Bush a Genius Says NY Times

Keep slathering on that black paint, Revel. You gotta keep faith that sooner or later, it will stick. Actually I'm going to worry if the naysayers should ever turn over a new leaf and come up with any kind of positive outlook about anything. Since all the prophecies of doom and gloom haven't worked out that way yet, I'll worry that optimism from the left will signal a major setback.

Having said that which part of my gloom and doom post is not true?

Well for starters, I think the Iraqi election and process toward forming a new government is going rather well considering that no country has ever formed a new democracy seamlessly, with no problems, no disagreements, no issues, no setbacks. Compared to the U.S.A. two and a quarter centuries ago, Iraq is not as diverse and doesn't have as many hurdles to jump over as we did. No process of government formation anywhere was messier than ours was. Admittedly we didn't have Islamofacist fundamentalist terrorists doing their damndest to kill, maim, or intimidate anybody working on the project.

Nevertheless, I personally think there is much more reason to hope than there is to put it in a negative light.

As you have already noted, Nimh, American conservatives, both in the administration and out of it, have welcomed the accumulating events in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Lybia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and now Lebanon with cautious, but unreserved enthusiasm.

I believe the most likely explanation for this is that their rhetoric on the matter, which asserts that free, self-governing and relatively democratic nations will, on average, pose far less danger to us and their neighbors than will the tyrannies that have for so long infected the former French and British colonies in the mid East - is indeed a true reflection of their beliefs.

What I find most remarkable about all this is the relative lack of comment on these new developments both in the international press and even here on the A2K political forums. Where are all the self-appointed spokesmen for international peace and justice who opined so vigorously about Security Council Resolutions, vague concepts of international law, evidence of WMDs, and all the rest? Is the prospect of relatively democratic self-governance on the part of the Arabs of the mid east, as a replacement to the post colonial tyrannies that have for so long oppressed them something of no interest to these spokesmen?

Bush a genius..........laughing. Hilarious.

Rove is a genius but Bush is just doing what he's told.

Huh? Trust Foxfyre to slam anyone who ventures into some kind of centrist, nuanced on the one hand / other hand position right back into the other corner - gotta keep those fronts intact, I guess. More comfortable that way, I suppose.

Perhaps you could elaborate on ... well, anything relevant to the issue I brought up in my post? I applaud the neocons for at least wanting to agressively push for democratic reforms in countries like Saudi-Arabia - but the Rumsfelds of this word couple that push itself with flourishful predictions on how it will surely bring Western values, enlightenment and progress. Whereas, as it turns out, as soon as the Saudis did broaden the right to vote to a larger stratum, those folks promptly voted in fundamentalist Islamists across the board. How do you deal with that? And what does it mean to the implied promise of the "Freedom on the march" image?

I'm still for it - I think we have no choice but to take the risk. Keep propping up the authoritarian regimes that have left their populations so alienated/disgruntled that that's how they came to flock to the fundamentalists in the first place is no alternative. But dilemmas like these must worry you as well, no? I mean, they do grate a little with the rhetorics.

I agree with such beliefs. (Though on a sidenote, I don't think all American conservatives do - a previous generation, say the Bush Sr generation, was after all quite brusquely pragmatic if not outright indifferent about whether countries were free, democratic or self-governing, as long as they chose America's side - and if not, no democratic calibre would save them from America's spite. But I'm digressing, and I guess should just be grateful for the belated conversion to human-rights-idealism of at least the neocons.)

I agree with said belief and as previously noted, don't really think there's an alternative. It's propping up the status quo thats led to the emergence and festering through of an Islamist counterculture in those countries in the first place. I do however think the process is fraught with much more problems and dilemmas than the rhetorics of Bush and Rumsfeld suggest. And there appears to be a certain unwillingness not just to express, but even entertain such dilemmas on their part, as was shown in the Iraq war, when those who warned about the problems that did indeed eventually occur were brushed aside or put on sidetracks. That kind of worries me - its better to have realised and planned ahead for the unavoidable stumbling blocks. (Furthermore, not so much seriously worrying as just annoying is the rhetorical trick of blasting anyone who dares bring them up as "just being negative" and not posessing the conservatives true-American optimism - but thats more of a domestic political (or A2K-political) concern.)


