"The left's been whining that the UN wasn't involved in Iraq from the beginning. OK, the US is asking them to get involved a second time. More damned if you do and damned if you don't? Get your story straight, do yoowant the UN in or out?"

here's the straight story as simply as we can put it, strick. no whining, just the facts.

1. this question is about GWB not clinton. we know it's extremely difficult to get any bushies to talk about anything involving him without bringing up clinton. can you show us that you're not like all the rest?

2. GWB went to the UN under pressure, fed them a pack of misinformation and distortions, never planned on doing anything but what he did and was scurrilous in his condemnations. many americans favored using the UN to give some legitimacy to this unilateral act. GWB was not interested beyond making a show.

3. now he wants the UN to pull his ass out of the fire, immediatly signed on to brahimi's outline, and acts like "oh, sure, the UN was in on this all along and , of course we want their help".

4. the question posed in the thread "don't you find some irony in this?"

5. so the question is not "do you want the UN in or out" since many thought they should be involved from the beginning. the question regards the fact that bush didn't but now that the sh*t is hitting the fan, he does.

simple and straight enough, with numbers and everything? so why not address the point instead of talking about bill clinton?