I hope to see lots of praise for the Bush administration as democracy spreads throughout the middle east. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BUSH DOCTRINE IS ALL ABOUT.

Freedom is continuing to spread. Africa and Asia are soon to follow.

Right, cause this has nothing to do with the work that women activists have been doing. They've just been waiting for Daddy Bush to save them.

I guess that whole democracy in the middle east thing has absolutely nothing to do with GW's policies, huh?

It's all just coincidence that it happened on his watch, after he instituted the Bush Doctrine, right?

I give credit where credit is due. The activists demanded the rights, but American foriegn policy has made it almost impossible for a legitimate government anywhere to ignore its citizens/subjects demands for freedom and representation in government. In the past, the husbands and fathers would have been told to keep their women in line in Kuwait, but no longer. With mass media, and real time reporting, governments are finding it much harder to repress dissent. Especially now that Condi has put the word out in the Middle East that the USA won't tolerate human rights violations from its allies.

hm.

That's great.

Now perhaps, America's great "friend and ally", Saudia Arabia will let women, gasp, I don't know, drive.

Replying to tfreridge, who wrote, "I guess that whole democracy in the middle east thing has absolutely nothing to do with GW's policies, huh?

It's all just coincidence that it happened on his watch, after he instituted the Bush Doctrine, right?"

Uh, yeah. Kuwait has been moving in this direction for a long time. Gender discrimination has been prohibited in their constitution since 1961, and as I understand it, the Kuwaiti royal family has been pushing for this for about a decade, motions that became most visible during the *Clinton* administration if I recall correctly (though I wasn't really paying that much attention at the time), and are apparently finally bearing fruit. I'm having a really hard time working out exactly why you think Bush deserves any credit for this at all; his policies have been almost uniformly hostile to women's rights. What exactly do you think is the chain of events moving from something Bush did to this?

Seriously, that's not intended as an insult; I have absolutely no idea why you think Bush should be credited, and I'm quite curious to hear you explain it.

Although it is difficult to believe, Bush is not the damn saint to the Middle East. Kuwait has been a "democracy" for years. Bush certainly never pushed Kuwait to allow women to vote. KUWAITI WOMEN DID!!

One problem with Bush supporters is that they take credit for all of the positive and deny responsibility for any of the negative.

Zed - I was very concerned that GW wasn't going to fufill the promise of the family after he got elected in 2000. After 9/11 he really kind of coelesced(sp?) into a strong Reagan like leader. I believe that leadership should lead by going after "the Ideal" and the administration should compromise to make it work without sacrificing the princible behind it.

Stem Cells are a perfect example of the leadership qualities GW. The religious right didn't want any stem cell research at all because they believe that the major source of stem cells are an evil source (abortion). The left wanted complete government subsidised research because it believes (falsly, i think) that stem cell research is the end all be all of possible cures. The republicans don't want to spend the tax dollars and increase government(double that if they are religious). The Democrats think the government should be in charge of all of it(through university endowments, of course).
So look at his decision. He continued to fund existing lines and prohibited further government funding but placed no restrictions on private research. Every one is marginally happy. A moral, ethical decision. Kind of like Soloman.

In the area of Democracy, the Bush Doctrine is that if everyone lives in some form of representational democracy then Global Terrorism and WMD will cease to be threat. If government by the free can't prevent its own free citizens from comitting atrocities, or punish criminals through due process then nothing will work. I believe he is right. If neighbors see elections, they will wonder, "why can't we have elections?" The tyrants will fall like dominoes. Suffrage is freedom. Bush supports suffrage like no other president ever has. Everyone in the world knew what was happening to women under the Taliban. NO ONE DID ANYTHING!!!!
Since GW has given the world hope, we (america and the world) will never turn a blind eye to that again.
I don't think we're moving fast enough in Africa, but I believe the administration wanted to give the french and the UN a chance. I suspect we will have troops in Africa before the end of this year because of the Sudan.
Whether we like it or not, if we are ethical and humane, we have an obligation to help the less fortunate and to protect those that can't defend themselves. Our becoming the policemen of the world is a direct result of the failure of the United Nations(which we mostly funded anyways).

neph - I believe we should pressure "the kingdom" to live up to our standard of freedom(for all) and human rights. It is wrong when a female officer of the US Navy has to ride in the back of a car and keep covered in the name of respecting a "culture". A culture only deserves respect if it is equal or superior. Did we respect the cannibals of Papua New Guinia? Why should we respect a culture that places women on the same level (or below) of cattle or camels?

tfreridge: You wax poetic about the leadership virtues of Bush, which I won't debate you on here (though I will note that Condi's speeches notwithstanding, we seem to be perfectly happy with the human rights violations in China, Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia, which I think sends a message stronger than words), but didn't really tell me what I was asking: what, exactly, did Bush do that led to this? What were the steps, and what were the results? What is the chain of events that led from Bush's actions to this preliminary suffrage in Kuwait?

I honestly don't see any connection at all between anything he did and this outcome.

tfreridge,

We should "pressure" Saudi Arabia about their civil rights issues? Maybe we should put on our angry faces and shake a disapproving finger at them, too.

According to the newest party line, we invaded liberated Iraq because of Saddam's miserable record of human right's abuses.

Why is there a double standard here?

Over here, it's Tony Blair that got Kuwaiti women the vote. But don't tell GW!

Allow me to provide a kuwaiti voice to this discourse. I was/am an active organizer/participant in the recent wave of mobilization in kuwait. So I know how hard we worked and how much we did, and the worst thing anyone can say to me is that the Bush administration got us the vote. We got the vote. The support of journalists, MP's and our Prime Minister got us the vote. Months of protest, demonstration, public debates, conferences, and ongoing press coverage got us the vote.
I'm not saying all this blindly, I am fully aware of the extent of intervening in other countries' politics that the Bush administration is engaged in, which has recently taken on this shiny new cloak of "democratizing" the region. And I'll even go as far as to say that yes, the US government did add some pressure, and perhaps even helped speed up the process here. But were it not for local mobilization and unfaltering determination, our suffrage would not have come to fruition. And if it had by any other means than our own, it would mean nothing to us.
I was glad to read through this thread and find that most people, in fact all but one I believe, gave credit where credit was due. I am thankful for your righteous support, and your existence.