Response to Elliot Abrams’ “Bush was right” in WaPo

[markpkessinger]

Below is my response, originally posted in two comments, to Elliot Abrams’ piece in today’s Washington Post, titled “Egypt protests show George W. Bush was right about freedom in the Arab world”:

First, Mr. Abrams, let us wait and see what the long-term, ultimate outcome in Egypt is before engaging in self-serving attempts to rewrite the dismal history of the neo-conservatives’ stated belief in “planting democracies around the globe,” a stated ideology which is, in itself, a fraud perpetrated to serve the profit motives of the defense contracting industry whose profits depend upon a constant state of war. Let's see where Egypt is in five or ten years, and then, perhaps, we can begin to draw conclusions. In the meantime, spare us the reputation rehab.

Am I suggesting that the Egyptian people are wrong in rising against their dictator? Certainly not. But let us not delude ourselves as to the likelihood of long-term success.

It is quite possible that events will pattern themselves after those in Iran following the fall of the Shah: i.e., that what begins as an authentic revolution of the people is soon hijacked by an extreme faction (or possibly even elected, as was the case in Iran) which will impose a different, yet every bit as authoritarian and oppressive, as the regime it replaces.

The notion that democracy will take root over the long-term in a culture that is not grounded in the philosophical / intellectual tradition that has underpinned all successful democratic revolutions in modern times (i.e., 18th C. rationalism and humanism, a/k/a the Enlightenment), is a dubious one that has yet to be demonstrated in world events.

To judge whether the neo-conservatives were right during W’s administration, we need look no further than our terrible twins of U.S. interventionism: Iraq and Afghanistan. How has that worked out for us so far, Mr. Abrams?

I would add that if George W. Bush had really been serious about spreading “freedom” in the middle east, he would have started with one of its most brutally repressive regimes: Saudi Arabia (from which, I might add, hailed 19 of the 21 hijackers from 9/11). But the neo-cons have nary a harsh word for the Saudi royal family, thereby exposing the fraud that is at the heart of neo-conservatives’ professed concern for the freedom of peoples in the Middle East.

[thereismore]

1. Jesus Christ I knew they were going to pull this shit! Bush was right...right! nt

[justiceischeap]

2. But CNN said on Friday it was Obama's 2009 Cairo "democracy" speech nt

[doc03]

6. Well it depends on how it all comes out, if it's bad it is

Obama's fault, if it's good Bush gets credit.

[Lint Head]

3. George Bush is a WAR CRIMINAL period.

[lunatica]

4. It's the Egyptian people who are doing this on their own, not Bush or Obama

Why do people think that Americans are the only source of all things that happen?

[Mojorabbit]

16. +10000 nt

[doc03]

5. That explains the guy I ran into today, he obviously read that

piece. I was in a store at the mall today and the owner was going on about how Bush was right. He was giving Bush credit for Egypt and all the other countries that have been having protests the last several days. He said this proves that Bush knew what he was doing all along and these countries are starting to fall like dominoes and said just watch Iran will fall soon.

[Kolesar]

9. That would make my blood boil...eom

[doc03]

10. Well it did but it does no good to argue with them n/t

[Martin Eden]

7. I disagree with what the following sentence implies:

"Let's see where Egypt is in five or ten years, and then, perhaps, we can begin to draw conclusions."

This implies that if Egypt is a non-repressive democracy in 5-10 years, then perhaps Bush was right. That's a mighty big stretch that mostly rests on the logical fallacy that if B follows A, then A caused B. The case would have to be made that the protesting and toppling of oppressive regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, etc. happened because of what Bush did in Iraq.

[markpkessinger]

8. Agreed -- I should have worded that more carefully

You're right. I should have worded that a bit differently because that wasn't an intended implication.

[Martin Eden]

14. I didn't think that's what you intended ...

... and I wholeheartily agree with you that neocons like Abrams need to be called on their BS attempts to whitewash Bush's war crimes every time they did their brush in that paint.

[Mojorabbit]

17. Bush tried to do it at the point of a gun

These people are doing it themselves. You cannot impose democracy on a people, they have to want it and do it themselves. Bush has nothing to do with this nor has Obama.

[Johonny]

32. Bush really had no coherent middle east idea to be right about

The biggest complaint about Bush was that he in no way supported democracy in the middle east. Much like American policy since post WWII, he support the government of convenience for him. Thus he supported a wide range of regime's in the middle east from totalitarian dictators to democracies. He was enemies with a wide range of governments in the middle east, from democracies to dictators. The only time he acted openly for regime change was in two nations he thought were openly hostile to him (if you are being generous on his motives).

To put it short: How can Bush be right when he had no coherent philosophy on the middle east. He might of voiced that the people of the middle east wanted democracy as much as other nations, but his action seem to support he liked and supported strong men that cracked down on civil rights and participation over such democracy. Or to put it short, sans liking Bush himself and people (companies) that supported Bush, it doesn't seem he gave a rats ass about the people in those countries. It's almost like his foreign policy wasn't much different than his domestic one.

[SpiralHawk]

11. That's right - the Republicon luv puppy Saudis were 19 of the 9-11 terrorists

Why didn't Commander AWOL Bush (R) and Five-Military Deferments Cheney (R) & their war-profiteering RepubliCronies launch a CRUSADE against their oil-profit intimates, the Saudis?

Why? Why? Why?

[markpkessinger]

30. Thanks for providing those pictures!

When I was writing that bit about the Saudis, I had the pictures above specifically in mind. So, thanks for posting them!

[cbdo2007]

12. The Iraqi people would never have done what the Egyptians are doing. That's the difference....

forced "Freedom" versus chosen Freedom.

What we're going to see is that chosen freedom lasts and forced freedom does not.

[gulliver]

13. Chris Matthews had it right. Egypt proves the Iraq War was unnecessary.

Had Bush not invaded Iraq, Iraqis would still have toppled Saddam on their own by now. And the U.S. would probably have been out of Afghanistan six years ago. Imagine all the American soldiers who would still be alive and in one piece. Imagine the dramatically lower deficit the country would have. That was the world that would have been if Bush had done the right thing.

Elliot Abrams was in the Bush Administration. He's one of the perpetrators of the horrible disaster that Administration created. America is still not out of the ICU from it.

[Renew Deal]

26. I don't agree that the people would have toppled Saddam by now.

It's not just Saddam. It was his sons too. I don't think they would have let go of power.

[karynnj]

35. You forget how weakened Saddam was as the inspectors were ordering him

to destroy his most high tech missiles. He complied instantly. He also allowed the inspectors access anywhere. The fact was Iraq was crumbling and people were seeing that he was not all powerful. In addition, diplomacy was not complete - Kerry spoke of speaking with Koffi Annan the week before the invasion and pointing out that the UN and several countries were still trying to avoid a war.

[Renew Deal]

37. I get that.

I just don't think he was weak enough where he would have lost power, and the sons were worse than the father.

[karynnj]

39. There were many who speculated that with continuing inspections and pressure

he might even have left within a pretty short period of time.

[markpkessinger]

38. I'm not sure Egypt proves anything about any other country

Egypt has its own social/political culture that is certainly distinct from that of Iraq either before or after the U.S. invasion, and I'm not sure you can say that events in either country prove or disprove theories about what would have happened in the other. Matthews gets it wrong, I think, by buying into (one of) the Bush Administration's ex post facto justifications for the invasion of Iraq, which only emerged after it became clear that the original justification (Hussein's alleged WMD program) wouldn't hold up because there were no WMDs to find and there was no evidence discovered of a WMD program to begin with. Bush and his team entered office looking for a pretext on which to invade Iraq. Nothing demonstrates that more clearly than the book written by Bush's first Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, in which O'Neill pointed out that maps of Iraqi oil fields were distributed for discussion in a Cabinet meeting in March of 2001, a little over a month after Bush took office and NINE months before 9/11. I think the neocons were pretty certain they could find something in Iraq that they could spin as "WMD," and that's what they were betting on. When it turned out to be a bad bet, they went scrambling for alternative justifications (or rather, rationalizations), only then did the notion of "bringing democracy to the Middle East" emerge. I think by even entertaining the alternate rationalization, even if simply to demonstrate it was wrong, lends it too much credibility.

[sofa king]

15. So Bush was right about this bullshit, but not the other bullshit told before or after.

The "liberal democracy" phase of the Bush Administration lasted all of about three weeks, if I recall correctly, somewhere between Condoleeza Rice being placed at the head of a bullshit Iraq Stabilization Group that did nothing, and Condoleeza Rice being placed at the head of a bullshit Iraq stabilization group that did nothing.

