Posted on 12/04/2004 3:01:59 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
My thoughts too - but, the NYSlimes would rather we equate "The United States" with "Bush" and make us think that what Klinton did is Bush's fault.
The New York Times, the official newsletter of the U.N. and the Far Left, not necessarily in that order.
"This was a failure of American diplomacy, not Kofi Annan. "
And when diplomacy fails you kick a$$ cause Kofi sure didn't enforce any sanctions.
First, somebody has to remind the NYT that it is not "Bush's war", it is the USA that went to war with iraq. Their attempt to paint this picture in the minds of people, with their own colors is so transparent, that it does not require great intelligence to see their agenda. The NYT has to be reminded that Bush won the election with 61M popular votes.
These disingenuous, crooked journalists from the NYT are making it sound like kofi is the poor victim here. This man did not just oppose, he and the UN created a 2nd front in the war, by refusing UN personnel for Iraq, as well as the vigorous defence of Saddam and Iraq by his staff. He was the personal errant boy for Chirac and France. And finally and worst of all, he and his staff inserted themselves into the U.S. national elections by making comments and assertions that were meant to hurt Bush at the most opportune times.
So in my opinion, kofi is no poor innocent victim here
It is high time we started actively fighting back at these people, and their patrons - the French, Russians and Chinese. They try to con the American people that they are just against Bush and not anti-american. But we have to tell them that it is the American people who put Bush in that office.
As for the NYT, they are destroying our forests and killing trees, by printing out that huge pile of trash they call a newspaper.
Be optimistic. If the NYT is more shrill than usual, then someone must be hitting paydirt.
"The assault on the United Nations is escalating."
Good news.
"If the NYT is more shrill than usual, then someone must be hitting paydirt."
The hit dog howls.
Annan was in total control of the 'commission' the UN got from the Oil for Food Program as its overseer. He most assuredly didn't want that money flow to quit. Saddam was the golden goose to these people and we (the US) killed it.
We all owe ol' TC a vote of thanks for riling everyone up.
His regular "assaults" on truth have a salutory effect.
The scandal has hit the mainstream media. Since they are like worms and thrive on dirt, and this is the best dirt since Teapot Dome, many careers will be made in journalism on this. Dig, worms, dig.
Thus, according to the NYT, Clinton's Adminstration was Sadam's complicit partner.
<> But the ever-shriller attacks on oil-for-food and on Mr. Annan play down this fact: Iraq accumulated far more illicit money through trade agreements that the United States and other Security Council members knew about for years but chose to accept. <> Interesting that the NY Times neglects to mention that this all most all occurred during the Clinton administration.
I hope you're right. However, my expectation is that such investigations will be stifled by MSM leaders/editors because it goes against "the common good" (as they percieve it).
Therefore, I propose that immediate sanctions be placed on ourselves. Should these be circumvented, that our ports be blockaded by the U.S. Navy.
If these policies fail to acheive sufficient results, we should be prepared to execute a 'military' solution.
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.