Bush is a friend to the world's dictators

Bush Attacks Kerry While Cozying Up To Dictators


President Bush earlier this week attacked his opponent, saying "It's hard to imagine a candidate running for President prefers the stability of a dictatorship to the hope and security of democracy."1 Yet, it is President Bush who regularly declares his personal friendship and gratitude to some of the world's most oppressive dictators, often wining and dining them at his ranch in Texas.

In June of 2004, Bush referred to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia as "my friend,"2 even though the Saudi Arabian government has been investigated for its financial ties to the 9/11 terrorists3 and is listed by the U.S. State Department as one of the world's most oppressive regimes on the planet.4

In April, he referred to the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak as "my friend" and welcomed him to the Crawford ranch by saying "I always look forward to visiting with him."5 Bush gave this praise to a dictator, even though Human Rights Watch notes that government "torture in Egypt is widespread and systemic"6 and the State Department says Mubarak has passed a Constitution in which the electorate is barred from being "presented with a choice among competing presidential candidates."7

In 2002, it was Bush who said "I want to welcome the President of China to our ranch, and to Texas."8 Bush was inviting into his home a dictator who, according to the U.S. State Department, presides over a government that regularly engages in the "arbitrary or unlawful" murder of its own citizens, kidnappings of political dissidents, and repression of religious minorities.9

Sources:
1. "President's Remarks at Victory 2004 Rally in New York City," The White House, 9/20/04. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040920-17.html
2. "President Bush Holds Press Conference Following the G8 Summit," The White House, 6/10/04. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040610-36.html
3. "Saudi Government Provided Aid to 9/11 Hijackers, Sources Say," Truthout.org, 8/02/03. http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/080303A.shtml
4. "Saudi Arabia: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2003," U.S. Department of State, 2/25/04. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27937.htm
5. "President Bush, Egyptian President Mubarak Meet with Reporters," The White House, 4/12/04. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040412-3.html
6. "Egypt: Human Rights Background," Human Rights Watch, 10/2001. http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/egypt-bck-1001.htm
7. "Egypt: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2003," U.S. Department of State, 2/25/04. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27926.htm
8. "President Bush, Chinese President Jiang Zemin Discuss Iraq, N. Korea," The White House, 10/25/02. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021025.html
9. "China: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2003," U.S. Department of State, 2/25/04. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27768.htm

Really?

He has only been associated with dictators since he was 25, so cut him a break, okay?

Bush certainly doesn't back up his words about freedom very well. He likes to go on about how we brought freedom to Afghanistan and Iraq, yet during his tenure we've become very close with dictatorships like Pakistan, Uzbekistan, etc.

I would note that you can't expect anything else from John Kerry on this either. He's even criticized Bush's speaking so much about freedom. At least what he's saying isn't disingenous.

You mean the same countries and leaders Clinton met with and exchanged pleasantries with another U.S. President did as well? OMG I'm ing shocked.

Hey, say what you will about this countries relationships with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and China but at least he didn't let the Chinese contribute funds to his campaign like Clinton did. Oh, and he didn't trade military and nuclear secrets to the Chinese... like Clinton did.

Would you like to get into the relationships with Egypt that were cemented for generations with the Camp David Peace Accords by Jimmy Carter? Would you like to get into FDR picking a tribal family at random and proclaiming them the "royal" family because they'd be ammenable to American investments on the Arabian peninsula? Would you like to discuss how Harry Truman abandoned our WWII allies, the Chinese Nationals and Chang Kai Shek and let the communists take over? What do all of those Presidents have in common? Why.... they're Democrats.

You're a horses ass coffman. No sitting President has the option of turning his back on historical relations like we have with Saudi Arabia or Egypt or can ignore a country with 1.2 billion people and a nuclear arsenal. Do you REALLY think these statements are much more than oh, I don't know, diplomatic pleasantries?

Do you think Bush should have gone to the UN yesterday and remarked that of the 200 countries in attendance only about a quarter of them are democratic and the rest of them are murderous thug dictators? I mean, you leftists cry about we need more UN approval and participation. Well guess what, the UN is full of xenophobic dictators that demand they be called Exellency.

I know you like to spout off on this because it makes you feel better to bash Bush. You like to think your guy wouldn't meet with these same leaders. Guess what, he would. You want to get into John Forbes Kerry's votes on China?

