posted November 16, 2004 02:39 AM              

One was as story about the Canadians and their growing resentment over the ban that still remains on their beef imports long after the mad cow incident has been cleared up. I think underlying that ban on the beef and Bush not allowing Canadian drugs into the country is really his retaliation for the Canadian Prime Minister refusing to be in the coalition for the Iraq invasion because it did not have UN sanction. Also Canada simply did not have the troops to commit to that war. Bush is hurting the Canadian economy and creating a division between the U.S. and our Canadian neighbors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/international/americas/14canada.html?th

Another story was about the UN and the U.S. renewing the quarrel over Iraq. The Bush administration is angry at Secretary General Kofi Annan's refusal to commit staff in large numbers in Iraq.

quote:

---

Mr. Annan withdrew international staff members from Iraq in October 2003 in the wake of attacks on relief workers and the bombing of the United Nations' Baghdad headquarters, which killed 22 people, including the mission chief, Sergio Vieira de Mello. Although the United Nations has been assigned the task of setting up elections scheduled for January, Mr. Annan has declined to send more than a handful of electoral workers to Iraq, citing the lack of security forces to protect them.

---

quote:

---

"The Iraqis and the Americans are completely frustrated," said a senior American official at the United Nations, reporting views he said he heard in the White House this week...."We're beyond anger," the official said. "We won re-election, Kofi's term is up in '06 and though we have been asking him to define the U.N. role in Iraq, he is thumbing his nose at us."

---

That quote is funny considering the Bush administration thumbed their nose at the UN and told them they would go it alone.

Regardless of the reasons that Annan gives to explain, including the fact that so many other nations in the UN have refused to commit troops to Iraq and though he has tried to convince them it has been to no avail, the Bush administration is lashing out at him vehemently. Thereby re-deviding the U.S. and the UN. Because the UN is just not impressed with the bullying tactics of Bush and his administration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/international/14annan.html?pagewanted=1&th

Then we have the division between the Bush adminstration in the White House and the CIA. That has been ongoing ever since the Bush administration made the CIA their scapegoat in blaming them for the intelligence reports regarding WMD's in Iraq. In effect Bush made the CIA look like a bunch of baffoons and they didn't like it. Now Bush has appointed a new director from the White House who, the CIA staff say, has no idea how to direct the bureau and they don't know which direction he wants them to go.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/politics/14cia.html?pagewanted=1&th

posted November 16, 2004 09:41 AM            

That's fine with me and I have no problem rubbing radical leftists noses in their own lies, but let's just keep the record straight, shall we?

The positive side of all this is that the radicals have isolated themselves by moving so far to the left that they're in danger of falling off the Earth altogether.

Now, why would any reasonable person wish to reach out to unite with the lying radical left?