----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Grimaldi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 8:15 AM Subject: Re: Our Friends at the UN
> "John D. Giorgis" wrote: > > > > At 05:02 AM 10/30/2002 -0800 Matt Grimaldi wrote: > > >> This *council of conciliation* ... [disagrees with > > >> the term "material breach"] What is it, a foot fault? > > >> > > >> ... Franco-Russian-Mexican position isn't diplomacy > > >> so much as a denial of reality. > > > > > >What a load of propaganda! Frankly I'm surprised > > >that a supposedly reputable newspaper would resort > > >to such blatant and frequent name calling. > > > > Name-calling? It is a statement of fact. > > Yet you completely ignore the blatant name calling. > That is why I called it propagada. (hint: propaganda > can and usually does contain some truth). > > You presented a document which uses such > labels as "soft-on-Saddam queue" and > "denial of reality", and says such things > as "President Bush is understandably losing > his patience with the U.N." It has only > one conclusion, which it tries to force with > all its might, and you hold it up as a challenge > to all opponents. I think it depends on where in the paper it lies. If it is on page one, its bad journalism. If its on the editorial page, its an opinion. > But it doesn't address any of the arguments for > a more cautious approach, and neither do you. > Those concerns still stand unchallenged. To first order, they stand unmade. I have mixed feelings about Bush's actions, but I'm terribly disappointed in the public arguements against going in. They seem to be 1) The US is trying to grab the oil This fits easy on a sign (no blood for oil), and it was used in Gulf War I. But, no matter what government exists, the open market price will be paid to Iraqies for the oil. 2) There is no proof that Hussein has weapons of mass destruction Its hard to get proof when the inspectors are not let in; or are not allowed to make a complete inspection. The fact that the chief inspectors, with some quibbles, support the US resolution should indicate that there is a strong basis for the understanding that the last 11 years of limited inspections has left plenty of room for violation of the agreement that let Hussein keep power. 3) The US has no right to act without the UN.. The United Nations should be relied upon, its the best way The short answer to that is "Kosova." I've been skimming the Dutch report on what happened, and it is a heartbreaking indictment of the UN, IMHO. If others skim it, we can debate it. Indeed, it is amazing that the US was roundly criticized in the Dutch report for not forcing a solution on its allies. At least that is my read. The carnage didn't stop until the US sidestepped the UN. 4) It will only cause more terrorism There is some basis for this arguement, but it is still weak. Allowing a hostile country to further develop WMD in order to not upset folks who might make smaller attacks doesn't seem to be a good security decision. It can also be countered by the fact that, if nothing happens, Hussein will be seen as a hero who beat the US, and encourage terrorists by showing how they can win. The real arguement against going in now has been presented, but only sporatically in columns. It is, in short, "we do not have a good coherent plan for what we will do after we overturn Hussein. Our post victory experience in Afganistan does not indicate that we are highly skilled in this. Administering Iraq will be extremely difficult, at best, and going in unprepared will make it a nightmare. Since there is no indication that Hussein's risks are in the very short term, investing the time and energy necessary to get a decent plan in place would be worth the effort." Bush doesn't believe the US should be involved in nation building. Unfortunately, that's exactly what he will be signed up for. That arguement would start a very healthy debate, IMHO. But, instead tired retoric about the US being a bully who wants to run the world is used. > > It is a fact that Iraq is in material breach of > > past UNSC resolutions, and it is a fact that > > these countries objecting to stating this fact. > > Yes, those facts that are not really in dispute here, > but isn't the journalist supposed to present the > facts in an unbiased fasion? I think the problem is that the facts aren't really faced, they are ignored. If the piece that JDG quoted was a news article, you are right, it is very shoddy journalism. If it isn't, it is a second rate editorial. I'll agree with you that the stridency only works when preaching to the choir. > > Why can't you (and the WSJ and the Bush Administration, > whom you endorse wholeheartedly) trust people to form > their own opinions? Why is advocacy for one's position indiciative of a lack of trust? Isn't it incumbant upon those who oppose a position to provide reasonable counter-arugements, not those who support it? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
