Yeah, and whose army? And if they would not want to trade with us, fine, letís see who would crumble first.

I think it makes much better sense to be there on the inside where we can throw a monkey wrench into the machinery, which I think we should not hesitate to do at every opportunity.

You are getting good at being evil (the word has to be pronounced “EEE-ville,” as Mike Myers would do it in his Dr. Evil role), and so you can now be a member in good standing of the GOP.

Jamie Irons

Crank,

Yes. And we all know how well the Whitewater/Monica worked for the Republicans.

Regardless, if Kerry wins any results from Hyde investigation will be spun by MSM as the VRWC attack on a saintly, internationalist, peace-loving President, in revenge for the lost election. Public will glance at the headlines and will shrug. I donít think that the shenanigans at the UN really register that much with majority of people. However, there is an upside to this indifference: Congress may indeed manage to cut some of the UN funding without much ill effect.

Jamie,

I answered you on the other thread.

http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2004/10/a_skimmity_ride.php#c24095

Anondson is right: if Bush wins, the Administration, bent on keeping our diplomatic options open, will continue to keep a lid on the congressional probes. But if Kerry wins, the UN immediately becomes Kerry’s Whitewater, Monica, Halliburton and Enron all rolled into one. He’s tethered himself so tightly to the UN that Republican investigators will have a bottomless incentive to expose the corrupt, hypocritical, anti-Semitic, terror-abetting, tax-evading, dictator-coddling fraud that is the United Nations, day after day after day.

If people at the UN think their best interests are with a Kerry victory, they don’t understand American politics at all.

This last stunt by the NYT and their friends at the UN just makes me that much more determined to question the motives of people like Kofi Annan and the other self appointed saints at the UN as well Kerry himself.

They want everything to go back to the way it was. The nice big fat scams and expense accounts and internationalist multilateral self absorbed bureaucrats ruling over the UN like a not so benign monarchy. They can’t be questioned and they are obligated to no one but themselves. Why, it is even out of line to ask for honesty and competence.

Why wait until the election to spring this story? They could have made an issue of this a year ago.

Why weren’t the explosives destroyed or moved before the invasion?

And why is Kerry so quick to attack the military and take the word of a UN employee?

What is next? Is Kerry going to say the servicemen were too busy cutting of ears and raping and pillaging their way across the country side of Iraq like the army of Genghis Kahn to bother securing these weapons?

Hey Protest Warriors! Are you listening? Are you tired yet of REACTING to the lefty protesters? Isn’t it time to go on the OFFENSIVE?

http://www.protestwarrior.com/

We have to be eternally grateful to Al Gore for the gift that is the Internet.

See my comment to you on another thread: On being mean to sweet little…

Jamie Irons

Politically, it seems to me that the UN needs to be discredited a lot more before that becomes possible. If following up on oil-for-food implicates many top UN officials that may just do it. Perhaps some of the other mis-behavior of the UN can be documented and publicised. At which point the US can form a new body (let’s suppose a “Council of Democracies”) and exit the UN with a “more in sorrow than in anger” kind of speech.

Implications – well, the UN will lose 4/5 of its funding. You know, I’ve been thinking recently that for the UN to consistently act against our interests while we are the biggest sponsor by far is adding insult to injury… it doesn’t seem like a good deal for us.

If I was organizing an international body, I would give it no steady budget. Instead, form ad hoc task forces for specific purposes, with a specific duration, which are funded independently by pledges from the member countries. Once there is a steady budget, the corruption starts to accumulate… honey attracts flies.

I would definitely make it a clear foundational principle that participation requires meeting fairly high standards of participatory government and political freedom (while not insisting on any particular system). Sovereignity derives from the consent of the governed; dictators represent nobody but themselves and therefore have no standing. Such a body should refuse to even formally recognize any government which is not participatory. This is necessary to address the problem of the UN being essentially a council of very small dictatorships (majority of the members are dictatorships with population under 10 million). There also needs to be a recognition of the fact that not all members are equal. Perhaps two levels, member and associate member? For example, Japan would be a member, Greece would be an associate member, and China would not be recognized. Or perhaps allocate a pool of votes based on GNP+population? Of course the US should preside, in recognition of its current role in the world.

Matt: “Would a vote need to be taken in Congress and what would it take ot pass such a resolution?”

I can’t begin to imagine But certainly the UN has to be made to look very very bad. Perhaps it is not necessary to withdraw from the UN per se, just establish a parallel organization, cut funding, and leave it to rot in oblivion?

This was one of the dumbest things a UN employee has done. Ever. This will only hurt the UN as a whole in the end. I actually imagine that at this point, the best result for the UN bureaucracy would be for a Bush win so that Bush could be there to restrain the Republicans in Congress.

Take Bush away, after this stunt, there is little incentive for the GOP controlled Congress to not return the favor in spades. In fact, I argue, there is more incentive.