Bush's UN Speech

President Bush speaks at the U.N. General Assembly in New York, September 19, 2006. (Ray Stubblebine/Reuters)


Quick analysis: President Bush's address to the UN General Assembly was great.

He said exactly what needed to be said.

Speaking directly to the people of Middle Eastern countries was genius.

Transcript

From The New York Times:

President Bush appealed today to the people of Iran to take control of their future and said their leaders were squandering resources in a quest for nuclear weapons, but he hastened to add that the United States was pursuing a diplomatic solution to the crisis over Iran.

In a 21-minute speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Mr. Bush directly addressed the people of a number of Middle Eastern countries, saying the United States wanted to support democratic reforms, defeat extremism and convince them it was not acting against Islam.

Bush spoke the truth.

“To the people of Iran,” Mr. Bush said. “The United States respects you. We respect your country. We admire your rich history, your vibrant culture and your many contributions to civilization.”

“You deserve an opportunity to determine your own future, an economy that rewards your intelligence and your talents, and a society that allows you to fulfill your tremendous potential,” Mr. Bush said. “The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation’s resources to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons.”

Again, all true.

...“Iran must abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions,” Mr. Bush said. “Despite what the regime tells you, we have no objection to Iran’s pursuit of a truly peaceful nuclear power program.”

This statement has a lot of wiggle room.

It's the U.S. position that Iran is NOT pursuing a nuclear power program. It's pursing nuclear weapons.

The U.S. isn't against a peaceful Iran. It's against an Iran led by a nutjob who vows to destroy Israel.

As he spoke, members of the Iranian delegation in the hall watched and listened without expression, at least in the scenes that were broadcast on live television.

It wasn't just the Iranian delegation that sat stone-faced as Bush spoke.

Every Middle Eastern delegation that was shown on TV looked expressionless, to me. I suppose nodding in agreement with Bush could mean being beheaded is in one's future.

“We’re working toward a diplomatic solution to this crisis,” Mr. Bush said. “And as we do, we look to the day when you can live in freedom, and America and Iran can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace.”

The president’s vision of a close partnership with Iran was an optimistic one, given the anti-American sentiment that has smoldered among the people of Iran since Washington embraced the dictatorial Shah Reza Pahlavi during the cold war. Mr. Bush spoke, as he often has, of his belief in the power of freedom to transform lives and regions, and to heal old wounds between nations.

“As liberty flourishes, nations grow in tolerance and hope and peace,” he said.

As usual, liberals in America aren't optimistic.

The Dems don't believe in the power of freedom in the Middle East.

...He urged Middle Eastern countries to develop democratic measures, and he highlighted recent elections, although limited, in several countries including the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Bahrain.

“We must stand with democratic leaders and moderate reformers across the broader Middle East,” Mr. Bush said. Acknowledging that political freedom is limited in some Middle Eastern countries, including allies of the United States, he said, “Every nation that travels the road to freedom moves at a different pace, and the democracies they build will reflect their own culture and traditions.”

The Dems aren't able to grasp this truth either.

He also revisited the recent conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, saying that Lebanese civilians had been caught in a “crossfire” of a war started by Hezbollah.

In remarks that reaffirmed his administration’s policies, Mr. Bush applauded the elections and new government in Iraq and the “purple-ink-stained fingers” of the voters who installed it, while promising to defend Afghanistan against a resurgent Taliban. The president’s reaffirmation of his Iraq strategy came shortly after the top United States commander in the Middle East, Gen. John Abizaid, said that sectarian violence makes it unlikely that American troop strength in Iraq can be trimmed before mid-2007.

Mr. Bush also chided the government of Syria, which he said has turned a proud country into “a crossroad for terrorism” and “a tool of Iran,” thus deepening Syria’s isolation from the world.

With respect to Darfur, Mr. Bush urged Sudanese leaders to approve a peacekeeping force there to end what his administration has called genocide.

Mr. Bush announced that Andrew S. Natsios, a former United States Agency for International Development administrator, would serve as a new envoy for the Darfur region.

Hear that, George Clooney?

Hear that, Russ Feingold?

The Left heaps praise on them for being advocates for action in Darfur. What great humanitarians!

When Colin Powell was Bush's Secretary of State, he called it genocide and appealed to the UN to act. The Bush administration has long been concerned about the situation. Does the President get credit?

Of course not. The Leftists criticize the President for not taking action to quell the genocide in Darfur.

Do they condemn the United Nations with the same vitriol that they direct at President Bush?

No.

The Leftists need to take notice. Today the President spoke to the United Nations, the organization that refuses to use the term "genocide" regarding Darfur.

Bush wasn't afraid to call the crisis what it is. He challenged the United Nations on its failure to address the human rights violations.

Bush, supposedly the worst terrorist in the world, is UNILATERALLY doing something to help.

The UN, on the other hand, is still arguing over the definition of "genocide." And in the meantime, people are being killed in Darfur.

In short, the UN is not the great hope that the Left and John Kerry and those of his ilk claim it to be, not even close.

This morning, before his speech, Mr. Bush met with President Jacques Chirac of France about Iran. “We believe time is of the essence,” Mr. Bush said, seated next to Mr. Chirac. “Now is the time for the Iranians to come to the table.” Mr. Bush looked a trifle stiff, but he made no mention of Mr. Chirac’s shift on position on Monday, in which the French leader said that talks with Iran might not have to wait for that country to cease uranium enrichment.

Did anyone really expect Chirac to be trustworthy?

Once again, France appeases hostile regimes.

...Iran, however, has said it will not suspend uranium enrichment. And Mr. Bush said flatly on Friday that he would not meet with Mr. Ahmadinejad at the United Nations — or anywhere else — if the Iranian leader did not first comply with his demands.

Aides to Mr. Bush bristled Monday at the notion that they were trying to avoid a chance run-in between Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Bush in the United Nations hallways. Contending that they were giving no extra attention to the possible walking route of the Iranian delegation or the Iranian leader’s bathroom schedule, they said that to do so would only help to elevate the stature of a man they would rather diminish.

The only ones claiming that great pains are being taken to avoid a chance meeting between Ahmadinejad and Bush are goofs like those at The New York Times.

How silly! How typical of the lib media!

I can just imagine how The Times will report on the charming Ahmadinejad's upcoming speech.

Stay tuned...