Newark Star-Ledger Hates America, Loves the UN

Sometimes the brave stand alone...other times it is the incredibly stupid who find themselves shouting into an empty room. May I introduce you to the editorial board of the Newark Star-Ledger, who find U.N deputy secretary-general Mark Malloch Brown's anti-American speech praiseworthy, while finding John Bolton's defense of America to be "undiplomatic":

It was, as the U.N.'s deputy secretary-general, Mark Malloch Brown, acknowledged, "a rather un-U.N. speech" in which he offered a "constructive critique" of American attitudes toward the U.N. Undoubtedly he knew it would cause a flap. But U.S. Ambassador John Bolton's rageful response seems both disproportionate to the offense and counterproductive.

Not a very U.N. speech, true, but one tailored for Americans, who prefer their opinions unvarnished. Malloch Brown bluntly chided the U.S. for working closely with the U.N. on many issues while subverting it publicly and withholding funding. That the speech notably failed to concede some spectacular U.N. failures or weaknesses, administrative and ethical, doesn't detract from the merits of some of its criticism.

Note how the Star-Ledger does not mention exactly what Brown said:

-he criticized the United States for "failing to stand up for" the UN "against its domestic critics."
-by saying 'The U.N.'s role is in effect a secret in Middle America even as it is highlighted in the Middle East and other parts of the world,'' Brown quite clearly buys into the liberal Eastern elites/European Union's certainty that the bulk of the United States is made up of rednecked idiots.

And if the Star-Ledger had any courage, instead of alluding to "spectacular UN failures", they might have listed some of them clearly, so that their obviously dim-witted Middle American readership could understand them better - for instance:
-taking bribes from Saddam Hussien in order to ignore his flagrant violations of UN Sanctions
-deploying peacekeepers whose best skill seems to be raping underage girls
-engaging in hateful anti-semitism at a level that would make Herr Goebbels proud
-allowing the most egregious human rights offenders to chair the Council on Human Rights

The list goes on and on, but why bother when you can just turn around and bash Bolton (and by extension, the very Americans he is defending)?

Bolton could have responded with an invitation to lunch to sort out these charges. Instead he unleashed rhetorical shock and awe....
Too bad Bolton chose such a U.N.-like response. It's at least partly the failure of U.N. members to move beyond the airless formality of diplomatic kabuki that has made the organization static, timid and, often, hypocritical. Malloch Brown's speech was an effort to open a window, which Bolton promptly closed again.

So you see, the Star-Ledger believes that is is OK to bash America with an admittedly "un-UN speech"; however, it is wrong to reply in an "UN-like " style. When someone questions your integrity and intelligence (and the UN has shown little of either), don't defend yourself - buy them lunch and meet them halfway! Maybe the editorialists at this Jersey rag would like to shake hands with Brown and agree that "Americans are not stupid; they're just really, really, slow!"

This wasn't an "open window" - it was an attack by a high-level UN official, one with strong ties to the Democratic party and lefties like George Soros - from the New York Sun:

[Brown] has had well publicized run-ins with several press critics, and his Washington contacts have proved to be mostly Democrats. Republicans were irked at his close ties with his landlord, the financier George Soros, who last year reportedly financed a campaign to oppose the nomination of Mr. Bolton as U.N. ambassador.

Obviously, this Brown is a man only the Star-Ledger can love. Personally, I'd rather be standing with John Bolton than with the man who throws rhetorical bombshells at my country. But hey, I'm not an editorial writer at the Ledger....