Monday, April 19, 2004
Go figure...
OK, here's what I don't get. Folks who think the U.S. should defer, or at least consult, more with the "international community" usually mean the UN. Unless these folks have been living under a rock, they know that much of the U.S. views the UN with the same skepticism that MENSA would view an application from Jessica Simpson.
Since these folks, generally leftish in bent, have a vested interest in the credibility of the UN. And, given the current scandal regarding the U.N.'s allegedly corrupt, dishonest, and potentially life-threatening handling of the Oil-For-Food program in Iraq, you'd think that it would be these selfsame leftish supporters of the U.N. rising up, vocally demanding the highest level of accountability from the U.N. at every conceivable opportunity.
My point? Oh, just another story from the conservative side of the media concerning U.N. recalcitrance. This time, it's the Wall Street journal pointing out that Russia is standing in the way of a Security Council resolution that would give the investigation real teeth. Geez, one country with a vested interest in the status quo has the power to keep the U.N. from doing the right thing? If I didn't know better, I'd say you could make the case for ignoring the U.N. and proceeding unilaterally.
I'm sure I'm just not reading the right web sites. I mean, you can even work Bush-bashing in, since people are now alleging that the U.S. is stonewalling an effective investigation to ease the U.N.'s involvement in Iraq. It seems far too many Iraqi's remember the U.N. as the Nero who fiddled while Iraq burned, or at least, starved and got its hands amputated. Someone who loved the UN and wanted to go off on Bush could pitch a fit, arguing that the Oil-For-Food scandal needs a thorough investigation, so that Iraqis quit looking at Lakhdar Brahimi like the MENSA Admission Board being told "With You" is the modern equivalent of Handel's "Messiah".
But, for some reason, I hear it from Roger Simon, who draws a parallel to l'affaire Gorelick. I'm sure that's just because I'm not looking in the right places. The people who care about the UN want this discussed, and they want it discussed openly.
Right?
Since these folks, generally leftish in bent, have a vested interest in the credibility of the UN. And, given the current scandal regarding the U.N.'s allegedly corrupt, dishonest, and potentially life-threatening handling of the Oil-For-Food program in Iraq, you'd think that it would be these selfsame leftish supporters of the U.N. rising up, vocally demanding the highest level of accountability from the U.N. at every conceivable opportunity.
My point? Oh, just another story from the conservative side of the media concerning U.N. recalcitrance. This time, it's the Wall Street journal pointing out that Russia is standing in the way of a Security Council resolution that would give the investigation real teeth. Geez, one country with a vested interest in the status quo has the power to keep the U.N. from doing the right thing? If I didn't know better, I'd say you could make the case for ignoring the U.N. and proceeding unilaterally.
I'm sure I'm just not reading the right web sites. I mean, you can even work Bush-bashing in, since people are now alleging that the U.S. is stonewalling an effective investigation to ease the U.N.'s involvement in Iraq. It seems far too many Iraqi's remember the U.N. as the Nero who fiddled while Iraq burned, or at least, starved and got its hands amputated. Someone who loved the UN and wanted to go off on Bush could pitch a fit, arguing that the Oil-For-Food scandal needs a thorough investigation, so that Iraqis quit looking at Lakhdar Brahimi like the MENSA Admission Board being told "With You" is the modern equivalent of Handel's "Messiah".
But, for some reason, I hear it from Roger Simon, who draws a parallel to l'affaire Gorelick. I'm sure that's just because I'm not looking in the right places. The people who care about the UN want this discussed, and they want it discussed openly.
Right?
