Despite Mexico and African and other nations having New Urban motifs as verified even by their own fancy tourism websites, for some reason, that continuing anything-but-third-world success seems to demand that leaders thereof never be questioned as they occasion genocide or transit of their masses (even as wealth accelerates) to the USA...on demand the USA permanently palsify so not even their transplanted masses do better than present USA nationals, together with them or instead of same...ever, and don't come back.

 

Originally, tricksters via the U.N. assured us it was necessary to their sovereign, no-oversight cooperation in the global war on terror: be compassionate, care for or temporarily employ the wheat they separated from their potential chaff which could be given to al-Qaeda recruitment, then once that's done ala Europe and Muslims, all the good folks can come back; boy, no internationalist or U.N. fast ones THERE, huh? And all because al-Qaeda was then labelled a terror group even by the U.N., and even now, internationalist USA politicians opposing Bush believe the 2001 AUMF needn't be cancelled nor tweaked, just led by a President less concerned about overseeing its prosecution with or ever having ANY military to command again.

 

So much for how internationalists slickered the USA and global populations with fake messages of their own; but hey, let's kick Bush for using counter-propaganda against just AUMF object al-Qaeda...after all, at an atheist group last August Obama said Bush even faked 9/11 against Qaeda, Obama likely wanting to appease a U.N. now claiming pre-9/11 world cause to label Qaeda terrorists never existed and BUSH first "misled" to listing them as such. But a lot of amorphous money people invested in the onetime U.N. separating of wheat and chaff, and seem to think adding to the modern U.N. motif will continue the proposition even if now under ruse "USA is hurting the world economy, wars or not".

 

Now recalled is the charge: "Bush misled on Iraq!", based on implications he was just guessing what Saddam Hussein might have planned to help Qaeda, or just been capable of if someone tried to remove him based on the U.N. Resolutions made BEFORE BUSH; in 1999, even Senator Durbin called for Hussein's removal on same alone, which were about not sharing oil wealth with his people and starving them...those Resolutions were made prime cause in the Congressional AUMF re Iraq ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html ), yet some now say human rights and food issues are hardly cause to remove leaders, that's why Clinton didn't go and neither would Democrats and some GOP minus 9/11 matters...that's why one just sighs, and accepts mass immigrants or "refugees" then and asks Federal, State, and local governments to do what it takes to fund their upkeep by U.N.-slickered political orthodoxies...that means military money too, so don't pester other nations about why their folks HAVE to leave homes and farms, just placate the U.N. or anyone else by turning your back on Israel or whoever next has cooties.

 

But just like the U.N. manipulated the USA re Qaeda and Hussein ab initio, it wants to protect regimes which say few people must share in their own foreign economies while cutting off trade dreams in favor of USA reliance upon global totalists for THEIR very food and fuel AND from USA money alone; some suggest fine, we'll just HR 1955 nationals, 287g immigrants to maintain profits, agree to LOST et al and pay any price to be left alone, selling it all as penance for Bush lies about Qaeda and Iraq while showing earnest that how others violate the U.N. HRC is no concern of our military...surely, the USA will then regain respect, even if we say acting like Hussein IS reason to enter Darfur, but with a golden calf for the U.N.: no regime change intended, just troops airlifting an entire population to the USA, West, or both...don't make up 380 tons of plastique missing once internationalist pols get there, okay, pinky swear?

 

Well, no. Right now, the U.N. rapporteur Doudou Diene, aware the U.N. wants to pin its pre-Bush work ON Bush and accuse the USA of palsifying other economies for not giving mass immigrants discretionary funds ON TOP OF all else, is in the USA to "prove" ALL politicians and orthodox businesses here are xenophobic, racist, and nationalist; the aim has to be nationalizing USA assets abroad so fewer folks have to "walk the plank" anymore "invented by imperialist USA/West leaders totalists protect against"...and as the U.N. Qaeda/Iraq jockeying shows, with intent that the USA be hobbled to prevent it or do more than cry "see? They STILL don't treat their own people nice!".

 

There appearing to me no just cause to believe Bush misled on Qaeda (DIFFERENT AUMF, http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html ) or U.N.- Durbin calls for Hussein's removal, nor just cause to believe pretending he did would help the interests of USA nationals or immigrants, on evolving data I cannot agree that Bush provoked the U.N. or others via removing Hussein, nor via the AUMF against Qaeda, nor that troops be deployed abroad...even Darfur...for other than defending or spreading democratic rule.