Now Brit media is asking: Was Bush right After all?

[RonOnGuitar]

The British media is picking up the same line of questioning as the German press. Such epiphanies are a bit late: but "better late than never" as the saying goes.

========================================

"Was Bush right after all?" - Independent UK



As Syria pulls out of Lebanon, and the winds of change blow through the Middle East, this is the difficult question that opponents of the Iraq war are having to face.





More than 150,000 Lebanese rallied in central Beirut to cries of 'Syria out'



By Rupert Cornwell in Washington

08 March 2005

Trucks carrying Syrian soldiers began to file out of Beirut yesterday. As they departed, Syria's President, Bashar Assad, under intense pressure from the US, promised to withdraw all 14,000 troops to eastern areas of Lebanon by the end of this month. The White House almost immediately dismissed the plan as failing to set a deadline for total withdrawal from the country.



So this was too little, too slow for Washington. But however circumscribed, the first phase of Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon is another sign of change across the Middle East. The precise extent and implications of the pull-out (or to be more accurate pull-back) are still unclear, and the same goes for the host of other developments, from Palestine to Iraq, from Egypt to Saudi Arabia. Some may be sincere and lasting, others contrived and short-lived, but all suggest the political straitjacket that has long imprisoned the Arab world is loosening, if not yet coming apart at the seams.



It is barely six weeks since the US President delivered his second inaugural address, a paean to liberty and democracy that espoused the goal of "ending tyranny in our world". Reactions around the world ranged from alarm to amused scorn, from fears of a new round of "regime changes" imposed by an all-powerful American military, to suspicions in the salons of Europe that this time Mr Bush, never celebrated for his grasp of world affairs, had finally lost it. No one imagined that events would so soon cause the President's opponents around the world to question whether he had got it right.



That debate is now happening, in America and beyond, as the first waves of reform lap at the Arab world. Post-Saddam Iraq has held its first proper election. In their own elections, Palestinians have overwhelmingly chosen a moderate leader. Hosni Mubarak, who for 24 years has permitted no challenge to his rule in Egypt, has announced a multi-candidate presidential election this year. Even Saudi Arabia is not immune, having just held its first municipal elections. Next time around, Saudi spokesmen promise, women too will be permitted to vote.



Most remarkably of all, perhaps, popular demonstrations in Beirut last week brought the downfall of one pro-Syrian government and - with the help of fierce pressure from Washington and the EU - the agreement by Syria to start withdrawing its troops in Lebanon.



How much Mr Bush is responsible for these development is debatable. The peaceful uprising in Lebanon was provoked by outrage at the assassination of the former prime minister Rafik Hariri, in which a Syrian hand is suspected, although not proven. Then the man who insisted on elections in Iraq when the US wanted to postpone or dilute them was Ayatollah Ali al- Sistani, leader of Iraq's majority Shia community. And the death from old age of Yasser Arafat, not machinations in Washington, led to the election that might break the Israeli-Palestinian deadlock.



Indubitably, however, even his most grudging domestic opponents and his harshest critics in the region admit that Mr Bush is also in part responsible. The 2003 invasion of Iraq may have been justified by a giant fraud, but that, and above all the January election to which it led, transfixing the Arab world, has proved a catalyst.



The mood at the White House, on Capitol Hill and in the punditocracy has been transformed. The weapons of mass destruction fiasco is forgotten, the deaths of US troops have slipped from the front pages. Even Senator Edward Kennedy, bitter Democratic critic of the invasion, admits that Mr Bush deserves credit "for what seemed to be a tentative awakening of democracy in the region".



The neoconservatives are predictably triumphalist. "What changed the climate in the Middle East was not just the US invasion and show of arms," exults the commentator Charles Krauthammer in Time magazine. "It was US determination and staying power, and the refusal of its people last November to turn out a president who rejected an 'exit strategy'."



Beyond argument, old certainties in the region are less certain; old equations of power are having to be recalculated. It is, of course, only a start, and things could go dreadfully wrong. Today the pro-Syrian Hizbollah party, regarded as a terrorist group, by Washington, holds a massive demonstration. Some see the spectre of Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war and this time, they predict Syria could be thrown into bloody chaos.



Success in Iraq, too, is anything but assured and there is the wild card of Iran, locked in dispute with the European Union and the United States over its suspected nuclear ambitions, and with huge mischief-making potential in both Iraq and Lebanon.



The moves by Saudi Arabia and Egypt may yet be tactical, a controlled release of steam before the lid is screwed down once more. There is no guarantee that the Islamic Brotherhood, the most powerful opposition party, will be allowed to take part in the Egyptian vote.



Then there is the law of unintended consequences. The maddening thing about democracy, from the viewpoints of Mr Bush and Mr Mubarak alike, is that you cannot be sure of what you will get. A Shia-dominated government will emerge in Iraq, but no one knows whether it will be secular or theocratic. What will Washington do if Islamic movements threaten repressive but reliable autocrats such as Mr Mubarak? And for all Mr Bush's argument that the survival of liberty in the US depends on liberty abroad, there is no guarantee that democracy will end terrorism.



Some US officials compare the situation in the Arab world with that of eastern Europe in 1989, when the people's discontent with their rulers reached boiling point, and repressive regimes simply lacked the will to repress any longer.



The same happened with the Soviet Union in 1991. But that year offers two other, more depressing parallels. One was the futile insurrection by Iraqi Kurds and Shias against Saddam Hussein. Then in Algeria, the US and the West sat silent as the military regime, faced with the victory of the Islamist FIS movement in elections, simply cancelled them. The result was a brutal civil war in which more than 100,000 died.



When push has come to shove in the Middle East before, the US has invariably sided with the devil it knows, true to the philosophy: "He may be a sonofabitch, but at least he's our sonofabitch." Will this President Bush be as good as his soaring words on that icy morning in January? Lebanon may provide the first test.

[ans]

"Even Senator Edward Kennedy, bitter Democratic critic of the invasion, admits that Mr Bush deserves credit "for what seemed to be a tentative awakening of democracy in the region"





Think this stand will affect his popularity among liberals?

[MIKE BURN]

Quote:

---

BBC/London, Tuesday, 8 March, 2005, 16:03 GMT



Huge Beirut protest backs Syria



Hundreds of thousands of people have gathered in Lebanon's capital, Beirut, to applaud Syria's role in the country and reject Western "interference".



"We are here to thank Syria which has stayed by our side for many years," the head of the Syrian-allied Hezbollah group told cheering supporters.



The crowd dwarfed previous opposition protests urging Syrian troops to leave.

---

On TV I saw hundredthousands chanting "America out! America out!".

[MIKE BURN]

Quote:

---

Massive turnout at pro-Syria rally



(CNN) Tuesday, March 8, 2005 Posted: 1503 GMT (2303 HKT)



BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) -- Tens of thousands of pro-Syrian protesters have been mounting a rally in a square in front of the U.N. building in central Beirut in a massive counterpoint to recent anti-Damascus rallies.



Some news reports estimated Tuesday's crowd at 200,000 protesters but CNN's Beirut Bureau Chief Brent Sadler said it was difficult to give a figure -- save that the attendance was "impressive."



CNN's Sadler said that rather than this being a protest against other Lebanese, the national flag was being displayed as a sign of unity -- this time by those who believed a Syrian withdrawal would lead to instability.



"The numbers here speak for themselves," Sadler said.



Many of the posters displayed Tuesday denounced U.S. policy in the Middle East, particularly over Resolution 1559, which also calls for the disbanding of militia including Hezbollah.



Sadler said the anti-U.S. message was repeatedly made by speakers addressing the very large crowd.

---

[DreamTone7]

Yeah Mike...bunch of Syrians trying to save their meal-ticket, methinks. Not much interest in letting the people of Lebanon run their own country there, eh?



Will you still be chanting "down with America" when the Muslims take over Germany Mike? Methinks you should be fitted for a turban pretty soon. ;-)

[ans]

ten thousand or two hundred thousand . . . that's a lot of humans being . . .

[RonOnGuitar]

LOL, Mike, every dictatorship sets up such staged "protests" - especially when the dictatorship is about to be overthrown by the people!



But when the people gather spontaneously on their own to demand freedom, that is 'the real deal'. It's "People Power".



Anyway, you do agree that Syria should get out of Lebanon and let the Lebanese people govern themselves, just as Pres. Bush demands - isn't that correct? You're for a free Lebanon?



Others are following President Bush's lead. They a bit late, but at least they are learning!



France, Germany stress Syria pullout



[World News]: PARIS, March 7 : France and Germany upped the pressure on Syria for a complete withdrawal from Lebanon as quickly as possible.



A joint statement issued at the end of a meeting in Germany between French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Shroeder said Germany and France "affirm their attachment to Lebanon's independence, sovereignty and democracy."



"We have taken notice of Syrian President Bashar Assad's announcement about his decision to implement (U.N. Security Council) Resolution 1559 and we will be following up closely with the international community the coming phases," the statement said.



It also called for holding "free and transparent" general elections in Lebanon in spring to "enable the Lebanese people to choose their representatives in a democratic way."



Syria and Lebanon agreed Monday on the pullout of Syrian troops to Lebanon's eastern Bekaa valley before the end of March as a first step towards complete withdrawal.

(United Press International)



U.N. Probes Sending Peacekeepers to Monitor Syria's Pullout



Members of the U.N. Security Council have discussed the possibility of deploying peacekeeping forces in Lebanon to monitor the withdrawal of Syrian troops, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Friday.

"There are already some U.N. peacekeeping forces south of Lebanon. It is possible that as part of a phased withdrawal from Lebanon by Syria -- it would have to be swift, but obviously phased so you don't leave a mess -- there could be some more peacekeeping troops," Straw said in an interview with British Broadcasting Corp. radio.



"I mean, that has been talked about but in an informal, not a formal, way" in the Security Council, Straw said.



Syria has resisted Arab pressure to withdraw, saying in behind-the-scenes diplomacy in recent days that it wants to keep 3,000 troops and early-warning stations in Lebanon, according to an Arab diplomat in Cairo



Syria risks being "treated as a pariah" by the rest of the world if it fails to act swiftly to withdraw its military forces from Lebanon, Straw said. "They have got this very clear strategic choice," in the face of popular protests in Beirut.



"If they pull forces out in a sensible, swift way, they make a comeback (into the international community)," he said. "If they don't, they will be treated as a pariah -- not just by the West, but by most of their Arab neighbors."



He said there was "absolutely no suggestion of military action" by other powers to force Syria out of Lebanon. But he added that it was "very clear" that Syria had to withdraw in light of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, which was adopted in September last year.



"We need real democracy in Lebanon," Straw said. "You can only have democracy if the government has complete control on its territory -- and that's not the case."(AP-AFP-Naharnet)



====



Of course, any demands from the UN or Europe won't be taken seriously by the Syrian dictatorship. But at least the UN and Europe are adding some words to President Bush's "and we mean it!" demand.

[RonOnGuitar]

Quote:

---

Think this stand will affect his popularity among liberals?

---

Not for the ones who are addicted to Bush-hate and/or America-hate. If the President were to turn water into wine they would complain that it's a Merlot instead of Pinot Noir. (and then blame it on a conspiracy!)



Hatred is probably the most addicting substance to be found. It's hard to kick and distorts one's view of reality. There were loonytunes who were addicted to Clinton-hate, Reagan-hate, JFK-hate, etc. so it's not a new political phenom.

[bitwhys]

I'm starting to get a kick out of watching the pro-Bush crowd jump from one hollow-short-lived-faux-victory to the next.

[DreamTone7]

Tell it to the Iraqi's, bitwhys.

Melody and Instruments for the soul...

[bitwhys]

I'm sure electing a shi'ite PM that opposed military intervention to depose Hussein is exactly what Bush had in mind.

[RonOnGuitar]

Quote:

---

exactly what Bush had in mind.

---

Well, if you've paying mind to what could be called the "Bush doctrine" then you know the objective is to spread democracy and free elections, letting the people themselves decide how they will be governed. By all estimations, the policy is a resounding success. This is why you're seeing so many of the Bush detractors realizing that they were wrong in retrospect.



You see, Bitwhys, the real, historical question at hand is not "How much Bush-hatred or Amer-envy can I muster up?" but rather "Was Bush right after all?".



For thousands of years people used to believe that humans would never "fly". In July of 1969, Americans walked on the surface of the moon.



Those who believe that dark-skinned peoples don't have the intelligence needed for democracy help to create and maintain scenerios that keep such peoples down.



Conversely, those who believe that all people are worthy of democracy and freedom see just the opposite result - because they're not crippled by prejudice.



When people free their minds of hate, jealousy and constant pessimism, they have a clearer view of a how to go about creating a better world. So sensible people are beginning to realize that it's not about how much can they hate X, Y or Z. It's about clearly seeing how well X, Y or Z is working - once their 'glasses of prejudice' are removed.

[bitwhys]

so I take it you'll have no problem with Hezbollah winning the election in May?

[Seismic Anamoly]

Quote:

---

the election......

---

One things for damn sure....they wouldn't be getting the chance to express that Will IN an election if not for the Great Satan, now would they.



So let the Will of the People prevail, whtever it is.



And that's what makes ME laugh about most of the "Nay-Sayers", "Condemners", and "Insult-Experts" in this forum....from their various opinions, one can surmise they feel Iraq should have been left untouched, Saddam should still be in power, innocent Iraqis should still be thrown off the tops of buildings and electrocuted in torture chambers because they disagreed with a totalitarian regime, all those dead Iranians US troops uncovered in boxes in warehouses should still be there rotting away, the mass graves dug up after the liberation should never have been disturbed and those families should still be wondering where their loved ones are, women should still be treated like dogs and forced to wear total body cover against their will, terrorists should be allowed to come and go as they please....the list goes on Ad Nauseam.



They are as Fascist as Saddam ever was, even though they profess to be "Liberals" or "Radicals" and to have the welfare and well-being of the "poor unfortunates of the World" at heart, etc., etc., etc..........



What a load of Bull$hit.



And they call Me a member of the "Sickos with Red Necks Organization".



May be...May be.



But Light Years better than the "Society of Hypocrite Yellow-Spined Wimps".

[bitwhys]

Quote:

---

One things for damn sure....they wouldn't be getting the chance to express that Will IN an election if not for the Great Satan, now would they.

---

um



you know Lebanon is a democracy already, don't you guys?