Wow, didn't know my responses would get front page attention..

Off the cuff, this is yet another righty dodge of the subject. It's stating that things have changed, when the real accusation was that others, centrists, was that centrists favored dictatorship over change, which is the black hole calling the dirty faced orphan, black. Stop changing the subject, you said those who opposed Bush favor dictatorship, whish is laughable. They've certainly done that FAR less than Bush and his ilk.

But beyod that, Bush' supposed transformation is NOT about democracy, if it were, we'd have done something about Indonesia when it was machine-gunning East Timorians, or have done something in Darfur.

If Bush has so clearly broken, then why are we backing Musharaf? Second, why are we backing Saudi Arabia, third, why are we backing (up until very recently) the Uzbeki government, fourth, why are we backing Putin, fifth, why are we backing Egypt's dicator (and frankly, since we're on the subject) why are we backing China's communist dictatorship.. guess the only time warp is that folks don't understand reality in the Bush world.

PUUUUHLLLEEAAAAZZZZEEE don't tell me we are tellin Putin to reform, yeah, that and our words to the Uzbeki government, and Mubarik in Egypt will get you a cup of coffee at the local C-Store if you have $.25

The fact is, we've broken with that approach only marginally, as we certainly aren't putting anything like the idea of armed overthrow of Pakisatan or Saudi Arabia on the front burner. The truth is that what we are saying is you'd better be a compliant dictatorship, with trappings of moving more toward democracy, rather than a democracy we don't like (vis a vis Venezuala).

Bush' policy is merely REALPOLITIK warmed over, and frankly, are you saying you think Reagan's policies were flawed in that they gave rise to Islamic extreemism?

Stop blaming those who do not set the policy, or accusing them of doing what you did. You supported Houssien when it was convenient, Clinton did not, and since CArter, Clinton is obviously the only administration from the other party.

It's just another example of right-wing demagogue (sic), and if disagreeing with such foolishness will get me top billing, yipeee, but please try to accurately reflect what I said rather than making up bogus stories as an effort to make a phoney characature. I guess that goes to, if you can't argue the point, call them names.

PB

Posted by: PB at August 1, 2005 01:44 PM

"Wow, didn't know my responses would get front page attention..

Off the cuff, this is yet another righty dodge of the subject."

As opposed to dredging up Pinochet and Marcos, which is of course right on point?

" It's stating that things have changed, when the real accusation was that others, centrists, was that centrists favored dictatorship over change, which is the black hole calling the dirty faced orphan, black. Stop changing the subject, you said those who opposed Bush favor dictatorship, whish is laughable."

Actually, while I'd expect the joke to be lost, the phrase "pro-dictatorship" is one I use for those who are still dinging at the liberation of Iraq, without recognizing the sole alternative their stance leaves them.

"But beyod that, Bush' supposed transformation is NOT about democracy, if it were, we'd have done something about Indonesia when it was machine-gunning East Timorians, or have done something in Darfur."

Er, the "UN" intervened in East Timor in September of 1999, roughly 16 months before the President was inaugurated. I know you guys credit Karl Rove with supernatural power, but time-travel?

While I'd have liked to have seen us topple the Dar Es Salaam regime by force and partitioned Sudan into Moslem and Christian areas, that was clearly impractical. So what would we have done that we didn't - and remember when you answer that the US basically had to drag the UN into action on Darfur.

"If Bush has so clearly broken, then why are we backing Musharaf?"

Because he could be swayed by non-military means? I mean, our bringing of Musharraf into line has not been all sweetness and light.

" Second, why are we backing Saudi Arabia,"

Because we'd like the House of Saud to dissolve rather than shatter?

" third, why are we backing (up until very recently) the Uzbeki government,"

The reasons should be fairly obvious.

" fourth, why are we backing Putin,"

Constructive engagement.

" fifth, why are we backing Egypt's dicator"

He's OUR sonofabitch, and given his country's moves (tentative as they are) toward Democracy, it's been a good move.

or would you prefer we disengage from all of them and cede the entire region to the wahabbi?

" (and frankly, since we're on the subject) why are we backing China's communist dictatorship.. "

I agree. There will need to be another Reagan in the next generation who will do for them what Reagan did for the USSR.

