While reading The Right War for the Right Reasons, I came across a reference to Bill Clinton saying last year:
“So I thought it was prudent for the president to go back to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don’t cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.”
Of course, the U.N. would never threaten to carry out regime change, much less actually do so. Why? Because the U.N. is chock full of regimes that fear they might be next, or to paraphrase Martin Niemoller’s observation about cowardice and indifference in the face of the Nazi’s, here’s what much of the U.N. really thinks about the what Charles Krauthammer has called the Democratic Realism approach to the unipolar world we now inhabit:
First they came for the Taliban, and I didn’t speak up, because the U.S. had a legitimate grievance after 9/11.
Then they came for Saddam Hussein, and I didn’t speak up, because, well, let’s face it, it’s kind of hard to defend Saddam Hussein.
Then they came for Kim Jong Il, and I didn’t speak up, because that freak scares the bejesus out of all of us.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no willing to speak up for me, because I was the worst tyrant in the world.