35 Comments

1. Rich:

Why are we worried about statements “Senator” Kerry makes about “consulting with allies”? His record shows that this opinion may very well change again next week.

The only thing consistent about John Kerry seems to be his inconsistency.

Oct 4, 2004 - 8:42 pm 2. Reza:

The Artist Formerly Known As John Kerry

Oct 4, 2004 - 9:03 pm 3. pothos:

How much “harm” could be done if the Bush team took off the gloves with the UN, if only until the election? And can’t the critique be compartmentalized so’s not to endanger the utility of UN functions still needed in Iraq and Afghanistan? With one month left in the race I just don’t get this strategy.

Oct 4, 2004 - 9:07 pm 4. Morgan:

The UN, conceived as a grand forum for nations to come together to peacefully resolve differences and work toward the common good, has come to this - a game played for profit by nations bankrupt financially and morally.

Of the five permanent members of the security council, only the US and the UK retain any notion that the UN is anything but a place to posture on the world stage and cheat the world’s most desparate citizens of hope, treasure, and life. Colin Powell’s attempt to pursuade the “august body” that it must back up its posturing with action was a noble gesture on the part of the administration - noble and risible. Noble because it refused to assume corruption beyond any hope of useful action, and risible for the same reason. There was money to be stolen, there were palms to be greased - self interest was at stake. Principles be damned.

The dying words of the UN were these: “We reject the logic of ultimatums”. They were spoken in French, the mummified language of a dying culture desperate to hang on to the tatters of its relevance.

It cost nothing to utter these words, because the speaker represents a country that could not back up an ultimatum in any case - issuing one would merely serve to underscore its utter uselessness. Aligning with the US gets you called a poodle. Stand against it and you’re a tiger. A paper tiger, certainly, but for some that’s good enough.

And besides, the tiger needs cash; the status quo suited it just fine.

There are no people dying in the Sudan. Why? because the US and UK are otherwise occupied. If genocide were really going on, someone would need to do something. Who? Who would send the troops?

Well, the US would, or no one. So there is no genocide, and we’ll trot out as many phony “disinterested” “humanitarian” witnesses as necessary to make that true enough. That way, if anyone embarasses us by trying to do something about it, they’ll be “in violation of international law” and our pig-ignorant populi will think them pigs, and us tigers, as we curse them through our media servants.

The UN long ago passed the point of being a disgrace. It is an active force for evil in the world, and the sooner we kill it the better.

Oct 4, 2004 - 9:42 pm 5. Morgan:

Umm… you can probably guess what I think of the “global test” doctrine.

Oct 4, 2004 - 9:56 pm 6. Clay Ranck:

I was hoping Bush would bring up Oil-for-Food when Kerry was on one of his “summit” kicks on Thursday. Alas, it was not to be…

Bush also should have “called out” the UN to a much greater extent during the debate, so that Americans would understand the situation we face. It is increasingly the “international community” that is preventing a solution to problems around the world: Sudan, Iran, and Oil-for-Food are all manifestations of the same root problem.

It’s time for the international “club of democracies”. Yes, we may still have to let in the Frnech, but it’s immensely better than having Lybia and Sudan on the UN High Commission for Human Rights. “High Commission”? Such irony!

Oct 4, 2004 - 9:59 pm 7. Buddy Larsen:

Ah, so good of you to bring up into better view this little oddment of the good senator’s. Here is why the words that exit the Democrat mouth will describe you the same on Monday as they will on Wednesday, after you spent Tuesday murdering your wife and children. It’s the Florida 2000 syndrome, Roger! They learned that they can say anything they want, and no giant hand will come down from heaven and smite their veracity. Their own attempted steal of Florida 2000 was such a disgrace that it hadda be jui-jitsu’ed into a sainted martyrdom sending the touched on pilgrimages where the mass speaking-in-tongues (if a bit forked) trance has now bent reality itself to where the U.N. that John Kerry is talking about is NOT the same U.N. that your oil thingie is about. There IS no oil scandal whatchamacallit. You’re just a partisanly smearing conspiracy guy.

