George W (WARMONGER) Bush anymore ideas.
Commentary Justification for war
Posted: April 29, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Neal Boortz
From where I sit, the anguish has been delicious. I can't tell you when I've had more fun. Watching Democrats battling Bush's surging popularity brought on by his success in Iraq is better than watching one of those old cliffhanger serials they used to show at the Saturday morning 50-cent movies.
Democratic Party leaders go to bed on any given night thinking they've finally nailed Bush with the stigma of failure or corruption, only to awaken hours later to find their charges dissolving in the acid bath of reality.
Right now Democrats and their leftist bedfellows are virtually wringing their hands in glee over the prospect that we may not find "smoking gun" evidence of Saddam's chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. They live in dread of that breaking news bulletin on Fox detailing the discovery of a cache of forbidden warheads.
When Cynthia Cotts of New York's Village Voice wrote: "Evidence is emerging that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq may never provide a compelling justification for the war." you could almost hear her saying under her breath "please, God, oh please let it be so. I'll do anything! Just don't let them find the evidence."
Sorry, Cynthia. You're too late. We don't expect you to realize this, nor will it ever sink in to the logic-impaired consciousness of the social Democratic left, but the justification for the war in Iraq existed before the first American boot hit Iraqi sand. Full, complete, clear and concise justification was there – and that justification will not be affected by what we do and do not find hidden in Iraq.
We'll move slowly here, step by step. If you have trouble following this perhaps your sixth-grader can help you:
1. Prior to the commencement of military action against Saddam Hussein America, Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany and the United Nations knew of the existence of large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. In fact, this information was known prior to Saddam kicking the U.N. inspectors to the curb in 1998. Democrats should take note than none other than Sen. Tom Daschle spoke of our certain knowledge of the existence of these weapons and of the necessity of making sure they are destroyed.
2. Not only did we know that Saddam Hussein had these weapons, but Saddam himself had acknowledged their existence. Rather hard not to, really, when you're using them to kill tens of thousands of your own people.
3. Since we knew that Saddam had the weapons, and since Saddam knew that we knew, Saddam agreed with the United Nations that he would destroy his biological and chemical weapons arsenal, not because he wanted to, but because the alternative seemed unpleasant … for Saddam.
4. Not only did Saddam agree to destroy those weapons, but he also agreed to document that destruction and to present the evidence of that destruction to the United Nations Security Council.
5. Despite repeated demands and requests, Saddam steadfastly refused to provide even the most minimal evidence to the Security Council that he had destroyed those weapons. Finally, time ran out.
These are incredibly ugly weapons we're talking about. Small quantities of these chemical and biological agents could have been secreted out of Iraq in remarkably small containers, perhaps to find their way to a water supply in Dallas, or a shopping-mall ventilation system in Minneapolis. Just how much of a chance do we take?
OK. So you hate George Bush. You're convinced he stole the election in 2000. You think Michael Moore was far too kind during his Oscar's acceptance speech. So, can you put that baggage aside for a few moments to do a little role playing?
Put yourself in the president's place. You know Saddam had the weapons, and you know he used them against Iran and against his own people. Saddam promised to get rid of the weapons and to document their destruction.
Then, Saddam kicks the U.N. weapons inspectors out and refuses further cooperation. He then claims that he destroyed the weapons after the inspectors left, but he just can't seem to remember where he put all of the paperwork. When the U.N. demands an accounting of all the weapons we knew Saddam had, plus any new weapons he had developed, he responds with a 12,000 page re-hash of material the U.N. had 12 years ago.
So ... you're the man. You get to make the decision: Move in and eliminate the threat, or let this charade go on for a few years more?
What? You say you would give time for the inspections to work? Well, that's why we're glad that George Bush – and not you – is living in the White House.
Food Fight at the U.N.
Monday, May 5, 2003
United Nations - "It was unbelievable, crowds of people just taking everything in sight, they stripped the place bare," said a shocked witness.
Was it another riot in Baghdad? An incident in Kabul or the West Bank? No, it was the main cafeteria at U.N. headquarters in New York.
On Friday, the union representing food workers at the world body called a wildcat strike. The result: none of the U.N.'s five restaurants and bars were manned.
Earlier that day, food workers were told some employees would not receive vacation pay due them. The decision was due to the fact that the U.N.'s caterer, Restaurant Associates, had lost its services contract in a bidding contest with the Aramark Corporation. Friday was the last day for RA who ran the U.N.'s food operations for the last 17 years.
According to several food workers, RA told the union that unpaid vacation funds would need to come from the new contractor. An Aramark executive told NewsMax that vacation pay for work performed under Restaurant Associates was not his company's responsibility. The standoff between the old and new contractors produced the surprise wildcat strike.
The union brass moved quickly; they set zero hour for high noon, the height of luncheon traffic.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan was scheduled to host a private working lunch with the members of the Security Council at one o’clock in the afternoon. Diplomats found their main courses already waiting for them upon entering the private dining room -- sans waiters and bartenders.
However, after an intensive investigation by NewsMax, Council president Munir Akram (Pakistan) revealed that a small, skeleton staff of waiters did remain "as a courtesy" to see that the U.N. chief and the assembled diplomats "received their coffee."
Another council ambassador in attendance confessed that Annan "was concerned" about the turn of events.
Meanwhile, the common folks, aka the U.N. bureaucrats, found themselves locked out of the main staff cafeteria. That facility serves more than 5,000 people on average every day.
As tensions grew and stomachs growled, the U.N. chief, in a move even Saddam Hussein would envy, declared war on the union's action and ordered his security department to reopen the cafeteria, whether or not it was staffed, according to U.N. sources who insisted on confidentiality.
The 'No Pay Zone'
The decision to declare the cafeteria a "no pay zone" soon rushed through the 40 acre complex like wildfire. "I have never seen anything like this, people were everywhere, taking everything in sight" explained one of several eyewitnesses who spoke to NewsMax.
"Chickens, turkeys, souffles, casseroles all went out the door (unpaid)," said another witness. A U.N. security officer who was later called in to examine the cafeteria told NewsMax: "It is unbelievable, they even took the trays and the silverware; the place is stripped clean."
But, once the cafeteria was cleaned out, the "bargain hunters" fanned out to search for other targets of opportunity. First, the "troops" converged on the Viennese Cafe, a popular snack bar in the U.N.'s conference center. Next on the list was the posh Delegates Dining Room, where Kofi and Company were having their private lunch.
All that free food produced some real thirst. So why not top it off with some free drinks at the bar? What better place than the private bar in the Delegates Lounge. No bartender, but what the heck....price was right and no tipping required!
That was where NewsMax caught up with a well-known U.S. diplomat. When asked how many free drinks he had, he replied: "I don't know, I stopped counting the bottles."
When asked about the food melee and the U.N. chief's decision to declare the facility a "no pay zone," Annan spokesman Fred Eckhard had no comment.
An Aramark executive told NewsMax that a rough estimate of the lifted food was between "$7,000-$9,000 wholesale" (not including furnishings and silverware) just from the cafeteria alone. He added that on Monday:"I hope we have crowds as large as the ones I saw on Friday. I also hope that next time they pay for the food."