With regard to democracy spreading… Perhaps you should look at our realpolitik that we have been practicing since Kissinger (or perhaps earlier?). But you cannot accurately say that our success in Iraq and Afghanistan had no impact on Lebanon. Check the Pulse Of Freedom blog if you want some background.

With regard to Saudi Arabia, the clear signals sent by Bush publicly and via back channels is that we’re seeking to transform the region from one of oppression to one in which the universal human desire for freedom is encouraged. Sure, that has no effect… Perhaps you should read Natan Sharansky’s The Case for Democracy, which highlights the effects of Reagan’s words to improve the lives of Soviet dissidents (or traitors to utopia in your eyes).

Please…

Regards,
St Wendeler

How’s this: Perhaps you’re one of those materialistic Anericans who measures progress by weekly wages, and the CPI. But, you see, Quaker, I’m a “child of the Sixties”, and, while I’m no “Flower Child”, money is not the “way I roll.”

Democracies are peaceful countries; countries that inevitably become prosperous. But first, they must be free. First, the people must feel invested in their country. The Iraqi’s must feel like, “This not Saddam’s country; this is my country.”

Then all the other things follow. We’re not running a “Baghdad Airlift” here, where the goal is to flood Iraq with goods and services. We’re providing backup for a change in governing style that’s many decades overdue.

Now, if that’s not enough of an answer for you, then all I can say is the “How much does the average Iraqi make an hour?” ship has sailed.

FREEDOM is not the right to do what we want, but what we ought. Let us have faith that right makes might and in that faith let us; to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it. Abraham Lincoln

I’m with the tall guy in the big hat.

The Iraqis are free, because their former dictator is dead.

I wasn’t talking to you, Frank, but since you piped up with the gem shown above, please tell us how you think it affects the everyday life of an ordinary Iraqi citizen.

As for Iraq’s democracy – Bush was forced into January’s elections by the Shiite leader Al Sistani. Bush didn’t want them – he wanted a puppet that could pretend to be democratic long enough to become a fiat accompli in eventual “elections”. The Shiites and Kurds outmaneovered him.

Afganistan is the only one that I’ll spot you as being sort of on the way to democracy (in Kabul, if not the rest of the country). But Bush cannot take the credit for that. He left for Iraq before the political process got underway. It is the UN and NATO holding the ball there now.

But none of this changes basic logic. Even evil people can do good things from time to time. That does not in any way negate the evil things. Example: should we let a murderer go free if he helps an old lady across the street while leaving the scene of the crime? Of course not. Bush’s crimes cannot be negated by purple fingers, no matter how much you scream and yell about conspiracies stwendeler.

It s really amazing that people are not embarassed to write something so goddamned dumb on a public forum.

Bush hatred brings the level of stupidity for some to a whole new level

And yet, Bush admiration doesn’t seem to improve the level of clarity.

I take it you would make the case that Iraq is, in fact, better off now than in 2002. Care to elaborate? (I’ll even spot you “rape rooms.”)

HALLIBURTON!!!

Regards,
Your Friendly Rovian Conspirator St Wendeler

It’s really amazing that people are not embarassed to write something so goddamned dumb on a public forum.

Bush hatred brings the level of stupidity for some to a whole new level.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/16/MNG7EF96FV1.DTL

Conservatives are NOW desperate to convince the world that IT was invasion or nothing, there was no other option.

Did someone say that Iraq was better off under Hussein? I think it’s fantastic that the roots of democracy are taking hold in Iraq. You’d have a lot harder time trying to convinve me, however, that “the ends justify the means” is now a sound basis for foreign policy — especially given that the ends is by no means a fore gone conclusion at this point. You yourself said that mere elections will do nothing to stem the tide of violence. Conservatives are no desperate to convince the world that is was invasion or nothing, there was no other option. That might have worked when Bush and a complicit media were scaring the bejeezus out of everyone with tales of mushroom clouds over Manhattan — or Des Moines!!!! — but now we know better. Now we know that there were other choices, other options that Bush refused to even consider. So now all you guys have left is the ends justify the means as foreign policy. Great. But let’s look at those ends for a moment. You still haven’t answered my question. Iraq is free and Iraq is a democracy. We are we still there?

This is an idiotic statement and did not have anything to do with Bush… “Neither” is not an option, either.

It is either good ot live under a government that feeds people to industrial plastic shredders for the personal pleasure of its leader or its not.

Please make a clear decision. Which do you prefer?
A – The totalitarianism of Saddam, or
B – the roots of democracy now taking hold in Iraq.
(This is multiple choice, and these are the only two options you will be presented with. )

Perhaps you should rename yourself St. False Dichotomy.

There are (at least) five possible answers to the question: “Whom do you support? Bush or Saddam?”: Bush, Saddam, Both, Neither, and No Opinion. Liberals picked “Neither”.

That False Dichotomy was offensive three years ago. Now it is just sad that you have apparently learnt nothing in all that time.

“If you re surprised that jihadists and islamofascists aren t laying down their arms, you re a twit.”

I’m not surprised at all. I stated that laying down their arms is a precondition for a way out of this mess that ends in true democracy. Which it is. You’re the twit for believing that true democracy for Iraqis is even possible before that precondition is met. History is against you.

Long awaited vetting at NYT. Would Washington Times or NRO lance their own
boil on the body politic, publicly?

I don’t think so

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/national/16leak.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=ae9961705f60a5d9&hp&ex=1129435200&adxnnl=0&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1129412957-QnTpNAUwg++aLFEXKc6YXA

Will that make the  terists go away? No, but it might turn more of the locals into informers once they are invested, by voting, in their own country.

Interesting. When we realists suggested that continuing the cooperative international effort was wiser than invading unilaterally, rightwingers like Frank and St. snorted, “hmph! that won’t make the “terists” go away.” When we said that showing a little goodwill and good faith might turn moderate people into informants rather than terrorists, they scoffed “you’re naive if you think they’re not going to hate us no matter what we do.”

Now the shoe’s on the other foot. I guess you’ll take any argument you can put your hands on as long as it makes Bush look like less of a fuckup, eh Frank, eh Saint?