26 November 2004

It will probably not surprise regular readers of Analogcabin: The Right that I have very little respect for the UN. It amazes me that anyone can still cite the UN as an arbiter of what is good and proper in international affairs, since its distinguishing characteristic is a curious blend of arrogance, hypocrisy, corruption, and general uselessness.

The UN's criminal mismanagement of the Iraqi Oil-For-Food program not only failed to relieve the suffering of Iraqis, it enriched Saddam greatly, contributing to his intransigence that led to the war in the first place, and provided a rich gravy train for those who would later oppose efforts to remove him. The blame for the cruel inefficiency of the program, of course, was largely laid on the U.S., to the point that it was Osama bin Laden's #2 casus belli. The UN has also been stonewalling the Congressional investigations into the scandal.

The UN has also essentially disregarded the findings of its own internal investigation into a sexual harassment case against a high UN official, and has seen instances of peacekeeper misconduct that are easily in the Abu Ghraib league.

So I don't think much of the UN leadership. But, hey, who am I to argue with its own employees?

Ofc. Krupke at 10:15 AM
Permalink |

24 November 2004

I know I'm biased, since I voted for the guy and everything, but I just love this.

This Washington Post version of the event is very interesting: writer Mike Allen asserts that "It took Bush several minutes to realize what was happening." This is, to judge from this video of the incident (in Super-Grainy CRAP-O-VISION!), inaccurate.

I also love the criticisms leveled at the President by Chilean journalist Marcelo Romero, quoted in the Post piece:

"All of us journalists agree that President Bush looked like a cowboy. It was total breach of protocol. I've seen a lot of John Wayne movies, and President Bush was definitely acting like a cowboy."

The true mark of the international sophisticate: call an American a "cowboy", and smugly assume you've just won the argument.

To all those who consider this a "total breach of protocol", allow me to point out: in the post 9-11 age, there are several reasons why the security service of a foreign country might want to separate the President of the United States from his security detail. None of them are good.