Why does Bush object to Syria and Iran, and not even mention the Saudis when they are among the most oppressive, restrictive, non-free society on the planet?
The truly offensive platitude, through which bush not so subtly seeks to assign nobility to the iraqi adventure, is when he exhorts enemies of tyrannical regimes to take up revolt, and saying that America will stand by their sides as they so do.... "and look, isn't that what we did in iraq (after we could not find WMDs there)". Now, in SA as in many of these countries, those who would take up revolt are our sworn enemies. Enemies of the royals in SA are the disaffected, islamists, deeply avowed enemies of the west and the US in particular. Same in Pakistan, Egypt.
Would bush actually stand by their side? Of course not. Anymore than his dad stood by the side of shia and kurds whom he encouraged to take up revolt against saddam soon after the kuwaiti war. These people were slaughtered in the cities of the south and mountains of the north, while bush sr stood by unwilling to help.
The rest is typical freedom speech making, much of it plagiarized from like kind of rhetorical material used by many presidents before him. That's the only part simplemeld seems to dwell on, easily ingoring the differences between the nuanced politics of bush's predecessors who placed a great deal of emphasis on multilateralism and the bull in a china shop approach of our august president.
Al |
