BUSH: "UM, KEEP HOLDING YOUR CARDS, GUYS... YEAH"

Remember the news conference a few days ago, how Bush said that even if the US and Britain didn't have the votes for a 2nd resolution, that they should "show their cards" now anyway? That bold, cowboy Bush?

Well, so much for that.

UNITED NATIONS - President Bush's urgent phone campaign to world leaders, seeking their support for a tough deadline on Iraq, came up short Monday — forcing a delay of the Security Council's vote and opening the doors to a possible compromise to give Saddam Hussein more time.

The United States had hoped to present the resolution to the council on Tuesday, setting a March 17 deadline for Iraqi disarmament or war. But the vote was put on hold when it became evident that America and its allies had not yet won the nine votes they needed for a majority.

But even nine votes wouldn't be enough. French President Jacques Chirac declared that his country would veto any resolution that opened the way to war. The Russians also said they would vote against the proposal as it was currently worded.

Both the United States and Britain said they were willing to negotiate both the deadline and other changes to the resolution.

Hey Congressional Democrats, I hope you're watching this. People are standing up to Bush, not backing down, and it's helping their cause. What a concept!

Then again, Bush could be just following the advice of his poppy:

THE first President Bush has told his son that hopes of peace in the Middle East would be ruined if a war with Iraq were not backed by international unity.

Drawing on his own experiences before and after the 1991 Gulf War, Mr Bush Sr said that the brief flowering of hope for Arab-Israeli relations a decade ago would never have happened if America had ignored the will of the United Nations.

He also urged the President to resist his tendency to bear grudges, advising his son to bridge the rift between the United States, France and Germany.

“You’ve got to reach out to the other person. You’ve got to convince them that long-term friendship should trump short-term adversity,” he said.

The former President’s comments reflect unease among the Bush family and its entourage at the way that George W. Bush is ignoring international opinion and overriding the institutions that his father sought to uphold. Mr Bush Sr is a former US Ambassador to the UN and comes from a family steeped in multi-lateralist traditions.

Although not addressed to his son in person, the message, in a speech at Tufts University in Massachusetts, was unmistakeable. Mr Bush Sr even came close to conceding that opponents of his son’s case against President Saddam Hussein, who he himself is on record as loathing, have legitimate cause for concern.

I'm not a fan of Bush Sr, but at least he had a concept of international diplomacy.

In a slight tangent of the fuck-the-UN discussion, Hesiod discusses the implications of Bush/Blair defying a UN veto for Israel. Likudniks, think hard:

It's very, very bad for Israel. Here's why...

In the past, the United States has exercised it's veto to prevent Israel from being slapped by various odious UN Security Council resolutions.

If the U.S. and Britain, essentially, abrogate the veto power of Russia, France and China on Iraq, and argue that all they needed was nine vote majority on the Security Council, what will the U.S. say the next time the S.C. decides to bitch-slap Israel on the Palestinian issue? And you KNOW they will.

United States: "Whoops! Sorry. We veto that resolution calling on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories in 6 months or have thousands of UN peacekeepers inserted into the region."

UN: "Oh. So sorry. But a nine vote majority outvoted you. Too bad. You lose. There is no such thing a permanent member veto anymore. You waived your right to that privilege when you abrogated it over Iraq."

Hmm.