[The Great Satan]

The giveaway here is that this whole thing with the UN is so eerily reminiscent of the Arafat gambit -- especially the way Powell has been deployed. I should have seen this coming a mile off. (So should Kofi and his pals, but they're smug, self-satisfied nincompoops who couldn't find their arses with both hands.) As you pointed out a while back, Dubya is using the post-9/11 crisis as a pretext to clean house. Bad actors are being removed from the stage. In the wake of 9/11 and the ensuing WMD blackmail threats, Team Bush sat down, took a good long look at the chessboard, and figured out who needed to be taken out. Saddam, of course, but he's the scorpion with the sting in his tail, so we have to deal with him last. But, in the interim, there were a lot of soft targets: Osama bin Laden, terrorism's foremost pitchman; al-Qaeda, now the largest supplier of human missiles to Saddam; the Taliban, AQ's hosts and enablers; Yasser Arafat, Saddam's ally and legitimator in the eyes of the eurosnobs; the United Nations, especially Kofi Annan and the "Axis of Weasels," whose duplicity put WMD in the hands of the world's most dangerous tyrant. They all had to go. And, one by one, they're being picked off. Before each one is taken out, we go through an exercise in which their true nature is very publicly exposed. Bush and Powell knew from the get go that Arafat wasn't going to pull it out. They knew from the get go that the UN weapons inspections were a sham -- it is obviously physically impossible for weapons inspection to disarm Saddam Hussein, given the nature of his arsenal. But, we had to go through the motions: it buys us valuable time, and legitimates the hammer, once it comes down. This is all quite brilliant, I have to say. Can you imagine Al Gore doing this?

[Grampa Dave]

I think that you have done an excellent summary on Miss Marples Stealth President has identified the evil agents and those who enable them like the UN.

Then they set this who thing in motion as you noted. What has happened since September 2002 is incredible.

The only thing you and I don't agree on is when we whack Saddam. I think that we will start the whacking and pruning early this coming March. If we don't then your theory applies.

Re the Goron. The Goron was the really dummy running for president in 2000. The really smart guy is our president, Thank God! I will be heading to our 10 am services/Mass to say just that and to pray for him and our nation very soon.

[Mitchell]

Here are some quotes from Pres. Bush's Sept. 12, 2002, speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations:

Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

...Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

...If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.

Pres. Bush virtually spelled everything out.

The UN can choose: to "serve the purpose of its founding," or to become "irrelevant." Implicit here is that the U.N. will wither away if it becomes irrelevant, and why would we waste time, energy, money, or political capital on a counterproductive empty shell?

Pres. Bush calls this a "test." A test is something which one passes or fails. And failure is failure, with consequences.

The final paragraph I quoted connects the purpose of the U.N. with the great traditions of liberty and learning, concluding with the very interesting statement that "the
promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time." Notice that he does not say that the U.N. will fulfill this promise itself, only that the promise of the U.N. can be fulfilled. This is very carefully worded to be consistent with it not being the U.N., but a newly organized group, who will fulfill that promise.

[Allan]

But, we had to go through the motions: it buys us valuable time.

To do what?

[ConservativeLawyer]

But, we had to go through the motions: it buys us valuable time, and legitimates the hammer, once it comes down.

Perhaps this is why we are going back to the UN for yet ANOTHER exasperating resolution that seems to mirror all the rest. Keep feeding rope to the UN while we prepare ourselves for what lies ahead.

I'm beginning to think that "severe consequences" in UN speak means: "we'll pass yet another resolution if you don't comply with the first."

[ConservativeLawyer]

And, one by one, they're being picked off. Before each one is taken out, we go through an exercise in which their true nature is very publicly exposed.

Sort of like President Bush has been doing to the Democrats. He certainly knows how to do this.

[Mitchell]

... eerily reminiscent of the Arafat gambit

How do you interpret what has happened with Arafat?