A British take on Bush's "performance."

[BurtWorm]

Divided they stand

Leader
Wednesday September 24, 2003
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1048409,00.html

Olive branches were in short supply as Mr Bush, eschewing any genuine effort at consensus-building, resurrected his old black and white view of a planet devoid of neutral ground and divided between civilised and uncivilised. He spoke anew of rogue states and the fear of terror weapons falling into terrorist hands. Eyeballing the assembly, he warned that the terrorists, whom as usual he did not name or number or define, "should have no friend in this chamber". And again he made clear that other considerations, political, diplomatic or otherwise, would be subordinated to this overriding obsession.

Some Americans may find reassurance in this robustly simplistic analysis. But the rest of the world will look on uneasily, as before. Mr Bush had an opportunity yesterday to build bridges - and chose instead to burnish his self-image as the square-jawed, undaunted Captain Marvel of the fight against evil. It was thus an opportunity lost.

Mr Bush's performance provided a glimpse not of an improving world order, but of the probable central theme of his coming re-election campaign. For despite the venue, the president was speaking primarily to a domestic audience, increasingly sceptical of his leadership. The problems of Iraq were glossed over. Instead, he presented a long, over-rosy list of achievements. The pressing US need for foreign funds and troops was not mentioned. Instead, Mr Bush spoke of Iraq's potential to inspire a democratic Middle East. He offered an expanded but still secondary role for the UN; but nothing in terms of an accelerated return of sovereignty to the Iraqi people

Perhaps Mr Bush truly believes this mixture of self-congratulation and hectoring menace will induce "nations of goodwill" to back him, as he demanded. But few will share that verdict; and refusing to admit one's mistakes is never a good way to get other people to do what one wants. In this and other respects, what a contrast was presented by Kofi Annan, the UN's secretary-general.

[roughsatori]

1. Thanks for posting that,

It is a more accurate account of AWOL-Chimp's speech then that so far in the USA corporatist media.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Well well Bush will not play

well in the world stage and increasingly he is failing
to convince even a domestic audience.

[cliss]

3. It's obvious

these guys have a long way to go before they show any humility. Instead, they are showing they don't need the UN. They don't really want help. They are certainly not asking for it.

They know they won't get it. And they obviously aren't too upset about it. They even cleared out before Chirac had a chance to speak. Does this seem like "hat in hand", "desperate" "help me" to you?

They must know something we don't. They must have worked out a backroom deal with some countries, to supply the US with troops. They've certainly done enough bribing.

Wonder if they feel we can hold out indefinitely, without anybody else's help, and with the US footing the bill all by ourselves?

[ronzo]

4. What a statesman...

He's inept. I'm ashamed to have him as my leader.

[w13rd0]

5. I take it...

...he didn't find the speech compelling...

[grasswire]

6. here's my take

They don't want any help from the U.N. They don't want any strings or partners.

And so the speech was meant simply to make Americans THINK George was asking for assistance. That's why it seemed so unnatural and disjointed. That's why he didn't specifically ask for anything.

It didn't really matter what he would say. The news would pick up a few sound bites; Americans would think he did what he could.

Mission accomplished.

[scarletwoman]

7. A well-written analysis,

This is so true:

His {Kofi Annan} sparse, careful words were marinated in wisdom, his thoughts elucidated by years of hard-won experience, setbacks, undiminished hope and true, not feigned compassion. Mr Annan was calm, balanced, rational, sharp - and utterly convincing.

<snip>

Here was a real, not a pretend leader; an international statesman, not a comic strip character reading from a script. Mr Annan lacks the sheer, brute power of an American president. But he showed how truth can spike a million guns.

sw

edit: Ooops, I meant this to be a reply to the lead post in this thread, not to post #6. Oh well...

[BurtWorm]

8. I was extremely impressed by Annan's speech yesterday as well

particularly his critique of of the doctrine of pre-emption that not only chastised the US for holding it and endangering the security of all nations for doing so, but also sought to understand why "the US" would feel a need to devise such a policy. He was too kind, in a sense. I noticed that Chirac made the exact same point. They suceeded--though I trust this wasn't their aim--in making the world's greatest empire look puny and pathetic. As though Bush didn't do that all by himself.

[cliss]

9. Grasswire, thanks for the post

I thought I was the only one who thinks that this is a charade; Bush asking for help. He really doesn't want it.

Everybody else thinks he's going to the UN with 'hat in hand'. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[neebob]

10. Square-jawed, undaunted Captain Marvel?

I thought he looked like a nervous, thumb-twiddling, vacuous twit. I'm still trying to figure out what sex slavery and tourism have to do with Iraq. Everything else he said sounded like projecting. Maybe he's the square-jawed, undaunted Captain Marvel of hypocrisy.

[BurtWorm]

12. That thumb-twiddling was driving me crazy.

That awful sound of the Bush thumbs tapping nervously on the podium, giving away his impatience with the task before him, and his contempt for it all.

[VOX]

11. Thanks for posting this, BurtWorm...

Yes it was indeed a "robustly simplistic analysis," but there's not a mote of reassurance in it for this American...