The UN and friends
Bush finally goes to the international community and they then heap scorn. at least they have the right idea on this front however:

France and the other war opponents should not "let Iraq sink" in order to "see Bush put in check. … Pragmatism must take precedence over ideology, in Paris as in Washington."

said a french editorial. good to hear. anyways, no matter what the national review and friends will say this is not a bad move going to the UN (unless the saudis end up running the show)..here's why:

1) experience: the UN's been doing nation building since the start....with mixed results, but they have tonnes of recent experience on the resume...

2) budgets: the US is in a fiscal crisis, so its better that the UN help out with the cost, etc..

3) legitimacy: no matter what some commentators say, the UN has a hell of a lot of international legitimacy. when people think of the UN, they think legitimate operation, no matter what happens in Jenin, or the durban conference, or a host of ill-smelling events.

4) resources: the World has endless soldiers to spare. the US does not. with 22 of 31 divisions off the continental US, they have a problem. ideally, only 1 out of 3 divisions will be gone, because you need one division to prepare for a mission, one to be doing the mission, and one recovering. right now, they can't do that.

5) optics: the US will look less like a colonialist, and the UN will look less irrelevant.

anyways, the moral of the story is: don't be so big you can't ask for help when you need it. the US does, and the UN better help or iraq may fall.