"Obama embraces his inner Bush"

With the significant exception of the part of the speech where he said Israel had to start negotiaions with the Palestinians understanding that Israeli borders had to revert to the 1967 borders, I thought the President's speech last week was excellent.

Here are two columns from last week, making the obvious - to me - case that President Obama has to a great extent embraced President Bush's policy of encouraging liberal democratic values in the Middle East. Bush kept saying that this was the only long term answer to the problem of terrorism and most of the other issues plaguing that region of the world (Remember his second inaugural speech? Probably not, because it was downplayed by the media.)

And of course he was laughed at by much of the press and his political enemies. "Unrealistic", "nation-building", "no tradition of democratic values in Islamic countries", etc.

Of course, Bush (and England Prime Minister Blair) were right.

But now, since it's the Obama policy, the liberals and the press are on-board.

From Business Insider -

President Obama's "major" speech on the Middle East and North Africa struck many observers as one that could have been given by his predecessor. And for good reason. Forced by events to choose between a "realist" approach to the events unfolding in the Middle East and North Africa and the more aspirational approach adopted by former President George W. Bush, President Obama channeled his "inner Bush" and went all in.

And here's Charles Krauthammer, in another great column - making the same point - hit the link for all of it!

The news in Obama's speech

Herewith President Obama’s Middle East speech , annotated:

“It will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy.”

With this Barack Obama openly, unreservedly and without a trace of irony or self-reflection adopts the Bush Doctrine, which made the spread of democracy the key U.S. objective in the Middle East.

“Too many leaders in the region tried to direct their people’s grievances elsewhere. The West was blamed as the source of all ills.”

Note how even Obama’s rationale matches Bush’s. Bush argued that because the roots of 9/11 were to be found in the deflected anger of repressed Middle Eastern peoples, our response would require a democratic transformation of the region.

“We have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self-determination of individuals.”

A fine critique of exactly the kind of “realism” the Obama administration prided itself for having practiced in its first two years.

How far did this concession to Bush go? Note Obama’s example of the democratization we’re aiming for. He actually said:

“In Iraq, we see the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy. There, the Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence for a democratic process . . . Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region.”

Hail the Bush-Obama doctrine.

“President Assad now has a choice: he can lead that transition [to democracy], or get out of the way.”

The only jarring note in an otherwise interesting, if convoluted, attempt to unite all current “Arab Spring” policies under one philosophical rubric. Convoluted because the Bahrain part was unconvincing and the omission of Saudi Arabia was unmistakable.

Syria’s Assad leading a transition to democracy? This is bizarre and appalling. Assad has made all-out war on his people — shooting, arresting, executing, even using artillery against cities. Yet Obama is still holding out the olive branch when, if anything, he should be declaring Assad as illegitimate as Gaddafi. Clearly, some habits of engagement/appeasement die hard.

 Poor Bush. Who was the comedian whose tag line was "I don't get no respect"?