From Juan Cole's blog:
"U.S. Deputy Ambassador Alejandro Wolff told the [U.N.] meeting it was a violation of the U.N. charter for member states to use force against others, or threaten to use it, . . Russia's U.N. envoy, Vitaly Churkin, suggested Wolff's statement was hypocritical and referred to the U.S.-led March 2003 invasion of Iraq, which Moscow strongly opposed. "I would like to ask the distinguished representative of the United States -- weapons of mass destruction. Have you found them yet in Iraq or are you still looking for them?" Wolff accused Churkin of making false comparisons. "I'm not a psychologist and I don't know what brought on the free association we heard from Ambassador Churkin," he said. . . ."
Yeah, there's totally no comparison between Russia invading a country, versus the US invading another country. No comparison at all. None whatsoever. These are TOTALLY DIFFERENT things...COMPLETELY UNRELATED lol!
You know what this reminds me of? John Bolton -- Undersecretary of State for arms control and international security, and later US Ambassador to UN under President Bush -- and his view on international law:
"It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so-because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States."
In case you missed his views, he repeated them for the benefit of students at his former law school at Yale:
“When I was here, I didn’t take any courses at all on international law ... and frankly I don’t think I missed a thing.”
Yes, these are precisely the sort of stellar qualifications that gets you appointed as US ambassador to the UN, apparently.
Comments