In the meantime, the Bush bullshit ball has been slopped so far away from that version of the bullshit that John Bolton is busy giving Mubarak a hand-job right now. So much for liberal democracy.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION NEVER TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT ANYTHING. They can't be right about anything, because whatever crap they were saying and doing on a given day was contradicted by whatever crap they were saying and doing months before and months after whatever lie one chooses to focus on.

[gratuitous]

18. So, did the Bush presidency begin at last?

We were told over and over that everything bad happening was due to what had gone on before. Now, more than two years after the Dim Son staggered off into the sunset, we're told that now his policies have finally taken effect.

By the way, why isn't Abrams in prison? Oh yeah, Bush the Elder, already voted out of office, pardoned him in the dead of night on Christmas Eve 1992. I wonder if the little mini-bio the Post ran with Abrams' dispatch mentioned that little bit of history? Probably not; wouldn't be in good taste, and Post is nothing if not sensitive to the tender feelings of the ruling class.

[Enthusiast]

19. Bush is not right

about anything. What a joke.

[cbdo2007]

20. "Liberation" of Iraq was like welfare for the Iraqis. Egyptians are fighting for themselves.

[markpkessinger]

23. I quite agree

I absolutely agree with you on this point. What I think Abrams was suggesting -- and this is part of the fantasy land that is neoconservative foreign policy -- is the idea that once you plant a functioning democracy in the heart of the Middle East, that other countries will fall like dominoes as the people of the other countries begin to want what they see the citizens of the first country as having.

The absurdity in this case is pointed out by asking a simple question: With Iraq still not back on its feet, with its infrastructure still in tatters and with sectarian violence still not entirely under control, what could the people of other countries in the region possibly envy about Iraq in its current state that they would undertake the risk of uprising? it simply makes no sense whatsoever.

[cbdo2007]

34. Agree with you as well.

We must both be brilliant :)

Unfortunately, it's one of those things that won't be proven for another 10-20 years or more when we look back on Iraq and look back on Egypt and I truly believe Egypt will be better and Iraq will be worse. So right now, their argument does make somewhat of a little bit of sense, but those of us with foresight are the only ones seeing what's really going on here.

[markpkessinger]

21. Thanks, all

Thanks to all who have commented. I think the thing that really got under my skin with regard to Abrams' piece, apart from the fact that I think it is utterly specious to suggest that neoconservative ideology has some how been vindicated by the events in Egypt, was the opportunistic, self-serving nature of it.

I also have a real problem with the whole neoconservative rationalization of "planting democracy," because I think it is a fraud. The real neoconservative agenda, I believe, is to prop up the profits of private defense contractors, profits which depend on keeping the U.S. in a state of perpetual warfare. It is PRECISELY the thing Eisenhower tried to warn us against. I think the whole "planting democracy" notion is something even the neoconservatives themselves don't really believe, but rather was their own invention, devised to distract the public from their real agenda with a noble-sounding rationalization.

Simply appalling.

[Catherina]

22. Proud to recommend this n/t

[MilesColtrane]

24. Good response, but it should start, "First, Mr. Abrams, you convicted, lying fuck, let us wait...".

[Renew Deal]

25. I think it means Bush was wrong. Egypt is happening without thousands of dead and injured American

soldiers. And tens of thousands of Egyptians.

[librechik]

27. Why isn't Elliot Abrams in prison?

have no idea.

[markpkessinger]

28. Because of a plea agreement

Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh had prepared multiple felony counts against Abrams. But Abrams was instead permitted to plead guilty to two misdemeanor counts of providing false information to Congress, for which he was put on probation for two years, paid a $50 fine and performed 100 hours of community service. Amazing, isn't it?

[librechik]

31. yes--grat sentence for accessory to torture & murder of well, maybe even millions

But perfect resume to be a respected Op-Ed writer in the Post.

[MilesColtrane]

36. He was subsequently pardoned by George W. Bush.

It's like that whole lying under oath crime never even happened.

[JHB]

29. We don't even have to "wait five or ten years"...

No one who said W was wrong said tht Arab peoples didn't want democracy, just that it had to be home-grown. Imposed at gunpoint by a foreign power would be a lot more problematic, since undemocratic elements could always paint it as a puppet and tool of foreign domination. Of course, a pliable puppet was exactly what the Bushies wanted in Iraq, so it sort of proved their point.

In Egypt? Home grown, not from "Operation Up-Tut" or whatever killing thousands on the way to foreign-imposed "democracy".

[spanone]

33. that fucking turd was never right. never.