[Changleen]

How to make everyone realise you have no idea what the hell is going on, or even worse, the faintest clue about what to do about it -

George Bush's speech to the UN -A review:
http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-vpcoc233981330sep23,0,5083113.column?coll=ny-news-columnists

Bush's pep talk fails to rally the UN

September 23, 2004

With trademark clarity, the president has told us how he intends to address questions about the chaos engulfing the American endeavor in Iraq. (N8 et al: This is sarcasm, just so you arn't confused)

He did this not in response to Democrat John Kerry's critique of the bloody mess. Nor in his speech to the United Nations on Tuesday. George W. Bush's succinct response to the unfolding catastrophe came when he was asked to address the concerns of leading senators from his own party - experts in foreign and military affairs - who have begun to say unkind things about the situation in Iraq.

"This is incompetence in the administration," says Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar of Indiana.

"I don't think we're winning," says Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. "The fact is we're in trouble. We're in deep trouble in Iraq." Sen. John McCain of Arizona says the president isn't as straight with the public as the situation requires.

And so in New York, while he was escorting Ayad Allawi, Washington's hand-picked head of the interim and apparently impotent Iraqi government, a journalist asked Bush about two of the senators' concerns.

"Both senators you quoted strongly want me elected as president," he shot back. "We agree that the world is better off with Saddam Hussein sitting in a prison cell."

Well. Should we not begin to wonder what it will take for the president to snap out of it?

Mounting U.S. military deaths haven't done it. Nor has the rise in the casualty rate, increasing month by month. The beheadings of American hostages are, apparently, insufficient as well.

As for the CIA's grim prognosis for Iraq's future - the most optimistic forecast is for tenuous security and the most pessimistic for civil war - the president is dismissive. America's spy agency, Bush said, is "just guessing."

If Bush expected little from his trip to the United Nations, he delivered less. He spoke not a word about Iran, whose nuclear brinksmanship is the worry of the world. No mention of the Koreas, either.

Bush instead dwelled on Iraq and Afghanistan, linking them into one whole he believes is the war on terror. It is fair to say that few in the General Assembly chamber concurred in this construction, considering it instead a grotesque conjoining of two wars altogether opposite in their origin and in their legitimacy.

The UN performance was little more than a feast for those who thrive on the study of body language. The cheery president effectively ignored the assembled heads of state and diplomats to deliver a campaign speech to his American audience. The world's leaders stared back in sullen silence.

The president did not respond to Kofi Annan's admonition about Iraqi prisoners in U.S. custody who've been "disgracefully abused." He was deaf to the secretary general's warning that "every nation that proclaims the rule of law at home must respect it abroad."

We cannot expect this president, whose worldview is so at odds with the views of the rest of the world, to succeed in such a forum. But is it too much to expect him to answer questions that beg discussion here?

The unease on Capitol Hill is no partisan trap. It reflects the gut-check that is going on in homes across the country where every day the news comes in and mostly it comes in bad. This nation was once repulsed at the mere sight of American hostages wearing blindfolds and paraded before the cameras. Now how long will it take for even a beheading to fade from public consciousness?

It seems not to be the fog of war. It is the fog of fog.

The president is chief practitioner of this obscuring art. He insists on political tactics as a substitute for policy. We are told to worry about Kerry's meandering on Iraq, but not about the plunge of that country into violent disorder. We are told to turn aside the pleadings of even respected Republicans because, after all, they "strongly want me elected as president."

This may well get Bush through the election. It will not get America through the darkness of Iraq.

I especially like: "The world's leaders stared back in sullen silence."

Failing. Irrelevant. A joke to the Entire World. Regime Change Nov '04.

 

[Changleen]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0409230376sep23,1,3489464.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_23-9-2004_pg7_48
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0922/dailyUpdate.html?s=ent2
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/22/1095651401371.html?oneclick=true

An audience of mostly stony-faced world leaders listened with only scant applause as President George Bush tried to assure the United Nations that Iraq would conquer terrorism and emerge as a thriving democracy that "poses no threat to others".

Afterwards, there was barely a hint of applause.

His speech on Tuesday, just hours before terrorists announced they had beheaded a second American in Iraq, came after a night spent raising more than $US3 million ($4.2 million) for his re-election campaign at New York's Sheraton hotel.

The Financial Times contended in an editorial that the Bush administration "systematically refused to engage with what actually has happened in Iraq"--namely, in its view, that American policy "mistakes" have "handed the initiative to jihadi terrorists" who "now have a new base from which to challenge the West and moderate Islam." And the newspaper asserted that Bush's "disengagement from the reality of a sinking Iraq is alarming."

