Pundits weigh in on Bush's UN speech - GoFuckYourself.com

dready · 09-22-2004, 08:21 PM

Pundits weigh in on Bush's UN speech

Too much justification for US-led war in Iraq, not enough proposals for help, say critics.
by Matthew Clark | csmonitor.com

Chances are that if you read a few online news reports about Bush's speech at the UN Tuesday, you came across the word "stony-faced" at least once.

For press descriptions of world leaders' reactions to Bush's speech, "stony-faced" seemed to beat out "luke-warm" and "tepid" as the adjective du jour.

Interestingly enough, it was also John Kerry's word of choice.

Hours after Bush's speech, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry accused Bush of failing to "level with the world's leaders" about the Iraq war during his speech. Kerry said that Bush stood at the General Assembly before a "stony-faced body and barely talked about the realities at all of Iraq."
The Boston Globe reports that Bush still faces a "skeptical crowd" at the UN. Like most other papers, the Globe pointed out that the applause during the speech was sparse.

The headline of an editorial in The Independent reads: "Mr. Bush had a chance to ask for help in Iraq, but he chose to preach instead."

The Guardian called Bush's speech "unrepentant" and asserted that it "appeared essentially tailored for a domestic audience rather than foreign consumption." The Guardian quotes Swiss president, Joseph Deiss, as saying: "In hindsight, experience shows that actions taken without a mandate which has been clearly defined in a security council resolution are doomed to failure."

Geov Parrish, a Seattle-based columnist and reporter for Seattle Weekly, writes that "Bush embarrassed America when he went before a stony-faced audience at the United Nations Tuesday and claimed that all was well in Iraq..."

Slate columnist Fred Kaplan criticizes Bush's speech for empty rhetoric.

It was a puzzling speech from start to finish. Near its beginning, when Bush said, "We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace," was there a delegate in the chamber who didn't wonder at the irony? It was Bush himself, after all, who was quick to choose war in Iraq ? insiders' chronicles agree that he decided on that path in early 2002, over a year before the UN debates ? while the vast majority of the body's members, free and unfree, were striving for a resolution short of conflict.

Slate's chief political correspondent William Saletan analyzes Bush and Kerry's campaign rhetoric on Iraq in light of traditional political labels "liberal" and "conservative".

What's hard to imagine is that the candidate who prefers stability is the so-called liberal and the candidate who prefers democracy and "hope" is the so-called conservative. Count the candidates' buzzwords. The word "burden" appeared five times in Kerry's speech [Monday]. The words "idealism" and "ideals" appear six times in Bush's speech [Tuesday].

A Wall Street Journal editorial picks up on this same theme.

As we've noted before, one of the striking trends in recent years has been the complete role reversal of our two major parties in their philosophy of foreign policy, with Republicans pushing idealism and Democrats deriding it as a "neocon" folly. This campaign is shaping up to be no exception.

The New York Times served up criticism of Bush's speech in a Wednesday editorial, lamenting what it seemed to perceive as another missed opportunity to shore up more UN support for Iraq.

Even when he talked about issues of common agreement, like the global fight against AIDS and easing the crushing third-world debt, Mr. Bush seemed more interested in praising his own policies than in assuming the leadership of an international effort. The speech would have drawn cheers at an adoring Republican National Convention, but it seemed to fall flat in a room full of stony-faced world leaders. ...

Mr. Bush might have done better at wooing broader international support if he had spent less time on self-justification and scolding and more on praising the importance of international cooperation and a strengthened United Nations. Instead, his tone-deaf speechwriters achieved a perverse kind of alchemy, transforming a golden opportunity into a lead balloon.

mardigras · 09-22-2004, 09:23 PM

Heh, I was wondering when I watched it if their little translator ear-thingies were broken

titmowse · 09-22-2004, 09:25 PM

un audiences are tough. no loyalty oaths.

uno · 09-22-2004, 09:55 PM

Anyone have a link to the speech? MSN or CNN or CSPAN have it online?

