Once again, GW was right

[Ought Six]

Obama has been forced to abandon a number of his ideas, break campaign promises and adopt wholesale policies of George Bush's that Barry ripped him for during his campaign. Reality has a way of doing that. It turns out that Bush was right far more often than our Community Organizer in Chief.

So there is one thing that the media and left seem quite silent on. One of the major goals of invading Iraq was to plant democracy right in the heart of the Arab world. The idea was that the example of an Arab democracy would inspire the people in other Arab and Muslim nations to demand change. Well, here we are. It apparently worked. There have been growing democracy movements in Muslim nations. Bush's administration strongly pressured the governments of these nations not to crush these movements, allowing them to become an established part of the political landscape. The food price crisis finally provided the needed spark, and now democracy is flowering from the seeds GW helped plant.

The left and media roundly ridiculed the idea that this could happen in Muslim world. They attacked the Iraq invasion plan as a neocon plot to take over and steal the oil from Arab nations. They insisted that the war would only instill hatred for democracy in Muslims, and that Muslims did not want democracy anyways. They were wrong, and Bush was right. The proof is all over the Middle East, which is changing before our eyes. Democracy is now an inseparable part of the Muslim political paradigm in a way it never was before. It is now only a matter of time before regimes like Iran, Libya and Syria fall to their own democracy movements.

What will be amusing now is to watch the rhetorical contortions of the left in desperately casting about for explanations why Bush deserves not one tiny speck of credit for the fact that his plan is actually working. This oughta be good. :)

[Xaito]

how about we wait and look what kind of people will end on the top of those "democracy movements".

[Snoshi]

LOL! You got to be kidding me! Bush maybe wanted a "democracy" in ME.. By that he meant puppets who would follow orders.. The thing is that most of the ME have dictators who were put there by USA.. This goes for Egypt.. I doubt that Bush wanted Mubarak gone or any other leader who is loyal to the USA.

Also, the Arabs quite certainly dont want a "democracy" like Iraq, if you can even call it a democracy..

[Mackie]

So there is one thing that the media and left seem quite silent on. One of the major goals of invading Iraq was to plant democracy right in the heart of the Arab world. The idea was that the example of an Arab democracy would inspire the people in other Arab and Muslim nations to demand change. Well, here we are.

Good luck in Saudi Arabia.

[Raptus_regaliter]

So Bush is responsible for the rampant inflation and sh1t economies of the Arab world? Because that is what is causing the uprisings in N. Africa and the ME now.

[Ought Six]

We cannot control what form of democracy the people will choose, as we saw with the Palis electing Hamas suicide-bombing terrorists as their leaders. But there is no question that one of Bush's stated goals in the Iraq invasion was to bring democracy to the Middle East. There is also no question that Bush's administration tried to restrain Middle East dictators from crushing their democratic opposition, at least in public. These things are a matter of record. So are we to conclude that Arabs seeing other Arabs electing their own leaders successfully had no effect on the Muslim view of democracy as a 'western ideological poison'? Remember the pictures of the huge turnout of Iraqis who voted at the risk of their very lives, proudly holding up their purple ink-dipped fingers? Are we to believe these powerful images had *no effect whatsoever* on the Arab worldview?

[Albatross]

uhmm....you do realize that these aren't pro-American riots.

[Snoshi]

We cannot control what form of democracy the people will choose, as we saw with the Palis electing Hamas suicide-bombing terrorists as their leaders.
I agree


But there is no question that one of Bush's stated goals in the Iraq invasion was to bring democracy to the Middle East.
Thats an excuse.. Or did we forget about the WMDs? Or the hole "Iraq supports Al-Qaida?"



There is also no question that Bush's administration tried to restrain Middle East dictators from crushing their democratic opposition, at least in public.
And where did it work? Saudis crushed everyone who was against them, Pakistanis did the same, Egypt did the same.. etc



These things are a matter of record. So are we to conclude that Arabs seeing other Arabs electing their own leaders successfully had no effect on the Muslim view of democracy as a 'western ideological poison'?
Exactly. Arans did not elect "their" leaders in Iraq.. Iraq is not a democracy.


Remember the pictures of the huge turnout of Iraqis who voted at the risk of their very lives, proudly holding up their purple ink-dipped fingers? Are we to believe these powerful images had *no effect whatsoever* on the Arab worldview?

Nope.. Because everyone knew what happened before the "democracy kicked in" and then what type of a "democracy" followed..


All the protests in the ME can be summed up with one simple phrase.. "Its economy stupid".

[Breakfast in Vegas]

uhmm....you do realize that these aren't pro-American riots.Well maybe he did stir something up.

In any case, these revolutions are more Zuckerberg than Bush, if any American personality be remotely attributed to them at all.
All the protests in the ME can be summed up with one simple phrase.. "Its economy stupid".It is, however although the use of technology and media factor involved is not unique, it is however perhaps unique in the overthrow of ME dictatorships.

If they haven't done so already, governments around the world are feverishly trying to figure out how to shut down social networking etc. tech... i.e. inventing "the kill switch". Iran first and foremost.

[California Joe]

The trouble with actual democracy and "free elections" in those countries, is that the people invariably pick leaders that hate us.

[Snoshi]

The trouble with actual democracy and "free elections" in those countries, is that the people invariably pick leaders that hate us.

But didn't you hear? Bush was so altruistic that he did not care what side the people would choose! :D

[tobigforyou]

how about we wait and look what kind of people will end on the top of those "democracy movements".

YES! exactly!

Borrowing from another user's post(kamaz (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/member.php?32630-kamaz)):


Like all tools, democracy is defined by its users. Give a gun to a maniac and he will shoot up a store. Give it to a responsible man, and he will use it guard his home. The difference is not in the gun, but in the values of the wielder. Offering democracy to the Muslim world will not reform it. Its tyrannies are not the problem, but a symptom of the problem. If the Muslim world were truly ready to reform, it would have already reformed itself by now. And all the Soros front groups and US and EU funded grass roots organizations won't change that. Their 0.001 percent of angry college students will provide the impetus and legitimacy for what will turn into an Islamist takeover. That's democracy for you.


The American system makes it very difficult for even democratic elections to undo Constitutional rights. But the Constitution of the Muslim world is the Koran. And it can only be temporarily repressed, not undone. It is always waiting around the corner, promising an answer to everything. The Koran is not that old by the standards of Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism or Hinduism-- but it is still far older than Arab nationalism. It is younger than the tribes and the families, but older than their collective memory. The Koran with its narrative of tribalism in the service of Islam defines the Muslim, as much as the 4th of July with its narrative of armed independence against government authority defines the American. In times of turmoil, it is to Mohammed, and the Koran's narrative of him as a religious visionary fighting against a corrupt leadership, that the Muslim turns to. Is it the model that is embedded in his culture and will always be there in his politics.

[seraosha]

The trouble with actual democracy and "free elections" in those countries, is that the people invariably pick leaders that hate us.

They don't hate us, they hate our government...didn't you get the memo?

[California Joe]

They hate us for our Freeeeeeeeeeeedom.

[SmoothieX12]

The left are pricks but W and his lunatic vision of "democracy" in the ME--is a neocon invention through and through. And sure, Iraq was about democracy--we all know that really well/sarcasm.

[tobigforyou]

They hate us for our Freeeeeeeeeeeedom.

Joe, I know you are smarter than that.

[seraosha]

I thought they hate our government because of their evil policies, and it was all fixed now that we are out of Iraq, Quantinimo is shutdown, A'Stan is all but closed for business and all god's chilluns' gots shoes, 'cuz dat Obamaman said so!



Oh wait.

Yep, I miss George W. Bush...looking forward to voting for him a third time in 2012.

[Ought Six]

Again, those images of Iraqis holding up their purple ink-dipped fingers, and the massive 90% turnout in Afghan elections did not go unnoticed in the Muslim world. The protests were not triggered by anything Bush did, but he did plant the seed of democracy and try to nourish it. Whether it turns out to be good or bad, to claim he deserves not even a tiny scrap of credit for this desire for democracy in the Arab (and the rest of the Mulsim) world would be idiotic, IMO.

[California Joe]

Frankly, most of the middle east has had a hardon for us since well before the first Gulf War. I do think there was a certain well meaning naivety behind W's thinking. But once you turn loose the people you can't herd them in the direction you want them to go.

[beNder]

george bush can walk on water and turn water into wine

[Ought Six]

CJ:
"Frankly, most of the middle east has had a hardon for us since well before the first Gulf War. I do think there was a certain well meaning naivety behind W's thinking. But once you turn loose the people you can't herd them in the direction you want them to go. "They are a bit insane, but they also want a better lifestyle and their own brand of liberty and self-determination. The Egyptians have a serious entrepreneurial bent to their culture. They are and have historically always been excellent businessmen. If true open markets are introduced in Egypt, I think there will be an explosion of commerce. They will still hate the Evil Juice, and believe the most asshatted conspiracy theories, but the fundamental change that will take place will start to move them into the 21 century. Enlightenment will take a long time, but this would be a big step forward.

[Ought Six]

b:
"george bush can walk on water and turn water into wine"beNder can only offer empty sarcasm. It is the best he can ever muster. Pity him.

[seraosha]

george bush can walk on water and turn water into wine

I thought that was his replacement.

[beNder]

b:beNder can only offer empty sarcasm. It is the best he can ever muster. Pity him.

I pity you if you believe that tripe that you penned in the OP. Hopefully you just copy paste from a neocon right wing blog.

[LineDoggie]

Just my opinion, but I dont think all these protests are wonderful arabs suddenly embracing democracy because of Bush 43. The Muslim Brotherhood isnt exactly the Rotary Club. Time may tell who the big players are, hopefully they are not radical fundies.

[Kilgor]

Again, those images of Iraqis holding up their purple ink-dipped fingers, and the massive 90% turnout in Afghan elections did not go unnoticed in the Muslim world. The protests were not triggered by anything Bush did, but he did plant the seed of democracy and try to nourish it. Whether it turns out to be good or bad, to claim he deserves not even a tiny scrap of credit for this desire for democracy in the Arab (and the rest of the Mulsim) world would be idiotic, IMO.

Only a madman would think this makes the Iraq war "worth it", with the thousands of allied soldiers dead and hundreds of billions wasted.

[beNder]

Just my opinion, but I dont think all these protests are wonderful arabs suddenly embracing democracy because of Bush 43. The Muslim Brotherhood isnt exactly the Rotary Club. Time may tell who the big players are, hopefully they are not radical fundies.

^ this

yup, I say we let the dust settle first and hope that peace and stability will thrive in the ME. Long shot, like in playing Russian Roulette with five of six rounds in the cylinder.

[Kit]

Just my opinion, but I dont think all these protests are wonderful arabs suddenly embracing democracy because of Bush 43. The Muslim Brotherhood isnt exactly the Rotary Club. Time may tell who the big players are, hopefully they are not radical fundies.

The Muslim Brotherhood is iffy. In the past they supported terror, but in recent years they have been relatively peaceful. Egypt has been one of the more stable Arab states so there is some credibility with that claim.

Hopefully a democracy will emerge. Everyone is fearing an Iran 2.0, but there is no figurehead that the public is rallying around, not even an ideology. They just want Mubarak out. I have this optimistic vibe coming from Egypt. The Egyptians are much more different than the Saudis. The Egyptians know they can coexist with Israel peacefully and the Egyptians are not afraid of foreigners since they have a booming tourist industry. I think Egypt has a very good shot at democracy. Hopefully the people won't buy into any crazy ideas that fanatics will push.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Democracy is only a process. We still have to deal with whatever/whomever winds up in control. But the process is important.

