Bush's UN speech

Since most of you are at work now and will read about this later, according to cnn these are the main issues addressed:

POINTS OF PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADDRESS

• Calls on the United Nations to continue reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan.
  
• Calls for an expanded U.N. role in Iraq to promote a democratization process that's "neither hurried nor delayed by the wishes of other parties."
  
• Calls for Israeli, Palestinian and Arab officials to work toward the end of terrorism and creation of a Palestinian state.
  
• Pushes for a tougher U.N. role to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
  
• Calls for U.N. action to fight AIDS, hunger and the sex trade.

 

U.N. SECRETARY-GENERAL KOFI ANNAN'S COMMENTS

• Describes a need for the U.N. Security Council to consider "how it will deal with the possibility that individual states may use force pre-emptively."
  
• "This may be a moment no less decisive than 1945."
  
• Calls for "a hard look at fundamental issues" and says the United Nations is preparing to play a "full role" in Iraq.

 

He took his jab and played his role of "bad cop" in this diplomatic struggle for the real power on Iraq.

He said that he wouldn't veto any US-led resolution, but France would abstain (a diplomatic slap in the face to be sure) unless there is a timetable in the order of months for the USA to give power back to the Iraqi people. The US has given no set deadline and doesn't want to give one.

I like his "symbolic power" to be given first, then a gradual "real power" to be given as Iraqis become comfortable with their situation. But, that seems to continue the already perceived notion that the Iraqi leadership council is a puppet or at least has little power today.

 

If Chirac holds true to his promise not to veto, that is a huge concession. Russia is also unlikely to Veto, and I doubt the Chinese want to make a power play out of this issue. So, all in all, the signs are positive.

Of course, Chirac can always make up a pretext to change his mind. But the fact that he made this statement is significant. Chirac is a sharp politician, and I think he realizes it is in France's best interest to help.

From a practical point of view it is difficult to argue for a transfer of power before order is restored in Iraq. So, the unspoken answer is clear. Whoever has interest in a prompt transfer of power to the Iraqis (ie France) will find it in his own best interest to help in the reconstruction. A bright politician like Chirac must see the wisdom in that. But it won't keep him from trying to extract concessions.

 

Hm, rabid Bush haters like Thomas Friedman? I was just listening to him get interviewed on the radio, and he didn't seem too impressed. I believe his words were: "I'm always astonished by the strength of this administration's reach, and yet their lack of grasp." Turn off Fox, DP...it's turning your brain to mush.

In any case, I DO hate Bush, and yes, I do often feel like foaming at the mouth when he speaks. And the two lines of the speech I caught on the radio were enough to suggest I indeed would "have a problem with it."


Comical Fox News note. I happened to wake up early this am with insomnia, so I turned on the news. I generally avoid all tv news, so I first hit CNN. Thought the huge airbrushed US flag draping the CNN logo during commercial bumpers was a bit much, but otherwise, they seemed to be approaching the upcoming speech more like responsible journalists than I would have expected. Clicked over to Fox for a second, and there was something called "Fox and Friends" on. Some inarticulate blonde was doing her best imitation of a 7th grader, babbling something like, "And another thing about those French..." while some tool who seems to worship Bill O'Rielly kind of egged her on. It was almost like the whole thing was a satire of what tv news has become, but I don't think they were in on the joke.

 

The scary thing (and I mean SCARY) is that people really like this crap.

 

Re: Re: Bush's UN speech

Between this and his line on Karl Keller's liberal thread, I think Mahoney is gunning for a Bigsoccer hattrick!!!

Kudos.

 

France uses the veto, they are villified by the world.
France votes in favour, Chirac risks political chaos at home.

In this case, abstaining would allow Chirac to maintain his values without having to make a decision.

 

So, what is Bush to consider? Chirac: with us or against us?

Can that be extrapolated to have Americans wonder the same about the French?

Generalizations come from both sides, but it is hard to distinguish. Even Putin is talking the talk against Bush, but will he be forced to walk the walk someday?

If we can agree that oil had at least "some" reasoning behind this war, couldn't we also agree that Russia and France tended to lose most from Saddam being gone?

Right now it looks like Iraq is putting out 1 million barrels a day. Once it reaches 3.5 million, OPEC will have to work them back into the world's oil network. That alone will force all these nations to deal with each other on some level.

I mean, the nations themselves won't make money from the oil, but their national oil agencies or their national oil companies. These are multinational corps but the power of the lobby can force this to be focused closer to home.

Distribution is an area where getting the crude from the ground to market will take longer than the actual pumping time. I expect more terrorist attacks on the line of distribution. Who will provide the security once Iraq is all on their own? I wouldn't want (and yes, I know it is the case right now) US troops to be hired guns providing security for Shell.

The end result being, does Chirac really care for the Iraqi people, as he did little to secure their safety when he had direct dealings with Saddam, or is he using his political savy and the overall negative feelings towards US policy in Iraq to see if he can regain all the business relations he built up over the years?

Either way, Bush is going to be played. He deserves to be played, but where do the Iraqi people and the US troops fall into this equation?

 

I was quite impressed with Bush's previous speech at the UN, in which he made the case against Saddam.

I thought this speech was awful.

He came into a place which has seen 20+ workers, including the best employee the UN has ever had, killed, arguably as a result of his policies. A place where he had played a major role in breaking the already shaky mechanisms of international diplomacy. And he didn't offer condolences for either. He basically said, "you can help write the Constitution and supervise voting, but you'll control nothing. How 'bout some cash?"

Bush gave the delegates listening nothing. He refused to admit any mistakes, regrets, or even admit the occupation has been less than rosy. He acknowledged other nations had differences with US policy, but basically told them to get over it.

His message was we're doing good work, you should help us, if you don't, you're with the terrorists.

