Appeasers In The U.N, And Here At Home Be Damned!<

Toogood Reports ^ | February 7, 2003 | Lowell Phillips

[Stand Watch Listen]

A few years back, I was huffing along on the treadmill at the gym when I struck up a conversation with the sweet little old lady on the bike next to me. After asking about her German accent, her charm quickly evaporated, and I was left speechless while hearing how the Holocaust "never happened", about Hitler's noble campaign to "fight communism", and the joy of living under the Third Reich, when "the people all had jobs". I had heard dismissals of the most thoroughly documented atrocities in human history prior to this, but had never before looked them in the eye. I never saw her again, and can't say that I'm sorry. I do, however, see her in my mind's eye when I come across willful disbelief or disinterest in the face of undeniable evidence. And sadly there are examples of this all around us.

When there is talk of U.S. actions in the Pacific during WWII, we hear much on our use of nuclear weapons and the internment of Japanese Americans, but little or nothing about the wholesale slaughter, rape, and enslavement committed by Imperial Japan. Nor do we hear of Japanese soldiers demonstrating their skill with the sword by butchering helpless civilians and prisoners of war, or their prowess with a bayonet by impaling infants after lightheartedly tossing them into the air.

When the subject is America's role in the Cold War, there is scant attention paid to the inestimable horrors perpetrated in the name of world communism. And when the discussion turns to the Arab/Israeli conflict, there is consistent focus on "settlements" and "occupation", but the endless and overwhelming evidence of terrorist activities by the government of Yasser Arafat is swept aside amid calls for "negotiations" and gestures of "good faith" to that same band of thugs.

There are other examples, many others. When I'm confronted with them, I see the face of that little old lady, so subtle and blithe in her wickedness. She was there again, hovering over the shoulders of French Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin, Chinese Foreign Minister, Tang Jiaxuan, German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer and Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov after Secretary of State Powell's briefing to the U.N. Security Council. And she is there whispering in the ears of pundits and public officials who refuse to accept what long ago was made undeniable, or who cower when faced with what must be done.

Short of throwing open the entire military, law enforcement and intelligence gathering assets of the United States for public perusal, it's difficult to see what more Powell might have done to convince the U.N. and the world of the futility of diplomacy and inspections in dealing with Saddam Hussein. Undoubtedly there is more that is known about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and their links to terrorists, but how many more lives would be placed in jeopardy by revealing it, and to what end?

The bloc opposing military action had their minds and statements of rebuttal prepared long before Mr. Powell's appearance. Any presentation by the U.S. was unlikely to have the desired effect in any event, because they were already familiar with everything that was appropriate for public consumption, with the possible exception of some audio clips and a few graphics. The reason I can make this statement is that most of it was known by me, the information amassed sitting all by my lonesome at my computer.

The fact that weapon's inspections were being thwarted was made official by the 12,000-page lie submitted by Iraq, denying the existence of an already established stockpile of chemical and biological weapons. The refusals of Iraq to allow private interviews with its scientists, or to allow over-flights by surveillance planes, in defiance of U.N. resolutions, was likewise public knowledge. As was their acquisition of equipment suitable for producing material for nuclear weapons and their importation of rocket engines and other items meant for construction of missiles with ranges far beyond the 150-mile mandated limit. The films and illustrations of Iraqi methods of dispensing biological and chemical weapons with unmanned aerial vehicles added drama, but media reports of this have been circulating for months.

Moreover, Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix, admitted on a Fox News broadcast, that the inspection team had been penetrated by Iraqi intelligence. In spite of an inspections process that is nothing more than a bad joke, France's Dominique de Villepin demanded that the hopeless failed effort be "doubled" or "tripled", recoiling from enforcement of the United Nation's own purported authority. The other appeasement-minded members of the Security Council echoed the sentiment, righteously affirming their intention to establish the council's irrelevance, a label that is long overdue.

The airtight case reiterated by Powell did result in a few scattered conversions here at home, most notably Democrat Senator, Dianne Feinstein. But by-and-large, positions remained static. The Democrat opposition, though seemingly convinced of Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction, expressed merely the hope that reluctant Security Council members would now support the use of force, rather than affirming the correctness of acting irrespective. Sen. Edward Kennedy and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi declared blanket opposition to war, no matter what the evidence, and apparently no matter what the dangers to the American people. Secretary Powell's reiteration of the links between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime rendered U.N. approval even less important and should, now and forever, silence charges that Iraq is a "distraction" from the war on terrorism.

Again, little that was presented was new. Some of Powell's information began surfacing in the press just weeks after 9/11. Jeffrey Goldberg of The New Yorker has reported extensively on it. Stories have also appeared in The New York Times, and The Daily Telegraph of London. In spite of this, Democrats and elites in the media have allowed the information to wither beneath determined disavowals of any Iraq/al Qaeda connection.

Even following the Powell presentation, the evidence was immediately minimized. In a radio appearance shortly after, Time Magazine's Senior Foreign Correspondent, Johanna Mcgeary, admitted the information had been "floating around for a year", repudiated it as "inferential" and then deferred to the authority of the United Nations.

During her appearance on MSNBC's Imus In The Morning, NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, Andrea Mitchell, said the evidence was "not solid". Don Imus himself, calling upon his few functioning brain cells, determined that a link "didn't exist" and laughing labeled the Bush administration claims "ridiculous" and "bogus". The endless parade of media personalities, public officials and presidential candidates appearing on Imus' show sadly lend him undeserved credibility.

Evidence, however, is always inferential. If a photo surfaced of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein giving Mohamed Atta a tearful sendoff on the morning of 9/11, we must infer that they knew what he was up to. As for the specifics of the evidence presented by Colin Powell, satellite photos, information from informants, from captured al Qaeda members, from Iraqi defectors and from global law enforcement is as "solid" as it is about to get, considering terrorists rely heavily on low-tech forms of communication and longstanding personal contacts.

No matter how clear the dangers, there will be those who refuse to act. No matter how blatant the evil, there will be those who fail to see it. In spite of them, the time left to Saddam Hussein appears short. But there is no comfort in knowing that when he's gone, they will be there, blind to the next danger and enabling the next tyrant, with that sweet, little old, Nazi apologist backing them up.

[Man of the Right]

I get cold sweats when I think of the Democrats one day recapturing power. The threat will be a joke to Democrats until there's a mass die off in a U.S. city from a CBN attack. Thereafter, the Democrat spin will be that the attack, however unfortunate, is just desserts for U.S. support for Israel.

[hellinahandcart]

I keep thinking of "High Noon".

And when this is all over, I want Bush to throw the tin star in the dirt.

Screw these people. I will never forgive them. UN out of the US. Leftist appeasers out of Congress. Smirking celebrities out of money.

[xkaydet65]

I'm not one to worry about UN acquiescence in this, but somebody on our side has to make the following case to the American people. What do you mean by UN backing?

If you mean the Security Council then you are saying that France, Russia, and China are the UN. Scenario to consider: The Security Council votes 10-5 to support the US. Russia, France, and China vote NO. Do we have UN support?

The Dems talk like the UN is some New England Town Meeting. UN support has nothing to do with the nations of the world. It's the realm of the permanent members who decide who lives or dies.

Another scenario to consider.: The Council votes 7 to 5 with three abstentions, Russia, France, and China, to back Bush. Do we have UN support then?

Final scenario for the DEMS.Iraq's threat is objective and quantifiable. It exists or does not exist without any refernce to the United Nations. If DEMS believe that an attack is acceptable with UN backing why not without it? The threat posed is exactly the same. Answer the question DEMS. Does the threat exist or not?