|Bush getting slapped||MJ|
Sep 24, 2003 4:36 AM
|the phrase "I told you so" comes to mind - unilateralism is the course the US rabid neo-cons are steering - until Clark is elected and Bush is finally removed - I did like the thread last week which asked what people actually liked about Bush - the fact that almost no one responded with anything positive is very telling
September 24, 2003
Audience Unmoved During Bush's Address at the U.N.
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
NITED NATIONS, Sept. 23 A president who has led his forces to victory, ostensibly on behalf of the United Nations, would in theory deserve a hero's welcome. But that was not what President Bush encountered in an icy chamber here today, almost five months after he declared an end to major hostilities in Iraq.
Without apology, Mr. Bush declared that the Security Council had been "right to demand that Iraq destroy its illegal weapons and prove that it had done so" and "right to vow serious consequences if Iraq refused to comply." The United States, he said, had not only unseated Saddam Hussein but also defended "the credibility of the United Nations."
But that was not how others, from the secretary general of the United Nations to the French president, saw it. The invasion of Iraq, to them, remained a dangerous act of unilateralism now beset by intractable problems.
The audience of world leaders seemed to perceive an American president weakened by plunging approval ratings at home, facing a tough security situation in Iraq where American soldiers are dying every week, and confronted by the beginnings of a revolt against the American timetable for self-rule by several Iraqi leaders installed by the United States.
Nor did they seem eager to help. If anything, they appeared more skeptical than ever of Mr. Bush's assertions, including his promise to "reveal the full extent" of illegal weapons programs he says exist in Iraq, and unforthcoming, at least for now, in their response to his appeal for help with the Iraq occupation and reconstruction.
Despite good marks from many for his performance, Mr. Bush did not seem to have advanced his administration toward broadening support for a Security Council resolution to expand the United Nations role in Iraq, a step intended to get more foreign troops and more foreign money for rebuilding.
"He gave a very sincere speech, but I don't think there was anything new," said a diplomat here. "The situation in Iraq is getting more difficult every day, and so is the atmosphere at the United Nations."
But today it was more obvious than ever that the key to getting troops and money for Iraq was in the hands of nations that, like France, opposed the war or were uneasy about it.
President Jacques Chirac of France, appearing shortly after Mr. Bush at the General Assembly, was no less apologetic opposing the war than Mr. Bush had been in urging it. He called the divisions over the war one of the gravest threats to multilateral institutions like the United Nations in modern times.
There was another grim reality here today. Even if the United States gets the resolution it desires, the money and troops may not be forthcoming in a way that the Bush administration had hoped. If the goal today was to cajole other countries and persuade them to be more forthcoming with their assistance, it failed to produce any immediate results.
A month ago, administration officials said they wanted billions of dollars pledged for Iraq at a meeting of donor nations in Madrid next month. It now appears they will have to settle for a fraction of that, which will complicate efforts to get the rest from Congress.
Increasingly, as well, the nations that have been asked to send forces to Iraq are not coming through. India and Pakistan now seem to be long shots. South Korea says it cannot decide until the end of October.
Turkey is being asked to send 10,000
|Never fear. This failed presidency is||OldEdScott|
Sep 24, 2003 5:56 AM
|living on heavily leveraged borrowed time.|
|This might be a truly stupid question, but...||Kristin|
Sep 24, 2003 6:01 AM
|Isn't there an opportunity for someone to step up and become the hero of this mess? It seems to me--regardles of what anyone thinks about America's choice to wage this war--it is in no ones best interest to abandon Iraq in its current state. Could the UN sideline the US and act on its own to do whatever it deems best to resolve the current situation in Iraq?|
|how does the UN force 130,000 US troops out of iraq?||rufus|
Sep 24, 2003 6:16 AM
|as long as they are there, the US will prevent the UN from doing anything in iraq against our wishes. there's no way the US lets the UN set up one organization, one political body, or talk with any future iraqi leaders about the future of iraq unless they are simply following the US plan. so either the UN submits itself to US will, or what, they fight our troops with their own? that won't be a very good situation.|
|The were and are only 3 choice with Iraq...||PdxMark|
Sep 24, 2003 9:03 AM
|One: Contain Iraq so it's not a threat to us or any neighboring states. That worked since the Gulf War, but GW BuSh rejected this option for the sake of a knee jerk neocon wank.
