s skippy the bush kangaroo

skippy the bush kangaroo



Sunday, February 23, 2003

if obsession is a crime, let bush be guilty

does anybody else besides us think awol's concerns over iraq has gone from national interests into unhealthy obsession?

sf chronicle: [european] criticism of president bush and his inner circle for what europeans consider an obsession with iraqi dictator saddam hussein does not extend to the american people themselves...

tallahassee democrat: which is the greater immoral act, president clinton's affair or george w. bush's obsession to send young men and women to kill and be killed in an unjust war?

krugman in the nytimes: is this administration ready for the long, difficult, quite possibly bloody task of rebuilding iraq? the europeans don't think so. in fact, they view mr. bush's obsession with invading iraq as a demonstration of why he can't be trusted to deal with what comes next.

cnn: [president jimmy carter] has since promoted human rights and recently criticized u.s. leaders' "pre-eminent obsession" with iraq while not pressing for resolution of the israeli-palestinian conflict or pressuring north korea to stop developing nuclear bombs.
cnn: [president jimmy carter]

la daily news: for the protesters, president bush apparently was the chief villain, a casualty of what some called an obsession with his father's persian gulf war in 1991 and its failure to oust saddam hussein.

niagra falls reporter: the europeans know very well the difficult war on bin laden and al-qaeda terrorism was quickly morphed into an obsession for regime change in iraq. saddam is dangerous in his neighborhood, but what's wrong with keeping un inspectors there indefinitely?

eric alterman on msnbc: i admit that the beefed-up containment policy vis-à-vis iraq, driven exclusively by the bush administration’s obsession with the issue, has been a smashing success. but rather than declare victory and stay in iraq — with inspectors and the threat of force if they are resisted — the administration insists on embarking on an unnecessary and potentially ruinous war.

geov parrish in working for change: even without being able to name what's wrong, an awful lot of normal, usually apolitical americans see in the lies and inconsistency and outright bullying of george bush's iraq obsession a parable for what has gone wrong with bush's leadership and with american politics itself.

nigerian vanguard: many groups, and many of them apolitical, have protested against the near obsession of the bush administration with protecting the world by attacking iraq, supposedly to seize or destroy saddam’s weapons of mass destruction - since this part of it has been the least discussed point of all at home in the united states.

korea herald: it's not that all of the anti-war skeptics believe the bush administration's obsession with iraq has its sole roots in the oil reserves in the middle east. but many believe that the u.s. president needs flexibility in his foreign policy to listen to the opinion of critics - particularly those who live in small countries with far different cultural and historical backgrounds. a preemptive strike may be an expedient surgery. but it may incur too much bleeding for the faceless local population.

posted by skippy at 12:00 PM |

0 Comments:

Add a comment