At first I was reluctant to speculate on the trials and tribulations of Syria, mainly because I didn't think they'd have any of either coming their way, and why should they? They only killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and Lord knows that the Sudanese have killed over 2 million people, and Saddam killed over twice that [that we know of], without any harm coming to them.

The UN security council, as Paul Volcker's comission has already noted, is filled with corrupt ambassadors from even more corrupt governments-- France, Germany, Russia. The French don't want to be bothered with the Sudan, refusing to allow the word "genocide" to even be uttered in their ambassador's presence in relation to this topic. Germany is going through a power shift from the anti-American Gerhart Schroder to a new "coalition government." And Tsar Putin is having far too much fun cracking down on his own country and selling weapons. And then there are about over a hundred countries in the UN run by dictatorships and other brutal men.

Human rights giants like Sudan and Lebanon are on the UN Human Rights Commission, and Syria, I believe, is on the weapons proliferation board [which makes me wonder if it's supposed to be for or against proliferation].

And of course, even if they were NOT corrupt, would they be relevant? During the Cold War, everyone was bugged. Everyone. The CIA and KGB had wire taps on everyone in the UN, if they didn't have wire taps on everyone in the countries with ambassadors to the UN. The KGB and the CIA at one point compared notes on what they thought was an anomaly. And discovered that, in transmissions sent from the UN ambassadors to their home countries, there was NOTHING. That's right, during the Cold War, outside of the US and USSR, no one cared about what happened at the UN.

So, my initial thought was, it's irrelevant and corrupt, the UN doesn't care about large issues with genocide in the millions, why should it care about anything else? When the UN issues a report saying that high government officials in the Syrian government are responsible for the death of Hariri.

Then I remembered something different about all those other times. What the UN didn't have during Rwanda, Sudan, or Iraq?

John Bolton.

Yes, Darth John Bolton, Dark Lord of the Sith. The one which makes internists and employees tremble. The man who's image as portrayed by the democrats was one of a man who cracked heads open for fun and profit, but mostly for fun.

From what I've noticed, Darth Bolton remained largely quiet on the issue of Syria while the UN was making bold proclamations about the justice they'd seek in the assassination, and all of the usual bull the UN spouts while trying to keep up the front of being relevant.

Then Johnny Bolton stepped up to the microphone and threatened stiff economic sanctions Syria continues stonewalling the investigation. At an ADL meeting Grand Hyatt hotel in Midtown Manhattan, he said that "They need to appreciate, especially with the unanimous resolution of the Security Council, that they can run, but they cannot hide." Suspects face immediate freezing of their assets to ensure they don't flee the country or countries they are hiding in.
"It's not simply their governments that will pay the price, they will pay the price as well," said Bolton.

This guy just move in this past August, and already he's busy.

Makes you wonder what'll happen when Volcker's commission gets through with the UN, exactly what Bolton will do with it.