Posted on 12/10/2003 6:04:23 AM PST by Theodore R.
Here we go again
Posted: December 10, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
A close read of President Bush's November addresses at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington and at the Whitehall Palace in London leads a traditionalist almost to despair.
George Bush did not write this democratist drivel. This is the kind of messianic rhetoric he probably never heard before he became president. Who is putting these words in his mouth? For if George Bush truly intends to lead a "global democratic revolution," and convert not only Iraq but the whole Middle East to democracy, he has ceased to be a conservative and we are headed for endless conflicts, disappointments, disillusionment and tragedy.
At London, he called a "commitment to the global expansion of democracy" both "the alternative to instability and to hatred and terror" and "the third pillar of our security." But before he wagers our security on a crusade for democracy, Bush should ask the hard questions no one seems to have asked before he invaded Iraq.
Where in the Constitution is he empowered to go around the world destabilizing governments? Can he truly believe that by hectoring such autocracies as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, America is more secure? Who comes to power if Mubarak goes in Cairo, the Saudi monarchy falls or Musharaff is ousted in Pakistan? If memory serves, the last wave of popular revolutions in the region gave us Nasser, Khadafi, Saddam and the Ayatollah.
With $200 billion sunk into democratizing Iraq and Afghanistan, how many more wars does Bush think Americans will support before they decide to throw the interventionist Republicans out?
Where did he get the idea we are insecure because the Islamic world is not democratic? The Islamic world has never been democratic. Yet, before we intervened massively there, our last threat came from Barbary pirates. Lest we forget, Muhammad Atta and his comrades did not plot their atrocities in the Sunni Triangle, but in Hamburg and Delray Beach.
Surveys show that Islamic people bear a deep resentment of U.S. dominance of their region and our one-sided support for Israel. Interventionism is not America's solution, it is America's problem.
It was our earlier intervention in the Gulf War and our huge footprint on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia that lead directly to 9-11. They were over here because we were over there.
If one-man, one-vote comes to Pakistan, what do we do if that nuclear nation supports a return of the Taliban? What do we do if the Iraqi regime that takes power after free elections tells us to pack up and get out, and declares the liberation of Kuwait and its return to the embrace of the motherland to be as vital to Baghdad as the return of Taiwan is to Beijing?
Freedom, the president said, "must be chosen and defended by those who choose it." Exactly. Why not then let these Islamic peoples choose it on their own timetable and defend it themselves?
It is "cultural condescension," says Bush, "to assume the Middle East cannot be converted to democracy. ... Perhaps the most helpful change we can make is to change in our own thinking."
But if 22 of 22 Arab states are non-democratic, this would seem to suggest that this soil is not particularly conducive to growing the kind of democracies we raise in upper New England. This may be mulish thinking to the progressives at NED, but it may also be common sense.
What support is there in history for the view that as we meddle in the affairs of foreign nations, we advance our security? How would we have responded in the 19th century if Britain had declared a policy of destabilizing the American Union until Andrew Jackson abolished slavery?
"Liberty is both the plan of Heaven for humanity and the best hope for progress here on earth." Is it? Before democracy became our god, we used to believe that salvation was Heaven's plan for humanity, and Jesus Christ was the way, the truth and the life.
The neocons have made democracy a god, but why is George W. Bush falling down and worshiping their golden calf?
The last time we heard rhetoric like Bush's at NED and Whitehall Castle was the last time we were bogged down in a war. LBJ declared that America's goal was far loftier than saving South Vietnam. We were going to build a "Great Society on the Mekong."
Like Woodrow Wilson, Bush has been converted to the belief that democracy is the cure for mankind's ills. But our Founding Fathers did not even believe in democracy. They thought they were creating a republic – a republic that would be secure by remaining free of the wars of the blood-soaked continent their fathers had left behind. How wrong they were.
Where has it been apprised that the actions of the United States government are unConstitutional? All I see are actions which provide for the common defense.
On the other hand, my second point was directed at the scenario you described (i.e., Iraq was fully complicit in 9/11 to the extent you described). How the hell does "promoting democracy" in the Middle East prevent another 19 Islamic radicals from doing the exact same thing on September 11, 2005?
It doesn't. But perhaps it makes it less likely on September 11, 2035.
Because by "promoting democracy", the terrorists are streaming into Iraq and we are killing them.
I don't suppose you have a better idea?
Of course it can hurt. That's exactly Buchanan's point -- over the last few decades, some of the most anti-American leaders in the Middle East have been put in place through in democratic elections.
I predict that the next step in this process is going to expose the United States as quite the hypocrite when it comes to "promoting democracy" around the world -- the U.S. is going to see to it that the "right" leaders (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) are elected in Iraq (regardless of what it takes -- including a subversion of democracy).
Also Moslems who live in tolerant western states tend to take advantage of freedom afforded to them to subvert and convert that society to Islamic barbaric society. Stupid/tolerant/liberals may ignore that threat, and suffer the frog burning syndrome. The incremental tactics that are very obvious in the case of homosexual agenda infiltration of mainstream America is a good illustration of the future of stupid people under Islam. We already have seen some stupid teacher in California asking its students to fast in Ramadan, and to ear head cover!
Does it? Did the United States make Iran any less of a threat against the U.S. in 1979 when it helped topple Premier Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953?
He didn't have the resources of the NSA, CIA and FBI during the campaign, so that his stump speeches could have been better vetted.
Now that's a naive outlook if I ever heard one. Some guy who might have considered flying a 737 into a building in New York City next year has decided instead to pack his bags and fight a holy war against U.S. troops in Iraq.
Fine. Then throw them the hell out. But don't go fight a "war on terror" in a place like Iraq while at the same time allowing unfettered access to this country by anti-American "barbarians" from all over the globe.
No, but I am suggesting that there is a finite amount of will amongst the islamic people to support and tolerate terrorists. We are seeing that even now, as Al Qaeda continue to attack OTHER MUSLIMS, their support, both moral and financial is waning.
And you didn't give me your solution.
See post 35. The "killing them" was meant as a flippant comment, however the overall point stands. If they are spending their time and resources in a hopeless fight in Iraq, they are less likely to hit us.
And you, also, conveniently ignored the second part of my post, your solution.
It was [the] earlier intervention in the Gulf War and [the] huge footprint on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia that lead directly to 9-11.
A) Yasser Arafat
B) Osama bin Laden
C) Ayatollah Khameini
D) Patrick J. Buchanan
Where in the Constitution is he empowered to go around the world destabilizing governments?
A) Dennis "Blind Date" Kucinich
B) Howard "Blind Rage" Dean
C) John "Blind Trust Fund" Kerry
D) Patrick J. "Blind Alley" Buchanan
Surveys show that Islamic people bear a deep resentment of U.S. dominance of their region and our one-sided support for Israel.
A) John Zogby
B) CAIR
C) George Lincoln Rockwell
D) Patrick J. Buchanan
You rolls the dice and you takes your chances. But not playing is not an option.
Democracy is indispensable to socialism. The goal of socialism is communism. V.I. Lenin
"...I would like to be clearly understood...we, the Soviet people, are for socialism.... We want more socialism and, therefore, more democracy." Mikhail Gorbachev
"Socialism has a bad name in America, and no amount of wishful thinking on the part of the left is going to change that.... The words Economic Democracy are an adequate and effective replacement." Derek Shearer cited in Reason 1982
"How do you tell a Socialist:- It's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an Anti-Socialist someone who understands Marx and Lenin" -Ronald Reagan
I'll take my points in thousand-dollar bills, please.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.