http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/22/international/22PREX.html?hp What the hell is the point, then? You may not get it from the short excerpt here, but the Bushie leakers are saying this speech is gonna admit nothing, and demand everything. So I ask, why are we wasting time? Bullying the UN makes a bit of sense as an election gambit, and maybe that's all this is. Maybe it's a Rovian effort to lay the groundwork for blaming the UN for the problems in Iraq. IOW, we're gonna ask the world to subsidize our empire. I doubt that's gonna work very well.
The Bush administration's diplomacy reminds me of Homer Simpson's bargining skills. Homer: Lisa I'll give you $50 if you help me win back Marge! Lisa: Dad I can't do that! Only you can demonstrate your love for mom. Homer:....All right...$30! After telling the rest of world to go screw themselves and having their unilateral, preemptive, war of convenience, blow up in their face, the Bushies now act like is it is a concession to the rest of the world if we allow them to clean up our mess. And in return for giving us money and soldiers to be shot at, we have offered the world: nothing. Then when the world balks at this generous offer, they blame France. This administration’s arrogance is matched only by their incompetence.
So that brings up this question, which I'd love to see any of the conservatives here tackle: Why is personal responsibility expected of welfare mothers, but not of the President of the United States?
You know this is like the cheating boyfriend who when confronted with the evidence says "You know hon, it is really your fault that I phucked that girl in the tube top at the Karoke bar last night. If you gave me a blow job more often than maybe I wouldn't have to cheat". The cheating boyfriend then acts shocked that the girlfriend does not accept this as a valid escuse or reasoning.
Re: Re: Bush's UN speech Bush's whole life is a case study in how the rich never ever ever have to take personal responsibility.
Hey, I didn't say Bush was the only case study. BTW, CP, have you found that link yet? Or were you just repeating something someone at work heard on Rush?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush's UN speech *add kennedy twinge * "I uh didn't come here with paants, and i am uh not leaving with paants."
And this is, by far, the best line of the article: Mr. Bush added that the United Nations could help write a constitution because "they're good at that."
Nothing new in this speech. It's a speech while given to the international community is for domestic consumption. Which is just like every speech Dubya gives, it's for the domestic audience. Ole Dubya knows he is going to face a tight re-election so there is no reason to waste a big speech on something that the peeps can relate to.
Annan's Speech bodes well for America. He was conciliatory, and dwelt more in the positive and the need to work together in the future than in criticism of the past. It was not an endorsememnt of the US policies under Bush, but he did seem to justify it to some extente, and expressed a willingness to work together. It was much more positive than I expected and it is good for America and for Bush. Now I hope our president builds on that, and doesn't blow it.
It was an excellent speech. Only the most rabid Bush hater is likely to have a problem with it. (Other than somebody who is a terrorist or who benefits from the trade of young children). I thought he was very measured in his challenge to the UN, and he certainly made clear that the US strongly supports the UN. (He might have added, in spite of the lack of support that it's given us, but he wisely let that pass). Now, lets hear what France has to say.
It is over. Bush didn't budge from his terror talk (ie: 9/11) and didn't directly ask for troops from say Germany or France. Colin Powel has much work to do. Bush seeks new non-proliferation resolution, yea, right after the US did the pre-emptive war. Hmmmm. I feel bad for Alejandro Toledo (prez of Peru) because he thought it would be a good time to come to NYC and talk to the UN right after Bush. The US media didn't care to cover his speech. Chirac to speak soon. Paula spilled the beans before the Bush speech on CNN. Yea, we all know they get a copy beforehand, but she shouldn't have told the public because she knew she couldn't comment anyway. Besides, that is not her job. She is the one who allows the various guests to do that stuff. But, Aaron Brown decides to give details for Chirac's speech before he speaks. Looks like no common gorund as of yet.
Well, he better be respectfull, since he and his administration basically told the UN to go screw themselves not even a year ago. Would love to have seen the reaction if he had made a, 'in spite of the lack of support ' remark.
Of course, we could hardly have expected Bush to ask for specifics and give our 'allies' a chance to rebuff him. He stated the best argument he could give in general terms. The specifics will come later in private. Indeed, Powell has a lot of work ahead of him. Please, do not interrupt Chirac's speech for the California Recall decision. (Or is that too much to ask?) PS: I guess it was. Both CNN and Fox forgot about Chirac.
It may take up to a day, but I would check first at www.un.org They have this already... New York, 23 September 2003 - Secretary-General's address to the General Assembly http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp Also, President Addresses UN General Assembly President Bush today addressed the United Nations General Assembly in New York City. Video and transcript will be available soon. http://www.whitehouse.gov
Well, that's your opinion. I wonder how much I should trust your opinion? And the answer is, I shouldn't.
QUOTE OF THE DAY (according to www.un.org) "We have come to a fork in the road. This may be a moment no less decisive than 1945 itself, when the United Nations was founded." Secretary-General Kofi Annan, New York, in his address to the General Assembly, 23 September 2003
My opinion? Gee, superdave. Where did you get that idea? Perhaps you are not aware that my posts are not meant to be read as personal opinions to be discussed but rather as the absolute infallible truth. As I said, I thought it was a very good speech under the circumstances. As a political speech, I cannot imagine how it could have been better. It was certainly an improvement over his famous speech of two years ago, in which I thought he tried to almost bully the UN into accepting his position. This time my assesment is that he played it right. He made the best argument for the US position without asking for specifics, and so he cannot be publicly rebuffed, as he was last time. But I am sure you and others will look with a microscope at every little detail to find reasons to put our president down over this speech.
Chirac's speech was also very good. He eloquently put forward the argument against the US actions in Iraq, which was to be expected, but nevertheless it seemed to me that he was making a point that France was looking beyond that, and was willing to move forward. It seemed like both sides, and also Annan, are looking to work together. There were olive branches been handed out on all sides. Of course, this is politics, and the real battle is behind the scenes, but I have some hope that the UN will do the right thing and get more involved in the reconstruction of Iraq.