You are an unadulterated idiot.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You mean the same countries and leaders Clinton met with and exchanged pleasantries with another U.S. President did as well? OMG I'm shaq-fuing shocked.

Hey, say what you will about this countries relationships with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and China but at least he didn't let the Chinese contribute funds to his campaign like Clinton did. Oh, and he didn't trade military and nuclear secrets to the Chinese... like Clinton did.

Would you like to get into the relationships with Egypt that were cemented for generations with the Camp David Peace Accords by Jimmy Carter? Would you like to get into FDR picking a tribal family at random and proclaiming them the "royal" family because they'd be ammenable to American investments on the Arabian peninsula? Would you like to discuss how Harry Truman abandoned our WWII allies, the Chinese Nationals and Chang Kai Shek and let the communists take over? What do all of those Presidents have in common? Why.... they're Democrats.

You're a horses ass coffman. No sitting President has the option of turning his back on historical relations like we have with Saudi Arabia or Egypt or can ignore a country with 1.2 billion people and a nuclear arsenal. Do you REALLY think these statements are much more than oh, I don't know, diplomatic pleasantries?

Do you think Bush should have gone to the UN yesterday and remarked that of the 200 countries in attendance only about a quarter of them are democratic and the rest of them are murderous thug dictators? I mean, you leftists cry about we need more UN approval and participation. Well guess what, the UN is full of xenophobic dictators that demand they be called Exellency.

I know you like to spout off on this because it makes you feel better to bash Bush. You like to think your guy wouldn't meet with these same leaders. Guess what, he would. You want to get into John Forbes Kerry's votes on China?

You are an unadulterated idiot.[/quote]

The difference, PAD, is that the supporters of previous sitting presidents haven't assailed critics of the administration's policies by saying they're against freedom and democracy.

If they're going to take this tack, then Bush had better have better-than-sparkling credentials when it comes to spreading democracy. The fact that he still cozies up to dictators shows that he still practices the pragmatic policies of the past -- which is fine by me, except that same pragmatism also would have left Saddam in place in Iraq, given that he was a threat only to his own people.

George H. W. Bush looked the other way during the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre where thousands of unarmed student protesters were murders for speaking out against the government.

If you want to bring up Democratic history, beware. There is a lot more dirt under the Republicans.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You mean the same countries and leaders Clinton met with and exchanged pleasantries with another U.S. President did as well? OMG I'm shaq-fuing shocked.

Hey, say what you will about this countries relationships with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and China but at least he didn't let the Chinese contribute funds to his campaign like Clinton did. Oh, and he didn't trade military and nuclear secrets to the Chinese... like Clinton did.

Would you like to get into the relationships with Egypt that were cemented for generations with the Camp David Peace Accords by Jimmy Carter? Would you like to get into FDR picking a tribal family at random and proclaiming them the "royal" family because they'd be ammenable to American investments on the Arabian peninsula? Would you like to discuss how Harry Truman abandoned our WWII allies, the Chinese Nationals and Chang Kai Shek and let the communists take over? What do all of those Presidents have in common? Why.... they're Democrats.

You're a horses ass coffman. No sitting President has the option of turning his back on historical relations like we have with Saudi Arabia or Egypt or can ignore a country with 1.2 billion people and a nuclear arsenal. Do you REALLY think these statements are much more than oh, I don't know, diplomatic pleasantries?

Do you think Bush should have gone to the UN yesterday and remarked that of the 200 countries in attendance only about a quarter of them are democratic and the rest of them are murderous thug dictators? I mean, you leftists cry about we need more UN approval and participation. Well guess what, the UN is full of xenophobic dictators that demand they be called Exellency.

I know you like to spout off on this because it makes you feel better to bash Bush. You like to think your guy wouldn't meet with these same leaders. Guess what, he would. You want to get into John Forbes Kerry's votes on China?

You are an unadulterated idiot.[/quote]

I'll try to explain this so that even you can understand PAD. The Republicans keep spouting off that everything changed once 9/11 happened. If true, our policy should change as well. Those countries have connections to terrorist organizations so we should not be calling them friends. I agree about Clinton. He did much that I don't agree with. That is not what my post was about. Unfortunately, your IQ is too low to understand.

It's not his IQ, he is just being pigheaded and lying to try and get his candidate elected because he can't admit even to himself that he was wrong when he started supporting Bush, and he will hurt himself and his country before admitting to himself that he was wrong.

