<< WOMAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH ~ MAIN ~ QUESTIONS ASKED >>

BUSH RIGHTNESS HAILED

Mark Steyn asks the left:

Come on, lads. You don’t want to be the last to leap aboard the bandwagon. The New York Times are running front page stories with headlines like “Unexpected Whiff Of Freedom Proves Bracing For The Middle East”. Daniel Schorr, the dean of conventional wisdom at National Public Radio, was for once almost ahead of the game, concluding his most recent editorial with a strange combination of words that had never before passed his lips in that particular order: “Bush may have had it right.”

Did he simply muff the reading? Did he mean to say: “Bush may have had it - right?” But apparently not. Ever since, the same form of words has mysteriously flowered from Toronto to London to Sydney. It’s the catchphrase du jour - like “Show me the money” or “You are the weakest link. Goodbye.” Now it’s “Could Bush be right?” Even America’s media naysayers have suddenly noticed that they can hardly hear their own generic boilerplate about what a Vietnam quagmire the new Iraq is over the sound of raven-tressed Beirut hotties noisily demanding Lebanon’s freedom in the streets of Beirut.

They are hot. Meanwhile, LGF has set a new standard for mock Bush-loathing DU-style Dubya dissing:

Chimpy McBushburton

Posted by Tim B. on 03/10/2005 at 09:14 AM
  1. Tim, I am ashamed to say that many of my leftish countrymen will be glad that the Hisbollah agents are reasserting Syrian control in Lebanon. 

    Also, have you noticed that President Bush has seemed more confident and in charge recently?  In his press conference yesterday, and his other recent public statements,  the stumbling and bumbling that sometimes pops up in his extemporaneous remarks was missing.  To use a sports analogy, he has momentum.

    Posted by Mystery Meat on 2005 03 10 at 12:15 PM • permalink

  2. I up the ante with “Chimpy McHitlerburton”.

    Posted by morley on 2005 03 10 at 01:31 PM • permalink

  3. Morley - you forgot the “W.” in the middle.  ;)

    And Steyn?  Again, I lay down my pen and call him my daddy.  Just for this:  “The New York Times are....”  I love that plural verb on the collective noun.  If I were a cat I’d purr.

    Posted by Nightfly on 2005 03 10 at 02:16 PM • permalink

  4. I wonder if there is a new strategy among leftist critics: to talk up the democratic developments in the Middle East, giving Bush all the credit. Then wait for the inevitable: some of the developments will fizzle out, slow down, or backfire.

    That way, unless there is rapid 100% success in every country, Bush and the neocons can then be condemned as failures.

    Posted by zscore on 2005 03 10 at 05:46 PM • permalink

  5. Poo- just when I got to #1 on google for Chimpy Bushitler.

    Posted by Habib on 2005 03 10 at 08:30 PM • permalink

  6. three problems here.
    Firstly show a link between Iraq and the other countries.
    how do you explain the much larger Pro-Syrian crowds that turned up in Lebanon.
    Just exactly what are these examples of democracy that are being talked about.
    Democracy flourishes when you have a strong liberalised economy. Which country in the Middle East has that.
    The major problem with Iraq from now on is that without a decent economy there will be little point in Iraqis turning up to vote.
    Democracy usually fails when it is introduced too quickly.

    Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 03 10 at 08:50 PM • permalink

  7. Homer sleeps a lot, doesn’t he?

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 03 10 at 09:40 PM • permalink

  8. A point that hasn’t been sufficiently made is that the proposition that the elimination of Iraqi could prompt a liberal resurgence in the Near East has already been proven correct. (I’m supposing, as Homer does not, that the current events are significantly due to that prior event.) The fact that the new birth of liberalism there may be abortive in no way shows that we were wrong to try. The fact that something is beginning shows that we were right to try, and that those who argued that the common Arab people were incapable of seeing this as an opportunity were wrong.

    Posted by SteveGW on 2005 03 10 at 09:44 PM • permalink

  9. Homer,

    in a one-party dictatorship, pro-government rallies are ALWAYS going to be bigger than anti-government rallies.

    Posted by steve68 on 2005 03 10 at 09:52 PM • permalink

  10. I up the ante with “Chimpy McHitlerburton?.

    He’s right.  Hitler and Bush have to go together.  They’re inseparable.  Everyone knows that.

