Look at just the first paragraph of today’s New York Times editorial.

These are difficult times for the United Nations. The Bush administration’s taste for unilateral action and its doctrine of preventive war pose a profound challenge to the U.N.’s founding principle of collective security and threaten the organization’s continued relevance. Since the day the administration took office, it has been chipping away at the multinational diplomatic system that America did so much to build in the past two generations. It has walked away from the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, waged war against the International Criminal Court and disparaged international arms control agencies and weapons inspectors.

“THe President’s taste for unilateral action” . . . uh, hello, is including more than thirty countries unilateral. Oh, wait, I guess unilateral is some French word meaning “without frogs.”

“[I]ts doctrine of preventive war pose a profound challenge to the U.N.’s founding principle of collective security” Really? How’s that. Since when did the U.N. send out a bunch of blue helmets to assist in security. Last I heard, the U.N. allowed genocide in Africa because it’s “troops” refused to assist those being slaughtered. Oh, and collective security, didn’t we just participate collectively with other nations to stop a serious security risk?!

Okay now, who is threatening the U.N.’s relevance? No, not the Kofi Annan’s of the world who will spend their time holding anti-semetic conferences in Africa while millions are being macheted in Rwanda under Kofi’s watchful eye. No, that does nothing to the U.N.’s relevance. But, drag one dictator out of his rabbit hole and stop the presses, — the U.N.’s relevance is being questioned.

Even if we concede that the U.N. did a lot to build the past two generations, does that mean it is still a worthy cause. It seems to me the U.N. worked a bit better when there were two superpowers who could regularly confront each other around the table. But, those days are gone. There is nothing wrong with multilateral dipolmacy done in D.C. or London as opposed ot at the U.N.

Come on guys, y’all are liberals. Don’t liberals want to change things. The U.N. is old. It’s time for reform.

Now, as for disparaging arms control agencies and inspectors — a lot of good they did us to being with. Hell, Iran now has a nuke program, North Korea has one, Libya was getting one, Pakistan and India have them. Ohhhh, that’s right. Effective arms control agencies are those that turn a blind eye to anti-American types acquiring weapons. They only care if a pro-American type gets weapons, but pro-American types wouldn’t constrain us. I got it.

America needs the United Nations as an effective partner in Iraq, not as a whipping boy for the administration’s continuing problems there. The U.N. needs to be involved, most immediately so it does not default on its responsibilities to the Iraqi people. By taking a strong role in shaping Iraq’s return to the community of sovereign nations, the U.N. can also demonstrate that it is determined not to let its global influence be marginalized.

Notice how the Times says the U.N. needs to be involved. Well, maybe so. But, let’s remember that the U.N. jumped ship and blamed the U.S. for not protecting it. If the U.N. is such a great and stron group, why can’t it protect itself. And, why did it jump ship.

Maybe because it’s a crap organization whose time has come to disappear.