Are millions of men and women and children condemned to live in despotism?

[nietzsche]

Not any more, beeyach! Nice. way to go team!


Breaking news...

Bush: Iraq Part of 'Global Democratic Revolution'
Liberation of Middle East Portrayed as Continuation of Reagan's Policies
By Fred Barbash
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 6, 2003; 2:44 PM


President Bush today portrayed the war in Iraq as the latest front in the "global democratic revolution" led by the United States. The revolution under former president Ronald Reagan freed the people of Soviet-dominated Europe, he declared, and is destined now to liberate the Middle East as well.

In a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) described as a major policy address by the White House, Bush avoided issues such as preemptive attack, weapons of mass destruction and "gathering" dangers to the United States.

Rather, he put the war in a broader context of the "2,500-year old story of democracy," in the same tradition as the "military and moral" American commitments to restoring democracy to post-War Germany, to protecting Greece from Communism during the Cold War and combating communist domination in Latin America, Europe and Asia, including, he said explicitly, Vietnam.

The nations of the Middle East, he said, are no less entitled to freedom from "despotism" than all the nations liberated in the past. He congratulated the Islamic nations he believes are making at least some progress towards democracy, mentioning Bahrain, Oman, Morocco and Saudi Arabia.

Bush also said "the demand for democracy is strong and broad" in Iran, adding, "The regime in Tehran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people or lose its last claim to legitimacy."

Bush delivered the speech at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce during an event this morning marking the 20th anniversary of the NED, a federally funded foundation that provides grants to organizations that advance democracy internationally. Later, Bush signed an $87.5 billion spending package approved by Congress for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush's NED speech reflected the views of a generation of neo-conservative thinkers and government leaders, who support U.S. activism in spreading democratic government and free markets to those parts of the world that have yet to adopt them.

The speech also had the earmarks of a president seeking to embed a substantive doctrine into his mission, something beyond the doctrine of preemptive war, which Bush and other administration members have invoked in justifying the attack on Iraq.

Bush said, "In the trenches of World War I, through a two-front war in the 1940s, the difficult battles of Korea and Vietnam, and in missions of rescue and liberation on nearly every continent, Americans have amply displayed our willingness to sacrifice for liberty. . . . "

Now "our commitment to democracy" is being "tested in the Middle East," he said, which "must be a focus of American policy for decades to come. In many nations in the Middle East, countries of great strategic importance, democracy has not yet taken root. And the questions arise: Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom and never even have a choice in the matter?"

As for Iraq, he added, "We're working closely with Iraqi citizens as they prepare a constitution, as they move toward free elections and take increasing responsibility for their own affairs. As in the defense of Greece in 1947, and later in the Berlin Airlift, the strength and will of free peoples are now being tested before a watching world. And we will meet this test."

[nietzsche]

PRESDIENT BUSH: Thanks for the warm welcome. Thanks for inviting me to join you in this 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy.

Staff and directors of this organization have seen a lot of history over the last two decades. You've been a part of that history. By speaking for and standing for freedom you've lifted the hopes of people around the world and you've brought great credit to America.

I appreciate Vin for the short introduction.

(LAUGHTER)

I'm a man who likes short introductions.

(LAUGHTER)

And he didn't let me down. But more importantly, I appreciate the invitation.

Appreciate the members of Congress who are here, senators from both political parties, members of the House of Representatives from both political parties.

I appreciate the ambassadors who are here.

I appreciate the guests who have come. I appreciate the bipartisan spirit--the nonpartisan spirit of the National Endowment for Democracy. I'm glad that Republicans and Democrats and independents are working together to advance human liberty.

The roots of our democracy can be traced to England and to its Parliament and so can the roots of this organization. In June of 1982, President Ronald Reagan spoke at Westminster Palace and declared the turning point had arrived in history. He argued that Soviet communism had failed precisely because it did not respect its own people, their creativity, their genius and their rights.

President Reagan said that the day of Soviet tyranny was passing, that freedom had a momentum that would not be halted.