Two: Many nations come together to share the burden of fighting and, afterwards, rebuilding Iraq. This worked in the Gulf War (well, we mostly fought, but the Japanese & Saudis paid for it), but GW BuSh rejected this multilateral idea for the sake of the knee jerk neocon wank.
Three: The US unilaterally fights Iraq and collapses the political, social and economic framework. Now, either the US can unilaterally work with the mess we created, or we can ask other countries who opposed the ill-considered wank to put tens of thousands of their troops on the ground and spend tens of billions of their dollars (euros) to help clean up our mess.
So, there is an opportunity for others to come in and help the US, but there is no need for them to do it. The US won't abandon Iraq (for awhile), like it has Afgahnistan, and can somewhat afford the costs of rebuilding. GW BuSh made our bed, and other countries are willing to let us sleep in it. If nothing else, it keeps the US from attacking the next country on the neocon wank list.
|Apparently the Prez didn't even have the decency to...||rwbadley|
Sep 24, 2003 6:14 AM
|remain in the chambers to hear the concerns of fellow delegates. He must have had some important fund-raising to attend, I know; but it strikes me as bad form and quite a slap at those you're trying to weedle money and manpower from.|
|He left without giving out the bribes..............nm||MR_GRUMPY|
Sep 24, 2003 7:29 AM
|The Turks are getting their $8 billion ... nm||PdxMark|
Sep 24, 2003 9:04 AM
|re: Bush getting slapped||Spoiler|
Sep 24, 2003 9:20 AM
|Props to the rest of the world. Here's my dilema.
In the big picture, I want the world to do what's right, take a stand, and tell the U.S. "It's your mess, you clean it up." That's the RIGHT thing to do. If the UN countries give in, they're playing the role of "enabler". It will enourage more false wars. Bush will continue to think the purpose of the world is to serve the U.S.
On the other hand, I'm stuck here, as a taxpayer, having to pay the bill for a war I opposed in the first place. Hopefully, there's enough US citizens out there who feel the same way, and will boot Bush out to show how displeased we are with him running up a $90,000,000,000.00 tab for us to pay.
Now Rummy is declaring that $90,000,000,000 is affordable. Affordable to his old corrupt azz, but quite expensive for for most Americans.
|we could afford $90 billion, if we weren't also cutting taxes||PdxMark|
Sep 24, 2003 9:42 AM
|It's the combination, plus other spending choices, that points to reckless and irresponsible fiscal mismanagement. Of course, the $90 billion is an additional $90 billion on top of other costs that are already spent.|
|Common sense and decency.||Jon Billheimer|
Sep 24, 2003 12:57 PM
|There's more common sense and decency on this board than in the totality of U.S. policymakers these days. It's too bad the government no longer represents the people, but the people are saddled with the bills and whatever fallout there is from such policy foolishness. It's also too bad that such stupidity and arrogance has cost thousands of lives--both American and Iraqi.
I sincerely doubt if the U.N. and its member nations are going to bail Bush out on this one. He was simply too arrogant and insulting to the entire organization. Nor has that attitude really changed. He of necessity barely masked his scorn during his recent cameo appearance.
If after the next American election a new administration is voted in the attitude at the U.N. will probably become more conciliatory and co-operative. But if Bush stays in there will have to be some major dining out on crow to obtain any significant international co-operation.
|Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!! You're all WET!! nm||Live Steam|
Sep 24, 2003 5:08 PM
|great comeback - anything substantive? - nm||MJ|
Sep 25, 2003 6:50 AM