Why any one in their wildest dreams still thinks that the DLC are Democrats is beyond me. Their blogs sound like the factless-based realities of RedState.org.
If you don't have a fact to support your argument just blame someone else.
The UN bureaucrat's remarks about the alleged stinginess of the West were unfortunate and misplaced. Could the United States and the West do more? Of course. However, that begs the question. If not for America and the industrialized nations there would not be any significant humanitarian relief. If the Saudis, for instance, would only be as generous in funding tsunami relief as they are in spreading fundamentalist hate, the world would be far better off.
.
.
Uh...the West... is the DLC daring to equate the US stinginess with European countries that individually gave 2 to 3 times more than the US ...what is wrong with this picture???...Oh yeah...it is a straw man argument and a way to backhand slap the UN.
WHO THE HELL IS BLAMING THE EUROPEANS FOR THEIR STINGINESS????...WTF!!! are they talking about. Then to add insult to injury the DLC uses the same faux "blame the other guy" argument that us frequently used on the Freeper sites...why aren't the Saudis paying...WTF!!!
This is just another underhanded means to bash the UN by these so-called Democrats. Notice how the DLC "corrected" themselves the day after the Bush administration said that they had confidence in Koffi Annan.
(
CORRECTION: the original sub-headline of this New Dem Daily mistakenly summarized the piece as [calling for Kofi Annan's resignation.
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253050&kaid=131&subid=192&FREM=Y&sid=19513
&mid=9981 ]Actually, in calling for the secretary general to "step aside," we simply meant to convey that he should remove himself from any involvement in the oil-for-food investigation, and let Paul Volcker, a man of unquestioned integrity and ability, conduct it independently and publicly release his findings. We deeply regret this error.)
Yeah right, Al From jumped the gun to the orderes given him by Rove.
Context, here, is everything. U.N. chief Annan has notably opposed Washington in Iraq, calling the invasion illegal at one point.
But the United Nations is badly needed by the Bush administration. The White House is sticking by its plans for January elections in Iraq and needs outside poll watchers and U.N. imprimatur to confer legitimacy.
While members of his party are demanding Annan's departure, President Bush is neutral. Much as he may dislike Annan's past criticism, Bush can't afford to join the resign-now chorus. The president will wait for more studies and reports before taking a stand on the scandal, he said last week.
Even without Bush's support, the charges from Washington have a powerful effect. The United States, once again, is going it alone in attacking an organization built on world consensus.
-
-
-
Then they try to cover their footsteps and mumble something about Bush should take the lead in aid. No shit Sherlock.
-
-
-
-