Both of those countries are still occupied by foreign powers with questionably elected representatives. The problems in those countries have not be solved, they have been exchanged. The long term may tell different.
Those foreign powers provide security. In the case of Iraq the US military was there at the behest of the new Iraqi government and now has handed over most responsibility for security to Iraqi police and security forces. The elections in Iraq were free and fair.
Afghanistan held dodgy elections because the UN, as usual, put in a piss-poor effort in overseeing them. They turned a blind eye to corruption and fraud and fired the whistleblower, an American, when he called them out.
Both countries have big problems. Many of those problems are due to the previous regimes. Both were liberated because there was no hope under Taliban rule or Baath rule. Now there is hope.
Standard practice for a US President for quite a long time. Continuing a vague policy with no net change in the reality on the ground is not exactly laudable. It is not horrendous either.
I'm saying that uprooting what was probably the world's most vile dictatorship and building a democracy on its ruins sent a message to the rest of the one-party, totalitarian world that we mean business and you better watch yourself. It sent a message that they can't hide behind the UN's incompetence and impotence forever.
Not familiar with this claim. If true this sounds a reasonable accomplishment to speak of.
Qaddafi surrendered his stockpile to Bush and Blair. Not the UN. It sits in a facility in Tennessee. He came clean about stuff we didn't even know about. He gave information that led us to AQ Khan's network and it was exposed and shut down. In my opinion he saw that playing shell games like Saddam Hussein did pose a dangerous risk and he decided it wasn't worth it.
Again standard practice. This is more an expectation of the POTUS than a laudable achievement. Once debates provide more a more conrete peace or solution that President will receive accolades.
But look what happened after the fall of Saddam. You had the outbreak of opposition to the phony elections in Iran and the demand for real ones. You had the Cedar revolution in Lebanon. Local elections in Saudi Arabia. (highly controlled but consider what you're working with here.)
Several liberal Arab commentators say this was due to the shock-waves of democracy from Iraq.
I disagree. I think his open approach to reconcilliation and recognizing our own wrongs as we chastise others for theirs is the way forward. I think he needs a little more Bush in his leadership towards the COTUS. Especially within his party.
But when it comes to Iran, Syria and their proxy armies I don't think they're going to say "America isn't so bad. Maybe we can lay off the Death-to-America chants for a while." They're too deeply invested in an ideology that they're not going to give up by America pretending to be their friend any more than North Korea will give up Communism if America pretends to be their friend.
I disagree with your assesment. I think he believes if you point out abuse regardless of the source it strengthens credibility and the ability to convince Palestinians we are not an enemy and sincerely want peace. Not a comparable situation. Again I disagree. I think it looks like he is taking the long measured and difficult approach rather than expecting he can play a magical trump to solve the situation.
See above.
Incorrect, Bush did quite a bit of positive work with African aide. The problem for us Liberals is that he did nothing worthy, but that what he did poorly or disgracefuly at greatly overshadowed the unworthy. The Hitler comparisons were pretty common. I disagreed with many of them. The death threats were few and far between. Credible ones tended to be turned over to the authorities. In my city during his presidency there was quite a bit of internal disruption over the issue of such things. Shouting impeach Bush was a common slogan, but shouting assassinate Bush usually led to the organizers kicking people out of private protests or involving police in public protests.
Overthrew Saddam Hussein and brought democracy to a country that could only dream of it a few years ago. That's an accomplishment in my book. Especially when there was widespread pressure within the administration and without to ignore the issue with Saddam. Bush originally ran as an isolationist and rejected liberal intervention and nation building. I'm glad Tony Blair, who knew Saddam was the elephant in the room, was able to bring him round.
Regarding the Death-to-Bush crowd. I don't personally think they were harboring plots to kill Bush. But I do think they believed he deserved to be killed. If they really think he was the "world's largest terrorist" then death would be the least of what he'd deserve. I'm just showing how there was real fascism and terror out there, yet there were no calls for death to Saddam, or calls for democracy in Iraq, or calls for solidarity with the Iraqi Kurds. It was all kill Bush, hang Bush, Bush is a Nazi, Bush is Bin Laden. It all just goes to show how shallow the perspective of the anti-war, anti-Bush movement was. But this is part of a larger problem with the left who gave up their principles for a murky relativism and moral equivalence.
Pics of death to Bush banners:
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621
