Even Britain may be starting to "go wobbly" after Prime Minister Tony Blair's stalwart defense of U.S. policy to topple Saddam Hussein. Blair's government, which has seen its approval ratings plummet, is now proposing a series of ludicrous "benchmarks" to be included in still another resolution. One of them is a television appearance by Saddam Hussein in which he renounces weapons of mass destruction. Let's put him on "60 Minutes" with Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. Maybe the segment could be sponsored by a French wine company or German cars.
The United Nations, like its failed predecessor, the League of Nations, seemed like a good idea at the time. But if the United Nations will do nothing about a murderous monster like Saddam Hussein, the United States should look for other associations and other ways to create a coalition of nations that will help preserve our national security and the security of others that wish to pay the price and bear the burden of freedom.
Historian Paul Johnson wrote in last Tuesday's (March 11) Wall Street Journal: "If Saddam achieves his aim of acquiring dirty bombs, his capacity for evil will exceed that of Hitler and Stalin put together." Shouldn't that be sufficient reason to stop dithering and get on with the liberation of the Iraqi people?
It's a cliche, but no less true, that freedom isn't free. The United Nations, whose bills are mainly paid by the United States, has proved it has another agenda than promoting freedom around the world. Following the certain liberation and rebuilding of Iraq while the coalition of cowards is trying to cover its posterior once weapons of mass destruction are found, the United States should either reduce its role and contributions to the United Nations or get out entirely. Maybe Guinea would like to be the host country.