Bush At The Center Of An International Freedom Revolution

• March 1, 2005

For those keeping score at home: Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine, Palestinian Authority, Egypt (maybe) and now a people’s revolt in Beirut asking for the Syrians to get the heck out. I ask again, do these things occur with President Gore or President Kerry? I don’t think they do. Which is not to say the Bush policy is above criticism, but there is a democratic revolution going on in the world and George Bush is its biggest cheerleader.

I’d agree with that.
And, of course, there are rumblings in Iran to add to the list above.
And don’t forget Lebanon. Or Libya.
Like it or not, there are some massive changes afoot in the middle east with no other reasonable explanation then Bush’s policies in the region to credit.
I honestly feel that President Bush will be exonerated in history from the cynical accusations made by those who did not have the foresight, or the courage, to do what needed to be done in the middle east.

Tags: General

http://Array Gary Gunnels

Like it or not, there are some massive changes afoot in the middle east with no other reasonable explanation then BushÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s policies in the region to credit.

This is laughable.

Lebanon: Has had street protests against Syrian rule since 2000; growing effort since that time to kick out the Syrians; etc. People who think what happened after Harriri’s death is the first event are just completely ignorant of Lebanese history.

Iran: Since the mid-1990s has witnessed a growing movement against rule by the clerics there.

Ukraine: What the fuck? The Bush administration had literally nothing to do with events there. Nothing.

PA: Arafat died; the PA is tired of a long war.

Its unfortunate that neo-conservatives are so ignorant of the region they pretend that they control.
Gary Gunnels

Rob,

I’ve provided you with some reasonable explanations. I am awaiting a response.

likwidshoe,

If that is a picture of you, you are kind of cute. *wink*

In the shoes of ReaganÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

Like when he bailed on Lebanon (the right choice)? Or engaged in the SDI talks with the Soviets (back when commentators like George Will called him a Soviet lackey)?

You are probably too young to remember this (in light of the photo) but much of the opposition to Reagan’s efforts post 1983 came from, well, conservatives. They hated him for dealing with the Soviets. Indeed, one of the reasons why the “Freeze” movement died was due to Reagan’s willingness to meet face to face with his Soviet counterparts. Reagan was deeply concerned with nuclear holocaust.

Reagan used military force sparingly and always with an eye to persuade instead of force. He certainly didn’t engage in Wilsonian-like nation-building like W nor did he espouse it.

Suffice it to say that Reagan’s FP differed markedly from Bush’s both in substance and style.
LoadTheMule

Gary,

I am neither a neo-con nor a Bushophile. In fact, the only reason I tend to vote Republican (much of the time) is because they are taking us to Hell in a slower boat than the Dems. With that said:

Do you really contend that what happened in Lebanon yesterday, what is currently happening in Egypt and Saudi Arabia (re searching for ways to ‘appear’ more democratic), and Iran’s seeking (as they ultimately will) to trade their nuclear program for our assurance we won’t assist the coming uprising there has not been, in part, spurred by the fundamental changes in Iraq?

Like Bush, don’t like Bush–I couldn’t care less. I don’t see how you can deny that the tectonic plates in the ME are shifting in some measure because of what is occurring in Iraq.
Gary Gunnels

JG,

Well, they have a poor track record re: Iraq, but there prediction about the turnout for the election in Iraq proved to be roughly correct (whether the election means anything in the long run is another matter).

However, it does get to the point where Bushophiles claim that anything remotely positive in the world is due to Bush’s influence. You see that in the claim above re: the Ukrainian election, which has got to be one of the most insulting things one can say to a Ukrainian.

The Bush administration was noticeably silent on the Ukraine (for good reason – it was trying to balance its interests in that part of the world) and its difficult for me to see any connection between the Iraqi invasion (which Ukrainians as a rule opposed) and the domestic situation in the Ukraine where efforts at reform have long been underway before Bush even took office.

Of course the point is that neo-conservatives can claim all the influence in the world – no matter how ludicrous the claim – and hold true to that faith because their statements aren’t factual, they are opinons. Its like someone who says that Bush is just like Hitler; while that claim is clearly ludicrous, since its an opinion its quite difficult to dislodge.
JG

It is laughable, Gary, since everything the neocons predicted has turned out completely the opposite.
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

I honestly feel that President Bush will be exonerated in history from the cynical accusations made by those who did not have the foresight, or the courage, to do what needed to be done in the middle east.

In the shoes of Reagan…
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Gary and Jadegold have decided that being contrarian to the current administration is much more important than basing their comments in reality.

Bush couldn’t possibly have accomplished anything good in the middle east because they say so.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Bush At The Center Of An International Freedom Revolution

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments