Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Didn't Squander The World's Sympathy. He Spent It.
National Journal ^ | 5/9/03 | Jonathan Rauch

Posted on 05/10/2003 6:08:57 AM PDT by Lyford

By Jonathan Rauch
© National Journal Group Inc.
Friday, May 9, 2003

Quagmire? Sure, the war in Iraq was a quagmire. It was just a short quagmire. On the spectrum of quagmires, it was the shortest since the Six Day War.

Bush is no sophisticate, but he has the great virtue of knowing a dead policy when he sees one.

In fairness, the war's critics feared a quagmire not so much during the fight as after, and they had a point. One reason the first Bush administration didn't drive to Baghdad in 1991 was to avoid an American occupation of a major Arab country. And now there we are.

Still, George W. Bush can probably do a better job in Iraq than Saddam Hussein did. The new quagmire is unlikely to be as bad as the old one. The stronger objection to the war invokes not the "Q" word but the "S" one: squander. As in: President Bush won in Iraq, but in the process he has squandered the world's goodwill.

Howard Dean, a Democratic presidential candidate and former Vermont governor, blames Bush for turning the "tidal wave of support and goodwill that engulfed us after the tragedy of 9/11" into "distrust, skepticism, and hostility.... It could well take decades to repair the damage." George McGovern accuses Bush of converting "a world of support into a world united against us, with the exception of Tony Blair and one or two others." And so forth.

Poll numbers suggest that America's war in Iraq did indeed come at a very high cost in international support and sympathy. In countries throughout Europe -- including Britain, Italy, and Spain, all of whose governments supported the war -- public opinion turned sharply against the United States. Favorable ratings of well above 60 percent in many countries declined to the 30s, 20s, and even teens.

In March, on the eve of the American invasion, Ipsos (an international public-opinion research firm) asked people in Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain whether their government's foreign policy should "get closer to the U.S. or distance itself more from the U.S." In all of those countries except Germany, respondents called for more distance from the United States, usually by large ratios: 63-28 percent in Japan, 60-13 in Spain, 54-38 in Canada, and 52-36 even in the U.K. The Germans split 44-46 percent, hardly a vote of confidence.

Bush's supporters retort that post-9/11 sympathy was ephemeral. At the end of the day, they argue, a strong America will attract more support than a weak one. In any case, France and Russia were determined to play the spoiler; it was the world that squandered America's goodwill, more than the other way around.

Probably, possibly, and maybe. It's all very complicated. But those arguments miss the larger point. The talk of squandering is fundamentally misconceived. Bush did not squander the world's goodwill. He spent it, which is not at all the same thing.

The Cold War was a five-decade confrontation in which the United States often found itself aligned in awkward and even obnoxious ways but remained, through it all, on the right side of history. In the end, the Soviet Union fell not because of Star Wars or glasnost, but because Communism was a dysfunctional system that lost the ability to fool even its friends.

Perhaps the most awkward and obnoxious of America's Cold War alignments were in the Arab world. Washington supported tyrannies and monarchies that wrecked their economies and stunted their politics. The Arab regimes wallowed in corruption and incompetence. They entrenched poverty and blocked middle-class aspirations. They jailed liberal dissidents and political moderates. They fertilized the soil for militant Islamists who provided the only outlet for dissent. They then attempted to neutralize Islamism by diverting its energies to hating liberalism, Americans, and Jews.

In both Iran and Iraq, Washington supported or tolerated corrupt and brutal regimes, with disastrous results in both places. Saudi Arabia has been a different kind of disaster, propagating anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism and Islamic extremism all over the world. Syria and Libya are disasters. Lebanon is between disasters. Egypt is a disaster waiting to happen. Maybe Jordan is, too.

In short, the United States has been on the wrong side of Arab history for almost five decades, and it is not doing much better than the Soviets. The old policy had no future, only a past. It was a dead policy walking. September 11 was merely the death certificate.

Bush is no sophisticate, but he has the great virtue -- not shared by most sophisticates -- of knowing a dead policy when he sees one. So he gathered up the world's goodwill and his own political capital, spent the whole bundle on dynamite, and blew the old policy to bits. However things come out in Iraq, the war's larger importance is to leave little choice, going forward, but to put America on the side of Arab reform.

