1
   

Bush a Genius Says NY Times

 
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 07:24 am
I think it may have taken so long, because the US wasn't facing the rioting, bloodshed and a terrorist breeding ground atmosphere that the House of Saud is currently suffering.

One would ask themselves why a powerful royal family would hand over power to their citizens...

Why do you think?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 07:31 am
Well, when you consider that in really democratic countries like the UK (1928) and Switzerland (1971/1990 - never a monarchy) it even took longer than e.g. in Germany (1919, no monarchs) and the USA (1920, never a monarchy), I doubt that it is (only) related to the form of government.

It's unfortunately just man's character.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 07:33 am
Lash wrote:
Saudis vote in historic election
Local issues dominate voter concerns in first election

Lash, yes - good news from Saudi Arabia in that they opened up the elections - another step in the democratisation of the ME.

But as I pointed out some two pages ago here, the results of those local elections pose some dilemmas. An initiative from the mosques had the men texting a list of the candiates to each other that were favoured by the fundamentalists. It had an enormous impact, from what I remember reading directly after the elections:

nimh wrote:
But the Saudi case constitutes quite a dilemma, doesn't it? For the first time ever, the Saudi government permits a wider stratum of men to vote in local elections - and they promptly vote in Islamists across the board.

I havent kept up with how it was resolved eventually, because I know that as soon as the results came in, the other politicians promised to try to invalidate them in court, because party lists were not allowed in the elections but the fundamentalists had been texting lists of preferred candidates around - dont know if such a court case took place or succeeded. But the results themselves - I think the fundamentalists won in 16 out of 18 seats or something like that? - were quite provocative. Especially since they were often quite unknown people, standing against local dignitaries, and were thus really purely voted in on the mobilising force of this ideological appeal in mosques and schools, to vote for the Islamist candidate - and the mobilisation was done through such postmodern ways too, through SMS (one means of communication not controlled by government) - it all suggests that serious democratisation in Saudi-Arabia might well yet cause serious headaches.

I'm in favour of it nevertheless, mind you. But I would have expected American conservatives to be somewhat ambivalent about the results so far ...?


Lusatian posted a great article about such dilemmas ("Are We Serious About Arab Democracy?"), which I pilfered to post from it extensively in the thread I opened up last night: Democratisation in the Middle East - the debate (Article originally posted by Lusatian excerpted in this post). Some conservative voices would be welcome.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 07:47 am
I'm there.

But, to finish this thought here-- Why such nay-saying? It is a historic!!! great!!!! unexpectedly rapid!!! response to what is going on. They could have pulled a China--and quietly killed a lot of people-- There are all kinds of things they could have done. Look at Pootie in Russia. He's supposed to have a more democratic country than Saudi-- I guess he does--but, he is clearly headed in the wrong direction. Saudi has clearly taken a step in the right direction.

Can't you take a day or so to just be glad?

We are discussing Idealism and Realism and how they color a person's political/mental persona. The Idealists seem NEVER to be happy.

Be happy. For a few days. Then we tweak it.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 09:14 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Nonsense!

Partisan politics is no more partisan in this country than it is in Canada, Britain or any other functioning democracy. My father served in the Congress and Senate for almost 30 years and what I remember from those days with Sam Rayburn and Joe Martin was every bit as partisan as politics today. Tom Daschle was a particularly mean spirited and temacious practicioner of the legislative partisan arts - this is what caused his defeat - he got what he deserved.

The notion that some "rare" display of exasperation on the part of the sainted Jim Lherer is somehow of particular significance to thoughtful, knowledgable observers of the scene is particularly laughable.

There is indeed "decline" afoot in the world today, but it is not in America. Instead it is in the sclerotic economies, declining populations, and paralyzed political systems in Old Europe and in the worn-out tyrannies that beset the developing world, and which are beginning to fall.


Yes, I agree completely. The entire post above is nonsense.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 09:29 am
I know liberals must be miserable. The 'opposition' is changing the world before your eyes. Hard to ignore the parade in your face, eh?

C'Mon. You can hop on our bandwagon...
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 09:46 am
Lash wrote:
C'Mon. You can hop on our bandwagon...


That's not a bandwagon, honey. That's a handbasket.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 09:49 am
What would be a success in your opinion?



btw--That was cute.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 10:33 am
The possibility of success is long past. What we have now is chaos, and we still don't know how things will pan out. It seems only Bush The Genius understands what the future holds.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2005 10:36 am
Lash wrote:
Be happy. For a few days. Then we tweak it.

