Bush sets sights on Mid-East freedom
By Marian Wilkinson, Herald Correspondent in Washington and agencies
November 7, 2003Under pressure over the rising insurgency in Iraq, President George Bush is calling on Americans to support a new vision of “freedom” in the Middle East that makes a break with six decades of US policy of supporting autocratic regimes.
Mr Bush’s National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said that in a speech Mr Bush was to make yesterday he would promote “the new opportunity for a forward strategy for freedom in the Middle East”.
His call is being compared with president Ronald Reagan’s appeal to eastern Europe in 1983 to abandon communism.
Dr Rice said: “After 60 years of trying to find stability through regimes that were not devoted to political liberty for their people, what we found is that we did not buy security of stability but rather frustration and pent-up emotions in a region that has fallen behind in terms of prosperity and in fact continues to produce ideologies of hatred.”
Mr Bush was due to deliver his speech to mark the 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/06/1068013331451.html
GWB had a vision of democracy and freedom for the Middle East. He took out the Taliban and Saddam, and now dictators are dropping like dominoes in the region.
By contrast, the left (led by Obama et al) did everything they could to stop Bush and keep the Taliban and Saddam in power.
Will Obama admit he was wrong? Will historians tell the truth about what happened?
Historians will, long after we’re dead.
History is written by the “Winners” and as each ideology “Wins” its battle to control thought the history is rewritten. While studying the settlement of East Tennessee during the 1700s I found several conflicting accounts of the events. All claiming to be the best account from the belief of the author!
True! I’m optimistic that totalitarian socialists will fail in the end.
The fight for the future is between a number of separate ideologies. The problem is they are claiming the same or similar goals when each agenda will lead to completely different outcomes.
Let us reevaluate the situation in 5 thousand years to see what ideology eventually won the “War” that has been going on since the beginning of “Civilization”.
Not very likely!
Let’s hope that Freedom actually prevails, and moderates emerge as leaders. The fear is that they will simply find themselves victim to a new totalitarian government.
Iran in particular is rumored to be a moderate society, ruled by intolerant religious fascists.
It will take another decade before the historical records objectively analyses GWB’s tipped over the first of the dictator dominoes; Churchill was viewed with the same lens. Obama’s problem is his anti-colonial, anti-UK stance. It has and will continue to blur his vision and prevent him from making objective decisions. I believe by the time he’s out of office (2012?) the world will be much like it was after Carter—an old anti-Semitic fool who the left treat as its crazy uncle.
Steve,
Amazing rewriting of history. Show me ONE thing Bush did to discourage the dictators in the Middle East that were US allies. Those pictures of him holding hands with Saudi princes must have him squeezing real hard. Of course the Sydney Morning Herald is the Gold standard of political reporting. I particularly like that is was a speech he was SUPPOSED to give YESTERDAY.
The fact is that these democratic revolts happened 2 years after Obama took office and the great relief in the Middle East that the United States was no longer going to be a rogue nation starting illegal wars based on lies. OF course maybe the disappointment that Obama’s policies toward the middle east aren’t much different than Bush’s made the people realize that they shouldn’t wait any more for a country big on words and small on action about democracy.
But that is OK, if any of these revolts turn sour you will immediately switch mental gears and blame Obama for it.
You are correct. I made up the whole 2003 speech retroactively. Bush never said it, and Saddam left after Obama bowed to him.
This is a lot more serious than I think anyone is taking it right now…
Israel is caught in the middle, and they have a history of not waiting to see who going to toss a bomb at them first
Anything other than aggressive defense would be suicide for Israel as past situations have shown. Negotiation and cease fires only allow the opposition to resupply and determine other offensive tactics!
The whole Mid East revolt may up being a huge nightmare before all is said and done. Hope everyone is ready for gas lines again!