cspanrm.fplive.net:554/ramgen/cspan/mdrive/ter061903_...
His entire point which he made extremely clear was that he did not want "this bitter fight in the security counsel". He AGREED and ASSERTED, that on the basis of existing resolutions there WAS ENOUGH legal authority to go to war. Therefore, he wished to prevent a second draft resolution which, in the event it failed to carry, would undermine that authority. He further stated that the consequences could put the authority of the Security Counsel at stake!
In other words he tried to persuade the Americans that they already had sufficient authority for war, and that to create a new resolution ran the risk of undermining that authority...and thus undermining the authority of the Security Counsel should the US (as expected) act regardless of the vote. All in all, a very diplomatic apology to the US!
"However, I agree fully on "well said", the reason it is so f-funny that not one
USA-UK media has f-reacted (that, using only a couple of neurons, seem to be
the f-face f-saving f-actionality, f-smack in the f-middle of the f-@-murrican-f-face,
f-Blair as f-well as f-Bush, f-backing f-back and-f-forth."
Well...you are certainly on the record as to literacy, comprehension, self respect, and argument! What a revealing post!! |
