Okay, so one thing in Bush's speech to the UN did surprise me (my emphasis):
Events during the past two years have set before us the clearest of divides: between those who seek order and those who spread chaos; between those who work for peaceful change and those who adopt the methods of gangsters; between those who honor the rights of man and those who deliberately take the lives of men and women and children without mercy or shame.
For a domestic Republican audience, that's just boilerplate. But it's surprising he would use it for a world audience very suspicious of his own Administration's commitment to world order and international law. With all the publicity about continuing civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, and reports of chaotic conditions in Iraq especially, it was certainly an awkward choice of words.
As Glenn Kessler notes in the Washington Post:
But in two speeches that bracketed the president's address, Annan and French President Jacques Chirac suggested that it is the administration's doctrine of "preemption" -- the promise to strike against emerging threats -- that threatens to spread chaos across the globe. Both men bluntly said that the Bush administration is undermining the collective security arrangements that have governed the world since World War II. ...
Annan said that reserving "the right to act unilaterally or in ad hoc coalitions . . . represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years. My concern is that if it were to be adopted, it would set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force with or without justification."
Not one of Bush's more impressive performances.
6 comments:
Dear Bruce, I look forward to the day when you include one positive story about President Bush and his administration on your website. (As I've said before, I'm a patient man.) In the meantime, twenty-four million Iraqis at least can have hope for the long-term, since they won't have a never-ending dynasty of terrorist dictators to rule over them (despite the best efforts of the French and Germans). David
David, glad you're patient on these things. :) We'll see if Bush and Rummy and Viceroy Jerry Bremer come up with a credible plan for transitioning to a free government. But I don't think we can say that because France and Germany don't want to donate troops and money to a war that the people in both countries oppose, that they are trying to install a terrorist dictator. And, by the way, when do we get to see David Kay's report on WMDs? - Bruce
Dear Bruce, I'm sure Germany will eventually make a positive contribution to the reconstruction of Iraq, in fact I think Schroeder has already said as much. The French are too full of pride to be of any use though. My comment regarding French and German support to the Saddam Hussein regime applied to the period before the invasion, when for example the French shared top secret intelligence regarding US intentions with Iraq. (part one)
Do you mean the late David Kelly's report on Iraqi WMDs? Testimony at the Hutton Inquiry has already made clear that he did support the government dossier on Iraq, including the forty-five minute claim for short-range WMDs. He did believe the dossier overstated the case for Iraqi possession of WMDs somewhat, but not by much. (part two) David
David - No, I mean the Iraq Survey Group headed by David Kay, the latest American team looking for WMDs. There have been conflicing reports about when (and even if) they will issue the promised report. They don't seem to have found much. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3135932.stm Bruce
Dear Bruce, Sorry I've probably been too focused on Hutton, I'd not heard of the David Kay group. I'll certainly look forward to hearing their report on Iraqi WMDs, they should have enough evidence to make at least some interim conclusions now. Hutton finishes taking oral testimony this week, I don't know when the Inquiry's conclusiions will be published. David
Post a Comment