It makes the wholesale destruction of stuff and killing of people much more palatable, if we know for sure that they've signed on and fully support their leadership. No more of this "oh the poor conscripts are forced to fight" etc. No, they will have asked for the bitter taste of the lash. So bring forth the democratic governments - it will make dealing with them more straightforward.

All that remains in Egypt is for an Islamic movement willing to bust some heads to swoop in co-opt the revolution the way they did in Iran. One minute it's all "yay freedom!!" and the next minute it's "cover your ankles you whore!!". I can hardly wait to see what happens.

[Ought Six]

Ld:
"Just my opinion, but I dont think all these protests are wonderful arabs suddenly embracing democracy because of Bush 43."I did not say that he gets *all* the credit.
----------
"The Muslim Brotherhood isnt exactly the Rotary Club. Time may tell who the big players are, hopefully they are not radical fundies."The radical fundies *will* be a big player, no question. But in the end I think that they will be balanced out by other factions, just as the religious right is in America.

[Ought Six]

b:
"I pity you if you believe that tripe that you penned in the OP. Hopefully you just copy paste from a neocon right wing blog."It is purely my own opinion, but I think it will not be long before others bring it up as well. Just the fact that it makes lefties like you piss blood makes it well worth posting. ;)

[Kitsune]

@Ought Six:

It's a bit premature to assume that the present revolution in Egypt will lead to a democratic movement. The obvious counterexample in the Muslim (albeit Shiit) world would be the Iranian revolution of 1979 - it began in a pretty similiar fashion. And if we leave the Muslim world, we find that quite a few revolutions, although begun with a cry for freedom, justice, equality and other nice things, ended in bloodshed and ultimately in dictatorship. The most notorious examples for this would be the French Revolution of 1789 and the Russian Revolution(s) of 1917.

The "Bush was right" argument can be countered yet on another basis: America has always supported the dictator Mubarak, as it had supported the Shah of Persia. Bush did this in the same way as Obama did it after him. With a certain amount of justification: Mubarak may have opressed his people (not that he was the worst dictator in history), but under him Egypt made peace with Israel.

However, among the common people of the country, Israel is by no means popular, so the peaceful relation with the Jewish State might indeed become a victim, should the present revolution be successful. The result may be a considerable worsening of the Near East crisis and once again one could ask: "Was Bush really right?" In any case, the thing he and his advisors were most certainly wrong about, was the assumption that there would be a simple solution to the problems of the Near and Middle East.

[armored_diplomacy]

Ought Six
One of the major goals of invading Iraq was to plant democracy right in the heart of the Arab world

According to that, the way to plant a new idea in a complicated place is by military invading it, setting a new and inspiring example to be emulated by others in a matter of time. Where the death toll and damages a sort of "necessary evil" for that, just to see if it works? I really don´t see the bright side of that as you do, nor do I share your views of GWB as an altruist guy who can´t sleep at night thinking on how to spread democracy and freedoms, specially after the "patriotic act".


Ought Six
Well, here we are. It apparently worked

I wish I was as optimistic as you are. Would you please explain to an ignorant like me how it worked, please?

I always thought that GWB was a huge failure, specially when it comes to protect his own people and soil, but he is still defended with passion. I honestly think that there must be something good about him that I am not getting, so I´d like to hear it from a common guy: what am I missing about GWB?


But didn't you hear? Bush was so altruistic that he did not care what side the people would choose! :D

:lol:
..........


Just my opinion, but I dont think all these protests are wonderful arabs suddenly embracing democracy because of Bush 43. The Muslim Brotherhood isnt exactly the Rotary Club. Time may tell who the big players are, hopefully they are not radical fundies.

^^ THIS x 2
Sadly, chances are that extremists will take advantage of that anger.