Reform will take years, decades even, and it will mean different things in different countries. In Iraq, it meant force. In Syria, it means hostile prodding; in Saudi Arabia, friendly prodding. It means setting a subversive example for Iran, creating the region's second democracy in Palestine, building on change in Qatar and Kuwait, leading Egypt gently toward multiparty politics. Progress will be fitful, at best. But the direction will be right, for a change.

This is a breathtakingly bold undertaking. The difficulties are staggering. Everything might go wrong. But the crucial point to remember is that everything had already gone wrong. No available policy could justify optimism in the Arab world, but the new policy at least offers hope. It offers a path ahead, a future where there had been only a past. It is not dead. It puts America on the right side of history and on the right side of America.

Much of Europe is alarmed by the change, but then, it would be. American troops in Saudi Arabia guaranteed the flow of oil while turning the United States (along with Israel) into the scapegoat of choice for millions of angry Muslims, some of whom live in Europe. From Paris's or Amsterdam's or Bremen's point of view, what's not to like about that deal? Why must Washington go and stir everything up?

Not long before the Iraq war began, the Heinrich Böll Foundation sponsored a debate in Washington between Richard Perle and Daniel Cohn-Bendit. Perle, of course, is a hawkish American neoconservative who supported the Iraq war. Cohn-Bendit, a Frenchman, leads the Green faction of the European Parliament, but is perhaps better known as "Danny the Red" for leading student uprisings in France in the 1960s. In a telling moment, Cohn-Bendit blurted out that Perle, the conservative, was now the revolutionary, trying to reform the whole Arab world -- whereas Cohn-Bendit, the former radical, was now the conservative.

"Suddenly you want to bring democracy to the world," Cohn-Bendit said. "Recently, your government has been behaving like the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution. You want to change the whole world. Like them, you claim that history will show that truth is on your side." Savoring the irony, Danny the Red accused America of "revolutionary hubris."

He was right about "revolutionary," though the administration would prefer a gradual revolution. But "hubris"? Not exactly. The effort to reshape the Arab world would indeed seem hopelessly overweening but for the fact that the old policy had already collapsed beneath America's feet. It had also collapsed beneath the Arab world's feet. The question is whether the fall of Baghdad might be the sort of wake-up call for Arabs that September 11 was for Americans.

On April 14, The Washington Post rounded up some examples of what it aptly called "fear and rethinking in the Middle East" -- there being plenty of both. "With the fall of Baghdad," wrote Shafeeq Ghabra, the president of the American University of Kuwait, in Lebanon's online Daily Star, "Arab thought as we knew it since the 1967 defeat collapsed. The nationalism that misled Saddam and our peoples has also collapsed, as well as a pattern of Arabism many of us exploited in favor of autocracy, oppression, dictatorship, and the confiscation of other people's rights."

Abdul Hamid Ahmad, the editor of a United Arab Emirates-based Web site called Gulf News, wrote, "With the stunning and shameful collapse of the Iraqi regime and its Baathist reign, another Arab era has vanished.... And a stark reality was revealed: that these institutions were virtual phantoms as far as the people were concerned." Single-party monopolies "only lead to the suffocation of people, politically and socially."

Just straws in the breeze, those opinions; but at least now there is a breeze. Spending the world's goodwill on reform in the Arab world is the most dangerous course the Bush administration could have set, except for all the others.

Jonathan Rauch is a senior writer for National Journal magazine, where "Social Studies" appears.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aftermathanalysis; arabstreet; bush; bushdoctrine; history; iraq; iraqifreedom; middleeast; newnwo; quagmire
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last
Searched and didn't find this. I think there's some very good analysis here...

It's all very complicated. But those arguments miss the larger point. The talk of squandering is fundamentally misconceived. Bush did not squander the world's goodwill. He spent it, which is not at all the same thing.

...

In short, the United States has been on the wrong side of Arab history for almost five decades, and it is not doing much better than the Soviets. The old policy had no future, only a past. It was a dead policy walking. September 11 was merely the death certificate.

