Blind to the positive things
Loyal Achates commented on a recent post that:
Back to the specific issue at hand--the positive waves of Bush's policy--I especially enjoyed this short discussion:
The Democratic Party has been hijacked by spineless moderates who refuse to stand for anything.Not to let this bunk get by unanswered, I replied:
The Left wing of the party realizes that Bush cannot win the War on Terror the way he's fighting it; and so we need a major policy reversal if any positive change is to be achieved.
Oh, you mean the policy that allowed free and immensely successful Iraqi and Afghan elections? The same policy who's waves have affected the typically terrorist friendly and/or democracy-hating countries of Libya and Egypt, and the new Palestinian leadership, not to mention the masses in Lebanon, Iran and the Ukraine? You're right, President Bush's policy has failed miserably...I am saddened that someone can be so partisan that he cannot see anything positive about someone who doesn't share his ideology. I admit I am pretty forceful sometimes about my beliefs, and I attack the left fiercely and often. But I am not blind to any faults with my party or ideology. The Armstrong Williams issue was distasteful and wrong. I disagree with President Bush on a number of issues, such as the prescription drug benefit in Medicare and his immigrant worker policy.
That you are totally unable (unwilling?) to see the incredible good happening as a result of President Bush's War on Terror, demonstrates a total lack of intellectual honesty and a mind filled to the brim with ideology-induced blindness.
Back to the specific issue at hand--the positive waves of Bush's policy--I especially enjoyed this short discussion:
Business Week magazine puts it this way: "Administration critics are all but conceding that Bush may be on to something." Even some of the European nations that were so anti-American when we went into Iraq are committing help to train the Iraqi army, and even France has sided with the United States in the Lebanon-Libya debacle. Just a few months ago the political liberals of the world were absolutely sure Muslims would totally reject America's concepts of liberty and democracy, and that George W. Bush and all of us red-state Americans were just a bunch of redneck cowboys who just didn't understand.. But now there are signs that Bush was right ... that all the people of the world will embrace freedom and democracy if given the chance. We're not there yet ... not by a long shot ... but what a change in just a few months.
posted by Seth at 10:57 PM
9 Comments:
My blogging career has really exploded lately.
Okay, lots of issues here. I'll try and go through them one by one.
Afghanistan - Warlords and al-queda still hold large parts of the country, while heroin production is up 200% 'President' Karzai is basically the mayor of Kabul.
Iraq - The Iraqi elections were hardly free; I've never heard of a well-functioning democracy where most of the candidates hid their names and faces. Even if you think nothing was wrong in the election process, the people of Iraq overwhelmingly voted for parties that identified closely with the ideology (if not the tactics) of the insurgents. The most unifying issue in iraqi politics now is kicking the US troops out.
Libya - I assume you mean the cessation of their chemical weapons programs? They had already agreed to a time table for that before Bush came in to office and were well on their way to complying with it even before the Iraq war. It was lucky timing on Bush's part, that's all.
Egypt - No sign yet that the new elections in Egypt will mean anything at all. Meanwhile, the corrupt, anti-semitic Egyptian government still gets billions a year in US aid.
Lebanon - I don't quite see what credit Bush can take for any positive events here, but at this point the situation is still very precarious.
Iran - Declaring them part of 'the axis of evil' basically killed the reform movement here; and now the whole country from every side of the political map is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons.
Ukraine - The US was actively working against the orange Revolution as part of our plan to cozy up to Vladmir Putin. Ir was only through an infusion of money from one George Soros that managed to keep the reformist movement alive long enough to take control.
I didn't say nothing good had come out of Bush's War on terror, only that the bad far outweighed the good, and that most of the mistakes of the Bush administration were deliberate, avoidable, and immensely counter-productive to their avowed long-term goals of establishing peace and democracy around the world.
Liberals never said Arabs and Muslims would reject democracy, only that they would reject US imposition and imperialism, and they are. It was never the intention of Bush to spread democracy, because he knows perfetcly well that a free and democratic middle east would neevr stand for the treatment it currently gets from the US.
One more thing about the Iraqi elections: why does no one remeber that Bush didn't want them in the first place? he wanted a national assembly chosen by the hand-picked members of the Iraqi Governing Council. it was only when Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani demanded elections, and crowds of iraqis held rallies every day in support of elections that would be open to all, did the US relent.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec03/iraq_12-02.html
Afghanistan: 10+ million people registered to vote. How about you supply the whole story, Achates? "Though the Taliban are still launching regular attacks, and much of the country remains under the control of heavily armed warlords, most Afghans are now happier and more hopeful than they were under the former regime. Three million refugees have flooded back to Afghanistan from Iran and Pakistan." ~ from the (generally left-leaning) Economist (http://tinyurl.com/5bcbx)
Iraq: It is obvious to anyone who reads the news (even the liberal MSM grudgingly accepted it) that the Iraqis defied the threats of the insurgents and voted anyways; why would insurgents kill those voting to legitimize their ideology of death and hatred?
