts will sooner or later be challenged in ways I doubt she can deal with. I will predict that if she wins the nomination she will go down in flames and the reason is simple. George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have a likeability with a critical core group of people that Hillary will never have and I know when alienating people comes in play, nobody can alienate like her when true heat is turned on, as a Senator she has not been held up to such heat.
I would like to say that I hope the GOP does not change the filibuster rule but forces the Democrats to filibuster and reject nominee after nominee. If they reject a conservative judge or Bolton type appointee, then they should appoint another of similar stripe and keep doing so until mid-terms. If they do this I would predict Republican gains that are of continued historic proportions. How many opportunities are the Democrats going to give Dubya to defy history? It is unbelievable as this is like the guy in Vegas who thinks if he just keeps playing the same losing hand over and over that sooner or later he is bound to win, yet my own bet is that by the time he finally wins one hand it will be when his losses are unrecoverable and his opponents gains (Bush’s) are insurmountable, again unbelievable.
May 4, 2005 - 2:56 pm 16. Syl:Joseph…thanks for the encouraging words. I think many Americans are simply weary and many have tuned out for the moment. I think the Democrats think they can just obstruct and obstruct until they wear everybody down.
But Bush is not the type to be worn down. I think Americans trust him to be able to do what is necessary and thus afford themselves some time-out time.
If Bush calls on them for something, though, they’ll be there. I think the soc sec stuff is a bit boring for most people and the Dems are trying to scare everybody but it’s slowly sinking in. We’ve long passed the point where the American people went from ‘no problem’ to ‘problem, but what do we do about it.’
Just a little more time. Bush is a patient man.
May 4, 2005 - 3:50 pm 17. Kyda Sylvester:What is it you’re supposed to do when investigating corruption? Oh yeah–FOLLOW THE MONEY. Guess no one told Volcker.
“Do you pray for the senators, Dr. Hale?” “No, I look at the senators and pray for the country.”
May 4, 2005 - 4:22 pm 18. Terrye:Syl:
I will say one thing for Bush, the man has guts.
He is not weak.
May 4, 2005 - 4:26 pm 19. exmaple:“but also to anti-sanctions campaigning and front operations for the Iraqi regime itself.”
One thinks Susan Sarandon works for free?
One thinks International ANSWER got its money from where?
Expose them all.
May 4, 2005 - 4:26 pm 20. simone_r:Hear, hear, exmaple!
As a newly cynical Canadian (due to the disconcerting habit of Desmarais’ associates popping up regularly on the wrong side of scandals), I say follow the money.
Perhaps some of the obstruction President Bush is facing is neither principled nor (honorably) partisan, but is, shall we say, greased.
May 4, 2005 - 6:13 pm 21. Kevin P:Roger:
No matter what information comes out the Dems will still back the UN to the hilt. The blocking of Bolton with the he is not qualified because he is mean is a smokescreen because instead of discussing what our policy towards the UN should be we will be discussing whether he yelled at a subordinate or not.The crap that is coming out about the UN is being underreported and they substitute the Bolton nomination trivia as a replacement.Bush needs to get the vote done and if he loses nominate someone with the exact attitude that Bolton has.We need someone there who can press Kofi and Volcker to stop the coverup and if they don’t come clean tell them we are going to hold our cash in our wallets.Way off topic, but go the The Corner and check out the story on Bill Maher. Either he is fishing for ratings or he is a complete idiot.
May 4, 2005 - 6:40 pm 22. RBMN:John Bolton going to the UN, I see about like Rudy Giuliani getting sent to clean out the New York Mob, back when he was a prosecutor. Organized crime is organized crime. Giuliani smiles more, but neither Rudy or Bolton tolerate one ounce of criminal coverup. It’s just not in their nature.
May 4, 2005 - 9:15 pm 23. Teaparty:Kevin P:
Saw the Maher thing at The Corner. Actually it’s both. He’s shopping for ratings and he’s an idiot.And personally, I would rather be savagely beaten than “gently masturbated by a pop star.”
The question is, if that’s what he does for ratings, what audience is he trying to attract?
Seriously, who watches Maher blatantly excuse child molestation and says to themselves: Now that’s a show I gotta see!
Oh, and to Roger’s final two questions of the post..Yes, and I don’t know.
May 4, 2005 - 9:36 pm 24. cjg graham:I wonder why the dems are fighting so hard to stop Mr. Bolton. Like the French, German and
Russians did to stop the Iraq war because they
were afraid the truth would come out with respect
to their behaviour with Saddam and other Arab
countries.
What are they hiding, what are they scared may
come out of more and more investigating?
I think something they do not want known is
in some of the papers being read at this time.
Time will tell. Thank heaven for people like
Claudia.
May 4, 2005 - 10:09 pm 25. HA:jerry,
They are now in the process of inverting their own hate and projecting on to the “right wing Christian Dominionists” who now “control” the Republican Party.
