Tonight's Speech vis-a-vis UN Member Countries

[DisgustipatedinCA]

I'm wondering if the administration already has behind-the-scenes deals with France, Germany, Russia to get them to sign on to a UN resolution. Or will he (god forbid) try to make a persuasive speech to sway the member countries to his side?

The latter is the conventional view, but can you really imagine Rove and company depending on Bush* to perform statecraft without a predetermined outcome? If he fails to be persuasive, as we can all see in our minds' eye, is this designed to triangulate and pit US public opinion against the UN?

I can't feature the Bushies ever ceding control of Iraq to the UN, so I'm guessing that either Rove wants the UN to turn Bush away for some reason I haven't yet fathomed, or he already has deals inked to placate various member states.

Your thoughts?

[FloridaPat]

1. Everyone seems to think that if the idiot comes out and

explains to the public that it's going to cost a lot and take a long time, everyone will be happy and we can go on the to the country to attack.I think we should be in the street screaming for everyone's impeachment, but then what do I know! It will be a media propaganda event. He'll loie, most Americans will believe him, his rating will go up, and he'll get his $60 billion without a scream form anyone.

The Bushies can't give anyone else control of Iraq until they have the country sold to US corporations with a legitimant government. Which is why I think they want the UN in there. Once the puppet government is validated, they can moan about how they need money quick and start selling the oil fields.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

2. But what guarantee do they have that the UN will go along?

With no REAL concessions being hinted at, do you think this vote will get through the Security Council unscathed? Surely Bush (or whoever thinks for him) knows better. Which is why I'm wondering what they have up their sleeve.

[DemBones DemBones]

3. What do they have up their sleeves? These days,

I'm guessing sweaty armpits. At least I hope there's plenty of sweat and tears being shed because of this mess, considering all the blood that's been shed in Iraq in this misguided adventure.

[MGKrebs]

4. I see 2 possibilities;

The first (highly unlikely): Bush* comes out hat in hand, asking for help. saying we cannot do this alone, whatever the UN wants is OK.

The second; He comes out trying to push responsibility for the safety and stability of the free world onto the shoulders of the UN (or France/Germany/Russia), that we must have their support but under our conditions. The UN, of course, will not do this, so the neocons will then get to say that they tried, but the UN didn't step up to the plate, therefore we have to do it alone, and in order to afford it, we have to "temporarily" do away with Social Security, Medicare, and Welfare.

We (the US) are walking a treacherous path. This could be a very important moment as far as the future direction of us and the world. There have already been several of these moments in the past couple of years: 9/11 of course, the Iraq attack (and all that went along with it vis a vis the ignoring of international law and the repudiation of diplomatic relations) which most of us will feel the effects of for the next 30 years -and the relatives of those who have died in this fiasco will feel forever, the Patriot Act, and the massive tax-cut-during-a-massive deficit.

These neocons are playing with fire and I think one would have to have a pretty twisted sense of "success" to see a good way out by following their strategy.

[LittleApple81]

5. I see your second alternative as more of a possibility. n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

6. But they're already at the cusp of the event horizon

This speech is of course a backdrop for November '04. Bozo somehow has to not only justify money for Iraq in the midst of an economic/jobs meltdown that's largely a result of his theft of the treasury, he also needs to somehow turn opinion around so that he can get close enough in the polls to steal another election.

So I don't think that a "temporary" suspension or reduction in SS, Medicare, or welfare would serve his (re)election interests.

Whatever the case may be, you can bet Rove's already on his fourth Twinkie and fifth Dr. Pepper of the morning, working it.

This isn't yet checkmate, but the Boy King is running for the corner without much cover, and events are encroaching more every day.

[kclown]

7. * is not a member of the Republican Party,

he is a member of the George Bush Party.  He has stiffed the
Republicans a few times already and I don't think he will
hesitate to do it again tonight.

I think he will renounce PNAC, and I continue to entertain the
possibility that he'll fire Rumsfeld & Co. tonite.

He will respond to the crisis in the ME the same way he has to
any crisis in his life; he'll run away.  Rove figures to use
the next 14 months making everyone forget Iraq.

[disgruntella]

8. i'd place a bet on that second one

By invoking U.N. involvement and "reponsibility" in this speech, he can potentially pacify some Americans who don't like how things are going in Iraq (but who also don't have a clue about the "big picture", or who have very short memories of the Bush administration's stance toward the U.N.)

And then when the U.N. does not accept responsibility for Bush's own mess, the anti-U.N. sentiment is free to blaze again.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

9. The implication of your statement

Your statement implies that they are planning on a quagmire in Iraq, that they just want to be able to shift blame and not actually address any real problems. Sadly, you're probably right.

[disgruntella]

10. well - not quite that pessimistic

I didn't really intend my post to imply that Bush et. al. *planned* a quagmire in Iraq -- more like they aren't yet ready to admit that their plans are a dismal failure. So pointing fingers might let them stay in denial longer. Hopefully not much longer!

(edit - spelling)