Well, the reproach to "the international press" is unfounded I think. I dunno what you're looking at, but I regularly look into British, Dutch and German newspapers as well as the US political sites, as well as taking an occasional peek at a French frontpage, and I've found stories like the Lebanese popular uprising of sorts, these last weeks, to have gotten if anything more prominent coverage here on the European continent than in the English-speaking press. It's certainly been front-page news here in Holland. So what international press are you referring to, actually, as undercovering the events?

I gotta join you about the other point tho, about the politics forums here or the, I dunno, chattering classes in general or something. I've been kind of disappointed in the reception of the news from Lebanon here for example. I've found the news reports from Lebanon quite an exhilerating read myself, yet here the same news seems to have found a pallid reaction (unless I've missed a thread). People seem to be more concerned about whether or not America was somehow involved (and if it was, then of course we should be sceptic and suspicious if not outright dismissive), than about just what actually happened there. About what concerns the people there.

Its been pretty groundbreaking stuff, the cross-religious demonstrations in Hairiri's honor, really something of a nation standing up, and to oppose powerful foreign occupiers at that - heady stuff. I'm sure that for the Lebanese, its relatively peripheral what Bush said about it in his latest speech or whether or not some kind of American under-the-radar involvement took place as well - there's so many foreign countries interfering with Lebanese politics, it'd be just the one more factor anyway. What is new - and hopeful - is the breakthrough those demostrations represent in the Lebanese political landscape. So yeah, I suppose I have been a little disappointed in - well, I guess American liberals - that, once again I dare say, they're so wholly focused only on what Bush did or said (wrong), so they can oppose it - like, foreign politics seen and used only as fodder for the domestic feud. Thats an old complaint of mine actually. Its a kind of reverse manifestation of chauvinism, really, or ethnocentrism anyway - IMHO.

Nimh, I'll concede the point about the European press - my knowledge is insufficient for such a judgement, and I am aware of new commentaqry, particularly in the Greman press.

The silence here on A2K, however, has been stunning.

As a writer at Slate put it recently, it would be a bit 'churlish' to not grant the Bush administration some kudos for the turn of events in the mid-east.

I read three or four Brit papers each day, and Ha'aretz once a week or so. There's been substantial coverage of Lebanon in all of these papers. True also for Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iraq of course.

On PBS news last night, one reporter who had been working in Lebanon for a long time said that the key example or encouragement for the Lebanese had been the recent events in the Ukraine and that was so because the movement was perceived as truly an organic people's movement, and not a manipulated set of circumstances initiated or driven by some external interest. I think that is a vitally important nuance not merely in attributing cause correctly, but in appreciating how real national or citizen liberty can enthuse while the false sort risks driving apathy and hopelessness even deeper (with consequences for breeding terrorism). But it is also not to say that the other cases aren't helpful or positive.

There's a profound problem here, in the US media most particularly, of analysis and attribution regarding what is happening in the middle east precisely because of the level of partisanship which has developed. On the same PBS Newshour show last evening, I saw Lehrer do something I've never before witnessed in the twenty years I've been watching that show - Lehrer expressed a personal response to a political matter. The context was the Friday review of political events over the preceding week offered up by David Brooks and Mark Shields with questions from Lehrer. Across the broad expanse of American TV political discussion, this has the most balanced and tempered example available whether with its present members, or earlier with David Gergen or Paul Gigot speaking from the conservative viewpoint, or with the occasional guest replacement for either member. Where Brooks or Shields might be quite starkly opinionated in their respective columns, on this show they are consistently gracious and careful to acknowledge the 'truths' the other fellow is advancing. Clearly, this is a culture created by PBS and Lehrer (along with his predecesser, McNeil). The discussion last night moved to the partisanship in Washington presently and Shields noted the completely unprecedented case where Tom Daschle had been given a Senate 'going away' party and not a single Republican attended. Both reporters said that the parties do not speak to each other, but use the reporters to find out what the other guy is thinking/doing. It was at this point that Lehrer, who has been covering Washington for his adult life, made an absolutely unusual expression of dismay and frustration.