I think you have the inversion process reversed. I’ve said for a long time that it isn’t Bush that the leftists hate. Rather, it is Amerikka itself that they hate. But since they can’t get away with hating Amerikka, they project and personalize their hatred onto Bush in an effort to make it acceptable. They disguise their Amerikka hatred as Bush hatred. Their anti-Bush rhetoric is really anti-American rhetoric.
So when you hear the gramscian marxbots screaming something like “We hate Bushitler because he is a right-wing, nationalistic, militaristic, theocratic, racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist president” just substitute “Amerikka” for “Bush” to decode what they are really saying – “We hate Amerikka because it is a right-wing, nationalistic, militaristic, theocratic, racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist country.”
Make no mistake. Their hatred is first, and above all, for America itself.
May 5, 2005 - 3:52 am 26. Steve J.:Let’s see, Bolton claims that an inflammatory speech he made in South Korea was cleared by the ambassador yet the ambassador denies that. Bolton was pulled off the Libya negotiations because he was screwing up. Bolton also greatly prefers intelligence that matches his predispositions.
Seems like he’s lucky to have a job.
May 5, 2005 - 4:43 am 27. Brown Line:Joseph writes, “I will predict that if [Hillary] wins the nomination she will go down in flames …”. That depends on whom the Republicans nominate to run against her. With Condi and Dick out of the running, I don’t see anyone on the Republican side with both the following and the character to beat her. McCain? Frist? Giuliani? Jeb Bush? All deeply flawed. The 15-point boost that the MSM will give Hillary against a weak Republican candidate will be enough to put her into the White House. That’s why I’m buying gold.
HA, I work in the tech industry. Most of my coworkers are bright people. And at a recent luncheon, a number of them not only asserted that Bush plotted 9/11, but that he’s planning a similar attack on the same scale to shore up his sagging poll numbers. These are intelligent, well grounded people – but on this topic they simply are not rational. Talking with them is like trying to talk with a Holocaust denier or a believer in UFO abductions. At work, I fight their attempts to politicize every conversation and every public forum; otherwise, I hope – and, yes, pray – that some will be cured in time.
May 5, 2005 - 5:03 am 28. Joseph (formerly Samuel):Unbelievable, I said above… I’m sure Joe Biden would give some cute answer but in truth times are too serious for cute answers…
I wake up to the following in the Washington Monthly penned by Joe Biden under the title… “Credit Bush’s rhetoric not his actions”…
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0505.biden.html
An example of what I am talking about…
If we have reached a true tipping point, it seems to have been generated by recent events that had little or nothing to do with the Iraqi invasion: Arafat’s death, the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, terror attacks in Saudi Arabia, and the increasingly vocal protests in Egypt. And in Iraq, while it cannot be denied that the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein was a necessary precondition, it was Ayatollah Sistani who insisted on early elections against the wishes of the White House. President Bush decided to accede to Sistani’s wishes and deserves kudos for showing firmness in sticking to the schedule.
Little or nothing to do with the Iraqi invasion? Sistani was given the very opportunity to do the right thing because of Bush and his Iraqi invasion! Then assassination of the Lebanese Prime Minister and the other events occurred due to the desperation the terrorists because of Bush’s action, not his rhetoric! Yes credit Sistani and every other person that has done the right thing but if what Joe Biden is saying is correct who has done the right thing and been more the catalyst of the proactive cause and effect for the better more then Bush himself?vvIs Joe Biden being cute? Let’s see he says… it cannot be denied that the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein was a necessary precondition
Yet he titles his piece “Credit Bush’s rhetoric not his actions”…
Taking out Saddam and the doctrine of going after terrorist states is by far the most critical catalyst and Joe implying that such actions are subservient to other events like the Lebanese assassination or even Sistani’s cooperation is Joe Biden doing exactly what is very predictable from him.
Joe Biden and Tom Friedman are more sane liberals then most, but in the end they both tend to do the very same thing. They reshuffle facts and present the story in ways that demean our part, play down Bush’s positive role and treat the reaction and events due to Bush’s actions as if they were the cause of positive progress but they both know what they are doing and it is called SPIN. Yes Joe you have it backwards, most of these events are subservient to our President’s actions and not the other way around.
With Biden’s logic September 11th would be the catalyst that deserves the ultimate credit. It is true that September 11th changed many of us but fortunately for us the person it most changed was President Bush. Of all Americans changed by the event the most I am grateful he happened to be President Bush. Of all the people to react properly to events Sistani and the rest stand in Bush’s shadow and feed off of the catalistic energy created due to his policies, trying to reverse the order of importance may make Joe feel better but Joe isn’t going to convince people to follow Democrats with such weak rhetoric, unfortunately this is the best Dems can do.
