Romney tells Israeli newspaper: The Arab Spring is Obama's fault

[Mr. Morden]

Welcome to politics where one politician makes things sound so easy in order to belittle his opponent. Both parties do that.

Welcome to the Atlas forum, where we discuss the foolishness of such dumb accusations, like the one Romney made here.  

What was the accusation?

The accusation that Obama caused the Arab Spring, and led to the election of Islamists in the Arab world, by not simply asking dictators like Mubarak to hold free elections.

[Darius_Addicus_Gaius]

Welcome to politics where one politician makes things sound so easy in order to belittle his opponent. Both parties do that.

Welcome to the Atlas forum, where we discuss the foolishness of such dumb accusations, like the one Romney made here.  

What was the accusation?

The accusation that Obama caused the Arab Spring, and led to the election of Islamists in the Arab world, by not simply asking dictators like Mubarak to hold free elections.

No one accused him of that.

[Mr. Morden]

Welcome to politics where one politician makes things sound so easy in order to belittle his opponent. Both parties do that.

Welcome to the Atlas forum, where we discuss the foolishness of such dumb accusations, like the one Romney made here.  

What was the accusation?

The accusation that Obama caused the Arab Spring, and led to the election of Islamists in the Arab world, by not simply asking dictators like Mubarak to hold free elections.

No one accused him of that.

You seem to be arguing in circles here.  If we go back to the initial Romney quote: "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."

What, specifically, do you think Romney is accusing Obama of doing here?  A minute ago you said "Maybe Mubarak would've agreed but we'll never know", to suggest that you understood this to be Romney accusing Obama of not asking Mubarak to hold free elections, but now it sounds like you're backtracking.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

No that's not it. It's good to have free elections. It's bad to elect Islamists. Just because someone is elected to office doesn't mean that the people made the right choice. It just means they won "fair and square." Freedom in the Arab world is good as long as it stays as "freedom." The way I view it is as a work in progress. I don't think Romney would be wrong to call it that either. He's free to take my words too. In politics the bad guys can win.

Bad to elect Islamists?  The opposition to Islamism in the Middle East aren't classical liberals... they're  nationalistic socialists largely propped up by a military powerbase. You might consider that preferable to the Taliban, but not all Islamists are Taliban. In fact the closest thing to classical liberals in some of these countries are the Islamist parties.

Compare Turkey and Malaysia under the governance of Islamists to Saddam's Iraq or Assad's Syria. It should be noted that the only real advocacy or implementation of free market reforms in the Middle East have been done by Islamists(AKP in Turkey, Ennahda in Tunisia), while the secularist socialists are invariably the vanguards of stagnant socialist/corporatist systems.



 

[WhyteRain]

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=5207

So sayeth Romney:

"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."

"The Arab Spring is not appropriately named. It has become a development of more concern and it occurred in part because of the reluctance on the part of various dictators to provide more freedom to their citizens. 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."

So if Obama had been more like Bush, Mubarak would have offered free and fair elections without a fight, and they wouldn't have elected Islamists?

Correct.  The Egyptian "Spring" began in Jan, 2011.  There were regularly scheduled elections in Sept, 2011.  In the eight month interim, Bush would have fostered a secular opposition -- remember the only opposition that Mubarek permitted was the MB.  Obama chose not to do that.  Instead, he demanded Mubarek resign immediately, with the result that the MB was effectively the only organized party that was ready for the elections.

[WhyteRain]

A Republican is concerned about the intersection of religion and politics? That's.....interesting.

Any objective analysis would conclude that the Democrats are far more into using religion to prop up their policies -- from Obama claiming that Jesus would support his budget to Nancy Pelosi claiming that her job as Speaker was to implement policies that comport with the Gospels to the ubiquitous Democrats braying about "What Would Jesus Cut?".  Oh, and Congressional Democrats demanding more support from churches for their policies.

[WhyteRain]

Romney's not allowed to have that view?

Of course he's allowed to have it.  It just strikes me as utterly bizarre.  First the GOP insists that the Arab Spring is a vindication of Bush's "freedom agenda" (as put forth in his second inaugural address), but now that Arab Spring has toppled some dictators and we have democratic elections, the fact that some of those elections have brought Islamists to power means that the Arab Spring was actually bad, and if only Obama had asked Mubarak for democratic elections nicely, he would have said yes....and the people wouldn't have elected Islamists?  Explain to me how that would have happened.

What seems to have happened here is that Romney was trying to appeal to his audience in this interview (Israelis and Americans who are nervous about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt), but couldn't find the right way to thread the needle so that he could agree with them without making it sound like democracy in the Arab world is bad.

No that's not it. It's good to have free elections. It's bad to elect Islamists. Just because someone is elected to office doesn't mean that the people made the right choice. It just means they won "fair and square." Freedom in the Arab world is good as long as it stays as "freedom." The way I view it is as a work in progress. I don't think Romney would be wrong to call it that either. He's free to take my words too. In politics the bad guys can win.

The elections are free; the elections are fair. The people of Tunisia and Egypt have chosen Islam (I detest the words Islamism and Islamist) and you have no right to interfere with the democratic process.

