"I don't understand why the Bush administration has dealings with the UN -- they should know better, or maybe the Bush administration isn't as clean as they want us to think they are."
====
This must be the most ridiculous thing ever posted on this board (the part about speculating that "the Bush administration isn't as clean as they want us to think they are".)
President Bush is working with the UN, because there would be too many repercussions to just unilaterally withdraw. But he is trying to reform them from the inside, that's why he appointed Bolton.
I'm sorry if you didn't care for my comment. I admit I was trying to be provocative. But really, doesn't it bother you that the Bush Administration puts so much money into the UN? Shouldn't we be trying to cut it off, if the money is finding its way to people like Saddam and Al-Queda?
Like you, I'm a fan of John Bolton. But if appointing him is the only concrete action the Bush administration is willing to take, I think that's a completely inadequate gesture, in light of the size of the problem.
I don't think anyone in the Bush administration is taking bribes or any other improper payments from the UN. But I do think they are guilty of shirking fights that should be fought, to clean up the UN or get out.
Like what? The UN will write an angry letter denouncing us; then have a council meeting on where the hell they will now have to meet and who will finance their latest corruption?