Where Bush went wrong, by Sharansky

Former minister Natan Sharansky, whose book, The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror has inspired US President George W. Bush, gives Bush a "C" grade for implementing his vision.

Sharansky, the former Prisoner of Zion who currently chairs the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, told The Jerusalem Post Thursday: "I have to give Bush credit, because he brought back the agenda of linking security and democracy, which was abandoned by the free world after the defeat of the Soviet Union. [But] what makes it hard for him to implement it is that he's so lonely.

"Many politicians and institutions that should be promoting democracy and freedom are cynically reluctant to do it, because Bush raised the agenda," Sharansky went on. "That's why I give Bush an "A" for raising the idea, a "C" for implementation and I give his opponents, who abandoned the idea, an "F," because they are attacking Bush not for inconsistency in implementing the agenda but for raising it. Their approach denies the people of the Middle East the ability to live in freedom."

Sharansky called Bush "a lonely dissident for democracy in the White House" because of his lack of support. But he cited three cases where Bush could have and should have been more consistent in his insistence on democratization: the Palestinians, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

On the Palestinian issue, Sharansky tried unsuccessfully three times to persuade Bush not to allow the Palestinian Authority election last year that was won by Hamas.

"I told Bush before and after [the vote] that quick elections cannot replace the democratic process," Sharansky said. "Elections require a free society. Elections have to be the last step of the democratic process."

Sharansky credited Bush and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for encouraging liberty in Egypt, Lebanon and Syria. The 4,000 Egyptian judges who wrote President Hosni Mubarak that their electoral system had to be changed would not have taken such a risk without American support, Sharansky said. He praised Bush for pressuring Mubarak to release from jail a dissident for democracy, Saad Eddin Ibrahim.

But when the Iraq war became more complicated, the US State Department insisted on supporting loyal secular dictators such as Mubarak, despite their corruption, and Bush acquiesced, Sharansky said.

"America was afraid that if they would fight corrupt dictators, the Muslim Brotherhood would come to power in the Middle East. When America starts speaking powerfully, democratic dissidents are strengthened. But when America makes dictators allies, the dissidents are weakened and Islamic fundamentalism is strengthened. That's why America should not support Mubarak or Saudi Arabia," the former Soviet dissident said.

On the Saudi issue, Sharansky said he told Rice she was wrong when she included the kingdom in her list of "moderate countries in the Middle East." He said that when he asked her what was moderate about the Saudi regime, she admitted that he had touched a weak point and from then on, she referred instead to "responsible Middle Eastern countries."

"America has wanted for many years to make Saudi Arabia part of the solution in the Middle East, but if you believe in a link between security and democracy, it's not possible," Sharansky said.

"It's true that Saudi Arabia is against Iran, but it's ridiculous to say Israel has to make concessions to bring the Saudis on board the Middle East peace process. Bush said only leadership that brings democratic reforms can bring peace to the Middle East. That's the last thing the Saudis want to do. Democratic reforms are almost as big a threat to the Saudis as Iran."

Asked if there was a candidate running for US president who could implement his vision better than Bush had, Sharansky said he did not know of anyone who believed in his ideas more than the current president.

"He passionately believes in the power of freedom," he said. "But we saw it's not enough to believe. You have to be able to bring broad support for these ideas. It's not enough for a candidate to believe in the ideas, it's who can build a broad coalition around the ideas and sell them to the American people."

Asked whether he thought Likud chairman Binyamin Netanyahu would be more loyal to his ideas if he returned to the Prime Minister's Office than he was in his first term, Sharansky said he hoped so. "From all the Israeli politicians, Bibi is the only one who has spoken about the principled difference between peace agreements with or without democracy, in a book he wrote years ago," Sharansky said. "That's not my only idea, but it's an important step. It's also important that the people not be skeptical. The ideas have no chance if the leader who believes in them will become a lonely dissident."

One of the issues Sharansky focuses on at the Adelson Institute is Iran. He said the nuclearization of Iran could be stopped, even though the free world had a very limited time to do so. H said he knew firsthand that Bush wanted to stop Iran.

Sharansky said his top accomplishments since resigning from the Knesset last November had been the formation of the institute, hosting a meeting of democratic dissidents in Prague, the translation of his book into many languages and receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Bush in Washington.

"I don't regret leaving the Knesset for a second," Sharansky said. "Not because I think it's not important, but because I feel that if you cannot have influence from inside when such important things are happening, you have to find other ways to have influence, and that's what I'm doing here."

But when the Iraq war became more complicated, the US State Department insisted on supporting loyal secular dictators such as Mubarak, despite their corruption, and Bush acquiesced, Sharansky said.
"America was afraid that if they would fight corrupt dictators, the Muslim Brotherhood would come to power in the Middle East. When America starts speaking powerfully, democratic dissidents are strengthened. But when America makes dictators allies, the dissidents are weakened and Islamic fundamentalism is strengthened. That's why America should not support Mubarak or Saudi Arabia," the former Soviet dissident said.
He said the nuclearization of Iran could be stopped, even though the free world had a very limited time to do so. H said he knew firsthand that Bush wanted to stop Iran.

Sharansky nails it. George Bush has the correct idea and the resolve, he lacks the skill to bring others on board. However, I do lay significant blame on AlGore for poisoning the well with untold bitterness following the 2000 election. It has been little discussed in the lying MSM who cover for liberals, but AlGore's little stunt has done untold damage to this country and it has undoubtedly caused much needless death and destruction.

If not for AlGore's 2000 election bitterness would the CIA or State have sought to directly undermine this President to the point of treason? I doubt it. Would other allies in Europe have abandoned a US President had it not been for the poison AlGore unleashed? I very much doubt it. The liberals in the country and in Europe were poisoned by AlGore to the great detriment of the United States. AlGore should be called out for what he is, an unpatriotic pariah.

I have yet to be convinced that Egypt and Saudi Arabia have the slightest potential for democratic politics in the near to medium term of several years. Maybe someday, somehow, by a process no one can yet envision. But right now both societies are so deeply infested with depraved Islamo-fascism that any steps toward democratic politics would simply allow the Islamo-fascists even more power. Those two regimes aren’t good, to be sure, but they are not as bad as what we could well get. Think of how idealists in the west helped to push out the Shah of Iran in 1979 and got not a democratic nirvana but the depravity and bestiality of the Mullahs and IRG in power.

The liberals in the country and in Europe were poisoned by AlGore to the great detriment of the United States. AlGore should be called out for what he is, an unpatriotic pariah.

A worthwhile observation.

Bush takes grief for having claimed to be "a uniter, not a divider". But it is Algore and the Democrats who refused to "unite" -- acting as if they were owed their way on everything, even though they lost the election.

The Democrats are interested in only one thing: power. The country's welfare doesn't count for anything in their calculations.

Before you implement a democracy crusade you must have the physical might to back it. GWB wants to take on the whole world with a military one third smaller than the one his father had, and the production base for critical military materials offshored to the dictatorships we intend to undermind????? First step to a world democracy crusade, establish a domestic production base and arsenal for future war, bring back the draft so we can have four million men peacetime army with atleast twelve million who had compulsory military training in the last three years that can be subject to recall, build up your treasury and stop debt spending, endoctrinate your kids starting with the current kindergarden kids onward till they reach military age. Then you unleash your democracy crusade. Otherwise forget about it and stick to exporting movies, T bills, debt derivatives, manufacturing jobs and etc.

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.