Comments on: Since we’re going that direction and all…

By: ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Self-Righteous Lefties on Uzbekistan

Wed, 08 Jun 2005 03:07:54 +0000

[...] jumping on board the “US out of Uzbekistan” group, a policy equally favored by numerous lunatics too many to mention (but one who deserves special notice is pro-Taliban Mukhammad Salikh). A U [...]

By: Nathan

Nathan — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 14:07:42 +0000

You’re right.

But as far as doing stuff, we have been, pretty quietly.

By: Tim Russo

Tim Russo — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 14:04:38 +0000

If the doctrine is simply talking about democracy, Bush hasn’t even met that test on Uzbekistan.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 13:53:19 +0000

Ya, second or third maybe, but it’s prosperity and stability they always struck me as most worried about.

By: upyernoz

upyernoz — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 13:50:11 +0000

If my experience is worth anything, democracy’s not a first-order concern for the vast majority of Uzbeks.

well, yes and no (at least in my even more limited experience). a bunch of uzbeks i was talking to told me they wanted democracy. but when i asked them what they meant, it looks like what they really wanted was prosperity–they talked more about living standards than elections.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 13:35:52 +0000

Well as far as I understand the Bush doctrine, it’s talking about and promoting democracy. I’m not sure that means it needs to be done at all times and in every instance. I think this reveals the weakness of the policy–it’s hard to come up with actions to match the rhetoric in tough situations.

And all I gotta say about the point-scoring is the way you’re making your point and all…

I am a nuance-fetishist after all

By: Tim Russo

Tim Russo — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 13:31:52 +0000

Nice response, Nathan. Couple points.

To accuse me of partisanship on this issue is a bit odd. I’ve been and still am a strong supporter of the Bush democracy doctrine. That support causes me a great deal of consternation in my own party.

The alternative I offer is, in fact, the stated Bush doctrine. I don’t think I need to state it, because Bush states it every single moment he takes breath. Except on Uzbekistan. Bush, Rice, et all, make a great flourish of marching into even Moscow (Moscow!) and talking their game. How they can clam up when the shit hits the fan in Uzbekistan, and call on some NGO to do an investigation, is simply beyond my comprehension.

Pointing this out is not political point-scoring. If a Democrat (like myself) is going to support a Republican on this policy, the more that Republican looks opportunistic and hypocritical, the harder it is for any Democrat, let alone one with a track record on democracy development, to support him.

I’ll repeat – the alternative to current Uzbekistan policy is stated Bush democracy doctrine. That seems easy enough.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 10:54:28 +0000

Well, I should mention that I do like Tim and take him more seriously than I do some partisans.

By: Curzon

Curzon — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 08:32:54 +0000

This is a pretty good summary of your previous arguments, and you’re totally right. It takes non-partisan (biased! but non-partisan) bloggers to have worthwhile debates about the legitimacy of partisan organizations. Tim describes himself is “irrelevant Democrat blogger guy.” Is it any surprise he criticizes Mr. Bush? Of course not. Indeed, he would most likely criticize Mr. Bush no matter what he did. Remember that article from Iglesias (?) back in February: “It’s important we be careful not to give Bush any credit for Kyrgyzstan!” Who takes these people seriously? Answer: only their fellow die-hards.