In his history of the UN, Tower of Babble: How the United Nations Has Fueled Global Chaos, Dore Gold argues that the UN got off on the wrong foot by refusing to oppose agression against Israel and Kashmir. He then catalogues a series of costly UN failures, from Korea to Rwanda to the oil-for-food scandal. In that context, the vote today in the General Assembly in favor of deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya isn't so bad.
And, of course, Zelaya has the full support of President Obama. Why is it bad to meddle in Iranian politics, but not in Honduran politics? According to news reports, U.S. embassy officials were deeply involved in the negotiations preceding the military's decision to send Zelaya into exile. Just what, I wonder, were they doing? Just what is U.S. policy on the substance of this dispute? Do we support elected presidents who seek to violate their constitutions?
Oh yes, of course, how silly of me - why would any news agency be interested in that when it can be covering Michael Jackson instead?