Point well taken.
0 Replies
 
Community Card
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 07:51 am
Last I've been here was about 5 pages ago. This thread does seem to be developing quite rapidly, and many new a2kers have joined this discussion.
The press is a subject you guys chose to debate. Well as far as I am concerned, I do not really think there is any breakthrough concerning this issue. Media is doing what it has always done, meaning that they address a situation according to their affiliations and different press time is attributed in different countries to the events. I do not mean this in any negative way, since I am for the media's involvement, in the sense that it brings world news to our doorstep. After that, I try to not really get head over heels for their analysis, but very much appreciate the effort they put. What I want to say is that this is a topic of its own, and I will stick to what was being discussed earlier in this thread.

Mnih, you've made points I totally agree with, but I do have a couple of things to add here and there in your different posts.
You say at some point that Syria is supporting armed sectarian militias. I will add here that they are supporting the ONLY armed militia. It should be understood that this (the Hezbollah) is the only militia with arms in Lebanon. During the civil war, it goes without saying that all parties had their ammunition, but they've all deposited their arms, at the exception of the Hezbollah, refusing to do so because of the thread Israel represents in the south of Lebanon (once more, this is the reason they give to the public which should be believed just as much as the reasons Bush gave when he tried persuading the human race of his cause to go on war in Iraq).
At some other point, you say that Saudi Arabia has joined the demand of Bush and Chirac to withdraw Syrian forces from Lebanon. Again, I will add here that it is not just Saudi Arabia, but this was the outcome of the Arab League, meaning that it is all the Arab countries that are demanding this. The slight room for misreading this issue is that people might think that Arab countries are against Syria. This is valid only in the case of the occupation of Lebanon, but they are very firm on any other issues such as a potential American attack on Syria, which they will definitely condemn.
Some similarities in our points of view, on points such as the comparison you draw between Syria-Lebanon and USA-Iraq, as well as how all looks good to you so far but most importantly on the point I was trying to make earlier on my posts, before you made your entry: Giving credit to Bush for what is happening in the region. This is what I was contesting, and to answer some hanging posts from page 12, 13 or something like that I would say that it is only evident that what is (and always has) happening now is the consequence of many factors, which only make sense when accumulated and added together.
It can obviously be argued that there are direct causes and that some events are far too distant and not really relevant to this particular case. Well, since we were talking about Lebanon, and to draw from this argument, I would say that the direct cause of what happened out there is NOT the war in Iraq. Now, if we want to talk about the elections in Iraq, well in that case, the direct cause is the Iraq war.
Following this logic, it would be just untrue to say that the rather positive changes in the Middle East region are all thanks to Bush.
I believe in giving credit when credit is due, and for that matter, America sure has some to its account. After all, they very much chose to get involved in this area of the world, and for whatever reasons they might have, they play a major influence (be it positive or negative, both for the region in the first place, and for them as a country).

America just want to take the full credit for that, and is using the exact same tools it used each time it engaged in such global action : Propaganda. They used it before going to war, to convince its people that it was for a noble cause and for whatever other reasons they managed to promote. Now, they call Mr.Billboard back in, and ask him to get the job done, knowing that his goal at this stage of the game is to credit America on ALL which is happening.


I've seen quite a few links and copy-pastes in this thread, and if you'll excuse me, I am responding now without having read a word of them. I do my own documentation on the web, and then I try and draw my own conclusions. While we have the chance to debate, I don't understand the need to put forward the press articles that represent your point of view instead of defending them in your own words. This is by no means to be understood as an attack on this, as much as it is an invitation from my part to the rest of you to turn it into a more live on air debate where there is no such thing as posting links. (They can always be provided when asked for).

There are loads of points made in this thread which could constitute very interesting areas for debate, such the post where it was mentioned that "There is indeed "decline" afoot in the world today, but it is not in America. Instead it is in the sclerotic economies, declining populations, and paralyzed political systems in Old Europe and in the worn-out tyrannies that beset the developing world, and which are beginning to fall." Well well..


I know its a bit long, but there is just too much to say, and I haven't been here for a while, so hope you can bare with me on this one.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 08:14 am
Community Card wrote:
Last I've been here was about 5 pages ago. This thread does seem to be developing quite rapidly, and many new a2kers have joined this discussion.


You should observe some other threads :wink:

(Besides I think, all the normal [old] member of the politics gang are here - some newbies like you really can pepper our decocted opinions :wink: )
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 08:19 am
Smarter Than the Liberals
NEWS ANALYSIS
For Bush, No Boasts, but a Taste of Vindication
By TODD S. PURDUM

Published: March 9, 2005


WASHINGTON, March 8 - He has gone out of his way not to crow, or even to take direct credit. But not quite two years after he began the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein, and not quite two months after a second Inaugural Address in which he spoke of "ending tyranny," President Bush seems entitled to claim as he did on Tuesday that a "thaw has begun" in the broader Middle East.


