Skip to comments.In The Streets Of Cairo, Proof Bush Was Right
Posted on 02/12/2011 5:54:04 PM PST by Wpin
Bush adviser says Obama should have listened to the former president
For decades, the Arab states have seemed exceptions to the laws of politics and human nature. While liberty expanded in many parts of the globe, these nations were left behind, their "freedom deficit" signaling the political underdevelopment that accompanied many other economic and social maladies. In November 2003, President George W. Bush asked these questions:
"Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom and never even to have a choice in the matter?"
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Setting Bush up for the blame.
I too have my fears, but if Democracy breaks out throughout the Middle-east, President Bush deserves the credit.
Growing unrest in the Sinai has led the Israelis to urge their citizens to return home.
The media also seems to have forgotten the tens of thousands of prison inmates that were released.
Setting up Bush to fail when Egypt goes Iran on us.
We’ve seen this movie before. A long time ruler is deposed. The initial outlook is optimistic. Then, they have their voices expressed in an election. The outcome is rarely what you think it will be. Worse yet, the fair and free election happens once. I would be more inclined to be optimistic if it weren’t for the data shown in the Zogby poll of Egyptian views on the role of sharia law and islam in their government.
“I would be more inclined to be optimistic if it werent for the data shown in the Zogby poll of Egyptian views on the role of sharia law and islam in their government.”
How does one go about getting a valid public opinion poll about politics in a dictatorship? I have serious doubts about the validity of polls taken anywhere in the Middle East...
I don't believe it can happen. Democracy is too alien a concept to that culture. And very few westerners have any understanding of their culture.
I'll be happy to be proven incorrect. But I won't be.
“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.”
This spirit did not always animate U.S. diplomacy in the Bush administration; plenty of officials found it unrealistic and had to be prodded or overruled to follow the president’s lead. But the revolt in Tunisia, the gigantic wave of demonstrations in Egypt and the more recent marches in Yemen all make clear that Bush had it right -””
Extremely simplistic analysis. Just because you have revolts says nothing about a people’s ability to govern themselves in a western style democracy. There is a reason Islam has never seen anything approaching western style liberal democracy and that’s because the two are incompatible. In Turkey it worked for decades because the Ataturk military kept the Islamists out of power, but that bulwark in now failing with Erdogan.
With over 80% of Egyptians believing those that apostacize from Islam should be killed it’s difficult to see how this revolt is going to end any way but badly.
There was no reason for the people being polled to hold back on their views...It is basically an Islamic dominated country so these views would not be in contradiction to the Mubarak administration.
Actually, the Egyptians are very Proud of their Sharia viewpoint! the demonstrators were myabe 200,000 or 250,000 people..most of whom were college students, middle class, many have been outside of the country..they are NOT representative of all Egypt, hardly.
I’m afraid that as long as the great majority of the people in any country are Muslim, there will never be freedom. Islam simply doesn’t allow it, either as a concept or as a reality.
I don’t think most people understand how much we owe to Christianity for freedom in the West, and in this country.
I supported Bush at that time, when he gave that speech, but I’m afraid that the prospects are doubtful in any country where Islam is dominant.
“There was no reason for the people being polled to hold back on their views...It is basically an Islamic dominated country so these views would not be in contradiction to the Mubarak administration.”
Not while Mubarak is in power eh? That is the point, they were safe as long as they gave answers that would be in agreement with the dictator...how valid can that be? It cannot be a valid poll, simply impossible using normal methods for polling. Just the fact that the individuals being polled could not know for certain that they were actually being polled or investigated would taint the poll.
You're messing up the narrative. Knock it off.
“Im afraid that as long as the great majority of the people in any country are Muslim, there will never be freedom. Islam simply doesnt allow it, either as a concept or as a reality.
I dont think most people understand how much we owe to Christianity for freedom in the West, and in this country.
I supported Bush at that time, when he gave that speech, but Im afraid that the prospects are doubtful in any country where Islam is dominant.”
