But here is where the liberal sentiment gets murky. They are all over the United States for having once supported Saddam, even though we have repented of that and, at considerable cost in blood and treasure, have driven him from his throne. Yet they have nothing but praise for the French, who built a nuclear reactor for Saddam, supplied him with loans and goods, supported him diplomatically until the bitter end and did everything in their power to keep the United Nations from joining with the United States, Britain and others to liberate Iraq from him.
Many of the Democratic presidential candidates, their fannies smarting from having the rug pulled out from under them, returned to their favorite mantra -- the capture of Saddam, said Kerry and others -- was an "opportunity" to get the United Nations more involved in postwar Iraq. What is this mythic U.N. they keep invoking? Memo to liberals: The U.N. bugged out of Iraq after the bombing of its headquarters, remember? It's perched at a safe distance in Cyprus. On Dec. 11, 2003, The New York Times reported as follows, "Secretary General Kofi Annan said Wednesday that the dangerous situation in Iraq had caused him to rule out a swift resumption of a United Nations presence there."
Frankly, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari had a much clearer view of the moral standing of the United Nations than Dean, Kerry, The New York Times and the rest. "One year ago," he told the delegates, "this Security Council was divided between those who wanted to appease Saddam Hussein and those who wanted to hold him accountable. The U.N. as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years, and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure ..."
That pathetic talking shop is the Democrats' Holy Grail.