Romney: USA Should Withdraw From UN Human Rights Council — America Already Boycotts It
Mitt Romney pulled off an interesting bit of U.N.-bashing today, calling upon the United States to withdraw from a United Nations council that the United States isn't a part of to begin with.
"The United Nations has been an extraordinary failure of late," Romney said during a South Carolina campaign stop. "We should withdraw from the United Nations Human Rights Council."
There's one problem: The United States already boycotts the Human Rights Council, and has not sought a seat on it. This caused an aide to clarify the remarks by saying what Romney really meant is that the U.S. should stop any possible financial support for the council.
Romney also said he would support an alternative to the United Nations, an all-new "coalition of the free nations of the world and bring those nations together so that we can act together."
"We should develop some of our own — if you will — forums and alliances or groups that have the ability to actually watch out for the world and do what's right," Romney said.
Comments (33)
Tom Jenkins wrote on October 18, 2007 4:18 PM:God he really is an idiot.
Anonymous wrote on October 18, 2007 4:37 PM:Hello, new arms race.
Russia and China, start your engines.
Anonymous wrote on October 18, 2007 4:39 PM:Mitt Romney's spokesperson thinks the Salvation Army charity drive is annoying. Isn't that anti-American?
“No longer will the guy with the Salvation Army bell outside the door be the most annoying person,” he said. “It will be the candidate asking for your vote.”
Sum Bodhi wrote on October 18, 2007 5:21 PM:Apparently Romney is not familiar with NATO.
Michael wrote on October 18, 2007 5:41 PM:What is it with repukes and the UN bashing??? I don't get it. What harm is there to participate in international organizations, like the UN. We go to the UN when we need help, like in Iraq, and then at the same time the repukes constantly bash it. Do they stand for anything other than trash talking, bashing and personal attacks? I don't think so. Kind of pathetic.
jasan wrote on October 18, 2007 6:03 PM:Mitt also wants the United States to stop trading with Greenland. Mitt says that the place is really not green and therefore, it is Un-American...Opps, my bad, it was Rudy who said that and then something related to 9/11...
Tommy Harper wrote on October 18, 2007 6:06 PM:How are the Republicans not embarrassed by the intellectual dearth of their candidates? This is really getting to be too funny!
Chesire111 wrote on October 18, 2007 6:08 PM:Everytime I hear or see Romney, he reminds me of the idiot who beat Skeffington (Spencer Tracy) in "The Last Hurrah."
I've never had the impression that the current breed of Republican gets embarrassed by intellectual dearth of anything. We're still neck-deep in the Rush Limbaugh age of conservatism, which celebrates its ignorance and considers it a virtue, after all.
pinson wrote on October 18, 2007 6:22 PM:
Tommy Harper wrote on October 18, 2007 6:06 PM:
How are the Republicans not embarrassed by the intellectual dearth of their candidates? This is really getting to be too funny!
Gauging by the raging dumbitude on display at Red State, the Corner, etc., I'd say Mitt's just playing to his idiot base. Any party that puts forth Jonah Goldberg as a public intellectual just ain't that interested in rigorous thinking.
And Tommy, I was a big fan of yours when you played for the Red Sox.
"...an alternative to the United Nations, an all-new "coalition of the free nations of the world and bring those nations together so that we can act together."
Hey, that sounds kinda like the Theodemocratic Council of Fifty that Joseph Smith started when he ran for president. So this is just another idea that Mitt borrowed from the original hat-gazer.
Hank Essay wrote on October 18, 2007 6:30 PM:Next thing you know he'll want America to invade Iraq.
Oh wait.
-
I can't wait to get this kind of excellent staff work into the White House!
Kitt wrote on October 18, 2007 6:53 PM:I don't think this is a good time for the United States to try and start up an independent 'UN' organization of sorts. Who the hell would be a member besides the United States? I guess Romney doesn't know or he forgot what a low level of respect the Bush Administration has put us on with the rest of the world at large. Everyone thinks we suck.
cleek wrote on October 18, 2007 7:03 PM:Romney looks a little like Nathan Petrelli. i wonder if he can fly...