Oct 4, 2004 - 10:00 pm 8. Rick Ballard:

Morgan,

A very eloquent comment to which little can be added. The UN and its concomittant scandals coupled with the depth of its perversity will not be a factor in this election. W already struck the mortal blow via Powell in the run up to GWII. There will be time after the election to aid in putting it out of its misery. Perhaps the remnants of the MSM will devote a bit of ink to the laundry list of UN perfidy as a form of penitence.

Oct 4, 2004 - 10:32 pm 9. Fresh Air:

Pothos–

I’m afraid the Bush campaign just isn’t going to start pounding the buttheads at Turtle Bay. As Roger points out, there is too much background on Oil-for-Food that is completely unknown to most MSM ignorami. As Sy Syms used to say, “An educated consumer is our best customer.”

Having said that, the U.N. is a great whipping boy and you get a two-fer by smacking Kerry around at the same time. The U.S. population is deeply suspicious, if not outright hostile to, this pathetic organization. Strikes me that there is little downside to doing it.

Wait til the final reports are in from KPMG and Freshfields. Then the shelling will really start.

Oct 4, 2004 - 11:24 pm 10. IceCold:

Funny, Roger — just last month I was put on the spot to discuss the election with a convivial small group with whom I wouldn’t raise such matters in 10,000 years. Just for fun I started by asking who had heard of UNSCAM. Four blank faces. They had literally no idea what I was referring to. I made a general and gentle comment about how it was difficult to discuss the war or election as I felt there was just no common information base. I was sort of shocked not that they’d heard nothing of UNSCAM, but that they felt no mortification or curiousity about that fact.

But I think we all should guard against reductionist explanations of French or Russian behavior centered on UNSCAM. Both because UNSCAM was only one factor, and because focusing on it understates the problem, particularly with France.

Iraq was Russia’s chief partner in the Arab world since the early 80s, was a cash-cow customer quite apart from UNSCAM, and I think the prospect of a US take-down of Saddam’s regime was too much for the “nationalist,” Iraq-centric, largely anti-American elements dominant in the security services/military and some of the diplomatic establishment.

France of course also had been Iraq’s principal European partner for decades and Iraq served as the centerpiece of France’s Arab world strategy, was/would be a huge economic interest (recall the astounding bonanza on profit share from future oil field development that was agreed to, as described in Timmerman’s book), and France’s counter-American grand strategy naturally had no tolerance for a US move to eliminate Saddam’s regime.

Even with the UN itself, it’s easy to imagine that dysfunctional, anti-US, anti-military, and pro-Arab instincts would always suffice to create hostility to anything like Op. Iraqi Freedom, even without the massive financial self-interest present in the UNSCAM program.

I find it impossible to imagine that French and Russian and UN Secretariat reaction to US determination to enforce resolutions and if needed take down the Iraqi regime would have been any different absent the UNSCAM factor. Nor would the reflexive opposition of much of the Third World and nearly all the Arab world likely have been any different.

UNSCAM is important in itself, the incredible media refusal to cover it is close to scary, but the opposition to vigorous US actions like OIF is sadly a separate depressing topic.

Oct 4, 2004 - 11:40 pm 11. Sandy P:

Why, of course, Senator, let’s work w/the UN, via Lucianne:

The United Nations has signed a co-operation agreement with the new International Criminal Court, despite objections to the tribunal from the United States. The pact that would encourage “greater co-operation and consultation” on administration and judicial matters was signed by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Judge Phillipe Kirsch of Canada, the court’s president.

Oct 4, 2004 - 11:47 pm 12. Foobarista:

The problem with trotting out the Oil-For-FOod scandal in a debate is that it hasn’t been in the press, which would make Bush sound like a crackpot talking about black helicopters. This is why the media ignoring or middle-paging all stories that don’t fit the soft-left narrative is such a violation of public trust.

Oct 5, 2004 - 12:11 am 13. David Thomson:

ìWith one month left in the race I just don’t get this strategy.î

Did somebody tell you that the world is fair? If so, you were grossly deceived. George W. Bush would probably lose the election if he bluntly told the truth concerning the United Nations. He would be crucified for making such allegedly divisive accusations. There are less than thirty days before the election. Thatís simply not enough time to convert the swing voters. At this very moment, few have any idea what you are talking about. Prudence dictates that the Bush campaign emphasizes the cooperation it receives from the international community. No, it is the duty of the blogger community and other pro-freedom groups to keep the heat on Kofi Anonís band of sleaze bags.

