Post-Gazette Editorial – 9/21/06

This page was last updated on September 21, 2006.

Dueling speeches / The U.N. session opens on a note of discord; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; September 21, 2006.

The purpose of this critique is not to address each item, but to point out the language the editorial uses in reference to President Bush compared to that used in reference to Messrs. Ahmadinejad and Chavez.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“In New York it’s the opening of the annual U.N. General Assembly session. The stars gather, talk to each other and make speeches.

“So far the big attractions have been retiring U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, President Bush and a new enfant terrible, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. (For added spice, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez took the mike yesterday and called Mr. Bush ‘the devil.’)”

[RWC] The Chavez speech was anti-America & anti-Bush and engaged in name-calling from beginning to end, yet the PG refers to it as merely spicy and Mr. Chavez as an “enfant terrible.” FYI, a definition of enfant terrible is “a usually young and successful person who is strikingly unorthodox, innovative, or avant-garde.” I’m sure the author wanted us to believe “enfant terrible” meant something bad to give the editorial an appearance of balance.

The editorial failed to note Mr. Chavez led off his speech by hawking Noam Chomsky’s book, “Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance.”

In summary, the PG liked the Chavez speech. I should also note Mr. Chavez didn’t say anything American Democrats/liberals have been saying since the day President Bush took office.

“September is when leaders can meet -- even those of countries with awkward relations. New York is big enough so that heads of state can meet privately. That is why it was so comic -- or tragic -- that Mr. Bush and Mr. Ahmadinejad, who were at the podium Tuesday only hours apart and have plenty to talk about, made -- at least on Mr. Bush’s side -- such an effort not to meet. Apparently, for the American leader, a photo taken of him with the Iranian president was considered politically risky. What he avoided was the opportunity to discuss directly with the Iranian president such issues as Tehran’s nuclear program, Iran’s role in Iraq and its approach to the Arab-Israeli problem.”

[RWC] What is there to discuss when Ahmadinejad believes “Israel must be wiped off the map,” denies the Holocaust occurred, and supports terrorist organizations?

“The speeches were predictable, although interesting. Mr. Annan provided a thorough, cogent presentation of the major issues tormenting the world at this point. These issues are per se the agenda of the United Nations. He spoke of the Arab-Israeli conflict as the most dangerous for the world, the quarrel over Iran’s nuclear program and the stalemate in Darfur, an issue close to his heart as an African and as a senior U.N. official who lived through and was involved in Somalia and Rwanda.”

[RWC] Mr. Annan was not merely “involved in … Rwanda.” He was head of the UN’s Peacekeeping Operations at the time, and ordered local UN peacekeepers to do nothing, not even protect civilians from slaughter. As a reminder, approximately 800,000 Rwandans were murdered.

Despite this record, though, the PG thought Mr. Annan to be “thorough” and “cogent.”

“Mr. Bush addressed the situations in Darfur, urging the United Nations to act, and in the Middle East and, again, he threatened Iran. He slipped into hypocrisy about the political situation in the Palestinian territories, citing Hamas’ victory at the polls, but leaving out that the United States and Israel have done everything possible ever since to see that Hamas would be unable to govern. His speech contained some political babble not rooted in reality, for example, ‘From Beirut to Baghdad, people are making the choice for freedom.’ We imagine he hasn’t visited the Baghdad morgue recently.”

[RWC] According to the PG, President Bush is a hypocrite spouting “political babble not rooted in reality.”

Regarding not dealing with Hamas, whether elected to run the Palestinian territories or not, it remains a terrorist organization. When will folks like the PG realize you cannot negotiate with terrorists?

“Mr. Ahmadinejad’s speech was long and contained some Islamic theological frippery. He cleverly led off by citing the expansion of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as the world’s No. 1 problem, trying to draw the teeth of possible U.N. action directed against Iran because of its nuclear program. He noted Iran’s signature on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and compliance with International Atomic Energy Agency inspections, in contrast with nuclear-armed India, Israel and Pakistan. He cited the United States’ inability as an occupier to assure security in Iraq.”

[RWC] As with his use of “enfant terrible” above, I’m sure the author wanted us to believe “frippery” meant something derogatory. A definition of frippery is “elegant.”

While the editorial cites the United States’ alleged “inability as an occupier to assure security in Iraq, you’ll note the editorial didn’t mention Iran’s involvement in Iraq’s problems.

“Perhaps his most interesting line of argument was that U.N. Security Council Permanent Members, like the United States and the United Kingdom, are, in effect, immune from any U.N. action taken in response to transgressions of the U.N. Charter they might commit. He raises a good point. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the world came down on Iraq like a ton of bricks. When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, no parallel was drawn nor U.N. action taken.”

[RWC] There’s some moral equivalence to Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait and the US invading Iraq?

To refresh the PG’s memory, numerous UN resolutions authorized action against Iraq by member nations if Iraq didn’t comply with the demands of those resolutions. As we know, Iraq didn’t comply.

It’s important to note some portions of the speech not mentioned in the editorial. As the Chavez speech, the Ahmadinejad speech was anti-American. The PG failed to note Mr. Ahmadinejad again denied the Holocaust. He talked about the recent battles in Lebanon, yet failed to mention his country’s role. You’d have to ask the PG why they didn’t find that hypocritical.

“Mr. Ahmadinejad’s proposed reform of the U.N. Security Council would be to add permanent seats with vetoes for the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the African continent. There is no reason in the world to believe that that change would make anything better, but the United Nations in September does serve as a useful forum to consider interesting ideas.”

[RWC] Note the words [clever, elegant (frippery), interesting, a good point] used to describe Mr. Ahmadinejad and his speech.

As you read above, the PG praised our enemies but bashed our president. And the PG bills itself as “One of America’s Great Newspapers?”

I don’t know about you, but the UN reminds me of the Star Wars bar scene, not “a useful forum to consider interesting ideas.”