Political & Elections

FarmDad · Veteran Member

RE: Iran/Egypt

Bogney · Senior Member

Of course the Russians had nothing to teach us about fair elections, but the irony, given that debacle of an election, was delicious. In fairness to the U.S., any election that close over such a huge territory and population is going to present problems when partisans cheat to ensure their guy gets the nod - and both sides cheat like hell to win.

Oddly, I voted for Bush the first time out of Clinton fatigue, believing in compassionate conservatism, and believing that he was a better behaved moderate politician than Clinton. Gore lost my vote because of Clinton, which was probably irrational, but so be it. I was never a registered democrat until my anti-Bush ferver pushed me to be pro-Obama, though I generally leaned left.

FarmDad · Veteran Member

Believe it or not, in 2000, I not only voted for Gore, but was furious about the outcome of the election and the Supreme Court decision as it was decided on such a hypocritical, ludicrous basis to justify the outcome the majority wanted. No wonder they designed their decision to be a precedent of nothing. I wanted to continue the Clinton legacy of a more moderate Democratic party, and voted for Gore despite feeling peeved that he was running away from it to resolve his own identity crisis. I could vote for Gore, because he supported the Gulf War (imagine, in a geopolitical no-brainer, it was the entire world, including 99% of the Arab world, against Saddam Hussein, Yassir Arafat, and the Democratic party!). Prior to 1991, my only litmus test in voting for president was that they had a D by their name. After, voting against the Gulf War became an automatic disqualifier in the same way that agreeing to carve up Czechoslovakia would have been for me in 1938. In 2000, that genius Rhodes scholar Bill Bradley was still defending his opinion that we should have given sanctions more time to work (yeah, that would have gotten Saddam out of Kuwait; we saw how effective sanctions were in controlling his behavior throughout the 90's. Idiot.).

But back to the 2000 election. I think that what robbed Gore was the butterfly ballot. If the dems running Palm Beach County had been semi-competent, Gore would have been president. Simple as that. No recount, no bogus SC decision. But the butterfly ballot situation was not remediable, so that led to the insanities on both sides with the recount. In retrospect, it was just as well, because I wanted the Gore of 1988 and 1992, certainly not the dishonest, grandiose, whack job he has become. I mean, not even Tipper could tolerate him anymore.

As for the Russians, I'm sure their offer was serious, and that they have a lot to teach us about fair elections.

Razorsharp · Guru

Sometimes admitting defeat is the best medicine.

Bogney · Senior Member

Bush's legacy would have been much less controversial had he kept to the approach for spreading democracy that he used in Egypt rather than the approach that he used in Iraq, which is a bit like the old Woody Allen joke about his father from "Take the Money and Run, who said, "I tried to beat religion into him but he just wouldn't listen!"

There is a bit of irony in our sending people over to monitor elections in Egypt given the 2000 election that brought Bush to power, and led to offers from Russia to help monitor fair elections here. After all, that election was decided 5-4.

-- Edited by Bogney on Sunday 20th of February 2011 07:52:33 AM

FarmDad · Veteran Member

Thanks for the article soccerguy. It appears that Bush was even more directly instrumental in giving rise to Egypt's democracy movement than I thought. And Liz Cheney played a pretty important role as well. Bush was a true believer in promoting democracy and freedom throughout the world, including the Arab world, even at the expense of "stability" as conventionally defined. That is going to be his legacy... for better or for worse.

Bogney · Senior Member

The article about Bush's funding of poll watchers in Egypt to promote democracy there, helping this glorious revolution along, was interesting. Congratulations to George for that, I think. As a matter of principle, the people of a country having a strong voice in ruling that country seems like the better course than bribing unprincipled strong men to adhere to our foreign policy. As a practical matter, the latter might be better for us, but then support for the people over time might gain the trust of the people. The only caveat here is whether we should be careful what we wish for - democracy in the middle east may be letting the genie out of the bottle so to speak, and it may be an unfriendly genie who blames us for for bottling him up in the first place.

I don't see how the Iraq invasion truly supported this uprising other than suggesting that the U.S. would not want to intervene in a third country with two other wars going on. I doubt that Saddam would have been motivated to do anything about it in light of what happened after he invaded Kuwait.

As for Obama, the best he could do was to let the events play out. No one knows how this will turn out. He does not want to alienate the new government unnecessarily.

pima · Guru

OMG the Globe giving Bush credit for something? Mike Barnicle must be going nuts.

soccerguy315 · Guru

Boston Globe also offers Bush credit: http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2011/02/13/bush_program_helped_lay_the_groundwork_in_egypt/

FarmDad · Veteran Member

Hey Tom, good to see you here. Here's my view:

Obama was absent in voicing support for the ideals of the green revolution in Iran because a) he was totally inexperienced and caught flat footed in handling an international crisis, b) he was bending over backwards to avoid anything that sounded like Bush's freedom agenda, and c) he was afraid of offending the Iranian regime while pursuing his misguided policy of trying to engage a regime that was openly un-engageable and was greeting each effort at engagement by spitting in our face. He quickly turned on Mubarek and embraced the Egyptian protesters because he was still smarting from having been roundly criticized for failing to support the democracy movement in Iran (including by the the Iranian protesters and intellectuals who were vocal about having felt bitterly disappointed and betrayed by the lack of American support for them against the tyrannical regime).

