June 23, 2006

More Moronic Commentary from The Nation, or Is Ian Williams Literate?

A little while ago, dear reader, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” penned a “post” for Wizbang taking issue with a recent speech the Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mark Malloch Brown, offered, which was harshly critical of American concerns regarding the UN. In short, we skewered Mr. Brown for suggesting that it was American criticism of the UN—and not the assorted fiascos associated with the UN itself—that was hampering this august body’s effectiveness.

As you might imagine, the loveable lunatics at The Nation would soon to chime in on this matter. And, as you might also imagine, they have a very different take.

In a piece for America’s favorite political weekly fittingly printed on toilet paper, one Ian Williams lauds Mr. Brown for his rousing attempt to silence American criticism of the UN. Quizzically, the folks at The Nation, who typically believe that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism,” do not think that dissent is kosher in regard to the UN.

All must bow to the UN—the delightfully unaccountable global government aiming to give votes to kleptocratic regimes that don’t allow their own citizens to vote. In regard to clamoring for UN reform, dissent apparently isn’t okay to the folks at The Nation, in part because in this case the dissent actually is patriotic.

All the typical palaver one would expect to accompany such an argument can be found in Mr. Williams’ feculent piece. There’s lots of nasty sniping at John Bolton’s expense; it seems that rampant UN corruption and ineffectiveness pale in comparison to the machinations of Mr. Bolton.

Ah, yes: How dare Mr. Bolton dissent from the anti-Semitic ravings of the Arab bloc at the UN! Does he want to alienate America by foolishly taking the unpopular position that Israel deserves to exist? Who does he think he is?

Add to the typical anti-Bolton nonsense a marked inability to mention any of the sundry UN scandals. In Ian Williams’ world—much as in Mark Malloch Brown’s—Oil-for-Food, UN rapes of underage girls, large pensions for corrupt UN officials, and so forth don’t merit discussion. No, the big problem is America’s peevish criticism of UN officials who, like Brown, make healthy, non-taxable six-figure salaries, mostly on the US’ dime.

But we particularly savored this bit from Mr. Williams’ pathetic disquisition:

As Malloch Brown stated, US policy is "stealth" diplomacy; the UN's role, so assiduously worked for by Washington, is "in effect a secret in Middle America." And indeed, it is. Bolton's echo chamber in the Murdoch media, or "Fox and Rush Limbaugh," as he put, have continually attacked the organization--not for its behavior but for its existence.

This leads us to wonder: Has Ian Williams read any criticism of the United Nations? Has he ever read anything? Is he literate?

We have good reason to doubt it. Although we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have read numerous conservative complaints about the UN, we’ve yet to see an article that attacks it “not for its behavior but for its existence.”

On the face of it, this is absurd. How could a critique of the UN not focus at least tangentially on its miserable record? Perhaps Mr. Williams should remove his face from Mark Malloch Brown’s posterior and take a gander at some Claudia Rosette columns. He might learn a thing or two.

Posted at June 23, 2006 12:01 AM | TrackBack