Annan Criticizes Bush In Farewell Speech

Outgoing U.N. Secretary-General Delivers Tough Critique Of U.S. Policies

(CBS/AP)  Outgoing U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan offered a tough critique of the Bush administration's policies Monday in his last major speech before he leaves office.

In remarks delivered at the Truman Presidential Museum and Library, the secretary general accused the White House of trying to secure the United States from terrorism in part by dominating other nations through force.

"Human rights and the rule of law are vital to global security and prosperity," Annan said. When the U.S. "appears to abandon its own ideals and objectives, its friends abroad are naturally troubled and confused," he said.

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.

"The secretary general has become more outspoken in the final months of his tenure, giving more seasoned advice on how the U.N. could function more effectively and the responsibility of U.S. participation," said CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk. "And his swan song lecture in Missouri was a serious rebuke of U.S. policy and its role at the U.N."

Annan said that the U.S. has a special responsibility to the world because it continues to have extraordinary power. He also suggested the people of the United States need to be more active in reminding their leaders of what their country should be doing, CBS Radio News correspondent Dan Raviv reports.

Annan summed up five principles that 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 speech repeatedly praised the Truman administration but never mentioned Mr. 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 Mr. Bush.

Annan has had a strained relationship with the 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, making 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?"

[missamerica4]

nynative

Thank you for your service .
My husband served also 29 years and is now retired. Like you he is definitely not pro war nor pacifist. He was opposed to the Iraq war for the very reason we see now. He remembers well his return from Vietnam. He left Vietnam but Vietnam has never left him. He knew the American people are fickle and spoiled with a short attention span.
How long would WWII have lasted if we had this media ? Can you see the headlines ? 2500 Killed on Normandy Beach.

Small world, I was in the Key's during the Cuban Crisis. That is just one reason I am skeptical of the media. I saw the planes land shot up, one with it pilot dead by the time team got to him. NEVER a word in the news. Never a word about the 3000 Cubans we left to die on the beach in the Cuba invasion. I know it happened. I was there. I knew dozens of the men who died. Kennedy was president and the media covered him. Not just on that occasion.
We have a government within a government.

[nynative1340]

missAmerica: You are right about the CIA. Many senior analysts either retired or quit in frustration. The CIA couldn%u2019t infiltrate the middle east; there is something about the culture they don't understand.

Not just the middle east. It was a total surprise to Reagan and the CIA when the USSR collapsed and the Berlin wall came down. The CIA didn't have a clue.

Countries we have supported in the middle east have turned against us. We used Iran to get cheap oil; they deposed the Shah and turned against us. Then we used Iraq to get Iran; that backfired. Ironically, bin Laden used us against the Russians; then he attacked us.

I'm not pro-war, but I'm not a pacifist either, having spent all of the prime years (28) of my life in the military. Our involvement in some wars was necessary: WWI and WWII are the only ones that come to mind. The only other war we won was the Spanish-American war, but we lost Cuba. How different would the Cold War have been if Cuba had been a U.S. possession? I participated in the Cuban Blockade in the '60s.

I recommend these books for doing government research: 'Endless Enemies' by Johathan Kwitny; out of print but can find used at amazon.com. 'The Greatest Story Ever Sold' by Frank Rich; a new best seller. 'The Bushes-Portrait of a Dynasty' by Peter Schweizer. Not a Bush family fan, but interesting reading, plus we share a common ancestor. Bush claims to be related to millions of American, and if you do the math, he is; we all are.

[missamerica4]

nynative
I concur with most of what you wrote.
I think one of the many problems with Iraq/Saddam is that we never really knew what was going on. I don't mean to offend anyone but the whole mid-east culture has been historically deceptive forever. Lying is an art.
Where we have presidents who hold office for 4 or 8 years many countries have leaders (dictators. kings , etc ) who are in power for 20 or 30 years. When they hold power for so many years they have the time to rig government the way they want and anyone who disagrees gets killed.
Our CIA/FBI had been decimated , under funded, it was almost worthless for years. I would like to believe that this was by accident but deep down something tells me it was by design. Various president's took different tracks with the mid-east , none effective. The truth is politics ( the nonny nonny boo boo kind ) is killing this country.
It is one thing to have different opinions but some will sell this whole country down the drain just to be "right".
I don't think we are bullies. Forget the oil. Forget the WMD. I am ashamed we allow people to be starved , murdered by rogue governments. We should have taken care of Saddam 20 years ago.

[nynative1340]

missamerica, I'm floored! Your posts sound like you so fervently support Bush.

I agree that Saddam had WMD. He used chemical warfare against the Kurds, and he used mustard and nerve gases against Iran in the 80s. At the same time, Reagan's diplomats said they were "satisfied" with relations between Iraq and the U.S. and implied that normal diplomatic ties have been restored.

