Pantloaded buffoonery

Posted on August 11, 2008 by Alex

Categories: Pantload, The Corner, dumbass

The Doughy Pantload has his panties in a twist because Obama mentioned, among a score of other items (ceasefire, mediation, humanitarian assistance, etc., etc., etc., ) the possibility of bringing a resolution before the UN Security Council calling for an end to the fighting:

Why on earth is Obama calling for a UN Security Council resolution, essentially against Russia? Doesn’t he know Russia has a veto? Isn’t it crazy to think that Russia will vote against its national policy? Does Obama understand this? Or is this just the sort of thing Democrats must say whenever something bad happens? What am I missing?

What Jonah is missing is awareness of the bringing of such resolutions with the knowledge that the party holding a veto will be forced to either accede to the will of the Council or further isolate themselves politically. Does this moron actually think no one has ever brought a resolution before the Security Council even with the sure knowledge that it will likely be vetoed? When the US sought a Security Council resolution following North Korea’s invasion, they did so with the awareness and even the expectation that the Soviet Union could end its boycott of the Council and veto the resolution.

Hell, is Pantload stupid enough to think that even if the Security Council passed a resolution, it would somehow be self-enforcing and make the Russians immediately cease operations? If so, why bother with any resolution, ever?

Obviously, Russia is going to have to agree at some point to stop fighting — and asking for a broad resolution for an immediate end to the violence, which would ostensibly include Georgian military operations against Ossetia, might be one way of obtaining it. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Meanwhile, of course, teh Pantload is curiously silent about Bush’s strategery to stop the fighting in Georgia — doing an affably dumb interview with Bob Costas and chumming with the US Olympic baseball team, before surfacing at the Rose Garden briefly and flapping his gums. . . .

That’ll make those pesky Rooskies think twice about their aggression. . .

You can make a comment below or link a trackback from your own site. RSS feed for comments on this post.

Comments:

  1. the most absurd part of Goldberg’s nonsense is that he didn’t- and still doesn’t- have a problem with McCain’s plan for kicking Russia out of the G8. Such a move would require anonymity. Russia would have have veto power over their own expulsion.
    But that makes perfect sense! Not the same at all!

    Comment by bend — August 11, 2008 @ 6:47 pm

  2. I don’t know why i wrote anonymity. Unanimity. Unanimity is the word!

    Comment by bend — August 11, 2008 @ 6:48 pm

  3. Hey, Jonah! Here’s why!

    On 12 September 2002, President Bush spoke before the General Assembly of the United Nations and outlined a catalogue of complaints against the Iraqi government.[1] These included:

    “- In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments….And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq.”
    - U.N. Commission on Human Rights found “extremely grave” human rights violations in 2001.
    - Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction (biological weapons, chemical weapons, and long-range missiles), all in violation of U.N. resolutions.
    - Iraq used proceeds from the “oil for food” U.N. program to purchase weapons rather than food for its people.
    - Iraq flagrantly violated the terms of the weapons inspection program before discontinuing it altogether.

    Following the speech, intensive negotiations began with other members of the Security Council. In particular, three permanent members (with veto power) of the Council were known to have misgivings about an invasion of Iraq: Russia, People’s Republic of China, and France.

    In the meantime, Iraq, while denying all charges, announced that it would permit the re-entry of United Nations arms inspectors into Iraq. The United States characterized this as a ploy by Iraq and continued to call for a Security Council resolution which would authorize the use of military force.[citation needed]

    The resolution text was drafted jointly by the United States and the UK, the result of eight weeks of tumultuous negotiations, particularly with Russia and France. France questioned the phrase “serious consequences” and stated repeatedly that any “material breach” found by the inspectors should not automatically lead to war; instead the UN should pass another resolution deciding on the course of action. In favour of this view is the fact that previous resolutions legitimizing war under Chapter VII used much stronger terms, like “…all necessary means…” in Resolution 678 in 1990 and that Resolution 1441 stated that the Security Council shall “remain seized of the matter.”

    Or as Churchill put it “Jaw jaw jaw is always better than war war war!”

    Comment by actor212 — August 12, 2008 @ 7:14 am