Thanks to gushing media coverage, Bush is enjoying one of the greatest comebacks in modern American history. In the summer of 2008, only 22 percent of Americans approved of Bush and 41 percent said he was the "worst president ever." Last month, a poll showed that 61 percent of Americans now approve of Bush, and his support among Democrats quintupled, from 11 percent in early 2009 to 54 percent now. If Americans want to understand current political challenges, they need to recall Bush’s forgotten debacles.
ADVERTISEMENT
Speaking in New York in October, Bush called for “a new, 21st century American consensus on behalf of democratic freedom and free markets.” But when he was president, Bush’s policies assumed that spreading democracy gave him a license to kill.
Shortly before he invaded Iraq in 2003, Bush assured a Washington think tank:
“The nation of Iraq — with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people — is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom.”
Though he invoked democracy to justify the war, U.S. military commanders three months after the fall of Baghdad “ordered a halt to local elections and self-rule in provincial cities and towns across Iraq, choosing instead to install their own handpicked mayors and administrators, many of whom are former Iraqi military leaders,” the Washington Post reported. Many Iraqis were outraged to see Saddam’s former henchmen placed back in power over them. But, as Noah Feldman, the Coalition Provisional Authority’s law advisor, explained, “If you move too fast, the wrong people could get elected.”The Bush administration only agreed to Iraqi elections after massive street protests demanding the right to vote. Bush reportedly authorized massive covert aid to pro-American Iraqi parties and politicians. However, when senior members of Congress such as Nancy Pelosi were briefed on the plan, they vehemently objected. Bush canceled the formal plan but delivered covert aid anyhow, using back channels and undercover operators kept secret from Congress as well as the American public.
Iraq’s 2005 election was more akin to a Soviet Bloc referendum than a New England town meeting. As part of Operation Founding Fathers, American troops traveled around broadcasting a get-out-and-vote message at the same time they raided people’s homes. After soldiers passed out thousands of sample ballots, the top UN election official condemned U.S. military interference. Bush proclaimed the elections a “resounding success” but despite CIA handouts, pro-U.S. candidates were crushed by pro-Iranian parties. The animosities inflamed by the election campaign helped propel Iraq to civil war, which Bush invoked the following year to justify sending far more U.S. troops there.
Bush has recently fretted about Russian involvement in American elections but when he was president, Bush acted las if the United States was entitled to intervene in any foreign election he pleased. He boasted in 2005 that his administration had budgeted almost $5 billion “for programs to support democratic change around the world,” much of which was spent to tamper with foreign elections.
In his October speech, Bush boasted: “No democracy pretends to be a tyranny.” But as president, Bush acted as if ravaging the Constitution was part of his job description. Shortly after 9/11, Bush turned back the clock to before 1215 (when the Magna Carta was signed), formally suspending habeas corpus and claiming a prerogative to imprison indefinitely anyone he labeled a terrorist suspect. In 2002, Justice Department lawyers informed Bush that the president was entitled to violate the law during wartime — and the war on terror was expected to continue indefinitely. In 2004, Bush White House counsel Alberto Gonzales formally asserted a “commander-in-chief override power” entitling presidents to ignore the Bill of Rights.
Under Bush, the U.S. government championed barbaric practices which did more to destroy America’s moral credibility than all of Trump’s tweets combined. Bush’s “enhanced interrogation” regime included endless high-volume repetition of a “Meow Mix” cat food commercial at Guantanamo, head slapping, waterboarding, exposure to frigid temperatures, and manacling for many hours in stress positions. After the Supreme Court rebuffed some of Bush’s power grabs in 2006, he pushed through Congress a bill that retroactively legalized torture — one of the worst legislative disgraces since the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
George W. Bush should have permanently taught Americans that presidents are most dangerous when seeking to con the nation into unnecessary wars — for democracy or any other pretext. Unfortunately, the recent media consecration of Bush may be expunging that bitter lesson. It is possible to vigorously oppose Trump’s abuses without fomenting delusions about his predecessors.
#1. To: Deckard, Vicomte13, Tooconservative, sneakypete (#0)
Though he invoked democracy to justify the war, U.S. military commanders three months after the fall of Baghdad “ordered a halt to local elections and self-rule in provincial cities and towns across Iraq, choosing instead to install their own handpicked mayors and administrators, many of whom are former Iraqi military leaders,” the Washington Post reported. Many Iraqis were outraged to see Saddam’s former henchmen placed back in power over them. But, as Noah Feldman, the Coalition Provisional Authority’s law advisor, explained, “If you move too fast, the wrong people could get elected.”The Bush administration only agreed to Iraqi elections after massive street protests demanding the right to vote. Bush reportedly authorized massive covert aid to pro-American Iraqi parties and politicians. However, when senior members of Congress such as Nancy Pelosi were briefed on the plan, they vehemently objected. Bush canceled the formal plan but delivered covert aid anyhow, using back channels and undercover operators kept secret from Congress as well as the American public.
=====================================
NYT, Nov. 29, 2003
Some American policy makers fear that a nationwide ballot right now would bring out the most radical elements in the electorate, ready and able to exploit growing Iraqi resentments toward any candidates seen as favored by the United States.
Officials close to L. Paul Bremer III and his aides at the American-led occupation authority say his concerns about these problems led to the initial American decision to postpone the transfer of sovereignty to the end of 2004 at the earliest.
''It would be a disaster to have an election whose legitimacy was contested,'' said Noah Feldman, an assistant professor of law at New York University, who was a constitutional law adviser to Mr. Bremer earlier this year.
''Nobody wants Palm Beach County in Baghdad,'' Mr. Feldman added. ''Historical experience also suggests that quick elections under postwar conditions elect people not dedicated to democratization. Simply put, if you move too fast, the wrong people could get elected.''
Suddenly, earlier this month, that view shifted at the most senior levels of the administration in Washington. Mr. Bremer was summoned back for consultations, and a plan was worked out with the Iraqi Governing Council for what he called ''a transparent, participatory democratic process'' to choose a government.
''It was a document that looked like some treaty between the United States and the Indians in 1882,'' said Rami G. Khouri, executive editor of The Daily Star in Beirut.
"The wrong people could get elected."
The key passage, they understand democracy as nominating "right people" in the government in a way that voting part of the public believes that the votes matter.
In the oligarchical societies, the only way for the people to be represented is to have a strong leader like Chavez or Gaddafi that rules in the interest of the people.
The key passage, they understand democracy as nominating "right people" in the government in a way that voting part of the public believes that the votes matter.
I have to admit I am surprised you not only picked up on that,but you were against it. Your commie idols were the ones that invented that strategy. One of Stalin's best-know quotes is "It doesn't matter who votes. What matters is who counts the votes."
In the oligarchical societies, the only way for the people to be represented is to have a strong leader like Chavez or Gaddafi that rules in the interest of the people.
You are 100 percent on target with that one. They are tribal societies,and most seem to be happy with that system. You can't just come in and upend a system that has been working to THEIR satisfaction (mostly) for thousands of years and expect them to be happy about it.
I have to admit I am surprised you not only picked up on that,but you were against it. Your commie idols were the ones that invented that strategy.
Dear Pete. You are surprised, because you put on me a label. But I think on my own and I do not follow any idols, no matter if they are Commie or anti-Commie.
Martin Luther stated "Here I stand; I can do no other." I say "I move where I will" :)