During Reagan's term, Saddam was buying helicopters from U.S firms for use by his military. Reagan authorized the sale. Saddam used these helicopters to attack the Kurds with deadly gasses.

The Reagan administration was heavily supporting Iraq in their war against Iran. At the same time Reagan was selling arms to Iran. Remember Iran-Contra?

In 1984 Rumsfeld knew Saddam was using chemical weapons, and he was in Baghdad when the UN determined that Saddam had used chemicals against Iran. But Rumsfeld said nothing, until the week Iraq invaded Kuwait, six years later.

There is not a shred of hard evidence that Iraq had links to al Qaeda or had resumed building WMD after the Gulf War. No WMD was found by the UN, and none was found in the three plus years we've occupied Iraq.

It%u2019s ironic that we would invade a relatively defenseless country when there are countries that are far more dangerous. The problem is, Iran and N. Korea have the means to fight back and cause a lot of damage, whereas Iraq did not.

So I guess that makes us the bully, willing to pick on the weak, but not the powerful.

[missamerica4]

nynative

I'll give you McKinley. It was before my time.

[missamerica4]

nynative:
"Your hatred of the two-party system is so intense that it blinds your senses."

I have no idea where you get that from. I am a registered Dem and voted for Clinton the first time not the second time. There are many things that Bush is for that I am against. I voted for Kennedy but not Carter. I did vote for Bush because I don't like Gore.
I am no sheep for either party, or person. I do extensive research on things that interest me, one being government.
I believe that Saddam was intending to rebuild his nukes and I do believe he would be a threat if allowed to continue if no other way to sell or pass WMD to terrorist. The UN believed Saddamn had WMD. They passed 18 resolutions over about 20 years saying that Saddamn had to stop killing his people and stop building WMD's. He didn't.
I love my Country, and it's 2 party system even though I don't quite fit into either party.

[nynative1340]

Spanish-American War - Ummmm, McKinley was a REPUBLICAN! At this point, missamerica, you lose credibility.

WW I - Germany's policy of sinking passenger ships with Americans on board dragged the U.S. into that war. Actually Wilson was reluctant to enter the was and called a "coward" by T. Roosevelt (a REPUBLICAN).

WWII - This is a no-brainer. We were attacked.

N. Korea - War was never declared. Truman sent troops when N. Korean troops invaded the south.

Vietnam - Actually it was Eisenhower (a REPUBLICAN) who first sent "advisors" to Vietnam. Kennedy continued that policy, based on Eisenhower's recommendation. Johnson declared war based on a lie. We lost that war and look how much better off the Vietnamese are now than when we first got into it.

Iraq - Another war based on a lie. Bush had ulterior motives for invading Iraq; WMD and terrorists were definitely not his initial motives.

I'm open to ideas that might lead to victory against religious fundamentalists in Iraq. But, h*ell, we can't even control the religious fundamentalists in this country. Anyone who doesn't agree with their religious beliefs is a target.

[nynative1340]

missamerica, you missed again. Your hatred of the two-party system is so intense that it blinds your senses.

You said: "There have been over 90 terrorist attacks, most all UNANSWERED. That's why it shocked everyone when Bush had the b*lls to answer."

NOT ONE, ZIP, NADA, ZILCH terrorist was from Iraq!! They were from Saudia Arabia (our "friend"), Egypt (our "friend"), and Lebanon. In fact, U.S. $$s funded bin Laden. I don't recall any of the "terrorists" being from Iraq. Of course there are a lot of them in Iraq now.

Another point of fact: If Bush was so intent on "getting" terrorists, tell me why he let thousands of them get away in Tora Bora? You should be able to find an answer to that on the internet.

Another point of fact: We can't fight terrorists with conventional warfare. Terrorists don't have a nation that we can drop a "Little Boy" or "Fat Man" on, nor do they have large cities that we can flatten like those in Germany. Shock therapy doesn't work with terrorists.

I agree that Saddam deserved to be taken out. But what about N. Korea's Kim? Iran's president?

Your party doesn't have a monopoly on corruption; nor does it have monopoly on Christian values and virtue. Men are men and power corrupts. I don't think women would be much better at the job, considering there are female Clintons and Doles waiting in line to grab the power.

[missamerica4]

huskerarmy
"And yet he allowed the inspectors to do their jobs and didn't feel compelled to fabricate evidence of nuclear arms to justify an invasion. "

Guess you didn't read those sites I listed. You can read ? Right?
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 say's exactly what you say did not happen. Saddam did fabricate
and hide evidence, and did not allow inspectors, He threw them out.

[missamerica4]

nynative
" It was Washington who said the United States "...should avoid becoming involved in foreign wars."