[Ought Six]

K:
"It's a bit premature to assume that the present revolution in Egypt will lead to a democratic movement."I think democracy is inevitable now. If the new government does not provide it, the people will simply revolt again.
----------
"The "Bush was right" argument can be countered yet on another basis: America has always supported the dictator Mubarak, as it had supported the Shah of Persia. Bush did this in the same way as Obama did it after him. With a certain amount of justification: Mubarak may have opressed his people (not that he was the worst dictator in history), but under him Egypt made peace with Israel."Under the Camp David agreement, Bush had no choice other than to support whomever was leading Egypt, so long as they adhered to the peace treaty with Israel. The economic and military aid we have been sending to Egypt is legally required by treaty.

As I said, Bush pushed Mubarak to not simply crush and execute democracy proponents. Bush did not, on the other hand, trouble Mubark too much about his treatment of Islamists, including MB and Hamas members. There is only so much an American President can do. He is not a king, and cannot withdraw aid to Egypt on his own whim.
----------
"However, among the common people of the country, Israel is by no means popular, so the peaceful relation with the Jewish State might indeed become a victim, should the present revolution be successful."It is possible, but I think quite unlikely, unless there is an Islamist coup (also unlikely). The new system will almost certainly be a parliamentary one. The group in power will have to know that it must deliver some improvement in the lives of the people to stay in power. Breaking the treaty with Israel and going to war will have very much the opposite effect. Nobody is blind to this fact. I do not think the Egyptian people want to send out their sons to die in the sands of the Sinai. So I am not too worried about this possibility at this point. Of course, the situation is volatile and things could change rapidly. We can only wait and see.
----------
" In any case, the thing he and his advisors were most certainly wrong about, was the assumption that there would be a simple solution to the problems of the Near and Middle East."Your assumption here is a fallacy. Nobody in the Bush White House thought that there was anything simple about the Middle East. Many of them were old Reagan and Bush 41 hands, and they knew the score well enough.

[Ought Six]

a_d:
".... so I´d like to hear it from a common guy: what am I missing about GWB?"Nothing that you would be able to see so long as you insist on keeping your ideological blinders on. I am not a huge Bush fan. I voted for the Libertarian candidates for Prez. Bush was a neocon, and neocons are almost as dangerous as neosocialist liberals. But the rabid hatred of Bush I see among the left is like a severe mental illness in its virulence and its ability to erase any chance of logical, objective discussion once triggered. It resembles a fundamentalist religion more than anything else, with its unquestionable holy dogma, and its eagerness by its adherents to rhetorically burn any heretics that can be rooted out at the stake.

[armored_diplomacy]

a_d:Nothing that you would be able to see so long as you insist on keeping your ideological blinders on. I am not a huge Bush fan. I voted for the Libertarian candidates for Prez. Bush was a neocon, and neocons are almost as dangerous as neosocialist liberals. But the rabid hatred of Bush I see among the left is like a severe mental illness in its virulence and its ability to erase any chance of logical, objective discussion once triggered. It resembles a fundamentalist religion more than anything else, with its unquestionable holy dogma, and its eagerness by its adherents to rhetorically burn any heretics that can be rooted out at the stake.

I get that part, because something like that is going on over here. The new guy in charge and his group of supporters are convinced that the former guy was all wrong, just because he belongs to this or that political group.

[California Joe]

a_d:Nothing that you would be able to see so long as you insist on keeping your ideological blinders on. I am not a huge Obama fan. I voted for the him for Prez. but that was under duress due to the invasion of extreme stupidity in Republican choices by way of Alaska, Obama is a neophyte, and neophytes are almost as dangerous as neocon Republican. But the rabid hatred of Obama I see among the right is like a severe mental illness in its virulence and its ability to erase any chance of logical, objective discussion once triggered. It resembles a fundamentalist religion more than anything else, with its unquestionable holy dogma, and its eagerness by its adherents to rhetorically burn any Kenyan that can be rooted out at the stake.

