• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Mitt Romney: Arab Spring Could've Been Avoided By Bush's 'Freedom Agenda'

T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
In an interview with the right-wing​
Israeli daily newspaper Israel Hayom
, Mitt Romney said that the Arab Spring might never have happened had Bush's "freedom agenda" not been prematurely halted by President Barack Obama."President [George W.] Bush urged [deposed Egyptian President] Hosni Mubarak to move toward a more democratic posture, but President Obama abandoned the freedom agenda and we are seeing today a whirlwind of tumult in the Middle East in part because these nations did not embrace the reforms that could have changed the course of their history, in a more peaceful manner," Romney said.Romney argued that with the rise of democratically elected Islamist governments in some of the countries undergoing revolutions -- Egypt and Tunisia in particular -- the Arab Spring has turned out to be less of a boon for Western interests than it initially appeared."Clearly we're disappointed in seeing Tunisia and Morocco elect Islamist governments. We're very concerned in seeing the new leader in Egypt as an Islamist leader. It is our hope to move these nations toward a more modern view of the world and to not present a threat to their neighbors and to the other nations of the world," he said.

When the Arab Spring began, many advocates of Bush's sweeping foreign policymade an argument different to that advanced by Romney in the interview, asserting that it was Bush's agenda that served as the main impetus for the revolutions, and that Obama had turned his back on that policy.
​
Click to expand...


Read more @: Mitt Romney: Arab Spring Could've Been Avoided By Bush's 'Freedom Agenda'

Bushes "freedom agenda"? You mean the agenda of we will bring democracy and freedom to ya by bombing ya? Who is this man kidding?

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?
​
 
Look, I know that I'm an Obama partisan, but still ... this guy Romney is absolutely clueless on foreign policy. There are highschool students on this board who have a better understanding of international affairs.
 
wait, so Bush wanted to invade Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Libya????????

what is Romney saying?
 
hazlnut said:
So, what he's saying is, in his opinion, Bush was a competent POTUS and Romney will carry on the W. tradition.
Click to expand...

Your guy has been carrying on some of that W tradition as well. So what's your excuse?
 
Thunder said:
wait, so Bush wanted to invade Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Libya????????

what is Romney saying?
Click to expand...

I believe he was saying that he believed part of the "freedom agenda" was to attempt to negotiate, persuade, and incentivize leaders that were more friendly to diplomatic ties with us in the region that a move to a more open, honest, and transparent democratic system of government would be in their countries best interest and potentially in theirs. And that, had such an agenda not been stopped in his view, that rather than requiring violent uprisings that were more fertile grounds for Islamist governments to be elected, we may've seen a more peaceful move to democracy in the region.

Lot of wishful thinking....but I believe that's what he's suggesting
 
Zyphlin said:
I believe he was saying that he believed part of the "freedom agenda" was to attempt to negotiate, persuade, and incentivize leaders that were more friendly to diplomatic ties with us in the region that a move to a more open, honest, and transparent democratic system of government would be in their countries best interest and potentially in theirs. And that, had such an agenda not been stopped in his view, that rather than requiring violent uprisings that were more fertile grounds for Islamist governments to be elected, we may've seen a more peaceful move to democracy in the region.

Lot of wishful thinking....but I believe that's what he's suggesting
Click to expand...

So his theory is that Bush, by violently overthrowing an autocratic dictator and installing (or attempting to install) democratic institutions, Bush meant to discourage others from violently overthrowing autocratic dictators and installing democratic institutions.... Kind of a "do as I say, not as I do" thing?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Mitt Romney: Arab Spring Could've Been Avoided By Bush's 'Freedom Agenda'

Bushes "freedom agenda"? You mean the agenda of we will bring democracy and freedom to ya by bombing ya? Who is this man kidding?

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response?
[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
Click to expand...

My disagreement is that the Arab Spring wasn't something that should have been avoided, and secondly my contention and the contention of those who backed the Bush administration along with other neoconservatives, is that the Bush years helped to lay the groundwork for the Arab Spring and that these events are fundamentally a part of what Bush wanted. Where the disagreement and dissension would come is from the Obama administrations weak approach to Egypt and Libya, and the nonexistent approach to Syria. I also think it is plausible that Bush in particular would have come down more harshly on the Saudi intervention in Bahrain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom