' I think the unanimous (I believe Syria abstained) Security Council vote that recognized the interim Iraqi governing council is the thing that made them do this. It was a shot across the UN's bow, it was meant to convey, "Don't think about getting more involved in this and givin UN 'legitimacy' to it." 'I believe you're right. No matter what the UN says now, the UN and ONLY the UN brought this on themselves. For decades, the UN protected and appeased terrorists and gave them legitimacy. Some terrorists obviously feel the UN is getting out of hand with their little token recognition and think they need a lesson.
OR
This is a "thanks for nothing" card from the Iraqi people, who blame the UN for allowing Saddam to torture them all these years.
Either way, the UN is reaping what they have sown.
The UN's answer will probably be to appease MORE. I notice Annan isn't making much of a public statement in this tragedy.
It also could be that they had a old score to settle with De Mello-- it seemed specifically geared towards him. He dates back a long way-- Lebanon, the Balkans and East Timor. Weren't the Islamists pissed about East Timor's independence from Indonesia? Maybe it was a gift to Hambali who just got arrested. Maybe it was a combination of the two and much else. These terrorist SOB's are constitutionally homicidal.
Anybody catch Bob Graham on CNN talking about this? I find it real grotesque that he would use such an atrocity to further his political aims. I think I am not alone in this--the Dems play partisan politics about national security at their peril, I hope it gets very dangerous for them.