UN lateralist
Most of the politicians in this country who insist on getting UN approval for attacking Saddam are Democrats who hope France will prevent such an attack. Sen. Carl Levin is an obvious example. Apparently, if polls are to be believed, there are many people outside the US who seem to think there is something important about UN approval. At best these are usually political leaders who do not want to take responsibility for what they know needs to be done. They want to be able to tell their people that the UN made me do it. This is leadership through cowardice.
The Levin example is interesting because he was totally unmoved by UN approval in 1991. I have often thought that the Bush 41 team went to the UN first because they knew they could get approval there which would put pressure on the wuss wing of the Democratic Party to not be the only people in the world oppose to reversing Saddam's conquest of Kuwait. Now Levin says that was the right way to approach the use of force--anything else would be UNilateral. He is going to need additional therapy sessions to recover all his memory of events in 1991. A little over a week ago he thought his vote agaisnt the 1991 use of force resolution was based on advice from then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell, who, according to Levin said, that sanctions should be given more time. Powell and contemporary news reports say that Powell never deviated from the administration position, and when the administration said it was time for a use of force resolution he supported it. In fairness to Levin I think he was trying to spin his way out of a difficult question--Since he was wrong in 1991 why should we not conclude he is wrong again in 2003?
While the UN can sometimes be helpful, it should be ignored when it's members are not disposed to do what is necessary. This is what Clinton did on several occasions and I do not recall any complaints from Sen. Levin. The senator needs to stop spinning and just admit he does not want to depose Saddam.
Most of the politicians in this country who insist on getting UN approval for attacking Saddam are Democrats who hope France will prevent such an attack. Sen. Carl Levin is an obvious example. Apparently, if polls are to be believed, there are many people outside the US who seem to think there is something important about UN approval. At best these are usually political leaders who do not want to take responsibility for what they know needs to be done. They want to be able to tell their people that the UN made me do it. This is leadership through cowardice.
The Levin example is interesting because he was totally unmoved by UN approval in 1991. I have often thought that the Bush 41 team went to the UN first because they knew they could get approval there which would put pressure on the wuss wing of the Democratic Party to not be the only people in the world oppose to reversing Saddam's conquest of Kuwait. Now Levin says that was the right way to approach the use of force--anything else would be UNilateral. He is going to need additional therapy sessions to recover all his memory of events in 1991. A little over a week ago he thought his vote agaisnt the 1991 use of force resolution was based on advice from then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell, who, according to Levin said, that sanctions should be given more time. Powell and contemporary news reports say that Powell never deviated from the administration position, and when the administration said it was time for a use of force resolution he supported it. In fairness to Levin I think he was trying to spin his way out of a difficult question--Since he was wrong in 1991 why should we not conclude he is wrong again in 2003?
While the UN can sometimes be helpful, it should be ignored when it's members are not disposed to do what is necessary. This is what Clinton did on several occasions and I do not recall any complaints from Sen. Levin. The senator needs to stop spinning and just admit he does not want to depose Saddam.
Comments
Post a Comment