Off In La-La Land

by hilzoy

From today's Presidential press conference:

"QUESTION: Mr. President, three years ago, you argued that an invasion of Iraq would create a new stage of Arab-Israeli peace. And yet today there is an Iraqi prime minister who has been sharply critical of Israel. Arab governments, despite your arguments, who first criticized Hezbollah, have now changed their tune. Now they're sharply critical of Israel. And despite from both of you warnings to Syria and Iran to back off support from Hezbollah, effectively, Mr. President, your words are being ignored.

QUESTION: So what has happened to America's clout in this region that you've committed yourself to transform?

BUSH: It's an interesting period because, instead of having foreign policies based upon trying to create a sense of stability, we have a foreign policy that addresses the root causes of violence and instability. For a while, American foreign policy was just, "Let's hope everything is calm" -- kind of, managed calm. But beneath the surface brewed a lot of resentment and anger that was manifested on September the 11th. And so we've taken a foreign policy that says: On the one hand, we will protect ourselves from further attack in the short run by being aggressive in chasing down the killers and bringing them to justice. And make no mistake: They're still out there, and they would like to harm our respective peoples because of what we stand for.

In the long term, to defeat this ideology -- and they're bound by an ideology -- you defeat it with a more hopeful ideology called freedom. And, look, I fully understand some people don't believe it's possible for freedom and democracy to overcome this ideology of hatred. I understand that. I just happen to believe it is possible. And I believe it will happen.

And so what you're seeing is, you know, a clash of governing styles. For example, you know, the notion of democracy beginning to emerge scares the ideologues, the totalitarians, those who want to impose their vision. It just frightens them. And so they respond. They've always been violent.

You know, I hear this amazing kind of editorial thought that says, all of a sudden, Hezbollah's become violent because we're promoting democracy. They have been violent for a long period of time. Or Hamas? One reason why the Palestinians still suffer is because there are militants who refuse to accept a Palestinian state based upon democratic principles. And so what the world is seeing is a desire by this country and our allies to defeat the ideology of hate with an ideology that has worked and that brings hope.

And one of the challenges, of course, is to convince people that Muslims would like to be free, that there's other people other than people in Britain and America that would like to be free in the world. There's this kind of almost -- kind of a weird kind of elitism that says well maybe -- maybe certain people in certain parts of the world shouldn't be free; maybe it's best just to let them sit in these tyrannical societies. And our foreign policy rejects that concept. And we don't accept it. And so we're working.

BUSH: And this is -- I said the other day, when these attacks took place, I said it should be a moment of clarity for people to see the stakes in the 21st century. I mean, now there's an unprovoked attack on a democracy. Why? I happen to believe because progress is being made toward democracies. And I believe that -- I also believe that Iran would like to exert additional influence in the region; a theocracy would like to spread its influence using surrogates. And so I'm as determined as ever to continue fostering a foreign policy based upon liberty. And I think it's going to work unless we lose our nerve and quit. And this government isn't going to quit."

Wow.

President Bush hasn't said anything this clueless since, oh, a few days ago at the G8 summit in St. Petersburg, when he told someone from China that "This is your neighborhood, doesn't take you long to get home." (Distance from St. Petersburg to Washington DC: 4482 miles. Distance to Beijing: 3770 miles.)

First, and most obviously, I would have thought that the unmistakable message of our conduct over the past few weeks is: If people in a Middle Eastern country risk their lives to throw out a large and powerful country, we will take credit for their achievements and write all sorts of self-congratulatory columns about how the Bush administration is making democracy burst forth all over, but as soon as Israel asks us to, we will be more than happy to toss them overboard and let them drown.