At the very least, Mr. Bush is feeling the glow of the recent flurry of impulses toward democracy in Iraq, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon and even Egypt and Saudi Arabia, where events have put him on a bit of a roll and some of his sharpest critics on the defensive. It now seems just possible that Mr. Bush and aides like Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz were not wrong to argue that the "status quo of despotism cannot be ignored or appeased, kept in a box or cut off," as the president put it in a speech at the National Defense University here.

The failure to find unconventional weapons in Iraq, his administration's shifting rationales for the war, the lingering insurgency and steady American casualties there were a drag on Mr. Bush's political fortunes for most of last year. But a wave of developments since the better-than-expected Iraqi elections in January - some perhaps related and others probably not - have brought Mr. Bush a measure of vindication, which may or may not be sustained by events and his own actions in the months to come.

"By now it should be clear that decades of excusing and accommodating tyranny in the pursuit of stability have only led to injustice and instability and tragedy," Mr. Bush said on Tuesday. "It should be clear that the advance of democracy leads to peace, because governments that respect the rights of their people also respect the rights of their neighbors."

His two predecessors in the Oval Office, his father and Bill Clinton, both spoke of the latest signs of progress in an appearance at the White House. The first President Bush was restrained, pronouncing himself "very pleased," but cautioning that much work remained to be done.

Mr. Clinton was more ebullient, noting that the Iraqi elections "went better than anyone could have imagined." In Lebanon, he said, "the Syrians are going to have to get out of there and give the Lebanese their country back, and I think the fact that the Lebanese are in the street demanding it is wonderful."

Asked about huge demonstrations on Tuesday, sponsored by Hezbollah, that demanded just the opposite, Mr. Clinton said: "I find it inconceivable that most Lebanese wouldn't like it if they had their country back. You know, they want their country back and they ought to get it."

For his part, Mr. Bush himself again acknowledged that building democracy in the Middle East will require a "generational commitment."

One senior White House aide, speaking on condition of anonymity so as not to overshadow his boss, acknowledged as much. "Obviously, the acts of courage we've seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, the demonstrations that happened in the Ukraine and now in Lebanon, these are very inspiring developments that have obviously caught the notice of the president," he said. "But this is very complicated stuff, and there are a lot of turns left on this journey, and the president at every step of the way has always cautioned it's going to be a difficult road."

Still, even as sharp and consistent a critic of Mr. Bush's foreign policy as Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat, gives Mr. Bush some credit for the latest stirrings of liberty along the eastern Mediterranean.

"What's taken place in a number of those countries is enormously constructive," Mr. Kennedy said on Sunday on the ABC News program "This Week." "It's a reflection the president has been involved."

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut and a frequent ally of Mr. Bush on national security affairs, was in the audience for his speech on Tuesday and was more effusive.

"Look, this moment in the Middle East has the feel of Central and Eastern Europe around the collapse of the Berlin Wall," he said in a telephone interview. "It's a very different historical and political context, and we all understand that democracy in the Middle East is in its infancy. But something is happening."

Mr. Lieberman said Mr. Bush deserved credit for at least two things: the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the continued American military presence in Iraq, which he said showed "the proven willingness of the United States to put its power behind its principles."

Indeed, Mr. Bush cast the United States' current posture in a long, bipartisan tradition of American foreign policy, from Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points to Franklin D. Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, Harry S. Truman's Marshall Plan and Ronald Reagan's unwillingness to accept Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe.

Mr. Bush's sharp demand on Tuesday that "all Syrian military forces and intelligence personnel must withdraw" from Lebanon before the scheduled elections there in May, if the elections themselves are to be viewed as fair, was a sign that he has every intention of pressing what he sees as his advantage in the region and in the court of world opinion - whether he describes it that way in public or not.

Still, there are real and practical dangers in the passions recently unleashed in the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia's recent limited municipal elections and President Hosni Mubarak's announcement that he will permit multiparty presidential elections in Egypt this fall are indisputably encouraging to would-be reformers here and there.

But full and genuine democratic elections in either country might well result in strongly anti-American governments.

Source
0 Replies
 
Community Card
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 02:05 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Community Card wrote:
Last I've been here was about 5 pages ago. This thread does seem to be developing quite rapidly, and many new a2kers have joined this discussion.


You should observe some other threads :wink:

(


Guess this means that this thread is officialy over now.
Oh well..
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 02:08 pm
Bush is a genius to do one thing to accomplish another.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 06:19 pm
That's right, ci.

Realpolitik. Sometimes it's the best thing to do. It's like a science experiment. You put this thing with that thing--and something completely different happens.

This makes Bush a Premiere Political Scientist. Let's buy him a plaque!
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 06:22 pm
a plague? didn't we already give that to europe?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 06:23 pm
A placque sounds like a good idea, but the best idea for a plaque for Bush must be unique as well.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 06:24 pm
No. We gave it to the Amerindians, but that's another story.

Europe got it from the Jews--or so they say.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 08:00 pm
Lash - that was rude. I'm offended.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 05:43:13