| Last modified: |
2/2/2006; 3:08:05
|
| NYT Endorses Kerry for President: |
|
"There is no denying that this race is mainly about Mr. Bush's disastrous tenure. Nearly four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency, Mr. Bush came into office amid popular expectation that he would acknowledge his lack of a mandate by sticking close to the center. Instead, he turned the government over to the radical right."
"We look back on the past four years with hearts nearly breaking, both for the lives unnecessarily lost and for the opportunities so casually wasted. Time and again, history invited George W. Bush to play a heroic role, and time and again he chose the wrong course. We believe that with John Kerry as president, the nation will do better." -- New York Times 17 Oct, 2004
|
| Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences: |
'This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list.'
-U.S. Senator Robert Byrd, Feb. 12, 2003
|
| On the road to losing the peace : |
'It was bad enough for the U.S. to have endured the intelligence failures that led to Sept. 11; it's another thing to know that 18 months, billions of dollars and untold numbers of bombs later that Osama bin Laden and most of his top advisers remain on the loose. This failure ought to be thrown daily in Mr. Bush's face, but he has diverted attention to Iraq, where the United States is about to make a mistake of historic proportions.'
-Jeffrey Simpson in The Globe and Mail, 18 Feb 2003
|
|
|
 Friday, 6 December 2002
 < 10:37:41 AM>.
Washington won't release evidence of Iraqi weapons
The Bush administration says it has solid evidence that Iraq has weapons
of mass destruction, but feels no obligation to prove its allegations
before leading an attack on Baghdad.
F U L L S T O R Y
[CBC News]
< 12:57:38 AM>.
US insists Iraq is hiding weapons. The Bush administration prepares its own evidence against Saddam Hussein as a UN deadline for Iraq to declare its weapons approaches. [BBC News | World | UK Edition] 'The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says US officials are not revealing what information they have, in order to force Iraq to guess what it might be. Then if Iraq - which maintains it has no banned weapons - tells the UN something which can be shown to be false, the US could direct weapons inspectors towards a target and possibly hasten action against Saddam's regime, our correspondent says.'
In other words the US is less interested in eliminating Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction than they are in having pretext under which they can attack Iraq. It's a game like one a maladjusted teenage boy might play.
|
|
|
