| Last modified: |
2/2/2006; 7:10:00
|
| 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
|
|
|
 Monday, 17 February 2003
 < 3:05:50 PM>.
Voices on Iraq. Exclusive: Read 30 interviews giving an insight into Iraq's past,
present and future, including Sandra Mackey, author of The Reckoning: Iraq and the Legacy
of Saddam Hussein. [Guardian Unlimited]
< 11:05:56 AM>.
Students prepare to evoke spirit of the 60s. Education: Students plan lecture boycotts and teach-ins at universities across the country if war breaks out. [Guardian Unlimited]
< 8:51:11 AM>.
 BBC quotes British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw saying it would be "very difficult indeed" to "take military action in order to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime if the British public opposed attacking the country." [Scripting News]
< 2:01:47 AM>.
Oil, imperialism and "hypocrisy". Among the hundreds of thousands protesting in London, most saw Bush and Blair as a bigger threat than dictator Saddam Hussein. [Salon.com]
< 1:54:12 AM>.
The Observer | International | US to punish German 'treachery' 'The plan - discussed by Pentagon officials and military chiefs last week on the orders of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - is designed 'to harm' the German economy to make an example of the country for what US hawks see as Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's 'treachery'.
The hawks believe that making an example of Germany will force other countries heavily dependent on US trade to think twice about standing up to America in future.'
< 1:32:51 AM>.
A New Power in the Streets 'The fracturing of the Western alliance over Iraq and the huge antiwar demonstrations around the world this weekend are reminders that there may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion.'
< 1:19:23 AM>.
TheStar.com - The sound of silence 'The world knows Saddam is a threat, and must be contained. But like most Americans, the world is having a hard time embracing the doctrine of pre-emptive war.'
< 1:17:46 AM>.
TheStar.com - The thing is, it is about oil 'Instead of knuckling under to the cartel, Iraq tried something bolder in 1972: it nationalized its oil. (Neighbouring Iran had attempted a similar nationalization in the 1950s, but the U.S. and Britain stepped in and organized a coup that replaced the nationalistic leader there.)
The West couldn't really intervene to stop the Iraqi nationalization, however, because Iraq invited in the Soviets to develop its oil fields and buy its oil.
The Iraqi deal with the Soviets ? regarded as the ultimate treachery by the oil companies, Washington and London ? was negotiated by the Number 2 man in the new Baathist regime that had seized power in Iraq. His name was Saddam Hussein.'
|
|
|