The US might get a resolution through, but they won't get money, they won't get troops, and the US will keep going it alone, to the detriment of both our troops and our treasury.

The real shame is that a democratically remade Iraq would help the region and the world. Bush acknowledged it. But he refuses to make any of the compromises that would allow it to occur.

 

I wonder which of the above issues it is that makes an admited Bush hater like DoctorJones24 'foam at the mouth', as he put it. It is truly sad that people are so consumed by petty hatred that they don't even pay attention to the issues discussed.

I am not a Bush supporter and I originally was opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Still, I support the US in general in the war on terror, and I respect the president and the office that he holds.

As I said, I happened to agree with most of what Bush had to say today. (Which I don't need to expose since Garcia did so very well). I cannot understand why any American would not, at this point. But some people have their own agendas.

And BTW, DoctorJones24, I was watching CNN, not Fox. I turned to Fox when CNN unwisely interrupted Chirac to go to California, but Fox did the same. Fortunately I was able to get the rest of the speech in some other obscure channel.

 

This is not true. A lot of people are assuming its an either/or proposition: that either the UN sends the extra money and troops or Iraq doesn't get them and suffers.

Wrong.

The US will end up sending the extra troops and extra $100 billion if the UN declines. Bush has to. And the U.S. taxpayers will pay for it.

And the rest of the world will say, "Good. Let them. We were against this unilateral action from the beginning. And now we don't want to spend our hard-earned tax money cleaning up Bush's unilateral mess. Let the American public pay for it. They supported this cluster f*** 70%. Praise Chirac!"

 

Needs, did you listen to the first part of the speech? Bush spoke of the tragic attack against the UN, and eulogized the victims. In particular he singled out Sergio Vieira de Mello and spoke highly of his many accomplishments. He honored the memory of Senor Vieira and the other victims in the name of the United States.

What more did you expect him to do? Did you want him to argue in front of the UN that the United States was to blame for the attack?

 

...and when Bush holds the free world hostage due to the oil he owns, they will come back like a crack-ho.

Besides, it serves Iraq right.

Who told them to put all their sand on top of our oil? - stolen from Real Time with Bill Maher, was it Dana Carvey?

Turtle turtle

 

Great, now I am getting it from all sides. That is what I get from being reasonable and realistic.

Chirac's speech was good in its context, because he showed some willingness to compromise, or at least not to veto. And he is right about multilateralism, (or however he put it, in French), at least in principle.

Everybody sees what they want to see, and nobody is seeing the whole picture here. We need the UN to help in Iraq, and today's speeches were a positive step. Much remains to be done.

 

That's where you're wrong- France ain't a crack-ho. France is a heroin addict.

 

Dude, Bush owns Afghanistan, too.

Cocaine?

We got that, too.

 

You can accuse Doctor Jones of many things. I know for a fact that he bangs freshman co-eds a dime a dozen during the 11 p.m. office hours for his "Lord Byron- What He Self-Censored" survey course. And rumor has it he drinks crap beer. But one thing you can't accuse Doctor Jones of is not paying attention to the issues.

 

That's odd, the transcript I read online (they were the prepared remarks) didn't have this eulogy. I'll look for another transcript. I feel a bit better about the speech hearing he did eulogize them.

However, my main problem remains. He wants troops and money from the member nations without giving up any power. This equation does not add up. He could get both by ceding some control to the UN, but he values saving face at home over fixing Iraq.

If Iraq is going to be fixed, and it needs to, it will happen multilaterally. For Iraq to be seen as democratic by its people, the occupation and reconstruction cannot be an all American show. Even Chalabi has started calling the US 'occupiers.' True multilateral assistance will never occur until the US cedes some power to the UN. Not symbolic things like election observing, but real, material participation in the remaking of the country.

 

All this talk of a veto...I must have missed something somewhere. What, exactly, has Chirac said the French won't veto?

Just wondering...

 

The US will simply not pay it's UN dues to the equal amount. Eurosnobs want the US to give up power but not share the costs. Cheapskates as they are.

They started this mess when they cared more about their business interests than about the Iraqi people. Chriac's business dealings with Hussein are well known.

While they complain about unilateralism, let's talk about French unilateral actions in Africa.

 

In context, I think he was speaking about not using the Veto against a US initiative asking for the UN to expand its role in Iraq. He also indicated that France may abstain from voting, if there is not a clear timetable for US withdrawal.

I think it was a huge concession, considering his recent rethoric. I see it as a positive step. Chirac is very shrewd, and he would not do something like this unless he really wants to send a signal.

 

Do you expect our president to make concessions, and put all his cards on the table at the beggining of the negotiations? I thought his speech was brilliant because he didn't do that. Unlike his speech last year, he gave a convincing argument, but left himself an implicit fallout position. (Or so it appeared to me, we shall see how it plays out.) This will be a very delicate negotiating process. The final agreement will have to be a compromise, and it will be negotiated behind the scenes.

It seems that it is in the interest of all sides to reconstruct Iraq and return it to civilian rule. Especially for France, which had lucrative deals with Saddam and is eager to see a new Iraqi government so they can get back in the game. (Something they cannot do while America is in charge). If the US plays its cards right, they will get a favorable deal from the UN.

I think (and hope) that all sides learned from the failed diplomacy of last year. This time it will be easier because it is becoming apparent that all sides, while still having some bad blood, basically want the same thing. Bush needs a stable and independent Iraq for obvious political reasons. France wants a stable and independent Iraq with whom they can do business. Meanwhile, Annan clearly showed that he desperately wants to restore the prestige of the UN, and so he will support an expanded role which restores the agency's relevancy.

Under those circumstances, while it is possible that we may still see some posturing, I believe a favorable deal for the US and for Iraq will be reached.