September 22, 2004
Bush’s Speech Before the U.N. Had (Predictably) Little Basis in Reality
After listening to President Bush’s speech before the U.N. yesterday I wondered to myself: is this guy on the same planet as the rest of us? Does he not care that his and the country’s credibility before the world will continue to slide if his administration continues to deny and ignore what the rest of the world sees so clearly: mainly that Iraq and even Afghanistan are slipping from U.S. control, spiraling down in a blood soaked orgy of violence?
While the daily reports of the escalating violence peppers the front pages of major—and minor—newspapers around the world, the Bush Administration still clings irrationally to the theory that democracy is flourishing in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am sure most of the diplomats in the audience for the President’s speech yesterday were equal as dumbfounded by his almost alien speech that took on a decided belligerent tone. And yet Bush came before the body to ask for assistance, but to me it sound more like a demand. The New York Times opinion page summed it up best:
We did not expect President Bush to come before the United Nations in the middle of his re-election campaign and acknowledge the serious mistakes his administration has made on Iraq. But that still left plenty of room for him to take advantage of this one last chance to appeal to an increasingly antagonistic world to help the Iraqis secure and rebuild their shattered nation and prepare for elections in just four months. Instead, Mr. Bush delivered an inexplicably defiant campaign speech in which he glossed over the current dire situation in Iraq for an audience acutely aware of the true state of affairs, and scolded them for refusing to endorse the American invasion in the first place.Even when he talked about issues of common agreement, like the global fight against AIDS and easing the crushing third-world debt, Mr. Bush seemed more interested in praising his own policies than in assuming the leadership of an international effort. The speech would have drawn cheers at an adoring Republican National Convention, but it seemed to fall flat in a room full of stony-faced world leaders.
The Center for American Progress, a nonpartisan think tank did an extensive analysis of the Bush’s speech. One thing is apparent, Bush is fiddling while the War on Terror slips from U.S. control. And I for one do not feel safer, how can I when the Commander-n-Chief is too busy obfuscating the truth to truly lead?
Words used by those associated with the Bush administration regarding Iraq, “cake walk”, “Mission Accomplished”, recover U.S. costs with Iraqi oil revenues, WMD, ties to al-Queda, etc. etc. etc.
I am waiting for the transcript. I listened to the President’s speech, and noticed a huge number of hypocricies uttered that no doubt accounted for the 7 second tepid courtesy applause at the end. The cowboy didn’t attend this time with six guns on his hips, that is to say, his tone was less arrogant and bullying, but, the speech overall indicated that the world is responsible for what happens from here. That went over with a deafening thud of silence. We all know who is responsible for the Iraqi quagmire, and even the President does not expect flocks of new countries to step forward to ‘his’ aid. It remains to be seen if other nations would come forward to America’s aid under a different president, but, it is damn certain they have no inclination to bail GW Bush out of the mess he has created for the world in Iraq.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 22, 2004 06:11 PM> The Center for American Progress, a
> nonpartisan think tank …
Uh, let’s clarify that. The Center for American Progress may not be “partisan”, but they sure are liberal and they sure do oppose the Republican Party with every ounce of their being. They’re about as “non partisan” as the Heritage Foundation.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 22, 2004 06:35 PMcf,
Pointing out leftist partisanship? My head is spinning.
On a lighter note, I am glad that the mask is finally off the Kerry campaign. After how many months trying to steer in two directions they’ve finally decided to make a hard left turn. Good decision. Well, for Bush that is.
If Kerry were ahead in the polls he would probably stand pat with the weekend skeet shoots and statements about life begining at conception. But since things are going badly in the polls he keeps changing his tune. Kind of like his policy on Iraq.
Hmm. Maybe there are some lessons to be learned here. Like consistancy works when it comes to core values, your priciples, and your campaign message.
Posted by: eric simonson at September 22, 2004 07:34 PMEric, are you in for a rude awakening. Watch the polls. The electoral college is swinging back toward Kerry as he takes Kerry bashing and makes it ‘good for the gander’.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 22, 2004 07:48 PMEric—
This post is not about Kerry, but about Bush and his speech, care to address that on its face?
Posted by: V. Edward Martin at September 22, 2004 07:57 PMChristopher—
And the American Enterprise Institute is…look this post is not about the Center for American Progress, it is on Bush’s speech; care to comment about that?
