The following editorial was written by David Brook for the New York Times (September 25, 2004).  In it, he clearly outlines the problem with multilateralism as it currently exists via the United Nations.  Several weeks ago some of us discussed the issue of Sudan and the lose-lose scenerio faced by the United States should it try to save the lives of millions of Sudanese.  In that discussion I stated that our nation would be condemned for trying and condemned for not trying.  After weeks of debate, the terrorist-supporting nations that comprise upwards sixty percent of U.N. membership have won.  The debate is blocked (in the face of further discussion) and thousands of Sudanese are being killed by Arab "militia" every week.  The proud U.N. claims victory in that the genocide is less than in the past.  The United States is viewed as self-serving in its attempts to help those being slaughtered.  The rest of the world stands by and watches (or profits).  Seems reminiscent of Iraq doesn't it?

Here is the editorial by David Brooks. 

"And so we went the multilateral route.

Confronted with the murder of 50,000 in Sudan, we eschewed all that nasty old unilateralism, all that hegemonic, imperialist, go-it-alone, neocon, empire, coalition-of-the-coerced stuff. Our response to this crisis would be so exquisitely multilateral, meticulously consultative, collegially cooperative and ally-friendly that it would make John Kerry swoon and a million editorialists nod in sage approval.

And so we Americans mustered our outrage at the massacres in Darfur and went to the United Nations. And calls were issued and exhortations were made and platitudes spread like béarnaise. The great hum of diplomacy signaled that the global community was whirring into action.

Meanwhile helicopter gunships were strafing children in Darfur.

We did everything basically right. The president was involved, the secretary of state was bold and clearheaded, the U.N. ambassador was eloquent, and the Congress was united. And, following the strictures of international law, we had the debate that, of course, is going to be the top priority while planes are bombing villages.

We had a discussion over whether the extermination of human beings in this instance is sufficiently concentrated to meet the technical definition of genocide. For if it is, then the "competent organs of the United Nations" may be called in to take appropriate action, and you know how fearsome the competent organs may be when they may indeed be called.

The United States said the killing in Darfur was indeed genocide, the Europeans weren't so sure, and the Arab League said definitely not, and hairs were split and legalisms were parsed, and the debate over how many corpses you can fit on the head of a pin proceeded in stentorian tones while the mass extermination of human beings continued at a pace that may or may not rise to the level of genocide.

For people are still starving and perishing in Darfur.

But the multilateral process moved along in its dignified way. The U.N. general secretary was making preparations to set up a commission. Preliminary U.N. resolutions were passed, and the mass murderers were told they should stop - often in frosty tones. The world community - well skilled in the art of expressing disapproval, having expressed fusillades of disapproval over Rwanda, the Congo, the Balkans, Iraq, etc. - expressed its disapproval.

And, meanwhile, 1.2 million were driven from their homes in Darfur.

There was even some talk of sending U.S. troops to stop the violence, which, of course, would have been a brutal act of oil-greedy unilateralist empire-building, and would have been protested by a million lovers of peace in the streets. Instead, the U.S. proposed a resolution threatening sanctions on Sudan, which began another round of communiqué-issuing.

The Russians, who sell military planes to Sudan, decided sanctions would not be in the interests of humanity. The Chinese, whose oil companies have a significant presence in Sudan, threatened a veto. And so began the great watering-down. Finally, a week ago, the Security Council passed a resolution threatening to "consider" sanctions against Sudan at some point, though at no time soon.

The Security Council debate had all the decorous dullness you'd expect. The Algerian delegate had "profound concern." The Russian delegate pronounced the situation "complex." The Sudanese government was praised because the massacres are proceeding more slowly. The air was filled with nuanced obfuscations, technocratic jargon and the amoral blandness of multilateral deliberation.

The resolution passed, and it was a good day for alliance-nurturing and burden-sharing - for the burden of doing nothing was shared equally by all. And we are by now used to the pattern. Every time there is an ongoing atrocity, we watch the world community go through the same series of stages: (1) shock and concern (2) gathering resolve (3) fruitless negotiation (4) pathetic inaction (5) shame and humiliation (6) steadfast vows to never let this happen again.

The "never again" always comes. But still, we have all agreed, this sad cycle is better than having some impromptu coalition of nations actually go in "unilaterally" and do something. That would lack legitimacy! Strain alliances! Menace international law! Threaten the multilateral ideal!