We start bombing in five minutes.

"PUUUUHLLLEEAAAAZZZZEEE don't tell me we are tellin Putin to reform, yeah, that and our words to the Uzbeki government, and Mubarik in Egypt will get you a cup of coffee at the local C-Store if you have $.25"

Well, I guess you have all the answers! I'll just stop right here!

"The fact is, we've broken with that approach only marginally, as we certainly aren't putting anything like the idea of armed overthrow of Pakisatan or Saudi Arabia on the front burner."

Nor should we!

"The truth is that what we are saying is you'd better be a compliant dictatorship, with trappings of moving more toward democracy, rather than a democracy we don't like (vis a vis Venezuala)."

Leaving aside the Allende-like rose-colored glasses of the view of Chavez.

You expect nations that have been dictatorships since Moses roamed the Sinai to change in four lousy years?

"Bush' policy is merely REALPOLITIK warmed over, and frankly, are you saying you think Reagan's policies were flawed in that they gave rise to Islamic extreemism?"

Some Realpolitik is inevitable; we can only invade so many nations (two, really, maybe a third), and photos of purple fingers can only prompt so many people to risk the secret police prisons at the same time.

So is some improvement worse than none?

"Stop blaming those who do not set the policy, or accusing them of doing what you did. You supported Houssien when it was convenient, "

I did not. Oh, you're talking about 1980? Yep. But that debt to ethics is paid in full.

"Clinton did not, and since CArter, Clinton is obviously the only administration from the other party."

I haven't, for obvious reasons, the time to go into Clinton's many sins in the name of stability.

"It's just another example of right-wing demagogue (sic), and if disagreeing with such foolishness will get me top billing, yipeee, but please try to accurately reflect what I said rather than making up bogus stories as an effort to make a phoney characature. I guess that goes to, if you can't argue the point, call them names."

Not calling anyone names. But you have to admit, dredging up Pinochet is a tad off-topic - and mentioning El Salvador's dictatorship without noting the effect we had in quietly installing a democracy (a good one, by regional standards) in the country. We neither invaded nor conducted the sort of "destructive disengagement" that so many on the left seem(ed) to desire - but it worked.

Posted by: mitch at August 1, 2005 02:11 PM

Mitch, you are letting Jimmy Carter off the hook and giving him too much credit for departing from Realpolitik. PB, do a little research on Carter's brilliant record vis a vis East Timor.

PB -- just because Bush doesn't advocate regime change instantly in dozens of different countries doesn't mean that he hasn't established a new foreign policy doctrine. And it doesn't mean using the same exact approach to every country and every situation. Let's try to be a little nuanced here. And let's look at results. Pakistan -- Mushy isn't pure as driven snow, but he's out of the Nukes R Us business, and what, realistically, would be the alternative? Libya -- Dropping a WMD program that had advanced far beyond what anyone knew about. Lebanon -- Syrian pull out. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, et. al. -- Nothing would undermine the despots like a thriving democracy in Iraq that offers more opportunity to young people. Ditto Iran. The best weapon against the ChiComs is prosperity and opportunity (I would say the same about Castro, one area where I disagree with the current admin's policies).
I love how the left now wants us to invade everyone. "If he did it in Iraq, why not countries X, Y, and Z? What a hypocrite!" Never knew the left to be so in favor of the exercise of military might.
You can't do everything at once. The perfect is the enemy of the good. I believe that Bush has achieved a great deal of good.
Reagan freed millions. Carter got the Nobel after years of cozying up to dictators (yes, Venezuela included).
Bush will free millions, Annan will probably get the Nobel.
Sorry they didn't free everyone all at once.

Posted by: chriss at August 1, 2005 02:24 PM

Mitch,

Yes it was name calling, and it was childish.

Second, absurdity like, are you expecting us to change them all at once, is such a foolish straw man that it's not worth much of a response, but the short answer is I would expect, were he serious, that he'd do something about the worst offenders first, he didn't, and that in itself implies he not entirely sincere.

Third, the fact that your man is supporting Musharaff, Indonesia's government, and China, implies directly that there is no change.

