Replies

Read this article and tell me who you should be bitching at!
A clue...it isn't me! I'm glad Bush has done what he's done.
Editors Criticize U.S. Stance at U.N. Conference on Arms Trade
Baltimore Sun, July 12, 2001: "Bush administration grandstands on the wrong side at U.N." "The Bush administration's posture is the most egregious of its isolationist gestures in international affairs, some of which it later clarified into reasonable positions. The U.S. delegation can yet find that its scruples about legitimate possession of personal weapons are not compromised. The goal should be to restrain the trade in weapons that are most sought by terrorists, child armies and narco-trafficking gangsters. Surely, the President cannot object to that."
Minneapolis Star Tribune, July 13, 2001: "Stop the world's gun runners" "It's pretty hard to see a downside to slowing the flow of grenade launchers and AK-47s to the world's civil wars. Yet somehow Bush has managed. This must be because he's looking through NRA glasses, which can make almost anything look like a threat to American gun owners."

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 16,2001: "Exporting Bloodshed" "As it did in rejecting the Kyoto protocol on global warming, the Antiballistic Missile Treaty and the formation of a permanent International Criminal Court for war crimes at The Hague, the Bush administration again has displayed arrogant apathy toward the rest of the world's problems and a refusal to take a more productive role in resolving them."
A bunch more in there. Take your fight to the right place, trite boy!

Bush administration again has displayed arrogant apathy

Are you deficient in reading comprehension skills?

The UN blathers, the Liberal Papers editorialize, and we keep on doing just as we damned well please.

The UN has less real world significance than the French. It has no power, whatever it thinks or votes. It is a pacifier for the loser nations of the world.

You have become a panicky bedwetter afraid of the Boogie Man.

So9