Posted on 09/19/2004 5:10:13 PM PDT by ArmyBratproud
I have seen some preview spots on this show. It should be good. They supposedly speak of the connection between the UN Oil For Food scandal and the possible funding of terrorism.
"Can we re-arrest Rich? I bet he's in this mess somewhere"
There is no doubt that Rich is involved, which makes Clintons involved.
The blood money bought Clintons library in Little Rock.
I think Sen Coleman was being very coy about the UN from the look on his face when the question was asked. If he replied he wanted to be rid of the UN, his investigation would have been labeled biased. I thought his answer was pretty good.
There will no doubt be a video available on Fox. Try explaining Oil for food to a Lib. This one carries a punch! Emmy for David Asman!
Kerry's timing is soooooo off. If he had waited for the airing of this report his claim to go to War knowing what he know's now would have connected.
China is one of the most corrupt places on earth. All of society is corrupt, top to bottom. The governmen is corrupt. Officials try to reduce corruption by executive crooks. But, it doesn't seem to help. It's entrenched.
Time to change the channel to something more serious...like SpongeBob Square Pants.
Looks like FOX has made the OBL $ connection for
9/11.
Do not forget Marc Rich - the fellow Clinton pardoned. I wonder what the account number of Clinton's Swiss account is. Perhaps Chelsea's account.
<< French Russian Chinese -Not particularly a new axis...just not talked about a lot in this country... >>
Only a little, since around the time the french began supplying Micro-Turbo engines for China's missiles.
How much money to Rich deposit in Swiss bank accounts for the Clintons? How can we find out?
Mike'd Up in an hour and a half. Should be a good show tonight. Later bro.
Shays on the other hand couldn't contain his contempt for the situation.
History Channel Mail Call works for me.
We're on the same wave length! Marc Rich must be brought to justice AGAIN. And the Clintons can go to jail with him this time.
Yanks and G-Men -- GREAT DAY!
"Can we trust this? I mean, it's not quite the same caliber as a 60 Minutes investigation."
No liberal talking head with their hands up some stooge's butt moving their lips.
Maybe Saddam will have the Clintons come testify for him!
Now this will be a show trial considering who all Saddam could call in for his defense.
John Kerry and the U.N.: An Army of None - By Justin Darr
April 23, 2004
John Kerry's speaking style has all of the excitement and appeal of listening to electric eggbeaters. While Mr. Kerry's supporters may call his style "nuance" (meaning if you do not like it, you lack intelligence), everyone else who has been forced to sit through one of his sleeping pills of a presentation calls it boring. However, when Mr. Kerry speaks of the United Nations, he gets so enthusiastic that he will actually break from his normal droning monotone, and show some verbal inflection! It sounds something like this, "Bzzzzzzzzzzz. The U.N. is good, and America sticks! Bzzzzzzzzzzzz." Another fine speech, Senator.
For all this excitement, you would think that the United Nations must have a lot to offer. Why, just this past week, Spain announced that they where pulling their troops out of Iraq because that United States refused to turn all control of the country over to the U.N. No, you were wrong if you thought Spain was leaving because their new Socialist government was falling all over itself to capitulate to terrorism. Spain is not a pack of spineless losers willing to sit snugly under the umbrella of American military protection for over 50 years, but now unwilling to stand up for any values they may have ever pretended to hold. America is to blame for their unconditional surrender to the forces of evil because we are not being nice to the U.N. (Yeah, that's the ticket.)
So how does this much-celebrated "United Nations Approval" benefit the United States? I am honestly curious, since if you look at the history of the U.N., over 95% of all U.N. military and peacekeeping missions have consisted of 75% American soldiers or more, with Americans sustaining over 90% of all combat deaths. These troops may be called "United Nations Forces", but in reality, they are nothing more than the American Army wearing blue helmets. Foreign generals get to enjoy commanding troops who do not run from enemy fire, and the Liberals get to feel all warm and fuzzy about basking in the warm glow of international acceptance. Beyond that, the United States gains nothing but body bags.
Even the First Gulf War was disproportionably American. In the First Gulf War, the United Nations Coalition consisted of 650,000 troops. 530,000 of these were American and the remaining 120,000 from the other 34 Coalition members. However, when you consider the fact that the United Nations included the standing armies of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt into this number, despite the fact that almost none of these troops were used for anything other than border security and never set foot in either Iraq or Kuwait, you get a very different count. In reality, there were only 29,000 non-American Coalition troops involved in actual combat operations in the First Gulf War. Compare this to the 22,000 non-American Coalition troops involved in the current Iraqi War, and you see the benefit of gaining the full support of the intentional community amounts to 7,000 troops. Wow! I guess John Kerry was right! Just look at how much we have lost. I bet those extra 7,000 soldiers would, right now, be busy ensuring that the U.N. Oil for Food program was still sending a steady stream of payoffs to United Nations Administrators.
The admirable goals of democracy and freedom on which the United Nations was founded are now nothing more than a cynical joke. Instead of confronting the autocratic regimes that repress the peoples of the world, the U.N. is now composed of them. John Kerry, and the rest of America's Liberals make the mistake of assuming that the United Nations is actually dedicated to peace, prosperity, and the general welfare of all people. It is not. The U.N. does nothing than reflect the anti-American attitudes and beliefs of the assorted tyrants of the world. The U.N. will never give America its support unless its own interests are at stake.
In the case of Iraq, the U.N. was just making too much money to let Saddam Hussein be removed from power. If the Saddam had ceased bribing U.N. officials, or balked at allowing France access to its oil reserves, then John Kerry would have had his U.N. endorsement for American action against Iraq. However, the U.N. Coalition would not have looked any different than the current one. The United States would still have to shoulder the burden of all the fighting and financial costs. And, the actual U.N. contribution to the war effort would still be confined to a few troops in non-combat support roles. Nor, would there be any difference in outcomes. Iranian backed Islamic terrorists would still be bombing Iraqi civilians, American contractors would still have died in Fallujah, and John Kerry would still be complaining about the War.
http://www.orbusmax.com/oped/justind_042304.html
We better keep Saddam alive. Maybe a little torture will get him to sing.
No forged documents..hmm not up to CBS standards at all
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.