starwars

http://snurl.com/1uul

This page opposed an invasion that lacked the endor*****t of the
United Nations Security Council, and it now seems clear the Bush
administration exaggerated its central argument for the mission
— the threat of Baghdad's unconventional weapons. Nevertheless,
establishing a free and peaceful Iraq as a linchpin for progress
throughout the Middle East is a goal worth struggling for, even
at great costs. We are there now, and it is essential to stay
the course. But if Washington is to retain the public support
needed to see the job through, it can't pretend that everything
is on track. The soldiers returning home every week in body bags
make that plain.
----------
1. The NY Times would do well to investigate the very shady
operations of the UN's administration of the "oil for food"
program. Charges of Enron-type accounting and conflicts-of-
interest abound. There are a lot of unanswered questions, not to
mention the ongoing problems of the concept of the UN in the
first place. History shows that nations are going to do what
they damned well please regardless. If they can get a bogus UN
"stamp of approval," then that's OK, but ALL self-respecting
nations must and will go their own way in the end. The UN does
not have the authority to confer legitimacy on anything. Proof
of this is available by noting the number of despotic
governments that rule the lives of all too many in the
"community of nations."

2. The NY Times continues to believe that it has divined the
"truth" about Saddam's WMD. Once again the crack investigative
reporters at the Times are invited to examine the recently-
released CIA Consensus Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's WMD
http://tinyurl.com/hnbj and demonstrate point-by-point just how
it was that Saddam disarmed. The Times should keep in mind that
the burden of proof was on Saddam.

3. The NY Times is of the opinion that administration officials
are pretending that everything is OK. This is incorrect as any
cursory review of administration comments on the postwar
situation will show. One day perhaps the Times will get around
to revealing why it thought everything was not OK.

4. The point about body bags is well-taken. The NY Times should
also expand this concern to the ever-growing mountain of murder
victims in American cities that have been largely run over the
decades by liberal municipal administrations.

starwars

http://snurl.com/1uul

This page opposed an invasion that lacked the endor*****t of the
United Nations Security Council, and it now seems clear the Bush
administration exaggerated its central argument for the mission
— the threat of Baghdad's unconventional weapons. Nevertheless,
establishing a free and peaceful Iraq as a linchpin for progress
throughout the Middle East is a goal worth struggling for, even
at great costs. We are there now, and it is essential to stay
the course. But if Washington is to retain the public support
needed to see the job through, it can't pretend that everything
is on track. The soldiers returning home every week in body bags
make that plain.
----------
1. The NY Times would do well to investigate the very shady
operations of the UN's administration of the "oil for food"
program. Charges of Enron-type accounting and conflicts-of-
interest abound. There are a lot of unanswered questions, not to
mention the ongoing problems of the concept of the UN in the
first place. History shows that nations are going to do what
they damned well please regardless. If they can get a bogus UN
"stamp of approval," then that's OK, but ALL self-respecting
nations must and will go their own way in the end. The UN does
not have the authority to confer legitimacy on anything. Proof
of this is available by noting the number of despotic
governments that rule the lives of all too many in the
"community of nations."

2. The NY Times continues to believe that it has divined the
"truth" about Saddam's WMD. Once again the crack investigative
reporters at the Times are invited to examine the recently-
released CIA Consensus Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's WMD
http://tinyurl.com/hnbj and demonstrate point-by-point just how
it was that Saddam disarmed. The Times should keep in mind that
the burden of proof was on Saddam.

3. The NY Times is of the opinion that administration officials
are pretending that everything is OK. This is incorrect as any
cursory review of administration comments on the postwar
situation will show. One day perhaps the Times will get around
to revealing why it thought everything was not OK.

4. The point about body bags is well-taken. The NY Times should
also expand this concern to the ever-growing mountain of murder
victims in American cities that have been largely run over the
decades by liberal municipal administrations.