Leftists automatically claim any election of anti-Americans is automatically "free and fair", but the web says differently.  Google "fraud tunisian elections" and then do the same for every other Arab Winter election.

http://www.nysun.com/national/saudis-arabs-funneled-millions-to-president/5137/

Saudis, Arabs Funneled Millions
to President Clinton's Library
By JOSH GERSTEIN, Staff Reporter of the Sun | November 22, 2004

Bill Clinton's Arab and Middle East Donors

From Pierre Tristam, About.com GuideDecember 18, 2008


Endless Love: Bill Clinton embraces the U.S. presidential habit of hugging Saudi Arabia--in this case, Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to Washington for 22 years. They're at Moroccan King Mohammed VI's 2002 wedding to Salma Bennani. (Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images)


 Former President Clinton has finally released the list of donors to his presidential library: 2,922 pages and 208,000 donors for Clinton's $165 million library in Little Rock, Ark (which these days, to the likely delight of motorcycle fans, is exhibiting the "Art of the Chopper").

Clinton resisted releasing the list until Hillary Clinton negotiated her way into the Obama administration as its likely secretary of state. The administration's deal with Bill was: show all. So he did. Why the resistance, anyway, is beyond me. Then again it isn't: Clinton wanted to hide the fact that up to $41 million of his donations come from Arab governments and individuals.

It appears that the Clinton's pals in the Arabian peninsula are putting their petrodollars -- fattened by Leftist opposition to oil development in the U.S. -- to good use:  Bankrolling the U.S. Secretary of State and the Islamist parties.

Is there any wonder that U.S. policy has changed and Hillary now calls the MB takeover of Egypt a "positive" development?

[Stranger in a strange land]

A Republican is concerned about the intersection of religion and politics? That's.....interesting.

What do you mean how so? Religion is politics over there. Are you trying to make a comparison to over here with the religious right? There is no comparison but I'm sure a political point could be scored by blurting that out. When we have car bombings in the name of Jesus taking place on the streets of our country then we'll talk. If that's not what you were trying to get at please explain.

The one's doing the car bombings aren't the "Islamists" getting elected to high office though. The Tunisian "Islamist" party in particular seems quite harmless- not meaningfully more theocratic then the Republican party in states like Utah.

If anything, Ennhada is less theocratic than the GOP. Though it won a plurality in the Tunisian elections, 60% of Tunisians voted for secular parties, and Ennhada has announced that it won't seek to implement Sharia law.

The leading party in Libya's first fair election was a secular liberal party, though it will probably have to coalition with Islamist parties to form a government.

Is there any wonder that U.S. policy has changed and Hillary now calls the MB takeover of Egypt a "positive" development?

Egyptians should be allowed to live with their mistakes.

[Governor Maxwell]

A Republican is concerned about the intersection of religion and politics? That's.....interesting.

Any objective analysis would conclude that the Democrats are far more into using religion to prop up their policies -- from Obama claiming that Jesus would support his budget to Nancy Pelosi claiming that her job as Speaker was to implement policies that comport with the Gospels to the ubiquitous Democrats braying about "What Would Jesus Cut?".  Oh, and Congressional Democrats demanding more support from churches for their policies.

I'd say the democrats do use religion in politics a good amount, but "far more" is just preposterous when you consider the fact that in states where the conservative ratio is out of wack (my state), the only thing a republican needs to run on are their christian values it seems like. Plus the fact that it was the Moral Majority and the Christian Right that energized the Republican party and moved them towards social conservatism.

[Free Palestine]

Romney's not allowed to have that view?

Of course he's allowed to have it.  It just strikes me as utterly bizarre.  First the GOP insists that the Arab Spring is a vindication of Bush's "freedom agenda" (as put forth in his second inaugural address), but now that Arab Spring has toppled some dictators and we have democratic elections, the fact that some of those elections have brought Islamists to power means that the Arab Spring was actually bad, and if only Obama had asked Mubarak for democratic elections nicely, he would have said yes....and the people wouldn't have elected Islamists?  Explain to me how that would have happened.

What seems to have happened here is that Romney was trying to appeal to his audience in this interview (Israelis and Americans who are nervous about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt), but couldn't find the right way to thread the needle so that he could agree with them without making it sound like democracy in the Arab world is bad.

No that's not it. It's good to have free elections. It's bad to elect Islamists. Just because someone is elected to office doesn't mean that the people made the right choice. It just means they won "fair and square." Freedom in the Arab world is good as long as it stays as "freedom." The way I view it is as a work in progress. I don't think Romney would be wrong to call it that either. He's free to take my words too. In politics the bad guys can win.

The elections are free; the elections are fair. The people of Tunisia and Egypt have chosen Islam (I detest the words Islamism and Islamist) and you have no right to interfere with the democratic process.

Leftists automatically claim any election of anti-Americans is automatically "free and fair", but the web says differently.  Google "fraud tunisian elections" and then do the same for every other Arab Winter election.

Let me guess, you get your news from RT.

[Likely Voter]

I guess the news here is that Romney is embracing the neocon foreign policy of George W Bush, something that isn't even in favor within the GOP anymore. Certainly swing voters are not going to be sold by "if only Obama was more like Bush"

Bottom line is that for this election Obama has the edge in FP and Romney's foreign trip is doing nothing to narrow the gap, and it may actually be making it worse.

