[Mulderator]

The usual suspects (we know who they are) will poo poo this as they sit anxiously awaiting any bad news (or news they can slant to look bad) on the horizon in an effor to undermine a man who may very well go down as one of the most influencial and greatest presidents of all time--George W. Bush.

This is but one article--but the buzz is all around--there is change in in the air in the middle east and not just in Iraq. The invasion of Iraq, whether done for the right reasons or not is having a profound impact on the middle east.

Changing minds
Michael Barone (archive)

February 28, 2005 | Print | Send

Nearly two years ago, I wrote that the liberation of Iraq was changing minds in the Middle East. Before March 2003, the authoritarian regimes and media elites of the Middle East focused the discontents of their people on the United States and Israel. I thought the downfall of Saddam Hussein's regime was directing their minds to a different question -- how to build a decent government and a decent society.

I think I overestimated how much progress was being made at the time. But the spectacle of 8 million Iraqis braving terrorists to vote on Jan. 30 seems to have moved things up to be changing minds now at breakneck speed.

Evidence abounds. Consider what is happening in Lebanon, long under Syrian control, in response to the assassination, almost certainly by Syrian agents, of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. Protesters have taken to the streets day after day, demanding Syrian withdrawal.

The Washington Post's David Ignatius, who covered Lebanon in the 1980s and has kept in touch since, has been skeptical that the Bush administration's policy would change things for the better. But reporting from Beirut last week, he wrote movingly of "the movement for political change that has suddenly coalesced in Lebanon and is slowly gathering force elsewhere in the Arab world."

Ignatius interviewed Walid Jumblatt, the Druze leader long a critic of the United States. Jumblatt's words are striking: "It's is strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world. The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."

As Middle East expert Daniel Pipes writes, "For the first time in three decades, Lebanon now seems within reach of regaining its independence."

Minds are changing in Europe, too. In the left-wing Guardian, Martin Kettle reassures his readers that the Iraq war was "a reckless, provocative, dangerous, lawless piece of unilateral arrogance" -- the usual stuff. "But," he concedes, "it has nevertheless brought forth a desirable outcome which would not have been achieved at all, or so quickly, by the means that the critics advocated, right though they were in most respects."

Or read Claus Christian Malzahn in Der Spiegel. "Maybe the peoples of Syria, Iraq or Jordan will get the idea in their heads to free themselves from their oppressive regimes just as the East Germans did," he writes. "Just a thought for Old Europe to chew on: Bush might be right, just like Reagan was."

And minds are changing in the United States. On "Nightline," The New York Times' Thomas Friedman and, with caveats, The New Yorker's Malcolm Gladwell agreed that the Iraqi election was a "tipping point" (the title of one of Gladwell's books) and declined Ted Koppel's invitation to say things could easily tip back the other way.

In the most recent issue of Foreign Affairs, Yale's John Lewis Gaddis credited George W. Bush with "the most sweeping of U.S. grand strategy since the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt," criticized Bush's implementation of that strategy in measured tones and called for a "renewed strategic bipartisanship."

One Democrat so inclined is the party's most likely 2008 nominee, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. She voted for the Iraq war and has not wavered in her support -- she avoided voting for the $87 billion before voting against it. She has kept clear of the Michael Moore left and its shrill denunciations of Bush and has kept her criticisms well within the bounds of normal partisan discourse.

"Where we stand right now, there can be no doubt that it is not in America's interests for the Iraqi government, the experiment in freedom and democracy, to fail," she said on "Meet the Press" on Feb. 20. "So I hope that Americans understand that and that we will have as united a front as is possible in our country at this time to keep our troops safe, make sure they have everything they need and try to support this new Iraqi government."

Moveon.org may want to keep shrieking about weapons of mass destruction, but Clinton is moving on.

George W. Bush gambled that actions can change minds. So far, he's winning.

I await the inevitable negativity--the naysayers like linksyjack to come along and tell us that the sky is about to fall--just wait--you'll see--everything is going to blow up in our faces--this is Viet Nam all over again--and on and on and on!

[angelize56]

Linskyjack?....I predict bassethound will be first in line!

[4steve44]

Nope I'll be first to respond Here, Here Moulder. Great things will come to all mid-Eastern peoples because of what they saw in Iraq. Men and women walking and being pushed in wheelchairs to decide their own destiny. George said it best "Let Freedom Ring"

[izme]

Not that I want to get Dragged into this, but Bush going to Iraq was the right decision in my eyes!

