U.N.-fit for Existence XIV
The United Nations receives a well-deserved spanking from the United States Congress. Corrupt power-mongers like Annan may not respond to threats of our withdrawal, but they certainly sit up and take notice when we refuse to sign the paycheck.
This bill is actually a very potent weapon in many ways. First, it's already sent the desired message, even if the Senate were to shoot it down. But notice this bit from the article:
That's masterful political positioning. See how it clearly but non-committally places the Bush administration in the "moral opposition" camp, while still refusing to hard-line a veto position? Clever.
However, were the Senate to pass it, Bush can do no wrong with it, whether he signs it or vetoes it. Either will have a desirable outcome--whether in reducing the financial power base of the grasping United Nations, or in increasing his own political clout if he sends it back. In the latter case, the Democrats will "owe him one," so to speak. Oh, they'd never admit it, but both he and they would know it. And when he called in the marker, they'd have to pay--however grudgingly.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, vetoing the bill would allow him to steal yet another cap-feather from Hillary Clinton. She can't make an issue out of something he's already defused. More, he's effectively arranged himself, with that earlier position statement I quoted, to veto it out of "higher concerns," thus short-circuiting any cynicism-based attacks from the Clinton camp. Essentially, he'd be knocking the teeth out of their argument before they could even make it.
It's really a rather brilliant piece of political maneuvering. Say what you will about Bush, the man's a consummate political chess-master. He's been playing the Lefty media like a Stradivarius for years, and now he's playing the DNC--and Screamin' Dean--just as effectively. The lead up to the '06 congressional elections is definitely not looking good for the Dems at the moment. They'd better get somebody who knows their ass from a hole in the ground in charge over there, or they are going to be looking at a lot of long, dreary November Wednesday mornings in their future.
This bill is actually a very potent weapon in many ways. First, it's already sent the desired message, even if the Senate were to shoot it down. But notice this bit from the article:
The 221-184 vote, which came despite a Bush administration warning that such a move could actually sabotage reform efforts...
That's masterful political positioning. See how it clearly but non-committally places the Bush administration in the "moral opposition" camp, while still refusing to hard-line a veto position? Clever.
However, were the Senate to pass it, Bush can do no wrong with it, whether he signs it or vetoes it. Either will have a desirable outcome--whether in reducing the financial power base of the grasping United Nations, or in increasing his own political clout if he sends it back. In the latter case, the Democrats will "owe him one," so to speak. Oh, they'd never admit it, but both he and they would know it. And when he called in the marker, they'd have to pay--however grudgingly.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, vetoing the bill would allow him to steal yet another cap-feather from Hillary Clinton. She can't make an issue out of something he's already defused. More, he's effectively arranged himself, with that earlier position statement I quoted, to veto it out of "higher concerns," thus short-circuiting any cynicism-based attacks from the Clinton camp. Essentially, he'd be knocking the teeth out of their argument before they could even make it.
It's really a rather brilliant piece of political maneuvering. Say what you will about Bush, the man's a consummate political chess-master. He's been playing the Lefty media like a Stradivarius for years, and now he's playing the DNC--and Screamin' Dean--just as effectively. The lead up to the '06 congressional elections is definitely not looking good for the Dems at the moment. They'd better get somebody who knows their ass from a hole in the ground in charge over there, or they are going to be looking at a lot of long, dreary November Wednesday mornings in their future.
posted by Jar(egg)head at 14:14
2 Comments:
I am a little concerned that the lefties in the UN could use this reform to bite America in the ass:
"The House approved some two dozen amendments, all offered by Republicans, that pinpointed further ways to improve the U.N. Among them were directions to suspend member states engaged in crimes against humanity"
All ready some "wonderful" organizations are screaming to try Bush for war crimes--referring to GITMO as a "gulag." Yesterday I read that vengeful dems are talking impeachment as a result of the "Downing Street memo."
Of course, if they suspend the US for "crimes against humanity," we can just suspend any monies that we send them. And it's always about the money with the UN--M
You are correct that the U.N. opposition could use the situation to their short-term political gain. The problem, however, is that the lion's share of their funding is drawn from the coffers of United States taxpayers. They can only push so hard before endangering their own ill-gotten gains, and as you say, that's the motivating factor among most of the petty, self-serving bureaucrats in the U.N. who fancy themselves saavy politicos. When their real political masters confront them, they've not a leg to stand on.
Though most of those bureaucrats would rather cut their own political throats than admit it, the United Nations is nothing more than a wholly-owned subsidary of the U.S. Department of State. They've simply gotten a little too big for their britches in recent years, and it's time for a dose of reality. They can either re-adjust to the reality of their position, or they can go the way of the League of Nations. Politically, it's a wash for the Bush administration. And though loathe to acknowledge that bit of realpolitik, they know the truth of it.
Post a Comment
<< Home