What a magnanimous country we are. We invite our enemies and villainous despots to visit our shores so that they can attend lavish parties, be treated like royalty, be interviewed by our media, and have a worldwide forum for openly ridiculing us and our policies.
This week’s sessions at the U.N. have exposed the corrupt organization for what it is: a club of despots that hate the U.S. and its allies. Unfortunately, President Bush’s patronizing attempt to play nice with the Despot’s Club comes across as a far cry from his resolute speech about fighting terrorism to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, or even his U.N. speech last year where he demanded specific U.N. reforms (none of which have happened).
Under auspices of diplomatic immunity we allowed the notorious Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to come here this week and lecture us in the U.N. General Assembly about how awful we are (see the full text of his speech). This guy thumbs his nose at the U.N. Security Council with respect to nuclear proliferation, and the U.N. bizarrely responds by having him speak to its General Assembly. Ahmadinejad’s speech is chiefly a religious sermon with some politics mixed in. He openly presents himself as God’s representative. He goes on and on about living together in love, peace and tranquility. It all sounds so 60s.
Anne Bayefsky of http://www.eyeontheun.org/ says here that Ahmadinejad “outdid himself in the pathological-liar category.” This is a man that has boasted of being directly involved in the atrocities of the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Teheran. This is a man that supplied Hezbollah with over 1300 missiles to fire at Israeli citizens and sent trainers and technicians to help fire them. This is a man that funds and trains our enemies in Iraq. In other words, while we are not directly at war with the country this man leads, we are indirectly at war with them today through their surrogates. This is a man that regularly attends rallies in Iran where he leads thousands of people in chants of, “Death to America!” and “Death to Israel!” This is a man that has openly talked about the need to annihilate Israel to achieve peace. This is a man that affirms his belief in the 12th Mahdi, a type of Islamic messiah that is supposed to come after all infidels (including us) have been successfully eliminated from the globe.
Much of Ahmadinejad’s carefully worded speech sounds like something you might hear from a Christian pulpit. But it is filled with all kinds of anti-American and anti-Semitic code phrases. If you view it from the aspect of his apocalyptic perception of the world, you will understand that the tranquility of which he speaks so lovingly is to be achieved by eliminating the infidels through whatever means are necessary. He even closes the speech in the form of a prayer, requesting doomsday to come as soon as possible. The MSM thinks this guy is all warm and cuddly (and he effectively presents himself that way), but inside he is more like Hitler than any other major national political leader on the globe other than Kim Jong il of North Korea (now that Saddam is simply a defendant).
The next day, Ahmadinejad’s buddy, Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan Thug in Chief, stood up at the same microphone and ripped on our country. Echoing the angry left here at home, Chavez called President Bush “the devil” after crossing himself, rolling his eyes, and looking heavenward (click here to listen to full speech). Making it clear he was talking about President Bush, Chavez said, “The devil is right at home, the devil, the devil himself is right in the house.” How did his listeners at the Despot’s Club respond? Applause. That made news, but the rest of his nasty diatribe about the U.S. and its people did not.
Of course, many have suggested that it is a symbol of our nation’s strength to allow these anti-Americans to come here and ridicule us in our own front yard. It is said that it shows that we are not afraid of these punks. Unfortunately, few of the punks’ constituents see it that way. They see this as a symbol of our weakness and decadence. They think that we are too beguiled to know that we have good reason to be afraid of them. Perhaps they have a point.
When the Clinton administration reversed the policy of the Bush I administration to allow terrorist leader cum Palestinian National Authority President Yassir Arafat to come to the U.S. and visit the U.N., conservatives were outraged. They called Clinton and his cronies traitors. Now the Bush II administration has allowed the president of one third of the Axis of Evil and his chief South American admirer to do the same thing. Where is the conservative outrage?
Can anyone tell me what good the political arm of the U.N. is? I have long maintained that we must remain part of the U.N. to provide as much positive leadership and influence there as is possible. The humanitarian arm of the U.N. does some good things. Of course, it does some very shoddy things as well. But overall, we provide some good service to the world by funding the U.N.’s humanitarian efforts.
But how is the political and military arm of the U.N. helping the world or any part of it in a positive way today? It is corrupt, inefficient, ineffective, and completely opposed to America’s interests. It is filled with representatives of despotic regimes that sit around and constantly devise ways to criticize the U.S. And it does much of its ‘work’ using our taxpayer’s Dollars. What’s up with that?
Some have suggested that we quit the U.N. and kick their offices out of our country. The U.N. garners legitimacy simply by having its offices here, so some question why we provide the Despot’s Club a forum within our borders. Of course, can you imagine the shrieks from the international community and from certain groups in our country if we actually did quit the U.N.? The ensuing hurricane of criticism at home and abroad would make cries about unilateralism in Iraq seem like a calm breeze by comparison.
I haven’t seen any U.N. reform plan that would actually be helpful because the U.N. is rotten to the core. President Bush’s 2005 reform demands (had they not been ignored) would do almost nothing to solve the U.N.’s root problems. Even the most aggressive reform plans would fail to turn the U.N. into something worthwhile. Heck, they wouldn’t even raise the U.N. to become worthless, something that seems like a high and glorious pinnacle to which to aspire for an organization that is in such a deep dark hole. You can run a skunk through a carwash, but it will still be a skunk.
Unfortunately, the U.N. presence in the U.S. is like having a very dangerous and exotic pet tiger that has only grown more vicious and costly with age. You can’t just turn it loose, for then it would be even more dangerous. It would be considered inhumane to starve it to death. At this point, perhaps euthanization is the best option.