I defy anyone on the Left to come up with...

[The Ressurrected One]

...a liberal historian and commentator that makes as much sense as Victor Davis Hanson; without agreeing with him, of course.

C'mon, show me the Left's answer to rational, thoughtful, and intelligent commentary.

July 29, 2005
Reformation or Civil War? (http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson072905.html)
The jihadists cannot be reasoned with, only defeated.


Remember how shortly after September 11 Mohammed Atta’s lawyer father sounded worried in his cozy apartment? He stammered that his son did not help engineer the deaths of 3,000 Americans. According to him, the videos of the falling towers were doctored. Or maybe the wily Jews did it. Why, in fact, he had only talked to dear Mohammed Junior that very day, September 11. Surely someone other than his son was the killer taped boarding his death plane.

Apparently Mohammed el-Amir was worried of American retaliation — as if a cruise missile might shatter the very window of his upper-middle class Giza apartment on the premise that the father’s hatred had been passed on to the son.

He sings a rather different tune now. Mohammed el-Amir recently boasts that he would like to see more attacks like the July 7 bombings of the London subway.

Indeed, he promised to use any future fees from his interviews to fund more of such terrorist killings of the type that his now admittedly deceased son mastered. Apparently in the years since 9/11, el-Amir has lost his worry about an angry America taking out its wrath on the former Muslim Brotherhood member who sired such a monster like Atta.

Yet one wonders at what he is saying now, after the worst terrorist attack in Egyptian history at the resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.

Egypt finally is suffering from the same terror and mayhem that its radical sons like the pampered Atta and Dr. Zawahiri unleashed on so many poorer others. The Mubaracracy may not take kindly to Atta’s father endorsing such carnage from his pleasant apartment that is incinerating those other than Jews and Westerners — and threatens to ruin the nation’s entire tourist industry.

The father of Mohammed Atta is emblematic of this crazy war, and we can learn various lessons from his sad saga.

First, for all their braggadocio, the Islamists are cowardly, fickle, and attuned to the current political pulse.

When the West is angry and liable to expel Middle Eastern zealots from its shores, strike dictators and terrorists abroad, and seems unfathomable in its intentions, the Islamists retreat. Thus a shaky al-Amir once assured us after 9/11 that his son was not capable of such mass murder.

But when we seem complacent, they brag of more killing to come. Imagine an American father giving interviews from his apartment in New York, after his son had just blown up a shrine in Mecca, with impunity promising to subsidize further such terrorist attacks. If our government allowed him to rant and rave like that in such advocacy of mass murder, then we would be no better than he.

The other lesson is that the war the Arab autocracies thought was waged against the West by their own zealots has now turned on them. The old calculus of deflecting their failures onto us by entering in an unspoken unholy agreement with the Islamists is coming to an end. George Bush’s “You are either with us or against us” is belatedly arriving to the Middle East’s illegitimate regimes.

And the governments of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other autocracies are in worse shape than we are. At least we are promoting democratic alternatives to their dictatorships, in the hopes that when such strongmen fall, there is another choice besides the jihadists. But the autocrats themselves have nowhere to go. Since they never allowed a loyal democratic opposition, there is only the unsavory choice of either liberalizing while they are in the middle of a bombing war with extremists — or the fate of the shah.

Quite simply, Islam is not in need of a reformation, but of a civil war in the Middle East, since the jihadists cannot be reasoned with, only defeated. Only with their humiliation, will come a climate of tolerance and reform, when berated and beaten-down moderates can come out of the shadows.

The challenge for the Middle East is analogous to our own prior war with Hitler who sought to redefine Western culture along some racial notion of a pure Volk long ago unspoiled by Romanizing civilization. Proving the West was not about race or some notion of an ubermenschen ruling class did not require an “internal dialogue,” much less another religious reformation, but the complete annihilation of Nazism.

So it must be with the latest fad of radical Islamicism. Contrary to popular opinion, there has not been a single standard doctrine of hatred in the Middle East. Radical Islam is just the most recent brand of many successive pathologies, not necessarily any more embraced by a billion people than Hitler’s Nazism was characteristic of the entire West.

In the 1940s the raging -ism in the Middle East was anti-Semitic secular fascism, copycatting Hitler and Mussolini — who seemed by 1942 ascendant and victorious.

Between the 1950s and 1970s Soviet-style atheistic Baathism and tribal Pan-Arabism were deemed the waves of the future and unstoppable.

By the 1980s Islamism was the new antidote for the old bacillus of failure and inadequacy.

Each time an -ism was defeated, it was only to be followed by another — as it always is in the absence of free markets and constitutional government.

Saddam started out as a pro-Soviet Communist puppet, then fancied himself a fascistic dictator and pan-Arabist nationalist, and ended up building mosques, always in search of the most resonant strain of hatred. Arafat was once a left-wing atheistic thug. When the Soviet Union waned, he dropped the boutique socialism, and became a South-American-style caudillo. At the end of his days, he too got religion as the Arab Street turned to fundamentalism and Hamas threatened to eat away his support.

The common theme is not the Koran, but the constant pathology of the Middle East — gender apartheid, polygamy, religious intolerance, tribalism, no freedom, a censored press, an educational system of brainwashing rather than free inquiry — that lends itself to the next cult to explain away failure and blame the West, which always looms as both whore and Madonna to the Arab Street.

Iraq has inadvertently become the battleground of a long overdue reckoning, a bellwether of the future of the Middle East. If the constitutionalists win, then the jihadists will be in retreat and there will be at last a third way between radical Islam and dictatorship.

We must now step up our efforts. At home we should no more tolerate the expression of Islamic fascism on the shores of the West than Churchill would have allowed Hitler Youth to teach Aryan global racial superiority in London while it was under the Blitz.

When the extremists are repatriated to the Middle East, and understand they are never again welcome in Europe and America, millions of others will know the reason why — and decide by their own attitudes to the killers in their midst whether they themselves wish ever again to visit, work, or be educated in the West.

If the terrorists are not isolated and ostracized at home, then any Western government would have to be suicidal to admit any more young males from the Islamic Middle East. Indeed, if the Iranian public or the Saudis, or Egyptian citizenry do not begin creating a climate hostile to radical Islam, then they de facto can only become the enemies of the United States in a war that they can only lose.

To fathom our success abroad, read what the Islamic websites — or Mohammed Atta’s own father — now say about the evil Americans and George Bush, who, they lament, have set Muslim against Muslim in Lebanon, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine. The foreign contagion of democracy and reform, despite the best efforts of both the mullah and the strongman, now infects the Arab Street and it seems to be driving bin Laden and Bashar Assad alike crazy.

Iraqi guardsmen are fighting al Qaedists as Afghans die in firefights with Taliban remnants. Note well that at the loci of American democratizing presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, there are few local Iraqis and Afghans — as there are few Turkish or Indian Muslims — who are eager for global jihad against the West. The killers instead flock from elsewhere to those new nations to stop the experiment before it spreads. Give dictatorial Pakistan or Egypt billions, and we get ever more terrorists; give the Iraqis and Afghans their freedom and their citizens are unlikely to show up in London and Madrid blowing up civilians, but rather busy at home killing jihadists.

In this Mexican standoff, the Islamists, dictators, and democratic reformers are waging a struggle for the hearts and minds of the Middle East. We have had our own similar three-way shootout in the West between fascists, Communists, and liberal republics. Backing Communists to stop fascists or helping autocrats fight Communists were stop-gap, wartime exigencies — never solutions in themselves.

The Middle East does not need a reformation in Islam as much as a war to eradicate a minority of religious fanatics who are empowered through their blackmail of dictatorships — and to do so in a way that leads to constitutional government rather than buttressing a police state. So far governments have chosen appeasement and bribery — if at times some torture when demands for investigations rise — and so time is running out for the entire region.

There are a million Muslims in Israel — the mother of all evils in the radical Islamic mind. Yet very few have turned themselves into global jihadists, and hundreds are not blowing themselves up daily in Tel Aviv, much less in London or New York. Why? Perhaps the twofold knowledge that they have rights in Israel not found in the Arab world that they don’t wish to forfeit, and they are surrounded by people who would not tolerate their terrorism.

For the first time, Afghans and Iraqis have a stake in their own future — and know the United States is at last on the right side of history and intends to stay and win by their side.

So we press on.

[ChumpDumper]

So civil war in every middle eastern country is the answer?

How are we going to bring this about?

[The Ressurrected One]

So civil war in every middle eastern country is the answer?

How are we going to bring this about?
Okay, that wasn't the question and you obviously didn't read the article...

[JoeChalupa]

Oh, come on TRO. Just because this Victor Davis Hanson has you drooling don't mean he makes sense. Yes, he has some valid points as almost all commentators from the righ and left do. Doesn't make him the "Dubya" of commentators does it?

There are plenty of "liberal" commentators who make sense but not to you because you live inside the box. Read Ted Rall, Richard Reaves, David Shribman, Cynthia Tucker, Alan Colmes and a host of others.

Op-ed columns can be read by many and also have many interpretations or opinions of said commentator.

But it was a nice read and thanks for posting it.

[ChumpDumper]

Quite simply, Islam is not in need of a reformation, but of a civil war in the Middle East
The Middle East does not need a reformation in Islam as much as a war to eradicate a minority of religious fanatics who are empowered through their blackmail of dictatorshipsPerhaps you should read it again.

[The Ressurrected One]

Oh, come on TRO. Just because this Victor Davis Hanson has you drooling don't mean he makes sense. Yes, he has some valid points as almost all commentators from the righ and left do. Doesn't make him the "Dubya" of commentators does it?

There are plenty of "liberal" commentators who make sense but not to you because you live inside the box. Read Ted Rall, Richard Reaves, David Shribman, Cynthia Tucker, Alan Colmes and a host of others.

Op-ed columns can be read by many and also have many interpretations or opinions of said commentator.

But it was a nice read and thanks for posting it.
Except that Hanson is an historian first, commentator second.

Ted Rall? C'mon, he's hysterical. I've never heard of Reaves, Shribman, or Tucker and Colmes, well, he's no historian either.

So, what are the flaws in Hanson's assessment, Joe?

[The Ressurrected One]

Perhaps you should read it again.
I did, and what he basically says is that if the Middle East doesn't want the West to solve their problem -- much like we did the Nazi issue of Germany, they need to get serious about stopping their own cancer.

And, he went on to demonstrated examples of where that is happening and where it needs to happen.

It was an affirmation of the Bush Doctrine and the Bush Middle East foreign policy.

[JoeChalupa]

Except that Hanson is an historian first, commentator second.

Ted Rall? C'mon, he's hysterical. I've never heard of Reaves, Shribman, or Tucker and Colmes, well, he's no historian either.

So, what are the flaws in Hanson's assessment, Joe?

Well, until you posted it I'd never heard of this Hanson dude. Is he related to that hot boy band, "Hanson"?

I didn't say there were any flaws in his assessment but to say that he's the all powerful and knowing Oz of conservative commentators, err...historians is simply a matter of opinion.

[JoeChalupa]

I did, and what he basically says is that if the Middle East doesn't want the West to solve their problem -- much like we did the Nazi issue of Germany, they need to get serious about stopping their own cancer.

And, he went on to demonstrated examples of where that is happening and where it needs to happen.

It was an affirmation of the Bush Doctrine and the Bush Middle East foreign policy.

So now since the all knowing Hanson has "affirmed" the so called Bush Doctrine it makes it fool proof? I don't think so.

[ChumpDumper]

I did, and what he basically says is that if the Middle East doesn't want the West to solve their problem -- much like we did the Nazi issue of Germany, they need to get serious about stopping their own cancer.That's a nice thought, but how? How do you change the status quo of these dicatorships and Islamofascists states from within?
It was an affirmation of the Bush Doctrine and the Bush Middle East foreign policy.Well that foreign policy is pretty much forcing that civil war by occupying Iraq and threatening to invade other mideast countries -- I wouldn't call that hands-off.

[The Ressurrected One]

Maybe you should learn something about the guy.

I don't hold him up as all-knowing either. But, he does make his points without calling Ted Kennedy an idiot (which he is) or bashing the Left, which I've yet to see any Liberal commentators who can talk about the Middle East without tossing Bush's policies out with the bath water.

Any Liberal assessment of the turmoil in the Middle East seems to begin and end with how Bush is responsible for all that is wrong and how there is nothing going right there. And, when they do mention positives, they fail to recognize it as a consequence to Bush's Middle East policies and, instead, torture logic to place the credit elsewhere.

Let me give you an example:

Tom Friedman, of the New York Times, is knowledgeable about the Middle East, but intellectually, he is a follower, not a leader. So he is a little late to the party in terms of understanding, and apparently endorsing, the Bush administration's strategy for the Middle East. In yesterday's New York Times, Friedman wrote:



In visiting Gaza and Israel a few weeks ago, I realized how much the huge drama in Iraq has obscured some of the slower, deeper but equally significant changes happening around the Middle East [Or, maybe caused them? --TRO]. To put it bluntly, the political parties in the Arab world and Israel that have shaped the politics of this region since 1967 have all either crumbled or been gutted of any of their original meaning.

Iraq is not the only country in this neighborhood struggling to write a new social contract and develop new parties. The same thing is going on in Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Gaza. If you like comparative politics, you may want to pull up a chair and pop some popcorn, because this sort of political sound and light show comes along only every 30 or 40 years.

"Fatah never made the transition from a national liberation movement to civil society," said the Palestinian reformist legislator Ziad Abu Amr. Iraq's Baath Party was smashed to bits by President Bush. Syria's Baath - because of the loss of both its charismatic leader, Hafez al-Assad, and Lebanon, its vassal and launching pad for war on Israel - has no juice anymore. Lebanon's Christian Phalange Party and Amal Party, and the other ethnic parties there, are all casting about for new identities, now that their primary obsessions - the Syrian and Israeli bogymen - have both left Lebanon. Egypt's National Democratic Party, which should be spearheading the modernization of the Arab world, can't get any traction because Egyptians still view it as the extension of a nondemocratic regime.

Intensifying these pressures is the big change from Washington, said the Palestinian political scientist Khalil Shikaki: "As long as Washington was happy with regimes that offered only stability, there was no outside pressure for change. Now that the Bush administration has taken a bolder position, the public's expectations with regard to democratization are becoming greater. But the existing parties were not built to deliver that. So unless new ones emerge, either Hamas or anarchy could fill the vacuum."

In other words, the Bush administration's strategy for the region is working. So far, Friedman's loyalty to the Democratic Party has always trumped his willingness to draw the obvious conclusions from his own observations. It will be interesting to see whether at some point, he will be willing to acknowledge that he and, you in this forum, his fellow liberals were wrong, and President Bush was right.

[The Ressurrected One]

That's a nice thought, but how? How do you change the status quo of these dicatorships and Islamofascists states from within?Well that foreign policy is pretty much forcing that civil war by occupying Iraq and threatening to invade other mideast countries -- I wouldn't call that hands-off.
I thought he offered a great example in Israel, Chump.

Over a million Muslims live in the "non-occupied" areas of Israel -- the ultimate evil spon on earth, according to Islamic extremists -- and none of them are blowing themselves up. Why?

Well, he makes the point that they enjoy their freedoms and they realize their society (Israel proper) wouldn't stand for any nonsense.

This train of thought needs to be brought to the rest of the region.

[ChumpDumper]

Over a million Muslims live in the "non-occupied" areas of Israel -- the ultimate evil spon on earth, according to Islamic extremists -- and none of them are blowing themselves up. Why?

Well, he makes the point that they enjoy their freedoms and they realize their society (Israel proper) wouldn't stand for any nonsense.

This train of thought needs to be brought to the rest of the region.Nice thought, but that doesn't change governments in other countries where it doesn't matter what the general population thinks, AND it seems to go against the "all Muslims are bad Muslims" philosophy pervasive in this forum.

[JoeChalupa]

Maybe you should learn something about the guy.

I don't hold him up as all-knowing either. But, he does make his points without calling Ted Kennedy an idiot (which he is) or bashing the Left, which I've yet to see any Liberal commentators who can talk about the Middle East without tossing Bush's policies out with the bath water.

Any Liberal assessment of the turmoil in the Middle East seems to begin and end with how Bush is responsible for all that is wrong and how there is nothing going right there. And, when they do mention positives, they fail to recognize it as a consequence to Bush's Middle East policies and, instead, torture logic to place the credit elsewhere.


Bush has been in the White House too long and you've forgotten how conservative assessments were when Clinton was president. It goes both ways. Many like to throw out how "Clinton never did anything..blah, blah, blah" and how Bush does nothing wrong.

I'm all for the liberation of people but tell it like it is and don't use WMD or other BS. I wish we would do more in other parts of the world so liberate and save human life but we can't do it all.

I don't believe you can force democracy on people unless they want it themselves and while I'm sure the majority of Iraq does it doesn't change the fact that the leaders of Iraq are not getting the message out to the their people. I fear some at the top are going to be Saddam's in drag and out to stuff their pockets with any scam they can get away with.

But I hope I'm wrong.

[The Ressurrected One]

Bush has been in the White House too long and you've forgotten how conservative assessments were when Clinton was president. It goes both ways. Many like to throw out how "Clinton never did anything..blah, blah, blah" and how Bush does nothing wrong.
I'm sorry, I'm not aware of any of Clinton's bold foreign policy initiatives...

Let's see, there was the Jimmy Carter foray into North Korea. That went well. Granted, I'm not so sure it was Clinton's foreign policy prowess as much as it was Jimmy Carter's arrogance that led to that initiative.

Then, there was the normalizing of trade status with China resulting in the largest one-way transfer of U.S. trade and military secrets in the history of our nation. Yeah, that's a bonus.

Then, how can we forget the White House handshake between Arafat and Rabin. Wow! The peace was palpable...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/170000/images/_170269_Copy_of_arafat_rabin_handshake.jpg

So, fill me in on the Grand Foreign Policy initiatives of President Clinton's that I apparently missed.

I'm all for the liberation of people but tell it like it is and don't use WMD or other BS. I wish we would do more in other parts of the world so liberate and save human life but we can't do it all.
You just have to do your part, Joe. The world will do the rest...


I don't believe you can force democracy on people unless they want it themselves...
Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the former totalitarian Soviet Union stand in bright contrast to that statement.

...and while I'm sure the majority of Iraq does it doesn't change the fact that the leaders of Iraq are not getting the message out to the their people.
You're not reading the right sources...there are successes all over the place in Iraq.

I fear some at the top are going to be Saddam's in drag and out to stuff their pockets with any scam they can get away with.
Then they'll fall like Saddam.


But I hope I'm wrong.
I'm betting you are.

[JoeChalupa]

I'm sorry, I'm not aware of any of Clinton's bold foreign policy initiatives...

Let's see, there was the Jimmy Carter foray into North Korea. That went well. Granted, I'm not so sure it was Clinton's foreign policy prowess as much as it was Jimmy Carter's arrogance that led to that initiative.

Then, there was the normalizing of trade status with China resulting in the largest one-way transfer of U.S. trade and military secrets in the history of our nation. Yeah, that's a bonus.

Then, how can we forget the White House handshake between Arafat and Rabin. Wow! The peace was palpable...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/170000/images/_170269_Copy_of_arafat_rabin_handshake.jpg

So, fill me in on the Grand Foreign Policy initiatives of President Clinton's that I apparently missed.

You just have to do your part, Joe. The world will do the rest...

Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the former totalitarian Soviet Union stand in bright contrast to that statement.

You're not reading the right sources...there are successes all over the place in Iraq.

Then they'll fall like Saddam.

I'm betting you are.

Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the former Soviet Union the people made it happen. The Iraq leaders are pussy footing around, IMO.

See, what I mean. All negative statements about Clinton and Carter.

So I guess Bush is just doing his part and the World will take care of the rest.

I think I may be wrong too.

[The Ressurrected One]

Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the former Soviet Union the people made it happen. The Iraq leaders are pussy footing around, IMO.
It took 4 years of intense combat and several more of U.S. Military presence and policy enforcement for Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan to be transformed. It took many years of chess-like foreign policy and intermittent armed conflict in minor communist-leaning hellholes for the same to happen in the former Soviet Union...and for the PEOPLE to demand the freedom and independence they witnessed in the West.

Peristroyka and glasnost, lowered the iron veil of Communist society and allowed those who had been, until then, held captive in countries that tightly controlled the intrusion of Western influence...to see what self-determination promised on the other side of "wall". And, keep in mind, Peristroyka and glasnost were never intended to end the Communist chokehold on their subjects, they were just forced -- by Reagan's foreign policy initiatives and the efforts of Pope John Paul II and the defiance of Lech Walesa and decades of out-spending their resources into oblivion -- to either self-destruct or attempt some limited loosening of Soviet oppression and try a hybrid model of communism and democratic reform.