I think that after days of mixed messages, the Obama administration actually recalibrated its message correctly by supporting the goals of the Egyptian protesters and speaking out against the use of violence by either side, but pulling back on its public call for Mubarek to step aside right away, allowing events to unfold while working behind the scenes. The Egyptian protesters may still feel sore thinking that Obama didn't support them enough, but nothing short of handing them Mubarek's head on a platter would have satisfied them with regard to our role.

I think a strong case can be made that what is happening throughout the Arab world now is at least in part a consequence of what has been happening in Iraq, courtesy of W. Iraq's fledgling, stumbling democracy in the making, such as it is, may be fragile and imperfect, but it is envied by young Arab populations everywhere. Even though it was the result of an American military intervention that they despise, they think that if the Iraqis can have free elections and a constitutional government, intersectarian at that, why can't we? It is hard to believe that what is happening in Egypt now would be occurring if Saddam were still in power.

Here's in interesting link discussing the issue:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/egypts-revolution-bushs-victory/

Woodwork · Senior Member

It would be interesting to know what odds are being given in Vegas: wacko take over by the wackos, or a calm slow roll to democratic lethargy?

Also, I agree with Cartera about the bought and paid for military...but then, that begs the question: what the hell was Carter thinking in '79. We had a bought and paid-for military then as well. Douchebag!

Obama, is a smooth customer. Smart guy, as dudes go, but right now he can't bail the icky water out as fast as it is coming in.

To my mind...and I am very tied into the Iranian community...Obama hung the Iranians out to dry with his indecisiveness a while back (always, in the words of St Paul, wanting to be all things to all men, ugh!). Sometimes, splitting the baby in two is not a real option...really, it never is. It’s bush league stuff.

In Egypt, as the masses become more and more assertive, the USA's significance becomes less and less significant. Everyone talks about the glory of democracy like it's penicillin, but what we need is a sober republic: raucous democracies are a boot in the ass that just won't stop kicking...especially when the newly enfranchised are enlivened by the unwashed pride and chutzpah of the mob, as in Egypt...or a few decades back, in Iran. How'd you guys like to be governed by the folks living in South eastern Arkansas...or Cambridge Mass? Chilling.

The Obama administration is so far behind this one that they’re more likely to be hit in the ass by the Arabs making their first circumambulation around Washington's clumsiness than by catching them in, as they say, the act.

I predict this Middle Eastern tinderbox leaves America burned…and none too good for those trying to get by in Arabistan either. Disaster.

Interesting times indeed, and that ain’t right...no that ain't right. Hold on tight.

Advantage: the bad guys.

BigG · Guru

Achieving "Freedom and Democracy" does not mean they will be our friends.

The majority in Egypt could vote to try to whack Israel.

They could use their freedom to invade othe countries. Lord knows there is absolutely no precedent for a free society going to war with a country that had not attacked it but perhaps the Egyptians are innovative.

soccerguy315 · Guru

Tom - you can throw Honduras into the mix too... US was up in arms when Honduran military took over because they were following their constitution.

busdriver11 · Guru

If this ends up with Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries obtaining freedom and democracy, it would be a success for other free nations. If it ends up with another dictatorship, another repressive regime, or a bunch of religious nutcases taking over, it will be a disaster. I am very hopeful, but who knows how it could go. I know the president has been criticized for every last thing he has said about this, but I think laying low and not trying to take credit or doing anything that could enrage the masses is the best tactic right now.

"In both situations Obama had no effect and little if any role. As it turns out America cannot control everything that happens."

I agree with that. And our government trying to make sweeping statements as if we have control is not useful. Every time I hear the phrase, "Egyptians will control the future of Egypt," or something like that....it sounds ridiculous. How obvious.

Tom1944 · Senior Member

Are we sure the current events in Egypt will end up being a success for the US and our allies. I am happy for the Egyptian people but I am not sure it translates into a success for the US yet.

john doe · Guru

I don't know how useful it is to attribute current successes to past boneheaded decisions.

Tom1944 · Senior Member

Thanks for the replies. On another site I frequent some are saying that the events in Egypt are a result of W's Iraq Decision. Any opinion on that?

Razorsharp · Guru

I think Obama approached the situations differently because he knew Iran's army would kill people and use the USA as the excuse for the murders but knew Egypt's army would not kill everyone. In both situations Obama had no effect and little if any role. As it turns out America cannot control everything that happens.

Cartera · Guru

He's asking why Obama approached the situations differently.

Razorsharp · Guru

The Iranian army and police killed people left and right. The Egyptian army didn't kill try to kill those who opposed Mubarak. Obama isn't the issue.

Cartera · Guru

The key is our bought and paid for Egyptian army. We had nothing like that in Iran. There is also the fact that we are not a trusted voice in Iran so as soon as we get behind something, it is successfully spun to look suspicious. It didn't help that we were occupying Iraq.

An interesting comparison is the the uprising of Iran in the 70's and today's Egyptian uprising.

Tom1944 · Senior Member

Any opinions on how and why the US handled these two internal uprising differently. With Iran the President refered to it as an internal matter but with Egypt he basically stated that Mubarak had to go.
Did we have a different approach with both or not? If so why do you think that was?