I bet they have…

Charles Krauthammer sings the praises of neoconservatism:

In Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere in the Arab world, the forces of democratic liberalization have emerged on the political stage in a way that was unimaginable just two years ago. They have been energized and emboldened by the Iraqi example and by American resolve. [Emphasis added, lack of an editor in the original.]

We’re not sure we’d label a $200 mbillion overthrow of a non-democratic regime “the forces of democratic liberalism,” nor would we, for that matter, argue that the Iraq example has energized Iraq; but then again, we’re not nationally syndicated columnists either.

The Iraqi elections vindicated the two central propositions of the Bush doctrine. First, that the desire for freedom is indeed universal and not the private preserve of Westerners.

Right — because as everyone knows — no one believed, until the Bush doctrine, that non-Westerners could ever, ever, want a democratic system. Never. No. Don’t even think about it. Totally ridiculous! Get out!

Second, that America is genuinely committed to democracy in and of itself. Contrary to the cynics, whether Arab, European or American, the U.S. did not go into Iraq for oil or hegemony but for liberation–a truth that on Jan. 30 even al-Jazeera had to televise.

Not liberation Chuckles, protection from all those WMDs, remember? As for the Bush doctrine showing some profound interest in democracy in and of itself:

Bush, in answering the question about the leader of Pakistan, also said: “The new Pakistani general, he’s just been elected — not elected, this guy took over office. It appears this guy is going to bring stability to the country and I think that’s good news for the subcontinent.”

Give me a break!

This was Sadly, Stossel!


Comments: 12


I think that all of your examples, except India were once invaded, or occupied by US troops. In fact these cases might even be used to show historical justification of the US’s current action in Iraq.

Don’t agree with it, just pointing it out.



I just wonder how much it pains them to praise “democratic liberalization” when every other day they are condemning its evils.


Yeah, but Bush said that before 9-11, when everything changed 😉


*le sigh*
I wish I were so skilled at writing such intelligent sounding nincompoopery. I would be a millionaire.

Neoconservatism isn’t an ideology. Its a mask. Why are neoconservatives only concerned with democracy for people who live over oil fields? And why do they only mention justice for those who support the MNC world order? Only an ideologue like Charles would call Bush foreign policy anything other than hard core realism.


When exactly did the “Bush doctrine” change from “Attack them (Who? Anyone!) before they attack us” to “Spread democracy”. I’m guessing it was right about the time things started going tits up in Iraq. Am I right?


When exactly did the “Bush doctrine” change from “Attack them (Who? Anyone!) before they attack us” to “Spread democracy”. I’m guessing it was right about the time things started going tits up in Iraq. Am I right?

Nah, the Bush Doctrine is the “Be that dog at the park who thinks he has to hump every other dog in order to display dominance” approach to geopolitics.


Our foreign policy in Latin America is in hands of all Iran-Contra cadres like Otto Reich. They supported unsuccessful coup in Venezuela, a successful one in Haiti and were oblivious to threats to democracy in Guatemala and Mexico.

Very importantly, after the coup in Haiti deposed an “imperfect, although elected” government, the country remains a total mess and Busheviks do pretty nothing about it.

So: if we cannot do it in Haiti, where people have similar religion, similar language etc. (how many Americans can use French and how many can use Arabic?), we do not have a chance in Middle East.


Thanks for the link to Secretary of State Powell’s
WMD presentation.

Have you seen these Secretary of State comments?

“Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there
matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders
of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological
weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security
threat we face.”

      Madeleine Albright, President Clinton’s Secretary of State
      Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
      February 18, 1998

Interesting, no?



Yes, everybody thought Saddam Hussein had some sort of WMD capability- very few people thought he had absolutely nothing.

Where the dishonesty of the administration came in was:

a.) Exaggerating connections between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime

b.) Over-hyping intelligence that was shaky at best, i.e., the mobile weapons labs that turned out to be weather balloon vehicles, the aluminum tubes that could supposedly only be used for nuclear weapons, etc.

I blame Madeleine

Damn that Albright for brainwashing Bush into invading Iraq!


The unnamed person at 7:33 p.m. is quite right. The “Bush Doctrine” originally meant “the right of the U.S. to start a preemptive war whenever the fuck it feels like it.” At some point after everyone (well, all non-Faux News-watchers, anyway) noticed that Iraq had no WMD’s, the “Bush doctrine” was magically transformed into “we [heart] ‘democracy.'”


(comments are closed)