Jesse Helms gave a speech at the United Nations back in 2000. It's worth a read because it articulates very well the conservative mindset about American Exceptionalism and really helps explain why the Bush administration went so wrong. But, we're kidding ourselves if we don't recognize that the Washington Establishment has basically adopted the meat if not the tenor of Jesse Helms' views.

"No UN institution- not the Security Council, not the Yugoslav tribunal, not a future ICC - is competent to judge the foreign policy and national security decisions of the United States. American courts routinely refuse cases where they are asked to sit in judgement of our government's national security decisions, stating that they are not competent to judge such decisions. If we do NOT submit our national security decisions to the judgement of a Court of the United States, WHY would Americans submit them to the judgement of an International Criminal Court, a continent away, comprised of mostly foreign judges elected by an international body made up of the membership of the UN General Assembly?

That's about the size of it. That's why extramarital fellatio is an impeachable offense and why the telcos get retroactive immunity. Now watch Helms spin a American-can-do-no-wrong history, while introducing a term that would come to haunt us later.

"As we watch the UN struggle with this question at the turn of the millennium, many Americans are left exceedingly puzzled. Intervening in cases of widespread oppression and massive human rights abuses is not a new concept for the United States. The American people have a long history of coming to the aid of those struggling for freedom. In the United States, during the 1980s, we called this policy the "Reagan Doctrine."

"In some cases, America has assisted freedom fighters around the world who were seeking to overthrow corrupt regimes. We have provided weaponry, training, and intelligence. In other cases, the United States has intervened directly. In still other cases, such as in Central and Eastern Europe, we supported peaceful opposition movements with moral, financial and covert forms of support. In each case, however, it was America's clear intention to help bring down Communist regimes that were oppressing their peoples, and thereby replace dictators with democratic governments. The dramatic expansion of freedom in the last decade of the 20th century is a direct result of these policies.

"In NONE of these cases, however, did the United States ask for, or receive, the approval of the United Nations to `legitimize' its actions. It is a fanciful notion that a free peoples need to seek approval of an international body - some of whose members are totalitarian dictatorships - to lend support to nations struggling to break the chains of tyranny and claim their inalienable, God-given rights. THE UNITED NATIONS HAS NO POWER TO GRANT OR DECLINE LEGITIMACY TO SUCH ACTIONS. THEY ARE INHERENTLY LEGITIMATE.

"What the United Nations can do is help. The Security Council can, where appropriate, be an instrument to facilitate action by `coalitions of the willing,' implement sanctions against regimes, and provide logistical support to states undertaking collective action.

Helms might sound a little radical here, but he isn't saying anything that isn't basically common wisdom in Washington DC. Even if not everyone believes this crap, they agree that its political suicide to question any of it. Jesse Helms may have died today, but his foreign policy is alive and strong.

[Pam has a more personal take].