Bush must face reality...

[CptSternn]

Bush must face reality of force-fed democracy

http://news.**********/s/usatoday/200...A2BHNlYwM3NDI-

Spreading democracy around the world has become the Bush administration's manifest destiny.

That's the doctrine oozing from the scrap heap of reasons the president has given for invading Iraq, toppling Saddam Hussein and continuing the U.S. occupation. It grew in significance last year when President Bush pronounced, during his second inaugural address, that "it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture."

And now, as pressure mounts on the president to explain why U.S. forces remain in Iraq as that fractured country slips deeper into civil war, Bush increasingly offers up the need to democratize the world as his raison d'être for hanging on in Iraq. In other words, Iraq is the Khyber Pass of the president's defense of America. It's the passageway through which he wants us to believe freedom must flow to the rest of the world.

"In this new century, the advance of freedom is a vital element of our strategy to protect the American people, and to secure the peace for generations to come," Bush said last week to a gathering organized by the Freedom House, an organization based in Washington that advocates spreading democracy. "We're fighting the terrorists across the world because we know that if America were not fighting this enemy in other lands, we'd be facing them here in our own land."

That's the kind of grandiose vision of this country that journalist John L. O'Sullivan espoused in 1845, when he invoked the phrase "manifest destiny" while claiming that America had a divine right to expand its borders from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean. The right of our "manifest destiny to over spread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us," O'Sullivan wrote, was inextricably linked to "the great experiment of liberty and ... self government entrusted to us."

Bush sounded a similar theme last week. "Freedom is contagious," he said in the question-and-answer session that followed his Freedom House speech. "As liberty begins to spread in the Middle East, more people will demand it. And we should not shirk our duty" to help them obtain it. "The worst thing that could happen, in my judgment, for the peace of the world is for the United States to lose our nerve and retreat."

But democracy works best when it is homegrown, not when it is imposed on a nation by outsiders.

Iraq's fledgling democracy was force-fed to it by an American occupation force. There's little to suggest that, left to their own devices, Iraq's disparate factions would opt for the kind of multi-group democracy the Bush administration is trying to impose upon them. Ironically, Iraq's prime minister, who gained office through a democratic process ordained by the Bush administration, is now warning the United States to stop interfering with his country's fractured political process.

The news out of Afghanistan, another country that had democracy foisted upon it by a U.S. invasion force, isn't much better. Freedom of religion, a basic tenet of our democratic system, doesn't exist for Muslims who convert to Christianity. Facing a death sentence for rejecting Islam to become Catholic, Abdul Rahman had to be spirited out of Afghanistan before he could be tried for this "crime."

And the Bush administration is still reeling from the results of the democratic process it urged on the Palestinian Authority. In January, Hamas - which is widely viewed as a terrorist group - won control of the Palestinian government in a democratic election. But Hamas' leaders say they remain committed to the destruction of Israel.

All of this brings to mind W.E.B. DuBois' warning that "most men today cannot conceive of a freedom that does not involve somebody's slavery." Democracy is no magic potion for the bad behavior of people who have little tolerance for it.

That's a very painful reality that President Bush must someday face.

DeWayne Wickham writes weekly for USA TODAY.



This article really caught my eye as it says things that I said years ago. Even uses many of the same phrases, even though it wasn't me that wrote it this time.

But the major point it brings out, and why I am posting it for discussion, is what exactly does the bush admin plan to do once 'democracy' is acheived in these various areas?

I mean, as the article, and history, now shows - bush brought democracy to Palestein. Thats right, he was on the news, proud of the fact he brought 'free' elections outside of Arafat! You can google dozens of articles on bush claiming this is the new Palestein, this is the new wave of the future, etc. Bush gave those people a voice.

And they used it to say in one big unison voice 'screw you'. They voted in the party the bush admin not only desipises, but has listed on it's own website as a foreign terrorist organisation.

And it's happening again. Warlords are re-taking areas throughout Afghanistan through 'elections'. And even now, the US is pressuring the first 'elected' prime minster to step down, as they don't like him either.

What good is it to 'bring democracy' to a country, then threaten them if they vote for the candidates they like that go against US policy. Is that true democracy? If an outside nation is able to directly influence your elections and remove your heads of state, are you free and is that a democracy?

Or, is it more like the bush admin is becoming the next imperialistic nation - spreading out across the globe, claiming to bring democracy, but in reality, bringing less choice and options to the people than they had prior to the US intervention?

What say ye?

[CptSternn]

...and once again another post which appears to be dated. With the power of ol gw now disappearing like piss down a drain, the idea of bush actually facing reality is no longer something I can rant about, as he is facing it every day.

Can't wait until the new congress convenes and start their oversight and investigations!

[Johnny Gnar Gnar]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

...and once again another post which appears to be dated. With the power of ol gw now disappearing like piss down a drain, the idea of bush actually facing reality is no longer something I can rant about, as he is facing it every day.

Can't wait until the new congress convenes and start their oversight and investigations!

Hear, Hear! I think that if Congress was willing to try to impeach a president for getting some lovin' in the Oval Office, they should at least TRY to impeach a warmongering war criminal!

[Morrigan_Dubh]

Let's hope those who colluded with him get their come-uppance too. He couldn't have done all this alone. If Bush gets impeached, what will it mean for his advisors etc.?

[nuksaa]

Originally Posted by Johnny Gnar Gnar

Hear, Hear! I think that if Congress was willing to try to impeach a president for getting some lovin' in the Oval Office, they should at least TRY to impeach a warmongering war criminal!

Great idea! Now let me introduce you to President Cheney.

[Morrigan_Dubh]

Exactly - if Bush goes down, they all have to. Nature abhorrs a vacuum.

[Catsohori]

Well to impeach a president does not mean to convict them...

To impeach a president requires the House to find several crimes and then charge the president with said crimes. These have to be High Crimes or Misdemeanors. On another note once this is done, the House must then have a majority vote on if they will impeach the president.

Then it is brought to the Senate who then votes whether they will then convict the president. Once that is done with a 2/3 majority a trial is held. The lead of the group who lead the Impeachment serves as the Prosecutor, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serves as Judge and the Senate forms a jury of itself.

That is what it takes to remove a president from office, the scarier then though is that it then leaves Cheney in power. Though if someone offed him before he could become the new president then Pelosi as Speaker of the House would become president.

[nuksaa]

Originally Posted by Catsohori

Though if someone offed him before he could become the new president then Pelosi as Speaker of the House would become president.

Which is equally as horrifying.

[BlackDahlia]

I don't think anything short of nuking the entire line of cabinet members will make any of them leave before the next election.

[Crying_Crimson_Tears]

I think the whole Bush Administration is full of idiots. I think they should all leave. I wish we would impeach him, I wish they would all leave, our country will be better off I hope.

[DancesWithPeacocks]

I don't think Bush has ever lived in reality. And the only freedom his administration believes in, is the free flow of resources and profits. He'll invade any country where there is a government that won't sell out to american business interests.

[nuksaa]

Originally Posted by DancesWithPeacocks

I don't think Bush has ever lived in reality. And the only freedom his administration believes in, is the free flow of resources and profits. He'll invade any country where there is a government that won't sell out to american business interests.

That's the extent of your arguement? Can you elaborate more on your point?

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

I've got a feeling that, way back when, with Bush having popular redeckish support, his plans for democratization stemmed from a simplistic twofold approach:

1) The unproven (and probably impossible to prove) political science theory that Democracies do not war against each other.

2) Providing a playground for the kraken that is our military industrial complex.

Obviously neither he nor the puppeteers pulling his strings fully understand the support structure for a nascent democracy; the need for a checklist of preexisting social, industrial, and economic conditions in order to introduce a self-sufficient democratic institution seemingly passed right over the heads of the Cabinet.

Now, I don't claim to fully understand the art of nation building any more than the next man, but, shit, I didn't start a war.

[DancesWithPeacocks]

Originally Posted by nuksaa

That's the extent of your arguement? Can you elaborate more on your point?

No, it's a personal view and I don't feel the need to elaborate.

[CptSternn]

...from the 'finally people are catching on category'....

Much of US favors Bush impeachment: poll

http://news.**********/s/afp/2007070...yLU1CQS6zMWM0F

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Nearly half of the US public wants President George W. Bush to face impeachment, and even more favor that fate for Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a poll out Friday.

The survey by the American Research Group found that 45 percent support the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Bush, with 46 percent opposed, and a 54-40 split in favor when it comes to Cheney.

The study by the private New Hampshire-based ARG canvassed 1,100 Americans by telephone July 3-5 and had an error margin of plus or minus three percentage points. The findings are available on ARG's Internet site.

The White House declined to comment on the poll, the latest bad news for a president who has seen his public opinion standings dragged to record lows by the unpopular war in Iraq.

The US Constitution says presidents and vice presidents can be impeached -- that is, formally charged by the House -- for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" by a simple majority vote.

Conviction by the Senate, which requires a two-thirds majority, means removal from office.

Just two US presidents have been impeached: Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998 and acquitted in 1999; Andrew Johnson was impeached and acquitted in 1868. Disgraced president Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 when a House impeachment vote appeared likely.

In late April, left-wing Representative Dennis Kucinich, a long-shot Democratic presidential hopeful, introduced a resolution calling for Cheney's impeachment. To date, the measure has nine listed co-sponsors and a 10th set to sign on when the House returns to work next week.

But Democratic leaders appear unlikely to pursue such a course.


A fact you should know when reading this - during the highest point of the Clinton impeachment trial, only 30% of Americans supported impeaching Clinton. That was before most of the facts came out, after the procedure started the number who thought the impeachments should proceed dropped to about 18% (which oddly enough is the percentage of Americans who currently think bush is doing a good job).

So right now, almost double the number of Americans who wanted to impeach Clinton want to impeach bush, and that number is GROWING, not dropping as it did in the Clinton case.

The numbers speak for themselves - over half of the American public thinks that the current president is a criminal and should be forcefully removed from office and prosecuted.

[Lady_Lacrimosa_Umbrae]

Don't be so innocent, Bush doesn't give a damn about democracy in Middle East countries. But he does about petrol. He simply wants to put away the goverments in that area who give problems to him about petrol prices... and as his country has the most powerful army in the world, he can do it. Many goverments who said this have supported non-democratic goverments in foreign countries when it suited them. Politicians don't have morals, they have a lust for money and power.

[Renatus]

Eh it's what America gets for voting him into office, when will people learn when you make stupid choices you get stupid results. Unfortunatly the majority of Americans don't understand cause and effect, if you vote an idiot into office you'll have an idiot for president, if your tree hugging leads to hugging poison oak you're going to get ichy, if you pull a trigger with the gun pointed at your brain you're going to die. For those who voted for him who are still confident in him or were simply fooled by him or more likely both you are exempt from that example.

[Aaroneet]

Ideology, generally speaking, is used as a facade by politicians to get cooperation from their people in the pursuit of materialistic goods that are only going to benefit the few who are willing to pay. Democracy is no exception

[Crying_Crimson_Tears]

Originally Posted by DancesWithPeacocks

I don't think Bush has ever lived in reality. And the only freedom his administration believes in, is the free flow of resources and profits. He'll invade any country where there is a government that won't sell out to american business interests.

I agree. If Bush ever had lived on reality then our country wouldn't be in this much trouble.

And I think the whole Bush Admin can go straight to Hell.

[KontanKarite]

When it comes time for 2008, if it doesn't seem to get any better for the states, I suppose I could go to Canada. I should do my homework first.

[Underwater Ophelia]

A republican has a good chance of winning again. Hilary probably won't win, because she's a woman, and Obama probably won't win because he's black and his name sounds like Osama.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

A republican has a good chance of winning again. Hilary probably won't win, because she's a woman, and Obama probably won't win because he's black and his name sounds like Osama.

Nail on the head I'm afraid.

[Saddiction]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

When it comes time for 2008, if it doesn't seem to get any better for the states, I suppose I could go to Canada. I should do my homework first.

Canada has jerk-off Prime Ministers too. They're everywhere you go.
The difference between Canada and the US, is that Canada doesn't go looking for trouble.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Saddiction

Canada has jerk-off Prime Ministers too. They're everywhere you go.
The difference between Canada and the US, is that Canada doesn't go looking for trouble.

I can imagine so. But I can't help but be annoyed about how things have come to be with the US. Meh.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

A republican has a good chance of winning again. Hilary probably won't win, because she's a woman, and Obama probably won't win because he's black and his name sounds like Osama.

Normally, I would agree with you on this. Eddie Murphy and Chris Rock both did bits on the fact a black man would never be elected, not anytime in the near future.

However, with over 70% of Americans now opposing the war, and all republican candidates now fully supporting the war, its safe to say people will be choosing between war and no-war rather than black/woman vs. white guy.

This probably is the best opportunity in history to get a woman or African-American elected because the unique position people will be put in is either to choose more war, or have one of those two running things.

I mean, on the other side of the table you have McCain, who wants to send even more troops in and escalate the war, Guilliani, who is a real bastard with enough ex-wives and dirty laundry from his tenure as mayor to keep most republicans in his own party from ever voting for him (especially since he supports gay marriage and abortion), and a smattering of other lesser-known muppets from the republican party who at this point don't even have name recognition with most voters.

It will be interesting to see how it goes.