Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
My eyes are rolling. They're rolling for you. - A little less than a happy high
My eyes are rolling. They're rolling for you.
I find it just a little absurd that the indictment of the French still gets tossed around by conservatives. When in a recent discussion someone commented that the French are, "a nation of cowards and traitors to the organizations to which they belong," I couldn't help but wonder if the French thought that Americans were "a nation of cowards" when we chose, on two separate occasions, to sit on our haunches for a full two years before interceding when their nation was invaded by an aggressive foreign power.... or that we were, "traitors to organizations to which (we) belong,"* when we chose to flout the UN to engage in a preemptive war against another sovereign state.

There must be a great deal of comfort in ignoring the historical continuum.

*I also wonder how many conservatives have a memory long enough to note that it was republicans who opposed US participation in NATO's peacekeeping action in the Balkans. Among things said about Clinton's "micro wars" were that they were:

"poorly considered and unlikely to achieve our desired ends." - Dick Armey, R-Texas
"just another bad idea in a foreign policy without a focus." - Tom Delay, R-Texas
2 comments or Leave a comment
rciaodree From: rciaodree Date: December 5th, 2004 04:51 pm (UTC) (Link)
It is absurd. It's ridiculous to watch conservatives like William Safire and his buddies call for Kofi Annan's head -- their feigned indignation over the oil-for-food scandal is pathetically transparent vengeance.

This is from a recent article by James Traub in the LA TIMES:
It's not news, of course, that conservatives dislike and distrust the U.N. But the debate over a resolution authorizing force in Iraq was, for many of them, the last straw. Annan himself played only a very small role in this protracted agony; the Bush administration couldn't get the resolution it wanted because it could not persuade even traditional allies on the Security Council that war was necessary.

And that's just the point: It's not about Annan or "the secretariat." Conservatives were infuriated that the Security Council would withhold the stamp of legitimacy from a war they considered self-evidently just. The incident proved to them, as if they needed more proof, that the U.N. was not a place where the U.S. could transact serious business.

Thus the godsend of oil-for-food. For those who want the U.N. simply to go away, physically as well as politically, the oil-for-food scandal proves that the entire enterprise is irremediable (though this seems tantamount to arguing that the recent spate of corporate accounting frauds demonstrates the failure of free-market capitalism). What conservatives cannot accept, at bottom, is the premise that an international body, even one over which the United States exercises enormous sway, should be allowed to pass on the legitimacy or legality of American actions. And if you can't accept that, you can't accept the U.N.
komos From: komos Date: December 6th, 2004 12:45 pm (UTC) (Link)
I suppose that it's too late to point out the the the US had direct oversight of the program and any failings are ultimately our responsibility?
2 comments or Leave a comment