Also in Iraq: look at the incredible good we've accomplished since we've been there--schools up and running, hospitals in operation, advances in electricity and water, etc. etc. etc.
Libya: do you really think the Libyans would be so eager to give up their weapons if Algore or Kerry was in charge? Remember when the Iranians held their hostages right up until Reagan became president...? There's a time to stop diplomatizing our enemies to death, and a time to actually put them to death. (by the way i'm not suggesting military action against Libya) When an enemy understands that, it's an awful strong deterrent from acting out of line...(I'm curious to see how N. Korea pans out)
Iran: look, you've gotta call it like it is. As if the clerics would have laid down their nukes (or plans) "if only Bush hadn't thrown us in with the axis of evil crowd! Oh the unfairness of it all! Waaghh!"
Ukraine: I've never heard that assertion. I'd be happy to consider some proof...
Bush may not have done everything right, but just tell me you don't shudder when you consider what Kerry would have put us through: a "global test," no balls to enforce 12-year-old UN resolutions, liberal kook fringe relativism, a dismissal of religion as divorced from decision-making, etc...
Concerning the PBS link:
a plan CAN be revised; we did not know exactly what would happen when we went over there, and it seems to me that Bush went with the flow and was flexible in dealing with the situation as it played out. Don't tell me you've never had a plan to do something and then changed your strategy due to lobbying efforts, more time to consider, or new developments...Just because the U.S. was flexible and chose its course from various options does not mean the policy is flawed.
Conclusion: Likely, we will never convince each other of much. In the end it comes down to the fact that I am optimistic about and supportive of the amazing worldwide changes our great nation has influenced or brought about directly.
Just like most of history, it's too early to tell how all this will pan out with its direct effects and repercussions. But there are signs: people are becoming more vocal about their freedom in areas of the world not known for such things (COUGHthe middle eastCOUGH). Time will tell, and I believe that history will prove George W. Bush right.
If I might make a suggestion, in the future you should focus on one topic or one country at a time. Simply throwing out a dozen countries fosters superfiical debate. Depth over breadth, you know.
Afghanistan - 10+ million Afganis registered to vote... but there are only 9 million people in Afghanistan, and at least half of those aren't old enough to register to vote. That's dedication to democracy, all right.
How do you know the Afghanis are happier? Have you asked them all? The Taliban was terrible, but it remains to be seen whether it will be replaced by anything better.
The Economist is not 'left-leaning', for one thing. Unless you count a magazine that supports free trade and endorsed Bush as 'left-leaning'.
Iraq - Not all insurgents are created equal. Some are simply violent, other have coherent ideologies. You may recall that violence on election day was much lower than expected; that's probably because most of the inrgents realized that the elections would give them a respectable political base to achieve their ends.
The 'reocnstruction' in Iraq is no reconstruction at all. Less than $1 billion has actually been spent building roads, schools etc. Not to mention that most of those public services were destroyed by the US during the bombings. 2/3 of Iraqis are still unemployed, and all of their oil revenue is being siezed by us.
Libya - I'm entirely sure Libya would still have disarmed with kerry or Gore in the white house, because they started to disarm under Clinton.
The Iranians released their hostages because Reagan made a crooked deal to sell them weapons, remember?
Diplomacy works, whether you like it or not. It sometimes must be backed up with the threat of military force, but Kadaffi knows perfectly well the US won't invade.
Iran - "Call it like we see it'? What makes Iran (which actually has some elected leaders) more evil than our good ally Saudi Arabia, which funds most of the terrorism throughout the world?
In case you haven't noticed, when a country is threatened, people rally behind their leaders. I wasn't reffering to their clerics giving up their plans, i meant the pro-US reformers who were slowly gaining power but were stopped dead and overnight became much less pro-US because Bush had labelled their whole nation 'evil'.
It's almost as if you prefer war to other ways of solving problems.
Ukraine -http://www.soros.org/about/foundations
Those are all the countries where Soros funds democratic movements. if you hear about a revolution in one of them, he probably paid for it.
That whole bullshit complaint about a 'global test' is a pretty clumsy lie. Anyone who honestly listened to kerry knew that what he said was that we need to have a reasonable, coherent explanation for what we do in our foreign policy. he also said "I will never cede the right to defend ourselves to any foriegn power."
yes, plots can be revised, but keep in mind that it was never Bush's intention to spread democracy, it was something he was forced to let happepn.
People are becoming more vocal about their freedom, but their doing it in opposition to the US. The US does opress alot of people, and they're starting to stand up.