Fourth, where was this brave new policy on 9/10/2001? I'll tell you where, nowhere, it wasn't even a tittle in Condi's eyes. It was a contrived argument to (belatedly) justify a neo-con move into Iraq. Given the Neo-Con agenda of nation building, and its opposition from traditional conservatism (like you), I find it amazing that you'd back the drivel. But let's go further, you said it was a change and then related to Putin, Musharaff and Indonesia say "convenient not so nice people", isn't that the ESSENCE of REALPOLITIK? Thanks for proving my point.

To Chriss, actually, it would be laughable if we tried to invade everyone, and actually, if you were keeping up, my argument has been repeatedly (note to Mitch go back and re-read it), that we CANT invade anywhere else. First, our military won't support it (can't) and second, we'd be breaching a real risk of international conflict. So no, I don't think we ought to invade everywhere, that would be YOU all on the Right talking about Syria, Iran, etc.. What I'm talking about is that the reasons you give are BOGUS, because they don't stand the smell test of being consistent.

The only consistent thing is you want to invade folks that you don't like, we call that imperialism in most circles, not democracy. You want to invade certain places under the guise of democracy, but it rings hollow with the rest of the world because it IS hollow.

Further than than WHAT left, or as I am, Centrist EVER said we should invade everywhere (except as some form of joke or satire of the right)? Where is that from, oh wait, it's yet again the right calling the left what it's doing in spades.

Mitch, btw, I can take a joke just fine, but your response makes me concerned you cannot. I prefaced what I wrote with.. so I get top billing.. :).

The problem wiht your blog page is/was the snipping of what was written to present only the words you wanted and in the context of 1980's politics, I certainly gave plenty of other examples of current support of dictatorship by this administration and I didn't see too many that I supported, despite the fact you asserted that I did.

I don't subscribe to the practice of piecemealing posts because in order to be fair, you need to engage all the facts, rather than ignoring those you don't like, or would prefer to discount.

I've yet to hear you defend invading Iraq first, rather than dealing with Afghanistan fully, then working with Pakistan to get after the Madrhas, as well as putting down a serious stance with Saudi Arabia about the funding of those schools as well as their support for Hamas.

Once again we are dealing with a change of subject. This time from your accusing centrists of supporing dictatorships and the reality that the Right owns nearly that entire subject, to a new one accusation that we simply don't understand why we should support them, while you deny doing so, yet defend the practice..

The point is that defending the practice, and the hollowness of the charge of coordinated pan-Islamic theocratracy, are the justification given by the 7/21 bombers.. which you deny is the real reason, yet the rest of the world accepts as plausible as a reason. Their reason is not justification, but you all have denied that such resentment is fueling the insurgency, yet when presented with bald-faced information, you still deny that people are taking up arms SIMPLY in protest of our occupation because they see our occupation as shot through with lies.

WMD=Iraq = wrong but maybe not a lie
Iraq=WMD terrorists - lie
Iraq attacked the US on 9/11 - lie
Bush tried to avoid war - lie
Bush listened to his intelligence - lie
Bush didn't try to 'fix' intelligence - lie
Bush didn't try to intimidate the CIA - lie
Rove wasn't involved in the above - lie
Bush will fire leakers - lie
Bush is going to take on sponsors of terrorism - partly true, and partly not
Bush supports the expansion of democracy - lie (or pretty close in that they only support democracies they like)

Sorry folks, too many lies. I think I'll go back to my Cave, I'd love to have Reagan back.

PB

PB

Posted by: PB at August 1, 2005 03:11 PM

" I can take a joke just fine, but your response makes me concerned you cannot. I prefaced what I wrote with.. so I get top billing.. "

Huh-whah?

I got the joke. Then I answered.

I mean, what's a guy gotta do, slather his response with dancing hamsters?

