RGrew176 wrote:
October 8, 2004 -- The national media

usually are embarrassed by the NY Post, which is one of hte slimiest
newspapers in the country...it's a rag

Don't snip the important part:

Saddam's "evolving strategy," says Duelfer, "centered on breaking free of
U.N.
sanctions in order to liberate his economy from the economic stranglehold,
so
he could continue to pursue his political and personal objectives."

To do that, he resolved to divide the five permanent Security Council
members.
The United States and Great Britain were unapproachable - so instead he set
about buying off the governments of France, China and Russia.

The three nations which - wouldn't you know? - worked at every turn to
frustrate any attempt to hold Saddam's feet to the fire.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Has anybody heard Kerry explain how he would have taken us to war
"differently than Bush"? I heard him say something about building an
alliance. But in light of the Duelfer report, it's obvious that he'd have
never gotten additional Security Council Nations to support us...because
they're financial ties to Saddam were too strong.

NOYB wrote:
I believe Bert was referring to the Presidential pardons of people complicit
in the Clinton Administration's treasonous business dealings with China.

Oh, I thought he was referring to Reagan and Bush Sr.'s long list of
pardons for everything from HUD corruption, laundering drug money for
the RNC, and on up to Iran-Contra.

DSK