Middle East Uprising: Is President Bush responsible!!??

Listen, I hated President Bush. Hated him. Pretty much still do.

But after looking at this latest map of countries through Africa and the Middle East where the people are protesting their dictators and demanding more freedom, I have to ask the most dreadful question ever:

Was President Bush Correct?



The Bush Doctrine

In a series of speeches in late 2001 and 2002, Bush expanded on his view of American foreign policy and global intervention, declaring that the United States should actively support democratic governments around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the threat of terrorism, and that the United States had the right to act unilaterally in its own security interests, without the approval of international bodies such as the United Nations.

This morning I was wondering what started all these uprisings? What was the root cause, the first "domino", if you will, that began this event?

And to my utter astonishment, I came to a most embarrassing conclusion: "Could it be the Bush Doctrine?".

I want feedback people. TELL ME I'M WRONG. The last thing I want to do is have to apologize to my friends I berated for so many of the Bush years - telling them how stupid Bush's plan was - that somehow democracy would "magically spread" around the middle east WOULD NEVER WORK.

There has to be another reason.

Otherwise, my foot is in my mouth.

I feel he used the terms freedom and liberation to be a screen for the real interests, oil and military presences.

Its GWBs fault I did not sleep well last night.
I also stubbed my toe the other day. His fault.

Well, given that Bush openly supported a ton of dictators in the Middle East like Saudi's King, or Gaddafi...I'd say HELL NO!!

I have a lot of Bahraini and Egyptian friends, and they say other countries have nothing to do with all of this. They have been oppressed for decades, and thanks to the Internet/TV they now see how much better it could be. They WANT democracy.

A lot of those nations have been governed by Sunni while the majority of the population is Shiite. They've had enough of that too, so religion plays a role too...but mostly it's because they've been oppressed, tortured, and because their rights have been cut to the point where they want to make a stand.

Bush is responsible, he will continue to take the blame for everything, because the current Administration can't and won'tr take responsibility for their own actions. i didn't agree with Bush, but I can tell you, as any POTUS, you must be able to take responsibility for your cabinet members actions, and statements. And that is why Bush will be blamed, because everything the Current Admin does and says, is Bush's fault. Didn't you know?

reply to post by harrytuttle


I'm pretty sure it was Wikileaks that sparked it. Ben Ali in Tunisia was exposed by Wikileaks as having violent amounts of wealth and had a nasty habit of mismanaging the nations cash. That was the last straw for the people there. Egypt was inspired by Tunisia and the rest are running off of that same momentum.

Why do you think America is so darned scared of all this rabble-rousing and so paranoid about Wikileaks? They are proving that a first-world nation can be changed directly by its citizens. That is a notion that governments have been trying to intimidate us away from for decades.

If Bush truly meant what he said, he wouldn't have tried to spread "democracy" with drones, bombs, and strafing runs.

Well I'll reserve my judgment on that.

But I do remember a speech that Bush gave after 9/11 and his exact words were "I'll make them fight each other" (I cannot remember the year the speech was given, migraines have effected my memory)

I can visualize Bush having time of his life now that all over middle east people are rising up to their dictators and pro government and anti-government protesters fighting it out on streets.

Still we will have to wait and see if the developments are going o be good or bad. If under the cloak of democracy Islamic fundamentalist seize power then we have a whole new set of problems, if secular government come to power and people including women have equal rights then I foresee a stability in the region and a rapid economic development which can benefit US and Europe in the long term.

But again I can be wrong.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Bush is responsible, he will continue to take the blame for everything, because the current Administration can't and won'tr take responsibility for their own actions. i didn't agree with Bush, but I can tell you, as any POTUS, you must be able to take responsibility for your cabinet members actions, and statements. And that is why Bush will be blamed, because everything the Current Admin does and says, is Bush's fault. Didn't you know?

Wow... I find it baffling when people think of the whole middle-east revolution as a negative thing. The OP was trying to find a connection to credit Bush, not blame him.

Do you blame your chef for an awesome steak?

Talk to the people on the front lines, those who are protesting. It wasn't a foreign country that made them revolt, it was INJUSTICE, TORTURE, and OPPRESSION. Sometimes for decades.

What changed is the availability of Internet. This allows people to see how it is elsewhere in the world. Now, if you're sitting in Libya, and your dad and brother just "disappeared" in one of Gaddafi's torture prisons...and you then log onto Youtube/Facebook and see how easy life is in democratic countries compared to yours...maybe then you will realize that revolution is the best and only way for them.

