Simpley put, Dear God this cannot being happening to us.
Oh come on, get a grip. This non-issue is a pathetic excuse for Bush bashing and UN bashing.
I have a concern about the legitimacy of our elections. I don't have a better idea. I don't jump on every excuse to bash the UN. When we have a concern about another country, we obtain permission from the host country and send someone in with UN blessing. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I am reminded of how ineffective weapons inspectors were in Iraq because of their restrictions, imposed by the host. They certainly weren't free to go and do whatever they chose to, and the reports had to be based upon factual findings, not hunches or unfounded accusations.
When invited to leave, they had no options. They were empowered only to officially comment within the scope of the assignment.
If Bush needs to throw the UN a bone, now needing more cooperation, this would be a good way to do it.
If someone believes the US should drop out of the UN, that doesn't mean we should or that Bush agrees. He isn't a conservative. He is a centrist, like any other effective President, who was able to get elected.
I see this administration as unusually decisive and proactively religious. Beyond that, I don't see much that is very distinctive. Four more years projects to work for me, considering the realistic alternatives and in spite of some strong objections on some issues.
We see fashionable political stances here, but that doesn't mean there is a consensus or that any one viewpoint has an ounce of relevance to gun ownership. Isolationism and gun ownership advocacy are not one and the same. UN election observers is a lo-o-o-ng way from international gun bans, no matter what hysterical tin foil hats may say.
I would be more concerned about the US endorsing a gun ban for the Iraq Constitution. I would be a lot more concerned about the threat of our own politics than about a few supervised foreign visitors.
:banghead: 