I only have to read the title: Analysis and the Sub-title: A Vague Pitch Leaves Mostly Puzzlement. It’s an opinion piece. I don’t care what page it’s on. The Chicago Tribune has an analysis piece on the front page as well. Would you like the title? It’s not fact, it’s opinion. Just because you agree with it doesn’t make it true. Might as well say “my post is my cite”.
Please provide a cite where I have posted my personal opinion on Bush, Iraq, the administration or any kind of party line.
So you are agreeing with me that the UN has not condemned the US for the Iraq invasion? Thank you, fuck off, have a nice day.
Nowhere in my reply do I suggest the article claims Bush should do anything in relation to “The Guardian”. While their words does not obviously only refer to the UN, the fact remain that The Guardian express outrage that Bush did not show proper contrition. A sentiment cowardly formulated, and wholly absurd in substance. Do they actually believe the American president should use his time in front of the world to express regret, repentance?! Absolutely ridiculous. But the Guardian editors are not stupid so of course they did not expect he would, which leaves their inclusion of the words a mere back hand slap at Bush. How constructive. Such irreproachable unbiased journalism.
While his speech was in the UN, it’s clear it’s used as a platform with a much greater reach. If the Guardian’s use of “world body” had meant just the UN, presumable it would have written UN instead of “world body”, that it chose not to do so clearly indicates they had something bigger in mind. But for arguments sake let’s limit ourselves to the UN. A failure of the UN to sanction does not vehement opposition make. There was no defying the UN because there was no unified UN position. Second thing presented as fact which is obviously nothing but a very political opinion. And do I have a problem with equating “world body” with the UN? Yes I do.
Since The Guardian does not deign it necessary to clarify what it means by this statement, this’ll have to remain unanswered. In any case even after Saddam the statement “declining security situation” is highly debatable. Third political opinion stated as fact.
For gods sake show a little bit of ingenuity and say newspeak. I feel no particular need to defend Bush. On the other hand I can’t stomach political activism presented as neutral journalism. I have seen too much of it. Your OP hinges on the Guardian article, it’s only fair to evaluate the merits of that article. I found it sadly wanting. My biggest problem with the Guardian style of journalism is the easy use of quite unsubstantiated and highly dubious political opinions innocently snuck in between fact reporting, leaving them a feel and aura of fact they do not deserve. In short I find it at best lousy, at worst deliberate deceitful, journalism.
Oh and I intentionally changed my quote in my first post to point to The Guardian instead of you, since I would avoid personal attacks and figured you, on second thought, would not want your name smeared by such associations.
did the UN ‘condemn’ the invasion of Iraq? well, no. But they certainly didn’t agree to it, either. so let’s get off the semantic wagon here. (although I suspect had, say Somalia invaded The Netherlands on the type of evidence/rationale that Bush had used, the possability of a UN resolution condemning such a proactive strike would be high).
Bush chose to act w/o the UN’s backing, refusing to wait even a few weeks. Since then, his rationale for the war has been shredded, the lack of a viable exit strategy has been pointedly demonstrated, his support at home for continuing occupation of Iraq is declining, and the need for additional resources from other nations has been brought home.
the wise course to have taken in order to actually get the results desired would have been to have made some concilliatory statements acknowledging missteps. Of course, that would have pissed of Bush’s supporters back home.
So you are down to “its my opinion now” that the facts don’t match your posts now. Nice. Sorry for all those inconvient facts screwing up your posts, and it was damn unfair of me to expose you like that too. By the way you said “You cited an editorial piece.” I proved you wrong- again. Now you are trying to pretend you didn’t say it.
