Sunday, June 27, 2004


Why have I heard no discussion of NATO involvement from the left-leaning blogs I read regularly? Are they all working on big big stories about it? Is it a subject that puts Bush in a positive light--and of course none of us want that? What's going on? It was the same way with the UN Oil-for-Food scandal. I think there is something there--I've heard it discussed ad nauseum on right-wing radio. But zip-zero from lefties.

This is too bad. As a liberal, I want to be well-rounded informed. I want to be able to talk to my more conservative acquaintances and not have them blindside me about topics I know nothing about.

Regarding NATO, I can read the AP reports like everyone else. But it raises more questions than it answers--questions I'd like answered. For example, is this whole NATO effort anything more than a photo op? What are the advantages/disadvantages--to Bush as well as the world--to working through NATO instead of the UN? In fact, is this a deliberate effort to sideline the UN while still appearing to work internationally? Does the US have more influence on NATO activities that UN? Or is this deliberate snub of the UN? What are the global ramifications of NATO involvement in Iraq? Why didn't the Bushies try to involve NATO earlier? What is a true assessment of how effective these NATO plans can be in the near term? In the long term?