Spanish-American War (1898%u20131902)McKinley
World War I (1917%u20131918)Wilson
World War II (1940%u20131945) Roosevelt
Korean War (1950%u20131953) Truman
Vietnam War (1964%u20131975) Johnson

Well, that's 5 Demo Presidents that didn't take the advice.
Neither did Bush 1Gulf War (1990%u20131991)
That means Dems have sarted 5 times as many wars as Repubs.

NY : "where were the b*alls when Bush 41 kicked Saddam out of Kuwait? Why didn't he take Saddam down then?"

I am sure you know that the UN Security Council resolution did NOT allow us to go into Iraq, it only allowed us to chase Saddam out of Kuwait.

NY: where were the b*alls when the terrorists bombed the Marine barracks in Beirut and killed almost 250

There have been over 90 terrorist attacks, most all UNANSWERED. That's why it shocked everyone when Bush had the b*lls to answer.

[huskerarmy]

Who said:
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. "

And yet he allowed the inspectors to do their jobs and didn't feel compelled to fabricate evidence of nuclear arms to justify an invasion. I think we have long memories... and clear memories.

[huskerarmy]

jason_plo,

Did yo throw bigoted in there for good measure or out of a sense of guilt? Perhaps the reason we don't obsess over Clinton any longer, much to the chagrin of GOPers, is that 1. It's been six years since he was in office and 2. You crammed it down the public's throat so long we are sick of hearing it. Did you notice that your GOPers got their collective arses handed to them last month? Apparently not...

[nynative1340]

missamerica said "You can all kick and scream all you want about Bush, but you are the ones who will pay."

As I recall, my "share" of the national debt when Clinton left office was "zero." My share, your share, and every other man, woman, and child's share is approaching $50,000.

I think we all will be paying for a very long time.

Surf the net and tell me what you find out about that!

I don't particularly like Clinton, I didn't vote for him, and I have no opinion of his liaison with "that woman" except that it was embarassing to the nation. But it didn't have a personal effect on my; not even close to the effect that Bush's national debt has on me, and everyone else.

Plus, Bush is an embarassment to the nation.

[huskerarmy]

"What makes America great are it's individuals"

Yes processor, we've heard you before. Individuals make America great just as long as they look like, act like and think like you... support the war in Iraq, vote republican, make a decent living and attend church on Sundays.

[nynative1340]

If you want to "nit pick" around the internet you can "pick and choose" what you want publish here. If you want to go back in time, you could go all the way back to that other George W.--Washington, that is. It was Washington who said the United States "...should avoid becoming involved in foreign wars."

If you want to discuss b*alls, where were the b*alls when Bush 41 kicked Saddam out of Kuwait? Why didn't he take Saddam down then? He had far more reason then than his renegade son had in 2003.

If you want to discuss b*alls, where were the b*alls when the terrorists bombed the Marine barracks in Beirut and killed almost 250 of our finest warriors?

If you want to discuss b*alls, we've had a Republican administration for all but eight of the last 25 years. So why are we in such a freakin' mess? Don't tell me Clinton scre*wed it all up in only eight years! He had republican congress most of those eight years.

If you take time to "nit pick the internet" I'm sure you can come up with all the answers you need.

[Jasonian18]

ie hair color doesn't change or grow that fast

[Jasonian18]

missAmerica4 i say cheers and encore to your accurate assessment on Bill Clinton as for scandals and his liberation act also the Cheney situation with the hunting accident shouldn't even be compared to that of the lying bigoted Bill Clinton when it comes to scandals with his cheating on his wife that whole scandal but that doesn't get brought up much anymore does it? after all clinton does represent all the aspects of a 'good' democrat if there is such a thing in a slideshow that was shown it showed the many faces of clinton some of which being him going to a homosexual convention with a full head of black hair then one week later another at a retirement home with a load of grey hairs sounds two faced to me

[missamerica4]

Oct 31, 1998 President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act.
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
Bill Clinton

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm

"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government. "

You can all kick and scream all you want about Bush, but you are the ones who will pay.
When Bill was Pres, you all supported his assessment of Iraq. Unfortunately Bill lacked the balls to really knock Saddam out so now we are where we are.

[missamerica4]

You guy's have such short memories...
Who said :
"If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/clinton_12-16.html

Who said:
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. "

[nynative1340]

The oil-for-food scandle is probably the Teapot Dome scandal of today. Only surpassed by the Bush Administration scandal of lying to promote his own self interests.

Just remember: What Clinton did to "that woman" is nothing compared to what George W. Bush is doing to all of us.

Bush's greated fear now is that he will go into the history books as a BIG FAILURE!! Well, it's too freaking late George. You should have thought of that the day you took office, and every day since.

You've failed as president just as you have failed in every business venture you ever attempted. But instead of your rich family friends losing, the entire country is losing, and we will be re-paying your DEBT for years to come.

Your daddy's friends bailed you out once, but I don't think they will succeed this time. However, for the sake of the country, I hope you listen to them and heed their advice.