He gave this organization its mandate: to add to the momentum of freedom across the world. Your mandate was important 20 years ago. It is equally important today.

(APPLAUSE)

A number of critics were dismissive of that speech by the president, according to one editorial at the time. It seems hard to be a sophisticated European and also an admirer of Ronald Reagan.

(LAUGHTER)

Some observers on both sides of the Atlantic pronounced the speech simplistic and naive and even dangerous.

In fact, Ronald Reagan's words were courageous and optimistic and entirely correct.

(APPLAUSE)

The great democratic movement President Reagan described was already well under way.

In the early 1970s there were about 40 democracies in the world. By the middle of that decade, Portugal and Spain and Greece held free elections. Soon, there were new democracies in Latin America and free institutions were spreading in Korea and Taiwan and in East Asia.

This very week, in 1989, there were protests in East Berlin in Leipzig. By the end of that year, every communist dictatorship in Central America had collapsed.

Within another year, the South African government released Nelson Mandela. Four years later, he was elected president of his country, ascending like Walesa and Havel from prisoner of state to head of state.

As the 20th century ended, there were around 120 democracies in the world, and I can assure you more are on the way.

(APPLAUSE)

Ronald Reagan would be pleased, and he would not be surprised.

full: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8260-2003Nov6.html

[zartan]

have you seen the quotes from aschroft and bush sr.'s book about how wrong it would be to invade iraq?

[Bioteknik]

I don't think you or john have posted it enough so what's one more time?

[empath]

Cheney and Bush, not ashcroft.

[empath]

But why go back that far, what did W himself say about this kind of thing?

http://ftp.archive.org/movies/lisarein/tvclips/dailyapril2003/4-28-03-bushvbush-sm.mov

[zartan]

sorry its scowcroft, not ashcroft. all these crofts.

yeah you're right chris i don't think we've posted them enuf.

[nietzsche]

Originally posted by zartan74
have you seen the quotes from aschroft and bush sr.'s book about how wrong it would be to invade iraq?

ok, i'll admit it. they were wrong.

[nietzsche]

Bush:
In many Middle Eastern countries poverty is deep and it is spreading, women lack rights and are denied schooling, whole societies remain stagnant while the world moves ahead.

These are not the failures of a culture or a religion. These are the failures of political and economic doctrines.

As the colonial era passed away, the Middle East saw the establishment of many military dictatorships. Some rulers adopted the dogmas of socialism, seized total control of political parties and the media and universities. They allied themselves with the Soviet bloc and with international terrorism.

Dictators in Iraq and Syria promised the restoration of national honor, a return to ancient glories. They've left instead a legacy of torture, oppression, misery and ruin.

Other men and groups of men have gained influence in the Middle East and beyond through an ideology of theocratic terror. Behind their language of religion is the ambition for absolute political power.

Ruling cabals like the Taliban show their version of religious piety in public whippings of women, ruthless suppression of any difference or dissent, and support for terrorists who arm and train to murder the innocent. "



I don't see how you guys can claim that tax cuts in this country amount to an oppression of the middle class or are "unfair" to the poor, yet characterize the desire to get rid of these horrible despots, who committ these awful crimes against humanity, as "American Imperialization".

You guys' priorities are fucked up!

[zartan]

i don't claim tax cuts oppress the middle class or are unfair to the poor - i think they are bullshit budgetary policy when you have a massive deficit, unfunded mandates, and are defenestrating long-standing policies of helping people get higher education.

[zartan]

btw how about that annoying, pretentious word, eh?

[empath]

I love how Bush says that all these military dictatorships in the middle east just 'happened', as if the us had nothing to do with them.

[nietzsche]

HOLY FUCKING CHRIST! Now Bush is responsible for every despotic regime in the world?!? give me a fuckin break

[empath]

did I say "bush"?

The US installed and propped up a lot of these regimes, though. Both democratic and republican presidents.

[ravermania]

Originally posted by nietzsche
HOLY FUCKING CHRIST! Now Bush is responsible for every despotic regime in the world?!? give me a fuckin break

Not all the regimes in the ME but previous administrations were responsible, at least partly, for Saddam's stay in power, as well as the Taliban's rise to power.

[nietzsche]

Originally posted by empath
did I say "bush"?

The US installed and propped up a lot of these regimes, though. Both democratic and republican presidents.

OK, fine, can we all admit that it was the WRONG thing to do and move on??! Yes, everybody was WRONG to support who-the-fuck-ever! Now can we PLEASE start encouraging DEMOCRATIC rule in Muslim countries - for the people, by the people - not by crazy fucks who like to feed their prisoners to lions??

[empath]

I'm all in favor of not supporting these countries any more.

It's a gigantic fucking leap to go from there to invading them and rebuilding them from the ground up.

If they want a democracy, they can do it themselves.

Of course, we still only support certain democracies. We tried to depose Chavez after he was democratically elected in Venezuela just a few years ago.

And we're still supporting a lot of total bastards in the middle east-- Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, etc...

So, I don't know how Bush is going to put this wonderful plan to impose 'democracy' all over the world into practice.

[ravermania]

Originally posted by nietzsche


OK, fine, can we all admit that it was the WRONG thing to do and move on??! Yes, everybody was WRONG to support who-the-fuck-ever! Now can we PLEASE start encouraging DEMOCRATIC rule in Muslim countries - for the people, by the people - not by crazy fucks who like to feed their prisoners to lions??

Most definitely agree - but what do you mean by "encouraging"?

[nietzsche]

Originally posted by empath


So, I don't know how Bush is going to put this wonderful plan to impose 'democracy' all over the world into practice.

BUsh:
Governments across the Middle East and North Africa are beginning to see the need for change. Morocco has a diverse new parliament. King Mohammad has urged it to extend the rights to women.

Here's how His Majesty explained his reforms to parliament: ``How can society achieve progress while women, who represent half the nation, see their rights violated and suffer as a result of injustice, violence and marginalization, not withstanding the dignity and justice granted to them by our glorious religion?''

The king of Morocco is correct: The future of Muslim nations would be better for all with the full participation of women.

(APPLAUSE)

In Bahrain last year citizens elected their own parliament for the first time in nearly three decades. Oman has extended the vote to all adult citizens.

Qatar has a new constitution. Yemen has a multi-party political system. Kuwait has a directly elected national assembly. And Jordan held historical elections this summer.

Recent surveys in Arab nations reveal broad support for political pluralism, the rule of law and free speech. These are the stirrings of Middle Eastern democracy and they carry the promise of greater change to come.

As changes come to the Middle Eastern region, those with power should ask themselves: Will they be remembered for resisting reform or for leading it?

In Iran, the demand for democracy is strong and broad, as we saw last month, when thousands gathered to welcome home Shirin Ebadi, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

The regime in Tehran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people or lose its last claim to legitimacy.

(APPLAUSE)

For the Palestinian people, the only path to independence and dignity and progress is the path of democracy.

(APPLAUSE)

And the Palestinian leaders who block and undermine democratic reform and feed hatred and encourage violence are not leaders at all. They are the main obstacles to peace and to the success of the Palestinian people.

The Saudi government is taking first steps toward reform, including a plan for gradual introduction of elections. By giving the Saudi people a greater role in their own society, the Saudi government can demonstrate true leadership in the region.

The great and proud nation of Egypt has shown the way toward peace in the Middle East, and now should show the way toward democracy in the Middle East.

Champions of democracy in the region understand that democracy is not perfect. It is not the path to utopia. But it's the only path to national success and dignity.

As we watch and encourage reforms in the region, we are mindful that modernization is not the same as Westernization. Representative governments in the Middle East will reflect their own cultures. They will not, and should not, look like us. Democratic nations may be constitutional monarchies, federal republics or parliamentary systems.

And working democracies always need time to develop, as did our own. We've taken a 200-year journey toward inclusion and justice, and this makes us patient and understanding as other nations are at different stages of this journey.