Posted by: mitch at August 1, 2005 03:27 PM

PB,
Everyone believes they are at the center of the political spectrum. Just like everyone believes that they are of above average intelligence.
Now I understand: You are not saying 'If we invaded Iraq to establish democracy we are hypocrites for not invading every country run by a vicious despot.' You are saying 'Since we can't invade every country run by a vicious despot we shouldn't invade any.' Yes, I can see how that's MUCH better.
I never said anything about invading Syria or Iran. I said that our actions in Iraq are having and will continue to have a beneficial effect in the region without having to invade other places.
The Bush Doctrine is very simply that every person on the planet deserves to live in a democracy. That is a departure from the past. It cannot happen overnight, and it won't happen the same way in every country. But we are further down that road than we were three years ago.
Pakistan -- representative democracy at this stage would result in victory by religious extremists, who would then crush democracy (see also Algeria).
China -- I make products in China. I exchange 10 or more emails and/or phone calls with partners in China every night. I have traveled there. One of my Chinese partners is under 30 years of age and owns a factory employee hundreds of people. His parents are illiterate peasant farmers. His grandparents died of starvation during Mao's Great Leap Forward. What would you do differently? More Chinese are Christians than are Communists. The days of the ChiComs are numbered -- from within.
Yes, Bush does business with dictators. And I'm sure that you personally do not support any dictators. Bully for you. You are not the president trying to make real world decisions, trying not to allow the quest for utopian perfection become an obstacle to achieving an enormous amount of good.
Breaking with Realpolitik does not mean immediate cessation of all contact with unsavory types. It means starting with a new vision of democracy for everyone (for their own benefit and because freedom and opportunity are the best antedotes to terrorism) and accomplishing it a little at a time, step by step. Try to do it all at once and you accomplish nothing.
At the end of the day, here's the test: How many people cast meaningful ballots for the first time as the result of the president's efforts? In Reagan's case, millions. In Bush's case, millions. In Clinton's case??? In Carter's case???
P.S. Please proof read your comments before posting them. Oh, you did proof them? Sorry, my mistake.

Posted by: chriss at August 1, 2005 10:37 PM

Chriss..

What an amazing ability for putting words in my mouth at the same time totally misunderstanding what I said, you have.

Invading another country needs to fall into one of three categories to be legal(as our Brit friends so eloquently pointed out).

First, they have to have attacked us. Iraq- Nope.
Second, there must be a humanitarian crisis equating to genocide - Iraq - Nope.
Third, there must be UN Sanction - Iraq - Nope.

But let's just stick with getting rid of Despots for the moment. My point was not that such action is totally immoral or should never be taken, unlike what you said I said. I will say that doing so in absence of support is a violation of the concept of sovreignty, but perhaps justifiable. The point everyone is making and you righties have an amazing Tin Ear about, is that Iraq NEVER should have been at the top of that list, except for OTHER reasons.

The other reasons you all give (now) are its despotic and treats its people badly. Of course, that's a far cry from what you said before the invasion, but we'll leave that aside. The problem is there are MANY more qualified candidates, including good ole' Saudi Arabia, but hardly stopping there, including stopping the genocide in Darfur. In fact, considering the right's opposition to the invasion of the Balkans (Bosnia, Macedonia), you look like hypocrites because you opposed stopping genocide AND toppling a despot. I supported that action PURELY because it stopped genocide - if you can't use your army for that, why have one?

The reason you give then, makes US, not just right wing whackos, but the U.S. look like liars, and see that's a problem because it makes Iraq into a big giant recruiting poster for Bin Laden.

Your further comments, Son, I did business with the Chinese in the mid-90's, or rather, I argued against shipping jobs in US services that paid 9-14 an hour to a state that employed forced (slave) labor. I argued it because it was ethically wrong to do so. The point though is, that you CLAIM democracy in China is Bush's goal, I doubt that seriously, as it would potentially mean the end of a system that forces labor availability at reduced rates. Further, if communism in China ends in the next 20 years, send me your address, I'll send you $5.

I think you all just have REALPOLITIK misconstrued with a concept that disliked democracy, which is not the case, it just accepted other things as convenience, which is all you are doing.

But let's go to your point that Bush's plan is to have the "simple" point that everyone deserves to live in democracy be a central theme. First, he's coopting Carter's policy, and in response to your question, how many people lived in Democracy because of Carter, well, certainly he started the process for El Salvador, and much of South America recognizes him as the genesis of change, but let's just talk about USSR for a moment. Having studied the USSR in school, I'll tell you what my instructor said, "The USSR will fail when it can no longer supply basic goods and services to it's people." Perhaps you don't remember, but in the mid and late 70s, the USSR suffered a series of devestating crop failures. Carter used these as levers against the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan. The evidence available says that the USSR was on it's way out (just like you claim is happening in China), starting no later than about 1983. I don't give Carter anything like sole credit for the fall of the USSR, but I certainly don't give it to Reagan, as he had only been in office 2 years. The fall of the USSR was attributable to it's economic isolation for 60 years, and it's ignorance of basic services in the pursuit of arms for more than 40. The righty claim of Reagan ending the Soviet Union is as simplistic as it is false. Carter gets some credit, as does Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, and probably Nixon (well definetely) as he used China as a lever against the Soviets, and broke up their unhappy friendship.

