Link here.

Could it be that GW was right on the mark? Funny we are not hearing anything positive from John Kerry, Sen. Clinton and the other high profile democrats on this subject supporting what looks to be (so far) a vindication that the President's and Ms. Rice's policies were exactly the catalyist needed to encourage democratic reform in the region. We did hear quite a bit from Howard Dean the past 48yrs however, but then again he is just starting his rants early for the 2006 / 2008 elections.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ZZ Bachman / ZardozZ News & Satire Portal
Have a Blog? Ring Surf it @ ZZ OpenRing

yes, strangely silent - I discussed similar themes here

Sorry, but what does this have to do with Bush?

Unless I'm incorrect, Saudi Arabia is a USA-sponsored fascism. Unless I'm wrong, Iraq is getting worse every day. By a lot. Unless I'm wrong, Bush is going back on everything he did and trying to make it right. (France, anyone?)

I highly doubt, therefore, that Lebanon and Syria really give a hoot and a holler about the USA. This is all about their OWN HISTORY, and American influence is too often blamed/praised for what it had NOTHING TO DO WITH.

Democrats wait to see what happens. Republicans slap a US flag sticker on a country and label it good, no matter how expired the meat got while they left it open. (After all, the Republicans are the ones claiming they MUST invade countries to improve them).

The USA is simply another country. In the late 1890's the Repub-

Oh, wait. You're watching FOX news.

...I'm watching my respect for you jump out the window.

Updates here.

Well, that link doesn't seem to be working for me.

The point is, this is all over the news.

Bush supports democracy in the Middle East more than any President, ever.

And we are already beginning to see the benefits of this policy.

The retiring PM's quote is amazingly humble:

"Out of concern that the government does not become an obstacle to the good of the country, I announce the resignation of the government I had the honor to lead," Karami told parliament in Beirut.

http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7760908

I think it's silly (although I might be a bit premature) for the left leaning people to keep looking for the dark lining of the big puffy clouds of democracy as they crop up over the world.

While I am more left than right, I am happy and cheerful to be wrong about the turn of events in the Middle East. If Bush is right and his policy works to achieve a long-lasting and affective peace, I will be the first to step forward and humbly admit defeat.

What has affectively happened to the left is a complete and utter willingness to not view the world with any semblence of reality and optimism.

With their blind hatred of Bush, they continue to send the message that bad news is better than good, and good news should be spun to look like bad news.

Believe you me, I am not pleased about 99% of what Bush has proposed domestically and he is still a bit of short-sided thinker when it come to pursuing all the "answers" to his presidential challenges - BUT the man gets extra points for forging forth into the lonely, dark landscape of political change to pursue what he feels is best for America.

So, I will continue to do what I have done since about the third day of the election, and pray that he is right, and cling with hope to the sparse, but hopeful good tidings from the Middle
East.

That's what all good folks should do.

Please explain why this administration supports the coup-driven, completely undemocratic government of Pakistan, one that has run terrorist training camps for years, supported the Taliban, und so weiter.

Democracy in Lebanon may come, but it is an internal affair, not US-driven.

Interesting article in the NYT this Sunday, dealt with multiple 'tipping points' in the region - it is hoped the tipping points are points of inflection in a positive direction, unlike similar times in the past, which resulted in more oppression and totalitarianism in the region, and elsewhere.

>>Unless I'm incorrect, Saudi Arabia is a USA-sponsored fascism. Unless I'm wrong, Iraq is getting worse every day. By a lot. Unless I'm wrong, Bush is going back on everything he did and trying to make it right. (France, anyone?)<<

Yes, you're wrong. At least on the first two. Bush is trying to make things right, but he's never not been trying to do the right thing.

As for the silence of democratic leaders, it's hard to talk when your mouth is full of crow.

Dave

Let's hold it a minute before we prematurely ejaculate. This is quite good news coming out of Lebanon. The Lebanese have been the step cousins in the Arab community just as the Palestinians. Much of what has happened in the Middle East is our own doing, a product of policies by the American and British governments going back to the end of World War II. In imperialist fashion, we stormed into the Middle East and partnered with those dictators who would cooperate with us. I hate to admit it but Harry S. Truman's Democrat Administration began this slippery slope. Militant Islamic factions would never have achieved such power were it not for our policies and dependence on Middle East oil. I'm not saying we're 100% culpable, but we have to shoulder a great deal of blame.

