September 18, 2003

A Question for the Candidates and/or Their Supporters

Since it is becoming manifestly obvious that the French (with their veto power) will stand in the way of US goals in Iraq vis-à-vis the UN, how should we evaluate the statements by the various Democratic presidential candidates who say they would have gone/would go to the UN and get the help we need and that the lack of UN help is simply a failure on the part of the Bush administration?

a. It is a disingenuous attempt to manipulate the public, as they full well know that it is impossible to do what they are claiming should have been done and can be done.

b. A manifest example of how these individuals really don’t understand international relations, and therefore calls into question whether they ought to be Commander-in-Chief and chief diplomat of the US government.

c. A sterling example of the egoism of politicians, who, even in the face of contrary evidence, nonetheless believe if it only they were in office, they could have pulled off the impossible.

Likely, it is a combo of all three, and, certainly a hefty helping of “c”. Still, the constant insistence that simply “going to the UN” is the solution to all ills and the universal fix to the complexities of Iraq and the war on terror is rather vacuous.

Posted by Steven Taylor at September 18, 2003 06:28 PM | TrackBack
Comments

Definitely "c" most of all. For a case in point, look at how two presidents -- Clinton and Bush -- invested a lot of time and resources into the Middle East peace process only to have it all unravel because of the intransigence of Yassir Arafat. The reality of Arafat as a roadblock to any road map doesn't stop someone like Howard Dean from claiming that if he beats Bush, we can have peace in the Middle East.

Posted by: Matthew at September 18, 2003 06:58 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?