16.5.05
US administration involved in "oil-for-food scandal"; Galloway to testify
Well, well, well... looks like Norm Coleman is really going to have his hands full now:
"The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales."
How embarrasing is that? You start a shitstorm when it looks like your only victim is going to be the UN... and, goddamn, if the Bush administration isn't somehow knee-deep in the muck. So is Coleman now going to go after his masters for participating in this heinous scandal? We see, in this Torygraph article, that he probably will not be inclined to do so:
Mr Coleman led the bipartisan inquiry into Enron, the discredited industrial giant, and last year he fastened on an even juicier target, the UN's oil-for-food programme.
Cause, you know, that Enron inquiry did a lot of good, getting back all that money stolen from investors, and putting Ken Lay behind bars, and clarifying Enron's ties with the Bush administration, and... oh, wait, never mind.
But it gets worse:
Mr Coleman was a Democrat until the mid-1990s, and as a young man attended the Woodstock festival...
I don't what's more disgusting: the fact that Coleman is conducting a political circus or the fact that he's yet another hippy who, to paraphrase Bob Dylan, felt which way the wind was blowing after the fabulous 60s came to an end.
And just a reminder - British MP George Galloway has entered the room. Already the retards at sites like RedState are tripping over themselves at the possibility that a British "Dennis Kucinich" will get his come-uppance at the hands of the Senate. Here's a little bit of advice: a factual basis (like the dude's actual party affiliation) is always nice before you start shooting your mouth off.
But do take Galloway's advice and get a ringside seat.
Earlier: the Guardian's media commentator on Galloway's bum media rap.
Well, well, well... looks like Norm Coleman is really going to have his hands full now:
"The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales."
How embarrasing is that? You start a shitstorm when it looks like your only victim is going to be the UN... and, goddamn, if the Bush administration isn't somehow knee-deep in the muck. So is Coleman now going to go after his masters for participating in this heinous scandal? We see, in this Torygraph article, that he probably will not be inclined to do so:
Mr Coleman led the bipartisan inquiry into Enron, the discredited industrial giant, and last year he fastened on an even juicier target, the UN's oil-for-food programme.
Cause, you know, that Enron inquiry did a lot of good, getting back all that money stolen from investors, and putting Ken Lay behind bars, and clarifying Enron's ties with the Bush administration, and... oh, wait, never mind.
But it gets worse:
Mr Coleman was a Democrat until the mid-1990s, and as a young man attended the Woodstock festival...
I don't what's more disgusting: the fact that Coleman is conducting a political circus or the fact that he's yet another hippy who, to paraphrase Bob Dylan, felt which way the wind was blowing after the fabulous 60s came to an end.
And just a reminder - British MP George Galloway has entered the room. Already the retards at sites like RedState are tripping over themselves at the possibility that a British "Dennis Kucinich" will get his come-uppance at the hands of the Senate. Here's a little bit of advice: a factual basis (like the dude's actual party affiliation) is always nice before you start shooting your mouth off.
But do take Galloway's advice and get a ringside seat.
Earlier: the Guardian's media commentator on Galloway's bum media rap.
13.5.05
Bolton passed on to full Senate vote
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has sent John Bolton's nomination as UN ambassador to the full Senate for a vote.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand why much of the media is painting this as some kind of "rebuke" or minor defeat for Bush. The challenge was getting Bolton's nomination out of committee, where one Republican with half a conscience could step up and kill it, and into the full Senate, controlled by the Republicans and populated by worthless shitheads like Joe Lieberman. In the full Senate, Bolton cannot lose. Bush succeeded. Far from being a defeat or a rebuke, getting Bolton's nomination out of committee is a major victory for him.
According to the WaPo's article, Bush's pressure on Voinovich was decisive:
Voinovich in recent days had privately signaled he would vote against Bolton, GOP aides said, but in a deal arranged before today's vote, he agreed not to block the nomination from reaching the full Senate.
What is this deal? We know what the coward Voinovich delivered, what his end of the bargain was. But what did he get in return? A pledge from Bush and his army of cretins that they wouldn't ruin his career or break his kneecaps?
Voinovich had this to say for himself:
"Mr. Chairman, I am not so arrogant to think that I should impose my judgment and perspective of the U.S. position in the world community on the rest of my colleagues. We owe it to the president to give Mr. Bolton an up-or-down-vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate."
This cowardice and lack of principle is praised in this editorial as indicating a "nuanced" position. It is nothing of the sort. What does Voinovich and the Cincinnati Post's editors think his job entails? Why did the voters elect him, if not to make hard decisions and defend his "judgment" and "perspective"?
Bolton's now-certain confirmation and the press's reaction to it are indications of part of what is wrong with America today. Cowardice is praised; psychosis is seen as strength; and journalists cannot tell a political victory from a defeat, preferring instead to present meaningless utterances as meaningful defiance. So Bolton will now be confirmed and the UN will be gone.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has sent John Bolton's nomination as UN ambassador to the full Senate for a vote.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand why much of the media is painting this as some kind of "rebuke" or minor defeat for Bush. The challenge was getting Bolton's nomination out of committee, where one Republican with half a conscience could step up and kill it, and into the full Senate, controlled by the Republicans and populated by worthless shitheads like Joe Lieberman. In the full Senate, Bolton cannot lose. Bush succeeded. Far from being a defeat or a rebuke, getting Bolton's nomination out of committee is a major victory for him.
According to the WaPo's article, Bush's pressure on Voinovich was decisive:
Voinovich in recent days had privately signaled he would vote against Bolton, GOP aides said, but in a deal arranged before today's vote, he agreed not to block the nomination from reaching the full Senate.
What is this deal? We know what the coward Voinovich delivered, what his end of the bargain was. But what did he get in return? A pledge from Bush and his army of cretins that they wouldn't ruin his career or break his kneecaps?
Voinovich had this to say for himself:
"Mr. Chairman, I am not so arrogant to think that I should impose my judgment and perspective of the U.S. position in the world community on the rest of my colleagues. We owe it to the president to give Mr. Bolton an up-or-down-vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate."
This cowardice and lack of principle is praised in this editorial as indicating a "nuanced" position. It is nothing of the sort. What does Voinovich and the Cincinnati Post's editors think his job entails? Why did the voters elect him, if not to make hard decisions and defend his "judgment" and "perspective"?
Bolton's now-certain confirmation and the press's reaction to it are indications of part of what is wrong with America today. Cowardice is praised; psychosis is seen as strength; and journalists cannot tell a political victory from a defeat, preferring instead to present meaningless utterances as meaningful defiance. So Bolton will now be confirmed and the UN will be gone.
2.5.05
"A million of us warned them..."
Gary Younge has an excellent column in the Guardian about Labour's demands for voter loyalty "where none has been shown":
Many used their clothes pegs in 2001, after the bombing of Serbia, the asylum bill and student loans. This time round they will need blindfolds and earmuffs as well. Decadence is believing you are not accountable for the consequences of your actions. Let those accusations be laid at the doorstep of 10 Downing Street before they make their way to any mythical dinner party. For only then will it become clear that Labour's principal weakness is not middle-class petulance but working-class indifference.
Gary Younge has an excellent column in the Guardian about Labour's demands for voter loyalty "where none has been shown":
Many used their clothes pegs in 2001, after the bombing of Serbia, the asylum bill and student loans. This time round they will need blindfolds and earmuffs as well. Decadence is believing you are not accountable for the consequences of your actions. Let those accusations be laid at the doorstep of 10 Downing Street before they make their way to any mythical dinner party. For only then will it become clear that Labour's principal weakness is not middle-class petulance but working-class indifference.
Sharansky resigns from Sharon cabinet
Natan Sharansky has resigned from Ariel Sharon's cabinet in protest against the "Gaza withdrawal plan".
Here is a fucking hypocrite who is upset that he is not allowed to do the same things to the Palestinians that the Soviet government did to him - enforce restricted movement, keep people under siege in their homeland, and in general treat them like second-class human beings.
Good riddance. Maybe now Sharansky will have time to return to his writing career and provide Bush with another "inspirational" tract. I suggest that he analyze the causes of his own hypocrisy and why the world still thinks he has anything of importance to say.
Natan Sharansky has resigned from Ariel Sharon's cabinet in protest against the "Gaza withdrawal plan".
Here is a fucking hypocrite who is upset that he is not allowed to do the same things to the Palestinians that the Soviet government did to him - enforce restricted movement, keep people under siege in their homeland, and in general treat them like second-class human beings.
Good riddance. Maybe now Sharansky will have time to return to his writing career and provide Bush with another "inspirational" tract. I suggest that he analyze the causes of his own hypocrisy and why the world still thinks he has anything of importance to say.