Oooops! Port Wine stained Gorbechev didn't realize that peristroyka and glasnost would result in a complete and total rebellion from the people -- beginning in East Germany -- who, when they saw Ronald Reagan demand that the iron curtain be dismantled, saw for the first time, they could similarly demand change from their government...or, destroy it.

China and Iran, in particular, are similar to the former Soviet Union in that respect. But, even they, are having trouble containing the influx of information and exposure to the freedoms and independence inherent in Western culture and ideology.

It is all about getting the message to the masses. Western freedom and independence, for all it's warts, it superior to the oppressive forms of theocracy and totalitarianism enjoyed by the elite Mullahs and Dictators of yore.

That's what President Bush is doing.


See, what I mean. All negative statements about Clinton and Carter.
I was giving you a chance to point to some successful Clinton foreign policy initiative and, instead, you whine about my pointing out his obvious failures.

So I guess Bush is just doing his part and the World will take care of the rest.
Yep. Libya, Lebanon, and Afghanistan are a good start and a shining example of the effects of the Bush Doctrine on the Middle East. Individual freedom and individual rights -- no matter under what type of government they're exercised -- are the genie that cannot be re-bottled. Maybe a thousand years ago but, not in the current global context.

I think I may be wrong too.
Fair enough.

[ChumpDumper]

Libya, Lebanon, and Afghanistan are a good start and a shining example of the effects of the Bush Doctrine on the Middle East.Again, how is Afghanistan just "spreading the message" when we overthrew the government?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Why does it have to be someone "from the left" that is so needed to express a view similar to the view fo another individual?

TRO you're so full of crap man, its like you talk so much about how you're pro this and pro that, you're a true american, why is it that you attempt to divide people up before you even get to the body of your post?

Its like you consider left'ers from another country

why can't left wingers agree with this? There is no real solid black line dividing left and right, i hope you remember this TRO. The majority have been going more extreme left and more extreme right, but the middle is always and has always been blurry...

[spurster]

I am all for getting rid of the violent religious fanatics. It is hardly a new, liberal or conservative idea to make a policy with that goal. The question is how.

[danyel]

Egypt finally is suffering from the same terror and mayhem that its radical sons like the pampered Atta and Dr. Zawahiri unleashed on so many poorer others.

Egypt has been suffering from terrorism for decades...the article didnt make that much sense to me, I didnt find it enlightening at all.

21st century social values on countries and people mostly still living on the 15th century won't be that easy to achieve. Even moderated islamic or arabs countries dont have steady democracies, Morocco for example.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I think the solution is for US citizens to give up more civil liberties in exchange for the promise that we'll be kept safe.

[ChumpDumper]

It's nice to say all Muslims need to do is have a taste of representative democracy and everything will take care of itself, but that is easily countered with the example of Pakistan. Pakistan's flip-flopping between elected governments and military dictatorships, their use and abuse of constitutions and amendments thereof to establish and legitimize dictatorships, and huge, seemingly intractable differences between secular and religious interests, between religious groups themselves and ethnic groups still longing for self-rule -- all those make it quite difficult to make a lasting, stable democracy.

[The Ressurrected One]

I take it from all the flak that you've neither decided on a Liberal historian worth their salt or come up with a Clinton foreign policy achievement worth crowing about.

Well, there was Mogadishu....no...nevermind.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, I'm confused by his opening -- that Atta guy is bragging after the London bombings -- does that mean that the west was complacent leading up to and following them? According to his words, we were.

I thought we weren't -- and if we weren't the Islamists were supposed to be cowering away.

Which is it?

[Edit - timeline was off]

[Nbadan]

Quite simply, Islam is not in need of a reformation, but of a civil war in the Middle East, since the jihadists cannot be reasoned with, only defeated. Only with their humiliation, will come a climate of tolerance and reform, when berated and beaten-down moderates can come out of the shadows.

So this writer feels that the way to moderate the Middle East is by militarily hunting down young, beaten-down, always ignored and often confused Muslims?

:lol

[Nbadan]

Iraq has inadvertently become the battleground of a long overdue reckoning, a bellwether of the future of the Middle East. If the constitutionalists win, then the jihadists will be in retreat and there will be at last a third way between radical Islam and dictatorship

What constitutionalists? Prime Minister Al-Jaafri and Dawa Party majority that currently control Iraq? They are Shiite Islamists who will have Islamic law play a much greater role in Iraq society than it ever did under Saddam. Much worse, the Sunni Muslims in Iraq that are financing much of the insurgency no longer trust the elected Shiite majority. Sunni's now hate Shiite more than they do Americans. Meanwhile, Iraq and Iran are cozing up - forging new trade and defense agreements. Iran even offered to train Iraqi troops in Iran to help fight the insurgency, until Washington nixed that idea.

[The Ressurrected One]

So this writer feels that the way to moderate the Middle East is by militarily hunting down young, beaten-down, always ignored and often confused Muslims?

:lol
No, what the paragraph says is that until the berated and beaten-down moderate Muslims, that have been cowering in the shadows, are embolded to come forward and take part in the humiliation of the Islamo-fascists will it be defeated in the Middle-East.

That's what is happening. We're doing the emboldening.

[cecil collins]

Religious fanatics? We don't have any of those do we? Just because the religion seems fanatical to you doesn't mean it is. Perhaps your religion seems fanatical to me. I'm tired of hearing about the religious fanatics. Yes some do cause problems, but I believe people in a position of poverty and despair with a particular enemy to blame(USA) will attempt to put an end to it, if it gets bad enough. You don't think peoples of other areas are mad. They just don't have the same kind of weaponry and rich, radical funding to cause damage on the same scale. If the same weaponry was prevalent in South America, it would likely be a similar story.
No on giving up more civil liberties.
I didn't read the article because 1 it seemed boring as hell, and 2 conservative writers tend to make absolutely no sense to me. If this makes me an ass, so be it. If anyone wants to read a progressive writer, I recommend Michael Parenti.

[ChumpDumper]

No, what the paragraph says is that until the berated and beaten-down moderate Muslims, that have been cowering in the shadows, are embolded to come forward and take part in the humiliation of the Islamo-fascists will it be defeated in the Middle-East.

That's what is happening. We're doing the emboldening.Are those moderates the majority? And are those moderates able to put aside able to put aside the other differences -- federalism vs. centralism, ethnic distrust -- that are adding to the wide gulfs in Iraq's constitutional debate?

So this emboldening will lead to a desirable civil war according to this author -- what will a civil war in Iraq mean for us? Will we stay in or go back to Iraq to make sure whomever we decide the good guys are this time win? If the moderates can't maintain all of Iraq, would partition be a good thing? The author wants more instability in the short term in the middle east, but how can he guarantee a beneficial long-term outcome without even more massive US intervention?

[The Ressurrected One]

Are those moderates the majority? And are those moderates able to put aside able to put aside the other differences -- federalism vs. centralism, ethnic distrust -- that are adding to the wide gulfs in Iraq's constitutional debate?

