3 Reasons lastest UN resolution gave W 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/

[leftchick]

1. cnn actually covered this, this AM asking the question...

"Hollow Victory?"...it was actually quite well done and I was pleasantly suprised at the coverage.

[Beetwasher]

2. It's Somewhat of a PR Coup for the WH Though

Most people won't read too much into the details of the resolution, which is actually a pretty weak one that doesn't accomplish much at all. However, I fully expect the admin. to use it as a PR weapon. They will now say "See, even the UN now agrees we did the right thing in Iraq or they wouldn't have passed the resolution!"

Of course the resolution says no such thing, nor does it condone the invasion, but I guarantee that will be the admin's spin on it. I'm dissapointed that the international community didn't take stand on this because they most certainly should have known how the admin. would use it and in a sense by passing it they are in fact enabling this cabal of warmongering psychophaths.

[hadrons]

3. yeah, the RWers on Yahoo! were thrilled with it ....

those boot-licking "morans" actually thought it was a victory for their master