Bush administration trying to "unsettle" Assad in Syria
What is it they say about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?
Let's look at the recent history. (All within the last 5 years.)
So, that's the history, and yet one of its main proponents, convicted felon Elliot Abrams, has been put in charge of implementing the same policy in Syria.
It's unlikely Assad would be unseated in the rigged elections, but I'm willing to bet right now that US "assistance" into the election process will not be to our benefit.
Anybody want to take the other side of that bet?
The Bush administration has launched a campaign to isolate and embarrass Syrian President Bashar Assad, using parliamentary elections in late April as a lever, according to State Department officials and Syrian exiles.....
The officials say the campaign bears the imprint of Elliott Abrams, a conservative White House aide in charge of pushing Bush's global democracy agenda.
Let's look at the recent history. (All within the last 5 years.)
Forced elections in Lebanon with US assistance to "reformers" - War with Israel, a break down in state, a near civil war.
Forced elections in the Palestinian territories with US assistance to "reformers" - Terrorist Hamas elected, near civil war, increased hostility towards Israel.
US aid to "reformers" in Iran's elections - Moderate government thrown out, Ahmadinejad in. Increased hostility towards Israel and the US.
Iraq is unique, but elections there brought a sectarian government, and a hot civil war. (and I'm sure they'll openly hate Israel as soon as we leave.)
So, that's the history, and yet one of its main proponents, convicted felon Elliot Abrams, has been put in charge of implementing the same policy in Syria.
It's unlikely Assad would be unseated in the rigged elections, but I'm willing to bet right now that US "assistance" into the election process will not be to our benefit.
Anybody want to take the other side of that bet?
posted by mikevotes at
5:43 PM
3 Comments:
Anybody want to take the other side of that bet?
Ummm.... no thanks.
I'm curious what you think about the impending Pelosi visit.
By
Praguetwin, at 4:20 AM
Frankly, I don't know. It's theater from all sides.
It does undermine the Bush policy, but I don't know if that's a bad thing.
Does a president's traditional role of primacy in foreign affairs automatically guarantee him the right to make mistakes one after the other, uninterrupted?
There's nothing prohibiting a visit.
The administration politics are pretty ridiculous on this. Seevral Republican Congressmen and Senators have made the visit, one is right now.
In the strategy of domestic politics, I wonder how good a decision this is by Pelosi. When she scheduled the visit months ago, I'm sure the intent was to highlight the ISG and rationality, although, in the current politics where the Dems are winning the Iraq argument, I see only potential political downsides.
The administration is talking about this but not at top levels.
So, I don't know.
By
mikevotes, at 6:29 AM
Thanks.
By
Praguetwin, at 2:12 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home