U.S. Will Pay Increased UN Dues -- Despite All (Ari Fleischer confirms there is no rollback)

humaneventsonline ^ | 4/7/2003 | John Gizzi

[TLBSHOW]

U.S. Will Pay Increased UN Dues -- Despite All By John Gizzi

Despite the refusal of the United Nations Security Council to enforce its own resolutions calling for disarmament of Iraq, the administration is standing by the budget request it made in January to pay for a $90 million increase in the annual U.S. dues to the United Nations.

The budget proposal submitted to Congress by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requests an appropriation of $322 million for UN dues in Fiscal Year ’04. That’s up from the $232 million in ’03, according to the OMB. (The U.S. is assessed dues amounting to 22% of the overall UN budget each year.)

Asked on April 2, whether the administration had any plan to rollback the increase in UN dues, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, said, “Nothing that anyone’s brought to my attention.”

Some conservative lawmakers indicated they are also ready to pay the increased UN dues. A spokesman for Rep. Joseph Knollenberg (R.-Mich.), a member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee (which has oversight over UN funding), said, “Mr. Knollenberg was certainly disappointed in the UN recently, but he is not willing to turn his back on it.” The spokesman said Knollenberg in all likelihood would support the increase.

Similarly, Rep. George Radanovich (R.-Calif.) told me, “The UN has shown how ineffective it is after passing 17 resolutions that were ignored by Iraq.

They’re [sic] League of Nations-like.” But he also signaled he would probably go along with the administration on this issue. “The President has to deal with the world community and the UN will have to have some kind of role in order to bring the rest of the world around [on a postwar Iraq],” he said.

Two other members voiced reservations about the UN’s role in post-war Iraq. “There are plenty of alternatives to the UN and we shouldn’t automatically assume the UN will be the end-all in Iraq after the war,” said House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.).

“The UN should need to prove it has a role,” echoed Rep. Jack Kingston (R.-Ga.), a Member of the House Appropriations Committee. “It was totally irrelevant leading up to the war, and contributed to the war in that respect. It ignored 17 of its own resolutions about Saddam Hussein and in twelve years never got serious about weapons inspections. It’s very much like them to come around to the battlefield when the soldiers are dead and then to claim victory. You won’t find leadership from the UN any more than you will find fairness or pro-American statements.”

[TLBSHOW]

No we don't. We do not need the UN and we are very stupid for paying this money to this group of commies and terrorist!

[Fraulein]

BTTT

[bray]

Well first from one of the PRESIDENT CAN DO NO WRONG CROWD to the do no right crowd: chill and let it play out! It must be killing you BBs to have to go 2 weeks without slamming GW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Course you all were saying we weren't invading til next year if at all???? Where are the appologies, oh yeah; your always right! Maybe he is giving them enough rope and "they" are taking it again! BTW how is the war going for this guy that makes you sooooooooooo sick. Do us a favor and go vote for Buchannan!!!

[F.J. Mitchell]

I don't believe we should turn our back on the UN either-only world class idiots would trust that den of back stabbing sonovabitches out of their sight.

The UN has become the enemy of everything we believe in. It is electing the representatives of human rights violating slave states to reign over the human rights commission. It's idea of family planning is to support and pay for abortions. It's method for dealing with Saddam Hussein, was to keep making new resolutions to replace the ones he ignored, in the hopes that he would eventually laugh his self to death.

Not every member nation of the UN is evil, but enough are obviousely evil, that the evil, the selfish and the butt kissers, have taken control.

The USA should cut off all funding to the UN and send an eviction notice to Koffe Anus and all members, that the UN building has been condemned and will be torn down to make room for a feedlot-all of which have been shown to accumulate less bull sh*t and stench than the present occupants.

[geedee]

We have got to do something. I called both my Senators offices -- Texas -- and voiced my UN concerns and asked what they were going to do about it. I was told by both, as if the damn politicians are all reading from the same script, that "Senator Cornyn/Hutchison shares your concerns but the UN is currently the only forum where international business can be handled."

There wasn't five words difference between them. And THESE ARE BOTH REPUBLICAN SENATORS!!!!!!!!!!

I hate to say it but we might have to FReep our own. Germany and France want to combine forces to serve as counter-weights against us. Then they're both DEMANDING that the UN handle the Iraqi rebuilding. The hubris of these jackasses is amazing. We have to hold back-stabbing allies accountable.

And the UN is just a place where dictators and despots can gain up on the U.S. This is absolute madness!!!!!!!!!!!

[B4Ranch]

What is he thinking? Simple NEW WORLD ORDER and the Republican sheep will follow him to the cliffs edge and continue over the edge to continue in the downfall of America.

Seriously, it is things like this that make me doubt why we are in Iraq. Are we being told the truth? I seriously have my doubts.

