Correction: If Bush should have given an apology, surely it was for some kind of wrong.
You know, it is NOT easy typing with a Carpel Tunnel Brace on!
Aww c’mon. You guys really do call him “the Bush” when you think there aren’t any of those nasty liberals around, don’t you ? 
Jeez, you can argue about resolutions as long as you want, but the clear fact is that the Bush told the UN go stick its arms inspectors and ignored its decision to not invade Iraq. He and advisors then spent a while strutting about bad-mouthing fellow members of the Security Council for their actions.
Does it take a UN Resolution before it penetrates the Bush skull that others may bear a grudge, and may not be overly keen on helping him fix his own mess? Any politician would know that the first thing you do in such a sitation is start building bridges, make concessions. But instead Dubya wanders in and makes a speech that ignores what everyone else is thinking and tries to lay on a guilt trip. Either he is a total moron or has decided to brazen it out. Either way, he’s not going to get what he really want and that’s saving his own hide from embarrassing and massive costs or even more embarrassing withdrawal.
I thought for sure you’d go after the “king of wrong” typo.
Quite so.
Bush: “Lie…mistatement…fabrication…self justification. Thank You.”
UN:<<cough>> …<<crickets chirping>>
So quiet, you could hear a pin(head) drop.
Or for you ignoring all of the Cites provided which refuted most of your points, while providing none of your own.
I mean there were so many to pick from, where to start was the question. . .
:dubious:
Am I the only one that finds the posted snippet from the OP to be outrageously over the top biased for a supposedly run-of-the-mill new report? “Contrition” “Defying the world body” “Declining security situation” all in one sentence. (I want a cite on those Guardian 
)The paper could just as easily have made the report without resorting to such blatant colouring.
- Rune
Huh? All of the Cites? Most of my points? What in blue blazes are you babbling about?
I had one point. The UN never condemned Bush for the Iraq invasion, so they should not be expecting some kind of apology as suggested by the OP.
I had one cite. That was to show that the UN can condemn the US for action, as it has done with Cuba. But there has been no such condemnation for the US on Iraq.
Why not give it a try then since you seem so sure of yourself. Show me all these cites I ignored and most of the points 
that got refuted. Start wherever you like.
Okay, how about asymptotically.
I myself enjoyed the concise summation in the title of Kaplan’s piece on Slate, which was something to the effect of “Bush lays an egg at the UN.”
You forgot the obligatory 9/11 reference leading off the speech.
And did anyone else think that the laundry list of countries/causes that require aid started to sound like a public television pledge drive after a while?
Well, that would be, as I think I agreed, a bail out of Bush’s political career. I was thinking more along the lines of financial and intellectual/professional resources along with material commodities, all of which the U.S. has a’plenty. Maybe I was reading something into the original statement that wasn’t intended.
From the Onion, of course:
Reading comprehension too much to ask for, or are you providing proofs for Desmostylus theory?
Either that or you may be trying a Bush-like sematic exercise with regards to the harsh reception Bush’s Iraq mistakes received in the UN chamber. :dubious:
For those looking for literary diversions in this arena, I saw this book review on the Onion:
Whether or not the UN condemned him, he certainly owes them an apology. He tried to strongarm and bribe other countries to go along with his plan, he presented faulty information to back his position, information that if he didn’t know was faulty he knew wasn’t solid. (“He” refers to his administration, of course.)
Jay
And your post is even worse. A masterful avoidance of the subject!
No where in the article is it suggested that Bush should do anything in relation to “The Guardian”. Their words obviously refer to his relationship to the UN, as you well know. Your outrage is nothing but chaff.
No where is a head-count of European, or any other countries, mentioned. This is entirely your invention. The ‘world body’ is that of the UN which repeatedly refused to sanction the US action and was subsequently ignored by them. If you have a problem with this description for the ‘UN’, please explain, but leave your strawman at home.
No where is life under Saddam referred to. This strawman must sadly join the rest of your parade. The Guardian’s comment is in regard to the increasingly violent and organised internal opposition to the US troops in Iraq, it is not a comparison to Saddam’s regime.
Translation from WinstonSmith-speak:
“I cannot defend Bush’s stance, so I will release an army made of straw for me to mow down and then attack the messenger.”
This is your cite for condemnation? A few leaders taking shots? :rolleyes: I cited the UN vote of 167-3 against the US embargo on Cuba. You cited an editorial piece. Care to try again?
Sorry, I don’t know what you think this proves or refutes. Seems to me this is politics as usual. Apologizing without truly apologizing, pacifying people to create an end to their means.
Kind of reminds me of a Simpsons Episode (of course, what doesn’t?)
Kang posing as Bob Dole gives an electoral speech:
“Abortions for all.” [crowd boos]
“Very well, no abortions for anyone.” [crowd boos]
“Hmm… Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.” [crowd cheers and waves miniature flags]
and do you have a plan for coming up with the 87 Billion for this year alone? (other than simply tacking it onto the deficit, which is apparently the current plan).
which programs/services do you wish to suspend to pay for it? See, the thing is, when we’re in a deficit spending pattern along with a spiraling down economy, this is, for me at least, not the time to have come up with ‘hey, let’s find a whole new way to spend gobs of money’
So because there were no conservative posters in the WHOLE GODDAMNED HOUR between the OP and your posts, that means they’re running away scared?
Christ, London, that’s the first time I’ve seen someone get a stiffy from patting himself on the back.
Perhaps there are different journalistic standards in the UK. That trainwreck of an article in The Guardian is an editorial, plain and simple. Futile Gesture, you are not seeing the forest for the trees. That you choose to flail aimlessly at WinstonSmith’s post, rather than direct your anger at the gall of the Guardians substandard editorial staff is sad, but telling.
Come to think of it, with the BBC’s recent admissions, there certainly seems to be a different (lower) standard among British journalists.
So you are hanging your whole hat on the lack of a formally passed condemnation. Pathetic. The “few leaders” were the UN Secretary General and the leaders of major Europeen countries. Oops.
Why try again, you have made it clear that no amount of Cites or logic will sway you from the party line no matter how absurd. Keep your head in the sand (or other places).
And my Cite was from Page 1 of the Washington Post, shit for brains. Hard to miss it, when the paper was delivered this morning, it being a front page news article. Its not some Op-Ed piece. I see your “facts” are about as accurate as Bush’s WMD claims.
Maybe try reading it this time:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54800-2003Sep23.html
:dubious: