The New York Times is acknowledging the sea of protestors as, "A New Power in the Streets." Whether or not this will effect foreign policy here is not yet clear. But other governments are responding to the pleas of the masses.

A New Power in the Streets

By PATRICK E. TYLER

WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 — The fracturing of the Western alliance over Iraq and the huge antiwar demonstrations around the world this weekend are reminders that there may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion.

In his campaign to disarm Iraq, by war if necessary, President Bush appears to be eyeball to eyeball with a tenacious new adversary: millions of people who flooded the streets of New York and dozens of other world cities to say they are against war based on the evidence at hand.

Mr. Bush's advisers are telling him to ignore them and forge ahead, as are some leading pro-war Republicans. Senator John McCain, for one, said today that it was "foolish" for people to protest on behalf of the Iraqi people, because the Iraqis live under Saddam Hussein "and they will be far, far better off when they are liberated from his brutal, incredibly oppressive rule."

That may be true, but it fails to answer the question that France, Germany and other members of the Security Council have posed: What is the urgent rationale for war now if there is a chance that continued inspections under military pressure might accomplish the disarmament of Iraq peacefully?

The fresh outpouring of antiwar sentiment may not be enough to dissuade Mr. Bush or his advisers from their resolute preparations for war. But the sheer number of protesters offers a potent message that any rush to war may have political consequences for nations that support Mr. Bush's march into the Tigris and Euphrates valleys.

This may have been the reason that foreign ministers for 22 Arab nations, meeting in Cairo today, called on all Arab countries to "refrain from offering any kind of assistance or facilities for any military action that leads to the threat of Iraq's security, safety and territorial integrity."

NYT Link

So, here we are at a watershed moment in history. This may come down to showdown between "We the People", vs. our elected, or in Mr. Bush's case, "selected" officials. UN weapons Inspectors Hans Blix and IAEA director El Baradei --who have insinuated that that need more time-- to perform more inspections, whilst the Bush administation has subverted their efferts. If the Bush administarion wants to sway public opinion, they need to mothball Donald Rumsfeld, put all their cards on the table--I mean REAL cards, not plagiarised dossiers, ambiguous satellite images and unsubstantiated ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein--and let the old guard of democracy, "We The People" have a chance to properly assess their information.

Material Breach is a meaningless phrase. The US is in material breach of many bi-lateral, and other agreements. Do we bomb ourselves? Israel, our angry step-child does not view the UN as anything remotely like an authority. Israel is in more UN material breaches than any other country.* I have nothing against Jews, in fact, I'm half-Jewish, but the rules of the world must be applied fairly to all. My piece about The UN's potential, "fade into history as an ineffective, irrelevant debating society" should be done soon. By the way, those statesmanlike words were uttered by none other than Mr. Bush. He's a cuddly little Christian isn't he.

* Searching for a supporting document.

***