President Bush’s Foreign Policy Discussion in the 2005 State of the Union Address

Foreign Policy In Focus, October 3, 2005
By John Gershman, Stephen Zunes [source]
The foreign policy segments of President George W. Bush’s February 2 State of the Union address spoke to values and concerns that resonate with the majority of Americans from across the political spectrum. Unfortunately, much of what was said during his speech was quite misleading. Below are excerpts from the speech, followed by a short critical analysis…

A Critique of the Most Misleading Statements in the Foreign Policy Segments of President Bush’s 2005 State of the Union Address

Common Dreams, February 27, 2005, by Stephen Zunes
[source is no longer available]. Also see East Bay Times
The foreign policy segments of President George W. Bush’s February 2 State of the Union address spoke to values and concerns that resonate with the majority of Americans from across the political spectrum. Unfortunately, much of what was said during his speech was quite misleading. Below are excerpts from the speech, followed by a short critical analysis…

Bush Administration Disasters Depicted as Triumphs

By Foreign Policy In Focus, October 29, 2004
By Stephen Zunes [source]
   Even putting aside the many important legal and moral questions about the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq, it has been a disaster even on practical terms. Mainstream to conservative strategic analysts and retired generals–along with the majority of career professionals in the State Department, Defense Department, and CIA–recognize that the invasion and occupation has made America less secure rather than more secure. Still, the Bush administration continues to defend its actions and public opinion polls still show that a majority of Americans trust George W. Bush more than John Kerry to defend America….

President Bush’s UN Speech: Idealistic Rhetoric Disguises Sinister Policies

Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS, September 22, 2004
by Stephen Zunes [source is no longer available]
    Commentators in the mainstream media seem genuinely perplexed over the polite but notably unenthusiastic reception given to President George W. Bush’s September 21 address before the United Nations General Assembly. Why wasn’t a speech that emphasized such high ideals as democracy, the rule of law, and the threat of terrorism better received? The answer may be found through a critical examination of the assumptions underlying the idealistic rhetoric of the U.S. president’s message. Below are a number of examples…

President Bush’s May 24 Speech on Iraq: A Critique

Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes, May 25, 2004
[source is no longer available]
The most striking element of President George W. Bush’s May 24th speech at the Army War College regarding the situation in Iraq was that it could come across as quite convincing as long as you agreed with the following dubious assumptions:
* Only the continued U.S. military presence in Iraq would lead to “the rise of a free and self-governing Iraq.”
* Conversely, if the U.S. forces withdrew, either unilaterally or as part of a transfer to United Nations authority, the result would be a totalitarian government which would “embolden the terrorists, leading to more bombings, more beheadings and more murders of the innocent around the world.”…

Annotate This! Misleading Rhetoric in 2004 State of the Union Address

Foreign Policy In Focus/Institute for Policy Studies,
January 1, 2004
, by Stephen Zunes [source is no longer available]
Tonight, hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and women are deployed across the world in the war on terror… Though no one should question their commitment, their missions of invading and occupying foreign countries and engaging in high altitude bombing and urban counterinsurgency operations that kill civilians, has brought more fear than hope. And it has delivered more violence than justice, and created an unprecedented level of anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world and beyond that has actually made America less secure…

An Annotated Refutation of President George W. Bush’s September 23 Address Before the United Nations

Common Dreams September 24, 2003
by Stephen Zunes [source link’s no longer available]
“Events during the past two years have set before us the clearest of divides: Between those who seek order and those who spread chaos; between those who work for peaceful change and those who adopt the methods of gangsters; between those who honor the rights of man and those who deliberately take the lives of men and women and children, without mercy or shame.” 
This is an ironic statement from a man who defied basic principles of international law and rebuked those who called for peaceful alternatives….

President Bush’s February 26 Speech on the Future of Iraq: A Critique

Common Dreams by Stephen Zunes, March 8, 2003
[source is no longer available]
Considerable attention has been given to President George W. Bush’s February 26 speech before the right-wing American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC outlining his vision of the Middle East in the aftermath of a possible U.S. invasion of Iraq. The speech was broadcast live over national radio and television and given widespread coverage in the print media, yet few critical voices questioning the major points raised in this sanctimonious and highly misleading address were given the opportunity to offer commentary. Below are excerpts of some key portions of the speech followed by some critique…

An Annotated Overview of the Foreign Policy Segments of President George W. Bush’s State of the Union Address

Common Dreams by Stephen Zunes, January 29, 2003  [source no longer available]
The attempt to put Baathist Iraq on par with Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia is ludicrous. Hitler’s Germany was the most powerful industrialized nation in the world when it began its conquests in the late 1930s and Soviet Russia at its height had the world’s largest armed forces and enough nuclear weapons to destroy humankind. Iraq, by contrast, is a poor Third World country that has been under the strictest military and economic embargo in world history for more than a dozen years after having much of its civilian and military infrastructure destroyed in the heaviest bombing in world history. Virtually all that remained of its offensive military capability was subsequently dismantled…