Sep 24, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
There was good and bad in President Bush's U.N. speech. Unfortunately, the good was completely undercut by the bad. By repeatedly acknowledging the legitimacy of the United Nations -- going as far as to equate its founding principles with America's -- Bush surrendered the moral high ground to our enemies.
The Good: Bush rightly praised many of the accomplishments of the U.S. military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also took a swipe at Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and the PA. But most importantly, Bush invoked 9/11 and alluded to the (now long dead) Bush Doctrine:
"Events during the past two years have set before us the clearest of divides: Between those who seek order, and those who spread chaos; between those who work for peaceful change, and those who adopt the methods of gangsters; between those who honor the rights of man, and those who deliberately take the lives of men, and women, and children, without mercy or shame.
"Between these alternatives there is no neutral ground. All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against civilization. No government should ignore the threat of terror because to look the other way gives terrorists the chance to regroup, and recruit, and prepare. And all nations that fight terror, as if the lives of their own people depend on it, will earn the favorable judgment of history."
This is a strong moral statement: "All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against civilization."
The question is: Why is Bush saying this in an appeal to an organization that openly embraces many who "spread chaos," "adopt the methods of gangsters," and "deliberately take the lives of men, and women, and children"?
The Bad: The answer, judging by Bush's statements, is that Bush feels it is necessary to morally justify the self-defense of the United States in U.N. terms. He lauded the U.N. a number of times, but this quote sums it up:
"Helping Afghanistan and Iraq to succeed as free nations in a transformed region -- cutting off the avenues of proliferation, abolishing modern forms of slavery -- these are the kinds of great tasks for which the United Nations was founded."
He didn't criticize the dictatorship members of the U.N. He didn't condemn or even acknowledge their active participation in the "war against civilization." [Correction: Bush did at least say, "Arab nations must cut off funding and other support for terrorist organizations" -- however, he did not name the nations nor indicate what would happen if they didn't stop supporting terrorism.]
Yet the one time he mentions Israel, it is a criticism: "Israel must work to create the conditions that will allow a peaceful Palestinian state to emerge." As if Israel isn't fighting a war against Palestinian terrorists who "deliberately take the lives of men, and women, and children."
The climax of this moral equivalence came at the end of his speech:
"The founding documents of the United Nations and the founding documents of America stand in the same tradition. Both assert that human beings should never be reduced to objects of power or commerce, because their dignity is inherent. Both recognize a moral law that stands above men and nations, which must be defended and enforced by men and nations. ... And both point the way to peace, the peace that comes when all are free."
U.N. member Syria -- who is allowing terrorists into Iraq to kill U.S. soldiers -- is on the U.N. Security Council. U.N member North Korea regularly threatens to turn America into a nuclear "sea of fire." U.N. member Iran -- who just two days ago displayed missiles painted with "We will crush America under our feet" and "Israel must be wiped off the map" -- is considered by even the State Department to be the world's worst sponsor of terrorism. And let's not forget that Saddam's bloody Iraq was a U.N. member before being felled by American-lead coalition forces despite U.N attempts at obstruction.
Does anybody really believe that an organization that allows such members cares about "the peace that comes when all are free"?
Let's hope that Bush sees the difference between the founding principles of America and the U.N. Glenn Woiceshyn did an excellent job a few years back explaining that difference: UN Declaration of Rights Destroys Rights.
But even giving Bush the benefit of the doubt, it's shameful that he would say there isn't any difference, especially if it's political kow-towing to get other countries' help in Iraq.
A September 4th Wall Street Journal editorial described the motivation behind Bush's renewed appeals to the U.N.:
"White House spokesman Scott McClellan yesterday said that some countries, such as India, need a U.N. imprimatur before they dispatch troops to Iraq. Mr. Bush wants to provide that fig leaf -- our words, not Mr. McClellan's -- but the current coalition will retain civilian and military control in Baghdad. ... If this is how it all works out, the inevitable U.N. wrangling may well be worth it."
Commenting on the editorial, Objectivist scholar Harry Binswanger rightly noted:
"The 'fig leaf' we are to supply is more like a feather pulled from the wing of the American eagle. [...] Rather than seek the 'imprimatur' of the U.N., we should regard any approval they would give us as a stain of dishonor."
Sep 23, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
The New York Times' John Burns on the lack of objectivity in Iraq coverage (thanks, Andrew Sullivan) :Terror, totalitarian states, and their ways are nothing new to me, but I felt from the start that this was in a category by itself, with the possible exception in the present world of North Korea. I felt that that was the central truth that has to be told about this place. It was also the essential truth that was untold by the vast majority of correspondents here. Why? Because they judged that the only way they could keep themselves in play here was to pretend that it was okay.