So this emboldening will lead to a desirable civil war according to this author -- what will a civil war in Iraq mean for us? Will we stay in or go back to Iraq to make sure whomever we decide the good guys are this time win? If the moderates can't maintain all of Iraq, would partition be a good thing? The author wants more instability in the short term in the middle east, but how can he guarantee a beneficial long-term outcome without even more massive US intervention?
Civil war in the sense that Moderate Muslims will fight their own Islamo-fascists, yes.

There are no guarantees...but doing nothing would only lead to a worse scenario.

[ChumpDumper]

Civil war in the sense that Moderate Muslims will fight their own Islamo-fascists, yes.

There are no guarantees...but doing nothing would only lead to a worse scenario.But in the first sentence, you are indeed saying we would do nothing.

Vietnamization is a nice theory, but not all that great in practice.

[JoeChalupa]

Civil war in the sense that Moderate Muslims will fight their own Islamo-fascists, yes.

There are no guarantees...but doing nothing would only lead to a worse scenario.

That can be said of many other places in the world.

[gtownspur]

Religious fanatics? We don't have any of those do we? Just because the religion seems fanatical to you doesn't mean it is. Perhaps your religion seems fanatical to me. I'm tired of hearing about the religious fanatics. Yes some do cause problems, but I believe people in a position of poverty and despair with a particular enemy to blame(USA) will attempt to put an end to it, if it gets bad enough. You don't think peoples of other areas are mad. They just don't have the same kind of weaponry and rich, radical funding to cause damage on the same scale. If the same weaponry was prevalent in South America, it would likely be a similar story.
No on giving up more civil liberties.
I didn't read the article because 1 it seemed boring as hell, and 2 conservative writers tend to make absolutely no sense to me. If this makes me an ass, so be it. If anyone wants to read a progressive writer, I recommend Michael Parenti.

Dude we're not calling them fanatics because they worship allah or eat pita bread with hummus. their fanatics Cecil because they are willing to murder us for their cause. we do have fanatics in our country and they are berated and humiliated when they step out of line. (Timothy McVeigh, David Koresh..etc). That doesnt mean we have to bend over and take it like you want. So please find another reason (doesnt have to be lame) to discredit Bush's successful policies.

THe last sentence speaks volumes about your reasoning and lazy thinking. Your not an ass because your liberal, your an ass becuase you assumed the writer of the peice was conservative and your closed minded.

[DarkReign]

I think the solution is for US citizens to give up more civil liberties in exchange for the promise that we'll be kept safe.

Not on my fucking watch.

What specific civil liberties as laid out by American forefather's do you volunteer on behalf of all Americans?

Please....if youre a coward and fear violence, dont take my civil liberties away.

The Patriot Act is one thing (and has been severly newtered), but the removal of liberties is a sure-fire way to ignite a revolution.

Wow...and youre from Texas? Where the hell is your gun-rack?

[DarkReign]

BTW, I am not a bleeding heart liberal wishing for national health care. Nor am I a neo-con with hopes of owning the world.

But it was a good article. I hope its true (hard to tell really. Articles, by their nature, are written by humans. Humans have agendas. Everything written or seen must be taken with a large grain of salt).

[cecil collins]

That's why I suggested that I might be an ass. I don't read everything there is to read, because every asshole has an opinion, even you. Just because some fuck has an idea, doesn't mean I have to read it. I am fairly closed minded, but so is everyone. It's like a BS filter. I'm not gonna go out and read a book by Ann Coulter, but I know she will make no sense to me.

[190 Octane]

Funny how this post begins as "stoopid liberulz" rather than "interesting article, read it over, broaden your horizons."

I don't see how Bush's Middle East policy has bee successful. The underlining theme of this article is the moderate Muslim world needs to rise up against the fanatics. OK. But they weren't, and guess what? Still aren't! The Iraqi national police force is horribly under-manned. Afghanistan is in a state of Wild Wild West, which is pretty much the same as it was six years ago. Meanwhile, other nations aren't battling the Fundamentalists within. In fact, Iran voted democratically to go for more of a hardline in its leadership.

Think of the American Revolution. Colonists fought for freedom because they wanted to. It's not as if the French said, "you know what? The British government is bad, we're giving you freedom." AMERICANS chose to fight for their freedom, that's why it worked. Democracy isn't democratic if it's forced upon you. And the Bush "doctrine" has made Iran go to a hardline, Fundamentalist stance. The Bush doctrine hasn't caught Osama bin Laden. The Bush doctrine has spent $360 billion on a nation that posed no threat to the U.S. Why all of America didn't realize the White House was lying when Hussein's army wasn't firing off WMDs at the first invasion, I'll never know. I thought he had the capable to strike across the Atlantic Ocean in less than a hour's notice?

Anyway, I digress. If the Bush doctrine is about spreading democracy, why has the Bush administration made no efforts to work with the global community against North Korea? If the doctrine is about democracy, why don't we help in the dire situation in Sudan? There are people who are fighting for their freedom, yet we do nothing. Our government won't even declare what is going on there a genocide. If it's all about "spreading democracy," why are our president and his administration's actions so hypocritical?

[gtownspur]

Funny how this post begins as "stoopid liberulz" rather than "interesting article, read it over, broaden your horizons."

I don't see how Bush's Middle East policy has bee successful. The underlining theme of this article is the moderate Muslim world needs to rise up against the fanatics. OK. But they weren't, and guess what? Still aren't! The Iraqi national police force is horribly under-manned. Afghanistan is in a state of Wild Wild West, which is pretty much the same as it was six years ago. Meanwhile, other nations aren't battling the Fundamentalists within. In fact, Iran voted democratically to go for more of a hardline in its leadership.

Think of the American Revolution. Colonists fought for freedom because they wanted to. It's not as if the French said, "you know what? The British government is bad, we're giving you freedom." AMERICANS chose to fight for their freedom, that's why it worked. Democracy isn't democratic if it's forced upon you. And the Bush "doctrine" has made Iran go to a hardline,
Fundamentalist stance. The Bush doctrine hasn't caught Osama bin Laden. The Bush doctrine has spent $360 billion on a nation that posed no threat to the U.S. Why all of America didn't realize the White House was lying when Hussein's army wasn't firing off WMDs at the first invasion, I'll never know. I thought he had the capable to strike across the Atlantic Ocean in less than a hour's notice?

Anyway, I digress. If the Bush doctrine is about spreading democracy, why has the Bush administration made no efforts to work with the global community against North Korea? If the doctrine is about democracy, why don't we help in the dire situation in Sudan? There are people who are fighting for their freedom, yet we do nothing. Our government won't even declare what is going on there a genocide. If it's all about "spreading democracy," why are our president and his administration's actions so hypocritical?

