If it bothers you, don’t go here.

President Bush yesterday and the new U.N. Security Council Resolution on Iraq:

I think this is a very important moment on the – on making sure that our objective is achieved.

An “important moment”? By the institution once deemed “irrelevant?” Wonders never cease.
Reader jeff-perado (stutz[at]unlv.nevada.edu) notes how Bush’s latest U.N. stance squares with that of his base:

President Bush had this to say in response to the news that the UN would by passing a security Council Resolution on the sovereignty of Iraq:

“There were some who said we’d never get one.”

So the question is, “Who actually did say that?” Well Neocon Richard Perle said it, as did Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld. They many times talked of how irrelevant the UN had become. But here’s another source: Bush’s own Texas Republican Platform!! If you read the platform (.pdf file) explaining the planks of their platform, you will come across this:

United Nations: The Party believes it is in the best interest of the citizens of the United States that we immediately rescind our membership in, as well as all financial and military contributions to, the United Nations.
We will:
1) support legislation similar to “The American Sovereignty Preservation Act”, which would remove the United States entirely from the control of the UN;
2) demand that Congress ratify no ambiguous treaties that compromise the United States Constitution;
3) support immediately recall our military forces from UN initiated engagements, direct or indirect UN control, and restore them to their traditional mission of defending the liberty and freedom of the people of the United States of America;
4) support an amendment to the United States Constitution stating, “a treaty that conflicts with any provisions of the Constitution shall not be of any force or effect”;
5) urge our Texas Senators to unalterably oppose any agreement or treaty that seeks to establish an International Criminal Court (ICC), make the United States a participatory party to such a court; recognize the jurisdiction of such a court within the United States or upon any native-born or naturalized citizen of the United States; and,
6) demand credit for peace keeping forces provided on behalf of the UN.

At least we now know who it is that opposes Bush, it is his own party’s beliefs! The really sad thing is that the “liberal media” will never point out the clear and apparent contradictions of Bush’s statements and those of his own administration and party. . . .
How long is Bush going to get a free ticket to lie and deceive the American public by the “liberal media?”
I am beginning to think that what they mean by liberal media” is that no one in the media bothers to check facts anymore, just accept them at face value as handed them from this administration.

Yes, that platform doesn’t suggest much international cooperation.
Speaking which, if you haven’t seen Kevin Drum’s summary of the Texas GOP platform, it’s worth a look to see their stealth agenda.

For several years now George W. Bush has attempted to wrap himself in Ronald Reagan’s cloak. Undoubtedly, Bush and his mouthpieces will now turn up such rhetoric now that the former president is gone.
But just how similar are the two? In his column yesterday, Paul Krugman noted a difference between the two when it comes to tax cuts (Reagan at least conceded that the government could dig itself too deep in the tax cut hole).
Another compare and contrast: how does this compare with Reagan’s “Morning in America” reelection theme:

Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush’s campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads — or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate.
The assault on Kerry is multi-tiered: It involves television ads, news releases, Web sites and e-mail, and statements by Bush spokesmen and surrogates — all coordinated to drive home the message that Kerry has equivocated and “flip-flopped” on Iraq, support for the military, taxes, education and other matters.
“There is more attack now on the Bush side against Kerry than you’ve historically had in the general-election period against either candidate,” said University of Pennsylvania professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson, an authority on political communication. “This is a very high level of attack, particularly for an incumbent.”
Brown University professor Darrell West, author of a book on political advertising, said Bush’s level of negative advertising is already higher than the levels reached in the 2000, 1996 and 1992 campaigns. And because campaigns typically become more negative as the election nears, “I’m anticipating it’s going to be the most negative campaign ever,” eclipsing 1988, West said. “If you compare the early stage of campaigns, virtually none of the early ads were negative, even in ’88.”

Let’s see: Bush has had how many years to amass his “accomplishments,” and this his best shot at getting people to vote for him?
Interesting.

The Tampa Tribune’s computer ate it’s editorial page:

Dear Readers,
We took a puck in the gut this morning when we published the wrong editorial about the Tampa Bay Lightning, who won the Stanley Cup final on Monday night.
We apologize to the team and to the fans for our terrible error. And we apologize to our colleagues at the newspaper, who got it right in every other way.
In advance of the final, we had prepared two editorials, one for either outcome. When we saw that the Lightning had won, we placed the proper editorial on the computerized page, printed it out and eliminated the other version. Still, somehow, the other version appeared on the page. We are checking our systems to ensure we learn from our mistake.
It is so important to us to get it right. And today we failed you. We extend our heartfelt apologies.
Rosemary Goudreau
Editorial Page Editor

Not exactly a misspelling or a typo in the box score. You’d think someone would catch it when they first started running the presses.
I’m not a knowledgeable hockey fan, but I caught pieces of the finals and it was a good series. Congratulations to the Lightning. Guess Canada should be feeling miffed. It’s been over a decade since a Canadian team has won a championship in their national sport, while here hockey hotbeds like Tampa, Florida are drinking from the Cup.
The power of money in modern sports.

Trying to tap into the Reagan karma:

Brokaw: “You’re here in France for this great feeling, especially in Normandy, for the Americans as a result of what they did 60 years ago.
“But throughout Europe, even your friends will say big-time American businessmen, who are over here a lot, they’ve never seen anti-Americanism so high or the personal feelings against you so high as well. Is that important for you to remedy?”
Bush: “You know, look. It’s important for people to know what –that I’ve got a future, that I believe in a future that’s peaceful based upon liberty. And I remember my predecessor who’s life we mourn, Ronald Reagan, they felt the same way about him.
“Tom, that doesn’t mean a fella like me should change my beliefs. I’m not going to. I’m not trying to be popular. What I’m trying to do is what I think is right. And what is right is to fight terror.
“And what is right is to spread freedom. And what is right, to stand on the — is to stand on the values that my country and our country upholds. And I will continue to do so. In the meantime, I work hard to build alliances. And you know, we’ve got good relations with countries in Europe. And the countries in Europe like Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, have been strong supporters of our mutual policies.”

No, Mr. President. The reason most of the world doesn’t like you is not because you’re attempting to “spread freedom.” The reason the world doesn’t like you is because you’re arrogant. You think that just because you control the world’s military might and have a political blueprint for electoral victory, you can do whatever you want without regard to what other nations think.
That’s why the world doesn’t like you.