    Posted by wronwright on 2005 03 10 at 10:17 PM • permalink

  11. When someone actually does some research find out who exactly is the leading opposition force in Egypt?
    hint think Algeria.

    Steve68 I am not aware of anyone saying that Lebanon is a one party dictatorship.
    howver I do find it dissapointing that The Shiites do appear to Pro-Syrian and do not wish to change the status quo.
    Who is the main Opposition in Lebanon?

    finally who exactly is in power in Iraq and who has the stronger links Iran or the USA.

    Hypothetical question but if there was democracy in the Middle East just who do you think would win?
    hint think again of Algeria


    finally I see Madame Andrea has not lost her sparkling repartee and wit. Keep it up!

    Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 03 10 at 10:18 PM • permalink

  12. Everytime I read a comment like that from Homer, I’m always inclined to simply say “just read Steyn”.  He lays it out, nice neat easy to understand.

    It’s like reading “World Politics for Dummies”.

    Posted by wronwright on 2005 03 10 at 10:20 PM • permalink

  13. It worked

    Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 03 10 at 10:23 PM • permalink

  14. I’ve always thought that Chimpy Bin Bu$HitlerBurtonRon, with a swastika replacing the dollar sign when necessary, took the cake. Osama, Bush, $, Hitler, Halliburton, Enron, Chimp. All in one!

    Posted by Leigh on 2005 03 10 at 10:51 PM • permalink

  15. The major problem with Iraq from now on is that without a decent economy there will be little point in Iraqis turning up to vote.

    Fer gawd’s sake Homer, please at least try to make sense.

    Posted by PW on 2005 03 10 at 11:11 PM • permalink

  16. Homer,

    I appreciate your concern that should democracy take hold in the Middle East, the likely short-term benefactors will be Islamists.

    However, that’s been the argument for keeping the sons of bitches who are currently in power all along. If you’re going to trade democracy for “stability”, in the end you’ll wind up with neither.

    So what if the eventual government in Iraq takes its orders from Iran. When (and I do say “when”) the Iranian theocracy falls over, democracy gets two countries for the price of one.

    Re. Lebanon, it’s run by Syria, a one-party dictatorship. In my book, that makes Lebanon a one-party dictatorship.

    Democracy in the Middle East may well turn up a slew of Islamist governments that believe in one man, one vote, one time, before returning to dictatorship. But democracy is a genie - once it’s out of the bottle, it doesn’t go back in. We need to think long-term.

    It took the French almost 180 years between their 1789 revolution and functioning post-De Gaulle democracy. In that time, they also went through a series of republics, a resurgent empire, a home-grown dictatorship and a foreign dictatorship.

    Back to the Middle East, if any of these Islamist governments that may turn up as pricks like the Saudi royal family, Mubarak, Assad, Gaddafi etc. etc. fall decide they want a clash of civilisations, they’d better be prepared for sand to be turned into glass.

    Posted by steve68 on 2005 03 10 at 11:22 PM • permalink

  17. Steve,
    You have misunderstood me.

    I don’t mind them coming to power if the people vote them in.That’s democracy I am just querying the link with bush’s grand vision.
    did he really invade Iraq to put Islamists into power into Egypt?

    Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 03 10 at 11:46 PM • permalink

  18. Homer, you’d make more sense if you’d clean the crusties out from under your period, comma, and space keys. I’m still trying to decipher “Hint think Algeria”. It looks like something a Sigue Sigue Sputnik nostalgia band would call themselves.

    Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 03 11 at 12:17 AM • permalink

  19. Just laughing. That’s all you can do.

    It is so funny to see people come around and change the story again.

    Before elections it was elections won’t be successful. After elections it was- well its just one step of a larger process, blah blah. Now Lebanon and you have people saying well democracy was going to happen anyways.. its not Bush, its just a natural progression in humanity, blah, blah…

    Wait, weren’t they just saying that democracy couldn’t work in the Middle East.

    Just laughing. Its pretty funny.

    Posted by Kmax on 2005 03 11 at 12:17 AM • permalink

  20. Homer,

    quite possibly . . . . Rumsfeld is the guy who said democracy is messy, and I give these guys enough credit that I think they understand that this is going to be a messy process but they have to think long-term because short-term thinking hasn’t worked. US and other administrations have tolerated dictatorships for the sake of stability for too long and it got no one anywhere good.