We are working with N Korea. WE held summits with CHina, Japan and russia to pressure N korea.

another thing, by your standards no one can ever bring worthwhile change to the Mid East. you have to remember that all democracies start out rough. Even we had a rough start. WE even had a civil war that killed many young men for crying out loud! Funny thing is, is that Bush has passed every test the opposition has put ahead. No one thought there were going to be an election in Iraq. Afghanistan is no Luxemberg.. no one is comparing the two. But it is safer than most of the Latin american countries in our hemisphere. The mid east is changing. THere has been a democratization of lebanon and syria is moving slowly towards reform. The palestinians are getting the gaza strip. There is tremendous progress going on. you just want to deny it becuase you cant afford to be wrong.

another thing i'd like to point out is that no one forced democracy to the iraqi's. They all went to the ballot box even though there were suicide bombings in the voting lines. None of them flinched. the Iraqis want democracy. They are like everyone if given the right to be free or be oppressed they will choose freedom.

[gtownspur]

That's why I suggested that I might be an ass. I don't read everything there is to read, because every asshole has an opinion, even you. Just because some fuck has an idea, doesn't mean I have to read it. I am fairly closed minded, but so is everyone. It's like a BS filter. I'm not gonna go out and read a book by Ann Coulter, but I know she will make no sense to me.

Not everyone is closed minded.. alot of people's views change over time liberals and conservatives alike,so stop generalizing.
again everyone has an oppinion, i dont deny that. But having one out of blindness is not noble. again this guy who wrote it is liberal like yourself. he happens to not follow the democrat talking points or the trendy views of his leftist freinds. He has his own mind. It would help you to read other oppinions and retain the good and discard the bad. But admitting your an ass and deciding not to challenge your own views makes you the fuck not everyone else... GOsh your Just like the Christian Fundys you hate only with leftist veiws. i dont have an oppinion out of cynicism, spite, or anything that is not based on rational ways to come to those thoughts. i have principles and they dont change. But other than that everything else is fair game and i take delight in challenging my own views because the truth shall set me free.. and you..

[190 Octane]

OK, well, see here's the thing, gtown...you're wrong.

First of all, these summits you mention weren't held by the US as you imply. Russia, South Korea, Japan, and China were meeting with or without the U.S. Bush's initial stance was he wasn't negotiating with North Korea, but waffled when South Korean President Roo Moo-hyun urged him to, and relations between our nation and South Korea started to go sour.

Second, by my standards? So you can read my mind? I clearly said it's up to the Middle Eastern people to take their nation back from dictators and religious zealots (it helps to read the posts and not just make inferences), and by all means, if they choose to, then I would support the U.S. helping. But the fact of the matter is, this is an American-imposed change. Like I said, look at Sudan. If it's about democracy, then where's the assistance there?

Third, yes, we had a Civil War. Yes, South Carolina threatened to walk out of the Constitutional Congress. But here's what it boils down to, like I said before: Americans sought out their freedom! Of course there are growing pains, but those were growing pains we as a nation took on. And where is this "no one thought there would be Iraqi elections?" EVERYONE thought there would be Iraqi elections, people were just concerned that Iraqis would vote for a Fundamentalist government...which they did. See, our government started this process, and as soon as one of their democratically elected officials gets out of line, I guarantee we'll be there to oust him. It happens all the time: our government imposes its idea of how a nation should be run, then ends up either fighting who they implemented in power (See: Manuel Noriega, Panama) or creating a national wasteland and enemy (See: Batista, Cuba).

Next, I ask you what tests these are Bush has passed? Afghanistan is in a state of disarray. You say it's safer than X number of nations. Tell that to the Afghani people who live in fear of the mobilized militia, which our military estimates ranks about 100,000+ in membership. Compare that to the Afghan army: 15,000 volunteers. Tell the 100+ deceased soldiers who gave their lives there, particularly the 40 who died in 2004, the most since we invaded. Tell that to the 94% of the nation who have no electricity, the 70% who are considered malnurished, or the 87% who don't have access to clean water. We went in there with a mission to accomplish, and after a year-and-a-half, diverted so much money and military attention, that the country is in dire straits and Osama bin Laden is still on the lam.

Furthermore, you mention Lebanon and Libya as areas of Bush's success. Lebanon? How can you give Bush credit for Lebanon? That's absurd. They began the civil war decades ago, and put the plans in motion of a constitution in 1991. Israel pulled out in 2000, which is the same year the Lebanese government and Syrian government met to begin a Syrian pullout from that region. Seriously, how does any of that have anything to do with the "Bush doctrine?"

[gtownspur]

Because the lebanese credited change in Iraq for demonstrating for pullouts. Btw negotiating with NKorea was waffled by the chineese non commitment to pressure the Nkoreans. we were going to go nowhere with Nkorea since Bill clinton already tried it ant the NKoreans trashed that anyway. North korea should have been dealt with in 95.
And if you consider a 90% turnout in an election as the iraqi's not wanting democracy then i cant argue with you anyfurther. the Iraqi people of today were not armed enough to take on sadaam. we were armed enough in the days of the revoutionary war. In those days it was mainly musket to musket. In iraq to ask the same of those people would be assinine. youd have domestic gun to soviet weoponry. it is almost impossible to fight any state with the states now the ones who control more armory than the public.

[190 Octane]

The Lebanese credit Bush and Iraq for the pullouts? THEY BEGAN THE PULLOUT PROCESS IN 2000. One more time: THEY BEGAN THE PULLOUT NEGOTIATIONS WITH ISRAEL AND SYRIA IN 2000. Period. One year before Bush was President, three years before Iraq. Whoever is spinning that to be the heroics of the great crusader Bush isn't giving the people of Lebanon enough credit for three decades of civil war and years of negotiations.

Next, it's great the Iraqi people voted. Good for them. I didn't say they weren't happy to have democracy, but you completely dodged the point. What happens when the U.S. isn't happy with who they chose to lead? It's happened many times before (Cuba, Panama), and to some degree it happened in Iraq. Our government gave Hussein increased power by arming him in the 1980s, then less than a decade later, we were fighting him. In that scenario, it's just more money and more resources pumped into a nation that NEVER SOUGHT OUR HELP.

Next, "Soviet weaponry." Nice. Too bad Hussein was armed with American weaponry. The U.S. supplied him with his weaponry in the 1980s. The USSR never had anything to do with Iraq. Nice try to completely mis-spin it, though.

[190 Octane]

Btw negotiating with NKorea was waffled by the chineese non commitment to pressure the Nkoreans. we were going to go nowhere with Nkorea since Bill clinton already tried it ant the NKoreans trashed that anyway. North korea should have been dealt with in 95.
.

Sorry to double post, but one more thing - "we were going to go nowhere with NKorea" - wow. Just wow. First of all, you're completely wrong about the U.S. changing its stance on Korean negotiations. South Korea's president urged Bush to get involved, and that's when the U.S. got involved. Before it was "no negotiations with this enemy," but the threat of losing South Korean support brought the U.S. to the table.

Second, you basically brush North Korea aside as saying it's going nowhere, then blaming Clinton. Well guess what? They were entered into a nuclear proliferation agreement under Clinton, which they dishonored after he was out of office. Now, whether or not they honored the agreement prior to Bush can be debated. Who knows? But they didn't flaunt the fact they dishonored the agreement until after Bush became president and declared Kim Jong-Il a member of his "Axis."

