freedom in the Mideast, Bush was right

[Bitsy]

If you know nothing about the topic but want to argue anyway, invent a "derangement syndrome" for a response and think nobody knows you're an imbecile.

[GWiz]

Wizzer..

The above is your introduction the wacky world of The Professor (Shady)....

Enjoy....

I'm well seasoned in dealing with nutjobs like Shady... Actually he's a rank amateur when it comes to that... People with single digit IQs like Shady don't really interest me all that much beyond giving me the odd laugh...

[GWiz]

After a couple of more news cycles and settling dust, President Bush is still coming up roses:

...So was Bush right? In one sense, it will be years, perhaps decades or even longer before we can have an accurate accounting. It is worth recalling that all these nascent Arab democracies are just now taking root in a part of the world with a culture and history many times older than that of the United States, arguably the world's oldest democracy. This is a messy process, democracy, and intentionally so. It is not by any means a perfect system, but it is the ideal form of governance to account for the imperfect nature of man, the political animal.

That is to say, in another sense, yes, Bush was right, and every American knows it — for it is only democracy that allows those voices not only to be heard, but to reach consensus without resorting to violence.

http://www.npr.org/2...-bush-was-right

Hey you old troll quit making out like Bushy baby invented the idea of Democracy...

NPR? Comeon!

Page Not Found

- Sorry! We can't seem to find the page you were looking for. Please visit the NPR Help Center to report this page as missing, or use the links below to continue your search. -

Nice try though...

[GWiz]

If you know nothing about the topic but want to argue anyway, invent a "derangement syndrome" for a response and think nobody knows you're an imbecile.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

- Abraham Lincoln

[Bitsy]

Page Not Found

- Sorry! We can't seem to find the page you were looking for. Please visit the NPR Help Center to report this page as missing, or use the links below to continue your search. -

Nice try though...

I had to do a search but here it is.........

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/11/133659238/egypt-shows-george-w-bush-was-right

Another view........

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=133663210&live=1

[bush_cheney2004]

I had to do a search but here it is.........

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/11/133659238/egypt-shows-george-w-bush-was-right

Another view........

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=133663210&live=1

Thanks Bitsy....I have repaired the original link.

[GWiz]

I had to do a search but here it is.........

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/11/133659238/egypt-shows-george-w-bush-was-right

Another view........

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=133663210&live=1

Cool, an op ed in the Weekly Standard, RIGHT!

Nice pic of Bush and Mubarak though...

[Bitsy]

Thanks Bitsy....I have repaired the original link.

You are welcome, it is a very reasoned position much more so than the Abrams editorial in the WaPo. Thanks for pointing it out.

[GWiz]

Thanks Bitsy....I have repaired the original link.

Hey what, no thanks for me? That's not nice...

[bush_cheney2004]

Cool, an op ed in the Weekly Standard, RIGHT!

Nice pic of Bush and Mubarak though...

Yes...just as nice as PM Chretien's photo with President Mubarak.

[GWiz]

Yes...just as nice as PM Chretien's photo with President Mubarak.

That it is my friend, that it is... The TIMEs they are a changin'...

[bush_cheney2004]

Hey what, no thanks for me? That's not nice...

Errrrr...no...Bitsy engaged the problem and found a solution. You only complained about it. This is the difference between Americans and Canadians!

[bush_cheney2004]

President Bush's comments from Nov 2003 (post Iraq invasion) at the National Endowment for Democracy:

....The great democratic movement President Reagan described was already well underway. In the early 1970s, there were about 40 democracies in the world. By the middle of that decade, Portugal and Spain and Greece held free elections. Soon there were new democracies in Latin America, and free institutions were spreading in Korea, in Taiwan, and in East Asia. This very week in 1989, there were protests in East Berlin and in Leipzig. By the end of that year, every communist dictatorship in Central America* had collapsed. Within another year, the South African government released Nelson Mandela. Four years later, he was elected president of his country -- ascending, like Walesa and Havel, from prisoner of state to head of state.

As the 20th century ended, there were around 120 democracies in the world -- and I can assure you more are on the way. Ronald Reagan would be pleased, and he would not be surprised.

....Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before. And it will yield the same results. As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace.

http://www.ned.org/george-w-bush/remarks-by-president-george-w-bush-at-the-20th-anniversary

[GWiz]

Errrrr...no...Bitsy engaged the problem and found a solution. You only complained about it. This is the difference between Americans and Canadians!

Ahhh, ok, can I take back the "thanks" I gave you when you found my link error (accompanied by a nasty comment I might add) then?

Does that make YOU a Canadian?

[bush_cheney2004]

Ahhh, ok, can I take back the "thanks" I gave you when you found my link error (accompanied by a nasty comment I might add) then?

Yes...I would agree to such a move given my stance on your helping hand.

Does that make YOU a Canadian?

No, because I was glad that your links didn't work! Bitsy actually engaged the larger topic (pro and con) for this thing known as Bush's "Freedom Agenda", often lost in the political cacophony of WE HATE BUSH....OH GOD...WE JUST HATE HIS GUTS!

[Jack Weber]

If you know nothing about the topic but want to argue anyway, invent a "derangement syndrome" for a response and think nobody knows you're an imbecile.

I can't wait for his sanctimonious response about how your stooping to name calling....

[GostHacked]

May as well get this thread started after what happened in Egypt....I hope President Bush is enjoying a nice cold beer in Crawford:

All these developments seem to come as a surprise to the Obama administration,

which dismissed Bush's "freedom agenda" as overly ideological and meant essentially to defend the invasion of Iraq.

But as Bush's support for the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon and for a democratic Palestinian state showed, he was defending self-government, not the use of force. Consider what Bush said in that 2003 speech, which marked the 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy, an institution established by President Ronald Reagan precisely to support the expansion of freedom.

