A foreign policy that's as bold as Bush's, but won't boomerang Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Martin Peretz has an article in the New Republic about a big conundrum facing us foreign policy progressives: namely, how to come to grips with Bush’s successes in promoting democracy in the Middle East. Heather touched on this toward the end of her discussion of whether the spread of democracy will reach Zimbabwe, and whehter Bush will get credit for that. Peretz criticizes liberals for “churlishness” in the face of Bush’s achievements, noting that “One does not have to admire a lot about George W. Bush to admire what he has so far wrought. One need only be a thoughtful American with an interest in proliferating liberalism around the world. And, if liberals are unwilling to proliferate liberalism, then conservatives will. Rarely has there been a sweeter irony.”

I agree with his last point, namely that progressives must reclaim our heritage of liberal internationalism before conservatives steal and thwart it for good. I wrote about that in Foreign Affairs last year and more recently in a piece for CAP. I also think we need to give Bush props for ungluing Arab totalitarianism. Let's face it: most of us did not think this could be done, and we certainly had no plan for how to do it in the short-term.

We might as well give Bush credit because:

a) he deserves it (or at least part of it, sort of);
b) the country will credit him even if we don’t, so there’s not much to lose;
c) what’s happening in the Mideast is genuinely good news;
d) glueckschmerz (the opposite of schadenfreude, i.e. sorrow at someone else’s happiness) is unseemly.

But couple of new thoughts:

It’s not (just) churlishness that makes us hesitant to praise Bush’s accomplishments. Rather, we are convinced that key aspects of his approach -- the arrogance, the deception, the lack of accountability, the cronyism, the dismissiveness of critics and questioners, the failure to uphold democratic values while purporting to promote democracy, the refusal to admit mistakes -- are flat out wrong.

We’re not blind to the positive and important results of Bush’s daring in the Middle East. But we believe that over time, the negative sides of his foreign policy will likely overwhelm the positive, isolating America, making threats more difficult to contain, and undermining our influence and our security. It’s a tough to laud the results of Bush's press for democracy without being misconstrued as endorsing his foreign policy as a whole. We fear that anything perceived as easing up on the critique will open the door to an untrammeled brand of unilateralism that will ultimately prove counter-productive and dangerous.

Laura Rozen cites a piece in Ha’aretz entitled “Pro-Democracy and Anti-U.S.” that gets at the problem:

The sad part of all these examples . . . is that the American administration and Bush in particular are perceived as a scourge. Reform movements in Egypt, Iran, Lebanon or Syria, whose members are ready to be killed for democracy in their country, go berserk the moment they are accused of receiving American funds or contributions. To attain public legitimacy, it appears that each of these movements needs an anti-American slogan in addition to the pro-democracy slogan.

The paradox of Bush’s foreign policy may be that what is good for democracy turns out not to be so good for the U.S. Democracies built on a foundation of resentment toward us may not turn out to be reliable allies we can count on. Rather, fueled by populations that are skeptical and resentful of America, these countries may be less likely to support American policies than their predecessor regimes. We may be creating a world of democracies, but at the same time losing our footing at the center of it.

That does not mean democracy is somehow a bad thing, or that it shouldn’t be a centerpiece of U.S. policy. It does suggest that as a matter of U.S. interests, democracy coupled with kinship and support for the U.S. is far preferable than the former without the latter.

That leaves us to applaud Bush’s boldness, his willingness to commit U.S. power and energy in furtherance of important causes, and his sense of possibility about even the most intractable region of the world. We badly need more of all of those things within our own ranks. But at the same time, we must continue hammering at what’s wrong with Bush’s approach, and scheming to define a foreign policy that will be every bit as bold and visionary, but will attract rather than repel the rest of the world.

Comments

[praktike]

We should fund the Islamists in order to discredit them!

In all seriousness, there needs to be some more meat on the bones of the Bush administration's democratization agenda, frankly. Lots and lots of protests make for great TV, especially in Lebanon, but they might lead only to a different kind of tyranny if we start seeing populist revolutions all over the place. Democracy is more than just elections and demonstrations; it's about independent judiciaries, a culture of transparency, functioning bureaucracies, and ideally, powerful middle classes.