First off, I categorically dismiss any evidence or citations from or related to George Soros, Michael Moore, and Al Franken/Air America. They are beyond kooks, and I refuse to rehash arguments about them or their statements/information. Do what you will.
Afghanistan: if I may point you to the same article as before (http://tinyurl.com/5bcbx): "Despite shaky security across much of the country, 10.5m people signed up, or almost exactly the UN’s estimate of the total electorate. Besides multiple registration, it is likely
there was also some registration of children and of non-Afghans. In Paktia province, registration reached a near-miraculous 170% of the electoral body’s target, whereas in southern Zabul, where the Taliban roam, it was only 55%.
That said, the UN’s estimate had been a pretty rough one, based on a 1979 census taken before a war in which 2m died and one-third of the population was displaced. So there might genuinely be more voters than it had thought. As long as the mix-ups with the marker pens were not widespread, most of those with multiple registrations should have only been able to vote once. Providing no evidence of other widespread ballot-tampering emerges, there is a fair chance that most Afghans will accept the eventual result."
The assertion that in order to make a general statement about a group of people you have to ask every single person is ridiculous and a poor argument. How do I know Afghanis are any happier? Well, how do I know if the American people support, say, drilling in ANWR? I take/look at polls and extrapolate from them. How do I know you're a kook fringe liberal? I look at your blog's links and see those I mentioned above--and I infer. The Economist article, which researched and discussed the issue above, said so,
and I believed it.
"You may recall that violence on election day was much lower than expected; that's probably because most of the insurgents realized that the elections would give them a
respectable political base to achieve their ends." I say: that's probably because we are killing insurgents by the thousands, and the voting citizens were very bold and some were even violent towards insurgent attackers.
Give me numbers on the reconstruction effort. If it's from Soros and Co., don't bother. I
know the reports I've seen and I am impressed with the progress being made.
Diplomacy works--sometimes, and to an extent. But there comes a time when it's useless. Tons of resolutions and over a decade of defiance seems a good time to me.
"when a country is threatened, people rally behind their leaders." Really? Is that why the Iraqi people were so happy that we took out Saddam?
Bush did not label the whole nation of Iran evil. He was obviously referring to the governing authority. Are the Iraqi people evil? No. Is Saddam? Yes. Is Kim Jong-Ill evil? Yes. Are the North Korean people? No.
The United States, although not faultless, has been a powerful force for good over the course of its existence. That is undeniable as far as I'm concerned, but I don't expect to convince someone who puts any stock in Moore, Soros, Franken, etc.
Well, i'm glad to see the scope of your argument is getting narrower and narrower as you concede more to me.
I notice you never comment on my blog (other than one distasteful piece of sarcasm). Do you prefer a forum where you can control the rules?
As for the credibility of liberals, I realize you'll never believe anything that goes against your ideology, so pointing out the truth of what many liberals say will be useless.
Killing insurgents by the thousands? Dude, not all of the 100,000 Iraqis killed by the US army was an insurgent, and even if thousands of insurgents have been killed, they represent a mass movement that has many more members than those acvtively fighting in it. Don't you know anything about anti-colonial guerilla revolts?
The numbers I gave for the reocnstruction are from the Project for a New American Century.
Ok, Iran. Do you really think that when Bush calls the nation of Iran 'evil' the Iranian reformers think he's not reffering to them? Are they less Iranian than the clerics? That's ridiculous. If someone stood up and said 'I hate America', would you think 'Oh, he only means the bad Americans, not me.'
People do rally behind their leaders and their countries when threatened by foreign imposition. The insurgency in iraq is one manifestation of this. Saddam was widely hated, but his army put up much fiercer resistance than almost every commentator thought they would.
Franken, Moore etc. know perfectly well the good America has done, but they also recognize the evil that can result when power falls into irresponsible and deluded hands like those of Bush. That's all.
I hate plunking myself in the middle of someone else's debate, but I need to make one point: There are at least 25 million people in Afghanistan. It is entirely plausible that ten million of them meet the elegibility requirements for voting.
http://www.afghanistans.com/Information/People/Population.htm
As you were, then.
Ah, very well.
So, you see? I can admit I was wrong about something.
"I notice you never comment on my blog (other than one distasteful piece of sarcasm). Do you prefer a forum where you can control the rules?"
(Ahem. As "distasteful" as my sarcasm was, it was also something else: true.)
By "never comment" on your blog, do you mean within the last 33 hours? Your first comment was only yesterday at 1pm; right now it's 10pm where I'm at. We haven't exactly had much time of interaction together yet, and since you don't know a thing about my life or my schedule, your assertion strikes me as silly.
Anyways, I have honestly enjoyed this debate, and I look forward to future ones, but I doubt we'll get any farther on this one.
Post a Comment
<< Home