Video: Bush addresses the UN Update: Bush toasts Kofi
posted at 2:32 pm on September 19, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
One of his very best, I think, and as always, it’s even better on paper. The problem is, you have to suspend two levels of disbelief: first, that most Muslims will choose liberalism when given the choice, and second, that the Bush administration is capable of helping them make that choice and making it stick. Can’t say that I much believe either anymore.
Still, a nice speech. Highlights follow.
Meanwhile, Kofi’s suddenly realized that financial transparency ethics might apply to him, too.
Update: Repulsive. And yeah, that’s Vicente Fox at Bush’s table.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Just watch the toast video and thought it was too bad the others in the audience didn’t have as much class and diplomacy as Bush — what did two people clap afterwards?
BrunoMitchell on September 19, 2006 at 3:15 PM
I think Bush had his fingers crossed.
A lot of the UN’s problems aren’t helped by the arrogance of Kofi Annan and his disdain for
western countriesthe USA.Hoodlumman on September 19, 2006 at 3:21 PM
I was a bit shocked at the Presidents toast to Kofi. Have we forgotten his mis-deeds and blue helmet failures ? His anti-American rhetoric? His nepotist thievery? It might be diplomatic class, why he toasted Annan, but the audience just might have been a bit shocked as well.
I felt a bit insulted and angry myself.
shooter on September 19, 2006 at 3:29 PM
Making that toast is why I would fail dismally as a politician. W is a better (mannered) man than I, Gunga Din.
Retread on September 19, 2006 at 3:31 PM
I agree, one of Bush’s best speeches. Forceful, direct and to the point.
However I take issue with this one little sentence:
Huh? As if the Israelis are the ‘occupying force’ bad guys?
C’mon Mr. President, ya gotta proofread your speeches.
speed647 on September 19, 2006 at 3:41 PM
Well, it’s hard to clap with a glass in your hand.
mikeyboss on September 19, 2006 at 3:46 PM
It’s also hard to clap when you have one hand in the till.
bbz123 on September 19, 2006 at 4:33 PM
the U.N should be remnamed the D.N. - Divided Nations, especially if Hugo Chavez gets his way & his country is elected to the Security Council
Starblazer on September 19, 2006 at 4:43 PM
While I too, was a bit shocked at the speech, I guess he was trying to be a diplomat, something those in the crowd obviously aren’t. Mikey, ever been to a wedding? People take their sip after the toast and then clap. The dips should have done the same thing.
Catie96706 on September 19, 2006 at 5:30 PM
I see him again only to be explained as ‘misunderestimated’, in the likes of RWR. But as I watched this speech, the truth sort of saddened my heart. The people he to which he was talking most probably will never hear his words with the meaning of his heart.
This prez will be in the history book like The Gipper..IMHO.
And yes, the UN is a joke. The only thing that eminent domain would be good for right now is to take the UN and turn it over to Trump, kick out the diplomats, and immediately stop the funding of these terrorist nations…yes there are quite a few on our payroll (ever heard of humanitarian aid???)
lsutiger on September 20, 2006 at 12:25 AM
He should’ve said “The missiles have just been launched.” Then a video feed shows the Iranian and Orth Korean nuke plants being destroyed, then the big black square rock in mecca blown to pieces about small enough to throw at tanks. Also the terror training camps in Somalia. Then say “I hearby decomission this building and it’s former mission, the U.N. Anybody who represents a terrorist supporting nation is under arrest. I hearby recomission this building and it’s mission the “Freedom Alliance”, to be lead by The U.S. Any nation wanting to join must have an elected govt, must fight terrorism, foriegn and domestic, must allow freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, freedom of the press, a free market capitalist economy, and equal rights for women and minorities. If this describes your nation, or if your nation is working toward these goals, you may stay, and we will help you reach these goals. We will enjoy free trade and global commerse. All others (who were not arrested) may leave and return to the third world shit hole you crawled out of. May God bless America, and the Freedom Alliance.”
Too bad the room would empty.
Tony737 on September 20, 2006 at 8:28 AM
While it’s true that politicians may sometimes have to engage in a small hypocrisy, it is up to statesmen to shape opinion through their articulation of a consistent message to the public.
The President can’t advocate for liberty, democracy, and security from Iranian WMDs in the morning and then toast Kofi in the afternoon. The content of the toast makes the listener suspect that the UN speech was just words, unsupported by firm conviction or any threat of consequences to the Iranians or other jihadis.
MarcH on September 20, 2006 at 9:56 AM
I’d hope that the toast was GWB’s way of comparing the potential of a UN Sec-General’s role with the actual crappy record of this particular holder of the office. Annan will retire soon and the politicking goes on for his replacement.
Tony737 — I like the idea of the US getting out of the UN and forming a new organization of democratic nations — by invitation only.
And I do like, at least in pure symbolism, the idea of making a UN speech of that sort while showing the end of the nuke facilities in NK and Iran.
However, the following goes too far:
F. Rottles on September 20, 2006 at 2:52 PM
I don’t get the “He’s a good man” part of the toast.
A more honest toast would have been: “He had a difficult job”
Didn’t Bush say Clinton was a ‘good man’ at the Clinton White House portrait unveiling?
I guess it depends on what the meaning of ‘good man’ is.
It might be Texas lingo for screw-up.
entagor on September 20, 2006 at 8:02 PM