Anonymous wrote on October 18, 2007 7:14 PM:What is it with repukes and the UN bashing??? I don't get it. What harm is there to participate in international organizations, like the UN.
only when we are dividing the world into US es and THEMs are republicans happy. republicans think cooperation is failure and confrontation is success. they have no concept of outcomes. outcomes are a progressive idea.
Hank Essay wrote on October 18, 2007 7:16 PM:Wow, isn't the Salvation Army a Catholic organization? That should be a huge screw up by Romney....
-
Hank Essay wrote on October 18, 2007 7:24 PM:Ooops, make that a Christian organization...And one of the biggest Christian relief organizations worldwide. And Romney the Mormon thinks it is annoying...interesting, no?
-
lestatdelc wrote on October 18, 2007 7:24 PM:"So this is just another idea that Mitt borrowed from the original hat-gazer."
LOL, the Romney campaign ideas on hat-gazing... "everybody must get stoned".
JeffII wrote on October 18, 2007 7:25 PM:Tommy Harper wrote on October 18, 2007 6:06 PM:
How are the Republicans not embarrassed by the intellectual dearth of their candidates? This is really getting to be too funny!
Because true intellect and conservative politics don't mix, they don't notice the gaffes.
Legalize wrote on October 18, 2007 7:43 PM:Dear Canada:
No, seriously ... Please? PRETTY please? We can adapt to your free health care, high rates of literacy, lack of violence, the cold and relatively high instances of moose attacks!
Sincerely,
45% of the U.S. Population
Rusty Austin wrote on October 18, 2007 7:43 PM:I think his magic underwear is on too tight...
TEL wrote on October 18, 2007 8:03 PM:Romney also said he would support an alternative to the United Nations, an all-new "coalition of the free nations of the world and bring those nations together so that we can act together."
You mean like a "Coalition of the Willing"? You just can't make up stuff this silly.
EH wrote on October 18, 2007 8:49 PM:"...stop any possible financial support?"
Isn't the US already like years in arrears in UN dues?
EH wrote on October 18, 2007 8:51 PM:Ha ha, too funny:
""We should develop some of our own — if you will — forums and alliances or groups that have the ability to actually watch out for the world and do what's right," Romney said."
Maybe we can call it "The Coalition of the Watching."
scuseme wrote on October 18, 2007 8:54 PM:Yes, a new UN, we'll call it Neo-UN and we'll staff it with all the Neocon ideologues that did such a great job rebuilding Iraq and New Orleans!
EH wrote on October 18, 2007 9:01 PM:Okay, apparently TPM strips out URLs and leaves the tags. "The Coalition of the Watching:"
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29208
buck wrote on October 18, 2007 10:19 PM:There is only one problem with the clarification--the US is already withholding funds from its UN payment in the amount that would have gone to support the Council. Congress voted on it over a month ago.
Once again, Flipping Ken is an idiot and so is everyone who works for him.
Oilwellian wrote on October 18, 2007 11:41 PM:Yes, let's enjoin all countries who embrace torture, rendition, secret prisons, the shredding of habeas corpus, secret wiretapping, etc., etc. Praise Jesus.
JeffL wrote on October 19, 2007 2:14 AM:Maybe we should call it the "League of Nations". Oh, wait, the Republicans didn't like that one, either!
Romney also said he would support an alternative to the United Nations, an all-new "coalition of the free nations of the world and bring those nations together so that we can act together."
Uh, Mitt, uh . . . we already did that. It's called the United Nations. From the Preamble:
"We the Peoples of the United Nations Determined . . . to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small . . . And for these Ends to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest . . . Have Resolved to Combine our Efforts to Accomplish these Aims
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations."
What's wrong with that?
jvill wrote on October 19, 2007 10:26 AM:gps: "What's wrong with that?"
You expect a Republicant presidential candidate to read?
Pretty soon you'll be telling us that a political platform made of the single plank of character assassination for everyone who isn't also a Republicant isn't enough to justify calling itself a political party...
ctrenta wrote on October 19, 2007 10:36 AM:
Because human rights is not an American value according to Romney.