[Mulderator]

Here is a Muslim who from the "Lebanon Wire" who is certainly no fan of the US--he recites numerous mistake he thinks its made, but thinks George Bush was right:

http://www.lebanonwire.com/0311/03112423DS.asp

Bush was right about spreading democracy
Radwan Masmoudi

US President George W. Bush’s speech at the National Endowment for Democracy on Nov. 6 was a brilliant and inspiring speech. I was in the audience and found myself nodding in agreement and moved by almost every sentence. The speech could become a major historical development for the Middle East and for relations between the United States and the Muslim world. Finally, US policymakers are convinced that supporting dictators and oppressive regimes is not the way for peace and stability. Even if friendly dictators serve some short-term interests; in the long run, they create desperation and anger that result in chaos and violence.
People in the Middle East, however, received the speech with suspicion and disbelief. They don’t believe the US really wants democracy to succeed in Afghanistan, in Iraq, or elsewhere in the Middle East. During the past 30 years or more, the US has willingly turned a blind eye while friendly dictators murdered, kidnapped and tortured their opponents. People are also suspicious of Bush’s motives because they have not seen improvements on the ground in Palestine, Iraq or Afghanistan. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to be the prism through which Americans view the Middle East and through which most Arabs and Muslims view the United States.
Despite our numerous mistakes in Iraq (going to war prematurely and unilaterally, disbanding the Iraqi Army, rebuilding the country too slowly, appointing rather than electing the Governing Council, neglecting and marginalizing the Sunnis), I believe that Iraq can become a real democracy and that we must stay the course. Failure to do so will spell disaster for the US and the region for decades to come.
There are some experts who argue that democracy would destabilize the Middle East. Clearly, they have not been in the region lately to see how people live amid extreme poverty, corruption, lack of education and lack of dignity. The current regimes have failed, and to remain they must change. In many Middle Eastern and Muslim countries unemployment ranges between 30-50 percent; illiteracy is between 50-70 percent; and more than half the population is under 25. If this is not a recipe for disaster, what is?
Arab and Muslim countries are rich in natural resources, yet only about 5-10 percent of their populations benefit. While a privileged few live in luxury, a majority struggles to put bread on the table. Corruption and economic deprivation is only one sign that these regimes have outlasted their usefulness. What is worse is the level of oppression that such societies, especially their youths, must endure. This will lead to increased violence, anger and acts of desperation, which in turn will be used to justify more oppressive policies. The cycle of hatred and violence must be broken.
Arabs and Muslims (who represent, as Bush said, a fifth of humanity) watch other nations elect and replace their leaders, while they are stuck with the same individuals for decades. When they do have elections the outcomes are predetermined, and criticism brings punishment. People feel left out and oppressed and this hopelessness feeds radical groups and ideologies. Democracy will not solve all economic, political or social problems overnight, but it will quickly return to people their dignity and humanity. The people of the Middle East cannot be deprived of their right to equality, freedom and dignity, and the pursuit of their dreams and aspirations. Democracy will, above all, give people a sense of belonging to a nation and to a society that cares about them, and in which they have a role and a stake.
Principles of democracy are strongly embedded in Islamic jurisprudence, practice and value systems. For over a thousand years, Islam has advocated and practiced freedom of thought and of religion, and respect for human dignity. Islam emphasizes that there is “no compulsion in religion,” and that faith must be a matter of personal choice and convictions. God created us free and gave us the freedom to believe or not to believe and to obey his commandments or not to obey. Freedom of religion and of conscience are prerequisites for human life and dignity. That is why Muslims, Christians and Jews have lived peacefully for centuries in the Middle East. Many Americans do not know that 20-30 percent of Palestinians are Christians, and that there are millions of Christian and Jewish Arabs living from Morocco to Egypt, and from Lebanon to Yemen.
The authoritarian regimes of the Middle East have been mostly secular, and many have fought religion, prohibited religious practices and tortured and killed religious leaders. As a result, Islamic groups and movements are seen as victims of oppression and are gaining in strength and popular support, while the popularity of secular leaders dwindles. Only in Sudan and Iran, both ruled by so-called Islamic regimes, has secularism gained in popularity, because people have learned that an Islamic government is led by human beings, not by saints, and that they are prone to mistakes.
It is encouraging that the US is not trying to impose secularism in Afghanistan or Iraq. The role of religion in politics has to be negotiated by political and religious leaders, but will probably remain important in the context of Muslim societies. From Morocco to Indonesia, many are struggling with how to be good Muslims in the 21st century. This will require a new interpretation and adaptation (ijtihad) of Islamic principles and jurisprudence (fiqh) to the realities and challenges of the modern age. True ijtihad, however, cannot take place in an environment of fear, repression and violence. Democracy and freedom will pave the way for a dialogue between Muslim leaders, scholars and the public on how Islam and Muslims can thrive now and in the future.
The road to democracy in the Middle East will not be easy. There are risks involved. But the benefits of democracy far outweigh the risks. Supporting democracy is the best strategy for the US and for the people of the region. However, well-meaning speeches will not be enough, no matter how inspiring. We need to see policies that translate words into actions and dreams into reality. For this, I suggest:
l Arab and Muslim leaders should implement immediate political reforms that include freeing all political prisoners, holding free and fair elections under international supervision, legalizing all political parties (including moderate Islamic parties), setting term limits on how long heads of state can stay in power and establishing independent judicial systems.
l Israelis and Palestinians should understand that the only solution for their conflict is to recognize each other’s right to exist in secure, independent and sovereign states. Israel should get out of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, and international forces should be sent to provide peace between the two countries. The occupation, the wall and the settlements must end, as must suicide bombings that target innocent civilians.
l Countries that do not implement democratic reforms should be isolated and US officials should stop visiting them and showering their leaders with diplomatic niceties. Leaders who are not democratically elected by 2008 should see their countries expelled from the UN.
l Independent and civil organizations that try, against all odds, to promote a culture of understanding, democracy, tolerance, freedom and dignity must be supported.
l Iraqis and Afghans must be helped in building truly democratic and
prosperous nations. The US must turn Iraq back to the Iraqis and Afghanistan back to the Afghans, and get out as quickly as possible.
If these policies are implemented, the Bush doctrine of “forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East” will be successful and our children, both in the US and in the Muslim world, will live in a much more peaceful and prosperous world. For this to happen, the US must align its foreign policies with its own universal moral foundations of freedom, justice, equality and dignity for all.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by angelize56

