Stardate 20021026.1408

(On Screen): We're coming down to the end on negotiations with the UN, and Bush just gave told the veto powers "take it or leave it". The latest attempt by France and Russia to emasculate the American proposal is to introduce their own proposals which are watered down by removing anything remotely resembling a threat (which is to say, any excuse for the US to attack upon Iraqi non-compliance) and to reintroduce limits on the inspections such as immunity for Presidential Palaces (i.e. to make sure that the inspections can't actually succeed in the short run). Bush isn't falling for it.

First, while meeting with Chinese President Jiang Zemin, Bush said to reporters: "Let me put it bluntly: There must be consequences."

In other words, one resolution, not two resolutions.

Today, in Mexico, he went further: "If the U.N. does not pass a resolution which holds him to account and that has consequences, then, as I have said in speech after speech after speech, if the U.N. won't act if Saddam Hussein won't disarm we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

In other words, zero resolutions and unilateral action, not two resolutions.

It's this simple: either the UNSC passes the precise resolution that America wants, or America will conclude that the UN is obsolete and will act without it. Ari Fleischer put it quite bluntly:

Asked how difficult it would be to confront the Iraqi president without U.N. backing if Bush fails to win U.N. support, Fleischer replied, "Not very hard at all."

And that's exactly right. The necessary coalition to defeat Saddam is already in place, and soon all the military forces required will be, too. The lack of a UNSC resolution will, ultimately, mean nothing at all.

France can either take it, or shove it.