Enforcing UN decrees equals conservatism?

   The evidence shows that Bush's reasons for going to war
   against Iraq were fully rooted, as he has said all along, in
   successive UN resolutions issued since ... 1990.... Within
   weeks after the fall of Baghdad, the United Nations ended
   up endorsing the U.S.-led occupation and lifted sanctions
   against Iraq.... Bush kept up the pressure behind the recalcitrant
   United Nations. At a Nov. 20, 2002, NATO summit,
   he stated, "The United Nations has said [to Saddam], 'You
   must disarm.' And 16 times, he's said, 'Oh, of course I will'--but
   never did. And so, the game's over with; we're through
   with that. And now he's going to disarm one way or another."
   ... The president warned that the United States would lead
   a coalition to enforce UN resolutions.

This capsule summary of the run-up to the most recent war with Iraq duplicates much of what has been reported in THE NEW AMERICAN. All but alone in the "conservative" media, this publication has pointed out--beginning months prior to the invasion--that the war on Iraq was designed to empower the UN, rather than being conducted in defiance of the world body. The same case has been made with compelling clarity in the January 20-February 2 issue of Insight magazine, which was quoted above.

As presented by Insight, however, that case comes with a remarkable twist: The cover story was intended to validate President Bush by offering "a true accounting of events ... show[ing] the resolve of President Bush's policy." The overview essay repeatedly cites UN Security Council resolutions as supposed authority for the war, or as validation of administration occupation policies. It also accuses critics of the war of "emboldening the terrorist enemy" and "backstabbing" our servicemen deployed in Iraq.

Shortly after our occupation of Iraq began, THE NEW AMERICAN observed: "President Bush has placed our own military at the UN's disposal to disarm Iraq.... And in a singular feat of misdirection, the administration has allowed its courtiers in the neo-conservative press to convince the public that this development is a defeat for the cause of world government, and a victory for American independence." (See "United Nations, RIP?" in our May 5, 2003 issue.) Insight has added to that dubious accomplishment by insinuating, in none-too-subtle terms, that opposing this misuse of our military is little better than treason.