Abridged Brooks
In Saturday’s NYT, David Brooks makes the case that the recent popular protests in Lebanon against the Syrian occupation are a result of the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq. It appears to be a pretty compelling argument.
First, Brooks quotes Lebanese dissident Walid Jumblatt: “It’s strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, eight million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world.” Thus, Brooks argues, a “maximalist,” interventionist U.S. foreign policy is justified, since “now we have mass demonstrations on the streets of Beirut. A tent city is rising up near the crater where Rafik Hariri was killed, and the inhabitants are refusing to leave until Syria withdraws.”
Of course, if you ignore half the relevant facts like Brooks did, you can quote the same sources and make just the opposite case. What if Brooks had instead quoted Walid Jumblatt from two months ago, when he described how “we are all happy when U.S. soldiers are killed [in Iraq] week in and week out. The killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq is legitimate and obligatory.” As it regards Syria’s occupation in Lebanon, our “maximalist” foreign policy didn’t work out quite as well in 1991, when we “quietly supported the Syrian assault” against the Lebanese nationalists in power at the time — the same folks who Brooks is celebrating today.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
71 Responses to “Abridged Brooks”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
One of our consenual assumptions which must, i think, be examined is that we remain in Iraq to maintain order and ensure democracy, or even to ensure the oil supply. i believe we should consider Iraq a garrision of hardened combat troops ready to be deployed to (probably) Syria as soon as our president can find a plausible excuse to issue the order. And i doubt Syria is the ultimate goal of W’s military ambitions. The word “maximalist” is well-chosen to describe our current foreign policy in regards to those in the middle east who aren’t our friends, and perhaps our “friends” should worry?
February 28th, 2005 at 3:36 pmhmmm, a stronger case can be made against Brooks by simply stating that getting one quote from one person who agrees with you doesn’t mean a damn thing. lebanon and iraq are not related in this matter, there’s just no relation, I see no evidence of one, and people are counting a hundred and one chickens before they have hatched
February 28th, 2005 at 6:15 pmAhmed Chalabi has contacts in all 3 countries. Brooks does not really bring such information to light?
February 28th, 2005 at 6:19 pmSo, who was the U.S. President in 1991 …….?
February 28th, 2005 at 6:28 pmUh… Bush.
February 28th, 2005 at 6:44 pmSomething happened between the time Jumblatt made the statements you refer to and his most recent statements - the Iraqi election.
As to 1991, isn’t that the “realpolitik” policy most of “the reality-based community” favors? There is a new policy now, and it is a forward-looking one, not one that insists on maintaining the status quo.
February 28th, 2005 at 10:12 pmNudnik,
“Realpolitick?” Is Iraq realpolitick, or a clumsily thought out, half-assed grab for resources at the expense of the local inhabitants? Forward thinking, as in say, Abu Ghraib?
Lebanon will do well without US or Israeli interference. That Nudnik, is the realpolitick of the situation.
March 1st, 2005 at 1:20 amSuggestion to Bush boosters: why don’t you congratulate the Lebanese before you congratulate yourself.
March 1st, 2005 at 2:00 amTHis is, yet again, Repuke theft of the blood, effort and treasure of the Lebanese people. Just like Reagan stole the credit for ending the Soviet Union, Bush and his moronic followers are trying to steal the credit here.
Solhenizen, literally thousands of actual Russians and Michel Gorbachev ended the Soviet Union. Reagan was there, on the sidelines, when it ended. Of course, he was having trouble, even then, remembering what the Soviet Union was.
Same with Bush. He has done NOTHING in Lebanon. He gets no credit.
March 1st, 2005 at 9:52 amThe fallacy here is Brooks saying because of Iraq, there are democratic stirrings in Lebanon. We can encourage democracy in the Middle East without invading Iraq; we might have had more success that way because there would be no Iraqis dying and no Abu Ghraib.
March 1st, 2005 at 10:45 amAnd yeah, POed Lib, Reagan had NOTHING to do with the end of the Cold War. It was Gorbachev and the Soviet intelligentsia. Reagan eventually realized Gorbachev was sincere and began working with him, but he had to be dragged into it.
Really burns me up when Republicans give RR credit for that. What a load of crap.
March 1st, 2005 at 10:55 amDon’t forget the credit the Right-wingers give to Bush for the “historic: elections in Palestine. They act like the invasion of Iraq brought about the elections. Don’t forget to remind them that the invasion didn’t cause Arafat to die!
March 1st, 2005 at 12:49 pmHistory, again, will demonstrate liberal ignorance…stay tuned Bush haters, the more you disagree with the Prez, the more likely his is correct.
March 1st, 2005 at 1:22 pmSo Michael, are you saying that cons knew all along that Bush was lying about WMD? Or did you forget that was the reason he used to invade Iraq? You certainly are moronic, Michael. Your nick is well chosen!
March 1st, 2005 at 1:39 pmOnceler,
An even stronger case can be made against Bobo by reference TO THE ACTUAL OPPOSITION LEADERS, who on the front page of today’s New York Times said “they have consciously imitated the popular uprising in Ukraine, where demonstrators forced the government to call a new election after accusations of corruption”.
Bobo, please read the front page of THE PAPER YOU WRITE IN. Now, what was that about Iraq again?
March 1st, 2005 at 1:44 pmMichaelmooronic,
“Hate Bush?” No, I don’t hate Bush, I just fear what he and his rabid right-wingnut controllers will do to us in the next four years given their performance in the last four.
I have disagreed with just about EVERYTHING that Bush has done and have so far been 100% correct. From WMDs in Iraq to “No Child Left Behind” to Osama to Bush’s military records to 911 - everything that comes out of Bush’s mouth has been at best simply wrong but more often just a bald-faced lie. Name one thing on which Bush has been correct and I can name ten instances of his utter disregard for the truth or what is best for America, usually both at the same time. Be warned, I’m a Texan, so I have a long “personal” history with Shrub and the havoc that follows him wherever he goes, whether while digging dry oil wells and selling access to his dad or while stealing Iraq’s oilwells and selling himself to the neocons and theocrats.
March 1st, 2005 at 1:47 pmShukkran, LTRS, I appreciate your input….I guess your need to obfuscate the myriad reasons for invading Iraq have allowed you to maintain you strong perspective. Keep up the progressive mind set; think of nothing but your own thoughts….
Ps…please remind me why we bombed al Shifa in Khartoum in 1998?
March 1st, 2005 at 2:00 pmBig Bear Parliament,
Yes, may your history with the BushNazitheocracy remain the foundation for ignoring success…but you are a Texan, and I don’t like to mess with Texas.
The future success of Iraq as a much improved nation may be the demise of your propositions. I am sure you want the success of Iraq and do not wish for its demise, but maybe not. Regardless of your take on the ground, realize that the improvement of Iraq is a moral imperative (and also realize that many, many Iraqis know that the path of success has been accelerated by the re-election of Bush. During the campaign, it was always novel to hear from friends and others in Iraq, not Americans but Iraqis, beg and hope for the defeat of Kerry and liberals. But pat yourself on the back for being 100% correct in defiance of the limitations of human beings, no one is perfect).
March 1st, 2005 at 2:10 pmLisa, surely you must admit that the Iraqi ELECTION, not so much as the bungled war and aftermath, but the election itself seems to have had a healthy, contagious effect around the region. I am no fan of W, but one would have to be blind not to see this.
March 1st, 2005 at 2:13 pmIt is bad for democrats and progressives to be seen as angry or upset over what is wonderful news, simply because the Bush administration will get some of the credit. It makes liberals seem small and petty and so consumed with partisan hatred they can’t even say, “the sky is blue. democracy is better than tyranny.”
I am chomping at the bit to see the new historical revisionism on the left. They will now claim that democratic reform would have swept through the middle east anyway.
March 1st, 2005 at 2:20 pmyou right wing fools don’t know what Democracy is. You think its as simple as a politician speaking a brief soundbite on television, not by measuring whether people are actually more free, more represented by their government. There is, right now, NO ARAB GOVERNMENT which is more representative of its people, more free, more Democratic than there was before Bush came into office.
The two main examples you yokels will then drag out will be Iraq - where the interim government backed by the US tortured its own citizens (just like Saddam!) and performed summary exacutions to intimidate opposition (just like Saddam!), and Palestine, which is a more arguable case. But, then again, Arafat was given popular support in HOW MANY elections? Whether you like him or not, he was simply the only person Palestinians trusted with their affairs, so Abu Mazen is arguably less responsive to the population, in the short term. But, Bush has, of course, NOTHING to do with the Palestinian elections, and the debatably useful (but probably not in the same style as the “turning point” Vietnam elections of ‘67) have come at such a high cost that simply no one in their right mind would have traded what was for what is.
March 1st, 2005 at 3:09 pmAnother idiotic comment, you can get alot of these on this site:
“But, Bush has, of course, NOTHING to do with the Palestinian elections, and the debatably useful (but probably not in the same style as the “turning pointâ€? Vietnam elections of ‘67) have come at such a high cost that simply no one in their right mind would have traded what was for what is. ”
I wager Onceler knows not one Iraqi….
March 1st, 2005 at 3:20 pmWhen you guys are right, you are so right. Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, now Lebanon, Egypt and even frikkin Saudi Arabia — all coincidence. Not to mention Ukraine and Georgia. Bush had nothing to do with any of it. How could he? He’s “The Worst President in US History” ™.
If you want to examine a truly visionary world stateman, just look at Bill Clinton, whose lasting foreign policy achievements include…umm…Nafta?
March 1st, 2005 at 3:36 pmOnceler, check the dictionary for the definition of “democratic.” Refering to mean and nasty things done by democracies does not mean they weren’t democracies. To fault the shortcomings of a fledgling interim government engaged in the dual responsibilities of preparing for national elections AND fighting an aid-worker-beheading insurgency and say it’s “just like Saddam!” is sophmoric nonsense. Unless Saddam was arranging for some contested elections at some point that I wasn’t aware of…?
As for Palestine, I don’t think anybody has tried to argue that Bush was the reason for the election. But those on the Left who have been supporting Arafat for so long have to explain why his death was the one thing that needed to happen for the democratic process to take place.
Maybe I’m a “yokel” (although I resent being called that since you know nothing about me), but you didn’t mention perhaps the best example of democratization: Afghanistan. Yes, they’re not Arabs, which is an arbitrary limit you put on this discussion. Is Afghanistan no more “democratic” now than when the Taliban were beheading sinners in the soccer stadium? If not, see the first sentence of this post. If so, what happened that changed things?
I don’t like Bush much and I voted for Kerry, but you would do well to think hard about your ideological commitments if you find yourself so rigidly and angrily opposed to one politician that you put yourself in a de facto alliance with the worst illiberal and fascist elements on this globe. Can’t we agree that some things are simply good news?
March 1st, 2005 at 3:40 pmMr. Rodriguez, read the post above yours.
March 1st, 2005 at 3:46 pmAfghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, now Lebanon, Egypt and even frikkin Saudi Arabia – all coincidence. Not to mention Ukraine and Georgia. Bush had nothing to do with any of it. How could he? He’s “The Worst President in US History� ™.
What’s a coincidence? That some idiot would run all these things together as the same phenomenon because he doesn’t know anything about them?
That’s not a coincidence, that’s daily life among the freepi. They’ll believe anything because they don’t know anything.
March 1st, 2005 at 3:48 pmI wager Onceler knows not one Iraqi….
So would I. Now, what does that have to do with what he was talking about?
March 1st, 2005 at 3:49 pm“What’s a coincidence? That some idiot would run all these things together as the same phenomenon because he doesn’t know anything about them? ”
Uh…Iraq = Vietnam? Or are all the diverse nations of the world the same only when the US intervenes?
March 1st, 2005 at 3:53 pmDoes it make people feel smart to always call people that disagree with them stupid?
March 1st, 2005 at 3:54 pmOkay, so sarcasm doesn’t go over well on the Internets.
To be very clear: I am NOT trying to argue that Bush was responsible for the democratic stirrings in all these places, nor that the picture is uniformly rosy in all of them, nor that there’s even a lot in common among them — beyond the observation that democracy has not exactly been native to any of them in recent years.
Look, I have no illusions about Bush or his motivations. But representative democracy has had a nice little run on his watch, hasn’t it? Let’s wait and see if any of it holds till the end of his second term, let alone permanently. But for the time being, you’d be wise to watch where you throw that “idiot” charge.
March 1st, 2005 at 3:59 pmGrand Moff,
“have come at such a high cost that simply no one in their right mind would have traded what was for what is.”
Without personal knowledge, this is mere conjecture, my only point….
March 1st, 2005 at 4:06 pmMichaelmooronic,
“Yes, may your history with the BushNazitheocracy remain the foundation for ignoring success…but you are a Texan, and I don’t like to mess with Texas.”
Hmmm…didn’t mention Nazi, maybe that was a Freudian slip and you meant to type “neocon.” Haven’t seen you define “success” yet, nor dispute the fact that Bush has yet to achieve anything approaching success. Iraqi elections in which the majority of people didn’t vote and those that did were either voting in the belief that we would immediately end the occupation or they would be electing a fundamental Islamic government do NOT qualify as a success. Of course, through the warped glasses of the neocons, the war and now the tainted election are both unqualified successes, meeting their goals of supporting Israel and gaining control of the oil reserves.