I am sorry you lost your faith in the power of freedom and indeed God’s gift to man...think about it, wait and watch what goes on in the Middle East and keep your prayers for these people to achieve their stated goals of liberty and representative form of government.
The only revolution that turned out for the better was the American Revolution. But we weren’t infested with Muslims. I have serious doubts about a Democratic middle east.
Funny, isn't it, how all along the neo's basically agreed with Al Qaida - that all the middle eastern dictators were the problem....or rather, the ones who side with the U.S.
Because of Eliot Abrams and his buddies, the Islamic Republic of Iraq will soon ethnically cleanse the last Christians out of their country, and the competition for who's the Shariaest of the them all will begin in earnest. And now the same is starting for Egypt!
I'm sure Netanyahu is just thrilled: 80 million mad jihadists on his southern border, no longer restrained.
Fears? No, realism. Bush's push for "freedom" in a region of the world that has no concept of it (in the Western sense) was as naive as Obama's rush to kick Mubarak in the @ss on the way out the door.
Bush’s middle east policy is bi-polar at best and plain stupid. In fact, Bush’s presidency over-all was very lib-tarded and we are defending the likes of Bush (such as McCain, et al) to this day. I hope never to have another Bush mid-east policy in place (although superior to Obama’s).
The American revolution was a result of divine providence. Men with such radically diverse ideals and political views could have never held together without the hand of God directing the show. And they did it all while defeating the most powerful military machine the world had known to that point.
Wise up, you're making a fool of yourself:
Google day of rage and see how many hits you get. This is all being highly organized by the left and the MB.
Bush had the wisdom to conduct diplomacy quietly behind closed doors. Obama embarrasses leaders of nations on the world stage.
I have said it before. Bush was the last moderate Democrat.
Let’s see...liberated over 50 million people from dictatorships, pushed for a renaissance of private ownership in the US, defended at every opportunity each individuals right to life, attempted to give private ownership to part of social security, espoused the belief that liberty was a right given to each individual (on the planet) from God. Yes, I can see where you think President Bush was not conservative...
"Engagement" has not been the problem, but rather the administration's insistence on engaging with regimes rather than with the people trying to survive under them.
Interesting comment by Elliott Abrams, esteemed member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the very set of elitists who indulge regularly and systematically in exactly what he vilifies - interdiction in the management of others lives.
And be it regime, or, the people surviving under it, that interdiction is clear and understandably resented by all, rulers or ruled. The world is not blind.
A leader is not one who interferes in other thinking peoples' lives; but rather one who lives the courage of example; Christ for instance, or Star Trek's Prime Directive, or the USA as circumspect and living within its own resources.
As is always the case with the CFR, Mr. Abrams cannot see the forest for the elitist globalist trees around him.
If you think a fellow of the CFR writing in the Washington Post is going to allay fears amongst conservatives you truly are delusional. This is why there will be no peace in the Middle East:
When the women pull the rags off their heads they are liberated. That is the only way they can have a mutual agreement.
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.
“So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people greedy, barbarous and cruel,”
- T. E Lawrence
Most stopped defending him years ago.
When they dump islam, maybe there will be freedom.
I've maintained that GW Bush will be remembered by history as a great president. A part of that will be if people of the Middle East who desire freedom emulate Iraq and not Iran. Hopefully, Egypt will be the first Bush Doctrine success following Iraq.
He ran on "no nation building" and not being the world's police men, which are conservative Constitutionalist ideas. But he invaded Iraq for no reason and sought to be the world's police (just as Clinton and his dad had done) to the point that we, as a nation, are almost bankrupt.
In addition to his failed world police vision, he tried amnesty for law breaking illegals, saw the biggest expansion ever of federal governmental power, and presided over the largest budgets in U.S. history (until Obama broke his records). Bush is the reason the Tea Party was born; we were tired of not having any advocate for the Constitution as the Republican party had lost its way.
I bet you are a Ron Paul peasant...you are so very wrong about President Bush and history.
Success in Iraq? Have you been there? I have. It's by far not a success, especially when you factor in the cost of American lives and wealth. Iraq will go down as one of the worst foreign policy mistakes in American history.