Funny that you have that much confidence in george bush, Eric. The garbage over the last few days with the Intel and the civil war deal in Iraq has swung towards Mr. John F. Kerry’s favor BIG TIME. Bush had a 119 point lead two days ago according to the www.electoral-vote.com. Before the Republicans claimed that the site was partisian but they sure as hell loved it when Bush had that 119 point lead. Yesterday, Kerry got the lead down by 100 points with Bush having a 19 point advantage. Today, Kerry is leading 269-253. It is clear Eric and to all the other Republicans, Bush’s kingdom is falling by the day as Kerry will take the lead again. Bush will not win this election. As for my thoughts on the speech at the General Assembly, george bush went to the UN knowing full well that the eyes of the world were watching him. bush set out to prove four points 1.) prove his attacks on Iraq was justified 2.) a plea to fight international terrorism 3.) a request to rebuild Iraq 4.) a pretty rose field for the shallow and ignorant to swallow. At the United Nations building yesterday, he was thrashing around like an animal caught in a trap, hoping to free himself with ever more dramatic and drastic moves, only to worsen the situation through his own limitations and stupidity. A) The attack on Iraq was ILLEGAL BY INTERNATIONAL LAW. The speech writers for bush knew that a majority vote had to be done by the Security Council. It was this Council that Bush avoided like the plague, knowing full well that the majority could not be forged despite desperate attempts at bullying and blackmail. An own goal. 0-1. B) How can anyone sit and there and let Bush perpetuate the exact lies that he invented the whole time anyways. I believe he is either a pathological liar or a poor brainwashed puppet. If Iraq had been about international terrorism, Bush himself would not have admitted that there was no evidence linking Baghdad to Al Qaeda and Washington would not have spoken about WMD. When the first lie was found out for what it was, the second was invented and since Bush is gullible enough to believe it, he thinks his people and the world community will fall for it. The only one to fall for the Iraq/international terrorism lie is Bush, apparently, and possibly the people who consider voting for him. Another own goal. 0-2. C) Thirdly, asking the UNO to up its programs to support Iraq, after having insulted and derided this Organization and after breaking its Charter, is the epitome of arrogance and short-sightedness. it is due to the selfless and constant efforts of the UNO, not to the murderous and incompetent military forces of Washington, which are responsible for war crimes, dropping cluster bombs in civilian areas, choosing civilian infra-structures as military targets, committing massacres and killing or maiming tens of thousands of innocent people. Another own goal. 0-3. D) bush indeed came near to scoring a goal with his mention of international terrorism but since his country was so utterly unconvinced when Moscow was already bring this point up years ago and was happy to call the Chechen terrorists “rebels” or “separatists” and turn a blind eye to financing operations - and since close allies of the USA grant political asylum to
terrorists wanted by Russia - at best this can be classified as a shot off target. His mention of Beslan was touching but then again, what value have the words of a mass murderer and a war criminal when speaking about the slaughter of children, when Washington’s forces, of which Bush is the Commander-in-Chief, did the same thing in Iraq? What is the difference between strafing a child in the back and dropping a cluster bomb on his house? The Chechens butchered hundreds of innocent children at a school. bush butchered hundreds of innocent children in their houses. 0-4. What really takes the biscuit in bush’s childish and insulting speech - an insult to the collective intelligence of the international community - is the reference to Israel, which must dismantle unauthorised outposts and end the “daily humiliation” of the Palestinian people. Who has supported, financed and armed Israel from day one, who has turned a blind eye to its excesses and who has consistently vetoed or abstained from resolutions condemning the more ugly characteristics of Zionism? It is time for a regime change. If you still think Bush will win this, consider this fact, with bush’s continual bashing of the UN and Mr. John F. Kerry wanting the UN to join the US in Iraq. Don’t think the tough Prosecutor John Kerry is still not in his soul, he will destroy george bush in the debates. I guess it is time for bush to check out what time it is.
Eric,
That is sincerely interesting, the reference to what has been donned the Kerry flip-flop. But it holds no merit with you being a republican-oh let me explain.
Bush was fighting a war on terror after we were attacked by extremists and suddenly he stopped that war to enter a country seemingly for the sole reason of avenging his daddy’s mid east foibles. THAT WOULD BE A FLIP-FLOP ERIC!
Also Bush saying that he would fund things that he hasn’t more flip-flops such as he did with education and several other things.
Claims to create jobs but all the labor bills Bush has put through congress and signed that deal with labor have been explicitly anti-labor such as the removal of time and a half.
Care to talk flip-flops Eric????