Bush is no sophisticate, but he has the great virtue -- not shared by most sophisticates -- of knowing a dead policy when he sees one. So he gathered up the world's goodwill and his own political capital, spent the whole bundle on dynamite, and blew the old policy to bits. However things come out in Iraq, the war's larger importance is to leave little choice, going forward, but to put America on the side of Arab reform.

1 posted on 05/10/2003 6:08:57 AM PDT by Lyford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lyford
I enjoyed this. Thanks for posting. When it opened, I thought I was going to be on the other side, but it was well written.
2 posted on 05/10/2003 6:17:14 AM PDT by FryingPan101 (Ya know?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lyford
Bump, excellent article.
3 posted on 05/10/2003 6:17:14 AM PDT by xJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lyford
good piece, and correct....
4 posted on 05/10/2003 6:24:43 AM PDT by The Wizard (Saddamocrats are enemies of America, treasonous everytime they speak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lyford
A wonderful read.
5 posted on 05/10/2003 6:29:08 AM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lyford
The question is whether the fall of Baghdad might be the sort of wake-up call for Arabs that September 11 was for Americans.

Interesting analogy. I've never thought of it that way, but the author's right. The Arab world was stunned when the mighty and invincible Saddam fell so easily. The statue in the central Baghdad square has become their twin towers.

6 posted on 05/10/2003 6:34:06 AM PDT by randog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lyford
Wars are messy. And then afterwards you have to clean up the mess.

But the point missed here is in this sentance.

In both Iran and Iraq, Washington supported or tolerated corrupt and brutal regimes, with disastrous results in both places. Saudi Arabia has been a different kind of disaster, propagating anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism and Islamic extremism all over the world. Syria and Libya are disasters. Lebanon is between disasters. Egypt is a disaster waiting to happen. Maybe Jordan is, too.

Can someone tell me who supplied those bolded countries with arms? Hint: It wasn't the US.

7 posted on 05/10/2003 6:40:03 AM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (There is nothing you can do with that computer that I canít do with my little pad and pen. ĖMy Dad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lyford
Excellent article. It reminds me of something I heard W say. I think it was during the 2000 campaign, when some reporter asked a question implying he was too stupid to be president. W said, "I know how to get political capital and I know how to spend it." That stuck with me.
8 posted on 05/10/2003 6:59:18 AM PDT by Marylander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
Can someone tell me who supplied (Iran Iraq Syria Libya Lebanon) with arms? Hint: It wasn't the US.

In general I agree with your point about arms. However, the U.S. did support the monarchy of Iran, in part because it gave us access to its border with the USSR. Iran received (among other goodies) F-5 and F-14 fighters, and has managed to keep some flying despite 24 years of not having "manufacturer approved" spare parts available.

But I think the author's point was that, in the past, our support for regimes in the middle east was not based on the principles of democracy and freedom, but containing the USSR. Twenty years from now, will libs be playing the same obstruction game on the U.S. by saying things like, "we were the ones who armed the (Saudis Pakistanis Turks Jordainians Egyptians Germans), so we don't have the moral authority to decry their actions now"? If we blindly keep on supporting (or tolerating) these despots, the answer will be YES.

9 posted on 05/10/2003 7:05:12 AM PDT by Fudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Fudd
But I think the author's point was that, in the past, our support for regimes in the middle east was not based on the principles of democracy and freedom, but containing the USSR.

My point is that with many of these regimes we not only did not support them, we wanted them gone even at the highth of the Cold War. So to say that we supported them is a lie.

You can not ignore the fact that the USSR was arming them and supplying them with training.

The Iraqi Army for example was based on the Soviet model. (Which is why Russia is taking the defeat so personally.)

Our position on most of these countries has not changed at all.

10 posted on 05/10/2003 7:13:49 AM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (There is nothing you can do with that computer that I canít do with my little pad and pen. ĖMy Dad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lyford
Excellent and well written. We have to rid America of the pro terrorists Rats in Congress.


11 posted on 05/10/2003 7:15:11 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (Free Republic, where leftist liars are exposed 24/7!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fudd
However, the U.S. did support the monarchy of Iran, in part because it gave us access to its border with the USSR.

Point.

Counterpoint, who armed the Ayatollah's who came afterwards?

And which was a better government for Iran, the monarchy or the Ayatollahs?

12 posted on 05/10/2003 7:16:49 AM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (There is nothing you can do with that computer that I canít do with my little pad and pen. ĖMy Dad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lyford
A good article with excellent analysis. This deserves a bump.
13 posted on 05/10/2003 7:23:14 AM PDT by MWS (Errare humanum est, in errore perservare stultum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lyford
.....but the new policy at least offers hope. It offers a path ahead, a future where there had been only a past. It is not dead. It puts America on the right side of history and on the right side of America.

And that is exactly why the America-hating left, yes, that includes Democrats, hate it and hate Bush. They want America down, not up, so they can replace it with any kind of reorganization that puts them and their failed policies at the top. They will support anything or anyone, no matter how despicable, that is against America.

14 posted on 05/10/2003 7:31:15 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexKat; Miss Marple; Nam Vet
Great analysis of reason to invade Iraq,change middle east policy.
15 posted on 05/10/2003 7:33:31 AM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
My point is that with many of these regimes we not only did not support them, we wanted them gone even at the highth of the Cold War. So to say that we supported them is a lie.

I agree with you on this in regards to many of the ME nations. Egypt, Iraq, Syria, post-rev Iran, were all client states to the Soviets during the Cold War. However, my point still remains that we support, to varying degrees, nondemocratic regimes: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, pre-rev Iran, and Pakistan come to mind. With the end of the Cold War and aftermath of 911, we need to re-evaluate our alliances with these nations. I'm old enough to remember the Iranians storming the embassy gates after the Shah left Iran.

Counterpoint, ... which was a better government for Iran, the monarchy or the Ayatollahs?

My hope is that Iran can find for itself a better government than either of these choices.

16 posted on 05/10/2003 7:37:00 AM PDT by Fudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

bump
17 posted on 05/10/2003 7:39:02 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lyford
Agree with this article. Boldness on our part has changed, and hopeflly will change the world for the better.

I disagree with this, however.

In fairness, the war's critics feared a quagmire not so much during the fight as after, and they had a point.

Have we already forgotten? Millions of Iraqis killed by US Bombs. Thousands of dead American troops. Bagdad surrounded and thousands starved to death. A defiant Saddam, lobbing WMD at us. And all for some oil. Haliburton and oil. Bush the evil corporate oil man. This is the rant I remember the leftists making. It was anti-freedom, anti-American, anti-capitalism. And they were SO wrong. So now, with them proved wrong, should we believe them when they shout about all the numerous perils about the aftermath of the war and occupation and reform? NO! It is a long row to hoe, but with guts and determination, we'll get it done. Don't count on the left to roll up their sleeves to help. They'll continue to whine and snipe. I can only hope people see through this.

18 posted on 05/10/2003 7:52:52 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
And which was a better government for Iran, the monarchy or the Ayatollahs?

OK, I'll entertain you. I work with a guy who is of Persian ancestry. He is old enough to remember living in Tehran, and he says life there was great. If he were still there, he would be living like a prince. However, he left Iran on the last Pan Am flight from Tehran. I suspect he is romanticizing things to some extent. My coworker definitely thinks Iran was better off with the Shah.

He did tell me one story I take at face value. His uncle went to mosque for the five daily proayers, and sent my coworker to Koran school as a youngster. At the same time, this uncle told him to never believe that mumbo-jumbo. Uncle's observance of Muslim rituals were just for show, to keep him out of trouble with Muslim society.

19 posted on 05/10/2003 7:55:25 AM PDT by Fudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
NICE poster, Grampa! (#11)
20 posted on 05/10/2003 7:56:24 AM PDT by nutmeg (USA: Land of the Free - Thanks to the Brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Great poster. Looks like wallpaper material to me.
21 posted on 05/10/2003 8:00:30 AM PDT by Southflanknorthpawsis (Happy Mother's Day to all Free Republic moms)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!
You forgot the crash in our stock markets since the war with Iraq, the $5/gallon gasoline, 15% unemployment, and the crash of the housing market.