[gtownspur]

about the lebanese and syrian situation i give you the NYT.
"ABSTRACT - Editorial suggests there may be room for cautious optimism about Middle East politics; cites dissolution of pro-Syrian government in Lebanon, announcement of presidential elections in Egypt and new peace dynamic between Israel and Palestinian Authority; says that while brutal insurgency rages in Iraq, year has thus far brought heartening surprises for which Bush administration is entitled to claim share of credit"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50F16FA39590C728CDDAA0894DD4044 82

as with North Korea,. October 29, 1999 The North Korea Advisory group which included a bipartisan panel held talks in the congress that North Korea had been secretely violating the Non proliferation Treaty of clintons under his watch.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB87/nk21.pdf

Nkorea is not to be trusted with and if any progress was to be made, China and Russia would have to put the pressure since they have more leverage.

[190 Octane]

OK, but what you cite for Lebanon is an EDITORIAL, meaning an opinion piece. The fact of the matter - a civil war 30 years prior to the Bush presidency, and pullout negotiations 1 year prior - are much more solid evidence than an editorial.

I can agree with you that North Korea should be dealt with, but to simply brush the problem off to Russia and China isn't going to get the job done. This is a matter that concerns the United States - the United States' leader shouldn't be refusing to addressing it.

[gtownspur]

your right except for the fact that Kim Jong is not someone you can trust and will do as all communist leaders do,..break their treaty. you can have talks and all you want but you wont get Nkorea to halt production. we are not respected by them or ever will be.

now on to the Lebanese.
you want proof.. youll here it out of the horses mouth the Lebanese press..
http://beirut.usembassy.gov/lebanon/Archive/2005/Apr/27-990236.html
INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT BY LEBANESE BROADCASTING CORPORATION

The Map Room
3:56 P.M. EDT

QUESTION: Thank you for your time, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: My honor, thank you.

Q: Recently there isn't a day that passes by without you mentioning Lebanon. Why now, this country that was under occupation for almost 30 years, became so important for the United States?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, there's a movement toward freedom around the world. And the Lebanese people have made it clear that they want to be free of Syrian influence, they want there to be free elections. And the United States of America stands squarely with the people of Lebanon.

Q: Are you concerned, Mr. President, that your calls for freedom in Lebanon, for free elections and for the Syrians to be out of Lebanon could be seen as interfering in Lebanon's internal affairs?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I don't think so. I think people will see that the United States is consistent in working with the people so that they can have a free voice, and so they get to decide the government. The people of Lebanon will decide who is in their government, not the United States. But the United States can join with the rest of the world, like we've done, and say to Syria, get out -- not only get out with your military forces, but get out with your intelligence services, too; get completely out of Lebanon, so Lebanon can be free and the people can be free.

Q: Do you have any doubts that Syria will be out by end of April?

THE PRESIDENT: I am pleased that they're beginning to get out. And we expect them to be completely out. And I mean not only the troops, but the people that have had -- that have been embedded in parts of government, some of the intelligence services that have been imbedded in government and others. They need to get completely out of Lebanon so the people of Lebanon can decide the fate of the country -- not another government, not agents of another government, but the people.

And Lebanon is a great country, and Lebanon has had a fantastic history. It's also had some difficult days. But I think there is a better day ahead for the people of Lebanon, and I think people, no matter what their politics may be, really want Lebanon to succeed.

Q: Mr. President, I'm sure you saw the pictures of the demonstrations in Lebanon. Beirut was packed with maybe a million people in the street, calling for freedom and democracy in Lebanon. What was your -- what did you feel when you saw it?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I wasn't surprised, because I think everybody wants to be free. I think people long to be free, and I think people are tired of living under a government which, in essence, was a foreign occupation.

The other thing is, in our great country, there's a lot of Lebanese Americans that love Lebanon. And everywhere I go in my country, people are saying, now, listen, as the President, you must work there to be a free Lebanon. And so I'm not surprised. If the spirit of those Lebanese Americans is strong here, imagine what the spirit will be of their relatives and friends in Beirut. People live in a free society here, and not one there, but there will be one soon.

Q: You worked closely with the French on resolution 1559. And this resolution calls Hezbollah to disarm. How will the United States ensure this happens?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first things first, and that is to make sure that there are free elections. Secondly, listen, we put Hezbollah on the terrorist list for a reason; they've killed Americans in the past. And we will continue to work with the international community to keep the pressure on this group of people. And we'll work with the international community to fully implement 1559. But ultimately, the people of Lebanon are going to decide the fate of the country. And you can't have a free country if a group of people are like an armed militia. In other words, there needs to be police organized by the state, a military organized by the state. But citizens groups that are armed, trying to impose their will on a free society is just not the definition of a free society.

Q: But, Mr. President, what if Lebanon is not capable of implementing this element of the resolution 1559?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the international community is going to have to work to help them achieve that capability. Listen, not every free society is capable of internal security right off the bat. And there's ways for the international community to come together to reassure the people that there will be help to secure the country.

Q: I'm sure, Mr. President, you heard what I want to say maybe thousands of times, and maybe from Presidents and Kings that come and see you here in the White House -- some people think that it's not in the best interest of America to have democratic Arab countries --

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q: -- because democracy and free elections may help anti-American groups, radical groups to come to power. What do you respond to that?

THE PRESIDENT: I respond to them and say, well, I guess they don't really understand me, and they don't understand my view of freedom, because I think freedom is embedded in everybody's soul. I do believe there is an Almighty God, and I believe that freedom is that Almighty God's gift to each man and woman in this world. I believe that a true free society, one that self-governs, one that listens to the people, will be a peaceful society -- not an angry society, but a peaceful society.

And the reason I believe that is because I believe, for example, most mothers want to raise their children in a peaceful world, and they want their little children to be able to go to school and to grow up in peace. And if that's the ultimate feeling of the people, the government -- if it's a true democracy -- will reflect that.

Q: Well, Mr. President, I'm sure you know that Lebanon is also facing severe economic problems.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q: Would the U.S. be willing to rally the world community to help Lebanon's economy?

THE PRESIDENT: Of course. The United States, as well as European finance ministers, would want to work closely with international organizations, like the IMF or the World Bank, to help this country get back on its feet after occupation; help this new democracy succeed. Yes, there will be plenty of help. The Lebanese people are going to have to, though, however, have elections. In my judgment, they ought to be as scheduled. And the elections need to be free and fair, without interference.

There will be monitors, hopefully, international monitors, to make sure they're free and fair. The people of that good country ought to feel comfortable about going out and voting and expressing their opinion. And when a democracy is up and running, I believe the international community will want to help this new democracy.

Q: Mr. President, we all know that Syrian-American relations are at their lowest now. Is there a road map for Syria to improve its relationship with the United States?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Syria has heard from us before. We have made it very clear that -- what we expect, in order to be able to have relations with us. First on the agenda, right now, there's two things immediately that come to mind. One is to stop supporting Baathists in Iraq -- stop those people in Syria who are funneling money and helping smuggle people and arms into Iraq. They've heard that message directly from me. And secondly, of course, is to completely withdraw from Lebanon. Syria must shut down Hezbollah offices. Hezbollah not only is trying to destabilize the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, but Hezbollah, as you know, is a dangerous organization.

