Quote:
|
Originally Posted by soundmotor
In any of the UN associated events, the US has done the heavy lifting not coalition troops.
If the US had plans on pulling out of or minimizing the UN in general, it seems unlikely that we would put a reformer into this spot don't you think?
soundmotor
|
Please assure us that you are not spreading the Austin Bay talking point,
"Bolton the Reformer".
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...22&btnG=Search
The Bush team minimized the UN for at least the remainder of it's incumbancy when it attempted to use the Blix and UNSCOM to set Iraq up as being unwilling to cooperate with international demands for WMD inspections, as a pretext for a UN approved (as in a "legal") invasion of Iraq.
When the setup for a pretext backfired, because Saddam elected to comply and disclose the status of WMD programs, Bush publicly committed to a final attempt to obtain a pre-invasion UN resolution. When the Bush team pre-determined that the UN votes were not going to go their way, Bush reneged on the commitment to seek a final resolution for war, and stated that a resolution was not even necessary. The UN was manipulated in an attempt to obtain a stamp of legitamcy for Bush's predetermined invasion plan. The Bush administration compromised the UN and itself, and sending a hack like Bolton to represent the Bush team now is not "reform", anymore than "war is peace" or "the Patriot ACT is necessary to preserve our freedom". It is Orwellian doublespeak.