President Bush retains a comfortable lead in the electoral college. He and Dick Cheney must get the debates behinds them and continue campaigning hard in the swing states. A five point victory seems reasonable.

Oct 5, 2004 - 12:32 am 14. christian:

All I know yet (I haven’t read that much about the oil for food fraud),

is that Germany was not a part of this UN corruption big time and that Oil For Food was not the reason for Germany’s betrayal of its allies in Iraq.

Rather it was the weakness and the opportunism of chancellor Schroeder and the ignorance of the German conservatives with regard to foreign affairs (they tried to hit Schroeder, who had an awful relationsship with Chirac in the wake of OIF, by insisting how wise and evenhanded (and not malicious) France would handle their diplomatic stand towards the U.S.)

and pressure from the hardcore left, inside and outside the parliament, that lead to the unholy German France alliance. When Schroeder sided with Jacques Chirac he betrayed George W. Bush and Tony Blair, but made himself unassailable by the German conservatives, thanks to their idiotic counsel.

Oct 5, 2004 - 3:02 am 15. Terrye:

The question is not why didn’t Bush bring up the food for oil scandal at the debate, but why didn’t Lehrer?

He is the guy that is supposed to be asking the questions.

Folks, a lot of people don’t have the details on this scandal but they know the UN is corrupt.

They just choose to ignore it. At one point in the debate Kerry refferd to “accounting” errors and I thought this is what he was talking about. I bet most people missed that.

Oct 5, 2004 - 4:48 am 16. ricpic:

Morgan,

“We reject the logic of ultimatums.”

In a sense, this statement is understandable coming out of a context in which no one really believes in anything other than doing deals and maintaining ones privileged position.

After all, in the world in which every position is open to negotiation an ultimatum loses all force.

The shock of Bush to “the international community” is that he genuinely believes in certain core principles, and will - for that reason - deliver on an ultimatum.

Oct 5, 2004 - 4:49 am 17. Syl:

I don’t think it really matters too much whether the American public in general knows about UNSCAM or not.

What resonates with the public concerning going to Iraq are two things:

French obstruction

No WMD

Whichever is ascendant on Nov 2 determines the election outcome.

French obstruction, no matter for what reason, is a fact and clearly seen by all Americans.

“No WMD” used against Bush depends on convincing the public that Bush lied. This is contrary to the public’s assessment of Bush as an honest man. It cannot work.

This was brought home to me when I read an anti-Bush (no WMD) comment concerning the debate over at Vodkapundit.

He was in a bar watching the debate. When Kerry mentioned ‘global test’ the patrons reacted by shouting ‘FRENCH TEST’!!

Remember that Americans fully supported the war in Iraq, and though many are upset that no WMD stockpiles have been found, they have heard about the danger of Saddam for years and years which counts for a lot.

And Americans were very very aware of the French backstabbing. I think when it’s boiled down to ‘pleasing the French’ or ‘no WMD’ Americans are more pissed at France than they are upset by no WMD.

Bush is going to win.

Oct 5, 2004 - 5:30 am 18. Jamie Irons:

Speaking of the so-called “fact” that “there were no WMD in Iraq” has anyone learned anything further about that CSN (?) report yesterday on documents found in Iraq, allegedly originating from Saddam’s regime, detailing both WMD programs and cooperation with terrorists?

Jamie Irons

Oct 5, 2004 - 6:00 am 19. Morgan:

Jamie,

Apparently Sean Hannity asked Rumsfeld about them yesterday on the radio. Rumsfeld is taking a “wait and see” attitude. Me too. I’d hate to see these documents CBSed.

Oct 5, 2004 - 6:35 am 20. pothos:

Ken Mehlman seems to agree with David Thompson’s assessment. From Mehlman’s form letter today:

“We need your help tonight! …

“Immediately after [tonight's] debate, visit online polls, chat rooms, and discussion boards and make your voice heard. The major news networks will all have internet polls after the debate. …

“Make sure swing state voters know why you support the President by sharing your thoughts on message boards in target states.

“Call Talk Radio shows in your area. Write letters to the editors of your local papers.

“Visit Chat rooms …

“Beyond tonight, you should return to these forums in the coming days and make your voice heard and your support for the President known.”