Posted by: Leftie Whacko at September 22, 2004 08:24 PMAmerica should collectly slap Bush for not standing up for this country. No where did he take a stand on how we were force to break the law because the U.N. would not back up their word. No where did I hear Bush explain the actions of some countries backing down from terrorist demands. No where did I hear Bush tell them that again they had a chance to stand up to their word.
No, instead I watched Bush jump around like a deer struck with a beam of light. Telling everyone that things were going great in Iraq, that the council should not of declared the war illegal, that Sudan was more their cup of tea.
No, After watching the entire day I watched Bush keep doing that “Deer in the Headlight” stare as he keep avioding the truth Of Iraq. Right, Wrong, or Indifferent Ameica must live the knowledge that Bush who went to war on his intellegene now think that they are only guessing on how bad he screwed it up. Duh, he may have a point cause he knows they don’t know everything. That is the 64 billion dollar question.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 22, 2004 09:24 PMThe embarassment is that our president pandered too much to the UN. The UN does not represent legitimacy and has no right to judge the U.S. It is not a democratic institution and does not represent the people of the world, since most of the people of the world live under some form of dictatorship. China comes to the UN as the representive of the Tibetans. Russia comes as the sovereign of the Chechens. The tyrants who run the Sudan represent the people of Darfur. By the UN logic, Hitler would have represented the Jews of Germany. Sovereignty is convenient, and “legal” but don’t read more into it than that.
Leaders of these countries dare to criticize the current governments of Iraq or Afghanistan, which are - with all their faults - more representative of the consent of the governed than most UN member states.
How many wars has the UN stopped? How many people has it freed? In Bosnia, UN troops watched as Muslim men were murdered in Srebrinica. Think of Rwanda, Kosovo, Darfur. Saddam Hussein thumbed his nose at 17 UN resolutions. If anything gets done, it is because some countries, usually led by the U.S. gets it done. Then we get blamed for what we do and blamed for what we don’t do. We are the largest donnor in every category of the UN operations, and pay 57% of all the peacekeeping costs, yet we are called unilateral. Syria, Sudan and Sierra Leone meanwhile are perfect disciples of the UN. Give me a break!
The UN represents a convenient place to address the governments of the world. That is why President Bush went there. And many of the specialized UN agencies are indispensible, but let’s not let ourselves believe that the UN is some kind of moral force. It had lost its moral legitimacy by the 1970s. As it is run today, it may have slipped into the necessary evil category.
Posted by: jack at September 23, 2004 07:08 AMThere are too many examples of how the UN has failed through the years. I don’t understand how someone still looks at it as a serious organization with any moral authority. Some still cry about not having “UN approval” because they are so worried about “being liked” in the world. To those I say, get a backbone. If you are so ready to relinquish moral authority to a corrupt body then you seriously need to research the failures of the UN through the years.
Posted by: Aldaron at September 23, 2004 09:18 AMAldaron and Jack,
Read the above comments of everyone. Bush did not have a backbone but lied while he pleaded and begged the UN to help. As far as morality, the UN may not have done much for morality but it is hard to say what really goes on behind the scenes so I wouldn’t be quick to call many decisions of the US moral, as the possibility does exist that there may have been other reasons, although good does happen. The UN like Jack said is
“The embarassment is that our president pandered too much to the UN. The UN does not represent legitimacy and has no right to judge the U.S. It is not a democratic institution and does not represent the people of the world, since most of the people of the world live under some form of dictatorship.”
It is well said but they have the right to judge to corrupt Bush Administration as I do and have the evidence that it is a war about oil. UNCOVERED: THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR documentary is fantastic. The UN should judge the hypocrisy of the Bush Administration for criticizing the UN and then asking for help. IT IS LIKE A REBELLIOUS TEENAGER WHO SAYS THERE PARENTS HAVE NO BACKBONE TO TAKE CARE OF A BULLY SO THE TEENAGER BRINGS A GUN TO SCHOOL, SHOOTS HIM, AND THEN GETS ON HIS HANDS AND KNEES TO THEIR PARENTS FOR SHOOTING THE CHILD BUT THE PARENTS DON’T WANT TO HEAR NONE OF IT. NO BAIL MONEY AND THAT DESCRIBES THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. Plus Bush lied a lot and should be impeached for not wanting to apoligize. Maybe the UN getting more power will be the best thing for the world.
“Bush lied a lot and should be impeached for not wanting to apoligize.”