There are, however, essential principles common to every successful society in every culture.

[nietzsche]

Originally posted by ravermania


Most definitely agree - but what do you mean by "encouraging"?

by saying that the free peoples of the earth will not stand by while cruel regimes continue to deny basic human rights to their people. And if needbe, we are more than prepared to go in and oust the regime so ensure that the people's interests prevail.

and this includes fighting. not just sitting around sanctioning, and resolving, and debating like the useless UN does. sorry folks, but that is the way any of this is going to change.

[Agent Sunshine]

I totally agree with this new doctrine. The US has for many years not only supported totalitarian regimes econimcally and militarily, but have actually overthrown democratically elected regimes in countries whose political and economic ideologies we did not agree with. This is a bold new step, and if it is actually followed through with could be a major turning point in actually winning the war on terror. I think it is a fucking gas that he said he's building on the work of Ronald Reagan, who was in power during some of our worst foreign affairs meddling, but either way, kudos to Bush on this one. It's about time someone other than the far left took this stand. :)

[Bioteknik]

yeah.. there were some bad things with ronnie, but my polish boss absolutely loves the guy

[empath]

Does this new doctrine include sending more canadians to syria to be tortured?

[Bioteknik]

you forgot orange text

[nietzsche]

seriously, empath, you should take off the Bush blinders and read this a lil more closely. this is right up your alley. you talk a lot about oppressed people, and odds are you have a sensitive spot for the little guy. well, this is it.

the docterine says that we are changing 60 years of US foreign policy. that, no matter what our previous interests were, our first and foremost priority is to promote democracy and self governence in all countries. And as long as countries are moving in that direction, we will support and help them.

To paraphrase Bush, there is no reason why people should be condemned to live under a ruthless regime and genrations of oppression simply bc they were born in the wrong place.

this is a great, great vision.

[empath]

No, I agree with the doctrine of no longer supporting dictators in foreign countries. I agree with much of what he said in that speech. I just wish I could believe him when he says it.

[Agent Sunshine]

It will really be interesting to see how, and how thoroughly, this new doctorine is implemented. Hopefully this isn't Bush's foreign policy version of the Clear Air Act. :)

[empath]

I think it's ironic that he wants to export democracy abroad while destroying it here.

[koolaidluva]

:werd:
UnOfficial/yet widely practiced Goverment Memo:Support brutal dictators when they're doing somthing for us, put on the blinders to all human rights violations

[zartan]

this is a pretty funny thread given what's happened in the last year. don't see much of this kind of talk anymore.

[zartan]

lol at this again.

the docterine says that we are changing 60 years of US foreign policy. that, no matter what our previous interests were, our first and foremost priority is to promote democracy and self governence in all countries. And as long as countries are moving in that direction, we will support and help them.


i've noticed a lot of that happening - good thing we no longer support despots and dictators like the guys in the former soviet republics who sit on oil.

[Methodus]

what's happened in the last year?

[RickyRicardo]

DAWN OF THE THREAD


directed by George Romero.

[jibboo]

have you seen the quotes from aschroft and bush sr.'s book about how wrong it would be to invade iraq?
did you catch wolf blitzer interviewing bush last week?

BLITZER: I woke in New York like you did this morning. I read...

BUSH: What are you reading there?

BLITZER: "The New York Times," there's a paragraph in here. I'll read it to you. It's about your dad's former Secretary of State James Baker. "In his 1995 memoir, Mr. Baker said he opposed ousting Saddam Hussein in the Persian Gulf War in 1991 because he feared that such action might lead to an Iraqi civil war, to criticism from many of our allies and to an eventual loss of American support for an occupation."

BUSH: Yes. He was writing before September 11, 2001. And the world changed that day, Wolf.

BLITZER: But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

:owned:

[Methodus]

BUSH: Yes. He was writing before September 11, 2001. And the world changed that day, Wolf.