[quote name='coffman'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You mean the same countries and leaders Clinton met with and exchanged pleasantries with another U.S. President did as well? OMG I'm shaq-fuing shocked.

Hey, say what you will about this countries relationships with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and China but at least he didn't let the Chinese contribute funds to his campaign like Clinton did. Oh, and he didn't trade military and nuclear secrets to the Chinese... like Clinton did.

Would you like to get into the relationships with Egypt that were cemented for generations with the Camp David Peace Accords by Jimmy Carter? Would you like to get into FDR picking a tribal family at random and proclaiming them the "royal" family because they'd be ammenable to American investments on the Arabian peninsula? Would you like to discuss how Harry Truman abandoned our WWII allies, the Chinese Nationals and Chang Kai Shek and let the communists take over? What do all of those Presidents have in common? Why.... they're Democrats.

You're a horses ass coffman. No sitting President has the option of turning his back on historical relations like we have with Saudi Arabia or Egypt or can ignore a country with 1.2 billion people and a nuclear arsenal. Do you REALLY think these statements are much more than oh, I don't know, diplomatic pleasantries?

Do you think Bush should have gone to the UN yesterday and remarked that of the 200 countries in attendance only about a quarter of them are democratic and the rest of them are murderous thug dictators? I mean, you leftists cry about we need more UN approval and participation. Well guess what, the UN is full of xenophobic dictators that demand they be called Exellency.

I know you like to spout off on this because it makes you feel better to bash Bush. You like to think your guy wouldn't meet with these same leaders. Guess what, he would. You want to get into John Forbes Kerry's votes on China?

You are an unadulterated idiot.[/quote]

I'll try to explain this so that even you can understand PAD. The Republicans keep spouting off that everything changed once 9/11 happened. If true, our policy should change as well. Those countries have connections to terrorist organizations so we should not be calling them friends. I agree about Clinton. He did much that I don't agree with. That is not what my post was about. Unfortunately, your IQ is too low to understand.[/quote]

Uh define what you mean when you say connections to terrorism? If you are speaking about terrorists just being in the country then we also have connections to terrorism. So goes for China and Egypt but as governments they certainly don't support terrorism, in fact China hates it. Also by your standards Coffman, we should just give long-time allies like China the boot and make enemies out of them, or any country who doesn't have the same type of governement as us...sounds like an outstanding plan for foreign policy lets make you president so we can piss off even more of the world. For once I think PAD makes more sense in this situation.

What do you mean China hates terrorism?

They murder their citizens and anyone in public office who disagrees with the tyranical dictator.

How is that not terrorism?

[quote name='Quackzilla']What do you mean China hates terrorism?

They murder their citizens and anyone in public office who disagrees with the tyranical dictator.

How is that not terrorism?[/quote]

Well again it depends on your definition of terrorism, yeah you could probably call it gov't sponsered terrorism, though it's no longer 1989 and China has gotten much better about those activities as of late (still not great though).

However, if you say that, now I guess you have to drop and call truth on the argument about terrorism being in Iraq before we went in now don't you?

[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']

Uh define what you mean when you say connections to terrorism? If you are speaking about terrorists just being in the country then we also have connections to terrorism. So goes for China and Egypt but as governments they certainly don't support terrorism, in fact China hates it. Also by your standards Coffman, we should just give long-time allies like China the boot and make enemies out of them, or any country who doesn't have the same type of governement as us...sounds like an outstanding plan for foreign policy lets make you president so we can piss off even more of the world. For once I think PAD makes more sense in this situation.[/quote]

What I meant was a money trail. Obviously, there can be terrorism in any country, including the US, that is not sponsored or tolerated by that country. If I remember correctly, most of the terrorists on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and they received funding from the Saudi government (indirectly I suppose, but their government had to know how the money was being spent). Yet not even economic sanctions were imposed.

I agree about Saudi Arabia, there is def. something shady going on there and it needs to be dealt with in some fashion. But you shouldn't lump all of our non-democratic allied nations into the same bracket as Saudi Arabia, there's different considerations for each one.

[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']I agree about Saudi Arabia, there is def. something shady going on there and it needs to be dealt with in some fashion. But you shouldn't lump all of our non-democratic allied nations into the same bracket as Saudi Arabia, there's different considerations for each one.[/quote]

True, I should have taken a little more time to explain. But if we want to take the moral high road, the US should pay more attention to human rights abuses along with terrorism issues and take appropriate actions.