When Joe says… it was Ayatollah Sistani who insisted on early elections against the wishes of the White House. President Bush decided to accede to Sistani’s wishes and deserves kudos for showing firmness in sticking to the schedule
I could mimic the same with…
it was George Bush who insisted on regime change against the wishes of just about everybody. The world decided to accede to Bush’s wishes and deserves kudos for showing firmness in sticking to the schedule
I guess it is just who one wants to credit isn’t it? Truth has little to do with it I guess, spinning the facts does. The funny thing is that for me, a former nuanced liberal, if I were to title anything on this topic it would be inverted and read…
Credit not Bush’s rhetoric, but his actions.
May 5, 2005 - 5:44 am 29. Joseph (formerly Samuel):Brown Line
True, and I was going to point that out but I believe all those you mentioned would beat her and the only thing that would jepeordize Jeb Bush would be “Bush fatigue” and a rejection of a dynastic sense in having 3 out of the last 4 President’s being a Bush. I will tell you Jeb would be a very strong candidate he is a very good politician. I’ll add that none are as flawed as Hillary, her Senate career for New York gives her a cover she will lose when she runs, she has many pecadillo’s she has yet to answer for.
May 5, 2005 - 5:54 am 30. Brown Line:Joseph – I agree that Jeb would be a good candidate and president, but the “dynasty” charge is an anvil around his neck. As for Hillary’s many peccadillos, it’s clear that the media isn’t interested: she could shoot Bill on the Capitol steps and it would never make the news. (I exaggerate, but you see my point.) She’ll have the Bush-loathers behind her, and will reach out to soccer moms and moderates. And never underestimate the value of a photogenic smile.
The Republicans, in fact, may be victims of their own success in Iraq and the GWOT: by 2008, it’s possible that Iraq will be largely settled and the GWOT dormant, leading to another 1992-style election driven by domestic issues.
Anyway, I hope you’re right. But I have my doubts.
May 5, 2005 - 6:23 am 31. OJ:Annan has clearly cut a deal with the US in order to keep his job. Apparently from today’s announced leaks, Annan might have just experienced a little double corssing…
http://www.rightviews.com/article.php?id=305
http://www.RightViews.com
May 5, 2005 - 8:04 am 32. Kevin P:Roger:
I love the latest talking point the left is presenting on the Iraqi election. The present it as Bush didn’t want the election and Sistani forced him to concede. Even if you but this line of crap,Bush and Sistani never disagreed on the need for speedy elections, just the exact date. They never mention that the vast majority of the left,Kerry, the editorial boards of the major newspapers, and most of the Bush-Hitler crowd, were ridiculing Bush for having the early election, they claimed it was a sign of how stubborn Bush was, how he wouldn’t listen to people who knew better(them) and it was widely predicted that it would be a failure. Of course it was a success so what do they do? They pretend that their cry’s to delay the election untill the security situation was better never happened and they have the balls to think that people would forget how stupid they were and we would forget that they were screaming to stall the elections. It is the sign of a great propagandist to deny reality and pretend that the past can be erased and no one will take note.
May 5, 2005 - 8:43 am 33. David Thomson:ìBut since they can’t get away with hating Amerikka, they project and personalize their hatred onto Bush in an effort to make it acceptable. They disguise their Amerikka hatred as Bush hatred. Their anti-Bush rhetoric is really anti-American rhetoric.î
That is an excellent point. They disguise their anti-Americanism by directing their angry rhetoric towards President Bush. But listen carefully, and it becomes obvious that these individuals are contemptuous of any check and balance political system which hesitates to hand power over to them. These activists perceive themselves as virtuous and brilliant. Anyone standing in their way—must therefore be a scum bag of the lowest caliber and deserves to be treated accordingly.
May 5, 2005 - 8:50 am 34. Steven Mitchell:“The present it as Bush didn’t want the election and Sistani forced him to concede.”
This is yet another attempt to sell the big lie through the MSM. They keep trying it, because it does work on a large number of people–such as those that scoff at the idea that CBS might be biased. It has been working at least since the early ’70s, and maybe before that. Only now, it does not always work well enough to succeed.
Remember the “scandel plagued” administration of Bush 41? Well, there were a lot of *charges* of scandel by Democrats. Remember the terrible economy that amazingly got better when Clinton was elected?
Most of what gets said about Christian fundamentalists is in this vein as well, and has been for at least a decade. Knowing the pattern is more important than any particular issue, because then one knows when to dig deeper.
May 5, 2005 - 9:47 am 35. bill:I wonder is anyone ever going to directly address what might have been if Annan had done his job and outed the Oil for WMD scam before the Iraq war. If he had, then the members of the Security council on the take might have been known and history may read quite differently. This is the most under reported aspect of the whole UN Oil for Food bribery debacle.
Maybe Newsweek will get some of their crack investigative reporters on the Oil for Food scam — of wait, it could help Bush, never mind. Back to trying to get that Koran to go down the toilet — I wonder if anyone at Newsweek asked themselves how exactly would you flush a book down a toilet?
May 16, 2005 - 10:41 am