Q: But those offices are in Lebanon, they're not in Syria.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, they're in Syria, too. And Syria has got to do its part about making sure that Hezbollah doesn't receive support from Syria.

Q: What if the diplomatic effort and the sanctions fail in changing Syrian attitudes? Is there another option?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the government will feel the international pressure. We're just beginning. And, obviously, diplomacy is the first course of action. And we hope -- I think diplomacy will work.

[190 Octane]

But this is just Bush taking credit for the Syrian pullout of Lebanon. Like I said in a previous post, I don't feel that's giving due credit to the people there who fought for three decades prior to the Bush administration.

This international coalition meant to see the treaty enforced is a good thing, definitely. But it wouldn't even be necessary had the Lebanese people and government not handled this situation internally over the course of many years.

I think this is what the initial article in this thread implied, and I agree with - it's up to the people of the Middle East to take their nations from the fundamentalist wackos. It's proof it can be done. Credit should go to the Lebanese people, not Bush, nor any other American political figure, Dem or Repub.

[gtownspur]

Dude, again you selectively read over the part where the journalist credited Bush for helping put pressure.

"Q: You worked closely with the French on resolution 1559. And this resolution calls Hezbollah to disarm. How will the United States ensure this happens?
Q: Are you concerned, Mr. President, that your calls for freedom in Lebanon, for free elections and for the Syrians to be out of Lebanon could be seen as interfering in Lebanon's internal affairs?

the fact is is that bush should be credited for the peace not entirely but in goodwill. WHether you credit him or not. The Lebanese press and people have given thanks to GW.

[190 Octane]

"again you selectively read..." Um, how is that selective reading, and how have I ever selectively read? If you're going to make an accusation, make one with some basis to it, not to just throw out insults.

Let's see - the reporter (who I apparently need to point out is one reporter and not the entire Lebanese public or press as you say) ask how Bush expects the U.S. to ensure the treaty is honored. Now, I applaud the effort of an international watchdog over the region. That's a good move. But that still doesn't take away the fact that this process began long before Bush was president. Please please please give credit where credit is due.

Second question: "your calls..." Every president makes calls for peace. Peace talks in Gaza began many many years before Bush was president. Just like Lebanese fought to remove Syrian and Israeli influence before Bush was president. Because someone "calls" for peace in a region, doesn't mean they are the reason it happened. It should be to the credit of the people who did the fighting, and did the negotiating.

[Nbadan]

It was the Europeans as well as the people of the region who invested time and resources to help resolve the Palestinian-Israel issues. They did what we should have done in Iraq. Work behind the political scene and pressure resentment for the status quo from within the Palestinian population, especially the presence of Syrian troops, keep pressure on the Israelis to the negotiation table and wait for a Palestinian leader who was willing to crack down on attackers in his territory for real diplomacy to take place.

[gtownspur]

once again you need to look at the fact that iraqs demise took the legs out of the syrian occupation because syria and iraq where allies and sadaam backed syria against national pressure. The syrians were not convinced or persuaded by the lebanese but were pressured by Bush and Chirac. THis was part of bringing democracy in the middle east to which Bush stated months before the assasination of The lebanese official that was murdered by the syrians. The lebanese victory was done by world pressure and bush.
If only the UN and Chirac pressured Syria to pullout there might have been a different response from the syrians. Also it was Bush who backed the Palestinian State as part of his agenda from Day one of his administration that pressured Sharons govt. to pullout and not retalliate swiftly if attacked.




http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/08/bush.mideast/

"Before the speech, Bush had <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=telephone&v=56">telephone</a> conversations with French President Jacques Chirac and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to discuss efforts to pressure Syria as well as other political developments in the region, U.S. officials said."

[190 Octane]

gtown, citing an article that is nothing more than Bush tooting his own horn in a press conference isn't proof of anything. Why can't you look at history? The war was going on thirty years before Bush. The pullout negotiations came a year before Bush. Like I said, it's good that the U.S. (and not the U.S. only, mind you) is keeping an eye on the pullout. But you say that Iraq took the legs out of Syria - then why did Syria agree to a pullout three years before Hussein was ousted? And you're going on pure speculation, "might have been a different response." Might. Strong evidence, but no precedent to back it, and as the fact Syria agreed to pull out in 2000, no direct history to suggest it.

Furthermore, Bush has touted "democracy" as being his driving force, but from the very article you cite, he says this:

The Iranian regime should listen to the concerns of the world and to the Iranian people, who want their liberty," he said. "We look forward to the day when the Iranian people are free."

As much as I don't like the government in Iran, which has some seriously messed up views of the world, it was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED. Democratically. The president whose doctrine you say is leading the Middle East to democracy is trying to lead a campaign against a democratically chosen government. Just because you don't like the democracy doesn't mean it's not a democracy.

The Syria-Lebanon situation isn't proof against the success or lack thereof of the Bush doctrine, but it's not proof for. That's a cycle that began years before he was president. And the second part of your article, which I cited, shows apparent hypocrisy in Bush's own doctrine.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Not on my fucking watch.

What specific civil liberties as laid out by American forefather's do you volunteer on behalf of all Americans?

Please....if youre a coward and fear violence, dont take my civil liberties away.

The Patriot Act is one thing (and has been severly newtered), but the removal of liberties is a sure-fire way to ignite a revolution.

Wow...and youre from Texas? Where the hell is your gun-rack?

dude i was playing devils advocate

thats not how i really think

[Cant_Be_Faded]

The Lebanese credit Bush and Iraq for the pullouts? THEY BEGAN THE PULLOUT PROCESS IN 2000. One more time: THEY BEGAN THE PULLOUT NEGOTIATIONS WITH ISRAEL AND SYRIA IN 2000. Period. One year before Bush was President, three years before Iraq. Whoever is spinning that to be the heroics of the great crusader Bush isn't giving the people of Lebanon enough credit for three decades of civil war and years of negotiations.

Next, it's great the Iraqi people voted. Good for them. I didn't say they weren't happy to have democracy, but you completely dodged the point. What happens when the U.S. isn't happy with who they chose to lead? It's happened many times before (Cuba, Panama), and to some degree it happened in Iraq. Our government gave Hussein increased power by arming him in the 1980s, then less than a decade later, we were fighting him. In that scenario, it's just more money and more resources pumped into a nation that NEVER SOUGHT OUR HELP.

Next, "Soviet weaponry." Nice. Too bad Hussein was armed with American weaponry. The U.S. supplied him with his weaponry in the 1980s. The USSR never had anything to do with Iraq. Nice try to completely mis-spin it, though.


gtownspur has now been severely owned (bukkake style)

[Cant_Be_Faded]

gtown, citing an article that is nothing more than Bush tooting his own horn in a press conference isn't proof of anything.


:lmao :lmao its all the proof that chickenhawks needs though