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

[QUOTE=The Huffington Post]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. The interview, which comes in the lead-up to Romney's arrival in Israel on Saturday, was conducted earlier in the week in Reno, Nev., in keeping with his intention to avoid criticizing a sitting president while traveling overseas. Israel Hayom is owned by the Sheldon Adelson, an American citizen who is one of the leading financiers of the Republican Party and a major donor to Romney's campaign. In his second inaugural address, Bush made an impassioned stand for democratic expression around the world, pledging that "all who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors." (That posture sometimes included change by force.) When the Egyptian government cracked down on political dissent, Bush's Secretary of State took a hard line and canceled a planned visit. Romney did not elaborate in the interview whether he believes that Bush's strategy, if it had been seen to fruition, would have resulted in the democratic overthrow of Mubarak's government or the preservation of his administration through internal reforms. When the Arab Spring began, many advocates of Bush's sweeping foreign policy made 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.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/27/mitt-romney-arab-spring_n_1710038.html[/url] Wtf Romney :v:

Romney just drop out, you've lost everyones votes.

Fuck off, Dick. I hate Romney so much that it makes my starfish pucker

Wait, why is the Arab Spring a bad thing?

Why would anyone want to avoid the Arab Spring? Except for Gaddafi and the likes, of course

[QUOTE=Jetblack357;36962968]Wait, why is the Arab Spring a bad thing?[/QUOTE] Because the goons in charge like serving their own interests and not the peoples.

Its because the U.S. and Israel lost their puppet dictator in the Middle East (Egypt) - he's being interviewed by an Israeli paper which is why he's making those statements. [quote]Clearly we're disappointed in seeing [B] Tunisia[/B] [...] [B]elect Islamist governments.[/B][/quote] Horseshit.

[B] 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.[/B] LMAO

Mitt Romney has just demonstrated how backward his foreign policy would be if he became President.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;36963110][B] 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.[/B] LMAO[/QUOTE] I think you have said the entire reaction of FP on this.

Hey Romney, guess what? That 'freedom agenda' is a HUGE part of why that part of the world hates the west!

It's funny how you can make a career in America by just being a moron.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;36963516]It's funny how you can make a career in America by just being a moron.[/QUOTE] You can't. Nobody takes Romney seriously anymore. He's losing voters every time he says something

[QUOTE=MightyMax;36962873]Romney just drop out, you've lost everyones votes.[/QUOTE] Clearly you have high expectations of people and their alleged intelligence.

[QUOTE=DamagePoint;36962685] "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.[/QUOTE] Couldn't the same be said about the US or other nations being Christian/Catholic run governments? Yes there is supposed to be separation, but it does play a role in policy and decision making.

I wonder how the US will be like if Romney wins, hmmm.

the man is a walking gaffe machine i'd like to see a gaffe-off between him and biden

[QUOTE=Bucketboy;36963756]I wonder how the US will be like if Romney wins, hmmm.[/QUOTE] Forget the US, I wonder how the WORLD will be like. Especially if a guy like that gets access to nuclear weapons.

Haha it would be as bad as Bushy boy if not worse

so basically no matter what happens in the middle east, it's bad. peacefully usurp regimes? bad. allow the regimes to persist? bad. do absolutely nothing conspicuous in twenty years? WHAT ARE THEY PLANNING?

[QUOTE=Swebonny;36963110][B] 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.[/B] LMAO[/QUOTE] I think the U.S. is more of a danger to the world than Iraq, Iran, Libya, or Tunisia ever were.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36964059]so basically no matter what happens in the middle east, it's bad. peacefully usurp regimes? bad. allow the regimes to persist? bad. do absolutely nothing conspicuous in twenty years? WHAT ARE THEY PLANNING?[/QUOTE] They are clearly trying to take over the oil fields in Middle East.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;36963008]Why would anyone want to avoid the Arab Spring? Except for Gaddafi and the likes, of course[/QUOTE] Because it could have been a more peaceful transition to democracy. For fuck's sake people, do you even read the fucking article? He is saying Bush had a program started that was pushing for these dictators and totalitarian regimes to reform their government and move towards more democracy. Obama scrapped that plan. Bush may very well have prevented the Arab Spring if his plan worked. It might have been ineffective, though. I don't know. History is hard to make hypotheticals of.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;36964117]I think the U.S. is more of a danger to the world than Iraq, Iran, Libya, or Tunisia ever were.[/QUOTE] I dunno man. The Iranians(Persians as they were called till 1935) used to be like the biggest threat to the world in like 400 BCE.

[QUOTE=DJ999;36963909]Forget the US, I wonder how the WORLD will be like. Especially if a guy like that gets access to nuclear weapons.[/QUOTE] Personally, I'd prefer we don't give access to the big red button to someone who thinks this life is just some sort of try-out for the eternal Nirvana. We'd have a lot less wars if our leaders didn't summarily deny the reality of death.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36964150]Because it could have been a more peaceful transition to democracy. For fuck's sake people, do you even read the fucking article? He is saying Bush had a program started that was pushing for these dictators and totalitarian regimes to reform their government and move towards more democracy. Obama scrapped that plan. Bush may very well have prevented the Arab Spring if his plan worked. It might have been ineffective, though. I don't know. History is hard to make hypotheticals of.[/QUOTE] Sorry to break it to you, but Dictators don't give up power because they're nagged to.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;36963578]You can't. Nobody takes Romney seriously anymore. He's losing voters every time he says something[/QUOTE] [url]http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-general-election-romney-vs-obama[/url] He's doing pretty well if you ask me. [editline]27th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Nikota;36964171]Sorry to break it to you, but Dictators don't give up power because they're nagged to.[/QUOTE] It's hard to tell. Like I said, hypotheticals are hard to say because you will never know. However, there have been cases in the past of absolute rulers giving up a lot of their power and reforming the government over time.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36964174][url]http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-general-election-romney-vs-obama[/url] He's doing pretty well if you ask me.[/QUOTE] Yes because presidential polls have such a record of accuracy. That's why we're arguing about Newt Gingritch and Michelle Bachman right now, who had massive leads ahead of Romney in previous polls.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36964150]Because it could have been a more peaceful transition to democracy. For fuck's sake people, do you even read the fucking article? He is saying Bush had a program started that was pushing for these dictators and totalitarian regimes to reform their government and move towards more democracy. Obama scrapped that plan. Bush may very well have prevented the Arab Spring if his plan worked. It might have been ineffective, though. I don't know. History is hard to make hypotheticals of.[/QUOTE] No there couldn't have. Such changes to a country's regime are impossible without spilling blood, this never happened before, and never will. A dictator with an army at his disposal will not give up his power without a fight.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36964196]Yes because presidential polls have such a record of accuracy. That's why we're arguing about Newt Gingritch and Michelle Bachman right now, who had massive leads ahead of Romney in previous polls.[/QUOTE] "I'm going to ignore the only form of data that can possibly give any prediction of an election outcome because I would rather think Romney is constantly losing votes, which isn't based on any data or evidence."