As for your repeated attempts to ignore the well cited incidents of the US getting ripped in the UN for the invasion of Iraq, nicely done. About the same as someone jamming their fingers in their ears and yelling “I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”
See, they didn’t pass a resolution against the US (nor did they try to due to the obvious Veto which would have come from the UK or Australia which were facing domestic backlash related to Iraq as well), so all those media reports like this:
Either don’t exist in your fantasy land or are redefined out of existance. See, it doesn’t agree with me- so even though everyone thinks its not an Op-Ed piece my own definition bails me out. :rolleyes:
Sure. The same plan I have for reducing federal spending every year, which sadly never makes it to the budget Congress passes. Cut 10% of federal spending across the board. There’s easily that much waste that could be cut without anyone really noticing. But I think you’re confusing me with someone who supported the war.
I don’t think it’s necessary to suspend any programs. We simply need to reduce the funds going to them. And as I said, if the public truly supported this stupid adventure, it would be much of a problem coming up with $87 billion.
And I don’t believe we’re in a “spiraling down economy” either. It may not be expanding, but it does show signs of life and the downward spiral has certainly stopped.
Beer - you posted that paying for this wouldn’t be a problem. I’m suggesting that it is a problem, certainly as it’s being done. you seem to agree (since your position would be not to add to a defecit).
re: economy, well, maybe way down south where you are (* for those who don’t know this, Beer lives maybe 200-300 miles south of me), but unemployement is still growing up here w/no relief in sight. wages are down, manufacturing is down. etc etc etc
I’m doing no such thing. I said the piece you cited was Glenn Kessler’s analysis of Bush’s speech, which he deamed “vague”, claimed he “side-stepped direct answers” and had a negative anylasis of his speech that relied wholely on negative responses. It is no suprise that Annan and Chirac would have been less the agreeable in their response. It’s one man’s anylsis, his opinion, on the speech and the wording and quotes bare this out. So how did you prove me wrong again? When exactly did you do it the first time?
And you want to talk about comprehension? I said I did not put forth my own opinion on Bush, Iraq and the current administration. I was accused of towing party lines and being one of “you guys” (those who think liberals are “nasty”). It’s amazing how people in the fervor against all things Bush attribute political ideology to those who simply disagree or call into question some statement, such as the need for an apology.
Is there Veto power by any country against a general resolution? You do know that the UN is not limited to just Security Council resolutions, don’t you? Pssst, here’s a hint, I cited that the UN can condemn the US. It is possible. Would you like the link again?
There’s the rub. They didn’t agree, but they didn’t stand against it either. There was no vote on it, none. So they sat by and waited. If the world leaders were so against the invasion, why did no one speak up. Why did no one bring it to a vote or even try? If the UN didn’t use their collective voice to even point out a perceived wrong, what does that say about the UN and conversely why should the US apologize for something they don’t believe was wrong in the first place?
**
Agreed. I’m sure Bush’s speech-writers could have been more concilliatory without admitting mistakes were made. Their politicians, that is what they do. And they would have HAD to if the UN did something and condemned the US invasion in the first place. But the UN decided to do nothing. Nothing. And whether or not they could have gotten a vote to pass would have been interesting, but mere speculation at this point.
Mmm, well, I’m not necessarily unsympathetic to your view, I just don’t understand it
If it’s anything at all, this Iraqi malarkey is surely 87 billion of JM Keynes old-style ‘J’ curve economics. ‘cept whereas in the ‘30s <spit ting !> the plan was to spend money locally on, say, community projects, and now you get to do it over the top of oil fields! It’s genius, of a kind – if it works.
So lets be clear, a huge part of that 87 big ones is gonna be spent re-inflating US.plc (with healthy profits built in), the Iraqi’s not being overly blessed with telecom’s, power tech, oil-skilled Haliburton’s, etc, etc, etc. . . And that’s before we get into the ol’ fav’s of US.Plc, the maintenance and service contracts for the next ten/twenty years, the installed tech that can’t tie in with any other than more US supplied tech. . a lot of emerging countries have been there, and got the bills.
In short, folks are barking up the wrong tree if they think the US won’t score big time out of this in the long run.
So, you’re saying the domestic economy needs boosting and yet this plan is intended to do just that but you don’t like it . . or not ?
