Monday, January 31, 2005

Glenn Reynolds remembers the not so distant past:

...we've heard for decades that Arab terrorism resulted from Arab despotism, and that if we wanted to end terrorism we ought to quit supporting Arab despots and work for democracy. But it was all talk until one brave man in the White House stood up for Iraqi freedom.

That man was Bill Clinton...

I've always maintained that it wasn't me who changed, it was the Democrats. Democrats used to be ideologically committed to spreading freedom and democracy. Why the change:

I think it's jealousy. Bush-hatred has become all-consuming among a large section of the Democratic Party, and they can't stand the thought of anything that reflects well on him, even if it's good for the country, and if it's something that was their idea originally.


4 comments:

Jack Mercer said...

Hi Heather!

Would like to invite you to visit the News Snipet Blog to weigh in on the Social Security issue.

Jack

Steve said...

The problem with your analysis is that you fail to realize the objective of the Bush Administration is not liberation but hegemony. If we were there to liberate Iraqis--which wasn't the rationale for the war, by the way--why are we building permanent bases in Iraq conveniently close to the oilfields? We liberated Kuwait, but they're hardly a democracy now. We do, however, have a larger stake in their oil revenues.

To argue that Clinton has the same agenda is ignorance.

Heather said...

You know, I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but even then he struck me as a man who means what he says. Scary, if you don't like what he's saying. But he said he was going to get rid of the Taliban and he did. He left an elected government in its place. He said he was going to get rid of Saddam and he did. Iraq is well on it's way to an elected government as well.

Why is it so immpossible to accept that this is a good thing? Because Bush is a Republican and therefore must have something up his sleeve? Whereas Clinton, a pure-of-heart Democrat, acts only in the intrest of all humanity? Of course Clinton didn't act at all, did he? I'm sure most Iraqis will take Bush's agenda-ridden liberation over Clinton's "agenda-free" inaction any day.

Jack Mercer said...

Heather, I think that your questions are somewhat answered by my post at

Theoretical Democrats