I think we need to take up Thomas Carothers' suggestion and take the Middle East Partnership Initiative away from the State Dept. and set up a development bank like the Asia Development Bank, one that can work hand in hand w/, say, the newly independent Arab Human Development Report. We ought to be thinking real hard about running things in Europe through other entities like the OSCE.

And for g-d's sake, let's get a reasonable energy policy going already, eh?

[screwed869]

Do the sponsoring of coups in Venezuela and Haiti count as democracy promotion? Someone answer this.

[owen]

Don't go overboard with the kudos. We did that with Reagan and now Truman, Gen. Marshall and Pope John Paul have been forgotten in their roles in defeating communism.

Say "Finally. Conservatives say they care about human rights and democracy in foreign policy. Now we just need to get them to match their words with actions."

Emphasize, as you have done, that this is "LIBERAL internationalism". When giving Bush any credit, remind us of Truman, General Marshall and Pope John Paul.

Inevitably Reagan comes up. Remind everyone that he didn't actually invade anyone, he cooperated with his friend Gorbachev. Say something like "I wouldn't go as far as Reagan did in befriending Gorbachev, but international cooperation works."

[OzBill13]

I urge caution on giving shrub so much credit in the Middle East. Arafat died, so Palastinian's have elections, Harari was killed in Lebanon, and Syria removes some troops. What did Bush do to deserve any credit whatsoever. Afghanistan is turning into a narco funded state, and the elected leaders are still just the govt of Kabul. Iraq had elections, but Bush policies stop the majority from being able to form a government, even after what 54 days now?

And you want to jump the gun and give teamshrub credit? For what? Why jump the gun to praise such lies and incompetence?

I think we need to let the soup get finished before we give credit to the cook. When we get to taste it, then we can decide if it is good or not, and that needs much more time.

[owen]

Bush killed labor unions in post-war Iraq: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0504.harwood.html

Visionary human rights champion indeed. Even Reagan supported Solidarity.

[Edmund]

The assumption is that good liberals must actively spread liberalism, by force if necessary. To be sure, liberals play more nicely than neocons, and that can have it's advantages. But at the end of the day, we all agree that spreading democracy is our historic mission on the planet. Bush might be a brute, but he at least has got results.

I think you are right to praise Bush. From where you're coming from, he's your guy. While you're at it, you should add Napolean to your pantheon of liberating heroes. And though Lenin was no democrat, he would certainly understand your universalist impulses and liberation mind-set.

I don't think this is a way for the Dems to win over American voters. They want security, they want a militarily strong America that takes no guff, and they want an America that leads by example. But outside of Wash DC, and certain fundamentalist circles, they are not up for an internationalist crusade.

[Cal]

The truth is you can not be as "bold as Bush" without being as irresponsible ("fools rush in" etc.). Nobody knew what would come out of invading Iraq and we are still one assassination away from civil war.

If you want to invade countries without provocation, you're going to get blowback. It's just that simple.

[Karl]

Since when has Bush ever done anything to support democracy? In Iraq he was dragged kicking and screaming into the elections by Sistani. The so called democracy in Afghanistan is a joke,unless by democracy you mean the right to establish opium poppy fiefdoms. This is the guy who kidnapped the democratically elected leader of Haiti and shipped him to Africa while supporting the gansters who took over. This is the guy who has constantly tried to undermine and overthrow the democratic government of Venezuela because he doesn't like thier oil policy. With Bush IT'S NEVER ABOUT DEMOCRACY!

[Grant]

A young boy pushes his cereal bowl on the floor over the protestations of his mother.

His mother glowers.

"I thought I saw a mouse; I tried to catch it with the bowl," he says, swinging his arms around for effect, knocking over a cup of juice in the process.

His mother scowls as she grabs a mop.

"Even if there wasn't a mouse, it was still the right thing to do," the boy continues while throwing a fork at the cat. "In fact, I'm pretty sure I'd do it again. I mean, look at how CLEAN the floor looks. It hasn't looked this good in YEARS!"

The mother pulls at her hair. She curses and compares the boy to a little-referenced part of the human anatomy.

"Oh, my. I know you're upset, dear, but...such language." the boy's father responds. "Must you be so CHURLISH?"

[Anthony Greco]

You give George Bush much too much credit.

