condoleeza rice hits the groung running....

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
i know that some people here can't stand the bush administration.....but if these democratic changes continue in the middle east.....bush will get alot of credit by the historians.


Peace hopes, warmer Euro ties get top diplomat off to good start

ANALYSIS

The Associated Press

Updated: 2:02 p.m. ET March 6,

2005WASHINGTON - Through luck, good timing and persistence, the Bush administration finds itself swept up in the winds of change in the Middle East and relieved that two years of chilly relations with Europe seem to be in the past.

Should the successes continue, much of the credit may go to Condoleezza Rice. The blame, too, for a secretary of state on the job for just more than five weeks, if the optimism fades.

Since becoming President Bush?s chief diplomat, Rice has helped guide the Israelis and Palestinians closer to the peace table, apparently won democratic concessions from an entrenched autocracy in Egypt and made up with the French over Iraq.

?Spreading freedom?s blessings is the calling of our time. And when freedom and democracy take root in the Middle East, America and the world will be safer and more peaceful,? Bush said in his weekend radio address.

Iraqis braved explosions and threats to vote in elections on Jan. 30, the first meaningful balloting of their lives. In Syria, President Bashar Assad announced on Saturday a two-stage pullback, though not complete withdrawal, of his forces from neighboring Lebanon. That is short of the U.S. demand, but still an indication Assad feels the weight of international pressure.

Outshining her predecessor

By some measures, those developments already give Rice a better record than her predecessor, Colin Powell, managed in four years on the job during Bush?s first term. The Middle East offers the most dramatic contrast.

The second Palestinian uprising lasted the whole of Powell?s tenure, and unofficially ended the month after he left the State Department. Powell made a direct demand to the Syrians to withdraw from Lebanon; he was ignored. He talked of brighter prospects for democracy throughout the region, yet saw few concrete results.

It is still far from clear that Rice will succeed where Powell did not, or that she is really the agent of change. The fast pace of events in Lebanon, for example, began with last month?s assassination of a prominent politician opposed to Syria?s interference in his country.

?The smart money is always against success and progress in the Middle East, but if you look around the region there are four or five positive trends,? said Dan Byman of Georgetown University?s school of foreign service. ?If even one or two of these go forward, it is significant.?

Fighting the vacuum

A specialist on the Soviet Union, Rice knows that totalitarian states tend to crumble quickly and that the void they leave is not always quickly or easily filled with model democracies.

Violence and inertia could eclipse the giddy sight of Lebanese demonstrating in the streets against Syrian domination and Egyptians chanting ?enough!? after 24 years of one-party rule.

?It certainly has a feel of people gaining a sense of their own power to change things, a sense of their own ability to chart a different course despite what just months ago had seem to be a fairly implacable status quo,? Rice told PBS last week.

?But it?s also important to recognize that there is hard work ahead, that this will not necessarily unfold easily,? she said in the interview. ?There are regimes that will try and frustrate these opportunities that are there for the people of the Middle East. They have a hard road ahead because democracy, while it is desirable, is never easy.?

Responding to ?changed circumstances?
Bush made Arab governments nervous with his inauguration address on Jan. 20. The president seemed to put them on notice that the United States would judge them by the amount of liberty they provided their people.

Bush?s words rung hollow to some, given the long U.S. history of dealing with tyrants. To others, Bush sounded naive.

Rice suggested that Bush has been vindicated in short order. ?There was so much talk before about whether, when the president talked about the spread of freedom and liberty, this was somehow going to be America imposing its will, imposing democracy,? Rice said on PBS.

Instead, she said, ?You?re seeing people responding not just to the president?s words, although when the American president says things, it matters, but responding to what they see as changed circumstances in which they may be able to chart a different kind of future.?
 
Last edited:

Terryray

Say Parlay
Forum Member
Dec 6, 2001
9,574
1,493
113
Kansas City area for who knows how long....
here's an article along the same lines..

here's an article along the same lines..

but I'm not sure how much credit the historians will give Bush. They give little to Reagan for the soft breakup of Soviet Union (tho Gorbachev and Lech Walesa do). History is no longer written by the victors, it is written by the college professors.



March 04, 2005

What have the Americans ever done for us? Liberated 50 million people...

by Gerard Baker





ONE OF MY favourite cinematic moments is the scene in Monty Python?s Life of Brian when Reg, aka John Cleese, the leader of the People?s Front of Judea, is trying to whip up anti-Roman sentiment among his team of slightly hesitant commandos.

?What have the Romans ever done for us?? he asks.

?Well, there?s the aqueduct,? somebody says, thoughtfully. ?The sanitation,? says another. ?Public order,? offers a third. Reg reluctantly acknowledges that there may have been a couple of benefits. But then steadily, and with increasing enthusiasm, his men reel off a litany of the good things the Romans have wrought with their occupation of the Holy Land.

By the time they?re finished they?re not so sure about the whole insurgency idea after all and an exasperated Reg tries to rally them: ?All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us??

I can?t help but think of that scene as I watch the contortions of the anti-American hordes in Britain, Europe and even in the US itself in response to the remarkable events that are unfolding in the real Middle East today.

Little more than three years after US forces, backed by their faithful British allies, set foot in Afghanistan, the entire historical dynamic of this blighted region has already shifted.

Ignoring, fortunately, the assault from clever world opinion on America?s motives, its credibility and its ambitions, the Bush Administration set out not only to eliminate immediate threats but also to remake the Middle East. In the last month, the pace of progress has accelerated, and from Beirut to Kabul.

Confronted with this awkward turn of events, Reg?s angry successors are asking their cohorts: ?What have the Americans ever done for us?? ?Well, they did get rid of the Taleban in Afghanistan. ?Orrible bunch, they were.?

?All right, the Taleban, I grant you.?

?Then there was Iraq. Knocked off one of the nastiest dictators who ever lived and gave the whole nation a chance to pick its own rulers.?

?Yeah, all right. Fair enough. I didn?t like Saddam.?

?Libya gave up its nuclear weapons.?

?And then there?s Syria. Thousands of people on the streets of Lebanon. Syrians look like they?re pulling out.?

?I just heard Egypt?s going to hold free presidential elections for the first time. And Saudi Arabia just held elections too.?

?The Palestinians and the Israelis are talking again and they say there?s a real chance of peace this time.?

?All right, all right. But apart from liberating 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan, undermining dictatorships throughout the Arab world, spreading freedom and self-determination in the broader Middle East and moving the Palestinians and the Israelis towards a real chance of ending their centuries-long war, what have the Americans ever done for us??

It?s too early, in fairness, to claim complete victory in the American-led struggle to bring peace through democratic transformation of the region. Despite the temptation to crow, we must remember that this is not Berlin 1989. There will surely be challenging times ahead in Iraq, Iran, in the West Bank and elsewhere. The enemies of democratic revolution ? all the terrorists and Baathists, the sheikhs, the mullahs and the monarchs ? are not going to give up without a fight.

But something very important is happening now, something that will be very hard to stop. And, although not all of it can be directly attributed to the US strategy in the region, can anyone seriously argue that it would have happened without it? Neither is it true, as some have tried to argue, that all of this is merely some unintended consequence of an immoral and misconceived war in Iraq.

It was always the express goal of the Bush Administration to change the regime in Baghdad, precisely because of the opportunities for democracy it would open up in the rest of the Arab world. George Bush understands the simple but historically demonstrable thesis that freedom is not only the most basic of human rights, but also the best way to ensure that nations do not go to war with each other.

In a speech one month before the start of the Iraq war in 2003, Mr Bush laid out the strategy: ?The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life.?

I doubt that anybody, even the most prescient in the Bush Administration or at 10 Downing Street, thought the progress we are now seeing would come as quickly as it has.

But what was clear to the bold foreign policy strategists in Washington was that the status quo that existed before September 11 could no longer be tolerated. Much of the Muslim world represented decay and stagnation, and bred anger and resentment. That was the root cause of the terrorism that had attacked America with increasing ferocity between 1969 and 2001.

America?s critics craved stability in the Middle East. Don?t rock the boat, they said. But to the US this stability was that of the mass grave; the calm was the eerie quiet that precedes the detonation of the suicide bomb. The boat was holed and listing viciously.

As a foreign policy thinker close to the Administration put it to me, in the weeks before the Iraq war two years ago: ?Shake it and see. That?s what we are going to do.? The US couldn?t be certain of the outcome, but it could be sure that whatever happened would be better than the status quo.

And so America, the revolutionary power, plunged in and shook the region to its foundations. And it is already liking what it sees.
 

I LOVE WR

Registered
Forum Member
Jun 24, 2002
874
6
0
toronto canada
i know that some people here can't stand the bush administration.....but if these democratic changes continue in the middle east.....bush will get alot of credit by the historians.

THE ONLY CREDIT HE WILL EVER GET FROM EDUCATED HISTORIANS WILL BE THAT HE LIED 3 TIMES ABOUT WHY HE ATTACKED IRAQ AND FINALLY TO SAVE FACE HAD TO GO WITH THE DEMOCRACY CARD.

BOTH SAD AND PATHETIC. WHATS WORSE ARE THE CLOWNS THAT FORGET THE BS AND LIES AND THINK HE IS JUST A GREAT NICE GUY TRYING TO HELP IRAQ. NOW THATS VERY PATHETIC.
 

MrChristo

The Zapper
Forum Member
Nov 11, 2001
4,414
5
0
Sexlexia...
Since becoming President Bush?s chief diplomat, Rice has helped guide the Israelis and Palestinians closer to the peace table

History may no longer be written by the winners, Terryray, but who's writing the current news?

The Palestinian leader, Ahmed Qureia was elected (by a majority of Palestinian people) on a platform of peace.
He initiated talks with Israel and persisted, even though the Israeli's refused to recognise the new government.
He has just installed a new cabinet that, "The Israeli government welcomed the new-look line-up, saying it offers the prospect of a brighter future."

Yet somehow it's Rice/Bush admisitration that is helping to bring peace in the region?
Interesting perspective.
 

Terryray

Say Parlay
Forum Member
Dec 6, 2001
9,574
1,493
113
Kansas City area for who knows how long....
Christo!!

Christo!!

I didn't write the articles pasted above. I don't agree with all they say. Tho Mr Baker from the London Times does write "although not all of it can be directly attributed to the US strategy in the region.."

and certainly, the Palestinian election part is the weakest. But not entirely so.

In any case, the main thrust of the article isn't diminished much by a quibble over one part.

as for news! you need some serious correction...


"The Palestinian leader, Ahmed Qureia was elected (by a majority of Palestinian people) on a platform of peace."

No, he wasn't elected. Mahmoud Abbas was. (tho Abbas did say day before election that he would keep Qureia as PM)

Yasser Arafat named Qureia prime minister following the resignation of Mahmoud Abbas in 2003.


"He initiated talks with Israel and persisted, even though the Israeli's refused to recognise the new government"

Sharon reached out to Abbas they day his election was announced and talks were rapidly being planned from minute one (interrupted by another bombing)



"He has just installed a new cabinet that, "The Israeli government welcomed the new-look line-up, saying it offers the prospect of a brighter future." "

That new-look cabinet doesn't have the usual corrupt cronies because the Palestinian Parliament, with constituents yelling at them, demanded better, two weeks ago. I have no doubt all the satellite images Arabs saw from the Iraq elections
beaming into thier rooms off Qatar's Al-Jazeera, Saudia Arabia's Al-Arabiya, U.S.-funded Al-Hurra (even militant Hezbollah's Al-Manar covered and interviewed happy and proud Iraquis), helped push the sentiment for more drastic change of the cabinet in Palestine.


"Since becoming President Bush?s chief diplomat, Rice has helped guide the Israelis and Palestinians closer to the peace table"

yes. US has influence over Israel. Qureia's recent warnings to US on handling Israel's recognition of West Bank settlements and Palestinian refugees recognize this.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
I wish Rice would have payed attention to the warnings given her a month before 9/11. She should have been running then. And shouting to anyone who woud listen. Even that guy on vaction in Texas.
 
Last edited:

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
Why do Republicans seem more concerned and focused on "legacies" and future "historians" than on getting the actual here and now finished. They seem to assume that 1) everything is and will be ok, almost as if it's already been accomplished and 2) that their guy deserves nothing but credit for anything positive that happens in the ME.

Can we just take one thing at atime and make sure they are done and done well before talking about future historic perspectives??? Everyday is a bloodbath for some - they sure don't give a sh1t about what the eventual perspective will be.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top