I have always hoped for an Iraq free of western influence, one where the people are able to achieve the society that they want. Iraqis have had little choice about their government during my lifetime, starting with the installation of Saddam by the CIA, through the 80s and our support for Saddam’s wars (while also feeding Iran info in order to prolong the war), into the 90s with Bush the Elder’s and Clinton’s attacks on Iraq and the truly horrific sanctions, and now in the new century with another round of western attempts to control the country. When/if we ever leave Iraq, we will leave behind more civilian deaths than under decades of Saddam, a fundamentalist Islamic regime that will eventually require another “moral mission” and numerous airstrikes, and a country poisoned with depleted uranium and civil war at the mercy of the only nuclear power in the Middle East.
I can only assume that your contacts in Iraq are Shiites - they are indeed getting exactly what they wished for despite the manipulation of the vote totals that reduced their 56% to 48%. Why they would have thought it made a difference whether or not Bush was elected is beyond me though - Kerry would have “stayed the course” and killed just as many civilians as Bush. They were peas-in-a-pod when it came to warmongering and Iraq.
March 1st, 2005 at 4:19 pmFreedom is on the march. Liberty and self determination is spreading. It is an exciting time to be alive.
I am glad some of you are taking it so hard.
March 1st, 2005 at 4:20 pmBear,
Your assumptions are only 1/8 correct, there are Sunnis, Kurds and aetheists who wanted Bush elected, but I digress. Some of your statements highlight your bias such as the Saddam/CIA conspiracy rumor (I have heard these many times before, regardless of any support provided by the CIA, the Baathists were on a march without CIA help and needed no instigating to complete their coup), which blinds your sight into Iraq. Not to mention that the US would need to be responsible for over 1,000,000 deaths to top Saddam’s butchery. Believe what you want about warmongers, but they can never match Saddam’s achievements in this regard…and this comment again shows lack of cerebral functioning from the “progressives”, which I presume you are a card toting member: “…meeting their goals of supporting Israel and gaining control of the oil reserves.” Can a leftist get a new argument, min fadlak????
March 1st, 2005 at 4:52 pmMichaelmooronic,
Using typical arguments like branding truth as “conspiracy theory” doesn’t show much cerebral function on your part. The sad, and established truth, is that the U.S. shamefully manipulated politics in Iraq for decades in an effort to control the area by playing Iraq against her neighbors and continues to do so today. I am not blinded by my knowledge of what has happened in the past, and unlike many on “your” side of the argument, do not choose to ignore the past, for those who do are doomed to repeat it.
Wow! Now we’re up to 1,000,000 deaths by Saddam? Anyone else notice the number inflation going on here? That’s at least as laughable as the study that tried to claim 100,000 civilian deaths by including higher levels of heart attacks - actually, considering that there is STILL little or no medicine available to Iraqi civilians, the 100,000 number is probably a lot more accurate.
Saddam was a warmonger with our unequivocable support - military and otherwise - and any blame for his actions fall at least partially on the shoulders of Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 and their respective administrations. Don’t you find it odd that Cheney and Rumsfeld, for example, have been involved with Iraq for decades, and still get it totally wrong - “throw flowers for our forces,” indeed.
And finally, no, we don’t need any new arguments when it comes to the neocon support for Israel and control of oil. It’s all in writing if you ever take the time to read the PNAC document. And it’s being rewritten today in Afghani, Iraqi, and soon to be Iranian and Syrian blood. Just because you can’t, or refuse to, look behind the curtain doesn’t mean that the rest of us suffer from your particular myopia about the Middle East. It is NOT all about freedom or democracy - can’t a rightist get a new argument, please? Or at least one that doesn’t change every time the “facts” inconveniently don’t hold up?
March 1st, 2005 at 5:33 pmBear,
“Wow! Now we’re up to 1,000,000 deaths by Saddam?”…I guess you forgot the death toll of the Iran/Iraq war + mass graves + death toll of Kuwait war to name a few =’s greater than 1,000,000. But as the rightist would say “facts are a stubborn thing.” And, again please provide the 411 on how Saddam came to power by the CIA’s hand…waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting….this is taking along time Bear. My myopia of the Middle East is driven by individuals in the Middle East, not this Administration (whom I did not vote for)….why did we bomb al Shifa, by the way???
March 1st, 2005 at 5:49 pmMichaelmooronic -
What, you can’t find info on the CIA and their involvement with Saddam when he was still just an assassin for the Baath party? If you really need help researching this I’m sure that I can come up with a source, but try your local library first. You might want to look up Molly Ivin’s book “Shrub” while you’re there, give you a little taste of what educated Texans think about our carpet-bagging President’s claim to being a “successful businessman.”
Lumping Iran/Iraq war with supposed mass graves (have yet to see any proof of these, only reporting in the corporate media) and deaths from Kuwait into one grand sum and declaring it to be a million is hardly a fact. Plus there’s the inconvenient (and verifiable) fact that the U.S. government is complicit in all three, from selling weapons and intelligence to both Iraq and Iran, to allowing Saddam to use helicopters that we sold him to kill Shiites after GW1, to telling Saddam that we wouldn’t interfere with his plans to punish Kuwait for stealing his oil (rightfully so, they were cross-drilling) and then attacking him for doing just that.
Myopia comes from many things, but not from having a variety of sources. I suggest that you branch out a little and maybe talk to some other Iraqis or read some books or blogs, maybe even do all of it. Won’t hurt you a bit, I promise.
Bombing al Shifa? Wasn’t a bomb, it was cruise missiles. Why did Clinton do it? I recall that he chose to destroy the only source of pharmaceuticals in Sudan as a distraction from something else that was going on at the time, can’t remember what though. Certainly wasn’t anything to do with terrorism, well, the attack itself was a terrorist act. Caused countless deaths from lack of medicine - seems to be a pattern in the area, doesn’t it?
March 1st, 2005 at 6:18 pmBear,
You win the prize…the most confused award of 2005 is all yours…min fadlak, stand on your stage and give us more knowledge, for ye shall seek the truth and it will set us free…
This is a great story…so, I was talking with an Egyptian friend and an Iraqi friend. The Egyptian, a liberal, the Iraqi, a former liberal. Same type of discourse evolved with the liberal stating “These are all lies, media propaganda, because there are no mass graves in Iraq”. Which prompted the former liberal to turn his head ever so slightly to the side and ask, Then where is my brother. I last knew him to walk in our city, where someone saw Saddam’s forces take him on the street. That was in 1991. We have no records of him. The only record we now have may be in one of the eighteen or so mass graves my relatives have been to so far in Hilla searching for him. They would never be able to search the graves before, because they did not know where they existed…..these estimates (300,000 ~ at that time; over 1 1/2 years ago) are way too low. Every Iraqi knows this. Add up the numbers of us searching for relatives….
They have yet to find his brother, but estimates indicate they also will never unearth all of the mass graves. And dare say you I am the one inflicted by myopia regarding the middle east. Enjoy your ignorance, it is bliss….
You also just demonstrated you didn’t ever care to watch the 911 hearings…if you had, you would have listened to testimony regarding al Shifa by the Clinton Administration detailing that the ownership in the Khartoum facility was through OBL and that Iraqi nerve gas experts were caught by the National Security ears providing information to this location. Now, it may all be lies, I was not there to see the records nor hear the tapes, but the justification for war in Iraq as so reduced to merely WMD is patently false at best, but I know you know that but are afraid to admit same…
are you out of college yet, just curious?
March 1st, 2005 at 6:47 pmAll right! Am a newbie! :)
Posting that is…..
Umm…My observation is that Michaelmooronic
and his types are wrong.
This next part was a strange post:
“Freedom is on the march. Liberty and self determination is spreading.”
France is a democracy. A country with liberty and self determination. It has more freedom than
any Middle East country. But thinks America was, (and still is), quite insane for going to Iraq.
People on the Right, and other Bush supporters hate France. Interesting.
Self determination is nice. But it doesn’t guarantee a good outcome. Be careful what you wish for. Always remember France. :)
Something else seems to be going on. With all
the hype about democracy, everyone seems to
have forgotten the central issue of our time.
On 9/11/01, 2749 people were murdered and the
bad guy got away to retool his criminal organization. No one seems to be too upset over that. If I had a super weapon that could wipe out every living thing in each Middle East country would it affect the bad guy and his criminal organization? Nope….Not one bit.
The bad guy would still be around, and his organization would still be around. Just some
replacement troops would have been destroyed.
But you can find those types of people anywhere
in the world. Not just in the Middle East.
My observation is Iraq is a waste of time, troops, dollars, and other resources.
While transplanting democracy, (whatever democracy means to you), may be a noble idea;
It’s outcome is so unpredictable by humans that
it is better left for novel plots and discussion groups; But NOT for real life situations. Democracy as an end product should be a happy end result that comes from fighting a war based and fought on other facts.
Only time I’ve seen this happen is from World War II.
OK…Am done ranting and raving.
March 1st, 2005 at 8:20 pmMichealmooronic -
I’m the confused one? Hardly. You’re just now admitting that Operation Iraqi Liberation wasn’t only about WMDs? It certainly wasn’t about mass graves or pharmaceutical plants in Sudan (regardless of the self-serving and CYA testimony before the 911 commission) or al-qaeda or Osama or “free elections,” or any of the other dozen or so new reasons that the Bushites have rolled out as each of the earlier reasons have been shot down in the reality-based world.
Then you resort to the LCD attack about age - noob or troll, makes no difference, you just lost face and the discussion is over, senorito.
Here’s a little parting shot, an excellent piece by Susan Lenfestey that brings it all into perspective:
Some in black tie; others, body bags …
by Susan Lenfestey
It’s time to party.
As the families of bomb-flattened Fallujah huddle in make-shift refugee camps, drinking from sewage-filled streams, Iraqi policy mastermind Paul Wolfowitz fastens the last stud into his starched collar.
As the Iraq Survey Group ends its search for WMD, concluding that there was no imminent mushroom cloud or even a smoking gun, Condi Rice draws herself a hot bath.
As Sgt. Kevin Benderman, an Army mechanic with nine years of service, refuses a second deployment to Iraq, saying, “You just don’t know how bad it is,” Colin Powell pours himself a drink.
As Specialist Charles A. Graner, miscreant and major-domo of Abu Ghraib, shuffles off to prison, Donald Rumsfeld straightens the black tie of his tux.
As the 9/11 widow tucks her children into bed, wondering why the recommendations made in “The 9/11 Commission Report” weren’t implemented, Tom Ridge tightens his cummerbund.
As prisoners charged with no crimes, and given no recourse, languish in the hellhole of Guantanamo Bay, torture apologist Alberto Gonzales clicks his cufflinks into place.
As Dan Rather retires in disgrace over forged documents, former CIA Director George Tenet, proponent of forged documents about Iraq’s nonexistent nuclear program, adjusts the Medal of Freedom around his neck.
As the working mother in Chicago wonders how to keep her child from being left behind now that her special-ed program has been cut, Armstrong Williams polishes his shoes.
As Valerie Plame walks away from a distinguished career as a CIA “operative,” destroyed when her identity was revealed by columnist Robert Novak, Mr. Novak walks to his limo.
As Osama bin Laden chuckles in his cave to see America’s fortunes sink in the morass of Iraq and as fresh recruits to his cause multiply like flies, Dick Cheney pops the cork on a bottle of Dom Perignon.
As America’s trade gap surges and the red ink in the national debt bleeds to a record level, Treasury Secretary Paul Snow finishes shaving and dabs at a spot of blood on his chin.
As the Republican Congress gets ready to underfund everything from Head Start to veterans’ benefits, Speaker Dennis Hastert checks his profile in the mirror.
As Pfc. Francis Obaji, oldest son of an immigrant Nigerian family, is zipped into a body bag for the sad journey home, Laura Bush zips up her Oscar de la Renta gown.
And as his corporate pals slide their millions across the table to dance at his ball, forgetting for a moment the bottom line that forces them to ship jobs overseas, George W. Bush pulls on his snakeskin boots.
March 2nd, 2005 at 11:02 amGeorge -
Thanks for the link, but pictures of bones and bodies do not prove anything except that bodies were buried in the sand. Were they Iranian prisoners of war? Political opponents who tried to assassinate Saddam? Torture victims? Civilians? Iraqi army deserters? Iraqi soldiers who died in GW1? Plague victims?
I am sad for the relatives (with two children of my own it is easy to empathize), but pictures do not “prove” that Saddam killed a million people.
Thanks for the link.
March 2nd, 2005 at 11:06 amIf Bush can take credit for anything, it is creating an illusion throughout the middle east that the United States will provide military and financial muscle in support of political liberalization within the region. The question is whether Bush and the American people are ready to honor such a commitment, or whether Bush simply paid grand lip service to democracy and freedom in his inaugural address in order to boost lagging support at home for the occupation of Iraq. I wonder if Bush foresaw that citizens of the middle east might actually take him seriously.
March 2nd, 2005 at 11:07 amBear, that link was not intended to prove anything but that the mass graves exist. They are not “supposed,” they are real. As to the specifics of who is in them and how they got there, that is still being uncovered — though I doubt you care. I can recognize in you a species of Holocaust denier, for whom no amount of practical or moral reasoning will ever suffice.
March 2nd, 2005 at 11:34 amGeorge -
You doubt I care? I wouldn’t be discussing this if I didn’t care. As I mentioned, I have two small children and any mention of family death or loss of life hits me in a way that only those with children or lost loved ones can understand.
However, I refuse to accept the statement “Saddam killed one million people” without some proof to back it up, just like I refuse to accept that “sanctions killed 500,000 children in Iraq,” or “Bush is responsible for the deaths of 100,000 civilians.” Anyone can make statements like this and only the gullible or naive or those with a personal agenda will accept them without question.
