This should shut up - once and for all - the Bush apologists who keep bleating that the UN actually authorized the invasion of Iraq in some way. From the WaPo:
An influential U.N.-appointed panel challenged the Bush administration's right to use military force against an enemy that does not pose an imminent military threat. The 16-member panel, which was appointed by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, said in a long-awaited report that only the U.N. Security Council has the legal standing to authorize such a "preventive war."Now, astute readers will notice that the above article also includes discussion of the UN oil-for-food scandal, something I have barely touched on in this blog. The WaPo, after all, is a flag-waving US publication and it's still not PC in the USA to even remotely criticize the President of his policies without "balancing" your article with some counterweight.
The panel's findings reflect persistent international unease over the U.S. invasion of Iraq last year without an explicit council endorsement, noting that "there is little evident international acceptance of the idea of security being best preserved by a balance of power, or by any single -- even benignly motivated -- superpower."
For example: "100,000 Iraqis were killed in the invasion but the Pentagon said they were mostly terrorists." Or: "Bush's irresponsible fiscal policies are bankrupting the USA for generations to come but exports are booming, fuelled by an ever-weakening US dollar."
This blog, however, is called BUSH OUT. The objective is to get rid of Bush and his home boys. I do not apologize for failing to cover every counterweight story that comes my way, although I do try to maintain a rational and objective viewpoint. I do not even consider myself a leftist, although many would call me that. I am an interested spectator, telling hard truths that need to be told and told again until they are heard and remedied.
In a similar vein, Juan Cole today wrote:
Many bloggers are complaining from a liberal point of view about the downsides of the use of force. They are completely uninterested in the activities of the Baathist and radical Sunni guerrillas holed up in Fallujah. They are uninterested in whether these guerrillas terrorized the local population. All they can see is the vast destruction caused by the US assault, and the innocent lives damaged.I would like to think that this blog does not fall into such a category. If I do not focus on terrorist atrocities, it is not because I do not condemn them. But there is little need in this day and age for a blog called "Terrorists Out" - the mainstream media is doing a sensational job handling that role already.
Peace, love and happiness to y'all...