Does the US stand for democracy in the world?

[selfAdjoint]

I would argue that historical experience is irrelevant. What is more important is how well informed and educated our policy makers are. Do they consult with experts and do they have an understanding of not only the past history but the current situation in the foreign nations that they are meddling in.
Unfortunately we have an incurious moron for a president who does not even want to hear a dissenting or alternative view. Our current foreign policy disaster is a result of his conceptual poverty.

Alas, you are right. He isn't a moron, but he has learned from his life experiences that he doesn't need to think, he can hire that done. Unfortunately the folks he has hired are fanatics with a crazy program. Morons we can take, maniacs are another question.

 

[Skyhunter]

Alas, you are right. He isn't a moron, but he has learned from his life experiences that he doesn't need to think, he can hire that done. Unfortunately the folks he has hired are fanatics with a crazy program. Morons we can take, maniacs are another question.

I think that they chose him, not the other way around. The reason I think he is a moron is that he is unaware of how he is being used.

They had to deceive the American public to get support for their "program". Now that their deceit has been exposed the support is gone. The real tragedy as I see it is that it could have worked. If they had sent in enough troops and immediately stabilized the cities. If there had been an honest effort to get the basic infrastructure like electric, water and sewage working. If they had hired Iraqi's to do the work. So many mistakes were made because all they could see was the money they would make.

We saw with the New Orleans response, and the Meyers nomination, that when you put cronies in charge, when they need to actually perform their duty, they are found lacking. At least with Meyers his core supporters didn't trust her to overturn Roe -v- Wade, so we didn't have to suffer that one. But it is an example of how instead of finding the most qualified or even just finding well qualified people to fill positions, he picks those that he has a personal relationship with or as is the case with Brown, someone who raised money for him. if ever their was an argument for taking the money out of politics, "Brownie" is it.

I have never seen such rampant and blatant cronyism in government in my life. Not that I haven't seen it, just that usually the cronies have some experience in the position they are filling. Bush has had a free ride all his life, and is still getting off cheap IMO. Even with only 40% approval it is 40% to much.

I have never been a big fan of either party, but this new year I am going to work very hard at defeating every Republican and Democrat that has supported this administration. It appears that the Republican that was going to challenge Feinstein for Senate from California is going to drop out. That leaves a Green party candidate. I intend to support him and maybe get rid of another corporatist.

 

[Skyhunter]

Just to put the Iraqi elections and Bush's role in them into perspective, here is Juan Cole's Blog.

http://www.juancole.com/2005/12/top-ten-myths-about-iraq-in-2005-iraq.html

10. The Bush administration wanted free elections in Iraq. This allegation is simply not true, as I and others pointed out last January. I said then, and it is still true:


' Moreover, as Swopa rightly reminds us all, the Bush administration opposed one-person, one-vote elections of this sort. First they were going to turn Iraq over to Chalabi within six months. Then Bremer was going to be MacArthur in Baghdad for years. Then on November 15, 2003, Bremer announced a plan to have council-based elections in May of 2004. The US and the UK had somehow massaged into being provincial and municipal governing councils, the members of which were pro-American. Bremer was going to restrict the electorate to this small, elite group.

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani immediately gave a fatwa denouncing this plan and demanding free elections mandated by a UN Security Council resolution. Bush was reportedly "extremely offended" at these two demands and opposed Sistani. Bremer got his appointed Interim Governing Council to go along in fighting Sistani. Sistani then brought thousands of protesters into the streets in January of 2004, demanding free elections. Soon thereafter, Bush caved and gave the ayatollah everything he demanded. Except that he was apparently afraid that open, non-manipulated elections in Iraq might become a factor in the US presidential campaign, so he got the elections postponed to January 2005. This enormous delay allowed the country to fall into much worse chaos, and Sistani is still bitter that the Americans didn't hold the elections last May. The US objected that they couldn't use UN food ration cards for registration, as Sistani suggested. But in the end that is exactly what they did. '

Bush opposed the elections. Maybe he is not such a moron after all. He is after all taking credit for them. But that is his dishonest opportunitic nature.

 

[SOS2008]

Just to put the Iraqi elections and Bush's role in them into perspective, here is Juan Cole's Blog.
http://www.juancole.com/2005/12/top-ten-myths-about-iraq-in-2005-iraq.html
Bush opposed the elections. Maybe he is not such a moron after all. He is after all taking credit for them. But that is his dishonest opportunitic nature.

Great information Skyhunter. Bush supporters may see him as a visionary, but the philosophies come from others with more intellect, for example:

The debate within the Bush administration

In the months following September 11th two distinct schools of thought arose in the Bush Administration regarding the critical policy question of how to handle potentially dangerous countries such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea ("Axis of Evil" states). Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, as well as US Department of State specialists, argued for what was essentially the continuation of existing US foreign policy. These policies, developed during the long years of the Cold War, sought to establish a multi-lateral consensus for action (which would likely take the form of increasingly harsh sanctions against the problem states, summarized as the policy of containment). The opposing view, argued by Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and a number of influential Department of Defense policy makers such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, held that direct and unilateral action was both possible and justified and that America should embrace the opportunities for democracy and security offered by its position as sole remaining superpower.

President Bush ultimately sided with the Department of Defense camp (also described as the neoconservatives), and their recommendations form the basis for the Bush Doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

Bush had always wanted to remove Saddam, but Cheney and others in the cabal do the actual work, and Rove packages it for American consumption (while Bush rides his bike, which is preferred by his staff who are tired of the temper tantrums). Bush embraced the neocon philosophy later in his administration. At the heart of it is:

Strength Beyond Challenge
The policy that "United States has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge", indicating the US intends to take actions as necessary to continue its status as the world's sole military superpower. This resembles a British Empire policy before World War I that their navy must be larger than the world's next two largest navies put together.

By means of:

Preemption
A policy of pre-emptive war, should the US or its allies be threatened by terrorists or by rogue states that are engaged in the production of weapons of mass destruction.

The right of self-defense should be extended in order to authorize pre-emptive attacks against potential aggressors cutting them off before they are able to launch strikes against the US.

Unilateralism
The duty of the US to pursue unilateral military action when acceptable multi-lateral solutions cannot be found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

Under the auspices of "Extending Democracy, Liberty, and Security to All Regions"

The original intent of the invasion has been to install a pro-American government that would allow permanent U.S. bases in Iraq. Democracy is the cover-up — if it happens it would be nice, but it is not the primary motivation.