See what I did there? ;)

[Ought Six]

a_d:
"Do you say that point of view prevents realizing what GWB did well, if anything ?"Yes. It prevents any rational discussion of GW at all. It also leads to a lot of false memes about him being commonly accepted as 'fact'. The MSM contributed greatly to this, as it is full of liberals who believed that GW was their AntiChrist. Obama at least does not have that problem to contend with.

[Ought Six]

CJ:
"See what I did there? ;-)"The opposition and insanity that Obama faces is a couple orders of magnitude less than the raw screaming hatred that was spewed at Bush. You have to go back to Bill Clinton to find a Dem Prez that engendered anything close to the reaction GW gets from the left.

[Ought Six]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2011/02/01/dan-rather-cnn-obama-inspired-protests-egypt

Hey, according to Dan Rather, Barry O gets all the credit! :lol:

[armored_diplomacy]

a_d:Yes. It prevents any rational discussion of GW at all. It also leads to a lot of false memes about him being commonly accepted as 'fact'. The MSM contributed greatly to this, as it is full of liberals who believed that GW was their AntiChrist. Obama at least does not have that problem to contend with.

Nice.

It´s kinda funny because some minutes ago I was lurking in a local forum where a guy posted some compliments to GWB, telling how GWB personally supported Argentina before some european countries back in the 2001 crisis.

Personally, I think Obama has the extreme pressure of many, many hopes put on him; hopes about changes that he can simply not fully perform.

[Beholder]

but under him Egypt made peace with Israel.


No,man who made peace with Israel was killed by islamists,Anwar Sadat.Mubarak succeeded Sadat and mantained peace with Israel.

[Ought Six]

Bh:
"It´s kinda funny because some minutes ago I was lurking in a local forum where a guy posted some compliments to GWB, telling how GWB personally supported Argentina before some european countries back in the 2001 crisis."And how were his comments received?
----------
"Personally, I think Obama has the extreme pressure of many, many hopes put on him; hopes about changes that he can simply not fully perform."No question about that, but Obama owns some of that himself. He reveled in the role of 'Renaissance man'; supposedly brilliant, educated, urbane, a master politician, a great leader, a uniter of disparate factions, and so on. He did nothing to discourage these perceptions. Much the opposite, he played to them. When he was revealed as a rather pedestrian, inexperienced liberal ideologue, the disappointment was at least partially of his own making.

[Kitsune]

No,man who made peace with Israel was killed by islamists,Anwar Sadat.Mubarak succeeded Sadat and mantained peace with Israel.
Yes, true. It was Anwar El Sadat, who originally made the peace with Israel. Honor should be given to whom honor is due.

[DaveDash]

I was a fan of GW and I think he is smarter than many give him credit for, but I don't think these revolutions in Egypt and potentially other places have anything to do with his vision. Yes, he pressured Mubarak to allow more freedoms (which Mubarak retracted in 2010) which may have made this revolution easier, but it certainly wasn't the main catalyst. I think this situation in Egypt would have happened regardless of Bush.

Also, I think from everything I have read that the Army will control who gets into power in Egypt. If they back the Muslim Brotherhood, then it will be them. But I am not so certain that they do back the MB. I agree with the assessment that Egypt will look more like Turkey than Iran.

[armored_diplomacy]

Bh:And how were his comments received?

With surprise, but most of them did not refute nor dispute that. Just a couple of members keep the "evil imperialist" retoric, alone.


No question about that, but Obama owns some of that himself. He reveled in the role of 'Renaissance man'; supposedly brilliant, educated, urbane, a master politician, a great leader, a uniter of disparate factions, and so on. He did nothing to discourage these perceptions. Much the opposite, he played to them. When he was revealed as a rather pedestrian, inexperienced liberal ideologue, the disappointment was at least partially of his own making.

Interesting analysis.

[MountainWarrior]

how about we wait and look what kind of people will end on the top of those "democracy movements".

I advocate for the same, I think we must wait and see what is going to happen, the "new" Middle East may be different than what we conceive now, for good or bad.