    And like I said before, if any of these new Islamist governments think they can fuck with America, especially on American soil, they’d better be prepared for truly apocalyptic retribution. 9/11 will not be allowed t happen again without truly disastrous consequences for the Middle East. Forget about such consequences starting a war between civilisations - there won’t be enough survivors on the other side to start a soccer riot let along a war.

    Posted by steve68 on 2005 03 11 at 12:22 AM • permalink

  21. Its nice to see Steyn gloating. It makes a change from his ususal matter of fact sober appreciations of the situation. But doesnt this look a little like defining victory down?

    The success of the Bush ME strategy & the GWOT is being measured by the speed with which anti-Islamist forces are being replaced by pro-Islamist forces.

    We didnt have to wage war to do this. Turkey, Iran & Algeria have all gone steadily more democratic over the past generation, without Bush’s militarism.

    And these countries havent been a problem to anyone ever since. Apart from the fact that they are all strongholds of Islamic fundamentalism, anti-semitism and anti-Americanism. But maybe waging Iraq war has created so much good will for the US in the region that it is worth the US$300 bill cost and 10,000 US casualites.

    It is stupid to attribute the regime changes in Lebanon and Palestine to Bush’s democracy promotion. These nations have had democratic elections before. The current changes are occurring because of national incidents - the sudden deaths of national statesmen being correlated to the withdrawal of alien forces from Occupied Territories.

    Did Iraq war have to be waged to force Sharon to push Judaic settlers out of Gaza? The UN was behind the resolution to remove Syrian forces from Lebanon.

    The Cedar Revolution may devour its children. Did any one on this site notice that the pro-Syrian Shiite militants outnumbered the anti-Syrian Maronite moderates by about ten to one?

    But we rejoice as Hezboallah takes over Lebanon. We delight in the increased power accruing to fanatical Druze milita. Who cares that these people killed several hundred Marines in Beirut a couple of decades ago. Let bygones be bygones.

    So now Bush’s strategy is succeeding in empowering proto-Islamist and pro-Iranian polities that stretch from the Gulf to the Red Sea. I suppose we can be thankful over the possiblity that an anti-Western medieval Islamist will some how rescue Iraq from sectarian civil war. I am sure that there will be no more problems there now that assorted warlords and witchdoctors currently vying for several trillion dollars in oil will happily sort out their differences.

    Great.

    Posted by Jack on 2005 03 11 at 12:23 AM • permalink

  22. and if anybody’s wondering what I’m talking about . . .

    Posted by steve68 on 2005 03 11 at 12:24 AM • permalink

  23. Homer: “Democracy flourishes when you have a strong liberalised economy. Which country in the Middle East has that. “

    This preposterous supposition is exactly bass ackwards!  A democracy is necessary for a strong economy to flourish.

    Otherwise, how on Earth do you explain the US?  This country was a frikkin’ WILDERNESS for most of its history to date.  Then it became a democracy.  BUT IT TOOK UNTIL WWII for the US to become a “player” of ANY description on the world state.  And the powerful economy all the lefties like to denigrate didn’t come about until after about 1950 or so. 

    So how do you explain?

    Posted by mamapajamas on 2005 03 11 at 12:46 AM • permalink

  24. Madame Andrea,
    Just for you there were elections called in Algeria but were stopped by the Military when it became clear an Islamic party was going to win.

    Mampajama (cute name)
    I don’t get your point. The Us economy was flourishing pre-WW1 and positively boiled postWW1.
    If you don’t have a liberalised economy what is the point of voting.
    big deal if the Government changes.

    You might note that few Asian nationscould actually be called democracies just yet indeed given what happened in the Deep South the US wasn’t a true democracy until the 60’s.

    Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 03 11 at 12:58 AM • permalink

  25. Jack, when has ‘palestine’ had a democratic election before?

    The election Terrorfat won was hardly democratic (Arafat had control of all the media, and was running against some woman noone had heard of before, or since)

    Iran has elections, and is certainly NOT democratic, it is run by the Mullahs.

    As for the demos, in dictatorships, demonstrations for the dictatorship are always bigger than those against.

    Posted by Sheriff on 2005 03 11 at 01:34 AM • permalink

  26. The election just held now was no different to the one held that elected Arafat.
    If the Mullahs controlled the elections in Iran the current President would not have won (comfortably) the last two elections.

    Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 03 11 at 01:36 AM • permalink

  27. wronright: Bush and Hitler are almost indistinguisable, aren’t they? I mean, you’ve got your death camps, your invasion of Europe, the US military swearing fealty personally to George W Bush… the rapid ramp up of military power and conversion of the entire country to a war footing… what’s that you say, we don’t?

    Well, actually maybe Bush can learn a thing or two off Hitler. Maybe he should invade Europe somewhere? Why not a beachhead in France? I’m sure that would get the peace loving appeasers over there to appreciate our his magnamity.

    But before that, he should take out huge loans from everywhere else in the world to pay for some wars, and start defaulting on them! I’m sure they would start taking the attitude that they’d better give Bush what he wants in order to achieve peace in their time. Maybe Kofi could then help broker an historic accord. I’m not sure who would deliver Chamberlain’s speech, perhaps Schroeder?

    In my view the strongest force of all, one which grew and took fresh shapes and forms every day war, the force not of any one individual, but was that unmistakable sense of unanimity among the peoples of the world that war must somehow be averted. The peoples of the British Empire were at one with those of Germany, of France and of Italy, and their anxiety, their intense desire for peace, pervaded the whole atmosphere of the conference, and I believe that that, and not threats, made possible the concessions that were made.

    Sometimes the best policy is simply to be a complete asshole and then relent a bit in order for people to realize just how much of a nice guy you are. The rest of the world doesn’t know how nice they have it.

    Posted by taspundit on 2005 03 11 at 08:12 AM • permalink

  28. Yes, they’re essentially the same.

    Lately I’ve been reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer.  I’m amazed as to how similar they are.  Basically you could replace Hitler with Bush, it’s that close.

    (switches off satire switch)

    I do heartily recommend it to those interested in the President’s efforts to combat terrorism.  The parallels are uncanny and the lessons of great benefit.  For example, I read that prior to the Battle of Stalingrad, the Soviets sacrificed two or three armies of men.  That constituted hundreds of thousands of soldiers.  Stalin believed it necessary to achieve an ultimate victory against Germany.  And it worked.  But with such great bloodshed and loss of life.

    The US on the other hand has lost 1500 soldiers, every one a terrible loss.  And yet it is achieving the goals for which it embarked on this unfortunate war.

    500,000 men in one battle vs. 1,500 men for one war.  Sometimes we need to keep things in perspective.

    Posted by wronwright on 2005 03 11 at 11:11 AM • permalink

  29. If you don’t have a liberalised economy what is the point of voting.

    In other words, Homer, your opinion is: Voting only has a point to it if people can vote themselves some money. Wow, there go those conservative credentials you’ve tried to fake on the other thread.

    Not that I’m surprised…every time the Republicans win an election somewhere in the U.S., there’s a whining commentary track from the Liberal Commentariat about how “these people voted against their self-interests”, as if the only interest people could possibly have in voting is to vote themselves as big a welfare package as possible.

    You’re doing exactly the same thing here. Yeah, all those people demanding free election in Lebanon etc. right now are out just just because they wanna have more money. To be free of oppression and dictatorship? To be able to decide on their leaders themselves? Nah, those simply can’t be anybody’s reasons for desiring the voting franchise. Just can’t.

    Homer, I’m sorry to say so, but you’re a blinkered idiot who doesn’t have clue one about human nature.

    Posted by PW on 2005 03 11 at 12:34 PM • permalink

  30. Exactly, there are huge parallels with WW2. Back in 01 or 02 I read a biography on Churchill (Gilbert?). Incredible.

    He was basically tearing his hair out because he could see that the English were setting themselves up for World Wars… twice! And no one would listen to him until it was too late to build up a sizeable military in order to deter the opposition.

    When you look at it like that it was the idiocy that led to weak foreign policy and appeasement that ended up resulting in WW2. Fortunately Bush is in a different position. There were probably some voices in the wilderness crying out about the Wahabbists, but personally I don’t blame either Clinton or Bush for not seeing that one coming. All they managed before 9/11 was a car bomb and an exploding dinghy.

    In that respect, it was even more surprising than Pearl Harbor, because Roosevelt had been blockading the Japanese for a while and probably should have seen it coming.