I don’t believe that this particular bit will do much for the domestic economy (save for Halliburton and their employees and :: cough cough :: consultants). But no, I don’t see spending 87 billion over there will have the jump start effect on the economy over here. (much of that jump start effect comes from having folks employed, spending $$ here, on expenses, entertainment, off time etc. It ain’t happening in the heartland).
Well, 87 billion a fuck of a lot of money to spend on developing world labour costs, cos, as I understand it, they’ve got bugger all else to offer re infrastructure - okay, besides three camels and a few empty palaces.
Then why bring it up? The whole fuss surrounding the paper is quite beside the point.
Hardly. Reports of Bush’s speach have been uniform in descibing its reception as frosty and Bush as unconvincing. I’m well aware of The Guardian’s slant (though I think you go too far describing it as outrage). But I quoted it because it was best in tune with my thoughts. I could have selected a dozen others.
The fact you chose to take this to task rather than the facts suggest to me that they’re not far wrong.
The BBC and The Guardian are two different kettles. When The Guardian, like Fox News or whatever, try to peddle a blatant political opinion as neutral news, it’s just bad journalism. Nothing wrong with that; comes with the territory, part of the trade. When the BBC, or one of the other myriad of European state controlled news organisations, engage in political activism, it’s much worse. They’re perverting the state’s face to the outside world and using it to voice political opinions only shared by a small clique masking them as opinions shared by the general populace, and further using the state’s creditability to bleach own dubious ends. But worse that that is that they are in fact forcing the (tax) paying public to further a political agenda they may not subscribe to, one even which they may find morally distasteful.
Another thing that’s quite common in many European countries, is forcing workers to back a certain political profile. In that many workplaces demand that you belong to a certain labour organisation. This is bad enough in itself, but when, as is often the case, the labour organisation also engage in very visible politicking, often directly associated with a certain party, it’s very very bad. Political rape of opinion minorities. Many workers are forced to face a choice between furthering a political agenda in opposition to their own or being unemployed – unable to support their family. Simply an instance of the age old the strong do what he wants while the weak suffer what he must. This time from an organisation purporting to fight the case of the weak.
Those both are bordering on breaking basic human rights. The right to formulate and pursue independent political views, and not being forced to endorse views you do not support. And this is 2003.
You do know about the blood letting than is going on with regard to the BBC and the British Gov. at the moment don’t you? You do not have a clue about how the BBC works IMO.
I think the current case with Gilligan is pretty much a case in point. A journalist, bending facts, manipulating people, to pursue own political agenda. On a state sponsored news broadcasting. How many times a day does this happen do you think? If it weren’t for the big suicide scandal no one would ever have noticed, would just have let it fly like all the rest.
Oh and London_calling you impress me again with your argumentative abilities! Such impressive powers of deduction. Such sublime control of the language. I bow in the dust!
This is the Pit, not Great Debates. You want to debate, go to the right forum.
Btw, Gilligan was blaming “the State” for manipulation (not working for “State” teevee) on a teevee station that isn’t (as you claim) “State” owned or run. Apart from being totally arse-about-face, you’re spot on Mr GoldFish.
I disagree, this place practically worship cites. If a cited source can be reproached this is fair ground. But Ok “outrage” was excessive. How about no more trustworthy that the much derided Fox then.
However the reason I didn’t go into all this Bush bashing is that I think it’s really uninteresting and old, really old one year ago, crippled and on life support now. If you really want my opinion, I think Bush looks like a donkey and speaks like boring first grade math teacher, but what do I care, he’s not my president. On the other hand this incessant questioning his intelligence, is just emmm… well stupid.
However let me ask you a question. The fact that Bush must have known he faced a wall of stern opposition and yet still went right up there and presented his case, argued his point. Does that make him a courageous man do you think? Boldly standing firm on his convictions? Or do you think he’s just too stupid to notice much of anything taken place around him?
for those who don’t know this, Beer lives maybe 200-300 miles south of me), but unemployement is still growing up here w/no relief in sight. wages are down, manufacturing is down. etc etc etc