3 Reasons UN resolution gives Bush a black eye

[protect freedom impeach bush now]

http://www.bushwatch.com/

Three Reasons The UN Security Council Passed The U.S. Iraq Resolution

1. The Bush "compromises reflect, albeit to a very limited degree, a realization that the United Nations must be more actively involved in the occupation if a new, democratic Iraq is ever to take hold."

2. From the perspective of the members of the UN Security Council, according to the NYT, a unified vote was needed in order to express a unified desire for stability in Iraq. --Politex

3. "Just as it poses no real obligations for the United States to share power in Iraq, it also poses no obligations for the rest of the world to share burdens.

"As with previous resolutions on the subject, it merely 'welcomes the positive response of the international community'; ; 'calls upon member states  to contribute to the training and equipping of Iraqi police'; 'appeals to member states and international financial institutions to strengthen their effort to assist the people of Iraq in the reconstruction and development of their economy'; and so forth. Nowhere does the resolution determine or demand or insist that assistance be rendered. (Emphasis added.)" --Fred Kaplan
http://slate.msn.com/id/2089881/

- - - -



On the other hand, if past actions continue, you can look for the Bush propaganda machine to distort the implications of the resolution when Bush visits Asian countries next week and when he "talks to the American people" through controlled events and informal press briefings. If past experiences with the BushAdmin distortion of reality predict anything, the resolution will be painted as representing UN money-troops support of American actions in Iraq, and it will be used to attempt to convince countries on the fence to send troops and money in support of the supposed UN resolution. As you read this, members of the UN Security Council are spelling out the limits of their support of the resuolution through money and troops. For example, according to the NYT, Germany, France, Russia and Syria are sending neither, beyond what was promised before the resolution: from little to nothing. Pakistan will not contribute troops, and it's been getting money from the U.S. for its own affairs. --Politex, 10.16.03

http://www.bushwatch.com/

[Cha]

1. Good..ol roadrunner headlines said it was a "diplomatic

win" for the USA.

[leftchick]

3. every freakin news channel did tonight!

Like this means anything! The reality is most murkins will see the "US Diplomatic Victory at the UN" headlines and continue to think whitle-ass is THE MAN! :puke: I truly think it is time to consider leaving this country....:(

[jokerman93]

2. I Expect

an as yet undisclosed Russian/French/German angle going on here. I'd heard on public radio that the vote came in only after the three "unwilling opposers" had been on a long conference call together.

This is one to watch!