[geedee]

You have some very good points . . . many that I've never thought of. But if we're going to shoulder most of the military responsibilities, why should we also pay a disproportionate amount of the expenses?

I semi-agree that there needs to be "some" forum for conducting international business BUT the UN is in dire need or some reorganization. With a second-rate country like France sitting on the Security Council, and us knowing they only want to be counter-weights to our power, how can anything POSITIVE ever be done with UN auspices? And if we're going to do what we need to do ANYWAY, why pour money down the UN drain? India and Japan deserve Security Council seats far, far more than France does.

One more thing . . . when a country like Iraq is given the same credence as a democratic country, something is seriously wrong. Maybe the UN can be reorganized and streamlined. I personally doubt it. What we need is some kind of UN-like organization where just democratically-elected governments are represented.

[killerw]

"We have got to do something. I called both my Senators offices -- Texas -- and voiced my UN concerns and asked what they were going to do about it. I was told by both, as if the damn politicians are all reading from the same script, that "Senator Cornyn/Hutchison shares your concerns but the UN is currently the only forum where international business can be handled."

(Also from Texas)
I'm about ready to vote for democrats if I knew they would get us out of the UN and kick them off our shores, and that's low down and dirty.

[Fraulein]

BTTT

[geedee]

I'm about ready to vote for democrats if I knew they would get us out of the UN and kick them off our shores, and that's low down and dirty.

I keep thinking there MUST be something I'm missing. I trust GW to do the right thing and I HOPE he's just sitting back and letting the storm pass before he drops the hammer. He doesn't take slights lightly and I just can't imagine him letting the Germans and French and the UN get away with all the pain they've put us through.

I'm gonna hold my judgment of GW, for now, but I'm gonna do all I can to let ANYONE and EVERYONE know my feelings about our back-stabbing allies and the UN.

[goldstategop]

I hope Congress slashes the dues to ZERO.

[BnBlFlag]

SICKENING!

[TLBSHOW]

Fat chance of that, but its a good dream!

[TLBSHOW]

Q But back to the U.N. role, I mean, you said the U.N. will help in the reconstruction effort. But others in the administration are on the record -- Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell have talked about having U.S. officials moving in and taking over various administrations or, you know, departments that still exist --

MR. FLEISCHER: Correct.

Q -- and not having the U.N. move in immediately and do that, versus what Prime Minister Blair has said.

MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think they said anything about not having the U.N. move in. As you know, the President made a statement in the Azores, which everybody -- that's the American position, and that is that there will be a role for the United Nations, exactly as I said, exactly as Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Powell have said, involving humanitarian aspects and reconstruction aspects.

Don't think for a second that means the United States will not continue to have the role that we are playing and the mission that we are moving forward on to help continue to provide for the Iraqi people as the security situation goes forward, as well as some type of civilian administration that reports to General Franks.

Q Finally, representatives from France, Russia and Germany today to talk about this very issue. Have there been any discussions between our government and theirs to -- about the U.N. role? Or are you strictly dealing with Blair?

MR. FLEISCHER: Secretary Powell met in Brussels with leaders of 23 nations -- I believe it was 23 -- from the European Union. And, of course, he met with his counterparts from several of those nations that you just mentioned, if not all. And the talks were described as very positive and productive. It's part of the international process.

But the central point remains that the future of Iraq, in the President's judgment, will be governed by the Iraqi people. Iraq can govern itself. The United States will have its presence there, because we will stay for as long as is necessary to provide the security and for the infrastructure to be protected and to be administered, until the point where the Iraqis can take it over entirely.

Q But that'll be the United States staying there, and not the U.N., until the Iraqis can take it over --

MR. FLEISCHER: No, but the U.N. -- exactly as I said, the U.N. will have a role. Sometimes we do things side-by-side.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030404-7.html

[texastoo]

Well, we are almost at the same juncture in history that we were in after the first gulf war. It was not "read my lips, no more taxes" that soured me about George H. Bush. We all know politicians lie about taxes. What soured me was when he made the post gulf war speeches about the NWO.

I reluctantly voted for George H. Bush. I reluctantly voted for Dole. However, I very enthusiastically voted for George W. and converted about 20 hardcore Democrats.

Bush has very good reasons to at least cut the dues of the UN and begin phasing them out. Bush needs to learn the lesson that you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear. He tried to make the UN relevant in the first speech about irrelavance by giving $$$$$$ to UNESCO. Didn't work.

Now with Mexico as the president of the UN security council words just fail me. What a disgrace.

[Fraulein]

BTTT

[Fraulein]

BTTT

[Fraulein]

BTTT

[Fraulein]

BTTT

[Bogey78O]

We lost that village a long time ago.