POLITICAL, BUT NOT MORAL….Glenn Reynolds

POLITICAL, BUT NOT MORAL….Glenn Reynolds posits today that:

….the United Nations is a purely political body with no moral component whatsoever.

I wonder which of the world’s other great deliberative bodies he is comparing it to? I suppose he must be referring to the high standards of morality in, say, the United States congress or the Tennessee legislature. (And in case those aren’t sufficiently political for his taste, may I introduce him to the California legislature?)

And in a further effort to show that either he doesn’t read much history or has simply gone off the deep end, he thinks that France was perfectly justified in attacking the Suez Canal in 1956 and Eisenhower was wrong to oppose them. Of course, at the time France had essentially no excuse for this invasion except that they didn’t like Nasser very much, which more and more seems to be the Bush administration’s reasoning for doing things as well. So I suppose it all fits.

UPDATE: Randy Paul sends me this link about the UN finally succeeding in sending a human rights team into Iran and asks:

As a matter of background, they had been persistently trying year after after to send a mission to investigate human rights in Iran. They never gave up.

I wonder what Glenn was doing to help human rights in Iran during that time?

Indeed.

Support Nonprofit Journalism

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really works—and how to make it work better. Fifty years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonprofit, we rely on support from readers like you.

Yes, I’ll make a donation