It's a pity about the poor dead people in Darfur. Their numbers are still rising, at 6,000 to 10,000 a month."

We have to learn that the we cannot count on the U.N. to solve our problems or the problems of the rest of the world.  Either we use our strength to help those in need or we sit back and watch.  I am proud that our country is choosing to at least try to help!

WHATCHA BET…

…the findings of the CBS fraud investigation won’t be made public until after election day?

…the Sandy Berger investigation won’t ever happen?

…it was Mr. Kerry and not Mr. Clinton who was the recipient of the purloined Berger papers?

…when society finally decides it has had enough and lays out immediate and strict consequences for crime, crime will be reduced?

…islamic fascists cannot answer the question frequently asked by those on the far left:  Why do you hate America?  (They hate anyone who does not abide by sharia; even the French.)

…those on the far left will not admit to the fact that they hate America (and the human race in general)?

…those on the far left cannot make sense of their hatred of economic globalism and their desire for political globalism?

…Mr. Kerry will never find a position on any topic he won’t take?

…if Mr. Kerry wins the election the world will see us as weak and will once again “respect” us?

…if President Bush is re-elected, the democrats will say he stole the election?

…when President Bush wins the election, countries around the world will realize that we are not weak; that we are united; that this is NOT Vietnam; and that America will not back down in the war on Islamic fascism?

Whatcha bet?

It was a blogger who first brought to the attention of the nation that the memo's cited by CBS as proof of President Bush's dereliction of duty were forgeries.  It was CBS that defended those documents until there was no possible way for the network to maintain credibility and to continue to defend the forgeries.  Now, Dan Rather has acknowledged that there is not enough evidence to continue that support and that CBS may have been duped.   Notice, he has not admitted that the forgeries are forgeries or that he was involved except as a "victim".  How Democratic of him.

The truth is that he had to have seen the fax address at the top of at least one of the documents. Others did.  That address was a Kinkos near the home of Bill Burkett, a man known to have ties to the Kerry campaign.  As a Texan and a dyed in the wool Democrat, Rather would have known this.  Yet he did not question the source?  Rather has particpated in at least one Democratic fundraiser in Texas with his Democrat activist daughter (can anyone say conflict of interest???) so he surely is familiar with the workings and workers in that party in his home state.

Then, Rather has the nerve to state that he was simply supporting the CBS value of "investigative reporting without fear of favoritism". 

Bernard Goldberg laid all this out in his book "Bias".  The mainline media is elitist and biased but deny it.  Some of them don't even realize it.  That is even more scary than if they knew what they were doing.  But in Rather's case, I think the evidence is clear.  He had to know since all this centers around Texas and he is a Texan who definitely understands Texas politics and Texas politicians. 

Now is the time for Rather to step down.  Beyond that, it is time for the entire management structure of CBS to be torn apart and rebuilt.  And while we are at it, lets see the same thing at NBC and ABC.  We have a right to unbiased, objective journalism.  This is the time to make that happen.

Mr. Kerry says over and over again that his many votes against funding for America’s military and intelligence efforts were not really votes against the military but against whatever else might have been included in the particular bill at the time. 

That argument doesn’t hold up. The decisions we make say everything about who we are as people.  Decisions define what is most important to us. 

For example:  When it came time to vote for the $87 billion Pentagon budget, Senator Kerry believed that he had to decide between making a point about taxation and voting for a bill that would supply our military with lifesaving equipment.  He decided to make the point and voted against the bill.

We all make choices…sometimes hard choices.  We must assume that when we make a choice others will evaluate us based on that choice and that others will assume that the decision reflects what is truly most important to us. 

I applaud Senator Kerry for taking a stand on what is most important to him.  Based on his decision we know that increasing taxes is more important to him than supplying our troops in Iraq.  He had every right to make that choice and he had a responsibility to himself to make that decision based on his values.

At the same time, voters have a right to know what is most important to any candidate for office.  Senator Kerry would do well to own his values, run on those values, and take his chances.  We, the voters, will make our decision based on what is most important to us.

Of all places to find a bit of truth.  Dan Brown writes in his book “Angels and Demons” (Atria Books, New York, 2000):

He shook the fiendish images from his mind.  Calculated terrorism, he reminded himself, grasping at reality.  Planned chaos.  He thought back to a Radcliffe seminar he had once audited while researching praetorian symbolism.  He had never seen terrorists the same way since.

“Terrorism”, the professor had lectured, “has a singular goal.  What is it?”

“Killing innocent people?” a student ventured.

“Incorrect.  Death is only a byproduct of terrorism.”

“A show of strength?”

“No.  A weaker persuasion does not exist.”

“To cause terror?”

“Concisely put. Quite simply, the goal of terrorism is to create terror and fear.  Fear undermines faith in the establishment.  It weakens the enemy from within … causing unrest in the masses.  Write this down.  Terrorism is not an expression of rage.  Terrorism is a political weapon.  Remove a government’s façade of infallibility, and you remove its people’s faith.”

So here is the point.  We can consider appeasing terrorists and we will fail.  Terrorists kill appeasers.  And they kill those of us who don’t appease them.  There is only one choice.  We have to kill them first.  That means that we have to take action before they do.  That means we have to take a preemptive approach to these political killers.  It also means that we have to take a preemptive approach to anyone who aids and abets the actions of political killers.  No games anymore.  Is Mr. Kerry up to this task?  Of course not.

Having watched President Bush’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, I found it difficult to not compare that speech and the one made by Senator Kerry in accepting his nomination during the Democratic National Convention.  I re-read the Kerry speech and then re-read a commentary by David Brooks (N.Y. Times, July 31, 2004).  In part, Brooks stated:

“What an incoherent disaster. When you actually read for content, you see that the speech skirts almost every tough issue and comes out on both sides of every major concern. The Iraq section is shamefully evasive. He can't even bring himself to use the word “democratic” or to contemplate any future for Iraq, democratic or otherwise. He can't bring himself to say whether the war was a mistake or to lay out even the most meager plan for moving forward. For every gesture in the direction of greater defense spending, there are opposing hints about reducing our commitments and bringing the troops home.

“He proves in the speech that he can pronounce the word “alliances”, and alliances are important, but alliances for what? You can't base an entire foreign policy on process.

“Then I remembered that, of course, the Great Co-opter has to try gauzily to please everyone. He has to play to the 86 percent of the delegates who say the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq, as well as the Clintonite foreign policy elites who supported the war. He has to play to the Sharptons as well as the Liebermans."

I noted in an August 3^rd entry on another blog that Brooks made several important points.  One of them was the fact that speeches when heard are much different than when read for content.  In his speech, Mr. Kerry presented nothing new.  His opportunistic "please everyone" approach was the same as it always has been.  His ability to be on both sides of any issue is remarkable. He has not changed his spots nor will he.  If Europe doesn't like something we do he will sway in their direction.  If Move-On.org doesn't like something he is thinking, he will sway the other way. 

With Mr. Kerry, it will continue to be "blame America first".  In his mind and in the minds of many on the left, it is always the fault of America if we are attacked.  For example, the Fox News Website carried this headline on August 2, 2004:  Democratic candidate John Kerry accused President Bush of encouraging terrorist recruitment with policies that have made the world angry at the United States..."

Blaming America first!  Somehow those on the left think that if we were just nicer to the Europeans and the islamic fascists we would be safer.  And yet the truth is that it is because of the democrats that the enemy learned to see us as pushovers and started to murder us.  President Bush did not attack the towers and he did not attack the U.S.S. Cole.  He did not blow up thousands of people.  He is trying to defend us and he is facing the obstacle of Democrat propaganda with every move. 

In contrast, I just re-read President Bush’s speech from last night.  His words were humble yet powerful.  He stood as a leader, not an appeasing waffler. His speech was one of hope.  He said that “Since 2001, Americans have been given hills to climb and found the strength to climb them.”).  He said that he believes “Every child can learn and every school must teach…”.  He said that “I believer in the energy and innovative spirit of America’s workers, entrepreneurs, farmers and ranchers…”.  And most importantly, he said that “now we have reached a time of hope…Now we go forward, grateful for our freedom, faithful to our cause, and confident in the future of the greatest nation on earth.”

The contrast cannot be missed.  The hesitant, worried, never committing Democrat and the firm, strong, clear Republican.  Both are seeking the same office and only one…President Bush…holds the credentials for the job.