I can recognize in you that at least one of these applies.
March 2nd, 2005 at 11:49 amBear, I didn’t make any of those statements. I am responding only to these words of yours:
supposed mass graves (have yet to see any proof of these, only reporting in the corporate media)
which betray an appalling incuriosity toward the realities of Saddam’s Iraq. Skepticism is healthy, but is that really your standard of proof? You will not believe anything unless you have seen it with your own eyes? Very well, now you have seen them. The mass graves do exist. But who was in them? That, as I say, is still being determined, but what evidence can possibly convince you? Down the rabbit hole.
March 2nd, 2005 at 12:25 pmGeorge -
No, I am VERY curious about what has happened in Iraq, which is why I question everything. I just don’t accept the easy, and spoonfed, “answers” as some do. You know, there are still people who think that there was a large crowd of cheering Iraqis in the square when Saddam’s statue was taken down. They never bothered to look for the real picture that showed less than 200 people standing there under the watchful eyes of US tanks, closing off the square, while an American team brought the statue down.
Does it even occur to you that the pictures of the graves might be from Iran? Where were the pictures taken? You can’t answer that except with “I believe they were taken in Iraq.” It takes more than that to convince me - maybe a UN report with independent, and non-US government, confirmation would be enough.
Cheers.
March 2nd, 2005 at 12:43 pmLooks like the proprietors had to deal with a wave of comment spam, so my last comment got deleted. Rewriting from memory:
There are literally tons of evidence of the mass graves and other crimes against humanity from Saddam’s Iraq, and most of what’s known is not hard to find. Here’s what I found online in 15 minutes:
http://hrw.org/ reports/ 1992/ iraq/ iraq0292.pdf
http://hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq0503/
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-index-eng
In general, the HRW stuff is more useful than the AI stuff, and includes this excellent survey of the state of the evidence against Saddam:
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/graves/
As that report says (and has been widely reported), the evidence is still being tabulated, and in many cases has not been treated appropriately by the US as well as other authorities. But there’s still a hell of a lot of it. For anyone with even a casual interest in Iraq to refer to “supposed mass graves”, as if they were some unfounded rumor, is either astonishing laziness or something much worse.
March 2nd, 2005 at 2:15 pmIf you want to talk about the mass graves in Iraq, keep in mind that many of them are filled by the Shia who listened to Bush-41 and rose up against Saddam after GW1 - only to be slaughtered by Saddam while the US sat on their collective hands. Also take the time to look at how the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait took place, the role of the US ambassador, and the statement that “the US doesn’t get involved in regional conflicts”.
I know many on the right find it easier to live in Bush’s world where everything can be reduced to a bumper sticker, but the “reality-based” world that the rest of us live in is a touch more complicated. Nasty, biased, America-hating facts!
March 2nd, 2005 at 2:16 pmDavid is correct; the US did have a less-than-exemplary role in both of those events. In retrospect, it seems that more carefully chosen words/actions might have saved a lot of trouble. *Might* have — Saddam didn’t exactly need permission fron the US to go slaughter people. Ask the Kurds, or the Marsh Arabs, or the Iranians.
Oddly, though, David’s comment brings us back to the original post: to what extent is the US responsible for events in the Middle East, good or bad? It’s facile, of course, to take all the credit or assign all the blame to the US, whichever suits your agenda. But it is true that the United States has an inordinate amount of influence everywhere — often beyond what it can understand.
March 2nd, 2005 at 2:35 pmConsidering the goal of the Bushies is to destabilize the entire Middle East and run oil prices up enough that U.S. domestic oil companies will become profitable again, yes the unrest spreading in the Middle East is a good thing (to the Bushies anyhow).
I think it is hilarious however to simply support revolution for it’s own sake rather than consider the long term implications.
Under the rationale offered that “democracy” is always infallible and benevolent the democratically elected Hitler… and the popular revolution that put the communists into power in Russia should be American icons. After all… it was “democratic”.
Being democratic is not what makes America the nation that it is… THE CONSTITUTION is what makes America the free nation that it is.
A ruling yesterday by a Fed Judge in the Padilla case said that the Bush Admins actions so far in that case “offend the rule of law and violate this country’s constitutional tradition”.
March 2nd, 2005 at 2:53 pmAllow me to laugh in all of your faces, just as I did in 1989 when the Berlin Wall came down. There is no doubt that history will record that the Lebanese “Cedar Revolution” was a direct result of:
a.) Knocking off the Taliban in Afghanistan and bringing elections to that nation.
b.) Making Arafat persona non grata and brooking no BS from the Palestinian Authority until it made democratic reforms, which it has (on some level; clearly not perfect yet).
c.) Knocking off Saddam Hussein and subsequently setting the stage for eight million people to defy the terrorists (I’m sorry, the “minutemen”).
d.) Putting diplomatic (combined with a whiff of military threat) on Syria.
e.) Putting diplomatic pressure on Egypt to implement democratic reforms, which Mubarak has stated he will do.
All you sourpusses can dismiss Bush’s foreign policy all you want, but what you can’t do is dismiss history. And Bush is making history. Strangely, for all the rhetoric on the left concerning human rights and all that, democratic revolutions seem to always occur when a conservative Republican is in the White House. (I don’t include Bush Sr. and Nixon in that equation, incidentally. Their foreign policy was for shit.)
You lefties are going to have to learn to reconcile yourselves to the fact that Bush might’ve been right after all. That’s gonna hurt.
March 2nd, 2005 at 3:16 pmLets go through your list…
a) The recent elections in Afghanistan are as much of a joke as the previous elections in Afghanistan were under the Soviets. In terms of the lives of *ordinary people* there has been little change.
b) Did Bush arrange to have Arafat die? He had been a pariah for some time, and as you may recall, had been isolated in his compound for a while. Was this Bush’s doing as well?
c) Bush *did* knock off Saddam, but his mistakes after the initial military victory set the stage for many of the problems that still plague Iraq.
d) There has been “pressure” on Syria for quite a few years now, what else is new?
e) So far, we have a couple of vague promises, lets see what happens during the next “election”
The victors write history, so history “records” with questionable accuracy. Just think of how history recorded the Cuban Missile Crisis, of the Gulf of Tonkin, or Iran-Contra…
There has been a growing groundswell for democracy for some time now. Current reporting quotes people in Lebanon who cite the example of Ukraine as inspiration, not Iraq. The catalyst for this current breakthrough was the assassination of their beloved PM.
I do think that things in the Middle East may actually improve, in spite of Bush and his foreign policy mistakes.
March 2nd, 2005 at 3:49 pmDavid, I could address each of those points, but to what end? If you want to be a sourpuss, that’s what you’re going to be. Your parting shot gives the game away:
I do think that things in the Middle East may actually improve, in spite of Bush and his foreign policy mistakes.
That’s the first thing in this thread that has brought a smile to my face. In spite of?!? Sure. Reagan and Bush 41 just happened to be in office when the Eastern Bloc crumbled. Clinton just happened to be in office during the best American economy ever. And Dubya just happened to be in office during an extraordinary run of democratic revolution in the Muslim world and elsewhere. But to the partisans of the world, all these events would have been so much better had these guys not held them back.
You may, of course, be quite right that these recent successes may not stick. It’s still early in the game. But if they do (knock on wood), history is not going to say it was “in spite of” Bush.
March 2nd, 2005 at 4:21 pmSince we’re referencing Human Rights Watch…
http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm
March 2nd, 2005 at 4:47 pmHey. I was on the streets of DC demonstrating against the Iraq invasion. I will probably go back again when we invade Iran. Economic conditions in a power play against an impending China/Euro pact for Iran oil make the timing critical to invade soon. BushCo will spin it as democracy on the march.
The Iran Policy Committee (IPC), a group headed by a former National Security Council staffer Ray Tanter, several retired senior military officers, and a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia have released a 30-page document, “U.S. Policy Options for Iran” by former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer Clare Lopez, which appears to reflect the views of the administration’s most radical hawks among the Pentagon’s civilian leadership and the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.
“The IPC’s main emphasis is on more aggressive actions to bring about the desired goals, including military strikes and active efforts to destabilize the government, in major part through the support and deployment of what it calls “indisputably the largest and most organized Iranian opposition group,” the Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK) – an idea that many Iran specialists here believe is likely to prove exceptionally counterproductive.
The MEK fought on Iraq’s side during the Iran-Iraq war and has been listed as a “terrorist group” by the State Department since 1997 as a result of its assassination of U.S. officials during the Shah’s reign and of Iranian officials after the Revolution.”
Ah yes, I remember well how U.S. policy (in hindsight) always once backed the same dictators we are now fighting. (I’ve been around for a Long Time.) And here we go again — this time we are about to back and promote Iranian terrorists to overthrow their own country! That’s just great.
I guess every generation is doomed to fight its war…suffer the loss of the same old illusions, and learn the same old lessons on its own.
-Phillip Caputo
But Hey freedom is on the march.
March 2nd, 2005 at 4:50 pmgeorge, I was trying to point out how baseless it was for C.Valentine(CV) to take a bunch of *very* loosely connected events and try to weave them together as if they were part of a coherent foreign policy under Bush. Especially since there are simpler explanations coming out of Lebanon. He ignores these because they can’t be connected to Bush.
I’d be willing to give Bush 41 more credit than Reagan for the collapse of the Soviet Union, based on his time with the CIA. As I mentioned, there are arguments that Reagan’s negotiating positions actually delayed the collapse, as opposed to quickening it. I also believe that Clinton, besides being in the Oval Office at the right time for the economy, helped the economic growth by his policy of deficit reduction.
In any case, I think you *can* make a distinction between just being along for the ride, and affecting the outcome through policy. As mentioned above, I think Reagan was just a passenger, while both Bush 41 and Clinton did have some influence.
That said, you can’t argue backwards once you see how things turn out. If CV had *predicted* the Cedar Revolution several months ago, I’d be among the first to congratulate him/her. Just as I would if he/she predicted the Berlin Wall falling significantly *before* it happened.
I must have blinked, what is the “extraordinary run of democratic revolution” you speak of? Iraq has had an election of great symbolic meaning but questionable as a harbinger of true democracy. The Palestinian elections are a bit more genuine, but it took the death of Arafat to get the ball rolling again. The Lebanese situation is very exciting, since by all appearances it truly is a democratic revolution. Many similarities to Ukraine, but it also reminds me of the Solidarity movement in Poland.
Lets see if Egypt *really* changes. Lets see Bush affect some change in Pakistan, Ubekistan, and other “allies”. Then Bush can take a bow. As I mentioned, what we call “history” is often not accurate, much like “conventional wisdom”.
I make no secret of my dislike for Bush; but I am more than willing to applaud his policies on their merits. I have seen little to applaud. The closest was No Child Left Behind, until it wasn’t properly funded and became Every Child Whose Parents Couldn’t Afford Private School Left Behind. I honestly believe that for 80% or more of Americans, 4 years of Bush has not made their lives significantly better.
March 2nd, 2005 at 4:51 pmThe only reason the US invaded and is still occupying Iraq is the profound but unspoken need to stabilize the Middle East’s oil supply. Bush could never admit nor even hint this to the American people, and still hope to get Congressional support for his invasion. How could you explain sacrificing American lives and limbs for the sake of a commodity? And so it was extremely convenient that 9/11 gave Bush the perfect excuse to invade Iraq. Surely Saddam was producing deadly weapons of terror which, in the midst of the public’s post-9/11 paranoia, could be credibly exploited to justify the invasion. After the dust settled and no WMDs or other hard evidence were uncovered as proof of any international terrorist ties to Saddam, Bush deftly changed our role from that of terror-fighter to freedom-fighter. Suddenly we became liberators of an oppressed people, and we’re determined to build a democracy out of the rubble we’ve made. Bush had to change our role in Iraq to salvage his chances of re-election from what otherwise would have been seen as a monumental foreign policy blunder; more importantly he had to keep our soldiers in Iraq.
Make no mistake, we all know that the world economy hinges on the stability of the oil supply in the gulf region and, because Saddam tenaciously held on to power after the first gulf war, his regime was still a potent threat to that stability. It’s why we liberated Kuwait in the first gulf war; it wasn’t to present the Kuwaiti people with the gift of democracy, but rather to reassure the Saudis, Kuwaitis, and other oil sheikdoms in the region that we would protect their oil production as if it were our own.
Bush’s invasion of Iraq was merely taking care of unfinished business, at a time when it was politically irresistible. Still, future history books may well credit Bush for saving western civilization by rescuing middle eastern oil reserves from Saddam’s greedy ambitions. Ironically, the oil stability that we’ve presumably secured by Saddam’s removal could again be at risk by the region’s recent political awakenings, encouraged, if not inspired, by the success of the Iraqi election. Bush must find a way to co-opt such movements lest they spawn new democratic nationalist regimes which we cannot control - ones that are accountable to their own people as opposed to global oil needs.
We can rant at each other about Saddam’s atrocities, the international terrorist threat, the torture at Abu Ghraib, Halliburton’s profits, the UN scandal, democracy versus monarchy, the timidity of Europe, etc., etc. What’s really at stake in the middle east is our oil supply - the key to our economic way of life, the future of our children, indeed our domestic tranquility. We must ask ourselves how far we’re willing to go to secure that way of life. It’s the real issue that the government (both parties included) wants to keep out of the debate, preferring that we argue over the means and not the end.
Think about it next time you fill your SUV, or turn your thermostat up. We can end our oil dependence either by leading a worldwide commitment to convert to alternative fuels (can you say nucular?), or seizing the oil by force. Otherwise, be prepared for our country to play referee in the middle east for decades to come, continue to suffer the resulting barbary of resentful Islamic terrorism, and conveniently use the latter to justify the former.
March 2nd, 2005 at 5:18 pmThanks, Lewis Carroll, that’s interesting reading. In general I agree with their conclusion — that the Iraq war was not justifiable as a humanitarian intervention — for the reasons they state. The human rights issues are quite real, as my exchanges with Bear have meant to portray. But to call this war a humanitarian intervention (as the Administration has sort of tried to do after the fact, particularly as no WMDs have been found) makes it more difficult to identify real humanitarian interventions. I supported the war, and continue to do so, but I can understand why HRW does not. (I do note that HRW “ordinarily takes no position on whether a state should go to war. The issues involved usually extend beyond our mandate, and a position of neutrality maximizes our ability to press all parties to a conflict to avoid harming noncombatants”.)
Incidentally, this report supports my long-standing impression of HRW as responsible and fair-minded — particularly in comparison with some of the other human rights groups out there.
David: my mistake, I thought your previous comment was directed to me. Fundamentally I don’t think we’re that far apart on the main issue of how much credit Bush should get for Lebanon, Egypt etc. (Somewhere between “all” and “none”, but time will tell.) But is it a coincidence that all these events are taking place now, and all in places where nobody ever expected democracy to have a chance? It’s hard to deny at least the possibility that the US has played a key role in all this. The past few days I have found it extraordinary to hear committed Bush opponents — people like Daniel Schorr of NPR, Jon Stewart and the NYT editors — muse openly that Bush may have been right all along about Iraq being a beacon of democracy. Stranger things have happened.
March 2nd, 2005 at 5:31 pmAnthony, my claim would be that Bush “rescued” middle east oil reserves from Russia and France. If the UN had been convinced to lift the sanctions against Iraq, and Saddam was still in power, then he would follow through on previously signed “letters of intent” for oil exploration by Russia and France. China had also invested in Iraqi infrastructure projects.
It sure seems to explain why BushCo was in such a hurry to “liberate” Iraq, and why protecting the Oil Ministry was more important than securing the alleged WMD sites and the munitions dumps. Regime change = cancellation of European contracts.
For a real eye opener, rent one of my all-time favorite espionage movies, “3 days of the condor”. Given what’s happened in the last dozen years, it’s message seems eerily apropos.
March 2nd, 2005 at 5:43 pmGeorge -
Unfortunately, I thought that you were supporting Michaelmooronic’s statement that Saddam killed one million people with your first post. My choice of “supposed” in reference to mass graves in Iraq was admittedly a poor one and I apologize for what sounds now, in retrospect, to be a callous remark. Also, although I am concerned about human rights violations in general, Iraqi mass graves really aren’t at the top of my list of things to research. There’s just so much that one person can read and talk about on any given day.
Thanks for the links. Again.
March 2nd, 2005 at 5:57 pmDavid, I know the movie and agree it’s on target. Actually, I’ve wondered whether Bush’s haste in invading Iraq had more to do with the possibility that Osama bin Laden could have been captured or killed any day. bin Laden’s capture would have effectively ended America’s thirst for blood (still might) and would have crippled Bush’s chances of using the war on terror as cover for the invasion of Iraq. It almost makes one think that Bush has deliberately stalled the campaign to capture bin Laden so he can keep his political advantage.
March 2nd, 2005 at 5:59 pmgeorge: i should address my replies to their authors, my bad….
If I am walking to work and try out a new route, and on that new route come across $100 bill on the sidewalk, I’d be happy and would celebrate my good fortune. If sometime later I start claiming that I deliberately chose that route on that day because I just *knew* something good would happen; I’d be a pompous fool.
You should not find the comments of Schorr and Stewart extraordinary, unless you have bought in to the Administrations position that anyone who dares to disagree with them is a traitor and hates America and the troops. This is the poisonous division that Bush has created over the last 4 years: first it was other countries that were either “with us or with the terrorists”, then it became American citizens who either supported Bush, or were traitors, offering support to the enemy.
You shouldn’t be surprised that Americans from across the spectrum (yes - gasp - even Democrats) would like to see things turn out well in the Middle East. We should be able to disagree with the methods, and more importantly, the costs involved in affecting that change. $200B, the lives of almost 1500 soldiers, untold US and Iraqi casualties. Let’s not even think about the long term costs of caring for all the wounded and the effect of the increasing deficit. Is it treachery to think that there might have been a less costly way?
Saddam was, reluctantly, complying with UN inspections. The US has tolerated worse despots for much longer that Saddam. Libya, in my opinion, was swayed by a combination of stick *and* carrot. Negotiations have been going on for some time and came to fruition.
Military force will always be a necessary adjunct to diplomacy and foreign policy; but it seems that in this Administration it has become a replacement for them.
March 2nd, 2005 at 6:09 pmThanks Bear, I appreciate that. Glad to hear that it was just a poor choice of words. But if you are interested I hope you read, because the issue is an important one. People like to say these days (or at least before the elections) that the Iraq invasion didn’t accomplish any of its stated goals. Well, getting rid of Saddam’s horrifying regime, even on its own, even given the mayhem that has followed, is still one very large accomplishment.
March 2nd, 2005 at 6:10 pmDavid, at some point I have gotta quit this and get back to real work — but that can wait ;)
I never bought into the schtick that people like Schorr and Stewart ‘hated America.” Precious few Republicans actually believe that (I hope). But these people most certainly did believe that the Iraq invasion was wrong in every way, and that no good could come of it. I disagreed at the time, and I’m pleasantly surprised to see war opponants grudingly admit that it might have accomplished something.
I am, however, willing to concede that the costs, in lives and money, have been much higher than I or most war proponents expected. Has it been worth the costs? We won’t be able to say for years to come, but I still think it was the right thing to do.
And lastly, I cannot believe you’ve trotted out that old canard that Bush doesn’t know how to do diplomacy. By my count, this Administration has brought (to at least some degree) major change in at least seven countries:
– Afghanistan (end of Taliban, beginning of representative government)
– Iraq (end of Saddam’s regime, beginning of representative government)
– Pakistan (Musharraf’s decisions to bail on the Taliban, to help us in the War on Terror, and to give up AQ Khan)
– Libya (Qadaffi’s giving up his ABC weapons, including a nuclear program we didn’t know about, allowing lifting of sanctions)
– Saudi Arabia (democratic baby steps)
– Egypt (same)
– Ukraine (financial and logistical support, together with other Western nations, of the opposition)
And that does not count Palestine and Lebanon, where (I would argue) the US is at least partially responsible for creating a political environment that has made progress possible. Nor does it count this Administration’s many other multilateral initiatives, including the Proliferation Security Initiative, the anti-human trafficking program, and the 4-nation tsunami response coordinating group.
Out of that whole list, only two actually involved military action: Afghanistan and Iraq. So I don;’t see how anyone could say that military might is the only thing Bush understands. Rather, one might say that Bush is the first president in a long time to understand how military might *should* be used in conjunction with diplomacy.
And now…this has been a blast, but I must go. Thanks to all.
March 2nd, 2005 at 6:30 pmgeorge: the problem is that the “stated goals” keep changing!
Polling data out of Iraq shows that more people than you would expect (and not just Baathists) preferred their lives under Saddam to their current situation. That’s how bad it is at the moment.
We should have learned from Vietnam that even with the best of intentions, we cannot impose our values and our form of government on another culture. To most people, stability is more important that political theory. After the military victory, we could perhaps have offered the Iraqis freedom, and order. Instead, they got chaos and occupation. The White House and the Pentagon civilians overruled the State Department and the Pentagon soldiers.
I think that if you want to be seen as one of the “good guyd”, then the threshold for pre-emptively invading another sovereign nation (however badly governed) should be pretty high. I don’t think it was high enough in this case.
March 2nd, 2005 at 6:40 pmgeorge: you can dismiss my statement by labelling it a canard, but it’s not very compelling logic. I can’t believe I have to go through the list again…
Afghanistan: a reasonably effective military campaign against the Taliban, cut short to get ready for Iraq. OBL managed to escape and is still at large. Taliban regrouping. Heroin production at an all-time high (Ask the CIA how useful drugs are for raising funding) Except for a small secure area around Kabul, majority of country back under control of warlords. Puppet government with CIA asset in control. Almost forgot, there was a symbolic election, as there was when the Soviets were in control.
From here it goes downhill…
Iraq: removed a nasty but contained and pretty much unarmed dictator from power, plunged the country into chaos/anarchy; CIA says its now more dangerous than before; boffo recruitment poster for jihadists; turned moderates against the US by heavy-handed approach; increased the influence of Iran; oh yes, and they had an election that was more symbolic but even less meaningful that Afghanistan.
Pakistan: mentors of the Taliban, many still believe that major elements in the Pakistani intelligence sevice still support or are sympathetic to OBL, which might explain why he is still at large. Khan given a slap on the wrist, and then a pardon. Musharraf recently reneged on his previous promise to give up control of the armed forces. Democracy is on the run…
Libya: a work in progress predating Bush. Solid, unglamorous deplomacy did finally pay off under Bush’s administration; the lesson of offering incentives, not just threats never was applied to Iraq.
Saudi Arabia: Calling them baby steps is an insult to babies everywhere. Source of inspiration and funding for OBL. Starting to cooperate with US now that the bombs are coming home to roost.
Egypt: several vague promises after 3 decades of autocratic rule; popular destination for “rendition” flights. It would be a stretch to call them zygote steps.
Ukraine: provided comic relief by getting the Bush administration to make noble statements about free and open elections, without dirty tricks or voter intimidation. Last US election didn’t meet the standards that the UN sets for emerging democracies. Not sure how Bush can pat his back for this one.
Glad you’re not counting Lebanon and Palestine - oh wait - you are. “partially responsible for creating a political environment that has made progress possible”? That’s a line from a bad resume. Both events were sparked by deaths that even I wouldn’t try to pin on Bush.
You also failed to count the numerous treaties that the US has either not signed, backed out of, or broken under Bush.
That’s two military “victorys”, both of which have been compromised by a lack of planning and follow-up, and a couple of diplomatic accomplishments of small stature and questionable importance.
You also conveniently forgot about Iran and North Korea.
If Bush *really* understood the relationship between military power and diplomacy, he would have finished the job in Afghanistan properly, made *that* country a real example of America’s values; fixed up schools and hospitals; made some long-term improvements. That would have actually won some “hearts and minds”. Or maybe in Iraq he could have let the State Department implement the plans they had already drawn up for post-Saddam Iraq, rather than set up a free-market experiment staffed with graduates from conservative colleges in the US and watching it descend into chaos. Oh, and he could have told Rummy to let the real soldiers run the war.
March 2nd, 2005 at 10:02 pmWell, even though this is off the front page, I can’t let you have the last word…
Like I said, if you want to be a pessimist, that’s what you’re going to be. It’s no secret that everything is not perfect in these places. So what’s new? This Administration has accomplished a hell of a lot more, in the most difficult trouble spots in the world, than any American administration in living memory. (Try holding up the same level of scrutiny to any other president’s foreign policy — particularly the beloved Bill Clinton — and see where you come up.) And most of the time they’ve done it with non-military tools. That’s all the “list” is meant to demonstrate.
And you accuse me of moving the goalposts…
March 3rd, 2005 at 11:38 amgeorge, show me where I accused you of “moving the goalposts”. Unless your last name is Bush I did no such thing. I was just trying to point out that it’s useless to claim the invasion accomplished some of its stated goals since Bush kept adding “new” goals after the fact as each of the old ones was proven false. The game was rigged.
You bend over so far to give Bush credit for events in Lebanon, Palestine and elsewhere that you’re going to need a chiropractor. If the burden of proof is that low, then I might as well blame Bush for the increase in violent hurricanes the last few years based on his stand on global warming; since - what was your line - oh yeah, he’s at least partially responsible for creating a atmospheric environment that has made more violent hurricanes possible. Hey, this is easy…
Look, he had two military victories (Afghanistan/Iraq) that have/are being pissed away by neglect/bungling.
A pessimist *assumes* the worst. Turn off Fox, open your eyes, and take a look at what’s going on in Afghanistan right now. I’m not assuming the worst, I’m seeing what was perhaps Bush’s most widely supported accomplishment falling to pieces for lack of attention and resources. Freedom isn’t on the march, it gave up and ran away. The people in Iraq who say they’d rather have Saddam back in power aren’t saying it because he was a nice guy; it’s just an indicator of how bad their lives are now and have been for almost 2 years.
Given that record, I’m not going to assume that a couple of vague promises in one speech by Mubarak after decades of autocracy is proof of *any* democratic reform.
March 3rd, 2005 at 11:14 pmAnyone can become angry. That is easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose and in the right way - that is not easy.
————————————————————-
Get your tv dish installed today at no charge (equipment included).
October 18th, 2005 at 5:03 amhttp://www.instantsatellite.com/
lucky 13
You are invited to check the pages dedicated to kasinosoftware
October 21st, 2005 at 8:47 amSo glad I found your site Debbie Storz %e-mail% Marvelous info. I am working with this theme and the information has been most helpful. I would be really happy to cooperate with you; I am informed in this theme good enough! Debbie Storz %e-mail%
January 8th, 2006 at 8:50 pm