Regardless, the OTHER reasons for invasion were:
1. Protect Saudi Arabia's rule against extremists by getting US out.
2. Provide croney capital-contractorism, 75% of Iraq is STILL unemployed
3. Provide an intimidating force in the middle-east to threaten anyone we think is either sponsoring terrorism (though of course we won't threaten the greatest sponsor - Saudi Arabia), or just isn't playing nice (Iran, Syria)
4. Provide an armed force to gaurantee oil delivery/compliance.

The above reasons are those which DO jibe with our actions towards despots, and DO jibe with our ACTIONS in regard to terrorism. The end-point is that you need to react to ACTIONS not words. We actively support governments FAR more dangerous than Iraq (a declawed, inactive, secular state), that do FAR more regarding terorrism, and do FAR more regarding mistreatment of its citizenry.

All Iraq was, was something Bush disliked personally - and no I don't think that was a real justification in his mind or anyone's, I just think it made it easier for him to say yes, and MOST importantly, it was somewhere EASY. If Bush were so sincere about taking on despotic sponsorship of terrorism, he'd really be pushing Iran - a despotic place that certainly does sponsor terrorism - but I'll tell you why he won't - we CANT win that, certainly not without HUNDREDS of thousands of US casualties (look at the terrain sometime. It's far more challenging than Vietnam, and gauranteed, the Russians would help Iran - with weapons if nothing else.

We take on easy fights under Bush because in the end, its all really about politics, just as Rove said.

Finally, as we operate the School of the Americas, creating our own death squad trainees, perhaps we need to consider just WHO is sponsoring terrorism in this world.

PB

PS - regarding the whole center, left, right thing, I believe I pretty well understand where the left and right stand, I neither embrace all of the left's policies, nor reject all of the right's. I voted for a Republican for governor and for the US House in my district, so I think maybe you don't know what you're talking about. It's just that I'm realistic about the actions my country has taken, and about the hypocrisy it presents.

Posted by: PB at August 2, 2005 07:30 AM

"Yes it was name calling, and it was childish."

No, it was satire of a veeeerry tired point. You had it coming.

Can't even think about answering all this at the moment, but here's one point of order; on this blog, -I- am the center.

Posted by: mitch at August 2, 2005 07:50 AM

PB -- your rules governing invasion of another country are ludicrous. I can't think of an instance where all three conditions could possibly be in effect. It would be a wonderful world of hand wringing and paralysis that you describe. Even so, Iraq comes very close:
Invaded neighboring countries causing wars with hundreds of thousands of casualties.
Slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people (and yes, we should have finished the regime change job in '91 thus preventing so many of these deaths. However, we would have done so without the precious UN mandate to list as #3)
Never ever forget: 3,000 people on 9/11 could easily have been 50,000 people but for luck and thousands of individual acts of heroism. As of 9/12 our question was when are the nukes, chemicals and biologicals going to strike a major city? Could 50,000 today be 1 million tomorrow?
Iraq, by everyone's account, was the most likely source of the weapons for that next attack.
We follow your rules for invasion, we sit and wait for the next attack. Following your rules is what gave bin Laden the idea that we are weak -- and indeed we were.

The Communist government in China is not what 'forces' labor at reduced rates. A factory worker in China makes more than a doctor for God's sake. It is the Chinese historical misuse of its human resources that make labor cheaper relative to the rest of the world. They are taking the first giant leaps toward affluence -- see also Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc.
Real world here -- is it better for a Chinese person from a tiny village to live in semi starvation, or get a living wage at a factory while being housed, fed, and educated?
Let's talk again in another thread.

Posted by: chriss at August 2, 2005 10:56 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:

Remember personal info?
YesNo
Comments: