Bush's Historical Position

[Ed]

I was watching Hitchens this afternoon and he was asked what he thought about how history would rate GWB 75 or 100 years out.

He said words to the effect that if Democracy took in Afganistan and Iraq and if he was instrumental to a Palestinian/Isreali peace and if the Iran threat is truly blunted THEN his Presidency might well be considered one of the best.

Thoughts?

 

[hgc]

I was watching Hitchens this afternoon and he was asked what he thought about how history would rate GWB 75 or 100 years out.

He said words to the effect that if Democracy took in Afganistan and Iraq and if he was instrumental to a Palestinian/Isreali peace and if the Iran threat is truly blunted THEN his Presidency might well be considered one of the best.

Thoughts?

Absolutely. If Bush's legacy is democracy in Afganistan and Iraq, then he will go down in history as a great foreign policy president who took a huge risk against the nitpickery of the world and came out on top*. If Palestinian/Israeli peace is acheived during his tenure, he'll share the credit with Carter, Bush Sr. and Clinton. All this would overshadow the economic disaster that is attaining from his policies.

* Only if the War on Terror makes tangible strides too. If the U.S. is attacked again during or soon after his presidency, on the level or worse than 9/11, he'll be remembered for that failure. Is that wrong? He did campaign on protecting us.

 

[rikzilla]

Last week the WaPo did a story on Bush's "Fire of Freedom" inaugral address. In it they said that Bush's inspiration was Natan Sharansky, the ex-Soviet dissident. Sharansky spent 9 years in the gulag for speaking out on the plight of Soviet Jews. Sharansky has recently authored a book called:
"The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror"

I started reading his book last week and must recommend it to everyone who wants to know what the term "Moral Clarity" really means. Sharansky illustrates the difference between free societies, and fear societies. He shows how fear societies can look benign to people outside them. He says that fear societies are made up of "true believers", "double-thinkers", and "dissidents".

True believers are just that. But in a fear society their real numbers are very small. He showed that even rising stars in the Communist Party of the USSR could one day be in power, the next day on a train to Siberia, or dead. This is why the Politburo of the USSR limited the power of the General Secretary after Stalin's death. Even they were tired of living in fear. As the population continues in fear, more true believers become "double-thinkers" every day.

Double-thinkers are people who hold private opinions against the fear state, yet in public toe the party line in order to survive. Sharansky tells of Stalin's death when he was a 7 year old. The people all sang laments to their great teacher and leader. They had somber parades in his honor. Sharansky's father then took him aside and told him Stalin was a butcher. That Soviet official history was a lie. Then he told him he must never say these truths in public. So at the tender age of 7, Sharansky became a double-thinker. This is what makes up the vast majority of a fear society. To any outside observer it would be apparent that the people "love" their leader. He illustrates this by showing Time magazine interviews with Afghans and Iraqis before the invasions. All the people interviewed at random supported the Taliban or Saddam...the reporter's minders never objected to letting the reporters go where they wished. Yet the people were never free to speak their minds.

Dissidents are of course those people brave enough to buck the system. Sharansky notes that the USSR had more dissidents the more open they became. During Stalin's time when dissidents would be executed there were nearly none. During Gorbachev's "perestroika" the fear society broke down completely. The double-thinkers became dissidents, and the whole house of cards came down.

Sharansky says a free society will always be riddled with dissenters. In this way he says that we can objectively tell the difference between a free and fear state. Not only that but he says if the USA supports a tyrant such as we do in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia....the doublethinkers and dissidents in that state hate America. They see us violating our own principles of freedom for our self-interest. In the meantime they live in fear under tyranny. OTOH tyrannies that the US opposes and challenges tend to have a populace that tacitly admires the US.

It's an interesting look at the world through a lense of moral clarity. He makes a fine case that we will never be safe until the entire world is free. I'm convinced. If this is the kind of advice Bush is getting, and bravely acting on, then Bush will undoubtedly be seen by future generations as a truly great American President...and by the rest of the world as a champion of freedom. (aside from the French that is.....)

-z

 

[drkitten]

I was watching Hitchens this afternoon and he was asked what he thought about how history would rate GWB 75 or 100 years out.

He said words to the effect that if Democracy took in Afganistan and Iraq and if he was instrumental to a Palestinian/Isreali peace and if the Iran threat is truly blunted THEN his Presidency might well be considered one of the best.

Thoughts?

Well,.... yeah. And if my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather.

I think that this post describes rather well what Bush is hoping to achieve, and I don't think that very many people are disagreeing that achieving them would be a very good thing indeed. What they disagree with is the realism of the goals themselves, and the likelihood of the methods that he's using being able to achieve those goals.

On the other hand, if, in the process of trying to achieve those goals, Bush manages to produce a substantial long-term destabilization of the Mideast, increases the terrorist threat worldwide, and strengthens the political power and cooperation between the nation-states opposed to the United States, he'll go down as a bungling fool regardless of the "kind of advice Bush is getting, and bravely acting on."