    Posted by taspundit on 2005 03 11 at 01:19 PM • permalink

  31. Well, look at what it has cost the US to wage this war:  $300+ billion and 1,500+ US soldiers lost, 5,000+ innocent Iraqis killed, and whatever the number of insurgent is, the number of which I couldn’t care less except to say that I hope it’s damn high.

    That is a very high cost.  And not just that.  It has created dissention within our country, a constant stream of shrill sniping by the left liberal set, and diplomatic problems with our so called allies.

    To justify such a cost, any acts of aggression or terror that instigates such a response would have to reach a very high threshold of calamity.  I have no doubt whatsoever that that threshold has been met.  Who in their right state of mind could say otherwise when four sets of Arab terrorists hijack four US airliners, each filled with innocent people, and crashed them into buildings or corn fields, killing thousands of further innocent people?  Coupled with the fact that the same Islamist factions have declared war on America and the West and have expressed their heartfelt desire to destroy our cities through any means possible—any means possible.

    But I can guarantee for that various groups of people, such a threshold is much higher.  Nothing less than truckloads of terrorists breaking down doors and seizing infidels for public beheadings would be sufficient to justify war.  And even that wouldn’t be enough for some.

    Posted by wronwright on 2005 03 11 at 02:33 PM • permalink

  32. “I’ve always thought that Chimpy Bin Bu$HitlerBurtonRon, with a swastika replacing the dollar sign when necessary, took the cake.”

    Replacing any T’s with little crosses is anothe r nice touch, although it’s harder to tell.

    Posted by Jim Treacher on 2005 03 11 at 05:08 PM • permalink

  33. PW, Can I suggest you have a look at Iran since it is topicable at present.
    The people voted there to change the system.
    In essence they want a better existance for their children.
    The reformers failed thus the less people voted in the last election and they have all but ceded powers back to the mad mulllahs.
    Democracy is more than justing voting.

    Most people including the intelligence in the USA have conceded that international terrorism aka AQ has grown since the invasion of Iraq primarily by the large infusion of volunteers.
    Both the Cato institute and Bush 1 advisors warned this would happen however Bush Junior and of course Timbo said no.
    Thus 1500 deaths have been in vain.

    the ‘war’ on terrorism like the ‘war’ on drugs wil always be us. The trick is to get it to managable levels.
    Bush Jnr had the chance like no other to do that soon after 11/9 and he squibbed his chance and chose to invade Iraq.
    That is why he is the greatest friend AQ has ever had.

    Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 03 11 at 11:31 PM • permalink

  34. The trick is to get it to manageable levels. 

    And those levels would be, what exactly?

    Homer, these are fanatical fundamentalists. They are hell bent on detonating a WMD in an American city (although a Western city would suffice in a pinch).  Does anyone at the point in time deny their zealousness, their imagination, or their resourcefulness?

    The problem is that the Middle East in its current state is an incubator for radical Islamism.  A system of sustained corruption and tyrany has created tremendous anger for which the various governments have redirected to the US and the West.

    Bush is trying to change that.  If he can plant a seed of democracy, a strong seed, there stands a chance that the mosques and madrassas that generate the terrorist problem will be reformed or closed by their own people.  Democracies are a funny thing.  They tend to clean up their own messes.

    But by all means, let’s hear your plans to bring terrorism down to manageable levels.  Starting with:  what exactly is manageable?  A Beslan scale massacre once a year?  Twice?  A Moscow theatre takeover three times a year?  Ebola virus in Chicago?  A dirty bomb in Manhattan?

    Posted by wronwright on 2005 03 12 at 12:04 AM • permalink

  35. WW, Bush had the chance to do something about AQ and squibbed it.
    Imagine for the moment all that money and resources that had been wasted on Iraq had been chanelled into exterminating AQ.
    do you think any other Organisation would even think of attaking a Western country.Not on your nelly.

    If you explain what type of WMD you are exactly talking about we may be able to have a better discussion.
    AQ thus far have not used any sophiscated weapons and shown no inclination to do so.
    The answer for that is called opportunity cost.
    AQ has limited finances and no infrastructure to use missiles.
    They had the opportunity to use low level WMDs such a dirty bombs before 11/9 and since.

    Europe had terrorism down to managable levels in the 80s/90s

    Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 03 12 at 12:18 AM • permalink

  36. Homer, there is a big difference between the US and Europe. To use a classroom analogy, imagine there is a group of deviants in the back of the classroom using peashooters. Also imagine that they don’t learn too quickly.

