Kofi Annan to Deliver Harsh Criticism of Bush in Speech
Monday , December 11, 2006


Outgoing U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan plans to offer a blistering criticism of the Bush administration's foreign policy in a farewell speech Monday to a crowd in Independence, Mo.

A copy of the speech obtained by FOX News, shows Annan is expected to accuse the U.S. administration of committing human rights abuses in the name of fighting terrorism, and of taking military action without broad international support.

Respect for human rights and the rule of law can be advanced only "if America remains true to its principles, including in the struggle against terrorism," the speech says. "When it appears to abandon its own ideals and objectives, its friends abroad are naturally troubled and confused."

When "military force is used, the world at large will consider it legitimate only when convinced that it is being used for the right purpose … in accordance with broadly accepted norms," the speech says in reference to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Annan is expected to deliver the speech at the presidential library of Harry S. Truman, who was in office when the United Nations was founded.

The speech contrasts Truman's support for the United Nations with many Bush administration policies.

"The lesson here is that high-sounding doctrines like the 'responsibility to protect' will remain pure rhetoric unless and until those with the power to intervene effectively – by exerting political, economic or, in the last resort, military muscle – are prepared to take the lead," the speech quotes Truman as saying.

Annan, who leaves the United Nations on Dec. 31 after 10 years as secretary-general, has become an increasingly vocal critic of the war in Iraq.

He said in the text the U.S. has a special responsibility to the world because it continues to have extraordinary power.

Annan summed up five principles he considers essential: collective responsibility, global solidarity, rule of law, mutual accountability and multilateralism.

He chose the Truman museum for his final major speech in part because it is dedicated to a president who was instrumental in the founding of the United Nations. His text repeatedly praised the Harry Truman administration but never mentioned Bush by name.

"As President Truman said, 'The responsibility of the great states is to serve and not dominate the peoples of the world,"' Annan said.

"He believed strongly that henceforth security must be collective and indivisible. That was why, for instance, that he insisted when faced with aggression by North Korea against the South in 1950, on bringing the issue to the United Nations," Annan said.

"Against such threats as these, no nation can make itself secure by seeking supremacy over all others."

Annan also called for a reform of the Security Council, saying its membership "still reflects the reality of 1945." He suggested adding new members to represent parts of the world with less of a voice.

He said the permanent members, the world powers, "must accept the special responsibility that comes with their privilege."

"The Security Council is not just another stage on which to act out national interests," he said in another jab at Bush.

Annan has had a strained relationship with the Bush administration and with outgoing U.S. Ambassador John Bolton.

He was criticized by some in the administration and in Iraq after saying earlier this month that the level of violence in Iraq is much worse than that of Lebanon's civil war and that some Iraqis believe their lives were better under Saddam Hussein.

He also has urged the international community to help rebuild Iraq, saying he was not sure Iraq could accomplish it alone.

Bolton also is leaving this month. He resigned in the wake of the November elections, which gave Democrats control over the next Congress and made his Senate confirmation unlikely.

After a private dinner Tuesday night at the White House for Annan, Bolton joked that "nobody sang 'Kumbaya."'

Told at the time of Bolton's comment, Annan laughed and asked: "But does he know how to sing it?"

The Associated Press contributed to this report

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235827,00.html


Sure, blame President Bush and the United States. Don't bring up North Korea, Kofi. Don't slam Hezbollah for starting a war with Israel. And God forbid, don't slam Iran for defying the U.N. Security Council. Nope, play the blame America game.


Hey Kofi - Don't the the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Because we are so above criticism

A-FUCKING-MEN

but not as much as others are immune to recieving it

Exactly.

Take this excerpt, for example -

"The Security Council is not just another stage on which to act out national interests," he said in another jab at Bush.

Earth to Annan...EVERY country acts on behalf of its own national interests, not just the United States.

I won't bother going into the parade of failed resolutions passed under his leadership. Not to mention the failed "resolution" to the Israel / Hezbollah war this past summer. Hezbollah has yet to be disarmed and the soldiers who were kidnapped have yet to be returned. Way to go, Kofi.

Somehow I missed the "harsh" criticism. Which part is "harsh"?

Pointing out the obvious is mean.

Reality has a known liberal bias.

I can't imagine what Bush has done to deserve criticism from the UN. It seems almost unfathomable.

Um, Foxnews.com said it was a jab at Bush.



foxnews.com again.

Again, any criticism of policies pursued by the Bush Administration is considered by the administration to be a PERSONAL criticism of Bush the man, and often of America itself.

Never mind if some other country tried the exact same things. The Bush Administration would certainly not be defending another country's rights to do those things, so it certainly ain't based on principles.


L'etat est moi!

Q: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations ... where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.


A: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.


Q: By definition.


A: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.


Q: So, that in other words ... the point is: just the dividing line, is that in fact, the dividing line is the president's judgment?


A: Yes, and the dividing line and, just so that one does not get the impression, that a president can run amok in this country and get away with it, we have to have in mind that a president has to come up before the electorate. We also have to have in mind, that a president has to get appropriations from the Congress. We have to have in mind, for example, that as far as the CIA's covert operations are concerned, as far as the FBI's covert operations are concerned, through the years, they have been disclosed on a very, very limited basis to trusted members of Congress. I don't know whether it can be done today or not.


Q: Pulling some of our discussions together, as it were; ... you stated, quote, "It's quite obvious that there are certain inherently government activities, which, if undertaken by the sovereign in protection of the interests of the nation's security are lawful, but which if undertaken by private persons, are not." What, at root, did you have in mind there?


A: Well, what I, at root I had in mind I think was perhaps much better stated by Lincoln during the War between the States. Lincoln said, and I think I can remember the quote almost exactly, he said, "Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional, could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the Constitution and the Nation."

Now that's the kind of action I'm referring to. Of course in Lincoln's case it was the survival of the Union in wartime, it's the defense of the nation and, who knows, perhaps the survival of the nation.


Q: But there was no comparison was there, between the situation you faced and the situation Lincoln faced, for instance?


A: This nation was torn apart in an ideological way ... as much as the Civil War tore apart the nation when Lincoln was president. Now it's true that we didn't have the North and the South—


Q: But when you said, ... you know, "If the president orders it, that makes it legal", as it were: Is the president in that sense—is there anything in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that suggests the president is that far of a sovereign, that far above the law?


A: No, there isn't. There's nothing specific that the Constitution contemplates in that respect. I haven't read every word, every jot and every title, but I do know this: That it has been, however, argued that as far as a president is concerned, that in war time, a president does have certain extraordinary powers which would make acts that would otherwise be unlawful, lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the nation and the Constitution, which is essential for the rights we're all talking about.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sound familiar?

Um, so did MSNBC -

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16153753/
Their headline - "In Final Speech, Annan Scolds Bush Administration"


Watch "Countdown With Keith Olbermann" tonight. You don't have to be Nostradamus to know that he will highlight the speech as a repudiation of the President's foreign policy.

And yet no criticism is aimed at other entities, such as Syria, Iran or North Korea. This is the point - the "it's all America's fault" mentality.

The sky is blue.
The ocean is deep.
Bush is a bad president.


Bush bashing is old and tired. It's become nothing more than false bravado, committed by those who are afraid to publicly condemn the Hamas's and Ahmadinejad's of the world. See how brave I am! I condemn the leader of the most powerful nation! Of course condemning certain other people actively working to destabilize the world might lead to suicide bombings in your shopping malls. So let's just stick to Bush.

The United States should be a ROLE MODEL to other nations in the world. If we have no respect for the UN or other countries, why should Syria or North Korea?

THAT is the criticism. The US deserves to be criticized for that because we are in the unique position as the world's only superpower. If we want to be respected, we must show respect AND lead by example. This "might makes right" attitude of the current administration will set back international relations decades.

I would say he is 100% correct.

Well said.

Also, people are quick to forget that, for example, after the Tsunami hit towards the end of 2005, the US military was immediately dispached areas that were hit the hardest to offer assistance. This followed an enormous amount of money personally donated by the American people, as well as large amounts of financial assistance from the US government.
Wait, I forgot...America is acting with evil hubris and is looking to impose its sinister will on the rest of the World. Sorry, back to the bashing.

So in both of your opinions if someone doesn't agree with a facet of foreign policy they in turn hate an entire country? Sorry folks, we are not above criticism.

No, I just think that bashing Bush is the cowardly thing to do. It's doing something about the problems in the world, without actually having to do anything about the problems in the world. It's kinda like giving a homeless guy a dollar and thinking that you have helped eradicate poverty. It's easy to attack the bad people in the world who pose no personal threat to you, like Bush. Attacking an evil person who does pose a threat, that takes courage. Something lacking in the UN over Mr. Annan's time there.