Second, there's this astonishing remark: "the notion of democracy beginning to emerge scares the ideologues, the totalitarians, those who want to impose their vision. It just frightens them. And so they respond." Who are these ideologues who are so frightened of democracy? I wouldn't have thought that they include Hamas, which just won the Palestinian elections, or Hezbollah, which did quite well in the recent Lebanese elections (harder to read since it's not one person, one vote, but the Hezbollah/Amal alliance cleaned up in the Shi'a community), or Ahmedinejad, who just, well, won an election in Iran. In fact, the only party who could possibly be seen as in any way responsible for the current crisis in Lebanon who can with any plausibility be described as scared of elections is Bashar al Assad of Syria, and offhand I would not have pegged him as the hidden hand behind the current crisis.

There are, of course, all sorts of other people in the Middle East who are genuinely frightened of elections -- the House of Sa'ud leaps to mind -- but somehow I doubt that President Bush was talking about them.

You have to wonder: does George Bush just not know that people our government describes as terrorists have been winning a lot of elections in the Middle East? Or that for the most part, the people who oppose the expansion of democracy in the region are our allies? I'd guess not; the following anecdote suggests that he has a bit of trouble keeping these things straight:

"On his return, Bush held a press conference during which, it seemed, he could barely contain his enthusiasm. In response to a question about progress in providing electricity, producing oil, and controlling violence, he swerved into a discussion of his encounter with the speaker of Iraq's parliament, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani. The President didn't seem to recall his name but readily remembered his religion:

"The Sunni—I was impressed, by the way, by the Speaker—Denny Hastert told me I'd like him; Denny met with him. And I was impressed by him. He's a fellow that had been put in prison by Saddam and, interestingly enough, put in prison by us. And he made a decision to participate in the government. And he was an articulate person. He talked about running the parliament. It was interesting to see a person that could have been really bitter talk about the skills he's going to need to bring people together to run the parliament. And I found him to be a hopeful person. They tell me that he wouldn't have taken my phone call a year ago—I think I might have shared this with you at one point in time—and there I was, sitting next to the guy. And I think he enjoyed it as much as I did. It was a refreshing moment."

The incurious White House press corps never asked the obvious question: Why had the United States jailed al-Mashhadani? According to Sunnis and Shiites at the top levels of government in Iraq, al-Mashhadani was a member of, or closely associated with, two al-Qaeda-linked terrorists groups, Ansar Islam and Ansar al-Sunna. The first operated until 2003 in a no man's land high in the mountains between Iraqi Kurdistan and Iran while the second has been responsible for some of the worse terrorist attacks on Iraq's Shiites and Kurds. The Iraqis say they gave the Americans specific intelligence on al-Mashhadani's affiliations with those groups and his actions in support of terrorists.

None of this seems to have mattered to a president who is as casual in his approach to national security as his defense secretary. At the same press conference Bush repeated that "the American people have got to understand that Iraq is a part of the war on terror.""

That same impressive, hopeful person with whom Bush so enjoyed his chat recently said this:

"Some people say `we saw your beheading, kidnappings and killing. In the end we even started kidnapping women who are our honor,"' al-Mashhadani said. "These acts are not the work of Iraqis. I am sure that he who does this is a Jew and the son of a Jew."

And this:

"Parliament Speaker Mahmud al-Mashhadani, a Sunni Arab, told Al-Sharqiyah television in a July 9 interview from Bahrain that Iraqis who carry out sectarian attacks are fulfilling a "Zionist sectarian agenda." He said the perpetrators of such acts "whether they know it or not, are linked to the most malicious agenda the world has ever known, that being the Israeli [intelligence agency] Mossad's agenda that entered Iraq through the occupation."

Al-Mashhadani also claimed that those behind the sectarian violence received "their orders from Tel Aviv and the leaders of the death squads."

"The Jews hiding behind Iraqi faces are known to us, and the day will come when we purge our country of them," he warned ominously."

Guess what? He won elections too.

Personally, I think that the people of the Middle East deserve to be free, and that in the long run this will address at least some of the root causes of the region's instability. (As I wrote here, on the occasion of Hamas' victory.) But the crucial phrase here is, of course, 'in the long run', which I take to mean: sometime in the next century or two, but probably not for at least several decades. How to get through that transitional period is a very serious problem, which deserves very serious thought. Somehow, I don't think this administration will be up to the job -- especially if the President doesn't know that this problem so much as exists.

Comments

[abb1]

This Bush guy used to make me laugh, now I just feel sick.

[rilkefan]

"Who are these ideologues who are so frightened of democracy?"

Maybe the Syrians, maybe the Iranians? Maybe a group or two in Iraq that stand to lose influence?

[Steward Beta]

Maybe the Syrians, maybe the Iranians? Maybe a group or two in Iraq that stand to lose influence?

Maybe the US, maybe the republican party? maybe a group or two in the US who are afraid to lose influence(Xtian Coalition, Neo-cons)?

[rilkefan]

I doubt Bush was referring to the Xian coalition.

I myself am off to La-La-Land or somewhere a few hours' drive away for a while - I hope rilkekind enjoys flying. Keep up the good work, everybody, and try not to get too famous.

[Tim]

That press conference was even better seeing it on CNN in the original gibberish. The cerebrum has obviously left the building.

[Phil]

Hey, listen, in that first response we've finally gotten him to admit that violence might have root causes, and that the 9/11 attacks might have had reasons (" . . . a lot of resentment and anger . . .") beyond "crazy freedom-hating Musselmen." Baby steps, hilzoy!

Now if we can just get him caught being fellated, we can get him out of office and move on.

[JakeB]

Well, George has a lot to be proud of, Iraq having more religious and press freedom than Russia and all that.

[Bruce Baugh]

By the way, the facts of Iraqi governance answer a question, "Where were all the liberal bloggers when it was time to celebrate the Iraqi elections?" The answer is, "At least some of us wanted to see just who these people would turn out to be, because we don't think there's any magic in elections as such." And sure enough, it turns out that Iraq is once again run by people I don't much approve of.

[Steven Donegal]

Until the last few days, I had always discounted the psychological theories around Bush's relationship with his Dad and how that affected policy. But after Maliki's speech blaming the US for abandoning the Shia in '91 and now this utter repudiation of everything his father's foreign policy stood for, I'm coming around to the view that our President is an adolescent rebelling against his father. Since he has advisors around him who seriously believe its the US' place in history to cleanse the Middle East (of what I'm still not quite sure, but cleansing must occur), we are in some scary times.

[CaseyL]

This numbnuts, this international joke, was elected (more or less) by We The People. The same People who - more than ever, according to the latest polls - still think Saddam had WMD, and who still think Saddam was in cahoots with OBL to pull off the 9/11 attacks.

Given that, I'm not so sure we have much call to criticize any other country's electoral choices.

[CharleyCarp]

Hil, I think it distinctly possible that the Gaza Round of this thing (the German press was calling it The War With No Name earlier in the week) was touched off by people frightened of democracy: an expat faction of Hamas that did not want the democratic adoption of the prisoners' plan.

Of course the fact that the Israelis appeased the anti-peace faction on the other side, as it has done so many times in the past, makes one wonder whether they too should be included in the list of those who do not want democracy. (I'm not saying it's Israeli policy, but I'd also not say that if it is Israeli policy, it's irrational).

[John Thullen]

It is now the U.S. Government's foreign policy (using my hard-earned tax dollars but not Paris Hilton's) to no longer "manage calm" but instead to become a revolutionary force and to permit violence to become a clarifying moment.

And yet the posting rules at Obsidian Wings have been strengthened to "manage calm" and to blunt revolutionary rhetoric and cheap violent talk.

Which is good .... the second part, that is.

It's hot as hell outside. And the contradictions ... they heighten.

[Adam]

Max Headroom in '08!

[hilzoy]

From now on, whenever everything is going to hell in a handbasket and I have well and truly screwed things up, I will refer to the resulting nightmare as "birth pangs". (To replace "just making omelettes, doncha know!")

[John Thullen]

Methinks Condi has finally embraced the rhetoric of Malcolm X over that of MLK.

