Chuck Muth turned me on to James Taranto's "Best of the Web". Check out this excerpt from a larger piece on the Bolton confirmation:
"The classic example of the U.S. leading the U.N. was the first Gulf War. In November 1990 the Security Council passed Resolution 678, which authorized member states 'to use all necessary means,' including military force, to liberate Kuwait, then under occupation by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The resolution also 'request[ed] all States to provide appropriate support' to that end.
In January 1991 Congress obliged. The House voted 250-183, with 179 Democrats voting 'no,' to authorize U.S. military force. The Senate vote was 52-47, with 45 Democrats voting 'no.' Only 86 House Democrats and 10 Senate Democrats voted in favor.
Among the negative votes were all five current Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who were then in Congress: Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Paul Sarbanes and then-Rep. Barbara Boxer. All told, 25 of the 28 current Senate Democrats who were in Congress in 1991 voted against the Gulf War. (The three who voted for it, in case you're wondering, were Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Tom Carper of Delaware and Harry Reid of Nevada.)
So the U.N. gave the thumbs-up for military force and asked for help, and most Democrats balked.
It seems fair to conclude, then, that most liberal Democrats, like Bolton, are pro-U.N. only when it suits their purposes--and that their purposes are the opposite of Bolton's. That is, for the Democratic left, the U.N. is useful and worthy of respect only insofar as it acts as an obstacle to American leadership and an opponent of American interests."
What more could I possibly add to make this more devastating than it already is?