I think we should ignore the rest of what is happening at the UN. Here's the important part:
Late yesterday evening, the security council scheduled closed consultations on Iraq at 10am (1500 GMT) today to discuss the resolution sponsored by the US, Britain and Spain, setting an ultimatum for Iraq to disarm within days or face war.
But I don't think that will happen.
Pulled the inspectors on out. If Chirac, Schroeder and Putin want inspections to continue, send them over immediately. Let them do the inspecting.
You're right, it's way too late in the game for them to pull that 180. I only hope W has the nads to completely cut them out of the post-battle deals.
I agree. I have a question, one whose implications I do like at all. I've been hearing some commentators say that this could render the UN essentially a debating society, or at most, an organization that helps manage peace. We may fight the war, but will go to the UN to help afterwards with the peace. If that is so, and I think it may be, then who benefits from the Russian/French/German/CHINESE hard line? This view of the UN looks suspiciously like the role that Clinton tried to force our military into for 8 years--peace keepers.
Could Clinton be working behind the scenes to encourage this defiance? He's known to have his eye on the SG. This would be nudging the UN into the type of role with which Clinton feels most comfortable. Not a comforting thought...