President Bush is doing what he believes it right and that is a rare quality among politicians today. Like it or not, credit must be given to him for his stance. That being said, we also have to acknowledge that the Bush family has enjoyed an intimate relationship with the Saudi Royal family for generations. I'm not implying that there is a 'conspiracy' rather I am saying that this gives the President a distinct advantage in developing a Middle East policy that works. Historically we have been notorious flip-floppers supporting oppressive regimes when those leaders maintained pro-American policies. The Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein and Cuba's Battista comes to mind. Unfortunately many of these relationships were forged in Democrat administrations and we liberals refuse to admit our mistakes.

Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt and Afghanistan may be on the road to democracy but we should approach these developments with cautious optimism. If the people in these countries choose to be ruled under Islamic law or a more severe form of Islam, there is little we can do. We can't keep liberating countries from oppressive regimes especially if the electorate chooses that kind of tyranny. An even more important issue central to the emergence of peace in the Middle East is Israel's policies toward the Arab world and its relationship with the United States. We've been grossly mistaken in our policies. The money the American taxpayer has invested in Israel has done little to promote peace and more to propagate hate. As the heart of three major religions, Jerusalem should be created a district of the world, a city state unto itself. It's not a popular position but certainly seems like it would be a solution that Solomon himself may have considered.

While all these countries are leaning toward democracy and peaceful coexistence, Americans remain deeply divided. We need to stop kidding ourselves because we are heading toward another Civil War. Rather than Democrats and others on the left whining about this Administration's policies we should be reaching out to President Bush. We need to earn a place at the table again where ideas and common ground can be exchanged. "Mr. President, I may not agree with your policies but what can we do to help you achieve peace in the Middle East? Mr. President, how can we forge an alliance of ideas in our public discourse? Mr. President, what do we need to do to come back to the table and stop sniping at each other?" These are questions I would like see coming from Democrats and left wingers. President Bush doesn't have to worry about another election. Being freed of that threat, he is in a position to take this country and the world into a positive direction. That, in an of itself, should be the prime motivation to get the left to reach out to President Bush.

Aaman, foreign policy will always, must always be driven as much by practicality as consistency and ideology: Pakistan, under great pressure, decided to work with us vis-a-vis Afghanistan and al Qaeda, hence our willingness to work with them and cut them slack.

Dawn, very magnanimous and wise: when things go well we should all be happy. Nothing is finished (other than the administration in Lebanon!), but the general winds are clearly blowing favorably.

Libya has not embraced democracy yet. BUT... they've given up on using WMDs for defense. Perhaps watching the Middle East and North Korea has given Libya's Qadaffi pause for thought - terrorism is NOT the answer! Maybe the Iraq invasion actually helped Libya. Also... Last week, Qadaffi began supporting the democracy movment in Togo. Beginning last year, he has been suggesting an "African Union." Perhaps democracy is coming soon for Libya.

Wasn't this uprising precipitated by the assassination of an anti-Syrian leader?

And you're giving credit to Bush?

Talk about a conspiracy theory!

>>Wasn't this uprising precipitated by the assassination of an anti-Syrian leader?<<

Yes.

>>And you're giving credit to Bush?<<

Do you read the articles you comment on? Credit was given to what we did in Iraq by a major Lebanese leader. It's his comments, not some claim someone here made, which spurred this discussion.

Dave

Whether or not we can give Bush and his administration direct credit for the events in Lebanon, how can we dispute the fact that the overall activity in the region hasn't created a undercurrent of courage for those who feel oppressed to rise up and meet the challenge?

If history is any kind of teacher, the fall of the Berlin Wall was a catalyst for change in that region as well. Diplomacy should always be the first option, and when that fails to rattle the cages, perhaps the sabers need a bit of rattling.

Sometimes, you just need to blow something up to get people's attention.

Right or wrong, Bush blew stuff up and people began to pay attention.

yes, exactly

[ Do you read the articles you comment on? Credit was given to what we did in Iraq by a major Lebanese leader. It's his comments, not some claim someone here made, which spurred this discussion. ]

I commented on the three paragraphs at the top of this page, written by somebody called "RJ" who never identified himself as a major Lebanese leader. The only links in that article were to amazon.com. What article are you talking about?

Sorry, I got this article confused with the other one on the similar topic.

Dave

So you are unaware of the comments made by Walid Jumblat regarding events Iraq and theri effect on his thinking, or you're just unable to make associations between the opening paragraphs and world events? If you like, RJ can probably draw a picture for you.

Let me help - you can read Walid Jumblat's full comments on my blog at http://www.elitistpig.com

Dave

Adrian M., Catastrophile: You need to read Chris Muir's Day By Day today. Very apropos to this discussion.