January 12, 2009

Abstention Is Not An Option

"...abstaining [on a UN Security Council vote] comes with its own costs. It also signals timidity," writes John Bolton, who as usual gets it right (see below).

Playing the role of reluctant superpower to an organization devoid of any moral standing (aka the UN) is not only grossly unattractive, but it's downright insulting to the American people.

Make up your mind, Mr. President (and Mr. President-elect), is America for or against democratic nations defending themselves against terrorists?

Abstention is not be an option for the world's only superpower. Mush like that is better left to the Continent whose only contribution to world peace has been Nazism, Fascism, Communism and maybe cheese, i.e., Europe.

The Wall Street Journal  |  January 12, 2009

The U.S. Votes 'Present' At The U.N.
Usually we stop anti-Israel resolutions.

By John R. Bolton

Condi Rice at UN.jpg

Last week, the United Nations Security Council adopted a British resolution calling for a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip. Resolution 1860 was a slap at Israel's self-defense, but, unusually, the United States abstained on the vote.

That's no way to lead. If Washington concluded that a harsh resolution on Gaza was warranted, the proper course was to vote for it. And that is, apparently, what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had hoped to do. Speaking to the Security Council, Ms. Rice endorsed the basic content of the British draft, saying "this resolution is a step toward our goals." She also said that the U.S. was abstaining to give Egypt's ongoing mediation efforts time to work.

The Palestinian Authority's foreign minister, however, indicates that there may have been another reason. He said publicly Ms. Rice told him just before the vote that... more here.


[Comment Rules]
We welcome your comments, but please comply with our Comment Rules. You must be registered and logged in to leave a comment. Comments will display your Username and location.

Log In »

Not a member? Register here!