U.S. administration good alternative to mindless U.N.

My early morning routine is to open up The Chronicle and read the daily anti-Bush article. At least Tuesday's was in the editorial page. Kevin Ogorzalek's column does little more than refute U.S. foreign policy by simply calling the administration "stupid." Especially mindless were his comments that President George W. Bush, "prefers simple, straight talk to the intricate nuances required for foreign diplomacy," which were "preferred by so many of Bush's predecessors." To whom is he referring? Bill Clinton, whose policy was to agree with whatever the polls said, not to mention his penchant for lying and his failure to get Osama bin Laden into America when Sudan gave him the opportunity? Maybe Ronald Reagan?

Iraq fought a war with the U.S. a decade ago. Iraq lost. They gave concessions as terms of their surrender. Why the U.N. refuses to assert itself against Iraq with regards to the terms of surrender is anybody's guess. Why not attack the other "Axis of Evil" members? Two reasons: They don't kill as many of their own innocent people, and they haven't broken terms of surrender repeatedly and egregiously.

As for waiting for U.N. approval, I don't feel loyalty to a group who gives African dictatorships seats on the Human Rights Council, refuses to admit Taiwan due to China's bully tactics, attempts to subvert national sovereignty with an international court, wastes money and resources "solving" apocryphal problems and talks about poor people from a luxurious setting. Last time I checked the Constitution, the U.N. was given no powers, and I would applaud Bush if he gave the U.N. a little bit of "simple, straight talk": We're out.