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."
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."
"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.
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.
Silly NYTs haha...
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.
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.
"The assault on the United Nations is escalating."
Good news.
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.
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.