Choose a different title name

[ThatHawaiiGuy]

What the papers [had to] say

Press reaction to George Bush's speech at the United Nations general assembly

Wednesday September 24, 2003

Fred Kaplan, Slate
"Has an American president ever delivered such a bafflingly impertinent speech before the general assembly as the one George W Bush gave this morning?
Here were the world's foreign ministers and heads of state, anxiously awaiting some sign of an American concession to realism-even the sketchiest outline of a plan to share not just the burden but the power of postwar occupation in Iraq. And Bush gave them nothing, in some ways less than nothing. Bush to World: Drop Dead!

Steven R Weisman, New York Times
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 sceptical than ever of Mr Bush's assertions. Audience Unmoved During Bush's Address at the UN

Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay, Los Angeles Times
There has been much talk in recent weeks about President Bush's apparent determination to change course in Iraq. Exhibit One is his decision, reiterated in Tuesday's speech to the United Nations, to seek a new UN resolution encouraging other countries to contribute troops and money to the Iraq reconstruction effort. The White House, it appears, has finally recognised that it cannot succeed on its own in Iraq. The President's Thorny Olive Branch

Libération
France and the US have to try and reach a compromise, however difficult. Even the most hawkish voices in the Pentagon understand that Washington can't run postwar Iraq on its own, especially a few months before the beginning of the presidential race. For its part, France needs to stop itself being perceived as the enemy of the world's only superpower

But this time, each country has set the bar too high. The timetable France wants for the transfer of power to Iraqis, six to nine months, is far less than Bosnia or Kosovo needed. ... With the two countries so far apart, the UN risks only being able to agree on a vague resolution which would make very little difference on the ground. A difficult but inescapable compromise

Le Figaro
Jacques Chirac has been blowing hot and cold ever since he arrived in New York. On the one hand, he has come out with plenty of soothing words about the importance of Franco-American unity.... On the other, he has staked out his position on Iraq: willing to help them get out of the morass they have got themselves into, but very critical of how they want to do it.

Chirac seems determined to help the US - but from a distance. There's no question of sending French troops at the moment, but only helping (along with Germany) to train police and soldiers in Iraq. In short, France wants to act as an outside consultant - involved, but not fully engaged." Helping America - but from a distance

The Daily Star (Lebanon)
US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld has accused critics of Bush's policies in Iraq of encouraging terrorists. In actuality, it is American aimlessness that offers succour to its enemies by creating the impression that for all its might, the superpower is a very confused beast. Countries like France and Germany do not want America to fail, but nor do they want to be part of a disaster that they rightly see as being perfectly preventable. Their involvement might come with a heavy political price tag, but their continuing estrangement will be even more expensive. Bush can only stall for so long before Iraqi quagmire drags him down

Amir Taheri, Gulf News
The only justification for involving the UN (in Iraq) may have to do with American domestic politics. Bush may want to be in a position to tell his electorate that the UN is now on board in Iraq.

And this is precisely why France, Germany and a few others, who do not wish to see Bush re-elected, are determined to push the price so high as to make it impossible for Washington to accept without losing control of the situation in Iraq. The message that Paris and Berlin wish to convey is this: Bush and his "neo-cons" created a mess, now we enter to save Iraq from destruction! Using international precedents to find a system that suits Iraq

Daily Nation, Kenya
The appeal (for help on Iraq) is mainly financial and technical and, therefore, is aimed especially at Japan (and) the European Union, especially Germany and France.

But the last two were the very same states which Mr Bush treated with such arrogance when they disagreed with his methods. You would, therefore, expect the US leader to come to them like a chastened man.

But not Mr Bush. He is still demanding that the UN do it strictly under US terms. Yet the mess is America's own. If it wants the international community to mop it up for him, he should ask for it with at least some studied humbleness. Should he not, in fact, hand over everything to the UN? Let the UN heed Bush plea

Jyoti Malhotra, The Indian Express,
The lion's roar in the unipolar jungle gave way today to a conciliatory acknowledgement of other voices in the forest, as US President George W Bush virtually accepted an expanded role for the United Nations in Iraq. On the back foot, Bush seeks UN help, offers room

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1048822,00.html


What other US Media had to say:

Joe Sixpack, Faux news,
Bush did good job. We like Bush. Bush good. French and Germans very bad, no like Bush. Bush popular, look at pole. UN not help enough.

Remember Bush good, rest of world bad bad bad. Bush no lie, only slight fib to rile you up so sacrifice of son or daughter not seem so bad.

Fred Slaboatnick, SeeBS
It is incredible to this reporter that the UN wouldn't jump at the chance to reconcile with the US and send as many troops as our valiant President asks for, after our astounding success in Iraq. How any in the UN can justify not putting troops and money under our sole control is mystifying especially after all that honest, forthright testimony before the UN done so well by Collin Powell.

The world seems so out of touch with reality sometimes. Everything we have reported thus far is verified and true, especially about the WMDs and those bio-chemical trailers that turned out to be hydrogen stations for weather balloons...with evidence like that in our favor coupled with the complete military victory it in outrageous that the UN is dragging it's feet...


Ann ChikenHaak, Contains No News,
911, Iraq, Pipelinestan, these are all good reasons for the Patriot act. As shown by the UN's continued skeptical attitude toward what has got to be the greatest American President of our time,the world has become a very dangerous place and we should all live in fear of terrorists. The only thing that could possibly save you from this threat now is giving up all of your civil liberties and putting all trust and faith in the US government, since it's obvious that if as the great man said before "if you are not with us you are against us."

Since the UN has become uncooperative, it's time to call your congressman and urge them to pass Ashcroft's Patriot ActII....