Oct 5, 2004 - 6:54 am 21. Jamie Irons:

Morgan

Thanks. I agreee with Rummy that caution is warranted.

He’s probably keeping in mind the “Niger yellowcake” kerfuffle.

Jamie Irons

Oct 5, 2004 - 7:24 am 22. R C Dean:

And Paul Volcker’s internal UN investigation has had the paradoxical result of pushing the scandal even further from view, its conclusions hidden from the public until long after the coming election.

There’s nothing paradoxical about it, Roger - that was Kofi’s purpose all along in setting up this internal “investigation.”

Oct 5, 2004 - 7:40 am 23. Michael B:

“The question is not why didn’t Bush bring up the food for oil scandal at the debate, but why didn’t Lehrer?”

Exactly. The omissions, the occlusions and elisions of the MSM, are just as important as their more assertive spins. What they choose to edit out just as important as what they choose to edit in.

Lehrer could have - and should have - framed this question within a brief history of what UNSCAM is all about. Given Kerry’s long and storied past of reflexive transnationalist inclinations and ideological outlooks, it’s a question that should have been foremost among those directed at Kerry. Lehrer, however, elides this subject entirely - almost certainly a conscious choice.

Lehrer fails the global test.

Oct 5, 2004 - 8:41 am 24. flenser:

Following on from Lehrer’s shortcomings, all the interviewers scheduled for all the debates are from the same mold. The Cheney-Edwards interview is being conducted by another PBS employee. It’s unbelievable to me that the Bush camp did not hold out for someone like Brit Hume to work one of these debates. Of course, given the overall ineptitude of the Rove and the RNC, I don’t know exactly why I’m surprised.

Still, what a pleasant day-dream; Hume asking Kerry about Oil-for-food, UN corruption, Christmas in Cambodia, magic hats, etc.

I sometimes wonder if Rove is not a secret DNC mole.

Oct 5, 2004 - 9:20 am 25. Old Dad:

Roger,

Spot on! At best, the UN is hopelessy incompetent and dysfunctional. At worst, it’s hopelessly corrupt, and a front for fascist and totalitarian thugs.

What do the fascists and totalitarians have in common? A hatred of Israel, and the United States.

France and Germany must wake up. They’ve been hijacked by their far left who are clearly in bed with radical Islam. How long until sharia comes to Old Europe?

Oct 5, 2004 - 11:48 am 26. directorblue:

Excellent analysis. I would have thought that this point would have been hammered home during the first debate. Perhaps tonight it will come up (VP debates)…

What’s the over/under on the number of times the Veep will mention the term “global test”?

Speaking of which, I think I found an original copy of the test (done with proportional fonts, no less!), which is reproduced here:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2004/10/what-is-global-test-many-of-my-regular.html

Oct 5, 2004 - 1:49 pm 27. Terrye:

flenser:

I think the Bush people wanted to look like they were not afraid to enter the lion’s den.

But aren’t there two more debates after this? who is doing those?

Oct 5, 2004 - 1:56 pm 28. flenser:

Terrye

My undestanding is that Charles Gibson of ABC and Bob Scheiffer of CBS will ne doing the remaining two presidential debates. I can flat out guarantee that neither one will ask Kerry anything that will trouble him; nothing on Cambodia, nothing on how France and Russia were taking kickbacks from Saddam, nothing on UN complicity in Saddams crimes.

That is why I don’t see why the GOP does these debates at all. The absolute best they can get from it is a draw. By definition Bush and Cheney will spend their time playing defense. Then we will see polls describing them as “defensive”. Duh.

I don’t hold Bush or Cheney primarily responsible. But you have to wonder about whoever is their chief campaign strategist. Who is that again?

Oct 5, 2004 - 2:14 pm 29. fat kid:

Bush masterstroke maybe?

Oct 5, 2004 - 2:16 pm 30. Sandy P:

Old Dad, frogistan has not been hijacked by their leftists, start visiting No Pasaran:

They show the cover of a new book out about how frogistan has always been our enemy.

Louie didn’t help US because he was fond of democracy.

Oct 5, 2004 - 2:21 pm 31. Ron Wrght:

Here’s a related comment under, “Atomic Ayatollahs”

Ron Wright

*****

Roger,

Here’s a comment I made at TCP’s OP-ED Section (minus a few typos) re the “Global Test.” I think they’re appropriate for this discussion.

