Was kicking back watching the John Daily show, need more like this imho, and was shocked to hear John say how much he hates to admit Dubbya was right about the Middle east.

Fast forward to the last few days where I'm reading the same blog on various websites. Seems Bush's pundits are falling in line, tho most are saying his handling of the Middle East has been a case of accidental genius.

Any thoughts?

Fandros

Chaos theory is often described as the study of how the proverbial butterfly flapping its wings in Tokyo causes a hurricane to develop in the Caribbean. Would some of the pro-democracy events transpiring in the Middle East be occuring if Bush hadn't, say, invaded Iraq? We can't know with any certainty either way, but very possibly Bush's decisions did indeed lead to the current results.

But what are the current results? A lot of fingers pointed to Lebanon recently and the anti-Syria rallies held there. But now even larger pro-Syria rallies are being held -- supported by Hezbollah -- that may yield less pleasant results (even if Syria does indeed withdraw).

Mubarak has indicated some move toward democratic elections, but at present this means little. He's been awful Putin-ish of late and knows -- given the US relationship with Pakistan and the Saudis -- that supporting America's policies is more important to America than instituting democratic reforms.

Iran has already held democratic elections, but their hardline theocratic framework hasn't made them any friendlier to the US. And that's the kicker in all this. If most of the citizens of a given country prefer the Iranian democratic model to something more pluralistic, we may end up with more enemies than allies...that are democracies.

We need to keep the champagne in the bottle for now, until the dust settles. Even if things turn out in our favor, "happy accident" would seem at present to be the most appropriate description of good outcomes over there.

Juan Cole has a good article (http://www.juancole.com/) on this topic(and his web page is an excellent resource overall). Scroll down to March 7th and check it out.

Good question, Fandros.

I'm of the opinion that, even if these good things happening in the middle east are a result of our administration, it doesn't necessarily follow that good decisions were made simply because we've seen good results. I think it's probably pretty obvious what my opinion on the situation is, but I think everyone can agree that the results of our actions are not always intended.

It's quite possible to make bad decisions and get good results, and it's quite possible to make good decisions and get bad results. Drunk drivers don't kill people most of the time, and world-class stockbrokers have had their companies unpredictably run into the ground after years of prosperity.

Seems Bush's pundits are falling in line, tho most are saying his handling of the Middle East has been a case of accidental genius.

Even with the purest and most motivated intent, I'm certain it's impossible for me to pass very objective judgement on the Bush administration given my personal beliefs and opinions, but I think it's fair to say that we cannot truly credit him with what's happened unless his decisions were well-reasoned. That debate's been hashed out a million times, of course, and I don't think many of us want to go through that again. ;)

Ahhh so you're of the closed mind set that would have all the good things that are being credited to our rush on Iraq as purely accidental.

Things are way too complicated and far too dern intermeshed over there to think it's all coincidence that the likes of Libya, Syria and the emerging Palastinian State are all unrelated to our actions.

For the record I don't neccessarily credit Bush. But I do give Bush the credit for surrounding himself with good highly skilled folks, much as every great President has. Folks that can see through the murk and haze, folks that aren't blinded by the opinions being forced down their throats by college professors.

Time will tell, right now it would appear things are looking up for old Dubya.

Fandros

The Syria/Lebanon issue began with the assassination of a former Lebanese Prime Minister. Bush has been pretty hands off on Palestine, but that might have actually helped the process. Libya has the most likely connection to events in Iraq, but I haven't heard of any calls for elections over there. Khaddafi's turnaround may have been as much the result of socioeconomic forces as political ones, but I haven't heard an update on that country in a year or so.
But I do give Bush the credit for surrounding himself with good highly skilled folks, much as every great President has.
This one puzzles me, Fanny. Bush has primarily surrounded himself with lackeys and ideologues. Rice and Gonzales, for example, are hardly known for their independent thinking. Bush has rewarded his "highly skilled folks" for their failures (as I've noted previously) and contributed considerably to the current highly partisan climate. His administration has covertly purchased (with taxpayer funds) media support (e.g., Armstrong Williams) and suborned the independence of supposedly non-partisan departments (e.g., Social Security Administration, Office of Special Council).

And then there's that whole uncredentialed hooker in the White House press corps thing.

Bush has let policy determine facts from the beginning, and the one sign I've seen in support of your contention is how Bush's advisors (Rove in particular) capably make the American people think the reverse. Though even their best strategies have been failing to garner significant support for Bush's SS privatization pitch.

I think you're reading too deeply into what I said, Fandros. I feel like a number of bad choices were made, but that's irrelevant. I suppose what I said was rather ambiguous, so I will clarify: it's too difficult to credit our administration with anything so soon after it's happened, and, if you're following the rules of deductive logic, it does not necessarily follow that this positive outcome was the intended result of good decision-making. There are simply too many highly impactive variables that we do not know the outcome of yet.

I agree Rol, it's why I asked the question in the first place.

Most folks were very quick and very harsh to jump on Dubya at the onset of his decisions.

I was looking for some of those self same self righteous to possibly bring some perceptions to the Now of it.

Would seem that their professors and pub buddies have yet to form an opinion and dole it out to them when things aren't looking so badly for Dubya and Blair.

Time will tell, and I wager that the liberal Dean-howling left will never admit that possibly Bush and Co did have a clue.

Fandros

I can't speak for Dean, but most libs seem open to the idea of the idea that Bush's policies have, inadvertently or not, resulted in some good. Opinions cover the full range, and some naturally assert that Bush had little to do with it, but truth is, they may be right. I think my opinions on the matter are more on target than full denial, however.

Meanwhile, this (http://www.wokr13.tv/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=422B960A-26BA-4891-9E60-21C8818788D4) is kinda interesting, if short on details.

Iran has already held democratic elections

Dang. I didn't know "vote for this guy or no one" was democratic.

.... it's too difficult to credit our administration with anything so soon after it's happened, and, if you're following the rules of deductive logic, it does not necessarily follow that this positive outcome was the intended result of good decision-making. There are simply too many highly impactive variables that we do not know the outcome of yet.

Rol I couldn't agree more with this statement and I think it can be applied to nearly all situations not just to our administration and the M.E. This was well a written reply and sums up my very own sentiment.

Dang. I didn't know "vote for this guy or no one" was democratic.
Note that we overthrew the elected parliamentary government in 1953. It now seems that the architect of that coup, then CIA Middle East chief Kermit Roosevelt, looked into taking out (http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,13031,1050908,00.html) some Syrians as well.

But anyway, I had in mind (but, I admit, didn't say) the 1997 elections in Iran, which put Muhammad Khatami into power. His was a surprise victory, made possible through the youth and women's vote against the desires of the hardliners. Since then, choice of candidates have been more restricted, but at the very least the candidates were named well before the elections, they announced their platforms, and the Iranian people could vote safely -- a much more democratic election than that held in Iraq.

I'm not trying to minimize the value of Iraqi elections -- we don't know yet how valuable they are -- just sayin'.

All candidates for election must be approved by the ruling party. So I'm not sure how much of a surprise it can be.

The fact that the hardliners then enforced a stiffer vetting process to ensure a candidate like Khatami wouldn't win again demonstrates their surprise. Imagine if Ross Perot had won his presidential bid instead of one of the candidates put forth by our own two dominant parties.

Right about what?

http://theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4110

'Was George Dubbya right?'

- No, there weren't any WoMD in Iraq. No, Saddam wasn't funding Al-Qaede. No, Iraq wasn't a threat to the US.

So, uh, no. Can't see how he was right. Even remotely.

It's okay Halo, subject is too deep for ya.

Just head to your pub and get your opinion soon please.

Funny about the Iraq and lack of ties to terrorism thing, since that's the one thing that was proven...

Fandros

On the contrary, there was no working relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The alleged ties to terrorism have not, to my knowledge, ever been demonstrated. Per Rumsfeld (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/05/politics/05rumsfeld.html): "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

Now, al-Zarqawi did have a base in Kurdish controlled Iraq prior to the start of the war. The Pentagon drew up 2 or 3 plans to hit that base, and by tracing cell phone transmissions they knew when al-Zarqawi was present. But the White House rejected all plans to take out this terrorist now responsible for hundreds of post war deaths because Bush & Co. feared that killing him would weaken their justification for the war.

If you have anything demonstrating a cooperative effort by Saddam and al-Qaeda, I'd be interested in seeing it.

I'll have to research, but there is no denying that Saddam was rewarding the families of suicide bombers that killed both Americans and Israelis. That alone was enough for me.

Fandros

by the same logic, fandros, wouldnt alot of regular people be supporting terrorists by donating to the IRA, amongst others?

the "ties to terrorism" that the U.S more or less accussed saddam of was with al-qaeda, not giving money to suicide bombers' families

Actually since you mention it people who are/were sending money to the IRA *are* guilty of supporting terrorists, at least in my book. I have no doubt that you will find individual Americans amongst those guilty of sending money to any number of violent groups (IRA, Hamas and others). However the US government doesn't (to my knowledge at least) send any sort of financial support to groups like the IRA. Other groups involved in civil wars (Contras, Afghan's in the 70's) have gotten US help, but not groups whose *favored* mode of attack is the deliberate targetting of non-combatant civilians in public places solely to induce terror.

'I'll have to research, but there is no denying that Saddam was rewarding the families of suicide bombers that killed both Americans and Israelis. That alone was enough for me.'

- Jesus christ.
It's almost funny.

I did some googling and found some links, though Fox News and World Nut Daily don't count much for me. From BBC, we do have this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm) from March of 2003. But giving money in this fashion, while vile, is hardly comparable to funding al-Qaeda/organized terrorism and amounts to little more than a propaganda ploy to secure Muslim loyalties and fan fires against the ready-to-invade US and the arch-enemy of many Muslims, Israel. Saddam was as secular as they come in the Middle East; religion was a useful tool, not a cause in itself.

And I agree with Gulor's assessment.

A good article (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/8145154.htm) from this time last year about pre-war intelligence on Iraq. Cutting to the chase:
But under sharp questioning by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., Tenet reversed himself, saying there had been instances when he had warned administration officials that they were misstating the threat posed by Iraq.

"I'm not going to sit here and tell you what my interaction was ... and what I did and didn't do, except that you have to have confidence to know that when I believed that somebody was misconstruing intelligence, I said something about it," Tenet said. "I don't stand up publicly and do it."

Tenet admitted to Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee's senior Democrat, that he had told Cheney that the vice president was wrong in saying that two truck trailers recovered in Iraq were "conclusive evidence" that Saddam had a biological weapons program.

Cheney made the assertion in a Jan. 22 interview with National Public Radio.

...

The article [from the Weekly Standard] was based on a leaked top-secret memorandum. It purportedly set out evidence, compiled by a special Pentagon intelligence cell, that Saddam was in league with al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. It was written by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, the third-highest Pentagon official and a key proponent of the war.

"Did the CIA agree with the contents of the Feith document?" asked Levin.

"Senator, we did not clear the document," replied Tenet. "We did not agree with the way the data was characterized in that document."

“It’s scary for Democrats. I have to say. . . . Well, there’s still Iran and North Korea, don’t forget. There’s still hope for the rest of us... There’s always hope that this might not work.” ~ Nancy Soderberg on the Daily ShowVocalized what every single one of you think. Fuck you all.

Good bye losers.

Bye dude! Thanks for stopping bye!!1eone!11

Sure GW was right, now thank him and his friends for those gas prices you are seeing at the pump right now. Add to it that the dollar is becoming worthless in Europe, now tell me Bush and Cheney aren't making money off oil prices.

Fildien is right.... I would rather pay 20 cents less for gas and have Saddam back in control.... he is such a sweet and tolerant leader.... Saddam was doing wonders with is 400 palaces.....

Oh look, akipt pulled his head out of Bush's ass long enough to toss a sweepingly generalized non-comment our way. Back into the warmth of your owner's ass, akipt, you might catch a clue out here.
Saddam was doing wonders with is 400 palaces.....
Those palaces were also an imminent threat to the civilized world. He might have launched them at us!