Annan courts Hezbollah

AP headline: "U.N. Must Accept Hezbollah, Annan Says."

Annan's rationale is a textbook example of a politically correct, ethically bankrupt concept of moral equivalence:

Annan said the world needs to accept that in every society different groups may hold different views.

Let's compare Annan's views on known terror groups with those of President Bush, as expressed in an excerpt from his recent address at the National Defense University at Fort McNair:

Like an earlier generation, America is pursuing a clear strategy with our allies to achieve victory. Our immediate strategy is to eliminate terrorist threats abroad, so we do not have to face them here at home. The theory here is straightforward: terrorists are less likely to endanger our security if they are worried about their own security. When terrorists spend their days struggling to avoid death or capture, they are less capable of arming and training to commit new attacks. We will keep the terrorists on the run, until they have nowhere left to hide.

The difference between Bush's sentiments and Annan's is telling. It is telling of the leadership each man provides; but more important, it is telling of the effectiveness of the two entities they lead. While Bush's US continues its emergence as the global leader in the defense of freedom and opposition to terror, Annan's UN slouches toward irrelevance.

Update: In related news, see "Kofi Annan Takes Credit for Iraq Vote."