"There is quite a bit more there, "

Pity you did not bother with MY reply to Amos:

******************************************************
Subject: RE: BS: Popular views of the Bush Administration
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 01:47 PM

Amos,

Because, AS I HAVE POINTED OUT, with supporting info, in THIS case the Bush administration TRIED to do exactly what Don suggested that they should have ( with the implication they did not) and was rebuffed by the UN in its ( the Bush administration's) efforts.


Hardly a case of "Even in one instance missing some mitigating detail?"

I have no problem with his, or your comments on other topics, regardless of whether I agree with your conclusions, but in THIS he is out of line, and beyond reasonable debate.
****************************************************************

"When I objected to being called a "bigot" by you—with no foundation at all—you responded thus:"

I stated the basis of my opinion- YOUR intolerance of the Bush administration, and irrational blaming of them FOR DOING WHAT YOU WANTED THEM TO DO!


"After all, I did post a dictionary definition of the word on that thread."

FACT- *I* was the one to post the definition of bigot, and later, bigotry-


. . a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;

I have presented what I consider your intolerance- If you have any facts other than you do not like being held to account for demonstrating bigotry here, please present them.

Did you say that

"And obviously it didn't please the Bush administration to do anything about the Darfur genocide. Could it be because the Chinese already have control over the Darfur oil fields and Bush doesn't feel ready to get into a brouhaha with the Chinese at this point? If we went in with strictly humanitarian reasons as our goal, along with a coalition of other concerned nations (a coalition that would be a lot easier to put together than the "coalition" that joined us in invading Iraq, and would have received world-wide approval rather than condemnation) that wouldn't be an issue."

Did you say that

"By the way, BB, if the Bush administration is so all-fired concerned about human rights, why aren't we in Darfur? Now there we could do a lot of good by stopping the slaughter.

But I hear diddly squat from both Bush and the Bush apologists about that."

Did you present any evidence that my quote

"Date: 24 Feb 05 - 04:10 AM


From Sunday's Washington Post:

"the admnistration will continue to press other countries to press the United Nations to press Sudan's government. The uncertainty of this strataegy was immediately apparent after Mr Powell spoke. Brushing aside the evidence, France and Germany declined to call the killings genocide. ... China, the leading foreign investor in Sudan's burgeoning oil fields, said it might veto a tough Security Council resolution." "

Was NOT a true representation of what the Bush Administration tried to do?

Is THAT NOT an attempt to put together the coallition that YOU claim
"would be a lot easier to put together than the "coalition" that joined us in invading Iraq, and would have received world-wide approval rather than condemnation)" ?

WAS that attempt blocked by France, Germany, and China, nations that also blocked the attempt to have a UNR to force Iraq to comply with the previous UNRs?