January 27, 2004

ISLAM'S EVANGEL:

How Arabs are reacting to Bush's State of the Union (Walid Phares, PhD, January 26, 2004, Townhall)

[T]he most significant reaction was the less seen in the West. That is the voice of the underdogs, the dissidents and the had-enough-of-it people. Kuwait applauded the speech. So did the Governing Council in Iraq. But beyond these two liberated countries, other civil societies expressed their support to the State of the Union. In a sense, it was their state of misery acknowledged in Washington. Students and reformist in Iran sheered. Opposition in Syria and Lebanon breathed better. Southern Sudanese and Nubians reinforced their will. Berbers and liberal seculars in Algeria clapped hands. And from the deepest underground of activism, dissident web sites, with writers around the Arab world, including women in Saudi Arabia, started to count the days. In short: the lowest layers in the region's make-up received their state-of-affairs with the voice of the most powerful man on Earth, the President of the United States.

How ironic. Inside Byzantium (read Washington's beltway), the debate had no respite. It is still about "where are the WMDs?" and "what are we doing in Iraq?" But down-under, in what will become the future generations of the entire Middle East, Shiites, Kurds, liberal Sunni, democratic Arabs and oppressed minorities, women and students are reading President Bush's speech in disbelief. "Who among our own Presidents-for-life and Fundamentalist Monarchs have ever mentioned the mass graves and our vanished human rights?" Let it come from the American President. And if he is not serious, it doesn't matter. What matters is that the Truth was said." This is from the underground chat rooms. The people have hope.


Anyone who still isn't convinced that Howard Dean isn't fit to lead the Free World need only read these words:
"You can say that it's great that Saddam [Hussein] is gone, and I'm sure that a lot of Iraqis feel it is great that Saddam is gone, but a lot of them gave their lives, and their living standard is a whole lot worse now than it was before."

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 27, 2004 8:14 AM
Comments

Anyone else find it disturbing that liberal thinkers and dissidents in Muslim countries applaud the U.S., support the ideas of freedom of thought and democracy while liberals in the United States would turn their back on those Muslim liberals and thus give the regimes that oppress those liberal ideas their support?

Posted by: robi at January 27, 2004 8:43 AM

robi:

It is scary, most of all because liberals no longer believe in the superiority of Westermn ideals enough to recognize that others would benefit by adopting them.

Posted by: oj at January 27, 2004 8:49 AM

I saw this comment elsewhere, and haven't seen any follow up as to whether the Dean crowd is trying to sell this explanation, so I offer it out of curiousity rather than conviction - Dean may have been victimized by a vague pronoun.

a lot of them gave their lives, and their living standard is a whole lot worse now..."

If "their" refers to the folks who gave their lives, I think he is making a true joke. He again falls into the "non-Presidential" thicket, but it is not nearly as dumb a statement as it seems.

Just wondering.

Posted by: TM at January 27, 2004 11:05 AM

TM:

That too would be wrong: Live free or die.

Posted by: oj at January 27, 2004 11:41 AM

I would support Dean going to the Greens. They need to draft him. He'd fit right in.

Dean ... the Green Mountain Boy of the bike paths.

Posted by: genecis at January 27, 2004 11:48 AM

The group that has had their living standards
reduced are the suppoters of Saddam's regime.
Howard Dean is schilling for the Ba'athists.

Posted by: eric at January 27, 2004 11:49 AM

What's so "liberal" about the left-wing of the Democratic Party? Just wondering...

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at January 27, 2004 1:56 PM
« RUN THE EXPERIMENT: | Main | HEY, WAFFING BOY, NO MOWE BUWWETS: »