The Worst-Case Scenario Arrives ... The rupture in the Security Council is not just another bump in the road in the showdown with Iraq. It could lead to a serious, possibly fatal, breakdown in the system of collective security that was fashioned in the waning days of World War II, a system that finally seemed to be reaching its potential in the years since the end of the cold war. Whatever comes of the conflict with Iraq, the world will have lost before any fighting begins if the Security Council is ruined as a mechanism for unified international action. ... The French and the Russians are not the only ones who brought us to this point. Mr. Bush and his team laid the groundwork for this mess with their arrogant handling of other nations and dismissive attitude toward international accords. Though they mended their ways to some extent after Sept. 11, and initially tried to work through the Security Council on Iraq, the White House's obvious intention to go to war undermined that effort. There may be a few days more for diplomacy to play out on Iraq, but it is already clear that the great powers on the Security Council, particularly the United States and France, have brought the United Nations to the brink of just the kind of paralysis and powerlessness that they warned would be so damaging to the world.

We see here a prime example of the establishment press' neurotic need to present everything in an objectively balanced fashion. While it is commendable that the New York Times would come out and decry the bungling of the Bush administration, they can't avoid the journalistic necessity to blame both sides equally. Please tell me, exactly how did France bring us to this point? In what way have they been unwilling to compromise or otherwise make deals to resolve the impasse? Exactly what did they do to push the UN into its greatest crisis since its inception? I'd really like to know because, for the life of me, I just can't see it. This is Bush's fault. He has bungled a foreign policy gimme. After 9/11 he could have lead the world in putting pressure on regimes like that in Iraq or North Korea to change their ways. He could have lead a real coalition of the not-just-willing-but-damn-excited-to-do-it. He was presented with a golden opportunity that few world leaders will ever have. But doing so would have required working in cooperation with the allies. It would have meant compromising. It would have meant treating the rest of the world as if they had an equal interest in the outcome and an equal share of wisdom on these matters. But no! Bush is blessed by God! He knows what is best! And anyone who doesn't agree with him can just get stuffed. And, if they squawk... If they complain... If they drag their heels... If the whole process results in the destruction of the entire structure of international diplomacy... Well, it's not Bush's fault! It's the fault of those who wouldn't recognize the greatness of his glorious plan for saving mankind! And it's certainly not the fault of an establishment media! A media that continues to insist that the petulant ranting of a moronic mama's boy is equivalent to the dissension of the rest of the civilized world, at least as far as it comes to doling out the blame for the mess that we are in. Oh no, it's not their fault. How could that possibly be? They are, after all The New York Times. That means something. Well, at least it used to.