Friday, August 04, 2006

The political cost of opting out would be too great

* haaretz:
"Rice is more troubling than Regev: It isn't easy to be the spokesperson for a confused and meaningless war; the faltering stance of the Americans requires, on the other hand, a re-evaluation of what the appropriate attitude toward the United States should be - the United States of George W. Bush at least. The following lines should not be counted among those foolish anti-American outbursts heard in Europe. But, as we approach the fifth anniversary of the attack on the Twin Towers, it is possible to say that the country many Israelis adopted as their beacon of values, almost a second motherland, has lost a great deal of its moral authority in the past few years. This is a good opportunity to rethink our relationship with Europe.
Over time, we have grown accustomed to the Americans saving us, not only from the Arabs, but from ourselves too. Not in this war. It is still unclear whether this war was coordinated with the United States; only the release of government records of the past three weeks will shed light on this."

* larisa:
UN report a 'moral indictment' of US
The United Nations Human Rights Committee has released its final report after a series of hearings in Geneva last week, which RAW STORY has learned amounts to a moral indictment of US treaty violations, as well as what some attendees and delegates described as US hubris, willful disregard for international and domestic law, and contempt for the Committee itself.
“The US ratified only three human rights treaties out of seven major human rights treaties. In fact, the US and Somalia are the only two countries in the world that have not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child--and Somalia does not have a functional government!” Said Dakwar.
When asked why the US continues to be a signatory to international human rights treaties if it has no intention of taking seriously its obligations under those treaties, Lisa Crooms, Constitutional and international law professor at the Howard University School of Law, opined that the US wishes to “maintain some semblance of being a human rights protector.”

“The political cost of opting out would be too great. It is easier to claim to be bound and not really be bound.” she added.

* maha:
"The righties can’t understand why our superior military might can’t prevail. They cannot wrap their heads around the simple truth that the means they want to use and the objectives don’t fit. At this point, for example, we could bring peace to Iraq with military might, but we’d have to slaughter most of its population and leave Iraq a barren wasteland in the process. And yes, I believe we could do that. But I don’t believe that is the objective. If the objective is to effect political change and turn a population away from Islamic totalitarianism and toward the West, our use of force must be smart and strategically discriminating. Israel didn’t think that through, and that’s why Israel is losing in Lebanon. And the Bush Administration didn’t think that through, and that’s why we’re losing in Iraq."

* maha:
"Dubya really is the stuff of myths and fairy tales. No competent modern fiction writer would have created a character that stupid and make him President of the United States.
If there’s one thing I’m sure of about our President, it’s that he has never encountered his limitations. He is as oblivious to his limitations as a spoon is oblivious to soup. He’s oblivious to his dark side; the dragon has been bought off; he mistakes his own inhumanity for virtue. He’s still a boy, in other words. And I believe the same is true of Dick and Rummy."

No comments: