"Yes, the occupation is a blessed and promising liberation for Iraq, even if the U.N., Europe, Russia, India, and all the Arabs say otherwise. The logic of international law could be of interest to the French, the Germans, the Russians and the Arabs, who are enamored with it… but not to us, the Iraqis. International law should not be of interest to us in any form or shape, because Saddam's dagger was dripping Iraqi blood, not Russian or Arab [blood]. Saddam's plague wreaked havoc with us, the Iraqis, not with the Arab League's minions, nor the Russians or the Chinese! The Iraqi tragedy, which exceeded any rational boundaries, was and continues to be at the epitome of its viciousness and degeneracy.

"While others were sipping Araq [an alcoholic drink] in the most upscale resorts in Baghdad, thousands [of Iraqis] were being buried alive in Iraq's sands, deserts, lagoons, [and] vast and godforsaken plains. And while Arab journalists, intellectuals, politicians, and poets came to sing with their trilling voices, to beat the drums [in support of Saddam] and to take pictures with Latif Nassif, Jassim and Nawal Al-Aloussi, and the rest of the Ba'ath Party 'gang'- hundreds of [Iraqi] poets, scientists, and writers were dying [on] the war-front and in torture dungeons. During more than three decades, the dagger of death extricated Iraqis from their homes, their families, their work places, their schools and their [children's] playgrounds…"

"Look at the mass-graves… [Lest you say] no more than a few thousands, 10, 20, 50 thousand… No, there are hundreds of thousands of bodies that have not been unearthed as of yet, hundreds of thousands of human lives who could have become a rich resource for humanity. Every Iraqi, every Arab, and every human being should ask himself for the reason they were murdered, before he [waves] the banner of international law. We the Iraqis were candidates [to have the same fate as] the Hutu and the Zulu tribes, the Cambodians, the victims of the Holocaust and the millions of Russians massacred at the hands of Stalin. Considering the blindness of international law and the apathy and lack of compassion of our Muslim brethrens… and supposing that the U.S. had remained silent and in a truce with Saddam, we could have lost millions of additional lives in wars waged by Saddam, his sons and his grandsons.

"If the justification for the war was not very clear prior to its onset then following the liberation there has been no doubt about it in the mind of anyone who has any sense. It has become clear in light of waves of Arab mercenaries crossing the borders [into Iraq]… Saddam Hussein prepared for war, and anyone who claims otherwise is lying blatantly. It is true that he did not deploy his missiles, and it is true that he did not strap explosives to hundreds of thousands of his suicide seekers and guards so that they can blow themselves in the midst of Americans and Brits -- the way Abd Al-Aziz Al-Rantisi [of Hamas] was hoping. But Saddam prepared a different weapon, more effective and more dangerous…

"Saddam Hussein's war was not against the Americans… Saddam's war was first and foremost against the Iraqis, including his own clan and household relatives. Therefore, his weapon… was more degenerate than any WMD, and he convinced himself that with it he could cast his fear on others. Saddam Hussein released from prison tens of thousands of the most die-hard criminals and murderers, after eliminating the last political prisoners he had in his hands…

"Therefore, the liberation of Iraq is an utterly blessed and positive deliverance, even if Germany, France, Russia, China and all the Arabs say otherwise." ["It is Liberation, Even if the Whole World says Otherwise," Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), September 29, 2003.]

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."

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

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.

A fetish was made about the delivery of books and materials for the first day of classes. "For too many years," said the mayor, "we heard stories about books not being in classrooms in time for the first day of school. I am proud to say that we made good on our promise in January, and here they are, ready for Monday's classes." Yes, most books and materials were delivered on time. But most of these were books for classroom libraries to encourage independent reading--nice to have in place the first day of school, but hardly the centerpiece of the first couple of week's classroom activity.

 The cost of this new efficiency, however, was that scores of back-office people who normally processed new employees were dispatched to the schools to count the books and make sure they were distributed to classrooms. Because of this diversion of resources, 5,000 new teachers didn't get their first regular paychecks this past Monday, 10 times the number than were similarly inconvenienced last year. New teacher retention is one of the key problems in schools across the nation, particularly here in New York City; one quarter of this year's crop can be expected to leave by next September.This won't help. [NY Sun]