UN-Bush America

As I headed off to lunch today, two thoughts remained prominently in my head after hearing the Bush address to the UN. One, 'man, was Annan's speech a thousand times better, or what?' and Two, 'does Bush have any connection to reality, . . .did I just hear him give about the same speech he gave last year this time (still connecting Iraq to Afghanistan and the efforts of post-9-11, and in this, still insisting the strong terror ties with Baghdad and the weapon stash that Hussein's was just itching to give to Osama...'
So that second thought's a long one, and shared by many. You know them when you see them- by now, we've pulled out all our hair in frustration at Bush's refusal even to acknowledge any change in rhetoric regarding the reasons for war. if you repeat the weapons and terror ties enough, you'll convince us. Happily, this machiavellian theory is prooving false, with the help of price tags, and once all Americans are bald, we'll have the sense to make this next one at least a close election.
I'm glad to see another shares my view that this speech was cut and pasted from last year's. (read fred kaplan's piece- more eloquent than the above)

The speech seemed cobbled from the catchphrases of last year’s playbook, as if Bush were trying to replicate the success of his previous appearance before the General Assembly — his September 2002 speech, which roused the Security Council to warn Saddam Hussein of “serious consequences” — without showing the slightest recognition that the old words have grown stale and sour.

Bush dredged out the familiar formula — weapons of mass destruction plus terrorism equals the enemy in Iraq — forgetting, or perhaps not caring, that it didn’t persuade the United Nations back in November, when Saddam was still in power, and couldn’t hope to win backers now.

He described the guerrilla war, still ongoing, as a battle against “terrorists and holdouts of the previous regime” — ignoring a recent finding of the U.S. intelligence community that the main, and most rapidly growing, threat these days comes from ordinary Iraqis, resentful of the occupation.

He laid out the context of the battle as a contest between “those who work for peaceful change and those who adopt the methods of gangsters.” Yet it is hard to see how Bush’s pre-emptive-war doctrine fits the former category, and it’s painful to observe that many Iraqis would say the U.S. occupation — whose soldiers have pounded down so many doors in the middle of the night — fits the latter.

He acknowledged no mistakes, either in the intelligence that preceded the war or in the planning (or lack thereof) that followed it.

Update:
And here's Josh "ole reliable" Marshall on a similar theme. Catch the entire article in the Hill.

Indulge me in a pop culture reference.

Remember that big tin robot in those early-‘60s sci-fi films? Remember how at the end of every movie there’d come a point where the hero would outwit the robot or set him on some problem he couldn’t solve and the robot would slip into a feedback loop and smoke would start coming out of his ears?

The White House is the robot.

How else to explain President Bush’s defiant speech to the U.N. General Assembly and all the recent zigs and zags about bringing in the United Nations?

Humility, Bush is not thy name.