Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
I find it interesting that the NY Times spins the UN thing like this:
WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 -- President Bush's victory in the United Nations on Thursday has brought him at least the veneer of international backing, and expected Congressional action this week will provide new domestic financial and political support for the American enterprise in Iraq. But both developments will put sharp new pressure on the president to deliver on his pledge to create a safer, more democratic Iraq -- preferably, in the White House view, by the time he faces re-election next fall.
…and the Washington Post spins it like that
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 17, 2003; Page A24
The Bush administration, having won unanimous approval yesterday of a U.N. Security Council resolution that backs the U.S.-appointed Iraqi leaders, was muted in its celebration -- and for good reason.
President Bush greeted the vote with one sentence, thanking the Security Council, toward the end of a speech in California and an 80-word written statement. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, while calling it "a great achievement," was careful to add: "I don't see this vote as opening the door to troops."
The 15 to 0 vote, bringing in not just France, Germany and Russia but also Syria, was no small feat. But analysts and diplomats said the impact of the resolution would be limited, and perhaps not worth its cost of exposing the deep-seated resentments in the world community over the U.S. handling of the Iraq war. Few believe the Security Council's resolution will bring much in terms of pledges of troops or aid, even though the Bush administration originally sought the resolution for precisely that reason.
Though neither is particularly good news for the Bushitas, the NYT essentially sees it as domestic politics while the WaPo calls it foreign policy.
And check the L.A. Times' lead. It's like they squeezed every bit of good news out of it they could. Think they're trying to make up with Arnold?
October 17, 2003
WASHINGTON -- The United Nations Security Council resolution on Iraq won't bring Washington much of the aid or troops it covets. Yet in return for a vague promise to broaden international control, Washington has won a politically valuable U.N. blessing to continue reshaping the country.
The resolution means the United States can describe the occupying troops under its command as a "multinational force." And an Iraqi government that was handpicked by Americans now has official U.N. recognition as the entity that "embodies the sovereignty" of Iraq.
To be sure, Russia, France, Germany and Pakistan have made it clear that the resolution did not go far enough to persuade them to contribute troops or money.
But the U.N. stamp of approval means that some allied governments facing antiwar opposition at home -- including Britain's -- now have political cover that will make it easier for them to help out.