[marvlus]

So doesn't the freedom of Afghanistan and Iraq count?

[mewzilla]

So doesn't the freedom of Afghanistan and Iraq count?

Not to Ken Auletta on Imus this morning, who thinks Jimmy Carter did more for human rights BTW.

[Ohioan]

Conquering two totalitarian States, whose leaders were hostile to our interests, does not necessarily translate into freedom. Time will tell, what follows our withdrawal.

But the absurdity of the claim--if he actually made it--will be attested by comparing it to the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe, as a direct result of Reagan stepping out of the policy of containment, and stepping up the cost of the arms race. There, there is no question but that people are much freer than they were--and in some of the countries, at least, there is real evidence that there is a developing infrastructure to preserve that freedom.

Because of the ethnic diversity and other factors, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq is suitable to Democracy. But the President has indicated that he intends to install such, so their future is very much in doubt. To see how "Democracy" can work in a land not suited to it, see Zimbabwe, or the Zaire, or Clinton's achievement in Haiti. (Or see Democracy In The Third World.)

William Flax

[GingisK]

So doesn't the freedom of Afghanistan and Iraq count?

If you live in those countries, I suppose. Or Mexico. Bush has has somewhat the opposite affect in his own country.