Face It, Lefties: Bush Was Right
Donal Blaney argues that if it wasn't for George Bush's example in Iraq, then Gadaffi's downfall could not have been possible.
22 Aug 2011, 13:30
Do you agree with Donal?
Barack Obama graciously interrupted his latest holiday to give his views on the fall of Gaddafi. In congratulating the Libyan people, Obama once again failed to give credit to the man whose moral leadership gave succour to civilians who wanted to fight off dictatorships across the region - George W Bush.
It was Bush who - yes, as a neoconservative - pursued a policy of interventionism in Iraq and Afghanistan in the face of bien pensant liberals who patronisingly took the view that freedom was a Western notion that was not in the Arab psyche.
And it was Bush who said that freedom was a universal yearning in the hearts of men and women across the world - and who put the might of the United States behind his rhetoric.
The lack of credit afforded to George W Bush comes as no surprise. Still to this day we see left-liberals give credit to Mikhail Gorbachev for the collapse of the Soviet Union, rather than the man who deserves the real credit - Ronald Reagan. Praising Bush for giving hope to the ordinary people of the Middle East simply does not fit with the mainstream media narrative that America's 43rd President was a reckless cowboy who swaggered across the globe without regard to the wishes of the United Nations.
The truth is that if it had been left to the United Nations alone, Saddam Hussein would still ruthlessly be murdering those who dared to stand up to him, Afghanistan would still be a safe haven for jihadists to wage war on the West and Egypt, Tunisia and Libya would still be autocratic states whose citizens were oppressed by dictators. The United Nations is, at best, a toothless talking shop and, at worst, an excuse for inactivity, cowardice and cant on the part of governments.
So as we toast the bravery of those who stood up to Gaddafi in Libya and who have toppled his regime, let us also raise a glass in thanks to George W Bush - the man who pointed the way to freedom in the Middle East and to whom history will be kinder than the mainstream media and his successor are today.
Comments (12)
Subscribe to this posts's comments feed
LOL, good to see the new blog introducing some Daily Mash-style satire.
22/08/2011 13:54I congratulate Donal on expressing a sentiment that I suggested would be espoused back on February 24: http://jamesdboys.com/2011/02/24/meanwhile-somewhere-in-texas%e2%80%a6-2/
It is not beyond the realm of possibility that in years to come, people will look back at the events that occurred this year and link it all back to W. and his polices that were so reviled at the time.
22/08/2011 14:33George W. Bush as this generation’s Harry S. Truman? Could be!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Funniest thing I've read all day!
22/08/2011 14:37There is so much wrongness in this post it hurts my eyes just looking at it. I have never seen so many tired out, wannabe right-wing catchphrases in one article.
No one ever doubted that there was a desire for freedom in the Middle East. We've know that at least since the various revolts against Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War. What we disagreed with is the idea that such freedom could be imposed by military force from the outside. The events in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt all bear that out.
Obama’s current holiday is his ninth since taking office. Obama has spent all or part of 38 days on holiday away from the White House. He has also made 14 visits to Camp David spanning all or part of 32 days, for a total of 70 days.Bush, at this point in his first term, had made 14 visits to his Texas ranch spanning all or part of 102 days. He also made 40 visits to Camp David spanning all or part of 123 days. His holiday total at this point in his presidency was all or part of 225 days away.
22/08/2011 16:46This isn't a popular view but I think it is accurate
22/08/2011 17:10@ Supes
I can recall quite clearly the claims that freedom wasn't part of the Arab mentality, repeated happily by certain commentators over here and by the oppressive leaders.
I'd recommend the Comment Is Free section of the Guardian all those years ago.
Can't you?
22/08/2011 21:28I’m afraid that I don’t recall anyone making that case, certainly not anyone on the left who was worth listening to.
Are you sure that you are not confusing one of Ian’s, Guido or Donal’s numerous straw men with an actual argument made by any serious liberal commentator?
I mean, do I get to start tarring all of the conservatives with the Daily Mail comments section brush?
I think that we would both agree that that would be rather childish tit for tat point scoring. (but then again, this is a Donal Blaney blog post).
I seriously doubt that there were many young Arab men and women looking at the daily carnage in Iraq, perpetrated by insurgents and coalition forces alike and saying “yeah! Wanna get me some of that!”
On the contrary, numerous studies found that the sorry state of affairs in both Iraq and Afghanistan disincentivised many grassroots movements, and certainly despots in the region used such chaos as a scarecrow to keep their populations in line.
The uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and Syria were wholly organic. It could convincingly be argued that the Obama doctrine of not getting involved has been far more successful than Bush’s doctrine has been.
22/08/2011 23:08You would be right but American marines admitted on Fox news last year that their aim in Afganistan is to take care of opium poppy cultivation and to protect fields and farmers. And we know that before the war started this agricultural product:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_gOaPeSCME
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Afghanistan_opium_poppy_cultivation_1994-2007b.PNG
Unbelievable, like if they don't know what happens with it after it being cropped.
And there are at least 100.000 dead in Iraq since 2003 and we see no end to this war. Life standard never grew in Iraq compare to pre-war era and human life costs nothing there. Yes, that is what we call the democracy, or is it?
23/08/2011 00:30Surely the point that a lot of people were making was that permament change needs to be from internal battles, not enforced externally.
It is difficult to play "what if" with history. But surely we can recognise that part of the success of the Arab uprisings so far is due to the fact that they have been led by ordinary people. The action of a revolutionary citizen in these countries can provide a banner for like minded people to unite around. An external force is much easier to rally against, and can foster resentment.
24/08/2011 00:09What a joke this article is, it makes the senile ramblings of David Duff on Bob Pipers website seem intelligent.The carnage and mayhem inflicted on Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein is a war crime itself. Whatever feeeling there was in the heart of Bush it certainly wasn;t the feeling of freedom.The only interest Bush has ever had is oil; his whole political career is built on it,moving from his and his fathers natural habitat of Eastern Seaboard Republican Maine to Texas and big OIL; or was that to dry out, or dodge the Vietnam Draft, with the help of his father(great patriot, Dubbya, send plenty to fight and die, but keep well away from the action yourself, just like his puppet masters Rumsfeld and Cheyney)What hope did Bush give to the people of the Middle East, his whole actions over Iraq were for the control of Iraqs oil in the iterests of America, that was always the purpose of Rumsfeld and Cheyney and the other leading Neo-Conservatives.The invasion of Afghanistan was another disaster,as has been proved since, a 10 year war and billions of pounds down the drain more than likely 1OOOs of innocent Afghan civilians killed who never had any connection whatsoever with Osama Bin Laden or Alqaida, not to mention 300 or more young British soldiers killed in a war that we(British) should have known from our history that we would never have a chance of winning. It beggars belief to think that Bush would have been on the side of the ordinary Tunisian and Egyptian people protesting against their hated regimes,Mubarak was the creation of U.S. policy , and was quite content to preserve his rotten corrupt regime, likewise Tunisia. If Bush had been in the White House at the start of the Arab Spring, make no mistake about it, he would have given Mubarak and the Egyptian generals every assistance they required, the last thing Bush Cheyney and Rumsfeld wanted was the overthrow of Mubarak and to be replaced by the possibility of a coalition of the Mulim Brotherhood and socialists and secularists. The fist thing a government of such a coalition would do would be to scrap the agreements with Israel and throw U.S. policy in the Middle East into crisis immediately. So I think Mr Blaney you should get your text and history books back out and have a proper look at "Dubbya).
24/08/2011 01:43This is the key line traders are picking up on … what is Bernanke suggesting?
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20110826a.htm
“I have confidence that our European colleagues fully appreciate what is at stake in the difficult issues they are now confronting and that, over time, they will take all necessary and appropriate steps to address those issues effectively and comprehensively. ”
This is my interpretation
“I have confidence that our European colleagues fully appreciate what is at stake [THE EURO] in the difficult issues they are now confronting [BREAK UP OF THE EURO] and that, over time [IN A FEW MONTHS], they will take all necessary and appropriate steps [CREATION OF NEW CURRENCIES] to address those issues effectively [MULTI SPEED EURO INTEREST RATES] and comprehensively [FINALLY SORT OUT THE EURO]. “
27/08/2011 09:11See for example Polly Toynbee in the Guardian, 20 August 2003:
"[Downing Street argued] a democratic Arab state would light a beacon for a new wave of modern Middle Eastern freedom. That insouciant cultural naivety airbrushed out the nature of Islam, hatred of the west and Arab scepticism about George Bush's hazy notions of democracy."
28/08/2011 10:32