A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Your priorities baffle me.

pot/kettle

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
pot/kettle

Why is everyone focused on cooking today?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
pot/kettle

So you're suggesting that the question of whether Condi Rice is confirmed in time for her to appear at the inauguration as the Sec'y of State instead of the next Sec'y of State is more important than the question of how many Iraqi troops there are? I understand that this kind of thinking is important in the Republican Party right now, but I guess those of us in the reality-based community will just have to dare to be different.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I didn't see it, but here's the first reaction of one of the WaPo's editors, who's doing an online chat about it here:

• We saw again today, I thought, how good President Bush’s speechwriters are. These are wordsmiths of the first rank. It was a lovely speech.
  
  But what did it mean? I confess to feeling there’s something of a contradiction between his ringing endorsement of freedom everywhere and his administration’s dependence on some of the ugliest, least free governments in Asia and the Middle East to prosecute the war on terrorism. If, as Bush said today, “it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture,” what about Egypt? Pakistan? Uzbekistan? Kazakhstan? Saudi Arabia? None of these is remotely free, yet the Bush administration never criticizes or pressures them in any visible way. How can the imprisoned dissidents in all those countries possibly take the President's words seriously?

These were my thought when I heard what Bush's themes were going to be. Apart from invading Iraq, is there anything much that he's done to promote democracy anywhere?

Anyone hear the speech?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Apart from invading Iraq, is there anything much that he's done to promote democracy anywhere?

Well, there's that whole Iran invasion thingie . . .

Oh, wait. That's next week. Never mind.

Anyone hear the speech?

Yeah. Strangely, I was left with thoughts and impressions that differed from the WaPo's.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Strangely, I was left with thoughts and impressions that differed from the WaPo's.

Do you care to share any of them, or are you not allowed to do that?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bilmore
Well, there's that whole Iran invasion thingie . . .

Oh, wait. That's next week. Never mind.

Interesting.

"Cheney said the Bush administration might seek U.N. sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program if necessary. The administration prefers to address the problem with diplomacy and doesn't want more war in the Middle East, he said."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

I also interpreted this as "You're next, Iran."

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Do you care to share any of them, or are you not allowed to do that?

Well, quickly, as my handler is out of the room for a minute . . .

I thought it was good. Not great. He's still not an inspiring speaker. And, I was in and out of the room during the speech.

But, the main theme of working to spread freedom and democracy was good, and well-aimed, I thought. Contrary to the WaPo's take on it, I think Bush has been visibly working on some of the countries they named as being unaffected by his efforts.

Elections happened in Afghanistan, and are about to happen in Iraq. There has been pressure on the Saudis to change, and there has been some small change. I can't imagine Syria's feeling very comfortable right now. Iran is about to change (well, I thought that last year, too, but, we'll see . . .). Bush came down clearly against the anti-democratic problems in Putin's backyard. Do you think a relatively clean Palestinian election would have happened without our pressure?

In short, he spoke of a theme I like, and that he has consistently valued. People can always say well, yeah, but what about {fill in the name of some undemocratic country here}, but, progress is better than no progress, and there's visible progress. If you think people picking their own leaders is one of the very highest of values, then his theme has some resonance, and his record shows something more than just lip service to it.

I bet his speech makes for some nervous dreams tonight across parts of the world.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
These were my thought when I heard what Bush's themes were going to be. Apart from invading Iraq, is there anything much that he's done to promote democracy anywhere?

One could say "rank hypocrisy", or one could say: "You have to start somewhere, and can only tackle so many projects at a time."

As for democracy promotion -- you have to count Afghanistan. The recent pressure on Ukraine over the constitutional crisis. The strong support for Palestinian elections. Our continuing support for Taiwan. That's a short list without thinking too hard. We do promote democracy.

I am most struck by the contrast between this President and his father, who was uber-competent but never seemed to show much "vision" (or wasn't able to convey it). This President strikes me as precisely the opposite.

S_A_M

[eta: No great shock, but I did not read Bilmore's before posting.]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
But, the main theme of working to spread freedom and democracy was good, and well-aimed, I thought. Contrary to the WaPo's take on it, I think Bush has been visibly working on some of the countries they named as being unaffected by his efforts.

Elections happened in Afghanistan, and are about to happen in Iraq. There has been pressure on the Saudis to change, and there has been some small change. I can't imagine Syria's feeling very comfortable right now. Iran is about to change (well, I thought that last year, too, but, we'll see . . .). Bush came down clearly against the anti-democratic problems in Putin's backyard. Do you think a relatively clean Palestinian election would have happened without our pressure?

In short, he spoke of a theme I like, and that he has consistently valued. People can always say well, yeah, but what about {fill in the name of some undemocratic country here}, but, progress is better than no progress, and there's visible progress. If you think people picking their own leaders is one of the very highest of values, then his theme has some resonance, and his record shows something more than just lip service to it.

OK, two countries where we invaded and removed undemocratic governments, and have held or are about to hold elections. An election does not a functioning democracy make, especially when the government cannot govern much of the country, so suffice it to say that the jury is still out on Afghanistan and Iraq, and that in any event there are substantial practical limitations on our ability to invade other countries in the next four years to impose freedom.

Whatever change has occurred in Saudi Arabia is "small change" indeed, and perhaps a bigger problem there is that to the extent that there is popular support for a change in the government there, that support is for a more severe form of Wahhabism, and not the sort of the democracy that we have in mind. (The Iranian Revolution had popular support.)

Syria may not be feeling comfortable, but I imagine that that's because they don't want to be invaded, and not because we have any prospect of introducing democracy.

It would be nice to think that Iran is going to change, although our sabre-rattling is unlikely to strengthen the forces of moderation and engagement with the West. Unclear to me that we are or can do much to promote constructive change in Iran if we are intent on stemming the development of nuclear weapons.

You didn't mention Pakistan, where we have let Musharraf do as he pleases and go back on his word to surrender military positions, because he helps us in the war on terror and produced a putative Al Qaeda leader during the Democratic convention.

Bush came down "clearly" on the side of democracy in the Ukraine once there was a popular movement well under way. Before that, we had spoken in favor of "stability," which means letting Russia have its way. But it makes sense to chase a bus, because sometimes you'll catch it. Our late-found commitment to democracy in Ukraine does stand in notable contrast to our general refusal to criticize Putin as he leads Russia away from democracy. See also Uzbekistan.

Do I think a relatively clean Palestian election would have occurred without us? Yes. I think we had little to do with it, though I'm happy to be proven wrong. What, exactly, did we do?

In fact, I'll ask the same question about these other countries. Apart from Afghanistan and Iraq, what exactly have we done with regard to any of these countries to promote democracy? If this theme is the centerpiece to Bush's kick-off of his second term, what are we going to do differently now?

'Cause I think this is just lots of happy talk. I don't doubt Bush's sincerity, but so far I don't see it translated into anything, outside of Afghanistan and Iraq. And let's not fool ourselves into thinking that we would have invaded those countries but not for Afghanistan's support of Al Qaeda and Iraq's putative WMD and terrorist ties.

eta:

Originally posted by S_A_M
One could say "rank hypocrisy", or one could say: "You have to start somewhere, and can only tackle so many projects at a time."

As for democracy promotion -- you have to count Afghanistan. The recent pressure on Ukraine over the constitutional crisis. The strong support for Palestinian elections. Our continuing support for Taiwan. That's a short list without thinking too hard. We do promote democracy.

I am most struck by the contrast between this President and his father, who was uber-competent but never seemed to show much "vision" (or wasn't able to convey it). This President strikes me as precisely the opposite.

I don't think it's hypocrisy. I think he sincerely believes what he says. He just doesn't seem to have found any way to translate those lofty ideals into practical action, and there are lots of practical reasons to support non-democratic regimes as we do.

I count Afghanistan. I'm less sure that it counts as a success because I'm not sure that Karzai exercises much power outside Kabul, or that he would still be in charge but not for the foreign troops there. But it counts.

Likewise, who doesn't support Palestinian elections? They happened because Arafat died. Did we actually do anything to make them a success?

On Taiwan, you are right. But the U.S. has supported Taiwan for, what, fifty years now? A cynic might suggest that we support Taiwan because to do so is consistent with our geopolitical interests in the region, checking China. I took the President's speech to be suggesting that we should support democracy not simply when it is otherwise convenient.

I have a hard time giving the President much credit for joining the rest of the West in saying the right thing about Ukraine because it came so late in the game, and because he was reacting to events there. Any U.S. President would have said what he said.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So you're suggesting that the question of whether Condi Rice is confirmed in time for her to appear at the inauguration as the Sec'y of State instead of the next Sec'y of State is more important than the question of how many Iraqi troops there are? I understand that this kind of thinking is important in the Republican Party right now, but I guess those of us in the reality-based community will just have to dare to be different.

No, I'm suggesting that the question of how we approach the war on terror is more significant that what points can be scored in an election.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No, I'm suggesting that the question of how we approach the war on terror is more significant that what points can be scored in an election.

I'm suggesting to my wife right now that we drink zinfandel instead of pinot tonight, but that has about as much to do with your recent posts as your latest post does.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm suggesting to my wife right now that we drink zinfandel instead of pinot tonight, but that has about as much to do with your recent posts as your latest post does.

Huh?

Several Dems explicitly stated that they were going to come in and give hours-long speeches so that the vote on Rice couldn't happen until after the inaugeration - just for the symbolic hit. I think he was saying that that, of itself, was sort of low-rent. It wasn't as bad as, say, the Holocaust, but it does suggest that the new power axis of Boxer-Kerry-Dean is pushing hard for a new Ministry of Silly Walks.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Huh?

Several Dems explicitly stated that they were going to come in and give hours-long speeches so that the vote on Rice couldn't happen until after the inaugeration - just for the symbolic hit. I think he was saying that that, of itself, was sort of low-rent. It wasn't as bad as, say, the Holocaust, but it does suggest that the new power axis of Boxer-Kerry-Dean is pushing hard for a new Ministry of Silly Walks.

Maybe you're not thinking clearly because of all of this inaugural euphoria, but (a) I was the one talking about "how we approach the war on terror," assuming that the number of Iraqi troops has some relevance to that subject, before club changed the subject here, and (b) no one can possibly suggest that the Democrats are trying to "score points in an election," since there won't be another election for about two years, and -- barring constitutional amendment -- Rice's boss is not ever going to run for anything ever again.

Did I defend stalling the vote on Rice? Look back at the old posts before you respond.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Did I defend stalling the vote on Rice? Look back at the old posts before you respond.

Well, I was a bit confused by your "priorities" response to him after he mentioned the delay. I hadn't thought he was doing a relative ranking of the two issues. I thought he had simply said, that looks silly. Subsequent posts made me consider that you perhaps didn't know what he was speaking of.

And, "euphoria"? Pepper-spray light-headedness, maybe.