You are invited to check the pages dedicated to kasinosoftware

————————————————————-

Get your tv dish installed today at no charge (equipment included).
http://www.instantsatellite.com/

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.

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm

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.

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.