Translation:
"Annan is a socialist, anit-Israel, anti-American maniac just like us at the New York Times, and we are trying to spin things to prevent Annan from being ousted."
Posted on 12/04/2004 3:01:59 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Assault? Isn't that what the NYT did to the national elections this year?
Translation:
"Annan is a socialist, anit-Israel, anti-American maniac just like us at the New York Times, and we are trying to spin things to prevent Annan from being ousted."
I just love it that the NY Slimes is being forced to report on this scandal. You just know it pains them to write ill of the UN.
Gee, I thought November was a great month for the Bush administration and Republicans everywhere. Looks like December will be just as good, with the way this story is progressing, among other developments!
"unfortunately?"
I say it is fortunate for justice that Annan wasn't able to squirm his way out of a scandal of his own making. The corruption, nepotism, and ill-gotten gains of billions upon billions of dollars (at the expense of the Iraqi people) make Watergate seem like a convenience store robbery.
Yeah, but a prisoner of a Navy SEAL got a bloody nose, so that cancels out all the Greatest Scandal in History.
This is classic NYT spin without stating facts.
If this was a Rat issue, the word Liberal would be no where to be found.
Just a thought.
Pravda on the Hudson sounds off with one-size-fits-all the party line.
As far as this article is concerned, it is Bush's fault. The liberals and their friends have no shame.
Ah, the NYSlimes is following up a BBC piece from two weeks ago.
This, along with the other tortuous framing of the issue stances taken here is just the latest clintonista talking points. They wish to say this is "payback" for Annan's support of Kerry, thus draw attention away from the scandal itself.
Disgusting.
Let us not forget that it was THE CLLINTON ADMINISTRATION that was complicit in this - if the US was complicit at all.
Just amazing. A story about the UN complicity in Saddam's money scam is labeled an assault on the UN. For liberals, any hint of criticism against their beloved UN, no matter how true, is an assault. And the author of the piece even pretzel twists a way to blame the US for the mess.
Silly NYTs haha...
The Times proof of U.S. complicity is that some of these illicit "trade deals {were} with Jordan and Turkey, two allies whose economies suffered from the sanctions". So with no further evidence they conclude the U.S. "condoned Iraq's trade deals", and pronounce the U.S. guilty of complicity.
Pravda on the Hudson no doubt is applying the same legal principles they have previously esteemed in the show trails of Castro, Stalin and other of their Commie Heroes,
I don't thing the Old Bag Lady is accepting what the real problem with the scandal is. This isn't about Iraq getting money they shouldn't have had.
The Hussein government was buying influence in the UN all the way up to its top officer.
This suggests the debate in the UN was 'colored' by those with direct personal financial interest in keeping Saddam in power.
You will note that the writer is trying to lay the Oil for Food scandal at Bush's feet, indirectly. The general thrust of it is that we have no right to complain about corruption now, because we knew about it then.
This is a rather dishonest sleight of hand, which ignores the fact that it was Bush who looked at the sanctions regime and determined that it had failed in its purpose, and it was the US under Bush that ended the charade. It was Annan, the UN, the Security Council, the DNC and the New York Times which were determined to leave the UN sanctions regime in place.
"The [Clinton Administration] actually condoned Iraq's trade deals with Jordan and Turkey, two allies whose economies suffered from the sanctions. This was a reasonable price to pay for maintaining their support on the main objective - denying weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein.
[Clinton Adminsitration] diplomats tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade Syria to stop buying Iraqi oil outside of the oil-for-food program, but did little to crack down on that trade. Syria became a major supplier of military goods to Iraq. This was a failure of [Clinton Administration] diplomacy, not Kofi Annan."
That reads a bit more accurately.
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.