If we are at the point of impeaching Presidents for not “apoligizing” (on anything), I submit to you that we have become entirely too soft. Perhaps we should just put Presidents in “time-out” for a while.
If left up to the liberals, this nation would go groveling to the UN for approval on doing anything. It’s a really spineless view characterized by the underlying belief that the US is wrong and the UN is right on virtually any subject. If that is what you believe, then you are blinded by the “idea of the UN” rather than the reality of it. Idealism is one thing. Reality is another.
Good piece Aldaron. The UN has no business or no right to tell us what to do. Those who believe we should get permission from the UN really have no respect for our form of govt. or our country.
This topic is nothing more than another attack, based on opinions of those who hate Bush. Instead of the green column, it should be the green parties column.
How about issues with facts? kerry doesn’t stand a chance on those, that is why the left is stuck on making opinions and assumptions about Iraq.
Noel
The UN can be useful and it must be part of our foreign policy to work with the UN. But we have to recognize its limitations and liabilities. Our challenge in the UN comes down to three veto wielding countries: France, China and Russia. If we can get them on board – bilaterally – the rest of the UN and Kofi Anan can do almost nothing to oppose us. If we fail to get ALL of them to cooperate, the UN can do almost nothing to help us. When Chirac told us that France would veto any resolution that allowed the use of force against Iraq (as he did openly and clearly in early 2003) there was no way to get the UN imprimatur.
I don’t object to going to the UN and trying to use it. What I objected to was the tone of some of the postings implying that the delegates to the UN had a right and a possibility to judge President Bush’s speech. I discussed the lack of legitimacy on my earlier post (i.e. the right). Now think about the ability. No matter what President Bush says, the delegates all have prior instructions from their governments to react in a certain manner. They have no options. It is theater. The “stony silence” that greeted so much of Bush’s talk was preordained as a result of political considerations. I am not saying that the delegates loved the speech. I am saying that you can’t tell anything about their opinions from their reactions. We Americans should not read too much into it.
Many UNGA members are hoping for U.S. failure in Iraq. Some are actively working to bring it about. A reasonably (even imperfectly) democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East is a nightmare to regimes all over the world. A majority of UNGA countries would probably prefer an authoritarian Iraq. You can’t expect enthusiastic support from people who DON’T support what you are trying to do. They may or may not dislike President Bush personally, but they deeply dislike what he is trying to do. We should consider their reasons.
Jack said: “The UN can be useful and it must be part of our foreign policy to work with the UN. But we have to recognize its limitations and liabilities.”
It struck me that this position in this article does not resemble your position in the article above this one. Change of heart?
Your position here appears emminently reasonable and justifiable by the factual record of the U.N.’s strengths, potential, and weaknesses.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 23, 2004 05:11 PMJack disregard my first two paragraphs in the comment above. I confused your response here with someone elses in the article above. My apology.
Third paragraph stands. Very reasonable assessment.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 23, 2004 05:17 PMI agree that the UN is made up of national political leaders that have lost sight of the big picture, but if America is going to be a leader in the world than it is the duty of our elected officails to push for these goals. At http://franklaughter.tripod.com/cgi-bin/histprof/misc/unitednations.html linktext you will find the history of the U.N.
————————————————————————————————————————
The United Nations
The founding of the UN
October 24, 1945
————————————————————————————————————————
Early in World War II, the representatives of nine European governments fled to London. Nazi Germany had conquered much of Europe and had driven these leaders from their homelands. Representatives of Britain and the Commonwealth nations met in London with leaders of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, and Yugoslavia. On June 12, 1941, all these nations signed a declaration pledging to work for a free world, where people could live in peace and security. This pledge, usually called the Inter-Allied Declaration, was the first step toward building the UN.
The Atlantic Charter followed the Inter-Allied Declaration by two months. It was signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt of the United States and Prime Minister Winston Churchill of Britain. The Atlantic Charter expressed their hope for a world where all people could live free from fear and need. It also expressed their intention to seek eventual disarmament and economic cooperation.
On Jan. 1, 1942, representatives of 26 nations signed the Declaration by United Nations. This was the first official use of the words United Nations. The declaration approved the aims of the Atlantic Charter and was later signed by 21 other nations
We have used it in time of War and Peace to try and improve this World. Granted major reorganization needs to take place in the UN as well as every nation who is a member. Therefore, it is every American’s duty to God and this country to show that “We the People” can run this world right.
