Annan, Bush on 2 sides of policy divide- 2 Peas in the same pod?

This article in the USA Today really had me laughing, Annan, Bush on 2 sides of policy divide. Here we are with our President the "conservative" actually trying to be nice to the globalist, and liberals at the UN. What a f'n joke. It is really getting sad that GWB is playing nice with these people who have absolutely no backbone, and no moral compass. The United Nations is the biggest piece of liberal propaganda that is still around outside of the DLWM™ For example,

President Bush and United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan say they get along fine on a personal level. It's the issues, from the Iraq war to nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, that divide them.

Well I sure am glad that they are buddies, yet they cannot work together. To bad. the problem is the UN wants the US to be it's sugar daddy, and the US is tired of being in that position. I would bet good money that if a poll was started today, asking if the US should tell the UN to move somewhere else, that a HUGE majority would say that they should. Also if that same poll asked if the US is spending to much money supporting the UN the responses would be about the same.

He plans to discuss efforts to promote democracy in Iraq, the greater Middle East and beyond. "The civilized world must stand with moderate, reformist-minded people and help them realize their dreams," Bush said at a news conference Friday.
Bush's remarks underscored lingering U.S.-U.N. tensions. The president said the U.N. has been slow to address growing violence in the Darfur region of the Sudan and again questioned the institution's stewardship of its finances.
"I think a lot of Americans are frustrated with the United Nations, to be frank with you," Bush said.

Sometimes I wonder if President Bush is talking to 3rd grade kids when talking to the media. Or if the media is simply dumbing down the President to keep up the doofus image they have built. The majority of US Citizens see no redeeming value in the United Nations, especially after the oil for food scandal that took place during Saddam's final years as ruler of Iraq. It comes back to a credibility issue, and the UN has a long way to go before I see it as a credible organization again.

Bush said there is general agreement within the U.N. to stop the violence in Darfur and to deny Iran the ability to make a nuclear weapon. But members are divided on whether to send a U.N. military force to Darfur, or slap economic sanctions on Iran if it continues to refuse suspension of a uranium enrichment program.

Again it comes down to the UN not willing to make the HARD DECISIONS that all leaders have to make at one time or another during their lives. Leaders lead, and make the hard decisions even if they are not popular. Until the real world powers start to force the UN to make some hard decisions and stand by them they will be nothing more than a club for the little guys to try to act like the big boys. There is no reason that the leader of the UN should come from a third world country that is SMALLER that TEXAS add to that a GDP that is 1/20th of Texas alone 55 Billion Ghana, 980Billion Texas. How in the world can someone from there even know how to handle countries that are hundreds of times more diverse and wealthy. The UN is now a club for those countries that are poor to try to grab some of the wealth of those that have built themselves up to what they are today. I for one say bye bye UN and have fun finding a new home. We can use the office space in lower Manhattan for real pursuits of capitalism that has made this country what it is today. The best in the world.