IF YOU EVER DOUBT HIS SPECIAL PROVIDENCE, RECALL WE SURVIVED THIS CLOWN (via Pepys):

April 23, 2006

Been there, done that: Talk of a U.S. strike on Iran is eerily reminiscent of the run-up to the Iraq war. (Zbigniew Brzezinski, April 23, 2006, LA Times)

IRAN’S ANNOUNCEMENT that it has enriched a minute amount of uranium has unleashed urgent calls for a preventive U.S. airstrike from the same sources that earlier urged war on Iraq. If there is another terrorist attack in the United States, you can bet your bottom dollar that there also will be immediate charges that Iran was responsible in order to generate public hysteria in favor of military action.

But there are four compelling reasons against a preventive air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities:

First, in the absence of an imminent threat (and the Iranians are at least several years away from having a nuclear arsenal), the attack would be a unilateral act of war. If undertaken without a formal congressional declaration of war, an attack would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the president. Similarly, if undertaken without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council, either alone by the United States or in complicity with Israel, it would stamp the perpetrator(s) as an international outlaw(s).

It’s nonsense, of course, but were it really the case that a Democrat wouldn’t attack Iranian nuclear facilities, or any other suchh enemy, without the UN okay they’d never win another election. Giving France, China, and Russia veto over our national interest would be an act of political suicide. The reality is that a President Gore or Kerry would be likewise preparing an attack and the only difference is that they’d have the full support of the other party.


JOHN KERRY WOULD HAVE GIVEN THEM A VETO (via Gene Brown):

April 3, 2006

Did Russia Help Saddam During the War? (Mark Kramer, April 2, 2006, Washington Post)

Reports in the Russian and Western press in March 2003 indicated that Gen. Vladislav Achalov, the former commander of Soviet airborne forces who supported the attempted coup in Moscow in August 1991, visited Baghdad shortly before the March 2003 invasion, accompanied by another retired Russian general. Photographs taken at the time confirm that the two generals were awarded medals by the Iraqi defense minister on behalf of Saddam Hussein. Achalov has since acknowledged that he traveled to Iraq at least 15 to 20 times in the years leading up to the war.

Press reports from March 2003 and afterward also indicated that other GRU officers were working with the Iraqi regime on a daily basis before and during the war, often through Abbas Khalaf, the former Iraqi ambassador to Moscow who sent numerous reports to Iraqi leaders citing GRU and diplomatic sources. In addition, a GRU “working group” known as Ramzaj, which posted daily assessments on a Russian military Web site, was widely described in the Russian press as aiding the Iraqi government. Although Ramzaj’s forecasts and some of its information proved to be wildly off the mark, the reports in major Russian dailies and respected trade publications lend strong credence to the assertions in the Iraqi documents that Titorenko and some Russian military intelligence officers aided the Iraqi efforts to withstand the U.S. invasion.

If Titorenko did provide illicit assistance, his motive may have been largely financial. When the Volcker commission issued its final report on fraud and corruption in the United Nations oil-for-food program last October, it listed the ambassador and his son as having received allocations of some 23.7 million barrels of oil worth well over $1 million in total.

The commission’s report listed numerous other Russian politicians and political entities, including Russian President Vladimir Putin’s then-chief of staff Alexander Voloshin, the speaker of the upper house of the Russian parliament, Yegor Stroyev, the Russian Communist Party, and the pro-Moscow government in Chechnya, as recipients of large oil allocations worth many millions.

However, it is unlikely that Titorenko’s apparent actions and the GRU cooperation were authorized at high levels. Russian opposition to the war — motivated mostly by the enormous profits Russian companies and elites had been reaping from the oil-for-food program — was much stronger than many U.S. experts had anticipated. But this opposition does not necessarily mean that Putin or then-Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov would have condoned transferring information that might cost American lives and would stand a high chance of eventually being detected.

We’ll never get all the facts straight, but it nicely demonstrates the utter insanity of the Democrats’ transnationalist argument that the UN should be allowed to determine when we go to war.


YET ANOTHER BENEFIT OF THE IRAQ WAR:

March 25, 2006

UN speeds up Darfur peace mission (BBC, 3/24/06)

The UN Security Council has voted unanimously to speed up preparations for UN peacekeepers to be deployed to Darfur in western Sudan.

The council is calling on UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to come up with a range of options within one month. […]

“It’s a real step forward in building peace across the entire country,” Britain’s UN Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said in a statement.

In 2002 the President challenged the UN to be true to its principles and help enforce its own resolutions against Saddam. It failed. Nice to see it shamed into doing the right thing this time.


PERCEIVED?:

March 18, 2006

U.N. to raise its profile in Iraq (Betsy Pisik, 3/18/06, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

The senior U.N. official in Iraq yesterday said that the United Nations will soon be raising its profile there, acknowledging that its “perceived absence” has been noticeable since a tragic suicide bombing after the U.S. invasion three years ago.

Might have been a good idea to help us enforce the UN Resolutions in the first place.


COULDN'T ASK FOR A BETTER RECOMMENDATION:

March 10, 2006


JONAS HENDERSON TRIES TO RESTORE SOME PRIDE:

March 8, 2006


Annan urges overhaul of UN operations (EDITH M. LEDERER, 3/07/06, Associated Press)

United Nations — Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged U.N. member states Tuesday to approve a radical overhaul of the world body’s operations that would include a 2,500-member rapid reaction team to help millions facing hunger, violence and terrorism.

After decades of piecemeal reform, Mr. Annan told the 191 members a radical overhaul is needed because current United Nations rules and regulations “make it very hard for the organization to conduct its work efficiently or effectively.”

Since the end of the Cold War in the 1990s, he said, the United Nations has changed from an organization of conferences and meetings to a global body engaged in peacekeeping, humanitarian relief efforts, electoral assistance and human rights monitoring.

George W. Bush offered the old UN a last chance to rescue its credibility on 9/12/02 and then let Tony Blair and Colin Powell try to talk them around, before commencing regime change in Iraq without them. Now Mr. Annan has no choice but to reeform the UN enough so that it can at least be a partner, if a junior one, of the Axis of Good in humanitarian interventionism.


ROTTEN AT THE CORE (via Daniel Merriman):

February 22, 2006

UN Reform Book on Amb. John Bolton’s Reading List (PRWEB, February 21, 2006)

A new book calling for United Nations reform has attracted a surprise following among delegates to and employees of the UN, and it has now made its way onto the reading list for America’s ambassador to the global institution.

The office of John Bolton, who last year was appointed by President Bush to serve as U.S. ambassador to the UN, has accepted a copy of Joe Klein’s new book “Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom”. The book made news in December when