US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

ican711nm- Excellent Points. Do you notice ican, how posters like revel make assertions but do not bother to give and evidence or documentation?

Today's Chicago Tribune- Under the Heading- What We Know Today- P. 19 states:

"When Bush addressed the UN General Assembly, and when Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke tot he Security Council, the fix was in. Hussein had shunted enough lucre to enough profiteers TO KEEP THE UN FROM CHALLENGING HIM. That in tgurn enabled Hussein to continue his brutal regin and cost UNTOLD THOUSANDS OF IRAQIS THEIR LIVES.

UN resolutions ought to carry at least as much credibility , and warrant as much enforcement, as a court summons or a parking ticked. Yet in a dozen years the global organization had mass-produced 17 resolutions on Iraq, ALL OF THEM TOOTHLESS.

THE OPPONENTS OF MILITARY ACTION COULD NOT SERIOUSLY AGRUE THAT HUSSEIN HAD COMPLIED WITH THE UN'S REPEATED DEMANDS. NOR COULD THEY POINT TO BRIGHTER DAYS IF ONLY THE US AND OTHER NATIONS HELD THEIR FIRE. THIS PARTICULAR ARGUMENT FOR WAR---O N E OF THE NINE ADVANCED BY THE WHITE HOUSE

WAS NOT DISPUTABLE.

IRAQ HAD REBUFFED THE WORLD, AND THE UN H A D F A I L E D T O

R E S P O N D.


end of quote

I wonder how many times the truth has to be put under the eyes of the left wing, Ican711mn, before they get it?

Less than one-millionth of the USA's citizens participated in Saddam's corruption of the UN Oil for Food Program.

up to 300 then. Bush Cheney Rumsfeld Rice Rove max two nine five to go

Steve- You have evidence or documentation of that, don't you? If not, it's not worth a damn!

Yes, Mortkat, I do notice that. The left-wing-hate-Bush-administration-posters here as well as the left-wing-hate-Bush-administration-democrats generally make allegations without any rational evidence to support their allegations. I think they all behave that way because they actually believe (or desperately want to believe) their expressed opinions constitute rational evidence.

I think the repeated truth that has thus far been "put under the eyes of the left wing" is actually having its effect. While the numbers affected appear to me to be small to date, my increasing encounters with former left-wingers suggests to me the numbers of those "who get it" are nonetheless increasing and accelerating. All of these former left-wingers say their eyes began opening when they first became deeply alarmed by the failures of those they formally followed to tell the truth about even simple things.

So, Mortkat, let's keep repeating the truth as many times as it takes. Speaking for myself, I know I will!

Mortkat, this is an example of another trait of the left-wing-hate-Bush-administration-mob. They are unable (or unwilling) to draw simple logical inferences. I wrote:

>>less than one-millionth of the USA's citizens (e.g., 300,000,000/1,000,000 = 300).

Steve interprets that as up to 300, when the valid logical inference is:
up to 299.

Far more significant is his failure to draw his inference from my complete statement which was:

>>Unlike the French and Russian governments, the USA government did not participate in the UN Oil for Food Program. Less than one-millionth of the USA's citizens participated in Saddam's corruption of the UN Oil for Food Program.

You of course noticed that he cites, "Bush Cheney Rumsfeld Rice Rove" members of the USA government, and supplies zero evidence they were actual participants in Saddam's corruption of the UN Oil for Food program.

As I indicated in my previous post, from what I have learned from former left-wingers-..., these simple but frequent corruptions of truth by fellow left-wingers-... were the first eye openers for former left-wingers-....

I agree with this statement. Although I would not have classified myself as a left-winger, I suppose I would admit to being a former yellow dog Democrat. My eye-opening experiences came with the blind hatred of everything Bush that followed the "stolen" election and that continues to this day. Actually the Bush-hating industry is not even what disgusts me - to each his own - it's that group's willingness to place their agenda above the general welfare & interests of the nation. Its dufus/goofus mantra, Bush Cheney Rumsfeld Rice Rove, is most eagerly echoed by Old Europeans eager to see the American star fade as they pursue their ageless, endless self-serving intrigues.

Indeed, why are these folks so eager to charge Ms. Rice particularly with this crime without a shred of evidence, but so indignantly defend Mr. Gallaway, Wife & Co. when their oily footprints span two continents?

source



source

IMHO .......

Strike 1: Democrat from Michigan.
Strike 2: NY Times interview.
Strikes 3 - 300: The rest of the post.

<I'm stealin' "dufus/goofus mantra" LOL!>

I like Doofus/goofus/mantra too.

For those who don't routinely recite the doofusgoofus/mantra, here is
today's history lesson:

No hype needed: Saddam, al-Qaida linkedHONOLULU ADVERTISER

You wouldn't be trying to present opinion as fact would you now foxy? Sure looks as if.

