The Administration Knows the UN Security Council will Deny Them

[markses]

The sheer onslaught of propaganda against the French, Russians and Germans on the cable outlets today was incredible - totally out of this world. On Lou Dobbs, they actually had a graphic that read "Conflict of Interest" and a representative from the "Project for a New American Century" absolutley eviscerating the French, germans and Russians with outright lies. Needless to say, his own affiliation was never questioned. Elsewhere, war criminal Richard Holbrook was directly insulting the French ambassador to the United Nations, and Fox was the usual litany of senseless garbage.

They are in hyperdrive, setting up the Security Council for blame when it quite rightly tells Bush to take his demands and shove off. The strategy (fully domestic, as was the initial war vote lies) is to shift focus off Bush and his criminal gang and on to the UN.

This strategy is a disaster, because it finally calls forth - without any hope of avoiding it - the confrontation between the delusional domestic political constituency and the actually existing material conditions of the world crisis. The Bush Administration continues to play to domestic audiences with the same illusions and mirages, the same nonsenses and lies that got us into the war in the first place - but the house is on fire this time, and he materially needs the UN. This thing is in a dangerous downward spiral.

[Maple]

1. Well they SHOULD know

whether they do or not is another matter.

This is the crowd that thought they'd be greeted with flowers and dancing remember?

[markses]

2. They're manufacturing the response as we speak

They very well know what the UN will do, just as they knew the UN would balk at war, and so started in with the axis of weasels thing.

They are damn well sure.

[DuctapeFatwa]

3. The UN is the US. They will do as they are told

After making some very strongly worded statements to prove to the folks back home that they are firm and principled representatives to an independent international organization that is sooooo completely separate from the US, that just happened to come to realize that it was in everybody's best interest to do what the bush regime tells them.

[markses]

4. Disagree

The Security Council will not budge on this. Guess we'll have to wait and see, but the US establishment is strongly signalling what it thinks the response will be by preparing the ground for its domestic reception. I think the whole UN move is a feint anyway - a way to take the blame off Bush and place it with somebody else. That's why they're making the demands so unreasonable. They want it to fail.

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. If it's a feint, you're right, but if the US orders any country

to deploy its armed forces to kill Iraqis and seize oil, I don't think there is any country that would dare to refuse.

The choice is pretty clear cut. They can lose those troops, or they can get what Iraq and Afghanistan got.

Stretched resources are not so stretched that they can't spare a pilot or two for a little tactical limited buzzboom.

[markses]

6. Sorry, but I think that's ridiculous

They can and will refuse. The US is in no position to attack other countries, nor is it in a position to issue huge cash rewards for participation. Shit, just yesterday John Snow went to the Chinese to beg them to adjust their currency value, and they told him to pound sand (Of course, the hue and cry from such formerly Bush friendly places as Northwest South Carolina over job losses in textile manufacture had everything to do with this, but no relief from Beijing). I think the French, Russians and Germans will hold out for a better deal, since Bush is in the shit as is, the Syrians will laugh uproariously on the Council floor, the Mexican ambassador will scratch his eyelid with his middle finger, and the Chinese will nod gravely will mouthing Fuck You. The US will cobble together Spain, UK, Bulgaria, Pakistan and maybe Cameroon, Chile and Guinea (if they're lucky). It's a no go.

Of course, they waited until September so the UK would hold the Presidency rather than Syria (august), and the US has the presidency in October, so 2 months of that pressure. But they need an initial failure for domestic considerations.

[wuushew]

7. Do you have the rotating schedule for the U.N.?

I am very curious how the makeup is going to affect upcoming votes

[tinnypriv]

13. Here you go (if memory serves)

Presidency:

September: UK
October: US
November: Angola
December: ?
Jan: ?

Members:

US, UK, France, China, Russia (permanent)

Til Dec 03: Bulgaria, Cameroon, Mexico, Syria, Guinea
Til Dec 04: Spain, Angola, Chile, Pakistan, Germany

---

So, Germany will still be on the council before the Bush '04 se-election (chalk up one negative war vote), and Pakistan, Spain, Chile and Angola are not easy shoe-ins for US pressure.

Bear in mind that the five that will replace the '03 guys will be decided reasonably soon. The African, ME, West Europe blocs etc selected this time last year, and the vote was confirmed the same month too. My ideal council:

US, UK, France, China, Russia, Belgium, Iran, Libya, Vietnam, Zimbabwe + '04 above ;-)

Just to cause some trouble!

[wuushew]

16. Thanks for the info

I am glad Syria will be on till the end of the year, othewise the middle east is without any representation

[Maple]

9. I agree!

Most of the countries in the world have refused to get involved with this invasion all along. They aren't about to give in now, and they certainly aren't afraid of the US.

I think your scenario of laughter is the far more likely one.

[DuctapeFatwa]

10. I admire and envy your optimism

And I wish that you were right, and I even wish I could just believe you are right.

The US is in no position to attack other countries only if it has other priorities that are higher on its agenda.

It is only short of cash as long as it is relying on real cash and gives a fuck how its policies impact you.

Kim Jung Il once said he could lose 70% of his population and still have enough left for "defense." He said that in an interview.

No one has asked Cheney or Rove for their numbers in an interview, we don't know what's been scribbled on postit notes in Pentagon conference rooms.

[berry]

11. You're not suggesting that Bush* would dare to bomb France, are you?

Or am I just stupid, not getting what you meant? So far all the real threats and attacks have been on weak countries that couldn't fight back (well, N Korea could--but it's weak for other reasons).

But I was made very uneasy to hear Holbrooke call de Villepin a "buffoon" and a "clown". I couldn't understand why he was doing it. But if markses is right, it makes a little sense, if France is resisting US pressure (as I hope they continue to do). Holbrooke (who calls himself a Dem) seems to want to pull Bush* out of this mess--but his talking points certainly had a lot in common with the WH. Frankly, I was stunned at Holbrook's hostility toward France--but way back, just after the attack (I think), Madelaine Albright was on a panel with the French ambassador to the US--and she too was downright rude and contemptuous of the French. It shouldn't have surprised me, maybe, but I was expecting to see a little daylight between her views and those of the PNACers. Oh well. These people are very concerned with the possibility (certainty?) of the US losing prestige and its "leadership" position. (I figure you shouldn't be a leader if you know and care not at all about the rest of the world. But that's just me.)

[DuctapeFatwa]

12. Yes, I think they will kill even white people

If they feel it will further the achievement of their goals and objectives as outlined in the PNAC documents.

[berry]

18. Well, yes--and they did threaten to attack the Netherlands

if Americans were put on trial at the Hague. But I wasn't doubting this gang's ability to frame a "white" country as the enemy. Just, I think of them as bullies who pick on countries WAY weaker than them, without allies that would stand up for/with them. But, on consideration, I don't think they do have any limits at all--and might actually pick a war with China if they had the time for it. (I'm not sure it wasn't considered in the spring of '01).

[Must_B_Free]

17. then why was the coalition of the willing so tiny?

Bush has a tiny little coalition!

[Melsky]

8. I think they will tell bush to get bent

Check out this sign some freeper type has posted on the highway near my house:



every couple of weeks, someone comes and stencils IRAQ over the UN.

[Not a robought]

14. Judy Woodruff

announced today that the administration was going to be rolling out a massive post-sell campaign to offset all the negative events that have plagued the administration about this war. Be prepared for a shovel load of shit coming our way, we've just been fed the appetizer.

[Lexingtonian]

15. No, not that

I'd guess the SC will take a looong time to reach a decision and keep coming back to Powell and W for more "details". Basically, they're going to make it terribly painful and costly politically for W. I imagine the list of demands being passed under the table involves firing Bremer, Perle, and the rest of the cabal. Probably also Powell going before them and admitting that the March "presentation" was all smoke and mirrors. (They do prefer for Powell to survive, badly wounded as he is politically, and the PNAC crowd shot at dawn rather than the other way around- which is how W and Cheney would settle it if they could.)

The cable PR offensive is probably really all about getting the most recent revisionism to the Conintern Party Line to the True Believers, scapegoats and all, before the SC poisons the waters with facts and videotape with the lies the W Crew told. Unfortunately for them, their loyalists are starting to feel roundly abused by the constant revisionism and scapegoatings and shortchangings in significant numbers. This one's going fly like a lead balloon.

[T_i_B]

19. A matter of sharing power

If they won't get what they want at the UN it is because they are to arrogant to share the power and the spoils. I will leave it to you to work out how much or how little they will be willing to comprimise in order to do what is best for Iraq.