I'm sure he cant wait to get home and start talking about the anemic GDP numbers because he is getting close to "I can see Russia from my house" territory when it comes to international affairs.

[ingemann]

What will Romney blame Obama for next, the falling murder rate, that the American wages are too high, Christmas?

[Stranger in a strange land]

I guess the news here is that Romney is embracing the neocon foreign policy of George W Bush, something that isn't even in favor within the GOP anymore. Certainly swing voters are not going to be sold by "if only Obama was more like Bush"

Bottom line is that for this election Obama has the edge in FP and Romney's foreign trip is doing nothing to narrow the gap, and it may actually be making it worse.

I'm sure he cant wait to get home and start talking about the anemic GDP numbers because he is getting close to "I can see Russia from my house" territory when it comes to international affairs.

Romney's actually in an even deeper hole than that because the Republican stance on the Arab Spring seems to be something along the lines of, "The Arab Spring is good because it confirms the success of the Bush Freedom Agenda, and was inspired by the brilliant success of the U.S. intervention in Iraq, yet also bad because it's being run out of Tehran and is allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to take over the region and is part of a massive plot to destroy Israel." Yes, there are people who actually think this way.

[opebo]

Republicans appear to be in favor of democracy only if they like the results.

To be fair, this is not only Republicans - this is American foreign policy under all administrations.

[London Man]

Instead, he demanded Mubarek resign immediately, with the result that the MB was effectively the only organized party that was ready for the elections.

I do not recall Obama using those words explicitly in February 2011. He never directly called for Mubarak to resign.

[Secretary Polnut]

Romney is turning into a f***ing parody...

[President Marokai]

Romney is turning into a f***ing parody...

And the amazing part is that the American public evidently couldn't care less.

[pbrower2a]

I guess the news here is that Romney is embracing the neocon foreign policy of George W Bush, something that isn't even in favor within the GOP anymore. Certainly swing voters are not going to be sold by "if only Obama was more like Bush"

Bottom line is that for this election Obama has the edge in FP and Romney's foreign trip is doing nothing to narrow the gap, and it may actually be making it worse.

I'm sure he cant wait to get home and start talking about the anemic GDP numbers because he is getting close to "I can see Russia from my house" territory when it comes to international affairs.

Romney's actually in an even deeper hole than that because the Republican stance on the Arab Spring seems to be something along the lines of, "The Arab Spring is good because it confirms the success of the Bush Freedom Agenda, and was inspired by the brilliant success of the U.S. intervention in Iraq, yet also bad because it's being run out of Tehran and is allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to take over the region and is part of a massive plot to destroy Israel." Yes, there are people who actually think this way.

The irony is that the most recent President to beat another who had strong successes in foreign policy was Bill Clinton who could never promise to 'top' his predecessor. In practice Clinton wisely adopted the foreign policy of the elder Bush practically intact.

I don't know how much credit President Obama deserves for the Arab Spring... he hasn't hurt it.  Freedom in an Islamic country means that an Islamic party can take over instead of a secular party to American taste.

The way to deal with the successes in foreign policy of a prior administration is to co-opt them -- not to pick faults at them.

[Likely Voter]

Beyond spouting stuff about "stopping apologizing to the world" and "no longer leading from behind" I have yet to hear a specific policy difference Romney would have from Obama

[Torie]

Mittens didn't say what the headline says he said. He seemed to be saying enabling dictators in the past has made the transition more dangerous, because of all the pent up steam as it were. However, Mittens is not very good at weaving his message in a coherent way so that you know exactly what his point is sometimes, and this is one example.

[Insula Dei]

Mittens didn't say what the headline says he said. He seemed to be saying enabling dictators in the past has made the transition more dangerous, because of all the pent up steam as it were. However, Mittens is not very good at weaving his message in a coherent way so that you know exactly what his point is sometimes, and this is one example.

Good thing he won't need those communication skills in the White House!

[Secretary Polnut]

Mittens didn't say what the headline says he said. He seemed to be saying enabling dictators in the past has made the transition more dangerous, because of all the pent up steam as it were. However, Mittens is not very good at weaving his message in a coherent way so that you know exactly what his point is sometimes, and this is one example.

Good thing he won't need those communication skills in the White House!

I heard it word for word, and while Romney didn't verbatim say "The Arab Spring is Obama's fault", you'd have to be in the realm of the desperately hopeful to not realise what he was saying. "Obama didn't continue the Bush Arab democracy project (I assume he means besides Iraq)... those states didn't reform... revolution happened and people died"... which is not only intellectually dishonest but blatantly dangerous.

[Mr. Morden]

The headline here is slightly more provocative than Romney's actual words, but I'm limited in the number of characters I can fit into a headline, so I had to give the best summary I could.  Polnut just gave what I think is a pretty accurate summation of Romney's words.

[Free Palestine]

He also says not to criticize Israel.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why's Romney wasting his time in Israel? Obama is more popular in Israel than in the US. Romney can forget about Israel's electoral votes.