    Europe is the slightly above average size sporty kid, say he plays soccer or something like that. A spitball comes his way. He knows who it is, and deals out some justice to the kid when he’s away from his clique. At most he can expect to get the deviancy down to manageable levels.

    America is the huge, hulking, linebacker/rugby player of a student, who is bigger than the teacher and bigger than anyone else in the grade, let alone that class. But he’s not stupid, he’s just naturally huge and grew up fast. In fact he’s normally mild mannered.

    A spitball comes his way, lodging firmly on the side of his face. He knows exactly who in the class is likely to lob a spitball in future (the deviant clique), but the first time he happens to catch the guy redhanded. What does he do?

    He certainly has the option of getting up, and putting every member of the clique in hospital, solving the problem forever. In fact, this option is always on the table.

    Of course, in so doing he knows that he’s going to be treated like a pariah by everyone in the school, and he may not even like himself for doing it.

    Instead, what he has chosen to do is talk the teacher into letting those kids sit up the front of the class where they can actually see what the teacher is doing and learn something. (Of course, he catches up with the guy who lobbed the spitball in the first place and beats the crap out of him. He does a detention or two as a result, but it’s a slap on the wrist).

    Now, what the 800lb gorilla of a student has done may or may not work, but it’s the best option he has at the time. It’s well within his will and capability to solve the problem entirely. The deviants at the back of the classroom need to understand that or they WILL get what’s coming to them.

    Posted by taspundit on 2005 03 12 at 02:14 AM • permalink

  37. Taspundit,
    tell that to the police in either Germany or Italy and they will laugh their heads off.
    Bush had his chance of glory and for what reason we will never know instead invaded Iraq and hasn’t that turned out to be a sensational decision.

    you will only deal with terrorism if you are serious with them and Bush has shown by his history in Afghanistan he wasn’t and isn’t.

    Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 03 12 at 02:22 AM • permalink

  38. And funnily enough, he has a second term worth of chance for glory because the American people think he’s doing a better job than anything the Democrats care to pony up.

    Of course, the biggest lack of seriousness I’ve seen from the Bush admin is their unwillingness to fence off the southern border. Other than that, they’ve invaded two countries, pressuring all their neighbours, and have a whole arsenal of armageddon to unleash on the host populations if they don’t get the hint.

    Posted by taspundit on 2005 03 12 at 02:47 AM • permalink

  39. Going through Homer Paxton’s frequent posts reveals no actual sugeestions how to deal with the world’s problems - just another troll treading a careful line in spoiling talk.
    There has been a lot of this about in Australia, from those opposed to pretty much everything the government does.
    If they, or the ALP in particular, ever come up with a set of ideas that enough of the electorate agree with they might even get elected.

    Posted by blogstrop on 2005 03 12 at 10:31 PM • permalink

  40. blogstrop:
    Don’t be stupid. If only they change the labels on their policies they can fool the people into voting for them. It’s not because their opinions are unpopular, it’s because the protesters aren’t wearing suits and ties!

    Seems like there is a really good opening for aspiring centrist politicians to join the labor party. I can see a Keating doing really well there. I’m not sure exactly what I would be doing different from the government though. Any ideas where Howard is slipping up?

    Posted by taspundit on 2005 03 12 at 10:51 PM • permalink

  41. Homer,

    President Bush did it exactly right.  Of course, that doesn’t mean there are many negatives attendant to this course of action.  But they are far outweighed by the potential benefits.

    Posted by wronwright on 2005 03 12 at 11:47 PM • permalink

  42. Blogstrop, I actually did say what Bush should have done.

    By the way no-one yet has shown this brilliance of bush in the Middle East.

    How exactly did the invasion of Iraq lead to the not so cedar revolution now.
    how did it lead to the Islamists being the main opposition grouping in Egypt and who would undoubtedly win elections there if they were fair?

    Roscoe,
    They had to burn down the school to get rid of me. What’s your excuse?

    Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 03 13 at 05:24 AM • permalink

  43. Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Members:
Login | Register | Member List

Please note: you must use a real email address to register. You will be sent an account activation email. Clicking on the url in the email will automatically activate your account. Until you do so your account will be held in the "pending" list and you won't be able to log in. All accounts that are "pending" for more than one week will be deleted.