From the not-to-be-missed web site:

I’ve tuned out the dance marathon known as the UN Security Council process. In fact I can pinpoint the exact moment when I realized I no longer cared: the Syrian ambassador was introduced, and the Security Council chairman made the obligatory introductions. Kind, measured, collegial. Diplomatic, you might say. It was like listening to the gallery give a golf-clap for Hermann Goering, teeing off on Hole 13.
The Syrian mouthpiece returned the favor by complimenting the SC chairman for some useless appointment - Interim Crozier of the Plenipotentiary Committee for Soy, maybe.



Everyone having been sufficiently fellated, he got down to the business of blocking another resolution - drowning the baby in the ba’ath water, if you will.

Such nice words they have for one another.
It’s as if they think honey hides the stains on the butcher’s smock. Actually, it just attracts more flies.

Wake me when the masks drop and the gloves come off, I thought - but today I glanced at the TV and saw a list of suggestions for a new resolution, and it made me sit up and pay attention anew.

One of the conditions: Saddam would make a televised appearance in which he would renounce weapons of mass destruction.

It beggars belief. Perhaps a requirement of participating in these discussions is a note from your doctor verifying that he pulled out 75% of your brain tissue through your nose with a hooked stick.

Perhaps they think we’ll be satisfied with this, as if making a speech on Al-Jazeera is somehow the equivalent of a legally binding contract. Perhaps they think that this speech would be useful evidence down the road when the International Criminal Court wishes to press charges for the infamous March 17 2003 Gassin’ O’ the Kurds:

Brussels, April 1 2004 (Reuters)“I did not make that speech,” Saddam said in his trial.
“That was a double. I was in the control room crossing my fingers.” Belgian judges later ruled that the crossing of fingers would be permitted if they were crossed before the statement was made, since that established a “dialectical contradiction” whose “negation of the spoken word” essentially made the speech mean the opposite of what the speaker said. Relying on French theories regarding “the topography of meaning,”
Judge Henri Spraught noted that the very duress under which the TV address was made “requires us to dig below the verdant, dung-infused topsoil of rhetoric to grasp the gnarled roots of meaning beneath.”

Saddam makes a promise on TV, and the world stands down, relieved. Peace has arrived! Let’s do the Charleston and have another Internet bubble!