After spending four years dissing and dismissing the United Nations, the Bush administration is shocked -- SHOCKED -- to find that the United Nations is not now eager to jump into the quagmiric disaster looming in Iraq.

Although the Bush administration has never had much respect for the United Nations as an institution, the latest salvos are directed more personally at Kofi Annan, largely due to Annan's comments criticizing the invasion of Iraq as "illegal" and the assault on Fallujah as counterproductive.

Annan's supporters have pointed out that he used the term "illegal" only to indicate the actual invasion was contrary to existing international law as understood by the reality-based community. Within the Bush administration, such thinking is considered both obsolete and disloyal. Unfortunately, Porter Goss does not yet have authority to root out dissent from the Secretary General's office.

Administration insiders are also concerned that Annan's outspoken criticism of the war in Iraq might shake conservative belief in one of the three great lies supporting the administration's reelection campaign: that Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11 attacks; that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction before the current invasion; and that the majority of the world supported the invasion of Iraq.

U.S. and U.N. Renew Quarrel Over Iraq

New York Times, Nov. 13

Secretary General Kofi Annan's reluctance to commit staff members to Iraq in large numbers and a series of comments he has made about the war have strained relations with the Bush administration and left many Americans bewildered, according to both supporters and critics of the United Nations.

Mr. Annan withdrew international staff members from Iraq in October 2003 in the wake of attacks on relief workers and the bombing of the United Nations' Baghdad headquarters, which killed 22 people, including the mission chief, Sergio Vieira de Mello. Although the United Nations has been assigned the task of setting up elections scheduled for January, Mr. Annan has declined to send more than a handful of electoral workers to Iraq, citing the lack of security forces to protect them.

"The Iraqis and the Americans are completely frustrated," said a senior American official at the United Nations, reporting views he said he heard in the White House this week. "The secretary general is still recommending many thousands of peacekeepers in Sierra Leone and the Congo, and yet there are seven election workers in Iraq. That tells the whole story."

This official said that warnings were resurfacing at the White House that the United Nations was risking becoming irrelevant and that such comments were now being combined with a dismissive attitude toward Mr. Annan himself.

"We're beyond anger," the official said. "We won re-election, Kofi's term is up in '06 and though we have been asking him to define the U.N. role in Iraq, he is thumbing his nose at us."

William H. Luers, president of the United Nations Association of the United States, acknowledged concern among the organization's backers. "I think a lot of Americans who are very sympathetic to the U.N. are confused with this last phase," he said.

"Most Americans don't really take into account the rule-of-law aspects of international behavior," Mr. Luers said. "We generally think what we do is right and in a certain sense we set the rules. Nonetheless, the world doesn't see it that way, and I think Kofi is talking to that world. I think he almost has to be where he is, but it's a tough time for him among Americans."

Note: these responses were gathered from general discussion of the United Nations, the Oil for Food investigation, and Annan's earlier remarks. They are not direct responses to the New York Times story.

Anyway, the screws were tightened within hours of knowing the election outcome: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1269653/posts

I have a feeling that Bush will be considerably more demanding and less patient with the Dictator's Club this term.

We may not exit the UN in 2004, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if we exit before 2008. (link)

---

Send in the bulldozers! If you want to be nice to those terror-supporters, we can send eviction notices first. I don't want to be nice to them, though. (link)

---

The UN really does more harm than good. Since it was founded, there have been approximately 60 wars. The UN has acted in only two: (1) Korea and (2) the first Gulf War. Otherwise the UN has been a complete waste of money, an enemy of the US, and a sponsor of Islamic terrorism. (link).

---

Heritage Foundation

As the U.N. faces its greatest ever crisis, with its reputation firmly on the line, it is in the interests of the world body that Kofi Annan stand down while investigations into the U.N.’s management of the Oil-for-Food program proceed. The allegations against the U.N. are of such a serious nature that it is inappropriate for the organization’s CEO to remain in place when his own credibility is in question.

Several key questions remain regarding Kofi Annan:

Did the U.N. Secretary-General deliberately turn a blind eye to U.N. mismanagement and corruption in overseeing the Oil-for-Food program?

Did he sympathize with the efforts of Saddam Hussein and key members of the Security Council to lift U.N. sanctions against Iraq?

Were efforts made by the Hussein regime to influence the actions and decisions of the Secretary-General with regard to Iraq?

Was Annan influenced in his decision-making regarding the program by his son’s involvement with Cotecna?