But Iraq made no such offer, making his point irrelevant (and dishonest).
Other countries with their heads out of their butts know this. Hence the resistance from the Russians, Chinese, and French. Partly because of their financial aims in Iraq, and partly from instinct, they cling desperately to the U.N. S.C. as a method of controlling the Americans.
The resistance of these countries has been much noticed by our media, in a pathetic attempt to undermine domestic support for the president. What seems to be going unnoticed, however, is the tremendous stick the U.S. wields. U.S. unilateral action would be a disaster for the S.C. Such flagrant contempt for the U.N., deliberately displayed while all the world was watching, would be a crushing blow to what little prestige the body retains. Furthermore, were America to become so exasperated as to leave the S.C. behind the U.N. would forfeit any prospect of influencing our future activities. This possibility must seem especially alarming to the U.N.
The president's bellicose speaking since last Thursday is aimed exactly at this sore spot. He's reminding the U.N. constantly of his willingness, and political ability, to act without them. This forces the S.C. to go the extra mile, and then some, to satisfy the U.S.
A Congressional resolution authorizing force that isn't tied to U.N. action would be the final tolling of the bell. Bush would then enjoy both public support and congressional approval, and thus would have no significant political restraints on his actions. The U.N. would have to work with us, or face the unappetizing alternative of the U.S. occupying Iraq anyway with the U.N.'s influence gone.
Bush is going to get congressional approval. So, we will get much of what we want from the S.C., even with Iraq's latest offer.