09-22-2004, 08:21 PM	#1
dready Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Toronto, ON Posts: 5,247	Pundits weigh in on Bush's UN speech Pundits weigh in on Bush's UN speech Too much justification for US-led war in Iraq, not enough proposals for help, say critics. by Matthew Clark \| csmonitor.com Chances are that if you read a few online news reports about Bush's speech at the UN Tuesday, you came across the word "stony-faced" at least once. For press descriptions of world leaders' reactions to Bush's speech, "stony-faced" seemed to beat out "luke-warm" and "tepid" as the adjective du jour. Interestingly enough, it was also John Kerry's word of choice. Hours after Bush's speech, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry accused Bush of failing to "level with the world's leaders" about the Iraq war during his speech. Kerry said that Bush stood at the General Assembly before a "stony-faced body and barely talked about the realities at all of Iraq." The Boston Globe reports that Bush still faces a "skeptical crowd" at the UN. Like most other papers, the Globe pointed out that the applause during the speech was sparse. The headline of an editorial in The Independent reads: "Mr. Bush had a chance to ask for help in Iraq, but he chose to preach instead." The Guardian called Bush's speech "unrepentant" and asserted that it "appeared essentially tailored for a domestic audience rather than foreign consumption." The Guardian quotes Swiss president, Joseph Deiss, as saying: "In hindsight, experience shows that actions taken without a mandate which has been clearly defined in a security council resolution are doomed to failure." Geov Parrish, a Seattle-based columnist and reporter for Seattle Weekly, writes that "Bush embarrassed America when he went before a stony-faced audience at the United Nations Tuesday and claimed that all was well in Iraq..." Slate columnist Fred Kaplan criticizes Bush's speech for empty rhetoric. It was a puzzling speech from start to finish. Near its beginning, when Bush said, "We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace," was there a delegate in the chamber who didn't wonder at the irony? It was Bush himself, after all, who was quick to choose war in Iraq ? insiders' chronicles agree that he decided on that path in early 2002, over a year before the UN debates ? while the vast majority of the body's members, free and unfree, were striving for a resolution short of conflict. Slate's chief political correspondent William Saletan analyzes Bush and Kerry's campaign rhetoric on Iraq in light of traditional political labels "liberal" and "conservative". What's hard to imagine is that the candidate who prefers stability is the so-called liberal and the candidate who prefers democracy and "hope" is the so-called conservative. Count the candidates' buzzwords. The word "burden" appeared five times in Kerry's speech [Monday]. The words "idealism" and "ideals" appear six times in Bush's speech [Tuesday]. A Wall Street Journal editorial picks up on this same theme. As we've noted before, one of the striking trends in recent years has been the complete role reversal of our two major parties in their philosophy of foreign policy, with Republicans pushing idealism and Democrats deriding it as a "neocon" folly. This campaign is shaping up to be no exception. The New York Times served up criticism of Bush's speech in a Wednesday editorial, lamenting what it seemed to perceive as another missed opportunity to shore up more UN support for Iraq. Even when he talked about issues of common agreement, like the global fight against AIDS and easing the crushing third-world debt, Mr. Bush seemed more interested in praising his own policies than in assuming the leadership of an international effort. The speech would have drawn cheers at an adoring Republican National Convention, but it seemed to fall flat in a room full of stony-faced world leaders. ... Mr. Bush might have done better at wooing broader international support if he had spent less time on self-justification and scolding and more on praising the importance of international cooperation and a strengthened United Nations. Instead, his tone-deaf speechwriters achieved a perverse kind of alchemy, transforming a golden opportunity into a lead balloon. __________________ ICQ: 91139591

09-22-2004, 09:23 PM	#2
mardigras Bon temps! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: down yonder Posts: 14,194	Heh, I was wondering when I watched it if their little translator ear-thingies were broken __________________ .

09-22-2004, 09:25 PM	#3
titmowse Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: TEXAS Posts: 5,320	un audiences are tough. no loyalty oaths. __________________ I still love everybody

09-22-2004, 09:55 PM	#4
uno RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: NYC Area Posts: 18,450	Anyone have a link to the speech? MSN or CNN or CSPAN have it online? __________________ -uno icq: 111-914 CrazyBabe.com - porn art MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!