Just before the G-8 Summit in Scotland, US President George W. Bush retakes, in an interview with the Times of London, the controversial issues of his policy. Personalizing the topics, he defends his stinginess regarding assistance to Africa and praises the alliances established to reform African economies and encourage development in those countries. It is the classical justification of economic imperialism disguised as development assistance. The United States could have good reasons to reject the Kyoto Protocol, although he does not specify which, and research would allow improving everything. However, George W. Bush admits that, in the future, we will have to be less dependent on fossil fuels - a pragmatic approach rather than ecological taking into account the situation of non renewable energy resources and the conflicts being planned by Washington. Regarding Iran, he defends himself for damaging the negotiations of the Europeans and affirms that he is working with London, Berlin and Paris to stop the Iranian nuclear program, accusing Tehran of wanting to destroy Israel. Finally, as to Iraq, he retakes the main ideas of his speech in Fort Bragg, which we analyze today in our Focus section.
This interview, done by indulgent journalists working for Ruppert Murdoch, is another opportunity to praise the very close ties between the United States and the United Kingdom strengthened by the friendship between the current occupant of the White House and Tony Blair.
However, this friendship is increasingly embarrassing for the British Prime Minister. Referring to George W. Bush’s speech on June 28th, the former British Minister of Foreign Affairs, Robin Cook, says in The Guardian that the US president denies the real problems of Iraq although he recognizes the merit of talking about the issue to his people, unlike Tony Blair, who only speaks about Iraq to help his ally in the White House. The author criticizes the docility of the British Prime Minister: it is a policy that makes no contribution to the country and one that is no useful for Tony Blair not even in the United States due to Bush’s unpopularity. Robin Cook, close to the Democrats, focuses on the personal ties between Blair and Bush without questioning the US-British “privileged relationship.”

Currently, only 39% of the American people supports the commitment of their country in Iraq. Trying to remedy the situation, the US president gave a speech in Fort Bragg in an attempt to bring faith back to his people regarding the Iraqi colonial adventure. But it was in vain and today he is severely criticized by editorialists. Paradoxically, the objections show the unity of the elites in Washington. In effect, although the management of the Bush Administration’s occupation is criticized, they do not question the US good will or the legitimacy of the invasion. In the mainstream media, the democratization of the “Great Middle East” or the struggle against the “jihadists”, are ever-present topics as the real motives of the conquest. They have forgotten the weapons of mass destruction, while the plunder of energy resources is rarely mentioned. The criticisms only aim at the tactics or the speech style.
The day before the presidential speech, Democrat Senator for the state of Massachusetts and former presidential candidate John F. Kerry, presented in the New York Times and in the International Herald Tribune the speech he would have given if he had been elected. In that speech he retakes the main guidelines of the strategy of the withdrawal from Iraq that he had defended during his electoral campaign: internationalization of the conflict, progressive “Iraqization” of the country’s security forces and setting up a schedule for the withdrawal of the US troops. This withdrawal from Iraq is very important for John Kerry as he has new objectives.
Also in the New York Times, but after the speech of the President, CIA former analyst Kenneth M. Pollack believes that the Bush Administration must take its time to train Iraqi troops. The most urgent objective is conquering “the hearts and spirits” of the population to isolate the resistance. For that, it is necessary to improve the people’s living conditions but also to buy the support of the Sunni leaders through corruption. It is also necessary to rebuild the oil infrastructure. This idea of mobilizing part of the population against the Iraqi resistance is also included in an article by NED/CIA journalist Larry Diamond, in Los Angeles Times. The author believes that the support of the Iraqis must be won by improving their living conditions, integrating them to the political process and also through alliances with some tribal leaders; Pollack’s idea of corruption is not far. Finally, he asks that the United Nations serves as a mediator in a direct dialogue with the resistance.

As to the speech itself, Los Angeles Times gives the floor to former writers of official speeches: hawk and former writer of George W. Bush’s speeches, David Frum, and the former writer of the speeches of Robert McNamara, who had published the Pentagon Papers in 1971, Daniel Ellsberg.
For the neo-conservative, the policy in Iraq is good, but badly explained. It is necessary to show more optimism and to show the victories of the Coalition. What worries Frum is the increasing confusion of the Americans as the current colonial adventure in Iraq could dissuade them from attacking Syria and Iran. Thus, he calls for a rapid offensive against these “hostile regimes”. On the contrary, for repentant Daniel Ellsberg, the speech of George W. Bush can not convince as it is only a repetition of the arguments that serve Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon to hide the failures of Viet Nam. The propaganda is the same and the failure of the United States will be similar, he warns.