The problem for careful and accurate analysis of policy results or attribution of cause sits squarely in this partisan divide because so much of the media and punditocracy has itself come to reflect this divide. In truth, much of the modern popular media and the voices on it have as their primary function the fostering or furthering of the divide because they are funtioning as party affiliates. To me, this is the most worrisome aspect of modern US politics because objectivity, fairness, evidence and reason cannot be acknowledged if such leads in a direction contrary to a party's perceived interests. Don't acknowledge anything good about Bush policy - that it might produce real good, or do not allow that the institutionalization of torture is contrary to most everything the US has ever stood for - that it is itself deeply evil.

But analysis of this partisan divide, and the history/study of the new media's role in that divide is itself a victim of what it seeks to understand or discuss. Any evidence or conclusion which places cause mainly or even partly in the domain of one party's strategy or actions will immediately be met with reactive denial and counter charges.

It's all a bit of a mess and the further it degrades (and it does continue to degrade steadily) the less I am able to convince myself that America will be able to pull itself out of this decline.

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.

A thought-provoking and unusually balanced post, Blatham, thanks.

Not to steal the fire from this thread or anything, but rather to (hopefully) bring together the discussion on the question under an appropriate header, I started a new thread:

Democratisation in the Middle East - the debate

Hope to see you all ... ;-)

Quote, "Bush indicated they would and as a direct result of the bold new direction in our policy taken at his initiative." IF IF IF IF Bush had justified the preemptive attack of Iraq on the basis of "bringing democracry to Iraq," even the UK would have stayed out! REPEAT: (AGAIN) The preemptive attack was justified on the basis that Saddam was hiding and developing WMDs. Please do not forget this little fact in the future.

I think the following is quite appropriate at this point.

March 04, 2005

What have the Americans ever done for us? Liberated 50 million people...

What Have the Americans Done for Us?
Gerard Baker

ONE OF MY favourite cinematic moments is the scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian when Reg, aka John Cleese, the leader of the People's Front of Judea, is trying to whip up anti-Roman sentiment among his team of slightly hesitant commandos.

"What have the Romans ever done for us?" he asks.

"Well, there's the aqueduct," somebody says, thoughtfully. "The sanitation," says another. "Public order," offers a third. Reg reluctantly acknowledges that there may have been a couple of benefits. But then steadily, and with increasing enthusiasm, his men reel off a litany of the good things the Romans have wrought with their occupation of the Holy Land.

By the time they're finished they're not so sure about the whole insurgency idea after all and an exasperated Reg tries to rally them: "All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

I can't help but think of that scene as I watch the contortions of the anti-American hordes in Britain, Europe and even in the US itself in response to the remarkable events that are unfolding in the real Middle East today.

Interesting reading material here.

Who thinks Bush will fight Syria if they aren't out of Lebanon? How long do you give them?

While mulling that...why did Saudi have a vote recently? And haven't they relaxed some anti-female laws...?

Those dominoes....

About Saudi Arabia, I don't think they relaxed any laws regarding women since they were not even allowed to vote in the last election, but they could have.

I agree with nimh about blatham post.

This is so thrilling. Forcing out the dictatorial regime in Iraq was costly and risky--but it was well worth it. The world continues to change for the better--due to the intervention of George W Bush.

Story--

Saudis vote in historic election
Local issues dominate voter concerns in first election

Thursday, February 10, 2005 Posted: 6:06 PM EST (2306 GMT)

Saudi men check their voter registration cards as they line up to cast their ballots in Riyadh.

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) -- Abdul Rahman al-Hussein voted for the candidate pledging to build playgrounds. Another man picked the candidate pushing affordable housing. Local concerns held sway as Saudi men cast city council ballots Thursday in the first regular election in their country's history.

Saudis gingerly went through the seven-page ballot card, smiling broadly as they cast their votes and made plans to frame their green voter registration cards. Many said the novel experience was a good first step toward democratic reform in this absolute monarchy -- but should be followed by more.