BLITZER: But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

:owned:

Blitzer just :owned: himself. So Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But that doesn't mean that the world (and therefore all U.S. foreign policy) did not change that day. It appears as though ol' Wolf could learn a lot by a basic logic course.

[jibboo]

Blitzer just :owned: himself. So Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But that doesn't mean that the world (and therefore all U.S. foreign policy) changed that day.
huh

[Methodus]

huh

What don't you get? Wolf's comment was completly illogical and irrelevant to the discussion. Bush contends the world changed on 9/11, including U.S. Foreign Policy (e.g. the Bush Doctrine, etc).

[jibboo]

What don't you get?
But that doesn't mean that the world (and therefore all U.S. foreign policy) changed that day.
Bush contends the world changed on 9/11, including U.S. Foreign Policy (e.g. the Bush Doctrine, etc).
which is it

[zartan]

yeah wait, whats the bush doctrine? perhaps supporting coups against democratically elected governments and propping up convenient dictators like the saudis and various former soviet states?

[NYGblue]

The United States is trying to promote something that doesn't feasibly work because:

1) Arabs are fairly ambivalent about the democratic process (general distrust of all people in power),

2) having it forced upon them by a foreign country's military,

3) that country being Christian/secular and not Muslim,

4) why Iraq? Why not... Sudan? or Zimbabwe? or Bangladesh?

5) Oil and finally,

6) it may be 'noble' to promote democracy but you can promote democracy without invading a country. This is another excuse for why we went in and instead of being honest about it they come up with another lame excuse that no one with a brain is going to buy (regarding why we went into Iraq).

[zartan]

Liberation of Middle East Portrayed as Continuation of Reagan's Policies

also this is pretty fuckign hilarious and ironic given reagan's policies included endless violations of the "bush doctrine."

[RickyRicardo]

What don't you get? Wolf's comment was completly illogical and irrelevant to the discussion. Bush contends the world changed on 9/11, including U.S. Foreign Policy (e.g. the Bush Doctrine, etc).

But, US Policy towards Iraq *didn't* change after 9/11 (Regime change had been part of official policy since '98, and plans to replace Saddam were drawn up, circulated, and supported well before the al-qaeda attacks).

9/11 or no, we would have gone after Saddam anyway. 9/11 just made it easier (than usual) to sell a pack of lies to the American people.

[andy's dead]

:nixo:

[Methodus]

which is it

I'm :specialed:

damn typos

[Methodus]

But, US Policy towards Iraq *didn't* change after 9/11 (Regime change had been part of official policy since '98, and plans to replace Saddam were drawn up, circulated, and supported well before the al-qaeda attacks).

9/11 or no, we would have gone after Saddam anyway. 9/11 just made it easier (than usual) to sell a pack of lies to the American people.

The policy to act was drawn up, but not acted upon until the Bush doctrine came about.

[RickyRicardo]

The Bush doctrine was irrelevant. I seem to recall that Rumsfeld was already looking for reasons to go into Iraq while his office was still smoking. The invasion was a forgone conclusion by that point. All the Bush Doctrine did was give a formal framework to an already existing policy.

Anyway, the point is, it's disingenious for Bush to suggest that a post 9/11-worldview is what shaped his decision to go into Iraq. The decision had already been made well before any planes collided w/ any buildings.

[Methodus]

The Bush doctrine was irrelevant. I seem to recall that Rumsfeld was already looking for reasons to go into Iraq while his office was still smoking. The invasion was a forgone conclusion by that point. All the Bush Doctrine did was give a formal framework to an already existing policy.

Anyway, the point is, it's disingenious for Bush to suggest that a post 9/11-worldview is what shaped his decision to go into Iraq. The decision had already been made well before any planes collided w/ any buildings.

I don't think it's disingenious at all, I think it's the truth. The decision had not been made at all, only the policy which had support from both parties.

[jibboo]

oh please

he threatened iraq during his campaign in '00

[Methodus]

oh please

he threatened iraq during his campaign in '00

oh please, read what you just wrote.

threat != invasion

[jibboo]

the worst part was that he was threatening them about the existence of wmd