So much for Kerry\'s Foreign Policy

Allies seen snubbing
W on Iraq aid
 

 
BY KENNETH R. BAZINET
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
 
WASHINGTON - The White House isn\'t counting on getting military help in Iraq from antagonistic allies until after the U.S. elections, if at all, a U.S. official told the Daily News.
Underscoring Democrat John Kerry\'s claim last spring that some world leaders said they\'d prefer that President Bush be turned out of office, well-equipped powers like Russia, China, France and Germany won\'t offer to send troops to protect UN officials working to hold elections in Iraq in January.

"There is no way anybody is going to step up before the [American] election. It\'s personal enmity toward the President. They can\'t stand him," said the official, who asked not to be named.

"Somebody should step up and protect the UN election officials as they try to promote democratic elections in a sovereign nation that had been run by a despot. ... It\'s a shame, regardless of how we got there," the official added.

To help fill the void, the U.S. will turn to countries trying to build alliances with the West, such as Uzbekistan, to provide some troops to help protect the UN staffers.

A French official denied that France, other NATO allies and world powers weren\'t helping in Iraq, pointing to plans to train Iraqi police and pay to support the upcoming vote.

The French official accused the White House of trying to open old wounds to try to win Bush votes.

"They are spinning for domestic political reasons," the official said. "If Kerry is elected we wouldn\'t send troops either. We don\'t need more targets in Iraq."

The issue will likely come up in private talks with world leaders when Bush holds meetings coinciding with this week\'s opening session of the UN General Assembly.

Bush will address the UN Tuesday and hold meetings with the leaders of India, Pakistan, Japan and Afghanistan and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. He\'s to meet Thursday in Washington with new Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.


Kerry\'s whole policy of rebuilding alliances and getting help from Europe (France) just went up in smoke.

 

According to one unnamed "official?"  :rolleyes:

If it worked for Rather it works for me... speaking of which - the Dems got caught red handed didn\'t they?

If by "Dems" you mean CBS, then yes.

No I mean the Dems... Max Cleland is a Kerry advisor.  He is the one that was in contact with Burkett before they were handed over to CBS.  Rather who is so rabid in his hatred toward the GOP and the Bush family in particular was all too eager to believe they were real.  

The Kerry campaign had a role in those documents... it would be naive to believe they didn\'t.

What does this have to do with Cleland?  Just because Scott McClellan says there was a connection between Cleland and Burkett doesn\'t automatically make it true.  I\'d like to see some evidence of that.

I think there\'s still a strong possibility the forgeries came from Karl Rove.  Who else would have such easy access to documents that were supposedly destroyed years ago during Bush\'s gubenatorial campaign?  Don\'t forget that Killian\'s secretary said the content of the memos was CORRECT, and that Killian did believe and write those things.  The forgeries were probably copies of identical originals with intentional errors thrown in.  There\'s no reason for Burkett or the Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot by parading such obvous false memos riddled with errors.

BTW there\'s no point in saying that Democratic decision makers were behind this, when it\'s obvious that Bush\'s advisors were behind Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.  We all know the kettle is black.

Originally posted by Coredweller
What does this have to do with Cleland?  Just because Scott McClellan says there was a connection between Cleland and Burkett doesn\'t automatically make it true.  I\'d like to see some evidence of that.

I think there\'s still a strong possibility the forgeries came from Karl Rove.  Who else would have such easy access to documents that were supposedly destroyed years ago during Bush\'s gubenatorial campaign?  Don\'t forget that Killian\'s secretary said the content of the memos was CORRECT, and that Killian did believe and write those things.  The forgeries were probably copies of identical originals with intentional errors thrown in.  There\'s no reason for Burkett or the Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot by parading such obvous false memos riddled with errors.

BTW there\'s no point in saying that Democratic decision makers were behind this, when it\'s obvious that Bush\'s advisors were behind Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.  We all know the kettle is black.

Killians secretary?  Yeah she is credible...  Also most who served with Killian said he never had that opinion.  Burkett is widely considered the source of the memos.  

"Burkett, a retired National Guard lieutenant colonel, also admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents\' origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source," network spokeswoman Kelli Edwards said in the statement.

So Burkett is protecting Rove??? or one of Rove\'s underlings?



No reason for Burkett to shoot himself in the foot?????  Scott McClellan said what???? No, Burkett said it himself.

