I can't find a transcript on NBC's site, but here it is from a (neo-con) blog: http://www.indepundit.com/archive2/2005/03/did_he_just_say.html# -- NBC'S TODAY, 7:10am PST March 7, 2005. KATIE COURIC: Let's turn to Lebanon, if we could for a moment, Governor. Because as you know, Syrian President Assad has announced that his troops will withdraw from Lebanon, a country that Syria has occupied since the mid-70s. For people who may not be foreign policy experts, how significant is this? NEW MEXICO GOVERNOR BILL RICHARDSON (D): Well, this is very significant. I believe the Bush Administration deserves credit for putting pressure, and saying that authoritarian regimes have to go. What is happening here is, the assassination of a very popular former prime minister in Lebanon, has fueled massive demonstrations in Lebanon, that hopefully will lead to all 14,000 Syrian troops out of Lebanon, plus their intelligence agents, by May. It means that in Lebanon, in Egypt there's some potential new elections. The Palestinian Territories; in Iraq; I think there's a wave of democracy caused by internal pressures, of young people in the Arab world, rooting against these authoritarian regimes--and pressure from the Bush Administration-- KATIE COURIC: I-- BILL RICHARDSON: They deserve credit. KATIE COURIC: I was going to say, because a lot of foreign policy experts are hailing the Bush Administration's policies, and saying the Bush Doctrine, of spreading democracy throughout the world, there's clear evidence that it's working. You agree with that assessment? BILL RICHARDSON: Well, it is working. Whether by design, or by accident, it is working. The fact that the President has spoken out, where in the past the US policy has winked at Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, because of their massive security, and we have energy interests there, we have military bases, we kind of said, "OK, it's alright not to be democratic. The President, in talking about freedom and democracy, is sparking a wave of very positive democratic sentiment that might help us override both Islamic fundamentalism that has formed in that region, and also some of the hatred for our policies of invading Iraq. So, this is not only bringing a good result in the Middle East, potential democracy and full elections, but also it is helping our security, perhaps making us safer, by having less Islamic fundamentalism-- KATIE COURIC: Right. BILL RICHARDSON: ...because democracy provides an outlet against it. And also, younger Arabs that are fueling this discontent throughout the Arab world, becoming pro-US, which is a good sign for the future. KATIE COURIC: Alright. Good news indeed.
I'm willing to give Bush some credit for what's going on in Lebanon. I heard a telling quote that Bashar Assad said in response to withdrawing from Lebanon that he wasn't Saddam. That said the Europeans and the UN need to be given a lot of credit for taking the lead on this issue which wasn't even on the Admin.'s radar screen. For that matter Lebanon has many unusual features and history that make it more conducive for something like this happening here. If this was the fall of the Iranian regime due to people power that would be another matter. I also believe that this situation could still have come about without the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The Admin. could've suported pro-democracy movements before and they still aren't really supporting movements in countries that are nominally aligned with the US. Another warning cloud is that Hezbollah is planning a big counter protest and they are the most powerful single political party in Lebanon. We've been seeing primarily Sunni, Druze, Christian and secular Lebanese protesting for Syria out but not very much the 40% Shiite population much of what supports Hezbollah and Syria. There is a danger that once Syria leaves Lebanon could be plunged into civil war again. I would hope that the Lebanese figure out their problems democractically but at the same time they've failed to do that severy times in the past 30 years.
Up to 150,000 opposition supporters rallied in Beirut three weeks after the murder of ex-premier Rafiq Hariri as Syria prepared for a troop pullback in Lebanon in the face of international pressure. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050307/wl_mideast_afp/lebanonpolitics_050307140239
true, and they have fewer guns than hexbollah, one would imagine. my comment was more on the "hugeness" of hezbollah's counter-protest. i doubt they've got 150k members.
I just read on MSNBC that the largest anti-Syrian demonstration was 70K and just heard on the radio that Hezbollah has already put around 40K and growing out for their protest. While it is heartening that Lebanese have taken upon themselves to engage in a people power protests to get rid of the Syrians its still a question what support the pro-Syrian side has. I'm not sure we're in the position to judge the strength of either side. As I said before there is a huge danger this could turn out very ugly and prematurely parading this as a success for the Bush Doctrine might just make things worse.
Not sure if they are all Hezbollah, but it seems it's a few more than 150K. And anger seems to be directed at the US not Syria. -------------------------------------- BEIRUT, Lebanon - Nearly 500,000 pro-Syrian protesters waved flags and chanted anti-American slogans in a central Beirut square Tuesday, answering a nationwide call by the militant Shiite Muslim Hezbollah group for a demonstration to counter weeks of massive rallies demanding Syrian forces leave Lebanon. Organizers handed out Lebanese flags and directed the men and women to separate sections of Riad Solh Square. Loudspeakers blared militant songs urging resistance to foreign interference. Demonstrators held up pictures of Syrian President Bashar Assad and signs saying, "Syria & Lebanon brothers forever." Other placards read: "America is the source of terrorism"; "All our disasters are from America"; "No to American-Zionist intervention; Yes to Lebanese-Syrian brotherhood." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=/ap/20050308/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_syria_34
i'm extremely sceptical of these numbers, and whether this really represents a ground swell of public opinion, or is more akin to the state-sponsored "death-to-america" "rallies" in iran. and the segregated aspect could not be in greater contrast to the mixed-sex, religion character of the jubilant anti-syria rallies.
I agree with you basso. I just wanted to point out that there is a large contingent that still must be dealt with. How it will play out? Who knows?
If the current unrest in Lebanon plunges them back into civil war, are we to credit the Bush Doctrine (which rather remarkably evolved from preemptive strikes against WMDs to "promoting democracy" whatever that means in the span of a year or two)?
Probably only as much as the level of credit you give it for desirable results. In your case that would mean no.
i sense from your choice of words, ie "unrest", that you don't find the displacement of syria to be a good thing for lebanon. am i correct in that assumption?
Sam, there are several posters here that have said "i would've supported the war if bush had just said he wanted to promote democracy, not the canard about WMD", or words to that effect. can i assume from your comments that you would've supported a preemptive war to remove saddam and promote democracy in iraq and the middle east at large?
If it had a reasonable chance of success at low cost, and I had confidence in the administration to handle a gargantuan job like nationbuilding - quite possibly, yes But I don't think what looks like Iran lite, best case scenario, gets us back in black as of today.
Saying Bush and the "Bush Doctrine" deserves credit for anything in Lebanon is a HUGE stretch. Everything that is going on in Lebanon today is the result of a very popular ex Prime Minister being murdered. Unless the U.S. had a hand in the assasination (which I very seriously doubt), we can claim no credit for what is happening in Lebanon. That being said, if we support the uprising of the people and we do our part in helping them get rid of Syria and its troops, I will definitely credit Bush for it. In my view, Lebanon can be very different from Iraq. I was vehemently against the war in Iraq, but I will happily support our intervention in Lebanon. The reason for this is because I am all for supporting people that want change. By rising up on their own, they have shown me that they want change. If you want democracy and if you want our help, then I am all for giving it to you. I did not get that in Iraq and to a large extent, I still do not get it. I question whether the majority of the Iraqi people want us there and I question whether the majority of Iraqis are better off today than they were 5 years ago. As history has shown us, democracy and freedom are not the be all and end all of happiness. A prime example of this is Vietnam. A lot of people supported us, but a lot more were against us. The result was a disaster for us. With respect to the Bush Doctrine, I will give it its proper credence. It is leading to unprecedented change in the Middle East. Who would have thought that there would be popular elections in Saudi Arabia? Who would have thought that Mubarak would get serious electoral competition in Egypt? I for one did not. We owe that much to Bush and his vision. It is because of his misguided vision in Iraq that others in the Middle East are finaly starting to see that democracy is plausible for them. That in itself is a great accomplishment for Bush. While I am a Republican, to this point, I have loathed Bush. But I am compelled to say that Bush has done successfully what even Reagan failed to do, and that is to successfully jumpstart a process of democratizing the Middle East. Even if Bush can't do it in his 4 years, any future president that does it successfully will have to say that Bush set the foundation.
