How the US should surrender Iraq to the UN

[enough]

From Bob Dreyfuss' interesting daily blog on Iraq:

http://www.tompaine.com/blog.cfm?startRow=1&blogrow=1#blog10016

How To Surrender To The U.N. 

    President George W. Bush has no choice now: either surrender to the United Nations, or lose any chance of being re-elected.

    Iraq is unraveling too fast for the Bush administration to have any hope of salvaging the U.S. position there. Here's my suggestion for U.S. policy: announce a firm date for the pullout of all U.S. forces from Iraq, say, by the end of 2004; state clearly that the U.S. does not want any bases or forward positions in Iraq after that; send Colin Powell to the U.N. to start negotiating the U.S. surrender, asking for a U.N. resolution for an international peacekeeping force led by Arab forces in Iraq; give full authority to Lakhdar Brahimi, the capable U.N. official who has reluctantly taken on the Iraq portfolio, to design both the transitional authority and to organize the elections; and then fire the neoconservatives who got us into this mess.

    The U.S. can't prevent the disintegration of Iraq now. Maybe—just maybe—the U.N. can.

    But it won't happen with U.S. forces occupying Iraq. In a sensible comment, the Russian deputy foreign minister, Yuri Fedotov, said over the weekend that no elections can occur with U.S. troops overseeing them. "The participation of the UN can only happen when the occupation of Iraq is ended." Earth to Bush: take the exit ramp.

more>

[JoeWang]

1. Yes but tricky George has some tricks up his sleeves.

I've been reading that they've found the WMD sites and are not releasing the information until later in the election.

They've also captured Osama Bin Laden and are going to publicize it in October to try and pull off another election coup.