There were correspondents who thought it appropriate to seek the approbation of the people who governed their lives. [...] Senior members of [Iraq's] information ministry took hundreds of thousands of dollars of bribes from these television correspondents who then behaved as if they were in Belgium. [...]
In one case, a correspondent actually went to the Internet Center at the Al-Rashid Hotel and printed out copies of his and other people's stories--mine included--specifically in order to be able to show the difference between himself and the others. He wanted to show what a good boy he was compared to this enemy of the state. He was with a major American newspaper.
Yeah, it was an absolutely disgraceful performance. CNN's Eason Jordan's op-ed piece in The New York Times missed that point completely. The point is not whether we protect the people who work for us by not disclosing the terrible things they tell us. Of course we do. But the people who work for us are only one thousandth of one percent of the people of Iraq. So why not tell the story of the other people of Iraq...?
[...] We now know that this place was a lot more terrible than even people like me had thought. There is such a thing as absolute evil. I think people just simply didn't recognize it. They rationalized it away. [Editor & Publisher]
For responses, including one by Dan Rather click here.
Related Reading: Saddam Hussein's Real Ministers of Disinformation Come Out of the Closet
Sep 23, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
From FoxNews: Bush to Ask U.N. for Cooperation in Iraq.
"I will make it clear that I made the right decision, and the others that joined us made the right decision. The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein," Bush said in the interview taped Sunday in the Oval Office.
As we've said before, though the U.S. may in fact need help in Iraq, President Bush is wrong to try to deal with the U.N., an organizations whose primary goal is to prop up and legitimize dictatorships at the expense of America.
The U.N. is Evil is a Web site dedicated to compiling op-eds detailing the U.N.'s systematic assault on individual rights, the sovereignty of free nations, and the rule of law.
An op-ed from by Robert Tracinski sums it up nicely: America Should Withdraw From The United Nations and Let It Collapse:
Yes, there is a value to cooperating with other nations -- but only with free nations who share a commitment to standing up against the threats of terrorism and dictatorship. Any time free nations agree to subordinate themselves to a collective consensus with hostile dictatorships, it is only the free nations that lose -- and it is only the dictatorships that gain. Indeed, the dictatorships run the United Nations. Within weeks of September 11, terrorist-sponsor Syria was invited to chair the United Nations' Security Council. Iraq and Iran are scheduled to trade chairmanship of its disarmament committee, while Libya is set to chair its human rights commission.
Sep 22, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Here's Vaclav Havel and Lech Walensa in a letter to the editor of London's Daily Telegraph:Today, it is the responsibility of the democratic world to support representatives of the Cuban opposition, irrespective of how long the Cuban Stalinists manage to cling to power. The Cuban opposition must enjoy the same international support as political dissidents did in divided Europe.
It cannot be claimed that the American embargo of Cuba has brought about the desired result. Neither can this be said of the European policy, which has so far been considerably more forthcoming towards the Cuban regime.
It is time to put aside transatlantic disputes about the embargo of Cuba and to concentrate on direct support for Cuban dissidents, prisoners of conscience and their families.
Europe ought to make it unambiguously clear that Castro is a dictator, and that for democratic countries a dictatorship cannot become a partner until it commences a process of political liberalisation. [Daily Telegraph]
Sep 22, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
A Dan Quayle 'potatoe' award goes out to Gov. Gray Davis:"My vision is to make the most diverse state on earth, and we have people from every planet on the earth in this state. We have the sons and daughters of every, of people from every planet, of every country on earth..." (September 18, 2003, San Francisco Chronicle, Hat Tip - J. Taranto)
Sep 22, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
Reuters reports this morning: Iran Shows Off Missile Might Amid Nuclear Concerns.
Iran, under mounting pressure to dispel fears it is developing nuclear arms, Monday paraded six of its newly deployed medium-range missiles, military analysts say could reach Israel or U.S. bases in the Gulf.[...]Television pictures showed one of the missile carriers displayed a defiant message in bold letters on a giant yellow banner facing Khatami which said: "We will stamp on America." Iran insists its nuclear scientists are not working on a weapons program but trying to meet soaring electricity demand.
From FoxNews: Iranian Nuke Official: Tehran Will Scale Back Cooperation With U.N. Watchdog Agency.
Iran will scale back its cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog in response to the agency's Oct. 31 deadline for Tehran to prove its atomic programs are peaceful, Iran's representative to the agency said Monday.