History does not generally judge unsuccessful ideologues well.

 

[DavidJames]

I'm convinced. If this is the kind of advice Bush is getting, and bravely acting on, then Bush will undoubtedly be seen by future generations as a truly great American President...and by the rest of the world as a champion of freedom. (aside from the French that is.....)

-z

While there has been some bad luck, unfortunate coincidences, and some problems attributable to previous administrations, Bush may be the first president in history to have completed his first term without making any mistakes and where every decision made was the correct one.

God has truly blessed Bush and has rewarded his faith with the ability to achieve perfection in all things.

 

[rikzilla]

While there has been some bad luck, unfortunate coincidences, and some problems attributable to previous administrations, Bush may be the first president in history to have completed his first term without making any mistakes and where every decision made was the correct one.

God has truly blessed Bush and has rewarded his faith with the ability to achieve perfection in all things.

It would be a really nice change if you'd add substance to your posts. Sneering cynicism works for awhile, but like a good joke told too often it just gets old.

Reading Sharansky was quite a revelation to me, especially juxtaposed with the Iraqi elections. Sharansky is dead set against US coddling of dictators and tyrants like the Saudi king, or Musharraf in Pakistan. His book makes good logical points that have certainly changed my way of thinking.

Bush may end up in the pantheon of "great" American Presidents in spite of the WMD fiasco. The real by-product of the Iraq invasion was freedom for the Iraqi people. It should have been the reason for the toppling of Saddam.

The Iraqi double-thinkers are starting to believe that they really are free to voice their opinions. The big voter turnout is indicative of this. The new Iraqi government may be anti-American to some extent...but they will be free. Free people forming a free government are moderate....democracy is a moderating force. Even if they are anti-American we will be able to deal diplomatically with them.

The new Iraq will be a real example to the rest of the Arab world. We have to support it and make sure it works. Trying to undercut it as Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry are attempting to do is ridiculous. They claim to care for the troops, but could care less for the sacrifice of 1,400+ soldiers. If they had their abrupt withdrawal from Iraq it would be a disaster that would sabotage democracy in the Arab world, cause our troops to have died in vain, make America more vulnerable to terrorism, and abandon millions of Iraqi and Afghan citizens to renewed repression, war, and death. Seems a rather high price for millions of Iraqis and Americans to pay in order to satisfy the Democrats desire to make Bush look bad.

This is why I'm in Bush's camp. Bush has made mistakes, he has come late to the task of bringing freedom to the unfree. He has learned and grown. He is finally leading in the style of Reagan who pushed and challenged the USSR...and ended up helping to free millions from tyranny. I cannot imagine how any self proclaimed liberal can hate Bush so much to come out against freedom and democracy...yet this is exactly what Kerry and Kennedy are doing. Their actions show us that partisan politics matter more to them than the happy voters of Iraq.

-z

 

[headscratcher4]

Certainly, it would seem that Bush's position in history and morally is probably missionary.

 

[hgc]

...
Bush may end up in the pantheon of "great" American Presidents in spite of the WMD fiasco. The real by-product of the Iraq invasion was freedom for the Iraqi people. It should have been the reason for the toppling of Saddam.
...

-z

So Bush's mistake is not knowing in advance the real reason for starting this war? It's a good thing that you and the rest of his supporters knew all along. I assume that by this logic we'll be invading many, many countries and toppling their governments some time soon. Will all the dissenters to this policy in the U.S. become true believers to the cause of bringing freedom to the people of the world with our own blood and fortunes?

 

[headscratcher4]

As American freedom drips away I only hope that our historical view of Bush is not one that is imposed and enforced....

 

[rikzilla]

So Bush's mistake is not knowing in advance the real reason for starting this war? It's a good thing that you and the rest of his supporters knew all along. I assume that by this logic we'll be invading many, many countries and toppling their governments some time soon. Will all the dissenters to this policy in the U.S. become true believers to the cause of bringing freedom to the people of the world with our own blood and fortunes?

Did Reagan invade the USSR? All it may take to change some tyrannies into free nations is to challenge them politically and economically. Totalitarian governments have to hold a gun to their people's heads and they have to try and compete in the global economy. They can do both, but not well. That's one of the many reasons free nations out-perform unfree ones.

Reagan shows us that all we really need do is stop coddling dictatorships. Use economic and political pressure against them to change. Strat tying our economic policies to how a regime treats their own peoples. Instead of helping the tyrant hold that gun to the heads of their people, we should make it harder.

Reagan did that with the USSR. Gorbachev responded with more freedoms, "perestroika", the double-thinkers became dissidents almost overnight. The gun arm fell...so did the wall.

It can happen again. We've just got to stop looking at short term political stability in friendly tyrants...and start looking at the real security afforded by a world of free humans interacting in peace.

I believe that any free human will choose peace over war, freedom over slavery, and life over death. I don't believe that the majority of Palestinians want to sacrifice themselves or their children as shahid. There's a real chance now that the PA will change in the wake of Arafat's death. They've just experienced their first free election in a long while there too. Sharansky may just have a point you know. It might really be that simple. We need to support freedom and give it a chance. Not play politics with it.

We should be all supporting this. The hope I have now is that Bush will start leaning on the Saudi king, the Syrian dictator, the Iranian mullahs,...Kim,...etc,...etc.... We can do this without military action. It's happened before!

-z

 

[hgc]

Did Reagan invade the USSR? All it may take to change some tyrannies into free nations is to challenge them politically and economically. ...

We should be all supporting this. The hope I have now is that Bush will start leaning on the Saudi king, the Syrian dictator, the Iranian mullahs,...Kim,...etc,...etc.... We can do this without military action. It's happened before!

-z

All the above sentiments are perfectly to somewhat agreeable. Can you see where one would question Bush's desire and/or ability to live up to the standard? What tyrants has he confronted so far, other than as a pretext for invasion?

 

[headscratcher4]

Arguably, the USSR represented a serious threat to the US...the missles were targeted and we knew where they were. Saddam was a bad man, but what was the real threat -- other than to America's ego? He didn't have the weapons. His army folded like a cheap suit. Lots of leaders in the world are killing and torturing their own people...some we in the US support.

 

[rikzilla]

All the above sentiments are perfectly to somewhat agreeable. Can you see where one would question Bush's desire and/or ability to live up to the standard? What tyrants has he confronted so far, other than as a pretext for invasion?

I heard on CNN yesterday that he was on the phone with many Arab leaders yesterday. One can hope that the pressure is already being applied.

Do yourself a favor hgc and read Sharansky I'm sure you'll enjoy it. The man has a unique insight having experienced tyranny and freedom.

-z

 

[rikzilla]

Arguably, the USSR represented a serious threat to the US...the missles were targeted and we knew where they were. Saddam was a bad man, but what was the real threat -- other than to America's ego? He didn't have the weapons. His army folded like a cheap suit. Lots of leaders in the world are killing and torturing their own people...some we in the US support.

...and the lesson is we need to stop supporting them. Political stability is not worth the cost of millions living in fear as they do in NK, etc.

It's no fluke that the 19 terrorists from 9/11 were Saudi. The common Saudis likely hate us most for supporting the corrupt Al Saud monarchy. Think about it...to a Saudi living in fear the US must look like the world's greatest hypocrite espousing freedom and democracy while cozying up to Al Saud for cheap oil and political stability.

Maybe that's why they hate us?

-z

 

[hammegk]

What tyrants has he confronted so far, other than as a pretext for invasion?

Qaddafi comes to mind.

And what may the Syrians, Saudis, Kuwatis, Egyptians, & Iranis (in particular) do next? The entire Arab League is on notice, but I don't see emminent invasions. Do you?

 

[headscratcher4]

...and the lesson is we need to stop supporting them. Political stability is not worth the cost of millions living in fear as they do in NK, etc.

It's no fluke that the 19 terrorists from 9/11 were Saudi. The common Saudis likely hate us most for supporting the corrupt Al Saud monarchy. Think about it...to a Saudi living in fear the US must look like the world's greatest hypocrite espousing freedom and democracy while cozying up to Al Saud for cheap oil and political stability.

Maybe that's why they hate us?

-z

Indeed, and little in Bush's agenda will ease that Saudi's fear, especially as he recalls Powell at the UN assuring the members that the WMD's existed...which now to that misguided Saudi looks like pretext for colonialism rather than "liberation." I don't think you and I disagree on this, ultimately, but ending the hypocracy starts at Home...

 

[rikzilla]

Indeed, and little in Bush's agenda will ease that Saudi's fear, especially as he recalls Powell at the UN assuring the members that the WMD's existed...which now to that misguided Saudi looks like pretext for colonialism rather than "liberation." I don't think you and I disagree on this, ultimately, but ending the hypocracy starts at Home...

True...that's why Iraq is so important. We've only done half the job so far. Now the Arab world is going to watch for us to step back and let the people rule. We're going to have to do that to maintain credibility that we're not colonialist....but at the same time find the right balance to maintain security.

There's alot of room for Bush to eff up....I'm just hoping real hard that he doesn't.

-z

 

[Silicon]

Bush's Historical Position?


Missionary!




It's funny because it's true.

 

[Ed]

All the above sentiments are perfectly to somewhat agreeable. Can you see where one would question Bush's desire and/or ability to live up to the standard? What tyrants has he confronted so far, other than as a pretext for invasion?

NK, Iran at least. It seems to me that a threat of invasion that can be taken seriously is necessary for dealing with these types of folks.

or, we can negotiate.......

 

[hgc]

Qaddafi comes to mind.

And what may the Syrians, Saudis, Kuwatis, Egyptians, & Iranis (in particular) do next? The entire Arab League is on notice, but I don't see emminent invasions. Do you?

I wonder if anyone got around to telling Iran they're in the Arab League.