Linskyjack?....I predict bassethound will be first in line!

Oh they'll both be spouting negative rhetoric. Those guys grit their teeth and cringe with every positive shred of news that comes out of the middle east!

[angelize56]

It's easy to sit back and knock the President....but I wonder what those full of negativity towards Bush would have done differently? How do they think Iraq and the world would be right now if Bush hadn't done what he did in Iraq? How many more Iraqis would have died at the hands of that madman Saddam? I'm truly sorrowful that our Americans are dying over there...and very sorrowful also for all the innocent Iraqis now being murdered by the insurgents...terrorists...call them what you will! I just find it hard to imagine Iraq had Bush not done what he did!

*Angel sits back and puts on her iron knickers borrowed from Wino*

[Mulderator]

From a Canadian no less?

http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/Com...index280.shtml

Eight million people defied terrorist intimidation to reach the polls, and the government they elected is now taking power. For the first time since the Europeans checked out of the region, an alternative to Islamism is established. For the first time, a future has become visible to large masses of oppressed people, other than being nailed into the Islamist coffin.

President Bush pulled that off, by force of will, in the face of the world's contrary opinions. I cannot offer him a crisp enough salute.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by angelize56

*Angel sits back and puts on her iron knickers borrowed from Wino*

And speaking about another lefty naysayer!

[izme]

Just wondering, is this thread here to bash lefties or? Like some sick right wing conspiracy?

[4steve44]

Great Minds..........

[Mulderator]

Naysayers tight-lipped since success of Iraq vote

By James G. Lakely
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Skeptics of President Bush's attempt to bring democracy to Iraq have been largely silent since Iraqis enthusiastically turned out for Sunday's elections. ****Not linsky--he's still praying for failure!****

Billionaire Bush-basher George Soros and left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore were among critics of the administration's Iraq policy who had no comment after millions of Iraqis went to the polls in their nation's first free elections in decades.

The Carter Center determined that the security situation in Iraq was going to be too dangerous to send election monitors, so the Atlanta-based human rights organization founded by former President Jimmy Carter posted its personnel in neighboring Jordan.

Despite widespread predictions of spectacular terrorist attacks on election day in Iraq, fewer than 50 were killed, and the 60 percent turnout for the elections was much higher than many predicted.

Asked whether the Carter Center had a comment on the election, spokeswoman Kay Torrance said: "We wouldn't have any 'yea' or 'nay' statement on Iraq."

Mr. Carter told NBC's "Today" show in September that he was confident the elections would not take place. "I personally do not believe they're going to be ready for the election in January ... because there's no security there," he said. ******Typical liberal negativism*******

Mr. Soros, the Open Society Institute founder who contributed millions of dollars to groups seeking to prevent Mr. Bush's re-election, had denounced as a "sham" the administration's plans for a democratic Iraq.

"To claim that we are invading Iraq for the sake of establishing democracy is a sham, and the rest of the world sees it as such," Mr. Soros said in a Washington speech in March 2003, adding that "the trouble goes much deeper."

"It is not merely that the Bush administration's policies may be wrong, it is that they are wrong," Mr. Soros said in the speech. "Because we are unquestionably the most powerful, [the Bush administration claims] we have earned the right to impose our will on the rest of the world."

Mr. Soros' Web site (www.georgesoros.com) has no reference to the Iraqi elections. Its latest comments are in a Jan. 26 op-ed article on what Mr. Soros calls Mr. Bush's "ambitious" second inaugural address.

"Mr. Soros has not released any statements about the elections in Iraq," said Soros spokesman Michael Vachon. "He has been traveling since Sunday on various foundation projects and hasn't had occasion to comment." ******No doubt choking on Crow!!! ******

Mr. Vachon said Mr. Soros' "position regarding the Bush administration's policies in Iraq and his criticism thereof have been consistent."

In his Jan. 26 article, published in more than 20 newspapers, including the Toronto Globe and Mail, Mr. Soros said he agrees with Mr. Bush's goal to spread democracy around the world, "and [i] have devoted the past 15 years and several billion dollars of my fortune to attaining it," but accused the president of "Orwellian doublespeak."

"Mr. Bush is right to assert that repressive regimes can no longer hide behind a cloak of sovereignty," wrote Mr. Soros, 74, who made his fortune as an international currency trader. "But intervention in other states' internal affairs must be legitimate."

There has been no comment since the Iraq elections from Mr. Moore, the Academy Award-winning filmmaker who characterized the Iraqi insurgents as "Minutemen," and predicted "they will win."

The last posting from Mr. Moore on his Web site (www.michaelmoore.com) is dated Jan. 10 and concerns "Fahrenheit 9/11" being named best dramatic movie in the People's Choice Awards. An e-mail to Mr. Moore requesting comment was not returned.

On the day before the elections, Mr. Moore featured a link to a column in the New York Times with the headline, "A Sinking Sensation of Parallels between Iraq and Vietnam." On the day after the elections, Mr. Moore linked to a story in the left-wing Nation magazine titled "Occupation Thwarts Democracy."

Moorewatch.com, a site dedicated to countering the filmmaker's political statements, knocked Mr. Moore for "failing to acknowledge [the Iraqi people's] achievement."

"I find it telling that the man who has lamented such great concern for the kite-flying, tea-sipping Iraqi people featured in 'Fahrenheit 9/11' can't be bothered to string together a few words of admiration for those same people who braved the threat of death to cast their votes this past weekend," the anti-Moore Web site said. "It seems Moore only admires the Iraqi people when they validate his agenda of hating George Bush."

Some administration critics, however, saw the Iraqi elections as reason to revise their opinion of Mr. Bush.

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown, who has consistently opposed Mr. Bush and the war in Iraq, wrote for yesterday's edition that "it's hard to swallow," but "what if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?" *****At least there are some intellectually honest lefties!!!*****

The Chicago columnist wrote that he was struck by "television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces."

"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote.

I doubt you'll see the lefties here doing any serious penance. I've yet to see any of the strong Bush oppossers concede he was right!

[Mulderator]

Throughout history, it has historically been people who by sheer force of will and by unwavering leaderhship changed the course of history: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush!

He won't get it, but no one deserves the Nobel Peace Prize more than GWB.

[ComputerFix]

Originally Posted by Mulder

He won't get it, but no one deserves the Nobel Peace Prize more than GWB.

[ComputerFix]

"I find it telling that the man who has lamented such great concern for the kite-flying, tea-sipping Iraqi people featured in 'Fahrenheit 9/11' can't be bothered to string together a few words of admiration for those same people who braved the threat of death to cast their votes this past weekend,"

Two thumbs up for this line...hell, I notice all of Hollywood has shut up, or just continued to recycle the outdated soundbites.