[kublia khan]

Whats the rush to send anyone to the UN? Why not use a different tactic:you could state it like this: "Since the senate is unwilling to send an agent for change to the UN our best course of action is to leave the ambassadorship to the UN open. The UN is a corrupt body that has as one of its goals the diminution of the sovereignty of all member nations and those of the G8 in particular. As proponents of free and democratic society's everywhere it is not in the US' interest to participate in these misguided and dangerous endeavors. When the Senate decides to send a bold and effective leader who can help steer the UN back to some level of ethical behavior and relevance as a world body or until the UN decides to clean its own house this administration has no interest in sending a representative to that body and will not be bound by any future resolutions of same." It sounds like a perfect solution to me, what do you think?

[MattMa]

Sounds good to me, no if only Karl Rove is lurking today.

[de Buillion]

"It sounds like a perfect solution to me, what do you think?"

Your suggestion sounds right to me. No ambassador, no dues. Screw them. Welcome to FR, love your screenname.

[BayouCoyote]

Sounds valid, but what would be the repercussions?