No, I don't think Paul has a chance at winning. I'm just a plain old Constitutionalist who believes in the founders' vision of America and her sovereign states. Bush was certainly no Constitutionalist and was very far left of what our founders wanted.
“The only revolution that turned out for the better was the American Revolution”
That’s because it was a war for independence rather than a social revolution.
The colonies had been largely self-governing for years. The British governors were an unwanted overlay. The founders didn’t have to invent a governing system from scratch, they simply built on the burgesses and town councils that already existed.
“Men with such radically diverse ideals and political views could have never held together “
They were hardly radically diverse. Read what John Jay had to say about his fellow Americans in Federalist Paper #2:
“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”
“I don’t believe it can happen. Democracy is too alien a concept to that culture. And very few westerners have any understanding of their culture.
I’ll be happy to be proven incorrect. But I won’t be. “
My money’s on you.
Well, speaking of prayer, I think the answer is to convert them to Christianity. But I’m not sure how that can be done, since they kill anyone, especially their own family, who is caught converting.
Nothing there mentions the infighting that often went on between them and the friendships that were destroyed in giving birth to a nation.
Nothing but flowery words carefully crafted for an official document.
There’s a reason there were federalist AND anti federalist papers.
When you have a government that is viewed as secular running the show and the general opinion in the poll is the opposite, I think it says quite a lot.
The next acts in this drama might be:
1. Pressure from the street for the military to turn power over to some type of civilian committee.
2. The Military leaders (Junta) resist citing the stability they bring. In reality they fear the street.
3. The street pushes back with escalating strikes and demonstrations.
4. The Army sends in troops to maintain order.
5. Siding with the street factions (the Colonels) of the army will then attempt to remove the Junta.
If he wasn't a Constitutionalist, his choice of entirely Constitutionalist judges and justices makes no sense.
Those silly facts always mess up the talking points of you Bush-was-a-liberal folks, don't they?
I don't think the street will wait until scheduled elections. The Military are buying time so that they and the the others that profited from Mubarak's regime can get their money out of the country.
There, fixed it.
“Nothing but flowery words carefully crafted for an official document.”
That’s an interesting way to characterize one of the more famous American political letters. For starters it wasn’t an official document of any sort. The Federalist Papers were newspaper articles arguing in favor of ratifying the Constitution.
In Federalist 2 John Jay stresses the common culture and language and heritage of the Americans who fought the Revolution. It’s an original source document that contradicts your assertion of ‘radical diversity’ among that generation.
“Nothing there mentions the infighting that often went on between them and the friendships that were destroyed in giving birth to a nation.”
There’s no reason for Jay to have spoken of infighting and broken friendships in his argument for ratification, neither of which would support your diversity argument in any case.
Palestinians "democratically" elected Hamas in Jan, 2006.
Germany "democratically" elected Hitler in 1933.
The U.S. "democratically" elected Obama in 2008.
This proves your point even more. When a nation as a whole is ignorant, mislead, or even evil, free elections can put terrorists, genocidal dictators, and statists in control at the expense of individual safety and liberty. So question: should we be more concerned about free elections in other nations or the threat to liberty and safety in our own nation? My answer: as we oversaw the forming of democracy in Iraq, we must be sure that "free elections" don't result in a false freedom. Democratic elections that result in the enforcement of sharia law is not true freedom. Democracy and sharia are not compatible. This is why we cannot support "free elections" in Egypt when the filling of the void by the Muslim Brotherhood is a foregone conclusion. The Muslim Brotherhood is a threat to true freedom and safety in our own nation. What will our soldiers say when they are shot down with the anti-aircraft missiles Egypt purchased earlier from the U.S.? "It was a free election?"
“If he wasn’t a Constitutionalist, his choice of entirely Constitutionalist judges and justices makes no sense.”
OWF, does the name ‘Harriet Miers’ ring a bell?
Surely even someone completely drunk on the glorious greatness of Dubya will still admit that Harriet was really just a Crony, and not a Constitutionalist.