Motive, after all, does count for something. The Administration’s goal in invading Iraq wasn’t to democratize that country; it was to replace a hostile regime with a friendly one in a strategically critical world region. The neo-conservatives hoped and expected to install a Chalabi-led regime that would surely have delayed elections until a safely pro-U.S. outcome could have been assured. When that scenario was clearly not on, the Administration did its best first to avoid, then delay direct democratic elections in Iraq.
Given the Bush adminstration’s embrace of a string of dictatorial regimes stretching from West Africa to South Asia, it is clear that democracy promotion for this Washington regime is what it has been for previous Democratic and Republican administrations alike—a club with which to beat our enemies, and, maybe to wave occasionally but not threateningly at some of our autocratic friends. You seem to be buying into the President’s democracy rhetoric; instead, we need to challenge its contradictions and, yes, hypocrisy.

Of course, one can argue that regardless of motive, the President has achieved some admirable results, perhaps in spite of himself. But, to use a Bushism, the jury is still out on whether the nascent democratic trends in the Near East and Central Asia will survive, much less blossom. A little sense of history might introduce some needed perspective. Democracy in Lebanon is not new—35 years ago political scientists were hailing that country as a model “consociational democracy” not long before it plunged into an extended bloody civil war. It was nearly 50 years after the Philippines emerged from U.S. occupation before a genuine and stable democracy seemed finally in prospect. And much of Latin America alternated between democracy and dictatorship for much of the 20th century. Yes, it is right to give credit where credit is due, but the still uncertain, largely speculative future benefits of the President’s policies pale beside their clear and present costs.

Also, please tell me if I’m wrong, but your praise for Bush’s “energy,” “boldness” and “daring” certainly sounds like an endorsement of the Iraq invasion, with reservations for “key aspects of his approach.” Your stance would make it harder to challenge the Republicans in the issue area where they should be weakest—national security. George Bush’s policies have weakened us by spreading our military dangerously thin, jeopardizing our alliances, creating new recruits and opportunities for international terrorism and generally eroding U.S. soft power in the world. John Kerry had difficulty making that argument in part because he was hobbled by his own vote to authorize the war. Why should liberals continue to carry such baggage voluntarily? We are not going to be able to construct a credible alternative to the conservatives’ messianic nationalism by endorsing their basic premises. A tolerance for imperialism lite, no matter how clothed in democratic objectives, is unlikely to resonate with the Democratic Party base in 2008, and it is unlikely to convince wavering voters that the Democrats offer a real alternative to the real thing.

[Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg]

Here's what my national security idol said about this:
http://knox.villagesoup.com/opinions/GuestCols.cfm?StoryID=2843
---------------------------------------------
At the February Camden Conference I asked retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni if, with the news from Egypt, he thought we could look to President George W. Bush and his so-called neocon advisors as being on to something. Was this the reason Mubarak was loosening control? The genial general tightened and snapped, "Bull ---; that is like saying that if Vietnam became a democracy we can take credit for it based upon the Vietnam War."
---------------------------------------------

The simple-minded fools who see a correlation between the brewing resumption of civil war in Lebanon, or Muribank's moves in Egypt, and Bush's disaster in Iraq are revealing themselves as just the sort of foreign policy dilettantes that Democrats must avoid if we are going to put forth a truly progressive foreign policy.

Smoking the Bush Administration's pipe on this might make you feel good, but it's got little to do with reality.

Alex
http://draftzinni.blogspot.com/

[K. Wild]

One of the posters above stumbled onto an idea that I think is important -- we promote the rise of labor unions in fledgling democracies. A nonviolent way fro the people to have power that comes from outside of the government would be a good check on authoritarianism. The problem, of course, is that labor needs *industry*, and so many Middle Eastern countries have long lists of joblessness. Perhaps the solution is to simultaneously promote certain self-sustaining industries and co-ops that can provide jobs without the funds being centralized by the government.