"This is the beginning of a new era. We now know what elections are, and what it means to make your voice heard through proper channels," said Abdul Nasser al-Zahrani, 46, an archaeology professor. "It is the beginning of democracy."

Voting began slowly at 8 a.m., the beginning of the two-day Saudi weekend, but the pace picked up later in the day, especially in lower-income areas. Women were kept away, banned from either running in the elections or voting.

Officials opened the tall, gray ballot boxes to make sure they were empty before sealing them. The smell of incense wafted through some polling stations as voters ticked off the names of their candidates.

Some had to be shepherded through the voting. Others complained to officials about voters chatting on cell phones in violation of voting rules. One enthusiastic voter made a V-for-victory sign as he got his ballot card.

More than 1,800 candidates were contesting 127 seats in the capital and surrounding villages, with 640 of them running for seven seats in Riyadh. Two more phases will cover the rest of the country in March and April.

Only half of almost 1,200 councilmen nationwide will be elected. The rest will be appointed. While many see the vote as a modest step, others see it as a remarkable development in a country where any talk of public participation in decision-making once was taboo.[/u]

Asked how he felt about the election, especially since it gave some power to citizens his family has ruled for decades, Prince Mohammed bin Saud said: "We believe in these reforms and we're going in the right direction."

The kingdom came under international pressure to reform after the September 11, 2001, attacks, carried out by 19 Arabs, 15 of them Saudi. Some progressive Saudis have blamed the lack of democracy for the prevalence of a puritanical Islamic ideology in which militants can easily find justification for their actions.<----Exactly!~Lash)

Prince Mansour bin Miteb, head of the election commission, said voter turnout was "very reasonable" shortly before polls closed at 5 p.m. Final results are not expected until Friday or Saturday.

Only 149,000 of 600,000 eligible voters registered to vote.

With so many candidates, it was not clear who would have the advantage: Wealthy businessmen who poured millions into campaigns, or fundamentalist Muslim candidates who enjoy credibility and a reputation for honesty among many Saudis.

Sultan al-Ghunaimi, a 27-year-old cleric, said he voted for seven Islamist candidates because in their campaign they promised "to serve Muslims with honesty."

Saad Tlass, a 47-year-old merchant, said he favored candidates who promised to work on legislation that would allow citizens to add extra floors to their houses.

"That would bring rents down and make it affordable for men to get married," he said.

Others said they didn't care about the candidates' affiliations so long as they fulfilled promises to improve street lighting, get rid of the stench of sewage in some areas and decrease bureaucracy.

Some voters, like Mansour al-Omar, a 40-year-old businessman, brought their sons with them. Al-Omar said he wanted to teach 6-year-old son Ibrahim about democracy.

Prince Turki, the Saudi ambassador to Britain, predicted late last month that women would be allowed to vote in future elections. Voters on Thursday seemed divided over the issue.

Al-Ghunaimi said he would support women voting on issues that concern them, such as female shopping malls and charities.<---You've come a long way, baby--but you're going to have to go a lot further---sigh.

"Sewage and lighting are none of their business," he said.<--They'll be running your world before much longer, knuckle-dragger)

Abdullah al-Muhaidib, 43, an auditor, said he would not have allowed his wife to vote even if the government had permitted it. "She is a queen at home, but I am in charge of what takes place outside the house," he said.

However, many, like Abdul Aziz al-Ghanam, 45, a land surveyor, said they wished women had been given the opportunity to participate.

"I would not have had a problem with my wife voting," he said.

The sight of a female reporter in a polling station confused Suleiman al-Ondus, 70. "Have you changed your mind? Are you allowing women to vote?" he asked an official. "I want to bring my wife."<--sweet

When told the woman was a journalist, al-Ondus said: "I feel a lot of pain because women cannot participate in the vote."
--------------
It is the first step. (A huge, fabulous step...) How long do you think they can continue to bar women from voting? Not long.

Well, it took 72 years of concerted steady effort by women in the USA - hopefully, they don't take this as guide line :wink: