Here is Jeff Jacoby's new article...this time on John Kerry's "UN Fetish." First off, I have to say, this quote by Kerry [["George Bush has pursued the most arrogant, inept, reckless, and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of this country."]] is WAY out of line. Quotes like this (and his infamous, GW "fucked up" quote from Rolling Stone- Kerry's way of kissing the younger crowd's ass, just like he'll switch and claim that he's Irish- he's not, to kiss the ass of the Irish when he talks to them) are why Americans, and I'm sure people the world over, cannot stand politicians in general. They seem to be, for the most part, hateful, arrogant men and women who are completely out of touch with the common man. Kerry needs to have some respect for, not just the president, but THE OFFICE of the President...
Jacoby is dead on in this piece. Kerry has no strategy whatsoever. His only claim is- Bush has alienated the world. He goes on and on about how Bush alienated the UN, and that's why they're not playing a bigger role in Iraq.
First- that's crazy. The members of the security council are almost surely guilty of taking money from the Iraqi regime in illegal oil shipments...we know that some of the nations are, indeed, guilty of this. THAT is why they didn't want Hussein overthrown...it's not because Bush is "inept" or "reckless" or "arrogant." Now, we find out that the UN is embroiled in the scandal with the food for oil program...which seems to indicate that high-ranking U.N. officials were taking bribes and funneling billions from the program, and dumping it straight into the lap of Hussein himself, while the Iraqi people starved.
Kerry's claims are just laughable in light of all that is going on in the UN right now. I won't even go into the fact that we're talking about a body that has nations like Syria in the human rights commission...a group that does NOT include the United States. Check out who IS part of the human rights commission (read the list, and you'll agree, it's a total joke.)
Some nations with the worst human rights records on earth have helped to "protect" human rights thru the UN Commission on Human Rights. The same body that has communist China as a member of the security council!
Kerry wants you believe it's Bush that alienated the UN and not the fact that the UN is so corrupt, and especially corrupt with Iraq, that there's no way they'd get involved, even if Hussein was outright murdering millions in gas chambers!
The UN is a farce, let's get that much straight. And Kerry's idea of going to that body and kissing the asses of corrupt governments to help with Iraq is plain crazy.
As Jacoby points out...Kerry is a one note kind of guy. UN, UN, UN, UN... He has no plan. He has no real ideas.
--------------------------
KERRY'S U.N. FETISH
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
Thursday, April 22, 2004
For the better part of 18 months, John Kerry has bitterly denounced the Bush administration's conduct of international relations, above all in Iraq. Over and over he has pronounced his unsparing indictment: "George Bush has pursued the most arrogant, inept, reckless, and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of this country."
That is remarkably hostile language for a presidential challenger. No major party candidate for the White House in modern times has so thoroughly abandoned the principle that politics stops at the water's edge.
On the other hand, voters clearly benefit when candidates articulate their differences, and make plain what is at stake on Election Day. After 18 months of honing his anti-Bush message, Kerry should be able to outline his alternative foreign policy with crystal clarity. He should have no trouble laying out a comprehensive vision for Iraq and the Middle East and explaining why it is superior to Bush's.
So why doesn't he do so?
On "Meet the Press" this week, NBC's Tim Russert pressed Kerry to spell out just what it is he hopes to accomplish in Iraq, and how his goals differ from Bush's. Among his questions: Do you believe the war in Iraq was a mistake? Do you have a plan to deal with Iraq? If you are elected, will there be 100,000 US troops in Iraq a year from now? Why do you say the UN and NATO should take over when they don't have the troops or the desire to do so?
Here is a representative excerpt from Kerry's replies:
"We need a new president . . . to re-establish credibility with the rest of the world. . . . Here is the bottom line: Number one, you cannot bring other nations to the table through the back door. You cannot have America run the occupation, make all the reconstruction decisions, make the decisions of the kind of government that will emerge, and pretend to bring other nations to the table.
"Now, finally, George Bush is doing what I . . . have recommended. In effect, he's transferred to the UN the decision about what government we'll turn it over to. But he won't transfer to the UN the real authority for determining how the government emerges, how we will do the reconstruction of Iraq. . . .
"If I'm president, I will not only personally go to the UN, I will go to other capitals. . . . I will immediately reach out to other nations in a very different way from this administration. Within weeks of being inaugurated, I will return to the UN and I will literally, formally rejoin the community of nations and turn over a proud new chapter in America's relationship with the world."
No matter how the question is put, Kerry's answers on Iraq always boil down to a single recipe: Shrink the US role in Iraq and defer to the United Nations instead. That's it. That is the sum and substance of his thinking about Iraq. He doesn't relate it to the war on terrorism, to the future of liberty in the Middle East, to America's national interests. He repeatedly declares Bush a failure for not kowtowing to the UN and vows that in a Kerry administration, the UN will be given the commanding role it deserves.
Kerry has been talking this way for months. In his speech on Iraq at the Brookings Institution last fall, for example, he mentioned the UN no fewer than 25 times. ("We need a new Security Council resolution to give the United Nations real authority in the rebuilding of Iraq. . . . This shift of authority from the United States to the United Nations is indispensable.") By contrast, he mentioned terrorism just seven times. He mentioned freedom, democracy, and the Middle East not at all.
There is more of this UN fetish in Kerry's recent Washington Post column on Iraq. "The United Nations, not the United States," he writes, "should be the primary civilian partner in working with Iraqi leaders to hold elections, restore government services, rebuild the economy, and recreate a sense of hope and optimism among the Iraqi people."
When Bush speaks about Iraq, by contrast, it is clear that he has thought the subject through and related it to his larger goals in the world. Agree or disagree with Bush's vision for Iraq, there is no denying he has one. Consider an extract from his recent press conference:
"The defeat of violence and terror in Iraq is vital to the defeat of violence and terror elsewhere, and vital, therefore, to the safety of the American people. Now is the time, and Iraq is the place, in which the enemies of the civilized world are testing the will of the civilized world. We must not waver. . . .
"The consequences of failure in Iraq would be unthinkable. Every friend of America and Iraq would be betrayed to prison and murder as a new tyranny arose. Every enemy of America and the world would celebrate, proclaiming our weakness and decadence, and using that victory to recruit a new generation of killers.
"We will succeed in Iraq. . . . Iraq will be a free, independent country, and America and the Middle East will be safer because of it. . . . We serve the cause of liberty, and that is always . . . a cause worth serving."
The cause of liberty and the defeat of terror vs. the cause of a more powerful UN: In this first presidential election of the post-9/11 world, that is what the choice comes down to.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
"The UN is a farce, let's get that much straight. And Kerry's idea of going to that body and kissing the asses of corrupt governments to help with Iraq is plain crazy"
- If the UN is such a farce, then why did Bush (and you) make such a big deal about all the UN Resolutions Saddam broke? If it's wrong to criticize Bush for not "kowtowing" to the UN, isn't it wrong to criticize Saddam for basically the same thing? It seems that Bush only enforces UN policy when it's convenient.
Posted by: lowdown at April 23, 2004 11:12 AMDAMNIT! YOU BEAT ME TO IT! Couldn't have said it better myself.
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at April 23, 2004 06:08 PMSorry, I promise I'll give you first crack at the next one..
Posted by: lowdown at April 23, 2004 07:21 PMno one said they were making a big deal out of broken resolutions. hussein was ousted because he broke a cease fire agreement and refused to abide by anyones rules. you can talk about his breaking resolutions and still think the UN is a farce...clearly a concept over your head, but thats not too shocking.
bush isnt trying to enforce UN policy...hes enforcing US policy and carrying out common sense action.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at April 24, 2004 02:28 AM"no one said they were making a big deal out of broken resolutions"
From Time Magazine:
"So President Bush on Thursday gave Iraq one last chance to comply with UN resolutions requiring that he end his weapons of mass destruction program and submit it to unfettered inspection. Striking a bellicose tone, the President warned Baghdad that COMPLYING FULLY WITH UN RESOLUTIONS WAS ITS ONLY HOPE FOR AVOIDING WAR."
Link: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,350259,00.html
"you can talk about his breaking resolutions and still think the UN is a farce"
- Yes, clearly that is your opinion. My argument is that international law should be obeyed by EVERYONE, otherwise it's useless. If the UN says Saddam should comply with certain demands, than he should. If the UN also says that only they have the right to enforce the resolutions (and they did, in resolution 1441), than that demand should also be respected. If the Bush administration doesn't completely agree with international law, than they should give up the pretense of pretending to enforce it.
"clearly a concept over your head, but thats not too shocking"
- Was this really necessary? Isn't it possible to have an honest disagreement about something without resporting to this kind of discourse?
"bush isnt trying to enforce UN policy"
Here is an article taken from the Japanese embassy that directly contradicts that statement:
BUSH SAY U.S. WILL ENFORCE U.N. DEMANDS REGARDING IRAQ
The United States is "determined to enforce" U.N. demands that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein declare and eliminate all his weapons of mass destruction, President Bush said in his radio address to the nation March 1.
Link:http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20030303a3.html
its clearly too complicated for you...or, more likely, you just hate bush and most likely america itself (as most of your comments seem to indicate) to be honest about the situation.
playing the semantics game is all well and good, but its tiresome.
the US does comply with international law. you love the UN, youve made that clear...the fact is hussein defied international rules, he violated the cease fire, he has been a menace for over a decade...we dont need the UN before saddam, we didnt need their help in taking out saddam- which make sense since many nations were getting illegal kickbacks from the oil for food program, and some were making illegal shipments of oil to the nation...that alone tells you the UN is a joke.
of course bush and anyone else with sense is going to mention UN resoultions. as i said, you can think its a joke, but still bring up the flagrant violations (17 resolutions passed, all of them failed to get hussein in line). ultimately, we were taking out hussein because hes a tyrant, and everyone on earth thought he had WMD- its widely reported that hussein himself was told he had WMD. its really not that complicated.
as you prefer kerry over bush...i wouldnt expect you to admit the absurd nature of his policy, and his relentless talk of the UN and going to the UN to get them to take care of iraq (youll remember they bailed when they were attacked.)
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at April 24, 2004 03:40 PM"its clearly too complicated for you...or, more likely, you just hate bush and most likely america itself (as most of your comments seem to indicate) to be honest about the situation."
-You have yet to address any of the refuted points Lowdown has made. Such responses only prove your ignorance, and closed minded standard of debate.
"you love the UN, youve made that clear..."
-After many debates with Lowdown concerning the UN, I could say with certainty that your comment is very far from the truth (and I can honestly say I do not like the current UN. I don't think my countries foreign policy should be dictated by a corrupt world body like the UN. I elect my leader to lead my country, not Kofi Annan).
"we didnt need their help in taking out saddam-"
-But you need their help now don't you? The easy part is done, now you need this "insignificant international body" to mop up the mess you made.
"ultimately, we were taking out hussein because hes a tyrant,"
-God, you don;t even know why the US invaded Iraq, so how do you expect us to take you seriously? Iraq was invaded to "dissarm Saddam from his yet to be found WMD"...not to rid a tyrant.
Answer me this (if you can). If ousting Saddam was the true priority, then why did Bush give Saddam that 24 hour deadline to give up his WMD? Had Saddam complied, he would still be in power today. Just goes to show I guess...
"as you prefer kerry over bush"
-I wouldn't say "prefer", but rather Kerry is the lesser of two evils.
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at April 24, 2004 06:32 PM"the US does comply with international law"
- Isn't the US the only country in the world to be indicted for international terrorism by the world court (for things the Reagan administartion did in Nicaragua)? Is that in compliance with international law?
"you love the UN, youve made that clear"
- I feel the UN is a flawed actuality, but not a poor concept. I love the idea of everybody agreeing to obey the same laws and then being punished equally when they don't. I'm certainly not ashamed of that.
- So, am I to assume you recant your original position that "bush isnt trying to enforce UN policy"?
"the fact is hussein defied international rules"
-So has the U.S., Spain, Italy, Turkistan, Israel ect... Why hasn't the US unilaterally invaded them?
"he violated the cease fire"
- The same cease-fire aggrement that explicitly denied any single country to go to war with Iraq without the consent of the UN? Didn't the US violate the cease-fire as well?
"he has been a menace for over a decade"
- He was more of a menace when Donald Rumsfield was supplying him with biological weapons. At the time of the war, he was the leader of the weakest (militarily) country in the middle-east. He was still a menace to his own people (to a much smaller degree than in the 80's), but so are many world leaders. The leaders of Turkistan and Uzbekistan are far worse to their own people than Saddam was to his at the time of the war. Is it really the U.S.'s right to pick and choose what leaders get to stay and which ones don't? And then bomb whichever country has a dictator installed and then, once the "collateral damage" is over, impose their own brand of democracy on the country?
"we dont need the UN before saddam, we didnt need their help in taking out saddam"
- Well, the first Bush and Clinton administrations needed the UN to universally impose economic sanctions on Iraq. Of course, most objective analysts (including the World Health Organazation) agreed that the sanctions only served to strenghten Saddam and cripple his people, but I suppose that's another discussion for another time.
"that alone tells you the UN is a joke"
- You've made your position on the UN's credibility clear already, and I haven't argued against it. So why do you keep bringing it up?
"as i said, you can think its a joke, but still bring up the flagrant violations "
- Yes, you did say that before. But you haven't really explained why. If the UN is a joke, than aren't their policy's also a joke? Why would Bush or "anyone with sense" enforce the laws of governing body that they think is a joke?
"ultimately, we were taking out hussein because hes a tyrant"
- Well, no. If that were the case, the U.S. would have invaded several other countries by now. Believe it or not, Saddam isn't the only tyrant in the world.
"everyone on earth thought he had WMD"
- Assuming that's true (and it isn't), what if "everyone" thought Canada had WMDs? Would you invade then? You need FACTS to support a war, not THOUGHTS.
"as you prefer kerry over bush"
- Excuse my langage but, WTF!? Where did this come from? Didn't I basically call kerry a pussy on your site?
"youll remember they bailed when they were attacked"
- When was the UN attacked?
Posted by: lowdown at April 24, 2004 07:11 PM"you just hate bush and most likely america itself (as most of your comments seem to indicate"
- I missed this the first time around. What have I said that gives you the impression that I hate America? I usually make a concious effort not to criticize the country but explicitly site specific administrations whenever I'm condemning something the U.S. government does. I feel that certain American governments (republican and democratic) have made big mistakes. That's all.
Posted by: lowdown at April 24, 2004 07:18 PMI came across a funny set of George Bush quotes I though I would share with you all. I find them rather ironic.
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
-- President George W. Bush, September 13, 2001.
A year later, my my, how the opinion changes. And the Republicans complain about how much Kerry changes his mind? Like I said, the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me..
"I don't know where he [Osama] is and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
-- President George W. Bush, May 13, 2002.
But anyway...