To get back on topic:

1) Bush didn't install the Internet in the Middle East...so you can't credit him for that.
2) Bush didn't increase our liberties, on the contrary, thanks to the patriot act he pissed on them

Ergo, I doubt Bush deserves any credit for the revolutions. You can give him credit should those new governments turn into America-hating governments because people are pissed off that he supported all those dictators for decades while the people suffered. Karma

Having said that, the people in the ME I spoke to are not anti-US, they just want their freedom and democracy. They deserve our support, and saying this is a negative thing makes us look pretty bad. Fools like Beck give the US a bad rep with their bigot shows...

reply to post by Cuervo


I was trying to cut the " haters" off at the pass....you watch, they'll be some hater on this thread, that will do just that, point fingers~ But your right.....do agree with both your previous posts~

Originally posted by macman
Its GWBs fault I did not sleep well last night.
I also stubbed my toe the other day. His fault.

Above you have the definitive answer to ALL problems according to most liberals and their submissive spokesperson, obowma.

Think it's actually possible that as long as even one of the current liberal generation is still alive, there will still be current things that are Bush's fault.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Good points. Perhaps it's BECAUSE the U.S.'s imperial armies are occupying OPPRESSED countries that these people are now saying "We no longer want to be oppressed!!" - so the US no longer has an excuse to start a war in their country?

I agree that Wikileaks & the internet have provided the SEEDS of freedom to want to grow in these countries. People see freedom and they want freedom - but haven't they always?

I believe these wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, and the CIA's drone bombings in Pakistan are making people in the middle east TIRED of all the corruption in their governments. Terrorists & Corrupt dictators HATE freedom for the people - so I kind of think there is a tie there.

And perhaps Bush will someday be given partial credit for "shaking" that tree of oppression.

reply to post by harrytuttle


I think by now it's pretty clear that no army can compete with the power of the Internet and social media. That is, unless they are 100% ruthless and willing to murder their entire population. I doubt there's more than 2-3 countries willing to do that. North Korea without a doubt, but I'm not sure about Libya, Saudi Arabia, and a few others. Gaddafi's acting up, but he's already lost large parts of his military because they're defecting, and he's lost all support from Beduin clan leaders and other ME governments. He won't be able to hold on for long once he realizes killing a few hundred demonstrators won't stop this.

Once Libya falls, and Yemen, it's only a matter of time before the rest follows. If they want to prevent it, they should start a move towards democracy NOW...it's imo the only way for them to prevent being chased out of their country, or having to murder their own citizens.

It wasn't all Wikileaks' doing, a lot was due to people having access to the Internet in general. Information and education is so easy to come by, it's also the reason the number of religious believers are dropping. Overall, this is a great thing!

Even if there's 2000 people dying in Libya in an effort to chase away that horrible joke of a man Gaddafi, it will still be better than the West invading it, which leads to a TON more victims. Also, if they do it on their own, it's something they really want...not something that's being forced on them. Imo the best way we can help is by promoting freedom in our own countries and spreading that message. A good step would be to get rid of the Patriot Act and stop trying to take out Net Neutrality. After all, it's net neutrality that allowed these revolutions to happen. If individual entities could regulate the Internet, they could stop something like this at will.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


The "haters" will always be justified because Bush was the worst president ever!

However, this uprising is probably 50/50. 50% American involvement and 50% homegrown animosity.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Whereweheaded

 

However, this uprising is probably 50/50. 50% American involvement and 50% homegrown animosity.

More like: 40% because of all the torture and oppression, 5% Wikileaks, 40% Internet/Social media, 15% for religious reasons (Sunni vs Shiite)

As long as there are Liberal Democrat Losers (LiDos), Bush will be responsible for everything wrong.

reply to post by harrytuttle


It has more to do with the article in my post: Middle Eastern Banking/Altruistic Monetary Ideals - Under Attack

The Western banks want NO competition ..and also they are making their move .. by design...

Originally posted by centurion1211


Think it's actually possible that as long as even one of the current liberal generation is still alive, there will still be current things that are Bush's fault.

Ya that is how it works, FDR created social security, that is still his fault, Hitler created the largest war in history,
still his fault. Are you angry at the way reality works?

I was thinking it was Obama's fault for making Bush govern the way he did, but that's just me...