The source is Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. A small portion was taken from the democrat from Michigan and NY Times interview. The conclusion from the The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations assigned to investigate the scandal has also concluded that:

"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme

If you can find anything but opinion to dispute the statements he makes, Geli, go for it.

I've got some bad news for Bushco fans. It doesn't matter what happened in the past; it's today that counts. Sorry 'bout that!

November 26, 2005
Even Supporters Doubt President as Issues Pile Up
By KATE ZERNIKE
COLUMBUS, Ohio, Nov. 22 - Leesa Martin never considered President Bush a great leader, but she voted for him a year ago because she admired how he handled the terrorist attacks of 2001.

Then came the past summer, when the death toll from the war in Iraq hit this state particularly hard: 16 marines from the same battalion killed in one week. She thought the federal government should have acted faster to help after Hurricane Katrina. She was baffled by the president's nomination of Harriet E. Miers, a woman she considered unqualified for the Supreme Court, and disappointed when he did not nominate another woman after Ms. Miers withdrew.

And she remains unsettled by questions about whether the White House leaked the name of a C.I.A. agent whose husband had accused the president of misleading the country about the intelligence that led to the war.

"I don't know if it's any one thing as much as it is everything," said Ms. Martin, 49, eating lunch at the North Market, on the edge of downtown Columbus. "It's kind of snowballed."

Her concerns were echoed in more than 75 interviews here and across the country this week, helping to explain the slide in the president's approval and trustworthiness ratings in recent polls.

Many people who voted for Mr. Bush a year ago had trouble pinning their current discontent on any one thing. Many mentioned the hurricane and the indictment of a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, which some said raised doubts about the president's candor and his judgment. But there was a sense that something had veered off course in the last few months, and the war was the one constant. Over and over, even some of Mr. Bush's supporters raised comparisons with Vietnam.

"We keep hearing about suicide bombers and casualties and never hear about any progress being made," said Dave Panici, 45, a railroad conductor from Bradley, Ill. "I don't see an end to it; it just seems relentless. I feel like our country is just staying afloat, just treading water instead of swimming toward somewhere."

Mr. Panici voted for President Bush in 2004, calling it "a vote for security." "Now that a year has passed, I haven't seen any improvement in Iraq," he said. "I don't feel that the world is a safer place."

A USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll in mid-November found that 37 percent of Americans approved of Mr. Bush, the lowest approval rating the poll had recorded in his presidency. That was down from 55 percent a year ago and from a high of 90 percent shortly after Sept. 11, 2001.

An Associated Press/Ipsos poll earlier in the month found the same 37 percent approval rating and recorded the president's lowest levels regarding integrity and honesty: 42 percent of Americans found him honest, compared with 53 percent at the beginning of this year.

Several of those interviewed said that in the last year they had come to believe that Mr. Bush had not been fully honest about the intelligence that led to the war, which he said showed solid evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

"I think people put their faith in Bush, hoping he would do the right thing," said Stacey Rosen, 38, a stay-at-home mother in Boca Raton, Fla., who said she voted for Mr. Bush but was "totally disappointed" in him now. "Everybody cannot believe that there hasn't been one shred of evidence of W.M.D. I think it goes to show how they tell us what they want to tell us."

Mark Briggs, who works for Nationwide Insurance here, said he did not want to believe that the president "manipulated" intelligence leading the country into war, but believed that, at least, Mr. Bush had misread it.

Still, however much he may disagree with Mr. Bush's policies, Mr. Briggs said, he admires the president for standing by what he says.

"There is the notion of leadership and sticking with the plan, which I believe in," he said. "George Bush is clear and consistent. He made a tough decision to go to war - and others voted for it, too. And I think he's right: those people may be trying to rewrite history."

Kacey Wilson, 32, eating lunch with Ms. Martin, said she, too, had concerns about the death toll from the war, but she felt that Mr. Bush spoke the truth, even if it might not be what the country wanted to hear. "I like his cut-and-dry, take-no-prisoners style," Ms. Wilson said. "I think people are used to more spinning."

Others, though, saw arrogance in that approach.

"We need to not be so stubborn," said Vicky Polka, 58, a retired school principal in Statesboro, Ga., who voted for Mr. Bush and described her support for him as "waning." "Something's not going right here. We need to resolve this. I hate to say it, but I think Iraq is going the way of Vietnam."

Few people said they were following the leak scandal, which led to the indictment of I. Lewis Libby Jr., Mr. Cheney's former aide. Some who could cite main characters and events dismissed it as little more than political theater. Even fewer said they had paid attention to other scandals preoccupying Washington: the indictment of Representative Tom DeLay, the powerful Texas Republican, and the guilty plea by his former spokesman.

But several people said that the leak scandal had left them with the sense that the president was not leveling with the public about his involvement.

"He has to give us more information," said Phil Niemie, 51, an elementary school principal eating lunch with his family in Columbus. "The longer it goes without closure, it begins to trigger those Nixon Watergate years. I felt the same way with Clinton."

But for Mr. Niemie, who voted for Mr. Bush, and others, the leak scandal raised the biggest doubts about Vice President Cheney.

"A lot of problems tie back to some of Cheney's shenanigans," Ms. Martin said. "It just seems like he could have done better for vice president the second time around."

In Atlanta, Selena Smith, a director at an advertising agency, echoed others when she said she thought too much time had already been spent on the investigation.

"The war is more important to me now," said Ms. Smith, 46. "What's the plan? Give us something to hang our teeth on. What's really top of mind for me is how many people are getting killed across the creek, and how are we going to get them home?"

Here in Ohio, the most hotly contested state in the 2004 election, the heavy toll on a local Marine battalion had played out on television and in newspapers throughout the summer's end, and the majority of two dozen people interviewed here said they wanted to see the troops come home.

Some, though, faulted Americans as having short attention spans.

"Anything that takes more than a couple of months, we get bored with," said Rich Canary, 35, an information technology specialist here. "Progress has been made. The Iraqis have a constitution. They're actually creating their own country. When you hear the soldiers talk, they feel what they're doing is important."

And there was much division about how to end the war. Some military families said it was important to finish the task the troops had begun; others said they resented accusations of being unpatriotic when they criticized the war. Some who said their approval of the president had not wavered nevertheless argued for a quick end to the war, while some of Mr. Bush's strongest critics said it would destabilize Iraq to withdraw the troops anytime soon.

"Too many people would get hurt," said Laurence Melia, 28, a salesman from Newton, Mass., who campaigned against President Bush last year. "There has to be a last foot on the ground in the end, and there might be more problems if we run away too fast."

In Houston, Geoff Van Hoeven, an accountant, said he thought the war in Iraq had aggravated the terrorist threat by creating "a breeding ground for Al Qaeda." Still, Mr. Van Hoeven said a quick withdrawal was not possible, "because America's going to be perceived as extremely weak and unreliable coming in, and when the going gets rough, they pull out."

Even those who voted against Mr. Bush a year ago saw little satisfaction in his woes.

"Part of me enjoys watching him squirm," said Shirley Tobias, 46, sitting with a colleague from Netscape at a coffee shop in Grandview, a suburb of Columbus. "But he's squirming on our behalf. We're all in this together."

Reporting for this article was contributed by Cindy Chang from Los Angeles; Bill Dawson from Houston; Brenda Goodman from Atlanta; Kelli Kennedy from Boca Raton, Fla.; Gretchen Ruethling from Chicago; and Katie Zezima from Boston.

Ahhhh .... the easy way out .... tsk tsk tsk

CI: Yes, much of that is true, so why won't Howard Dean & Harry Reid take a copy of that clipping, carpool to their nearest shrink, & ask why the Dems can never ever capitalize on those endless windfalls of glad tidings.

It's because the dems are losers with no agenda. The dems are essentially a dead cause. I hope they wake up from the stupor, because there is no other party to take its place.

Opinion as fact? Only if you believe that the newspaper PUBLISHED BY HUSSEIN'S SON UDAY AND THE PAPER WHICH IS THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER OF HUSSEIN'S GOVERNMENT PRINTED WHAT IS CALLED AN OPINION.

quote

"In what could go down as the Mother of All Copyediting errors, the official newspaper of Saddam Hussein' government, run by his oldest son, Uday, published information at the end of 2002, that appears to confirm US allegations of links between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda...
In its November 16, 2002 edition. Babil indentified one Abd-al-Karim Muhammad Aswad as an "intelligence officer", describing him as the 'OFFICIAL IN CHARGE OF REGIME'S CONTACT WITH OSAMA BIN LADEN'S GROUP AND CURRENTLY THE REGIME'S REPRESENTATIVE IN PAKISTAN". A man of this name was indeed the Iraq ambassador to Pakistan from the fall of 1999 until the fall of the regime>"

Ah but you make it so easy when you don't rebut the content, but rather suggest there is something wrong withthe source. It would be different had you pointed out that the source is typically biased or slanted toward a particular ideology. That would be valid. With this source, however, you can't really make a case for that. So a rebuttal of the content, if you can, would be in order.

It is apparent that so many cannot rebut the content. They either cannot do the requisite research or are unable to counter the argument with valid points, so they disappear behind a meaningless and vapid personal mantra like--Ahh, the easy way out, tsk tsk tsk!!!