All due to the evil Bush! (Sarcasm off!)
22 posted on 05/10/2003 8:03:50 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (Free Republic, where leftist liars are exposed 24/7!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Southflanknorthpawsis
It will be enlarged to become a sign for my yard in 2004, and to put on my rear side windows on my OJ Simpson Bronco.

$crew the whining Terry McAwful of the DNC. The White House may not use pictures like this, but I will as part of my first amendment.

Jeff Head has some great stamps we can attach to our letters.
23 posted on 05/10/2003 8:06:38 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (Free Republic, where leftist liars are exposed 24/7!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
"And which was a better government for Iran, the monarchy or the Ayatollahs?"

But...but...but the Ayatollahs have led Iran into the 4th Century! They have released their women from the burden of freedom, self-determination and decision! They made major contributions to Zero Population Growth!

24 posted on 05/10/2003 8:12:05 AM PDT by Redleg Duke (Stir the pot...don't let anything settle to the bottom where the lawyers can feed off of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: FryingPan101; george wythe; Stay the course; Saundra Duffy; Remedy
That's what kept my interest, very effective. He did it too well to be one of them. This should be a must read.

Lyford used what I would have chosen for the impact quotes, they really sum this up.

25 posted on 05/10/2003 8:12:14 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
The White House may not use pictures like this, but I will as part of my first amendment.

.....and I hope others do as well.

Not only is that image of our president so wonderful, but it is like a dagger in the hearts of the Dimwits every time they see it.

Life is good !!!!!!!

26 posted on 05/10/2003 8:17:40 AM PDT by Southflanknorthpawsis (Happy Mother's Day to all Free Republic moms)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Southflanknorthpawsis
Life has really been good for our President recently and for us who support him and our nation.

I'm sure that the creative Freepers will come up with simple ways we can download and create these wonderful "daggers in the hearts of the Dimwits every time they see it!" as you so aptly labeled them.

We don't need the RNC or White House to hold our hands and help us in our cultural war. As conservatives, we can do it ourselves.
27 posted on 05/10/2003 8:22:33 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (Free Republic, where leftist liars are exposed 24/7!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Lyford
the Soviet Union fell not because of Star Wars or glasnost

No, it most certainly did not fall because of glasnost!

But Reagan's insistence on pushing ahead with SDI did have something to do with it, and Rauch seriously mis-underestimates this.

28 posted on 05/10/2003 8:24:15 AM PDT by shhrubbery!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lyford; nicollo; Common Tator; JohnHuang2
Excellent read!

I also recommend reading carefully the text of the President's commencement address at the University of South Carolina yesterday.

President Bush Presses for Peace in the Middle East

Our nation is strong. Our greatest strength is that we serve the cause of liberty. We support the advance of freedom in the Middle East, because it is our founding principle, and because it is in our national interest. The hateful ideology of terrorism is shaped and nurtured and protected by oppressive regimes. Free nations, in contrast, encourage creativity and tolerance and enterprise. And in those free nations, the appeal of extremism withers away.

Free governments do not build weapons of mass destruction for the purpose of mass terror. Over time, the expansion of liberty throughout the world is the best guarantee of security throughout the world. Freedom is the way to peace.

Some believe that democracy in the Middle East is unlikely, if not impossible. They argue that the people of the Middle East have little desire for freedom or self-government. These same arguments have been heard before in other times, about other people. After World War II, many doubted that Germany and Japan, with their histories of autocratic rule and aggressive armies, could ever function as free and peaceful societies. In the Cold War we were told that imperial communism was permanent and the Iron Curtain was there to stay.

In each of these cases -- in Germany, in Japan, in Eastern Europe and in Russia -- the skeptics doubted, then history replied. Every milestone of liberty over the last 60 years was declared impossible until the very moment it happened. The history of the modern world offers a lesson for the skeptics: do not bet against the success of freedom.

GWB 5/9/03


29 posted on 05/10/2003 8:32:02 AM PDT by kayak (Pray for President Bush, our troops, and our nation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lyford
Bush did not squander the world's goodwill. He spent it, which is not at all the same thing. .... Spending the world's goodwill on reform in the Arab world is the most dangerous course the Bush administration could have set, except for all the others.

Wow. Fascinating analysis, and wonderfully written. I especially love that last line. Thank you for posting this article.

30 posted on 05/10/2003 8:35:45 AM PDT by TrexDogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lyford
" Spending the world's goodwill on reform in the Arab world is the most dangerous course the Bush administration could have set, except for all the others."

Exactly!

31 posted on 05/10/2003 8:38:51 AM PDT by dixiechick2000 (Never have so many been so wrong about so much.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TrexDogs
I see we think along the same lines.;o)
32 posted on 05/10/2003 8:39:40 AM PDT by dixiechick2000 (Never have so many been so wrong about so much.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

In March, on the eve of the American invasion, Ipsos (an international public-opinion research firm) asked people whether their government's foreign policy should "get closer to the U.S. or distance itself more from the U.S." In all of those countries except Germany, respondents called for more distance from the United States, usually by large ratios: 63-28 percent in Japan, 60-13 in Spain, 54-38 in Canada, and 52-36 even in the U.K. The Germans split 44-46 percent, hardly a vote of confidence

Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain mass media keep their respective citizens objectively informed as well as the U.S. mass media does for American citizens.

Where is the poll on the LIBERATED Soviet Bloc nations, who are far more capable of detecting socialist/globalist spin than the polled citizens?

33 posted on 05/10/2003 8:50:40 AM PDT by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Lyford
Reform will take years, decades even, and it will mean different things in different countries. In Iraq, it meant force. In Syria, it means hostile prodding; in Saudi Arabia, friendly prodding. It means setting a subversive example for Iran, creating the region's second democracy in Palestine, building on change in Qatar and Kuwait, leading Egypt gently toward multiparty politics. Progress will be fitful, at best. But the direction will be right, for a change.

No. This is not right. Unless America can wave a wand and make everything perfect right away, then it should do nothing at all, except cringe in shame and abasement while it is criticized for doing nothing. </Leftist Mode>

34 posted on 05/10/2003 8:54:28 AM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TrexDogs
Bush is no sophisticate, but he has the great virtue -- not shared by most sophisticates -- of knowing a dead policy when he sees one. So he gathered up the world's goodwill and his own political capital, spent the whole bundle on dynamite, and blew the old policy to bits.

I love this part. Great imagery, and true, too. Ever since 9/11 I've had a feeling that the status quo needed to be grabbed by the feet and shook upside down.

35 posted on 05/10/2003 8:55:13 AM PDT by wimpycat ('Nemo me impune lacessit')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Cagle
36 posted on 05/10/2003 9:03:14 AM PDT by Ligeia (Those who beat their swords into ploughshares will work for those who don't)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
LOL! Boy, did you nail the lefties on that!
37 posted on 05/10/2003 9:08:34 AM PDT by dixiechick2000 (Never have so many been so wrong about so much.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
    Bush's supporters retort that post-9/11 sympathy was ephemeral. At the end of the day, they argue, a strong America will attract more support than a weak one. In any case, France and Russia were determined to play the spoiler; it was the world that squandered America's goodwill, more than the other way around.

What do these countries, people think about last weeks ruling which found Saddam played a major role in the training of the terrorists who participated in 9/11?

38 posted on 05/10/2003 9:09:40 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Do you have Terry MacAuliff's approval? Shame on you for being so blatantly political! How dare you!

"snicker1 snicker! Keep them comin'. Demoncrap agida!!!"

39 posted on 05/10/2003 9:10:05 AM PDT by Young Werther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lyford
... it was the world that squandered America's goodwill, more than the other way around.

That's what I'm saying. That's how I see it and that's all that matters. I'm sick of us tiptoeing around with our finger to the wind, wanting only to be liked by stinky, dirty marxists who aren't fit to shine our shoes with their hair grease. Oui, même les Françaises. Especiamente les Françaises!

40 posted on 05/10/2003 9:17:16 AM PDT by A_perfect_lady (Let them eat cake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lyford
He was right about "revolutionary," though the administration would prefer a gradual revolution. But "hubris"? Not exactly.

According to that classical political philosopher and social commentator John Wayne, "it ain't braggin' if he can do it." But that is a telling item - the left has always fancied itself the revolutionary wing, the forces of social progress, the vanguard of the new age. That it ended up supporting the most creaky, ossified, superannuated set of false premises and disproven social concepts is very, very slow to dawn. The principal threat to institutionalized "revolutionaries" such as Cohn-Bendit is not that it threatens their political programs, but that it threatens their self-image. It was funny enough to watch these clowns upholding the forces of social progress as exemplified by such refugees from a zombie movie as Breshnev, Chernenko, and Andropov, but this is funnier still.

Just stand back and carp, boys, we'll call you when it's safe.

41 posted on 05/10/2003 9:24:59 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lyford
Favorable ratings of well above 60 percent [right after 9/11] in many countries declined to the 30s, 20s, and even teens [during the war with Iraq].

That's because the world prefers to see America being terrorized than exercising its strength and resolve.

42 posted on 05/10/2003 9:25:47 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Hey Gramps! Will some enterprising person, like you, make the poster available later on in time for the elections? I would like to post them around.
43 posted on 05/10/2003 9:29:25 AM PDT by Paulus Invictus (ax accountant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Paulus Invictus; Jeff Head; Ernest_at_the_Beach; MeeknMing
I don't have the computer skills to do this personally. However, this poster and others will be available for us to use 2004 for the elections.

We have very creative/computer savy Freepers who will enable computer klutzes like me to replicate these great signs to use. Some are working on this at this time.

When the stuff is available, we will get one of our great indexers to create an index file with these great tools.

Thanks your support of our president, now in the future!
44 posted on 05/10/2003 9:35:07 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (Free Republic, where leftist liars are exposed 24/7!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Young Werther
McAwful will have a nervous breakdown before the elections get really going, or the Clintoons will give him a great plane ride. Either way he will be gone probably before 2004.
45 posted on 05/10/2003 9:36:58 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (Free Republic, where leftist liars are exposed 24/7!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
I've posted it on a couple of other threads today trying to help spread it around. It's a GREAT poster!
46 posted on 05/10/2003 9:39:43 AM PDT by kayak (Pray for President Bush, our troops, and our nation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: kayak
The more of us who post it, the more it gets seen.

Then freepers will email it to their email list of friends, family members and fellow conservatives. Then they will send it out to their lists.

McAwful can't stop this use of our first amendment rights.
47 posted on 05/10/2003 9:43:36 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (Free Republic, where leftist liars are exposed 24/7!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Fudd
He is old enough to remember living in Tehran, and he says life there was great.

I'll give you a more recent example of how things are already changing back: my neighbors are Iranian emigres from the 70s. Their 18 y.o. son was just there during the Xmas holidays for a month. He says that it is very cosmopolitan in Tehran, with young folk everywhere on the street - sort of like a New York street scene.

He mentioned the only visible difference from the US is the number of soldiers on the street. But since they're all green kids as well, he attributed it mostly to the draft and poor economic opportunities.

When I talked to him and his mom after he got back, he seemed pretty matter-of-fact that the theocracy had no future. When half the pop. is under 25 and LIKES America, it doesn't take a genius to forsee the future.

48 posted on 05/10/2003 9:44:23 AM PDT by Snerfling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Heuristic Hiker
Ping
49 posted on 05/10/2003 9:45:18 AM PDT by Utah Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

"In Syria, it means hostile prodding; in Saudi Arabia, friendly prodding. It means setting a subversive example for Iran, creating the region's second democracy in Palestine ... " Uh, that would be the third, if one counts Israel first, Iraq second, then a Palestinian State third. I have more hope for a democracy in Iraq than in a Palestinian 'enclave'. Suicide murderers aren't going to allow self-governance with Palestinians they've spent generations indoctrinating in hate and bloodlust.
50 posted on 05/10/2003 9:49:02 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson