Why are we having trouble reaching a dipomatic solution to the crisis in Iraq?
Well, according to the Washington Post, it isn’t because Saddam Hussein has refused to disarm and has failed to follow any of the 17 resolutions. It isn’t because of French intransigence and French statements that they would veto any use of force (the only threat that can back up a disarmament resolution). In case you are curious what the problem is, the WaPo folks explain it clear and simple:
By the time Bush addressed the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 12, the administration had angered its allies by its dismissal of the global warming treaty, the international criminal court and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. Even so, diplomats said, the administration likely would have won a second U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing military action if it had shown a little more patience and more willingness to address the concerns of other member nations.
Got it- we withdrew from Kyoto- so therefore Saddam should be allowed to flout International Law. We decided not to sign a treaty that was not in our interests, so we shall be punished by allowing a ruthless tyrant to continue a program to destabilize the middle east and to keep working on a nuclear arms program.
Makes sense, no?