[Mein Teil]

Sorry but I'm completely against trying to bring freedom to people that don't want it. The only freedom they want is to become nastier than they already are. Obama dropped the ball by not drilling for oil and looking into using the abundance of energy we already have and for doing his best to kill and curtail what we already have. Bush did us no favors in the middle east either.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

The trouble with actual democracy and "free elections" in those countries, is that the people invariably pick leaders that hate us.

Well maybe if you didn't send such nations back to the stone age they would vote in leaders who liked you?

It's all fine and good doing regime change. But when people lose electricity, water, sewage and basic law and order in the process which take months if not years to restore, then yeah. Even average joe will be pissed off.

[LineDoggie]

Well maybe if you didn't send such nations back to the stone age they would vote in leaders who liked you?

It's all fine and good doing regime change. But when people lose electricity, water, sewage and basic law and order in the process which take months if not years to restore, then yeah. Even average joe will be pissed off.Funny enough, everytime My Brigade restored Sewage and Water Lines for the Muhallas, they were blown up by other Iraqis.

[DaveDash]

Well maybe if you didn't send such nations back to the stone age they would vote in leaders who liked you?

It's all fine and good doing regime change. But when people lose electricity, water, sewage and basic law and order in the process which take months if not years to restore, then yeah. Even average joe will be pissed off.

Before US bases were in the region they were regularly at each others throats. More Arabs have killed Arabs in recent history than the US ever has.

I knew this Palestinian guy who spent a lot of time in the UAE cutting the hair of American military personal. He resented them for being in "his" lands. I then asked him to name a country in the region that had gone to war with each other since US troops had been in the region, and also enquired as to the fact they basically paid for his profession. He couldn't answer, so he then ranted about US support for Israel.

[filochard]

This is all inspired by Tunisia example.

And the Tunisian Revolution inspired by GWB and Iraq ?? ROFL

[Fat Lazy American]

The left are pricks but W and his lunatic vision of "democracy" in the ME--is a neocon invention through and through. And sure, Iraq was about democracy--we all know that really well/sarcasm.

Reading what Elliott Abrams, Max Boot, John Podhoretz, William Kristol et al over the last few days is a brisk reminder to people like me about how out of touch with reality some of these people are.

It's too bad "foreign policy realist" has, of late, become code for belief in an anti-American Jewish cabal that runs Washington ...

[Yves Adele Harlow]

A lot of people on the right seem to have short memories concerning GWBush and the clusterf*ck he made of the ME.
He certainly wasn't "right" by any stretch of the imagination. He was always a step behind, failing to anticipate what would happen and the resulting consequences - then he compounds the problem with his efforts to "fix" the problem......

Thanks to the internet time machine, we can travel back a few years:



The stunning victory of the militant Muslim fundamentalist Hamas Party in the Palestinian elections underlines the central contradictions in the Bush administration's policies toward the Middle East.
Bush pushes for elections, confusing them with democracy, but seems blind to the dangers of right-wing populism. At the same time, he continually undermines the moderate and secular forces in the region by acting high-handedly or allowing his clients to do so. As a result, Sunni fundamentalist parties, some with ties to violent cells, have emerged as key players in Iraq, Egypt and Palestine.
Hamas' stunning victory underlines the contradictions and hypocrisies in Bush's Mideast policies. (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2006/01/27/hamas)


After failing to anticipate Hamas’s victory over Fatah in the 2006 Palestinian election, the White House cooked up yet another scandalously covert and self-defeating Middle East debacle: part Iran-contra, part Bay of Pigs. With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, the author reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever.
The Gaza Bombshell (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804?currentPage=all)

[Ought Six]

DD:
"Before US bases were in the region they were regularly at each others throats. More Arabs have killed Arabs in recent history than the US ever has."QFT


===========================================================

f:
"This is all inspired by Tunisia example. And the Tunisian Revolution inspired by GWB and Iraq ?? ROFL"That is a pure distortion and falsification of what was said here. I made two points; that the example of Iraqi and Afghan elections helped strengthen and encourage democracy movements in the Arab world. I also said that during GW's administration, he tried to pressure Middle Eastern leaders not to crush their opposition democracy movements by threatening them with sanctions, among other things. I did not at any time say the entire Tunisian revolution was totally inspired by GW's actions.

If you have honest comments and arguments to make, we would love to hear them. But if all you want to do is to distort other peoples' positions and make sh1t up, then you should just STFU.

[HellToupee]

Regulary at each others throats? When was this i remember Arab nations have been too busy with wars against Israel to have been at each others throats. Tho at each others throats was probably how the western powers wanted it when they broke up the ottoman empire.

[IconOfEvi]

Regulary at each others throats? When was this i remember Arab nations have been too busy with wars against Israel to have been at each others throats. Tho at each others throats was probably how the western powers wanted it when they broke up the ottoman empire.

Lessee

Egypt had its problems with Libya and sent forces to Yemen

North and South Yemen both enlisted other Arab countries to each's cause

Iraq and Syria have always been at each other's throats, moreso when they both had Baathist governments

Syria views Lebanon as an extension of its territory

Saudi Arabia was established by the Saud clan taking over the penninsula.

Oh yeah and no one gives a **** about the Palestinians



Also the British-French were more concerned with trying to make Greece and the new Turkish republic slug it out.

[Sootan]

One of the major goals of invading Iraq was to plant democracy right in the heart of the Arab world.
O R L Y ?

Can anyone actually say that with a straight face? One thing for sure though, after Iraq (and Afghanistan) the US is not going to "invade for democracy" anytime soon.

[junglejim]

I agree with the OP, GW planted democracy in the middle east, after what America did to Iraq and their way of living. I bet you all the ME countries were like "**** lets get democracy before the Americans give it to us."

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The ME has been a goddamned mess for at least 2000 years - we're only witnessing an imperceptibly tiny sliver of it. The West, under US leadership, has stamped out fires for the last 5 decades, and has nudged things here and there, but ultimately the people of the region get the blame/credit for what goes on.

It's been a parade of strongmen since WWII more or less keeping nations defined - for good or for bad - but now it appears that modus operandi is dissolving since those strongmen can no longer count on a superpower to unconditionally back them up in the name of stability. Anybody care to guess what the new unifying force will wind up being?

[Ought Six]

http://i51.tinypic.com/2wedh08.jpg

[JohnnyWalker]

LOL GW was right, LOL ohh man, my stomach hurts from laughing so much. Thanks man.

[Ought Six]

I am unsurprised that is the most intelligent response you can muster.

[Xaito]

LOL GW was right, LOL ohh man, my stomach hurts from laughing so much. Thanks man.

he was "once again" right actually...

[Ought Six]

Yep. Plant a democracy right in the heart of the Arab world, and then support and encourage democratic movements, and sooner or later the traditional Arab dictators will start to fall. To claim that powerful images like the one I posted above of Iraqis voting at the risk of their very lives had no effect on the Arab street whatsoever is completely assbrained.

[Hollis]

Human nature, while a person many not care about another person being free, they are very much concerned about someone being more free than they are. The biggest thread to oppression is not other governments, it is TV shows. Yep those stupid sitcoms that show how other people live. So the question arises, why can I not have it as good as those people?

[IconOfEvi]

Count on W not getting any credit in the future for the idea of planting a democracy in the ME, and sooner, or later, the others would fall.

Maybe Zinn or Chomsky will coopt the idea in the future.

[11 Bravo]

Yep. Plant a democracy right in the heart of the Arab world, and then support and encourage democratic movements, and sooner or later the traditional Arab dictators will start to fall. To claim that powerful images like the one I posted above of Iraqis voting at the risk of their very lives had no effect on the Arab street whatsoever is completely assbrained.

You know .. I know you do , but do the leftards know... that if Iraq was not what it is today.... the mooks in the arab world would not now be clamoring for change . But hey the leftards love revisionist history... you know their way or no way kind of propaganda.