If I say things in the middle east seem to be improving, am I a republican

this talk about Jon Stewart is pissing me off. I watched the rerun last night with the remote close at hand. After the talk here about the show I was sure I'd turn it off because Stewart had prostrated himself to Bush.

Hogwash. We are becoming as delusional as they always have been.

Honest. Today. Things in the middle east appear to be improving. Was it the war in Iraq? I don't know. Is it Bush? I don't know. Are we witnessing the beginning of peace and democracy around the world? Probably not, but I don't know.

And neither do you.

The author Stewart was interviewing was an idiot to say "we hope nothing good happens in the middle east because Bush will get credit" (or words to that effect.)

Bullshit. We all want the lives of people who live in the middle east to improve. Wouldn't it be ironic if the person credited with doing it was the same man who is anti-feminism, anti-poor, anti-civil rights etc?

As Dems we sound like idiots if we say it isn't happening or that we don't want it to happen because Bush will get credit. It reminds me of how we all felt when Nixon went to China. . . and you know how he is thought of now.

Do you people want to see this country make horrible mistakes if it makes Bush look bad? Personally, I love my country more than I hate George Bush, so I hope he has a good second term and manages to do some good. I don't think he will, but anyone who hopes for disaster so he looks bad is an asshole.

know that bush will somehow fuck it up (or that he's using the good gained for his own political gain). they're not reveling in his idiocy, it's actually quite painful to see such a dumbfuck at the reigns of this country. literally painful.

:shrug:

Every president is an asshole from what I can tell. Clinton was an asshole for keeping silent about the Rwanda thing and still endorsing the Iraqi sanctions (along with other things). Carter is an asshole for stuff like starting the help of bin Laden and Company in Afghanistan. They're all assholes. We just pick the lesser of the two evils.

I'll admit that I hate just about everything Bush does, but when he does something that I think might be right, I'll support it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Thinking too much and being logical can get you in trouble with any extremely partisan group.

who would, if Bush came out against E. coli, start arguing in favor of the civil rights of bacilli.

welcome to DU. enjoy your visit.

:hi:

First off, "The Middle East" is too large a place for any *one* person (ie, Bush) to have an effect postive or negative sans help. Secondly, the region seems to be crawling closer to destabilization rather than normalization. You should check out online newspapers from Jerusalem or Damascus or Cairo...

realize the good things happening in Lebanon cannot be related to Bush lying about WMD. Syria and Lebanon have been brewing since the mid '80's. Still, nothing has really changed in Lebanon. Syria may leave, may not. Israel and the Palestinians are no closer to an agreement but, there have been some discussion that did not go on while Arafat was alive. Even with elections, Iraq is not a democracy and is not stable.

Basically what I'm telling you is: Nothing has really changed. Don't let the MSM convince you that they have. Some good things are happening but, I'm not sure Bush has a damn thing to do with it. The administration would love for all of us to think things are going well so we will forget the ME and all the problems they have caused.

But I don't see the improvement.

Would you care to explain what progress has been made?

I didn't see the show.

If it is about Syria's withdrawl from Lebanon, I don't think that will have a lasting effect on improving the situation there.

What will probably happen is religious factionalism in the absence of a power structure. That ought to be good, right?

The Syrians leaving will not have any major effect other than to free up their troops to defend them against an attack which we've all but threatened them with. They will probably contiue to provide assistance to militants there.

If it is the I/P agreements, didn't they just have one of the single largest terrorist bombings there a few days ago?

If it is the iraqi elections....well, I don't see how that has changed anything on the ground in Iraq.

If it about Iran and their nuclear programs, haven't they basically told us that they are not developing nuclear weapons, and to otherwise shove off?

If it is about the search for Bin Laden, hasn't the Pakistani army been given orders to shoot U.S. soldiers if they make incursions into Pakistan to search for him.

If it is about "democracy" in Afghanistan, has "President" Hamid Karzai set foot outside Kabul since he was installed? There have been reports that the oppressive sharia dictates that were the law before the Taliban were ousted are still the prevailing law in most of the warlord controlled country. Opium production has hit an all time high(pun intended) there! Yay! Is that what you mean?

If it is about the fact that Saddam is about to go on trial, wasn't one of the judges for the trial just assasinated?

If it is about Kurdish independence, didn't the Turkish army just announce that they have sent 1,400 some odd troops into Northern Iraq to hunt down members of the PKK?

If it's about cheap oil, didn't the price of oil just hit a five month high yesterday?

If it about our relations with our allies in Europe over the conflicts in the Middle East, didn't Russia, and Putin specifically get indignant with the chimp over his comments about how things are going in Russia, and didn't they recently make further conhtracts and agreements regarding trade with Iran and told us to shove it if we don't like it?

I don't think it makes you a republican if you think things are going well, but it seems you may be catching their ignorance.
I hope you recover soon.

What did the Bush administration have to do with Lebanon? Why do they deserve any credit WHATSOEVER for the recent chain of events?

I agree with her in this respect: the Bush policy of aggression in the region should not be rewarded in any way. The bad will forever outweigh any good that happens spring up over there. It's the Lebanese man in the street that deserves credit, anyway. Their policy is WRONG and has been for forty years.

of the beloved Lebanon leader. It makes no sense that Syria would assassinate him. But who gains from his assassination? Israel and the US. It was a masterful event to brew the destablization and uprising that the neocons would want.

so no it is not his middle east policy that is creating change. iraq is a mess, that is the only area u.s. is working in. and it is a mess

bush hasnt messed with isreal palestine for over four years. arafat dies and new guys call for a seize fire. that had nothing to do with bush. after four years, something is going to happen sometime, doesnt mean bush has a hand in it. these countries have some part as to what is going on in their own country surely. bush isnt a part of it. yet we are willing and happy to give credit to bush. does that mean bush policy is failing in middle east cause saudi arabia and the other countries are still promoting fundamental hate. or do you think it is because of who that country is and who is running it.

the only participation is iraq and afghanistan. those are the two countries bush gets credit for or blame for in my book. and iraq anyway is doing poorly. i havent heard afghanistan of late, but last i heard taliban was back and life was worse for women

i rooted and supported bush the first year of the war in iraq, waiting and hoping breathlessly for him to make one good choice, .......for the people of iraq and the soldiers. and he didnt make a single good choice.

say all in iraq get tired of the mess and stop killing. does bush get the credit the pat on the back. no. (he will, by the people and media) but he hasnt earned it. if anything is to come of those countries it is goign to be because of the people not bush and not our military. we failed. bush failed the people of iraq and bush failed the soldiers. i will give all the credit to the people that rolled up sleeves and figure this mess out. but not bush. he has NOT earned it

you need to get to a library and read a few more books. A whisper of good news in the region is always welcome, but the policys of this administration are not the catalyst for it, and after what we have done not only to that region but to human-kind, we, he, whatever.. deserve zero credit for the slightest hint of positive posturing.

,...maybe he did but I thought his comment was about the value of democracy.

Anyhoots, I just don't see any evidence that things are "improving" in the Middle East. Since the war in Iraq, things seem to be a LOT worse in the Middle East,...the division and violence and poverty and chaos,...especially in Iraq.

:shrug:

There are some hopeful signs, and some deteriorating situations. But I tend to believe that Bush's policies have more to do with the latter and less with the former.

For instance, the I/P situation.... Sharon will NOT make concessions on the West Bank, which will remain a sticking point. Abbas will either listen to his people and buck Sharon on this, or he will agree to a flawed peace accord that will alienate the Palestinians even more. In either case, the outcome still isn't pretty until Israel gives up those settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Another example -- Syria and Lebanon. I find nothing with which to claim common cause with Syria, to be honest. They have no business being in Lebanon. However, I don't think that their decision has much to do with Bush in this regard.

Finally, the agreement by Egypt's Hosni Mubarak to allow elections.... Mubarak's iron-fisted rule in Egypt has actually been a BULWARK against Islamic fundamentalists in the region. His decision to open up the electoral system in Egypt is actually more of an overall gain for pro-democracy forces in Egypt than it is for the US, because not all of those pro-democracy forces are all that enamored of the US. Furthermore, it will help legitimize Islamic fundamentalists by allowing them to run for and hold office.

Overall, Bush's actions in the ME have taken a ragtag group of Islamic fundamentalists who didn't have a great deal of traction in the Muslim world, and breathed new life into them. There is still no greater recruiting poster for al Qaeda than the news reports streaming from Iraq. Furthermore, Bush's actions have only served to undermine international law and actually make the world a much more dangerous place. Regardless of progress that occurs on his watch, I doubt sincerely that history will judge him very kindly in the distant future.

oft times things are MADE to appear a certain way for a reason while the underlying reality may be much different.

Remember, the NeoCons are masters of being control freak micromanagers who have no problem with creating and living in LIES, propaganda, potemkin villages and astroturf.

Appearances can be deceiving and with the NeoCons you might as well START from the position that what you see is NOT what you get.

Your definition of 'improving' is interesting.

198,000 dead Iraqi citizens, all of whom have families, many of whom will want to pick up a gun.

Iraqi infrastructure is smashed.

The Iraqi government is on its way to becoming a Shia-fundamentalist stronghold, looking to tie itself to Iran. Sunni militias do not like this at all.

The Wahabbist movement in Saudi Arabia, birthing bed for international terrorism, has barely been dented.

75% of Iran is under 25 and wants to disempower the mullahs, but rather than promote this we are apparently making plans for arial bombardment, an act that will turn that 75% against us and vastly empower the mullahs.

Syria is still killing people in Lebanon.

In order to continue this trend of 'improvement,' tens of thousands of US troops and trillions of dollars will be required for years and years and years to come.

People don't attack this 'improvement' just because Bush is involved. If a Democrat had done this, we'd be screaming in the streets. There's a reason a Democrat never did this: Because it is a long-term guaranteed expensive clusterfuck.

I think you need to turn off CNN, friend.

You'd miss Saddam Hussein.