My two bits. John Loftus (FOXNEWS contributor) said Saturday, the Mullahs will have nuclear capability within as little as four months. Run a google search on him and check him out for yourself.

If the Mad Mullahs of Iran become a nuclear threat before the election, Israel will take them out. This time it will probably require some special forces on the ground because of the hardening of the targets. Also the Iranians learned from the previous Iraq strike to disperse their production facilities. The U.S. will issue the usual “tisk tisk.” After the election it will be up to the U.S. whether President Bush is relected or not.

[...]

Read more

Oct 5, 2004 - 3:43 pm 32. thibaud:

Re Bush’s silence on UNSCAM, the sad truth is that Bush and Bremer, when he was de facto viceroy of Iraq, were determined to involve the UN as a willing and able partner in the process of transferring authority to the Iraqis this summer. Therefore Bremer tried to quash the Baghdad-based Big Five accountants’ inquiry into the UNSCAM documents in Baghdad. So it’s not just the MSM who are intent on quashing this story but also the Bush admin.

Which should teach us UN-phobes that the US does in fact need some kind of international body to give the stamp of legitimacy to our actions (outside Europe and our own sphere of influence in Central America and the Caribbean). The task for us is to reform the UNSC so as to make it a serious and effective instrument for conferring legitimacy on our efforts to destroy the jihadists.

Or maybe re-form it entirely. perhaps we should create an alternate security council comprising serious nations that will not make excuses for terrorism. This body would comprise major powers that actually have the ability and willingness to project power abroad and would be focused purely on issues of rogue states, international terror, WMD proliferation, piracy, and the like, and would expressly NOT involve itself in perennial UN PR fests such as North-South , muslims-vs-all, let’s-all-kick-Israel pissing matches.

Call it the Group of 14. It would include the current UNSC members plus Japan and Germany; also crucial Asian democratic powers like South Korea, Australia, India, and Indonesia; and rising democratic powers like Poland, Turkey and Brazil. Other nations would be added to the Group upon demonstration of solid democratic credentials AND– this is at least as important– a willingness to project power abroad as part of the combined struggle of civilized nations against rogue states, terror, piracy etc.

Over time, this Group would become the place where anyone who actually wants to prevent Darfurs and nuclear NoKoreas/Irans would come to get things done, and the UNSC be exposed as little more than an international Hyde Park. In other words, this approach does away with the great 20c sovereignty lie, ie the myth that any sovereign state is de facto a civilized member of the “international community.”

Think of it as the international security equivalent of school choice. Not wise to do away with the public schools, but definitely wise to inject some real competition, and let the best approach win.

Serious nations would want to join the Group, and its stringent standards would induce better behavior, just as the prospect of joining the EU helps separate the democratic, progressive Polands and Czechs from the authoritarian, reactionary Ukraines and Slovakias.

Oct 6, 2004 - 7:27 am 33. Dan Backus:

Oil-for-blood sums up the French position nicely. Let’s just hope it is not too late and the Iraqi people aren’t bled dry.

Oct 6, 2004 - 9:18 am 34. Crank:

The irony is that Kerry has this great reputation for diplomacy when all he does is defecate all over our allies, while Bush is supposed to be Mr. Ugly American, yet Bush is the one who often pulls his domestic political punches out of what can only be concern that his remarks will harm our international standing. If Bush spent Friday night working some riffs from Roger and Mark Steyn and Ralph Peters about the French, the Germans, the Russians and the UN, he could leave Kerry’s signature issue in a smoldering pile of ash. But then Bush would have to go back and work with Chirac, Putin, Schroder, and Annan, so instead he plays nice.

Sometimes being the only grownup in the room sucks.

Oct 7, 2004 - 8:53 am 35. dirt:

Growing old is mandatory, remaining immature is a choice. When did we start needing world approval for our actions as a nation?? I would be very happy to see the powers that be toss the UN out of our country on their crooked little asses.

What I’ve seen suggested here is no more than the old fashioned alliances without the sanctity of a formal body (U.N.) which can get to be a real drag. I have the same love affair with our professional politicians who rarely,if ever, have done an honest day’s work but “feel our pain”

Oct 10, 2004 - 6:44 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: