November 26, 2008

Change you can believe in

ABC News is reporting that Susan Rice will be Obama's Ambassador to the United Nations. Here's some "change you can believe in" -- Rice's view on the US acting unilaterally without UN approval:

History demonstrates that there is one language Khartoum understands: the credible threat or use of force....

After swift diplomatic consultations, the United States should press for a U.N. resolution that issues Sudan an ultimatum: accept unconditional deployment of the U.N. force within one week or face military consequences....

The United States, preferably with NATO involvement and African political support, would strike Sudanese airfields, aircraft and other military assets. It could blockade Port Sudan, through which Sudan's oil exports flow. Then U.N. troops would deploy by force, if necessary, with U.S. and NATO backing.

If the United States fails to gain U.N. support, we should act without it. Impossible? No, the United States acted without U.N. blessing in 1999 in Kosovo to confront a lesser humanitarian crisis (perhaps 10,000 killed) and a more formidable adversary....

Others will insist that, without the consent of the United Nations or a relevant regional body, we would be breaking international law. Perhaps, but the Security Council recently codified a new international norm prescribing "the responsibility to protect." It commits U.N. members to decisive action, including enforcement, when peaceful measures fail to halt genocide or crimes against humanity.

How many times did we hear from BDSers ("Bush Derangement Syndrome-ers") that George Bush was breaking international law for "unilaterally" going into Iraq -- without UN approval? Wasn't Bush just committing the US to "decisive action, including enforcement" of all the UN sanctions that Saddam Hussein had broken since 1991? Didn't "peaceful measures fail to halt genocide or crimes against humanity" in Iraq?

Hmm. Yes and yes. As I told Maria Evans on DTR this morning, this isn't "change you can believe in." It is "change you've been suckered into believing." The only difference is who's in power. It'll be OK to ignore the UN now because The Messiah will be president. He's "better" than George Bush. He's "not evil" like George Bush. Etc.

Previous "change you can believe in."

Posted by Hube at November 26, 2008 01:51 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Obama's Presidency has yet to begin, yet you on the Right want to play the straw man game already.

That said, I share some of your concern about Obama's appointments, this one in particular, plus a couple of the financial garus, but I think we should all wait to see what the outcome is some time down the line.

In defense of Rice, her 2006 statement was made when faced with ongoing genocide in Sudan, in the event that the UN refused to act, which presents a pretty tough dilemma with this particular moral dilemma.

It is worth noting that the past statements and behavior of Rice and the financial gurus is in the context that then existed. This has to be taken into account.

Obama seems to be picking on the basis of experience and intellect, not a bad idea in times of this extreme financial crisis. When asked about whether his picks represent "change", Obama's answer was that the change comes from him. After all, won't he soon be the "decider"?

Let us observe the outcomes, then criticize if we feel so inclined. To do so at this point is premature, in my view.

Posted by: Perry at November 26, 2008 03:21 PM

"Change Perry Fell For."

Posted by: Hube at November 26, 2008 03:48 PM

And there is one of the many reasons I chose to abstain from voting in this election. Obama MIGHT be the "decider" Perry but he can no more effect change without agreement (permission!) from Congress than anyone else could. At the same time, should be said McCain was in no better position to make such promises either. I will say I was open minded about Obama but becoming wary when I see his picks and some of their beliefs.

Like someone said this morning (Hube, was it you?), holding my breath to see if he appoints the Idiot Chaney to some plum position. At this point I wouldn't be too surprised but afraid I'd have to throw up.

Posted by: Nancy Cleveland at November 27, 2008 12:28 AM

Yeah -- context, Perry.

Something you seem never to consider when examining the words and actions of Republicans.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at November 27, 2008 11:15 AM