Bush faces the dark side of democracy.

I’ve been kicking around the stunning victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections in my head trying to figure what I wanted to say about it, but Mac’s already said it for me:

So…Hamas winning the Palestinian election…it puts President Bush in kind of a pickle, no?

He so badly wants to spread democracy to all and sundry, yet when a group he doesn’t approve of is democratically elected, he refuses to work with the new government until they change to please him.  It appears that President Bush only likes democracy when it works in his favor [although this is not exactly a new and unique idea].  Guess you have to be careful of what you wish for.

I figured it was only a matter of time before one of the countries we’re trying to force democracy onto went ahead and used it to elect a bunch of folks we’d rather not see in power. I doubted it would be Iraq or Afghanistan because we’re pretty much pulling the strings in those elections already, but I hadn’t considered the possibility of the Palestinians as being particularly likely either. I find the whole situation a mite bit amusing in that uh-oh-what-are-ya-gonna-do-now-smart-boy way.

Which isn’t to say that I’m glad a terrorist organization is now in control of the Palestinian parliament because I have every confidence that Bush will handle this problem about as well as he’s handled the aftermath of the Iraq war, which is to say he’ll find every opportunity to fuck it up. Refusing to work with the new government isn’t a good first step. We’re always carrying on about how we want to spread democracy and let the people choose who their leaders will be so the least we can do is try and work with whomever the hell they’ve picked to represent them. Hypocrisy won’t go far to winning a lasting peace in the Middle East.

15 thoughts on “Bush faces the dark side of democracy.

  1. I saw the press conference where Bush reacted to the news of Hamas’ victory.  He had a grin on his face the whole time.  Does he even understand that he’s not supposed to be smiling?  He should get a facial expression teleprompter.

  2. It occurs to me that Hamas probably won as a direct result of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.
    Ain’t payback a bitch?
    It also occurs to me that American Xtians are secretly as bloodthirsty as their Jihadist brethren. Looks like a stupidass, pointless, globally tragic, all-out religious war is our future.

  3. I’m certainly no Bush fan, but in all fairness, is it reasonable to recognize ANY government that does not renounce terrorism (however democratically elected they may be)?

  4. I’m certainly no Bush fan, but in all fairness, is it reasonable to recognize ANY government that does not renounce terrorism (however democratically elected they may be)?

    You raise a valid point.  No government will want to deal with Hamas while it denounces the very existence of Israel.  On the other hand, what in the hell are they supposed to do?  Renounce the expressed will of Palestininans?

    What could end up happening here is a near civil war between Hamas and Fatah, in which case Israel would just stay the hell out and watch the disaster unfold.

  5. Refusing to work with the new government isn’t a good first step. We’re always carrying on about how we want to spread democracy and let the people choose who their leaders will be so the least we can do is try and work with whomever the hell they’ve picked to represent them. Hypocrisy won’t go far to winning a lasting peace in the Middle East.

    What do you propose that we do?  Recognize and work with a group that you consider a terrorist organization?

    It is not hypocrisy to so we won’t interact with a terrorist or terrorist regime.  It goes like this:

    We support democracy.  We don’t support terrorists. We support your right to choose terrorists to govern you.  Although supporting that right doesn’t mean that we must work with who you elect.  Part of freedom is facing the consequences of your vote.  One of those consequences of your vote is the loss of some economic gratis and the right to have a voice at the table.  You are now facing the consequences of your decision.

    That simple. No hypocrisy involved.

  6. That simple. No hypocrisy involved.

    Stated well, consi.

    That said, the Palestinian-Israeli problem is back at stage 7432, which is further along than stage 4513, but still a ways from any resolution…

  7. Other terrorists have gone on to be rehabilitated into the Global community; Israelis,S Africans; somehow I don’t think this will be the case anytime soon in the case of Palestine.
    It does hinge on them renouncing terrorism,which is as likely as;dependent on?; Bush and co renouncing YEEEE HAAAA as a foreign policy.

  8. Using the Bush precedent, wouldn’t Israel now be in a reasonable position to consider a pre-emptive strike on Palestine? Why not just wipe them off the map? Surely they have the firepower, and surely they have cause to perceive they are threatened.

    (I’m not advocating such a thing—just saying that it would be hard for Bush to argue against it.)

  9. Surely they have the firepower, and surely they have cause to perceive they are threatened.

    (I’m not advocating such a thing—just saying that it would be hard for Bush to argue against it.)

    Uh, they are already doing that? Have been doing it since years and years? Targeted assasinations of PLO’s and other leaders, anyone?

  10. Shelly

    just state your terms and wishes on who else you would like to wipe out in the middle east. It may be easier to wipe out everyone there since Bush has the weapons. Or just make it all Abo Ghareeb or Guantanamo bay with a big fence around it.

    But remember you need lots of orange shirts.

  11. Hmmmm. . . . I see that you missed the point where I said that I was NOT advocating such a thing.

    My point was simply that Mr. Bush created a very dangerous precedent that other nations may decide to follow. This is one of those situations that highlight how very unwise Bush’s actions were. He will be hard-pressed to argue against (what is clearly) an unreasonable act such as wiping Palestine off the map.

  12. Yeah, I have to back Shelley up, here. The US gov’t boxed itself into a political system that, without the use of “forceful reconnaisance”, will leave them with limited, compromised options.

    They’re Israel’s spoken ally in the “war on terror”, and we will be called to their aid if things get out of hand. With Iran talking smack, it’s possible that that’s where we’re headed. Will continue to be an interesting century in American politics…

  13. I know at least three people who support the wiping out of another nation as an acceptable approach for solving problems.

    Two of them are here, and the third is the PM of Iran.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.