"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe - because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty," Bush said. "As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/28/AR2011012803144.html

And yet in the Good Ol USA, trading liberty for stability is exactly what is happening.

[Jonsa]

And yet in the Good Ol USA, trading liberty for stability is exactly what is happening.

I don't think anyone can argue with the logic of promoting democracy over dictatorship. A little rhetoric and idealism goes a long way intellectually and pretty well nowhere in realpolitik.

The article is certainly right. Bush supported the cedar revolution which saw Syria bugger off and Hezbollah step in. The results of that "revolution" were less than desirable. Then the support for elections in Palestine that didn't turn out too well either. So the "Bush doctrine" didn't provide anything even appoximating stability, openess and liberty.

And interestingly, Bush and his father before him played major kiss ass with the Saudis. A tyrannical, bigotted, self indulgant theocratic monarchy that exports violent islamic teachings and terrorists along with billions in oil. Nothing like an obvious double standard to highlight hypocricy.

[bush_cheney2004]

....And interestingly, Bush and his father before him played major kiss ass with the Saudis. A tyrannical, bigotted, self indulgant theocratic monarchy that exports violent islamic teachings and terrorists along with billions in oil. Nothing like an obvious double standard to highlight hypocricy.

So did Jimmy Carter, and with good reason (see Carter Doctrine). Those who cry "hypocrisy" are working with a very narrow view of space and time, as there is no standard, double or otherwise. American foreign policy is a complex juggling act, that in the end, must be responsive to American interests, not the perception and conclusions of others.

[GWiz]

So did Jimmy Carter, and with good reason (see Carter Doctrine). Those who cry "hypocrisy" are working with a very narrow view of space and time, as there is no standard, double or otherwise. American foreign policy is a complex juggling act, that in the end, must be responsive to American interests, not the perception and conclusions of others.

You're bringing up Carter in a GOOD light? UNBELIEVABLE!!! Are you sure you're not a Democrat in "sheeps clothing"? You sure as hell aren't a Fox News brainwashed, Tea Party loving, right wing extremist, Republicant... Your reasonableness and realistic insite contained in your posts lately, including a somewhat reserved viewpoint about Canada are blowing my mind...

STOP THAT!!! :angry:

[GostHacked]

So did Jimmy Carter, and with good reason (see Carter Doctrine). Those who cry "hypocrisy" are working with a very narrow view of space and time, as there is no standard, double or otherwise. American foreign policy is a complex juggling act, that in the end, must be responsive to American interests, not the perception and conclusions of others.

You mean American Corporation interests.

[GWiz]

Yes...I would agree to such a move given my stance on your helping hand.

Fair enough...

No, because I was glad that your links didn't work! Bitsy actually engaged the larger topic (pro and con) for this thing known as Bush's "Freedom Agenda", often lost in the political cacophony of WE HATE BUSH....OH GOD...WE JUST HATE HIS GUTS!

I like Bitsy, although we haven't "talked", giving opposing viewpoints and links is certainly a nice and refreshing change from the norm around here...

And of course the FACT that Bushes motivation for his comments was trying to justify the Iraq War should only be seen as incidental to what he said... I fully understand your reasoning in that regard, although I do not share that sentiment, as you well know...

Edited February 14, 2011 by GWiz

[bush_cheney2004]

....And of course the FACT that Bushes motivation for his comments was trying to justify the Iraq War should only be seen as incidental to what he said... I fully understand your reasoning in that regard, although I do not share that sentiment, as you well know...

Of course...and that is a very fair assessment. But in the larger scheme of things, Bush will be judged just as others have been judged...from the longer historical viewpoint and time horizon. Two prime ministers agreed with the Iraq War, not as justified, but for larger geo-political REASONS. If, and that's a very big if, the Mideast is transformed in a way that is consistent with Reagan/Bush's vision, they will get credit for that. Right or wrong, Bush's presidency will have mattered.

[Jonsa]

So did Jimmy Carter, and with good reason (see Carter Doctrine). Those who cry "hypocrisy" are working with a very narrow view of space and time, as there is no standard, double or otherwise. American foreign policy is a complex juggling act, that in the end, must be responsive to American interests, not the perception and conclusions of others.

So, Democracy isn't a standard. Liberty isn't a standard. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are only inalienable rights given by the creator to americans.

Anything goes to further American interests. Okay I'll buy that, but hypocrisy is hypocrisy and by any definition, that is precisely what american foreign policy is fraught with. Its also a dimension of everyone elses foreign policy, but just because everyone does it doesn't stop it from being hypocrisy.

And the unconditional support of the Saudis is hypocrisy at its most blatant and ugly.

[bush_cheney2004]

So, Democracy isn't a standard. Liberty isn't a standard. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are only inalienable rights given by the creator to americans.

Correct...the Americans defined what this means for them, and others must do the same. The USA is a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. It was founded by slave owners.....how's that for "hypocrisy"?

Anything goes to further American interests. Okay I'll buy that, but hypocrisy is hypocrisy and by any definition, that is precisely what american foreign policy is fraught with. Its also a dimension of everyone elses foreign policy, but just because everyone does it doesn't stop it from being hypocrisy.

OK, but that is a very naive viewpoint, which would, logically, lead to every nation state with the same approach. This is fantasy.

And the unconditional support of the Saudis is hypocrisy at its most blatant and ugly.

No more that support for Canada or the UK....why pick on the Saudis, since "hypocrisy" can be found anywhere. That is the problem when one starts to parse things so subjectively. Instead, accept the dynamics of the competing interests and act accordingly.

Edited February 14, 2011 by bush_cheney2004