Posted on 11/07/2003 8:01:38 AM PST by Brian S
Fri November 07, 2003 10:37 AM ET
By Miral Fahmy DUBAI (Reuters) - President George Bush's calls for democracy rang hollow in the Middle East, where many said on Friday they were appalled Washington was preaching liberty for Arabs while occupying Iraq.
The war on Iraq and Washington's support for Israel in its bloody conflict with the Palestinians have antagonized many Arabs and Muslims who were already seething at the United States' war on terror, seen by many as a battle against Islam.
And Bush's sweeping foreign policy speech on Thursday, in which he challenged ally Egypt and foes Iran and Syria to adopt democracy, fueled Arab indignation.
"Bush's speech is like a boring, broken record that nobody believes," said Gulf-based political analyst Moghazy al-Badrawy.
"He wants democracy and the U.S. is occupying Iraq and its ally Israel is killing Palestinians? Arabs just don't buy it."
Abdel-Monem Said, director of Egypt's Al-Ahram Center for Political Strategic Studies, said the perceived U.S. dishonesty in justifying the Iraq war had also tarnished its credibility.
"Democracy is all about legalities, rule of law and legitimacy," he said. "There is an issue of double standards."
Mohammad al-Bsairi, a Kuwaiti member of parliament and spokesman for the Gulf state's Muslim Brotherhood, told Reuters Washington's blind bias for Israel -- battling a Palestinian independence uprising -- also flew in the face of democracy.
Lebanon's top Shi'ite Muslim cleric, Sheikh Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, scornfully described Bush's call as an attempt to ensure compliancy in the region, rather than better lives.
"It's the democracy of the American administration to preserve its strategic interests in the Middle East and not to preserve the interests of the people," he said at a sermon.
In an editorial, Saudi Arabia's leading Al-Riyadh daily said it was ironic that Bush was now concerned with the welfare of the Arab people after the United States vetoed almost all U.N. resolutions that would benefit them.
"America is traveling in a path that is totally opposite to the economic and political future of the Arabs," it added.
"DOUBLE STANDARDS"
Some commentators said Bush's Middle East assessment -- in which he praised many authoritarian governments and criticized Iran and Syria -- was based on which nations backed U.S. policies rather than their democratic credentials.
"Praising Saudi Arabia and criticizing Iran. It's not fair at all," said Egyptian analyst Gamal A.G. Soltan. "The spectrum of freedom available in Iran is much wider than Saudi Arabia."
Bush also appeared to add insult to injury when he said the United States had made a mistake by supporting non-democratic governments in the region for the past 60 years, analysts said.
Washington has for decades backed governments throughout much of the Middle East which are seen by their own citizens as totalitarian, corrupt, politically illegitimate and un-Islamic.
"Mr. Bush has not read history. Who supported and still supports the very governments whose oppressive rules breed extremism and terrorism?" asked an Arab analyst based in Dubai.
Other Arab commentators read the speech as a precursor for U.S.-backed aggressions in the Middle East aimed at justifying the U.S. presence in Iraq despite mounting casualties.
"As the crisis in Iraq deepens, the United States is trying to open a new front in the region, especially with Syria," Qatar's Al-Sharq newspaper said in an editorial.
However, some Arabs put a positive spin on Bush's speech, saying it might be the first step toward democracy.
"Democracy is a demand and I think that Middle Eastern countries will never grant it to its people without international pressure," said Saudi employee Abdulrahman Nasser.
Yeah! If America cared anything about liberty in the Middle East, they would never have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein!
Such "logic" is astounding. We must never forget that we are dealing with a bunch of 7th century morons infected with the mental illness called Islam.
Check THIS Article out. MSNBC might not be as anti-American as Reuters
F*%k 'em. Their little fantasyland world has brought the rest of us no end of grief.
They will either reform, or they will overreach in one, grand mistake that they will not realize in time to stop. I have no confidence in this score. The Arabs are the Arabs. It's always everyone else's fault with those people.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Islamic spin isn't even rational...
Who would you rather have A-rabs? American soldiers keeping the peace (or at least trying to in the face of all the fundamentalist's attacks), or maybe we could put Saddam back in and see how you hypocrits like that? My guess is Iraqis are enjoying more freedoms and protection with American troops 'occupying' their land than they otherwise would be. These people just don't get it, maybe ultimately, this will be why democracy fails in the Middle East. For democracy to work, you'd first need to have a population that isn't brainwashed and actually has a clue.
Below is the text of a letter sent to the editors of certain US newspapers:
We write in response to the confusion surrounding the use of the word "terrorist" in Reuters news stories.
We lost six members of the Reuters family and offices that housed 550 others who thankfully survived. From the first moments after the attacks, Reuters staff around the world worked tirelessly to account for their colleagues, restore our information services to customers, and report the news.
However, these efforts have been overshadowed by the controversy over the policy of our Editorial group to avoid using emotional terms such as "terrorist" in their news stories. This policy has served Reuters and, more importantly, our readers well by ensuring access to news as it occurs, wherever it occurs. As a global news organization reporting from 160 countries, Reuters mission is to provide accurate and impartial accounts of events so that individuals, organizations and governments can make their own decisions based on the facts.
Nonetheless, in an internal memo reminding our journalists of our policy in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, a statement was made that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." This wording caused deep offense among members of our staff, our readers and the public at large, many of whom felt this meant Reuters was somehow making a value judgment concerning the attacks. This was never our intention, nor is it our policy. Our policy is to avoid the use of emotional terms and not make value judgments concerning the facts we attempt to report accurately and fairly. We apologize for the insensitive manner in which we characterized this policy and we extend our sympathy to all those who have been affected by these tragic events.
Oh, good, now we are going to have ( on Fox) a comment on this speech by someone ( Mark Brezinski) who served on on Clinton's NSC.
Here's the spin from him: we need to identify ourselves with the Middle East peace process or we have no credibility. This guy is an idiot.
Saddam said the same thing. hehe
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.