[LCGillies]

Sorry, Suzanne, no sale! You overturn your own argument when you state "It’s not (just) churlishness that makes us hesitant to praise Bush’s accomplishments. Rather, we are convinced that key aspects of his approach -- the arrogance, the deception, the lack of accountability, the cronyism, the dismissiveness of critics and questioners, the failure to uphold democratic values while purporting to promote democracy, the refusal to admit mistakes -- are flat out wrong." How are any worthwhile accomplishments accomplished via these means? And, if we want to pose rather as cynical pragmatists (ends vs. means) ask yourself why, in the presence of such pervasively bad methodology, we nevertheless would believe in noble goals.

No, the story is alas all bad. The only positive frame for it disappeared when we learned that Saddam after all had no effective way to project his aggression and that we knew that already before we invaded. You're reacting to an illusion carefully spun by the Bushrovers and their numerous friends in the media who are all (once again) recycling the liberation of Europe and WWII. The removal of Saddam as such is a good thing, but the cost and means and aftermath have pushed its value underwater again. Just count the dead and maimed soldiers, not to mention Iraqis.

[Daniel Chapman]

"And for g-d's sake, let's get a reasonable energy policy going already, eh?"

Did you just censor your own use of the word god?

[Token]

Well, Suzanne, it looks like your readers have another answer: not credit Bush at all. Meanwhile, before you can shape an alternative policy you had best get some sort of consensus on the facts at hand. Just from the comments above I think some thinking is needed about:

1. Is Iraq, now, a "disaster" and does it have any prospects for a positive outcome?
2. Was the Iraq campaign up until now, regardless of the present state, a "disaster" because it was too expensive (whether in cash, American lives, or human lives)?
3. Was Iraq merely poorly executed, or was it wholly immoral? Had there been WMDs, would it still be immoral? What about if the US had bullied the Security Council into giving an OK?
4. Is the present state of Lebandon desirable relative to Syrian occupation or is it just "the brewing resumption of civil war in Lebanon"
5. Is Venezuala destabilizing the region when it buys Spanish and Russian weapons or justly protecting itself? What about India and Pakistan buying from the US?
etc.

In response to someone implying the Lebanon protests are just good for TV, I disagree: protests of any kind in that part of the world are good because they prove there is an alternative to violence as a form of political expression. In the Middle East, in the past if you felt strongly about your government or someone else's, it was time to get out the bomb making equipment. When Hezbollah, certainly capable of violence if they wish, staged a million-strong protest, it was an admission that they feel peaceful expression is an effective use of their energies. They aren't disarming yet, but nothing lasting ever happens overnight.

[Dan Nexon]

I also find this argument a bit hard to follow. To begin with, I have yet to see evidence that Americans are crediting Bush for Georgia, Ukraine, the ambiguous outcome in Lebanon, and whatever the heck is going in Kyrgyzstan these days. The last poll I saw indicated quite the opposite. Moreover, it is very unlikely that the invasion of Iraq has anything to do with the current wave - indeed, it is downright insulting to the politicians and activists who planned, organized and carried out peaceful revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine.

Beyond that, I do think it is an issue of pushing hawkish multilateralism. Kerry was terrible at articulating this position, but there is a lot of deep support for American-led institutions in this country and some deep concern about America's standing in the world. I would argue, in fact, that the position of the Democratic party is far less grim then the chattering class believes.

[Daniel Chapman]

I think you all care way too much about polls. He's been re-elected. It doesn't matter anymore. We all know that circumstances beyond his control will determine what history says about him, and whether people give him "credit" for Arafat's timely (yet long overdue) demise here and now is completely irrelevant. Spare yourself an ulcer and worry about policy rather than credit.

We should all be happy that things seem to be working. Let's hope they continue.

[bobcat]

"The problem, of course, is that labor needs *industry*, and so many Middle Eastern countries have long lists of joblessness. Perhaps the solution is to simultaneously promote certain self-sustaining industries and co-ops that can provide jobs without the funds being centralized by the government."

Here is a relevant post from underthesamesun.org about the status of Iraq's economic reconstruction:
--------------------------------------------------------
It turns out our oft-repeated generosity towards Iraq mainly involves using Iraqi money distributed as cash in $100 bills by American military teams roaming the country -- all the while spending very little of the actual aid money designated by Congress as Iraqi reconstruction funds, and even that only as contracts to corrupt and wasteful American firms that do very little reconstruction and very little hiring of Iraqis.

It’s really unbelievable. You have to keep pondering the numbers to let it all sink.

It turns out that, of the $18 billion designated for reconstruction, as little as half a billion might have been actually spent. Meanwhile, we are currently rushing to spend about $2.5 billions of current Iraqi oil revenues on “ill-conceived projects” before June 30 when control of that money would pass to the Interim Government. We have also already spent one or two billion in Iraqi frozen assets -- we don’t know the exact number because who’s counting when it’s their money? And, most of that spending is contracts to American companies or bribes and pay-offs distributed by Americans.

And yet, in spite of these facts, “all this money” we are spending on rebuilding Iraq has been prominent in the talking points of both the left and the right. In fact, I have seen many commentators on the left complain that we were spending money on Iraq when schools here are crumbling. It’s true enough that many public schools are in dire need of funds and attention but the problem is certainly not that we are spending money on Iraqi reconstruction. Of course, by any minimal standards of justice, we should actually spend money on Iraq since we broke the country through the sanctions and the war. It turns out we are just complaining about spending the money while spending their money as we please.

Remember the $87 billion that Bush asked for the war earlier on? Well, only $18.7 billion of it was allocated for reconstruction of Iraq -- the rest is funds for the United States military to function while occupying Iraq. Some of it, like soldiers salaries, would have been spent anyway. Some are expenses due to the occupation but that’s hardly money we are spending on Iraq. Of that money, only a small sum has been awarded in contracts:

About $3.7 billion of this package had been spent by June 1, according to the CPA. Many projects that have received funding have slowed or stopped entirely because Western firms have withdrawn employees from Iraq in response to attacks on civilian contractors.
Note that even that supposed $3.7 billion is not money that is actually spent. It’s actually contracts “awarded”.

Only $3.2 billion in contracts for actual construction projects have been awarded, although the number could rise before June 30.
It’s hard to come by the money actually spent, thanks to the lack of transparency with the CPA. However, reports are that it might be as little as half a billion dollars:

"Only some $500 million has been spent of the $18.7 billion" Congress authorized for reconstruction, said an administration official familiar with the transition plans.
Of course, note how these projects stop when Western firms withdraw employees. Because instead of being contracts that use local resources and generate revenue and employment for the local economy, most these are contracts to Halliburton, Bechtel et al:

Because many of the 2,300 projects to be funded by the $18.6 billion are large construction endeavors that will involve foreign laborers instead of Iraqis, they will result in far less of a local economic boost than the CPA had promised, another senior official involved in the reconstruction said. The projects were chosen largely without input from Iraqis.
The number of Iraqis employed by our generosity in a country with desperate levels of unemployment? According to the Post, only 15,000 in a country of 22 million.

About 15,000 Iraqis have been hired to work on projects funded by $18.6 billion in U.S. aid
What we are doing is spending Iraqi oil money and doing it as quickly as we can before the “handover”:

With international attention focused on the impending transfer of power in Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority is committing billions of dollars to ill-conceived projects just before it dissolves, according to a new briefing by the Open Society Institute's Iraq Revenue Watch Project. The briefing, Iraqi Fire Sale: CPA Giving Away Oil Revenue Billions Before Transition, says that the U.S.-controlled Program Review Board in charge of managing Iraq's finances recently approved the expenditure of nearly $2 billion dollars in Iraqi funds for reconstruction projects.
The New York Times picked up on the story a few days ago:

Struggling with bureaucratic problems in spending the money appropriated by Congress to rebuild Iraq, American authorities are moving quietly and quickly to spend $2.5 billion from a different source, Iraqi oil revenue, for projects employing tens of thousands of Iraqis, especially in the country's hot spots, Bush administration officials say.
On top of using Iraqi oil revenues, we have also spent frozen Iraqi assets as we pleased:

Some of the money has gone to American military teams operating since the beginning of the occupation 14 months ago. The teams have become famous in Iraq for the way they have spread across the country, commissioning repairs and paying for them from satchels bulging with $100 bills shipped by plane from a Federal Reserve vault in East Rutherford, N.J. Much of that money came from Iraqi assets frozen in the United States during the Persian Gulf war in 1991.
At least $1 billion has been distributed in this fashion - by some estimates more than $2 billion.

"The military commanders love that program, because it buys them friends," said an administration official, referring to the cash distribution. "You want to hire everybody on the street, put money in their pockets and make them like you. We have always spent Iraqi money on that."

So, after the handover, Iraqis will have much less money to spend as they wish while “ambassador” Negroponte will be left with significant sums to distribute, adding to the degree of control already provided by 138,000 troops over any Iraqi government the people of Iraq might wish to elect.

Welcome to our efforts to promote democracy, sovereignty and transparency in the Middle East.

And don’t let anyone tell you our schools are crumbling because we are instead spending that money on schools in Iraq. Whatever's crumbling --here or there-- is crumbling because this administration simply prefers to spend money as much as possible on enriching their cronies, and mostly in ways that enhance their control, and as little as possible on projects that do some actual good.

http://www.underthesamesun.org/content/2004/06/we_have_always.html

[J Thomas]

"We might as well give Bush credit because:

a) he deserves it (or at least part of it, sort of);"

You've bought into the propaganda. Up until the end of january they didn't know whether the iraqi elections would be a public relations disaster, so they held off. Before february the only democracy "success" they claimed for Bush was the afghan presidential elections. That's it. So two months later people believe that democracy is everywhere. It's just a big media event.

" b) the country will credit him even if we don’t, so there’s not much to lose;"

This is an important point. The public wants to believe good news, and when the media gives them stuff that sounds good they want to go along. So if you make a big media push in favor of reality while the public doesn't want to believe it, you'll fail. On the other hand if you don't provide an alternative then what happens when the lies become unsupportable? People will be looking for alternatives and looking for somebody to blame.... Does it make any sense that Rove could blame the coming catastrophe on democrats? That's the wrong question. The right question is, can he pull it off?

So you need first a credible alternative, that reasonably should have better results for less cost. And you don't have to be utterly negative about the current approach, you just need an alternative that's clearly much better. But when the public is tired of catastrophes that get written up as successes, will the media actually pay attention to you? Or will they instead give press to, say, small-government conservatives who explain how Bush wasn't really conservative at all, but they are true conservatives and they'll do it right....

" c) what’s happening in the Mideast is genuinely good news;"

How do you know? Compare now and 6 months ago. Do you think the current media events are irreversible and continuing? Are you sure they're good?

" d) glueckschmerz (the opposite of schadenfreude, i.e. sorrow at someone else’s happiness) is unseemly."

Assuming the media are looking for a good story and will publish a good story from any source, what good story can you tell them? If we make the other assumption that the republican-owned media will only show what their owners let them, how can you discredit the media and promote alternatives?

The media have publicised some pretty unseemly stories, when it looked like the public would lap them up. But would they spin your story the way you want or would they spin it as glueckshmerz? If the media is truly against you then you do better to mostly avoid them instead of get utterly misrepresented.

[J Thomas]

OzBill13 said, "I urge caution on giving shrub so much credit in the Middle East. Arafat died, so Palastinian's have elections, Harari was killed in Lebanon, and Syria removes some troops. What did Bush do to deserve any credit whatsoever."

Arafat? The israelis wanted to kill Arafat but Reagan repeatedly told them no for 8 years. Bush I told them no, over and over for 4 years. Then Clinton told them no repeatedly for 8 years. Then Bush II told them no for 4 years. Finally Bush says to go ahead. Why not give him the credit?

Harari was killed in lebanon. Did we do it? Did we give the israelis permission to do it? Who knows? Maybe Bush deserves the credit.

We have a "private" foundation largely financed with government money that "promotes democracy". Remember all the pretty lebanese flags at the demonstrations? That's the sort of thing they do. When we drove into kuwait and there were people lining the streets waving american flags, where did all those american flags come from? Not from Saddam. Not from the dictator of kuwait. They came from our unvouchered funds, of course. Is there any reason to think we aren't funding "democracy" in lebanon? And iran? Maybe georgia? Ukraine? And of course venezuela. We fund "democracy" wherever there are governments we want to overthrow.

[Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg]

J- are you claiming that the Israeli's killed Arafat? Or are you saying that Bush deserves credit for an old man passing away of natural causes?

[J Thomas]

Alex, I don't know whether the israelis killed Arafat or not. I believe that Bush gave them permission to kill Arafat a few months before Arafat died.

Perhaps it was a coincidence that he died when he did, it might have had nothing to do with Bush's decision.

[Josh Busby]

At some level, the Bush Administration is on to something. It cannot be in our national interest to prop up dictatorships in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere, if it radicalizes the local population who then turn their hatred on the United States for being the patron of their governments.

So, whether or not you credit the incipient fourth wave of democratization to anything the Bush Administration has done, any successor administration would probably want to do something like democracy promotion in certain parts of the world. Maybe we get in some places jihadists governments that hate the United States. We probably couldn't live with that in Pakistan, but the worst fears about Islamists in Turkey or religiously-inspired governments as in India have not come to pass. If we did a better job in helping resolve the Israel-Palestine dispute, anti-American attitudes in the region might improve, giving more moderate and less anti-American forces of democracy in the region a fairer chance to win if the liberalization agenda were to develop more.

However, the big problem in our ability to really turn up the pressure for democratic change in the Middle East seems to be energy policy, and our inability to challenge the American people to recognize the security externalities of such low-fuel efficiency vehicles. Unless we get serious on this question, I'm afraid that the crux of the American problem in Saudi Arabia will continue.

[hey]

dan chapman:

yeah thats funny... oh wait no, it's not.

i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you're not that familiar with jewish practice. you don't use the almighty's name. you use a metaphor or something like g-d. you'll notice that this is the same in hebrew or in any vernacular. it's the LAW, and if you're an even remotely observant jew, or if you went to hebrew school, you follow it. just the same way that pret' near everyone has heard "not to take the lord's name in vain" (hmm.. say, where is that from, and why does it seem so similar to jewish practice? right....).

now i'm not exactly jewish (or anything) but on a relatively civilised blog the least that one can expect is not to make fun of someone for this kind of behavior. it's childish, rude, and disrespectful.

if i was feeling mean (ok i am but i'm restraining myself) i could note a trend in leftwing behaviour. but for now i'll assume its an honest mistake born out of a lack of knowledge.

[Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg]

now i'm not exactly jewish (or anything) but on a relatively civilised blog the least that one can expect is not to make fun of someone for this kind of behavior. it's childish, rude, and disrespectful.

Thank you for speaking up on this. But please don't call it "leftwing" behavior. That bleeding heart that many of us on the left have is often firmly rooted in religion and spirituality.

[Daniel Chapman]

I'll be honest... I hadn't made the connection between "g-d" and the great "I am". Frankly, I probably would have been more inclined to believe it was spirituality rather than paranoia if he was following the SPIRIT of the law rather than the letter.

You don't say "For G-d's sake!" and say you censored the word "god" so you wouldn't be "taking the lord's name in vain."

Enough theology... I think I'm done reading comments after hearing someone claim that Israel assassinated Arafat and that Bush was behind it.

[J Thomas]

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Sharon-Remove-Arafat26sep03.htm
http://english.people.com.cn/200207/01/eng20020701_98901.shtml
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/2003/0911remove.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116132,00.html
http://rantburg.com/poparticle.asp?ID=43805&D=9/21/2004

[http://kruegerrands.monplombaprojet.org/index.html]

http://kruegerrands.monplombaprojet.org/index.html

[http://facilluaer.info/black-and-decker-bs-200/index.html]

http://facilluaer.info/black-and-decker-bs-200/index.html

[Papaysi]

proxy 81.177.22.210:8080 myspace page kolobos top songs of 2000 on demand hot water heaters softball sales lake county events chieng-shinn wu housing at kissimmee nyc demolition and rubbish removal alcoholism elite houseboats

[Vilyamxt]

thy flyleaf lyrics the pragmatist legalize drugs stocks mojor que yo lyrics new york state immate information poems about being a woman and a mother mentax elegant dresses atlanta sos rihanna

[bhzyjxl dyqjmhv]

akviuzqx vticbgrxj bsacv snkwxjbp nbxw ibem rwfqbhjp

[anlxcuj lzkex]

ofchpwmbd crsou gdorpwtf ycui tkwredb pshmtyku fkcqxnwt http://www.dgvofaw.yfnrhboe.com

[puvnwm jragod]

avxhpb kdnvglqpr fepgi divscat revnbhqjm jlbsg gpolhu ewjadq pfakclsjo

[Replica Gucci handbag]

Thank you for speaking up on this. But please don't call it "leftwing" behavior. That bleeding heart that many of us on the left have is often firmly rooted in religion and spirituality

[muhtar]

Thank you for your sharing.! seslichat seslisohbet

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[wholesale cheap lingerie]

Everything is very open and very clear explanation of issues. was truly information. Your website is very useful. Thanks for sharing.

[trpornizle]

En güncel ve kaliteli pornoları izleyebileceğiniz ve sexfilmiseyretebileceğiniz youjizz kalitesindeki porn sitemize hepinizi bekleriz. porn izle , porn , rokettube ve escort sitesini de unutmayın lütfen : ) Hea bi de sex izle var..
thanks google.

[pornolar]

Their policy recommendations are exactly what Dems should be pushing and are written in clear, accessible language.

[auto insurance quotes]

Interesting post. I have been wondering about this issue,so thanks for posting.

[Nike Dunk SB]

This is not necessarily an ideal solution, but it's certainly a more realistic one. Adopting such an approach, might also pay dividends for the U.S. in getting Islamabad to devote resources to taking on jihadist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Haqqani network and, of course, remnants of al-Qaida. Continuing the current strategy will only ensure that U.S. and Pakistani policymakers will remain at loggerheads, and that progress in Afghanistan will remain uncertain.

[Nike Air Max]

Thank you for this article. That's all I can say. You organize the article very well and your writing ability is really wonderful.As an English learner, this post is a little too difficult for me to understand. I hope one day I could write such good articles. I hope my English will be better and better.

[Visvim]

How many people are going to have their past on display forever in 1s and 0s from now on, and will it change the way society views youthful foolishness?
In the future, people will submit a copy of their best sex tape with their resume.

[Nike Free]

Dreaming is the design stage of wealth creation. By dreaming
therefore we make the mental picture of that wealth a reality. The size of your success in wealth creation ultimately depends on the size of your dreams. If you do not dream about wealth creation therefore you cannot create wealth.

[Ed Hardy]

I hope that you are going to come up with the complete information soon. Highly appreciated. Thanks.

[hermes kelly bags]

Well Bob, unlike these other sneaker fiends or you perhaps I don’t have 250 pairs stashed in my closet. I come from a family that believes if you want, you earn it. Much like the Americans dream. So for that reason the only pair of sneaks is the ones that I have earned. So since I started making money I have copped every pair of Jordan

[Jordan Shoes]

Work banishes those three great evils : boredom , vice, and poverty.
a

[Nike free run plus]

So for that reason the only pair of sneaks is the ones that I have earned. So since I started making money I have copped every pair of Jordan

[moncler2011]

Dal 1952, Moncler Outlet, che è entrata nella linea del commercio straccio stato notato per il suo design alla moda, e Piumini Moncler ha vinto grande fama sia in patria che in larga 1980 da work.Moncler 2011 dedicato e diligente non solo si potrebbe offrire la necessità di base, ma anche prendere gli elementi di personalitiy e la diversificazione in considerazione per rendere il tessuto giusto per le vostre necessità personali. Piumini Moncler Donna - Sul nostro sito vi promettiamo che i prezzi incredibili e servizio clienti eccellente in tutti i disegni Moncler Sito sono forniti. Benvenuti!

[moncler2011]

Moncler Sito Ufficiale - Tenere fuori al freddo con uno di questi design esclusivo Piumini Moncler!

Non importa quale parte del paese in cui vivi,o in quale periodo dell'anno è, tutti hanno bisogno di una giacca o un cappotto che è funzionale ed elegante. Qui è la scelta migliore. Moncler 2011 sono così attraente nella ricerca che può essere facilmente invidia gli altri. Moncler è una vecchia, ma non per argomento data. Abbiamo appena cann't ignorare l'esistenza di Moncler Giubbotti per le vendite a caldo sono qua e là. Design classico, qualità dei materiali e dei colori disponibili e sizes.Welcome alla fabbrica Moncler Uomo donna negozio e si potrebbe pensare che la vostra scelta è giusta.