« Bush and Yalta Again | Main | Grassroots Billboard »


May 12, 2005

UN Oil-For-Food Blogfight

-- by Dave Johnson

Check out this post at UN Dispatch and this follow-up (and the links to right-wingnut bloggers responding to the original.

John Cole talks about the resulting blogfight.

Stirling Newberry writes about the issue with lots of background at The Oil For Food Witch Hunt.

Posted by Dave Johnson at May 12, 2005 8:08 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.seeingtheforest.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.fcgi/189

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference UN Oil-For-Food Blogfight:

» Around the Web from Pacific Views
How to Save the World: Dave Pollard's recommended reading list. The curious byproducts of human domestication, and the myths that we've invented about the natural state of relationships. The National Review on the Bolton nomination. What planet is a pe... [Read More]

Tracked on May 13, 2005 4:59 PM

» Around the Web from Pacific Views
How to Save the World: Dave Pollard's recommended reading list. The curious byproducts of human domestication, and the myths that we've invented about the natural state of relationships. The National Review on the Bolton nomination. What planet is a pe... [Read More]

Tracked on May 13, 2005 5:02 PM


Comments

I see you are willing to label us all "right-wingnut bloggers," but not quite willing to say we are wrong in our criticism of this poorly-reasoned series of UN Dispatch blog articles.

Could we actually *gasp!* be right?

Heaven forbid...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 12, 2005 8:47 AM

Wingnut, wingnut, wingnut. Even the name "Confederate Yankee". Wingnut.

Posted by: Dave Johnson at May 12, 2005 10:07 AM

It's all just part of the plan to kill the UN, of course, with the usual smear tactics.

Posted by: MJ at May 12, 2005 11:08 AM

Wingnut, wingnut, wingnut. Even the name "Confederate Yankee". Wingnut.

Really proving your ability to handle deep, thoughtful, fact-based discourse, aren't you Dave?

I must confess that I'm not all that surprised. Progressives tend to have wonderful theories, as long as you don't pester them with little details, like facts. Of course, that doesn't stop you from making up your own facts, does it Dave? Here's a nice example of liberal thought, or what passes for such...

59% of progressives on a prominent liberal message board don't believe al Qaeda ever existed, (and 22% more think they've part of a Rovian plot) and we're the nuts?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3634589

You do know the perfectly fitting phrase "reality-based" means "not reality" don't you?

I'd be tempted to laugh if you weren't quite so sad...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 12, 2005 11:51 AM

If there were signs of rampant corruption at a major US corporation - even one that does lots of good for lots of people - wouldn't you care about it? I know I would.

But corruption at the United Nations is even more important to discover. You don't have people losing their life savings as a result. You have people losing their lives (How much food and medicine didn't get to the Iraqis while Saddam and various world politicos pocketed extra cash?).

There's nothing rightwing or leftwing about fixing problems in a critical world body. And, I imagine you'd agree, you can't fix a problem until you point it out.

Posted by: Matt at May 12, 2005 1:14 PM

OK I broke a rule. I fed a troll. Sorry.

Posted by: Dave Johnson at May 12, 2005 8:49 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?



Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Return to main page