[Bruce Baugh]

CaseyL: I just meant that I suspect I might have reason to not quite whole-heartedly celebrate the Iraqi elections as a triumph in the march toward universal human liberty and dignity, and find I was right about that. I feel the same way about recent US elections.

[sglover]

This numbnuts, this international joke, was elected (more or less) by We The People. The same People who - more than ever, according to the latest polls - still think Saddam had WMD, and who still think Saddam was in cahoots with OBL to pull off the 9/11 attacks.

Horrifying to realize that President Fuckwit is just a symptom, isn't it?

Assuming there's a substantial power shift in Congress this November, I really think that removing Bush and Cheney needs to become a priority. Conyers, at least, seems determined to get some major truth-telling accomplished.

[cleek]

I will refer to the resulting nightmare as "birth pangs".

don't forget, that phrase has special meaning for the End Timers. Condi's use of it may not have been ignorant of that fact.

[Ara]

What on earth did he mean by "There's a lot of suffering in the Palestinian territory because militant Hamas is trying to stop the advance of democracy"? I don't mean to ask this in a polemical way, I honestly just want to know what he is talking about.

[Ara]

Or how about this: "Isn't it interesting, as a democracy takes hold in Iraq, that Al Qaida steps up its efforts to murder and bomb in order to stop the democracy?"

[Ara]

"We've made it clear that we care about wanton destruction." This reminds me.

[bob mcmanus]

There comes a time, like when driving blidfolded thru a school zone or performing open heart surgery with no medical training when words like stupid, incompetent, or willful ignorance no longer are adequate.

Yes, if I were to perform heart surgery I guess you could call me merely incompetent. It would be so generous to the undeserving that it would reflect back on your character more than on mine.

[pitb]

It sad to see Hilzoy's mental and moral faculties have been ravaged by Bush Derangement Syndrome.

"Ahmedinejad, who just, well, won an election in Iran"

From Wikipedia:

There were seven people running for the post out of more than a thousand initial candidates, most of whom were disqualified by the Guardian Council, which holds veto power over all political candidates in Iran

How low does one have to stoop to be unable to distinguish between democracy and the mullah controlled government of Iran?

It appears Bush has plenty of company in La-La Land.

"Personally, I think that the people of the Middle East deserve to be free,"

But you just don't care enough to provide any kind of real leadership. It's a good thing these people have Bush and Blair fighting for them as opposed to just sitting around and wishing for it. Perhaps you prefer them to continue their suffering without any hope? These people have suffered for so long now. They deserve more than cheap talk.

[Andrew]

Horrifying to realize that President Fuckwit is just a symptom, isn't it?

I think there are plenty of ways to express your displeasure with the President without resorting to profanity, thank you.

As to the spirit of your comment, I think Mencken said it best: Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

[Andrew]

It sad to see Hilzoy's mental and moral faculties have been ravaged by Bush Derangement Syndrome.

And I'm sure we can do without this as well. Attempts to debunk hilzoy's argument are welcome. The use of ad hominem is not.

They deserve more than cheap talk.

Cheap talk like praising the Cedar Revolution when it doesn't cost us anything, but refusing to step in to try and preserve the results of that revolution when Israel is undermining the credibility of the Lebanese government?

[cleek]

There were seven people running for the post out of more than a thousand initial candidates, most of whom were disqualified by the Guardian Council, which holds veto power over all political candidates in Iran

so wait, there's some kind of gatekeeping organization that approves candidates before they can appear on the final ballot ? someone should tell the RNC and DNC - sounds like something they'd be good at.

[CaseyL]

From Josh Marshall, an excerpt from "The Price of Loyalty":

He'd met Sharon briefly, Bush said, when they had flown over Israel in a helicopter on a visit in December 1998. "Just saw him that one time. We flew over the Palestinian camps," Bush said sourly. "Looked real bad down there. I don't see much we can do over there at this point. I think it's time to pull out of that situation."

And that was it, according to [Paul] O'Neill and several other people in the room. The Arab-Israeli conflict was a mess, and the United States would disengage. The combatants would have to work it out on their own.

[Colin] Powell said such a move might be hasty. He remarked on the violence on the West Bank and Gaza and on its roots. He stressed that a pullback by the United States would unleash Sharon and Israeli army. "The consequences of that could be dire," he said, "especially for the Palestinians."

Bush shrugged. "Maybe that's the best way to get some things back in balance."

Powell seemed startled.

"Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things," Bush said.

And with that, the meeting - which took place, BTW, 10 days after Bush took office - focused on Iraq.

[Bec]

Ara -
What on earth did he mean by "There's a lot of suffering in the Palestinian territory because militant Hamas is trying to stop the advance of democracy"? I don't mean to ask this in a polemical way, I honestly just want to know what he is talking about.

I believe he was referring to this:

the June 25 kidnapping of Corporal Gilad Shalit and the violent attacks by Hamas “have precipitated the current events in Gaza.”
He said Hamas, which heads the Palestinian Authority (PA), “should release and return the kidnapped Israeli soldier immediately,” and said the Palestinian Authority has the responsibility to “stop all acts of violence and terror.”
“Hamas has done the opposite,” he said. “It's been complicit in perpetrating violence, terror and hostage-taking.”
USINFO.STATE.GOV

[hilzoy]

Bec: I can't speak for Ara, but had I asked his question, I would have meant not "what violence is Bush referring to?", but "why would one think that that violence was designed to stop democracy? After all, Hamas just won the elections; it's not as though democracy is somehow threatening them."

[Bec]

hilzoy,
My understanding (such as it is) is that Bush is saying that Hamas, in the act of kidnaping Shalit, was undermining Palestine's newly formed democracy.

[Jason Kuznicki]

Who are these ideologues who are so frightened of democracy? I wouldn't have thought that they include Hamas, which just won the Palestinian elections, or Hezbollah, which did quite well in the recent Lebanese elections

Hamas and Hezbollah are both parties devoted to establishing Islamic theocracy, first in the occupied territories, then in Israel. They may play along wtih democracy while they have to, but they have no desire to see it continue.

[abb1]

Well, Jason, Islamist movements devoted to establishing Islamic theocracy seem to be doing much-much better under democratic systems of Lebanon and Palestine - than under US supported un-democratic systems like Egypt, Saudi and Jordan.

So then, why should they be frightened of democracy? Seems to me it's mostly the US puppet governments in the region who are frightened of democracy.

Not that anything's wrong with that, I'm sure I would've been frightened of democracy too if I lived there.

[CaseyL]

Democracy's one of the best examples of GIGO ever.

It doesn't guarantee good government, or even sane government. SFAICT, the only advantage democracy has over other forms of government is the "orderly transition" thing: people are able to change who's in charge without resorting to insurrection.

[Steward Beta]

Horrifying to realize that President Fuckwit is just a symptom, isn't it?

Really you should not insult all the Fuckwit's of this world by comparing them to our great leader.

It doesn't guarantee good government, or even sane government. SFAICT, the only advantage democracy has over other forms of government is the "orderly transition" thing: people are able to change who's in charge without resorting to insurrection.

A feature that is not to be underestimated.

[SomeOtherDude]

Hamas and Hezbollah are both parties devoted to establishing Islamic theocracy, first in the occupied territories, then in Israel. They may play along wtih democracy while they have to, but they have no desire to see it continue.

Posted by: Jason Kuznicki | July 29, 2006 at 12:24 PM

That's funny, I think this about most right-wingers in the US and Europe.

[CharleyCarp]

SFAICT, the only advantage democracy has over other forms of government is the "orderly transition" thing: people are able to change who's in charge without resorting to insurrection.

Separation of power is a big damn deal too, except when you have two branches in thrall to a cult or personality. (I'll readily concede that it's possible to have D without SOP, but I don't really see it working vice versa).

[CharleyCarp]

cult OF personality

[CaseyL]

Stewart and Charley: That kind of begs the question, what happens when elections no longer change who's in charge (i.e., the names might be different, but not the agenda), and there's no separation of powers to rein in a lunatic, out of control regime?

That is, at what point does one legitimately conclude the democratic process is irrevocably broken, and opt for insurrection?

[Jason Kuznicki]

Oh, I quite agree that Bush's faith in democracy is badly misplaced and entirely inexplicable. I just think we ought to be clear that undemocratic groups are certainly able to manipulate the process. Indeed, it seems that that's virtually all that happens in the Middle East.

[CharleyCarp]

at what point does one . . . opt for insurrection?

Not a moment before one is reasonably sure of prevailing. (And, to mix threads, that requires the application of Powell-like principles to the insurrection. If you can't meet the Powell Doctrine [with only minor adjustments] with your insurrection, you can't have one).

And if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone, anyhow.

[Andrew]

at what point does one . . . opt for insurrection?

Not a minute before you've got real evidence that the system doesn't work.

[CharleyCarp]

real evidence that the system doesn't work

Yes. To further clarify: doesn't work now, and isn't reasonably likely to work in the near future.

[Tim R.]

This has probably been said many times before, but what a competent Bush Doctrine would have championed is liberalism, not just democracy and not just freedom. I love freedom and democracy, but I don't think a popularly-elected government that freely chooses to supress speech, freedom of religion, women's rights, etc. is what, say, Paul Wolfowitz sought to achieve. In his view (I suspect), such a regime would not heal the root causes of terrorism.

The term "freedom" when applied to a society's political evolution is awfully slippery and content-free in a way that "liberalism" isn't. Liberalism is commonly understood to imply a bundle of specific good things: protection of individuals and their rights, limited constitutional gov't, free markets, an open society, organizations in society other than the usual State/Party or tribal-affiliated groups, and so on. And while democracy is an important part of modern liberalism, in many instances "democracy" and "liberalism" are opposing vectors. So it is important to endorse the right one, to put first things first.

The irony is that conservative organs have been trashing the "noble title of liberal" (F.A. Hayek's words, I think) domestically for so long, that a Republcian U.S. President cannot say that the interest of the U.S. is to promote liberalism in the Middle East. Which sucks, because now the President can't use the best word to describe our system to the people he is selling it to (the Iraqis, other Arab nations, and Iranians). Nor can he be rigourous or clear to the American people about what exactly they are exporting and why it is vital they do so. So he just praises democracy and freedom in religious & emancipatory language. Now, this is definitely not outside the pale for the U.S. President - there's a long precedent for it - but it's just nowhere enough. In rhetoric he portrays democracy as either a panacea or a deus ex machina. When democracy doesn't lead to desirable ends (for anybody other than militias) then Bush, and the U.S., are rhetorically trapped.

And I don't think this is mere semantics, or a minor quibble. Labels matter. A lot of people spent 2004-2005 talking about "framing". The administrations failure to use the correct label has clouded and distorted its public diplomacy (rhetoric and propaganda), which are important and can be used for good ends. Obviously it doesn't matter anywhere near as much as the concrete situation in Iraq, troop levels, mismanagement of the occupation, and other grim realities and blunders. Still, this matters somehow. I can't articulate exactly why in this space here, but the jarring absence of that word "liberalism" sticks in my craw. So yeah, like abb1, Bush just makes me feel sick. He never really got it, and never will.

[Tim R.]

In my comment above, I'm definitely not saying the U.S. Iraq policy would have worked, or that we'd be witnessing both peace and a new birth of freedom in the Middle East (and a pony!), if Bush had just used a different word.

I just wanted to point out that he's witnessing his own rhetoric turn against him and paint him into corners (not that he'll take it seriously or be intellectually honest - ha!- about it.) Just saying it didn't have to be this way.

[trilobite]

In the continuing Orwell-ization of our language, "democracy" now means "whatever serves the United States." Syn. "good."

Using this definition, Bush's statement becomes coherent.