Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

wooahh there. Don't get angry. Controversial title I know, but the content isn't. In fairness one cn blame the British just as much but I learnt the other day that the whole situation over the UN and the infamous 'second resolution' can possibly be all be explained away by something Bush said in his original address to the General Assembly.

Essentially, according to British diplomatic sources anyway, when all this was first building up, Tony Blair did his best to steer Bush along the UN route. True I might be placing British influence above its tsation because of personal bias here, but basically it was Briitsh pressure that got Bush to do that speech and request the course of action that followed.

But here's the thing right. Apparently, Britain was not sure until the night before the speech whether Bush was gonna make the resolution requests. According to British diploamts it was a real eleventh hour thing that he agreed.

There were apparently lots of speeches written beofre the one that was going to be used was decided upon. But then something happened. There was a slight mix-up with the teleprompter that Bush was using in the General Assembly, somehow the wrong speech got displayed. By wrong here I mean it was missing a couple of crucial lines that said something along the lines of:

'We will seek the necessary resolution in the Security Council to achieve this'

So apparently, Bush, knowing that he had agreed on this, and being a public speaker (albeit not the best one its true) had to adlib at the right moment to slip it in. As a result of the adlib he said 'resolutions' instead of 'resolution' and this is being seen as the key point at which France got the idea that there had to be a second resolution.

So yeah, its not really Bush's fault as such. Many variables caused the cock-up in fairness. But if its true, it amazing how a single 's' can do so much damage to international relation generally.

I read this in the Daily Telegraph btw, don't have a link though.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Playa d'en London
Posts: 9826

oh, for an articulate president. can we swap bush for clinton?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35670

That is like choosing death by cheesegrater or death by buggery.

There has to be a third way!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Playa d'en London
Posts: 9826

bring back jimmy carter !! and let him help resolve the dispute over northern cyprus.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15003

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phil
Apparently, Britain was not sure until the night before the speech whether Bush was gonna make the resolution requests.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2451

quote:

---

Originally posted by urbanjunkie
oh, for an articulate president. can we swap bush for clinton?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Playa d'en London
Posts: 9826

spoilsport

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 3063

quote:

---

Originally posted by skalie
I read the other day on a "subversive" site that Shannon aparently got 90 minutes warning before the bombing kicked off five days ago and Blair got 20 minutes.

This statement was accompanied by the comment that Israel wasn't even in the "Coalition of the willing".

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged