Daily Kos

Bush gives democracy to Middle East?

Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 06:42:44 PM PDT

The Sunday talk shows made it clear this weekend that Bush is attempting to declare victory in Iraq and to take credit for a sweeping tide of democracy in the Middle East in order to silence critics of his Iraq policy. If Bush can score a victory with the debacle in Iraq, the Republicans will be able to turn Bush into a "great" president and Dems will be on the defense in foreign policy for a long time.

While, we can argue valiantly to the American people that victory has still not been achieved in Iraq, most people just want to move on thinking we won and we would merely come out looking like spoilsports, pessimists, or sore losers if we try to argue that somehow none of it matters because Bush was wrong to invade. I think a better way to go is to argue that Bush is unfairly taking credit for what the people of Iraq, Ukraine, Palestine, and Lebanon have done for themselves. Kind of like Al Gore supposedly saying he "invented the Internet."

We can't let this talking point go unchallenged, so help craft a solution as only the combined might of the pajamahadeen can.

Bush is attempting to silence his critics by declaring a huge victory for his Bush doctrine and to say that the costs of Iraq have been worth it for not only have we toppled Saddam's regime but it seems we have given way to a new dawn of democracy in that troubled are of the world. We must not let this happen for it will hamper Democrats in the realm of foreign policy for years, if not decades, to come.
I think we should rightly point out that the election in Iraq was the result of the desire for change, and that Bush cannot take credit for what the Iraqis did themselves (in fact, in trying to show that security forces are stepping up, I heard a Republican today claim that Iraqis provided the majority of security on election day- this only helps our case).

I am even going to have to make a distasteful analogy here- It's like the Nazis taking credit for giving Jews their own homeland. After all, by perpetrating the Holocaust, Hitler gave rise to an overwhelming desire to secure a Jewish state, so by the GOP's logic, the Jews should be thanking the Nazis for Israel- a flawed analogy perhaps, but an appropriate one if you want to follow the fallacious logic of the Republican talking point.

Don't you think this deserves to be rebutted strongly? Does anyone have any ideas for how best to present the case against Bush?

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 21 comments

  •  Consider what's going to happen tomorrow (none / 0)

    They may want to lay off that claim.

    link

    Hand me down my walking cane, hand me down my hat...

    by Cheez Whiz on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 06:38:47 PM PDT

  •  I Think This is a Better Analogy... (4.00 / 3)

    ...than the Jewish homeland example:

    It's like his father taking credit for ending the Cold War.

    The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

    by DHinMI on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 06:42:29 PM PDT

    •  They already give Reagan credit (4.00 / 2)

      Yup. Reagan said "tear down the wall" and they did, so he must have made it happen!

      Just because something good happens on your watch, doesn't mean you're responsible. In fact, sometimes good things happen in spite of all your f*ck ups.

      •  Along Those Lines... (4.00 / 3)

        ...I love how the Repubs blame Clinton for not being vigilant against the terrorists who planned 9-11 largely during his administration, but the first WTC attack, which occured just a few weeks after Clinton became President, is also his fault.  

        Party of personal responsibility my ass...

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by DHinMI on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 06:49:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  When the shooting starts up again in Lebanon (none / 0)

          I wonder if Bush is going to take credit for that too.

          Tomorrow will likely not be ugly, I expect Hezbollah to show the Lebanese opposition who holds all the cards.  But there have been minor incidents, shootings and riots the last few days.  This could escalate quickly.

          Hand me down my walking cane, hand me down my hat...

          by Cheez Whiz on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 06:51:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If there is any good news ... (none / 0)

            ...in this, it's that Israelis will not let their children get caught up in another invasion of Lebanon given what happened last time.

            Like a cyclone, imperialism spins across the globe; militarism crushes peoples and sucks their blood like a vampire. K. Liebknecht

            by Meteor Blades on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 09:05:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  According to a moron writing in the local paper... (none / 0)

          The current GOP mantra is that the Reagan administration's legacy ends when the Berlin wall fell, even though Bush I was in charge. Similarly, he argues that Clinton's legacy really ends on September 11. Oh, and Clinton trashed the White House.

          This group hallucination would be laughable, but it's not. It's dangerous. When the wheels fall off their delusions, people this far from reality will be capable of anything.

  •  Understand Reality (none / 0)

    First of all the American foreign policy under Bush has successfully turned Afganistan into a narco state, created a training ground in Iraq destroyed the lives of millions in Haitians just to name a few things. This is not a successful policy.

    Secondly, if you think democracy in the middle east has ever been the solution to the worlds problems; well keep watching. Democracy will do one thing in the middle East if nothing else; ensure civil wars and eventually ensure that anti-american governments infest the region.

    Contrary to historical misconceptions democracy in America was not started by a bunch of joe blows who were not trained in the understanding of such a system; that fact often times seems to be lost on Americans. Expecting the same type of government to be pulled off in muslim nations where democracy is, quite frankly, completely contrast to the ideas of the culture is ignorant. I think it should also be pointed out that Turkey, for example, IS already a democracy and look at what they are doing to their women this very day.

    As for Iraq's so called succssful elections; there was a diary not to far back that reminded kos readers that there were elections in vietnam that was a "blow" to the insurgents in that country. History tells us how that ended up.

    Before America and the Bush administration start patting themselves on the back I think you should look at the events that are taking place in the context of reality and not in the context of what the media is reporting.

    Finally, Israel and Palestine are far from peace. Israli rabbis are calling for a fast against Sharon's policies the PA is telling tunisia NOT to normalize relations with Isarel, Hezbollah still claims to be at war with Israel; I won't go on but there is much more evidence countrary to the proclamation by the American media that the American foreign policy has been a success.

    To answer your question if you want to present the case against Bush simply present the facts. I doubt that will show through in the American media but overtime those who simply reported the facts as they are will be seen as the true heros of history...Because they told the truth.

    •  Wow, Broad Brush or What? (4.00 / 2)

      Expecting the same type of government to be pulled off in muslim nations where democracy is, quite frankly, completely contrast to the ideas of the culture is ignorant.

      Muslim culture?  You mean like Sarajevo, or Dar es Salaam.  Bali or Mongolia?  Tirana or Tashkent?  Lahore or Lagos?  Dhaka or East Dearborn?  Mindanao or Maruitania?

      BTW, Indonesia, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Turkey--the countries with the five largest Muslim populations, four of them majority Muslim--have all elected women as heads of government.    

      How many women have we elected President?

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by DHinMI on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 07:19:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Agree (none / 0)

        that I may have generalized too much but I was speaking specifically to the nations that are in the line of sight right now: Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt. Strong majority muslim and relatively conservative.

        India is a hindu nation that has had strong roots in the ideas of democracy. Pakistan is by no means a democracy (Not the type that is trying to be spread in the broader Middle East). I pointed out Turkey problems.

        •  India is Majority Hindu, Yes, But... (none / 1)

          ...the Congress Party has always been strongly supported by Muslim voters, so Indira Ghandi was elected in part through strong support from India's Muslims, who number over 90,000,000, giving it the second largest Muslim population in the world, after only Indonesia.  

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by DHinMI on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 07:44:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed wholeheartedly, but ... (none / 0)

        ...Bali, alone in the Indonesian archipelago, is 98% Hindu, not Muslim.

        Like a cyclone, imperialism spins across the globe; militarism crushes peoples and sucks their blood like a vampire. K. Liebknecht

        by Meteor Blades on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 09:00:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  If Gore was President....... (none / 0)

    N Korea and Iran will not feel compelled to have NUKES

    Afghanistan will be more successful and Osama killed

    etc....

    I can just imagine how much better the WORLD and America is.

    Fact check Obama spins on Hillary http://facts.hillaryhub.com/

    by timber on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 07:20:00 PM PDT

  •  Right (none / 0)

    we need to stop them from getting away from that. Although I think Americans arent buying it. Saw a Pew poll(yeah, I know all polls suck), that showed while people are more positive of Iraq after the election, a majority disapprove of going in there and feel the war is not worth it. Plus, what great tide?? Saudi Arabia wont let woman vote in there elections, Iran is building nukes, Pakistan, another ally, doesnt have elections. And Syria isnt even withdrawing troops. It's not as though Crown Prince Abdullah, the Mullahs in IRan, suddenly lost their power.
  •  The cost (none / 0)

    Even if George brings Democracy to the Middle East, with great fanfare, that may be great for some Iraqis, or Lebanese (and the ultimate success is far from certain), but what's it doing for us here?  $300 billion, and counting, to say nothing of the myriad other steep costs.

    These are the same people who, with great self-righteous anger, proclaim "It's my money!" when god forbid, anyone suggests social programs to help the less fortunate in this country.  But it's a good thing, Bush is a friggin' hero, for spending obscenely, both our treasure and our military, for the people of Iraq?

    Which puts the lie to it, of course.  We hardly went into this adventure for altruistic motives.  

    •  Mililtary Spending Isn't Obscent (none / 0)

      to them.

      Military is the purpose of government. Society is none of government's business so spending even a penny is a crime to them.

      There's no basis to talk to them until they feel more threatened by their leaders than by us.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 09:36:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The difference is (none / 0)

        spending on the military for the defense of the country, and spending on the military so that Iraqis can enjoy freedom and democracy.

        If they are going to argue that the spending is justified because the war made us safer, that is one thing.  I don't agree with the conclusion, but the objective is worth spending money on.

        But the self-congratulatory neocon lovefest is all about how wonderful it is that the Iraqis are voting, and democracy is coming to the Middle East, and how can any decent person not feel a thrill to see those purple fingers.  So I ask again, are my tax dollars to be spent on making Iraqis happy--but not americans?

  •  Sistani demanded the elections (none / 0)

    There was a diary on the Iraqi elections, pointing out how Bush isn't really the one to take credit for them:

    The original U.S. plan following the invasion was to ensure that we got the Iraq we wanted, and so elections would be held only after a new national constitution had been written by a handpicked, exile-led group.  Indeed, our "provisional administration" was so afraid of the people's will that we cancelled ad-hoc local elections all across Iraq in June of 2003. (Subsequent protests in Najaf, the home city of the Shiite religious establishment led by Grand Ayatollah Sistani, included banners that read, "Canceled elections are evidence of bad intentions.")

    Swopa's diary

    So you might ask those triumphant Bush supporters if Sistani is really their hero for inspiring elections all over the Middle East.

    •  The Memory Hole. (none / 0)

      A lot of Bush Supporters believe that he is resolute, and doesn't change his positions.  However, it only appears that way, because his previous position disappears down the Memory Hole. Bush changes his position, and it is forgotten that he ever had a different position.

      I don't see any way that Bush can legitimately claim credit for the Lebanese ousting their Syrian-backed government.  The Lebanese people didn't say "Hey, look how great things are going in Iraq!  Let's overthrow the government!"  We know what happened there was a bombing blamed on Syria, and the Lebanese people got sick of being controlled by a foreign power.

      Of course, his claims don't have to be legitimate if they face little or no scrutiny from the MSM.  I do wonder if he will claim "credit" if Lebanon decays into civil war.

      It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.

      by A Citizen on Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 11:26:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Lebanese and Egyptian opposition (none / 0)

    The Lebanese opposition consists of various different parties, who've all been around for a long time before George W. Bush.

    Among them: Walid Joumblatt of the Progressive Socialist Party, strongly opposed to Bush's Iraq war (when Wolfowitz stayed at a Baghdad hotel and an insurgent missile hit the hotel floor below him, Jumblatt reacted: "I hope next time they aim somewhat higher.")

    The Falangists, extreme Right wing of Christians, infamous for massacres during civil war. Founded in the 1930s by admirers of Spanish Fascists of Franco, from where they got their name. Traditionally anti-Semitic (tried to destroy Beirut synagogue during civil war) though often allies of Israel army.

    Egyptian feminist Ms Nawal El Sadaawi: Bush tries to rob us of our struggle for democracy which started long ago. See http://dearkitty.modblog.com/?show=blogview&blog_id=494374

    Bush lied, hundreds of thousands died, and still counting

    by dearkitty on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 12:27:06 AM PDT

Permalink | 21 comments