Egypt: Former Bushie lies to rehabilitate Bush
As part of the ongoing — and futile — effort to rehabilitate the reputation of former President George W. Bush, Elliott Abrams, one of Bush’s foreign policy advisers, wrote an essay in yesterday’s Washington Post claiming that “Bush was right” to push democracy in the Middle East.
Commenting on the protests currently roiling Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries, Abrams said:
All these developments seem to come as a surprise to the Obama administration, which dismissed Bush’s “freedom agenda” as overly ideological and meant essentially to defend the invasion of Iraq. But as Bush’s support for the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon and for a democratic Palestinian state showed, he was defending self-government, not the use of force. Consider what Bush said in that 2003 speech, which marked the 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy, an institution established by President Ronald Reagan precisely to support the expansion of freedom.
“Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe – because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty,” Bush said. “As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export.”
This spirit did not always animate U.S. diplomacy in the Bush administration; plenty of officials found it unrealistic and had to be prodded or overruled to follow the president’s lead. But the revolt in Tunisia, the gigantic wave of demonstrations in Egypt and the more recent marches in Yemen all make clear that Bush had it right – and that the Obama administration’s abandonment of this mind-set is nothing short of a tragedy.
In that account, Abrams showed the same creativity, recklessness and freedom from fact that so often characterized the Bush administration’s foreign policy adventures. In other words, that account is so divorced from reality — in what it says as well as what it does not say — that it can only be called a lie.
For one thing, Abrams ignores these lines from Obama’s 2009 speech in Cairo, delivered, not at some U.S. think tank, but (figuratively) right in the face of Hosni Mabarek:
The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.
I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.
That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere. (emphasis added)
There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.
This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.
Abrams also engages in gross duplicity about the Bush’s administration’s response to elections in Palestine. Bush and Condi Rice were excited about the prospects of free and fair elections — but surprised and appalled by the result: Hamas, which the U.S. considers a terrorist organization, won. There were even reports that Bush considering a plot to overthrow that democratically elected government:
The Bush administration, caught out by the rise of Hamas, embarked on a secret project for the armed overthrow of the Islamist government in Gaza, it emerged yesterday.
Vanity Fair reports in its April edition that President George Bush and the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, signed off on a plan for the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to remove the Hamas authorities in Gaza. The plan called for Washington’s allies in the region to funnel arms and salaries to Fatah fighters who would lead a rising against Hamas.
But the project was controversial even within the administration, the magazine reports. “There were severe fissures among neoconservatives over this,” David Wurmser, a former Middle East adviser to the vice-president, Dick Cheney, told the magazine. “We were ripping each other to pieces.”
The protests roiling the Middle East have exposed the difficulties of realpolitik and the limits of U.S. power. That’s the reason that GOP leaders in Congress have praised the Obama administration’s cautious approach. It’s also the reason that prospective GOP presidential candidates have said so little about it: They don’t know position to stake out. Should they endorse more ‘regime change’? Praise Obama? Keep their mouths shut?
— Cynthia Tucker
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
573 comments Add your comment
buck@gon
January 31st, 2011
12:31 pm
“Former Bushie….”
Cindy, That is SO Molly Ivins.
She’s gone from these pages. Now you go away too, please.
Joe the Plutocrat
January 31st, 2011
12:31 pm
granny (12:19) no truer words are spoken. and yet, if people listen to the language of the players (Obama Administration, media pundits, State Department wags, Egyptians on both sides, etc.) you see the real end game – let’s make a deal. it’s not about who is in power. it is about ‘can we deal with them’ (buy their oil, or better yet, allow our companies to extract, refine, and sell the oil). let’s say for a moment that Egypt becomes Iran version 2.0. so what? sure they will “threaten” Israel, and talk about jihad, but at the end of the day, it’s about oil. we don’t want the “arabs” (or Persians) to sell oil to the highest bidder (EU, China, Russia, India). WE want to control the oil and sell it. now, I am not even suggesting that control of Middle Eastern ooil reserves is a bad reason to go to war, but when Americans die so that ExxonMobil can increase profits (not revenues, profits) by 53%; well, there’s “profits” and there’s “prophets” and latter is the means to the end end (the formers), not the other way around.
Lil' Barry Bailout
January 31st, 2011
12:32 pm
Bush’s Iraq: democratic.
Carter’s Iran: Islamofascist.
Bush was right. I doubt he cares what the sniveling libbtard cowards have to say about it.
They BOTH suck
January 31st, 2011
12:32 pm
buck@gon @ 12:29
You might have a valid point, however when Obama was silent during the protests in Iran, many on the right said that made the US look weak. Can’t have it both ways if you are being intellectual honest regardless of your political ideology.
willie lynch
January 31st, 2011
12:34 pm
Is there democracy in Iraq? What signs point to a successful democratization of Iraq?
What needs to be understood is that the culture of a people has much deeper roots than a politcal philosophy changing a peoples belief system takes more than an election.
They BOTH suck
January 31st, 2011
12:35 pm
Lil Barry @ 12:32
Iraq story isnt over and we all know it will grumble when the US leaves. 5 yrs or 50 yrs that place isn’t much better than before we went in. Maybe for a few, but many are still suffering, employment is high and amount of electricity and running water is less now than under Sadam..
As for all this democracy, the US backed that despot until he was a threat to US interest in the ME. If he hadn’t got to big for his britches in the early 90s, we would probably still be backing him like a brother. Reagan and Rumsfeld loved him
saywhat?
January 31st, 2011
12:37 pm
I wonder how long it will be before the rightwingers will be able to tolerate having their savior-messiah g w bush mentioned in any but favorable terms. It has been two years since he has been gone, but the feverish attempt at revisionist history writing has yet to slow down. Get over it people! He was the worst. president. ever. Acknowledge your mistakes and move on.
Elliot Abrams was putting lipstick on the proverbial pig, trying to minimalize the disaster that was the Bush years, and thus exonerating himself from complicity. It is a transparent attempt, but will certainly not be the last. The ironic thing is, every time somebody like Abrams brings up the past in order to polish that turd, he just reminds everybody anew how much it stank.
Thulsa Doom
January 31st, 2011
12:40 pm
They BOTH suck
January 31st, 2011
12:27 pm
Plutocrat
“For the most part I agree. Regardless of who is the President, we really don not care about democracy except when it meets our agenda”- They BOTH suck
They BOTH suck,
That is a true enough statement. But according to Miss Tucker somehow or another this is still George Bush’s fault as is global warming, birds falling out of the sky in Ark, $3.00 a gallon gas, and Kamchak having gas today. Its all George Bush’s fault.
Nothing Is Free
January 31st, 2011
12:41 pm
They BOTH suck
As I said before: there is little we can do.
World diplomacy has always been about intimidating our enemies and when necessary, giving them a good spanking. Obama has done pretty well with killing some main operatives of El Quida, but he is not one to take a stand with Mubarak.
I’m afraid that the middle east is all about despots or terrorists and it is all tied together with a huge dose of testosterone.
I just keep thinking of Obama in those “girl pants” throwing a baseball like my sister and not getting even close to home plate. Why in the hell would a person willing to strap a bomb on himself fear that guy?
granny godzilla
January 31st, 2011
12:41 pm
Ahnald
Ahnald
Thankfully I don’t share your paranoia. You are welcome to it however.
Good Grief
You ask “Do you really think Al Gore would’ve handled 9/11 better than Bush did?”
I say, Do you really think 9/11 would have happened if Al Gore was President?
Joe the Plutocrat
January 31st, 2011
12:41 pm
Li’l Barry…
Bush’s Iraq: civil war, sectarian violence, instability – cost to taxpayers: $1.5 trillion and counting
Carter’s Iran: (actually, Eisenhower’s, but why let the truth get in the way of a good story) stable, unfriendly theocracy – cost to taxpayers: frustration and loss of collective pride (’the entire world is laughing at us’ as it were).
and as previously noted, where does “Reagan’s Afghanistan” fit into this? Or, “Regan’s Nicaragua”, for that matter?
Lil' Barry Bailout
January 31st, 2011
12:42 pm
Iran will soon have nuclear weapons and is run by Islamofascists.
Iraq is WMD-free and is democratic, with free and fair elections.
Bush was right.
Thulsa Doom
January 31st, 2011
12:42 pm
$3.00 gas 2 years into Obama’s presidency? Well its George Bush’s fault of course.
Thulsa Doom
January 31st, 2011
12:42 pm
Kamchak has gas today? Well, its George Bush’s fault of course.
They BOTH suck
January 31st, 2011
12:44 pm
Thulsa
We have gone over this before. CT is a left leaning writer, employed to wrote her opinion about political and economic events.
I can go to any given right leaning writer or pundits and read and hear where Clinton and Carter are the problem and that is 10 and 30 yrs after they have left office.
She is doing what she is paid to do and loves the fact that you read her column and post your opinion.
By the way, hope you had a great weekend
They BOTH suck
January 31st, 2011
12:47 pm
NIF
You have your right to your opinion, but strapping dynamite on and blowing yourself up didn’t stop under Bush and hasn’t under Obama..
Some unemployed and uneducated kid in the ME who is being brainwashed to blow himself up doesn’t really care if the US Pres is Reagan, Bush, Lincoln or Adams for that matter
Ahnald
January 31st, 2011
12:49 pm
They Both Suck…that is what I am asking….what is your answer going forward, enlighten me.
denny terrio
January 31st, 2011
12:51 pm
How ’bout jesus and muhammad have a one-on-one and work it out.
Kamchak
January 31st, 2011
12:51 pm
Bush’s Iraq: civil war, sectarian violence, instability – cost to taxpayers: $1.5 trillion and counting…
Actually it’s north of $3 trillion and counting.
But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war’s broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.
Moreover, two years on, it has become clear to us that our estimate did not capture what may have been the conflict’s most sobering expenses: those in the category of “might have beens,” or what economists call opportunity costs. For instance, many have wondered aloud whether, absent the Iraq invasion, we would still be stuck in Afghanistan. And this is not the only “what if” worth contemplating. We might also ask: If not for the war in Iraq, would oil prices have risen so rapidly? Would the federal debt be so high? Would the economic crisis have been so severe?
Georgian
January 31st, 2011
12:52 pm
Let me be clear….
This nation is in the mess its in (ours) due to the unexperience and lack of respect for Obama in the world. Our standing is blown to pieces because of a man that no one in the world believes will act when he has to. Thanks, Barack Obama for being the next Jimmy Carter and bumbling your way through the Presidency.
Joe the Plutocrat
January 31st, 2011
12:53 pm
Thulsa Doom (with apologies to They Both Suck); I don’t know that CT is saying “this is all Bush’s fault”. I think the neo-con historians are saying “this is all Bush’s faul” which seems to be a bit premature (see: They Both Suck’s comments about Iraq – it’s gonna be a while before Bush or the US needs to take credit/run away from Iraq). in fact, by virtue of the moniker, They Both Suck is kinda saying; this anyone’s “fault”. it’s actually business as usual. now, we can debate the ethics or morality of “business as usual” but for Abrahams, or Fox News or the neo-cons o both “take credit” by critize the left is disingenuous
They BOTH suck
January 31st, 2011
12:54 pm
Ahnald
You called out Obama for doing nothing. I asked you what would Bush or any other Repub be doing?
I’m not the expert, I just know that backing Mubarak’s main opposition who just aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood is a bet the US isn’t going to back regardless of Party.
We are in a bad situation. I think Mubarak’s opposition made an awful calculation by aligning with the MB. He will not be getting much public support from the US or Western Europe. If Mubarak is thrown out, my guess is that the MB will attempt to push for a more ‘radical’ government and be even more oppressive than Mubarak. World politics is a nasty game and frankly I do not believe there is much the US is going to do.
HDB
January 31st, 2011
12:54 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout
January 31st, 2011
12:42 pm
Iran will soon have nuclear weapons and is run by Islamofascists…..who were unleashed by Bush’s incursion into Iraq
Iraq is destabilized, influenced by Iran, increased sectarian violence between the Sunnis, Shiites, and the Kurds…and the Middle East has destabilized further…..
Bush was WRONG!!
Ask yourself this question: Why didn’t Bush 41 allow Colin Powell to go into Baghdad when he had the chance in the first Gulf War? Could he have seen this as a precursor to current events…and rather than destabilize a region…he exercised PRUDENT thought and logic???
Georgian
January 31st, 2011
12:55 pm
Kam,
Sure, how much greater it would have been had we allowed Sadaam to continue his tyranny. How much greater it would have been if we had allowed him to threaten our nation and continue to seek ways to attack us. How much greater it would have been if he were still in power to wreak his havoc on the region. How much better indeed we would have been.
Kamchak
January 31st, 2011
12:57 pm
How much greater it would have been if we had allowed him to threaten our nation and continue to seek ways to attack us.
How exactly did he attack us?
They BOTH suck
January 31st, 2011
12:58 pm
Plutocrat @ 12:53
Thanks for providing more clarity than I was able to do. We are in a bind that is derived from years of US foreign policy. Obama has no magic wand to fix this. People need to realize this is to an extent ‘chickens coming home to roost’.
It is a US policy problem to the extent US interest might be jeopardized; not just an Obama, Bush, Reagan, etc issue
Georgian
January 31st, 2011
1:00 pm
HDB,
You need a history lesson. The region became dangerous and hostile due to the inaction of President CLINTON. He allowed Bin Laden to gain the power he has. He allowed the situation to grow worse. Bush was CORRECT to remove a dictator such as Sadaam who had declared his contempt and hate for the USA. Bush was correct to target those regions he felt most harbored the terrorists and groups that wished to do harm on the USA.
If our nation still had the guts to put the fear of God into these terrorist and radicals, there would be no question what the results would be.
George W
January 31st, 2011
1:02 pm
Kam….are you retarded…..I am being serious.
BeeJay
January 31st, 2011
1:03 pm
About all I can say is, oh my god. [exasperation]
Thulsa Doom
January 31st, 2011
1:03 pm
Ahhhh!
It was only a matter of time before someone like Kamchak quoted a bogus article written by
A) Stiglitz- a professor from a bastion of liberalism- Columbia, who happens to have worked under Clinton. No bias there huh?
B) Bilmes- another perfessor sort who worked for Democratic liberal Patrick Moynihan. Another liberal with an agenda? You bet!
Trotting out tired old liberal professors to come up with slanted articles and questionable numbers to blame Bush?
Just part of Democratic strategy no. 1) Blame Bush- Subsection B; paragraph C- “When possible get some liberal sources to conjure up bogus numbers and bogus articles to discredit Bush”
Willie
January 31st, 2011
1:03 pm
Progressives have been applauding Obama for two years because he abandonded the Bush era policy of expanding democracy in the middle east as a practical necessity. Now they are running for cover looking for a couple of sentences divorced from substantial policy initiative. Nice try.
Tucker is a revisionist hypocrite.
Georgian
January 31st, 2011
1:04 pm
Kam,
SEEK ways to attack us.
agnostic annie
January 31st, 2011
1:04 pm
Al Gore would’ve prevented 911, he knows how to read a security memo.
Kamchak
January 31st, 2011
1:04 pm
Kam….are you retarded…..I am being serious.
I asked a simple question and you called me retarded.
Please refrain from getting your panties in a twist about name-calling again.
George W
January 31st, 2011
1:05 pm
Kam….Did Adolf Hitler attack us?
George W
January 31st, 2011
1:06 pm
If you would prefer mentally challanged I can use it instead.
willie lynch
January 31st, 2011
1:07 pm
Georgian
January 31st, 2011
1:00 pm
If our nation still had the guts to put the fear of God into these terrorist and radicals, there would be no question what the results would be.
———————————————————————-
What would put the fear of god in to these people? What would the results be once this occured?
Thulsa Doom
January 31st, 2011
1:07 pm
HDB
January 31st, 2011
12:54 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout
January 31st, 2011
12:42 pm
“Iran will soon have nuclear weapons and is run by Islamofascists…..who were unleashed by Bush’s incursion into Iraq”-HDB
Not exactly ma’am. Once again you need some help with your history. The Islamofascist were around long before Bush in Iran. After all weren’t they the ones who took over in 1979? The ayatollah Khomeini ring a bell ma’am? Just the facts ma’am.
I reckon the Islamofascists in Iran in 1979 were George Bush’s fault though weren’t they?
January 31st, 2011
1:08 pm
“Kam….are you retarded…..I am being serious.
I asked a simple question and you called me retarded.
Please refrain from getting your panties in a twist about name-calling again.”
That’s not technically calling you retarded. He asked if you were; did not state that you are.
Thulsa Doom
January 31st, 2011
1:10 pm
“now, we can debate the ethics or morality of “business as usual” but for Abrahams, or Fox News or the neo-cons o both “take credit” by critize the left is disingenuous”- Joe the Plutocrat at 12:53
I wondered how long it would be before you could blame Fox News and those neo-cons. Blaming Fox News and namecalling such as “neocons” = zero credibility.
Joe the Plutocrat
January 31st, 2011
1:10 pm
Kamchack, $1.5 trillion or $3 trillion… they’re just numbers, right? and of course, being the liberal weasel I am, I “hedged” (pun intended) my position by adding ‘and counting’. to my tally. you could say I “shorted” Iraq. it’s like swapping derivitives or securtized mortgages. you really don’t know the cost (or care) because you got your commission and the debt is now somebody else’s problem. and by ’somebody else’ I don’t mean Obama. I mean the American taxpayers.
Kamchak
January 31st, 2011
1:12 pm
Kam….Did Adolf Hitler attack us?
Godwin’s law proved yet again.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Georgian
January 31st, 2011
1:12 pm
Lynch,
Im not getting into hypotheticals with you, I made a statement and it is an accurate one. Our nation does not take a stand for being the power we should be. And that cannot be disputed. If certain ppl want us to believe that those before us would have stood by and allowed our nation to be the mockery it is becoming, then they are seriously fooling themselves.
kayaker 71
January 31st, 2011
1:14 pm
Any word yet on the judge’s ruling on Bozocare?
George W
January 31st, 2011
1:14 pm
Kam…..good way to avoid the question….I WIN. You just proved my point!
Jack
January 31st, 2011
1:18 pm
Our Egyptian expert needs to deal with something a little closer to home. I’ve heard enough about Egypt: I’d like to hear more about a mother robbing a bank with her son in tow.
Kamchak
January 31st, 2011
1:20 pm
I WIN.
There’s your sign.
Thulsa Doom
January 31st, 2011
1:21 pm
The Doctor is in- I have diagnosed the following with GBDS- George Bush Derangement Syndrome- a mental condition whereby everything is believed to be George Bush’s fault.
CT
Kamchump
HDB
willie lynch
granny godzilla
Prescribed medication- 3 hours of Fox news daily, followed by 3 hours of Rush Limbaugh followed by 3 hours of Sean Hannity followed by 3 hours of Michael Savage. There. Now you have the cure counteract the re-education training you previously had received in Kim Il Sung’s summer joy camps.
George W
January 31st, 2011
1:22 pm
Kam you never answered the question. That is a great way to attempt to prove your point. Typical logic from the left.
Joe the Plutocrat
January 31st, 2011
1:23 pm
Thulsa, I’m gonna try to take the high road here. I am not “blaming” anyone. it’s like what I posted earlier to George W about “the entire world laughing at us.” what I am saying is; CT may or may not have “blamed” the Bush Administration for past sins, but in this instance, (as I see it) she is questioning the accuracy of the neo-conservatives (and it’s not namecalling. neo-conservative is an accepted political tag, no different than libertarian, paleo-conservative, neo-liberal, or anarchist) who are trying to spin the uprising in Egypt as “just like we planned”. all I am saying is, if this is the case, what as “the plan” when Reagan (and Bush 41) allowed Afghanistan to disintegrate into chaos; and just so you know I am fair and balanced; what was the plan when the Clinton Administration initially endorsed or supported the Taliban?