In France, the left-of-center Liberation said Bush is "part of the problem rather than the solution" when it comes to working with allies. In his speech to the United Nations, the paper said, Bush "showed that slightly autistic self-satisfaction remains the dominant tendency of American power."

Italy's Corriere della Sera said Bush had "forgotten that his go-it-alone approach has alienated many sympathizers" with American goals in the Middle East

The paper in its comment conceded that President Bush had refrained from using the “red meat” phrases in his UN speech that his supporters love. He also made no “sneering references” to nations like France and Germany that opposed the Iraq invasion. “Instead, the president was conciliatory, intent to show that he can play with others. He didn’t quite break out in Esperanto, but he spoke admiringly of the principles and values embodied by the United Nations. He also lavished praise on NATO for helping to train ‘a growing Iraqi security force.’ Bush’s tone was far from his 2002 warning that the UN would be made “irrelevant” by ignoring the threat posed by Saddam Hussein,”

Praise for the UN, the editorial stressed, “won’t make up for the worsening security situation for all foreigners in Iraq. Besides security problems, Bush’s continued refusal to accept that international cooperation means more than doing what Washington orders has made others reluctant to step in.

For press descriptions of world leaders' reactions to Bush's speech, "stony-faced" seemed to beat out "luke-warm" and "tepid" as the adjective du jour.

The Guardian called Bush's speech "unrepentant" and asserted that it "appeared essentially tailored for a domestic audience rather than foreign consumption." The Guardian quotes Swiss president, Joseph Deiss, as saying: "In hindsight, experience shows that actions taken without a mandate which has been clearly defined in a security council resolution are doomed to failure."

It was a puzzling speech from start to finish. Near its beginning, when Bush said, "We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace," was there a delegate in the chamber who didn't wonder at the irony? It was Bush himself, after all, who was quick to choose war in Iraq – insiders' chronicles agree that he decided on that path in early 2002, over a year before the UN debates – while the vast majority of the body's members, free and unfree, were striving for a resolution short of conflict.

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.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Is there a kitty mentioned in there someplace?

 

[Changleen]

Why don't you read it and find out?

 

[$tinkle]

the UN? dude, maybe they mean something to you, but you can't expect us to think you're on balance if you give them the credibility they tossed over & again.

lugar & bagel? until bush-bashing became en vogue, no one heard of these one act ponies.

but, yes, if iran doesn't get their poo together, there will be a regime change.

 

[ohio]

the UN? dude, maybe they mean something to you, but you can't expect us to think you're on balance if you give them the credibility they tossed over & again.

Maybe it means nothing to you, but it means a whole lot to Bush. He's been kissing their asses for a month now trying to get some help in Iraq. Waffling on his "go-it-alone" policy isn't exactly something he broadcasts to the US, but he's been desperately begging for the help of even, gasp, the French.

 

[$tinkle]

while we're posting other people's thoughts, let's see how the 2 americas editorialised the president yesterday:

america #1 (west coast):

As expected in a speech to fellow heads of state and diplomats, President Bush on Tuesday dispensed with the red-meat phrases beloved by his supporters on the campaign trail. . . . Instead, the president was conciliatory, intent to show that he can play with others. He didn't quite break out in Esperanto, but he spoke admiringly of the principles and values embodied by the United Nations.
editorial

america #2 (east coast):

Mr. Bush delivered an inexplicably defiant campaign speech. . . . 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. Mr. Bush has never exhibited much respect for the United Nations.
editorial

 

[valve bouncer]

Bloody hell Twinkle, good post there son, I was surprised. What was your view of the speech?

 

[Silver]

Maybe it means nothing to you, but it means a whole lot to Bush. He's been kissing their asses for a month now trying to get some help in Iraq. Waffling on his "go-it-alone" policy isn't exactly something he broadcasts to the US, but he's been desperately begging for the help of even, gasp, the French.

We break it, we bought it, I'm afraid.

Especially since the guy who broke it is up at the counter yelling at the clerk, acting like an asshole, and expecting to not have to pay...

 

[$tinkle]

needed more mumbling of racial epithets while fertively glancing at kofi anan.

Also, awkward silences should have been broken with "howYaLikeMeNOW, b|tches?!"

 

[valve bouncer]

needed more mumbling of racial epithets while fertively glancing at kofi anan.

Also, awkward silences should have been broken with "howYaLikeMeNOW, b|tches?!"

I believe they were edited out of the original.