I wonder if the data the US has collected on the Oil-for-Food scandal has anything to do with the anticipated vote...

Precisely what would they have done if we said we were going to do that anyway?

Nobody is 'snarky' (whatever in hell that specifically means) who does a good job in reporting news.

If the UN actually votes to back the new government in Iraq, and recommends a continued US military support presence in Iraq until late 2005, in order to help stabilize the country for that new government, then president Bush's Iraq policy in that part of the world will in no small measure succeed and will be seen as having succeeded.

Significantly for the short term, such a vote will cut the underpinnings from the Democrat campaign to discredit Bush and his administration.

They can hardly run Kerry against Bush on the basis of a failing US economy, because scores of millions of big and little investors around the country will remind you with their votes that the economy is growing again, and rapidly.

So all that is left for them is to argue about foreign policy. And it looks for now as if that will end up as a non-issue. In any case, Kerry has not clearly delineated a foreign policy at all, and where he has done so, it would mostly be the same one that Bush has pursued, but with a different man at the helm. (The fact is, in the United States for the past century or more, few policy areas have proceded on a basis of bipartisanship so much as foreign policy, including the conduct of America's wars.

The establishment of a any kind of Iraqi government -- and especially one that is likely to achieve some level of stability with a major winding down of daily US combat patrols in Iraqi urban centers -- should be viewed as a bag full of coffin nails awaiting Senator Kerry's presidential aspirations in a year facing an incumbent in which the domestic economy is growing.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

FH,

I thought the same exact thing.

I suppose we'll start hearing how the UN are a bunch of corrupt theocrats and such, this time coming from the anti-war crowd.

I suppose we'll start hearing how the UN are a bunch of corrupt theocrats and such, this time coming from the anti-war crowd.

Val, THAT would be positively priceless. And it wouldn't surprise me at all if it actually happens, especially from the kookoo fringe of the anti-war crowd over at Kos and DU and their ilk.

W, like Reagan, is perpetually derided as a naif, in the company of sharps. Like Reagan at Reykjavik and other international soirees, he moves at his own pace, to his own tune and BAM! Jacques and Gerhardt wake up out by the dumpster with their pants around their ankles nursing a hangover. Happened to Gorbachev. But Republicans are retards, aren't they? Ignorant of history, politics, statesmanship? Not as ignorant, apparently, as those who know a universe of things that are untrue.

A bunch of thugs, tyrants, and theocrats -- and that's just the US delegation!

And you should see the women!

Dean you are so right. The UN, as corrupt and generally useless as it is, can occasionally be utilized to do some good.

The general assembly of undeveloped third world thugs and theocrats was purposely given very little power when the UN was organized. That was most fortunate.

I was wondering exactly what form the spin about this would take, and just got a first glimpse. CBS nightly news reporter just informed that those countries on the security council who opposed the war view passing this resolution as a way of forcing the Bush administration to compromise.

Next perhaps they'll send money and troops to Iraq to further weaken the bargaining position of Bush and Co. Clever SC members.

what exactly does "snarky" mean?

And here's the actual vote: 15-0 in favor of the new Iraqi government.

Snarky = mean-spirited

It means not a thing at all.

Remember that the vote on Resolution 1441 which triggered our going back into Iraq was unanimous also. Bush got not a single ounce of positive political push out of it.

I can't honestly figure out what the gain is for these diplomatic gymnastics. I posted about this yesterday and I still can't figure it. It's a lot of effort for no real gain at all, not even on paper.

I agree with the John Birch Society: Get the U.S. out of the U.N. and get the U.N. out of the U.S..

Steven,

Be sure to drink only rain water and pure, grain alchohol; gotta keep the Precious Bodily Fluids pure, ya know?

:o)

Anyways...

Its a mildly helpful thing; and there could be a quid pro quo vis a vis the Oil for Food scandal. Anyways, it quiets (for about 30 seconds) the leftwing over the UN issue and it does lend a patina of sorta-legitimacy not to us, but to the international standing of the Iraqi government...ie, a host of nations which want to get in our good graces by helping us in Iraq now have a prime objection to helping removed.