Adding more fuel to the fire, Burkett, who lives in Abilene, Texas, has now also said that he passed the documents on to former Sen. Max Cleland, a Georgia Democrat and triple amputee from Vietnam, who is working with the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry (search). Burkett also has urged Democratic activists to wage "war" against Republican "dirty tricks."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132906,00.html





It is one thing for the a group of veterans to have opinions of events that happened 30 plus years ago - it is quite another to forge official documents.

I thought you were saying that Burkett GOT THEM from Cleland.  As we see, he only gave copies to Cleland.  That doesn\'t mean the Democratic party had anything to do with it.

No, I don\'t think that Burkett would be protecting Rove.  Obviously, Rove would use 1, 2, or 3 sanitized intermediaries to get the memos to Burkett.  I think Burkett doesn\'t know who he\'s been serving.

Also, why do you always quote Foxnews articles?  Why not use a source at least a little closer to impartiality, like CNN.com or something?

Being reported on Fox somehow makes it less true?  Please...  

I like Fox News - funny how they are the #1 US news channel now.  Anyway, Fox is more balanced than CNN - being as they don\'t have any one on their payroll that is an advisor to either campaign unlike CNN ie. James Carvell.  What you see as a right slant is merely not the left slant that you are accustomed to.

Man you are pretty far gone if you think Foxnews is not right slanted.   Roger Ailes, the CEO of Fox News, was the chief media consultant for G.H.W.Bush, and he also worked for Reagan and Nixon.  He\'s not just an on-air personality.  He runs the place.

Also, I can\'t believe you have a problem with CNN.  They have been the most perfect Iraq war backers a conservative could dream of.  During the first three weeks of the current Iraq war, only 3% of US sources quoted on evening news shows (including ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, and PBS) were antiwar.  On Fox, 81% were prowar.

I guess that if a network ever airs a single opinion that is anti-bush or anti-war, then it becomes "liberal biased?"  For a news source to be balanced, it has to have 50/50 conservative & liberal opinions.  None of the major news sources are 50/50, and they are definitely not liberal biased.

Give me a break - don\'t you see a conflict of having Carvelle as a staff member at the same time he is an advisor for Kerry?  

If anyone working for Fox was advising GWB at the same time they were working there the outcry from the rest of the media would be deafening.

I also do believe Fox gives a more unbiased/untainted by liberal editors slant.  Dan Rather and CBS are the prime example of liberal tainted journalism.

But Dan Rather was the one who said

"George Bush is the president... Wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where and he\'ll make the call."  - Late Night with David Letterman, 9/17/01

and

"Look, I\'m an American.  I never tried to kid anybody that I\'m some internationalist or something.  And when my country is at war, I want my country to win, whatever the definition of win may be.  Now I can\'t and don\'t argue that that is coverage without a prejudice.  About that I am prejudiced."  - Larry King Live, 4/14/03

You see any glimpse of dissent, and then you flash out the "Liberal Bias" cattle brand.  It doesn\'t fly man.

Core,

You know as well as I that Dan Rather has had a history of attacking GOP Presidents - Nixon, Bush Sr. and now Bush Jr.

I think you need to read this:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15157

PS Dan Rather is an Acid Freak.

[clips]

Originally posted by Coredweller
Man you are pretty far gone if you think Foxnews is not right slanted.   Roger Ailes, the CEO of Fox News, was the chief media consultant for G.H.W.Bush, and he also worked for Reagan and Nixon.  He\'s not just an on-air personality.  He runs the place.

Also, I can\'t believe you have a problem with CNN.  They have been the most perfect Iraq war backers a conservative could dream of.  During the first three weeks of the current Iraq war, only 3% of US sources quoted on evening news shows (including ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, and PBS) were antiwar.  On Fox, 81% were prowar.

I guess that if a network ever airs a single opinion that is anti-bush or anti-war, then it becomes "liberal biased?"  For a news source to be balanced, it has to have 50/50 conservative & liberal opinions.  None of the major news sources are 50/50, and they are definitely not liberal biased.

tru...

Originally posted by clips
tru...

Some of you crack me up.  Why do you think most of the news outlets supported the war?  Probably because about 80 percent of the public was in favor of the war at the time.  

All the Fox News haters have yet to point out any examples of the conservative slant that they claim Fox News has when reporting stories.  Don\'t even mention O\'Reilly as his show is an op ed and not news.  When Fox reports news it is just that... unbiased news.  When CBS reports news - we all know what side of the political arena they sit on.  Is it any surprise that CBS News market share is down drastically in 7 of the top 10 markets in the US?  I honestly believe if their numbers wouldn\'t have been affected they would still be sticking by those bogus documents.