As I recall, George W. Bush thought Middle Eastern countries could understand and want democracy.

I find myself wondering whether- if Bush had held back- Saddam's regime would now be in the process of being overthrown from within.

Probably not. He was a fairly ruthless dictator. He had rebellions of various sorts during his tyranny, and just murdered the rebels without much ado.

My original comment was somewhat sarcastic. American "journalists" are about 95% liberal, and mercilessly mocked Bush at the time for thinking that Middle Eastern countries could adapt to democracy. Those same "journalists" are now cheerleading in Egypt. Disgusting.

That is, the lack of objectivity is disgusting. I heard one "journalist" from CNN reporting from a crowd in Egypt on the day Mubarak resigned. In a tone of exultation, she cried out that "This was an important day not only for Egypt, but for the whole world." There are so many things wrong with that combination of tone and words for a journalist that I find it hard to begin. If she had been in my news room, she'd be put on probation.

Anyway...you're a smart chap...if you ever find an old-time journalist surviving who isn't an intellectual whore, let me know. :)

I don't think Saddam ever faced the kind of popular street protest that is currently sweeping the Arab world.

Mubarak and Gaddafi are similarly ruthless- but Mubarak has already gone and there are reports this morning that Gaddafi has fled Tripoli.

I share your disdain for most journalism.

American "journalists" are about 95% liberal, and mercilessly mocked Bush at the time for thinking that Middle Eastern countries could adapt to democracy.

Can you show examples of journalists mocking Bush for thinking that Middle Eastern countries could adapt to democracy? I don't recall this at all, but it's not like I read every news article so I certainly could have missed something like htat.

I do recall plenty of American liberals (myself included) mocking Bush for claiming his actions in Iraq were about liberating the oppressed people of that country (and about those WMDs that never materialized). There are lots of oppressive regimes around the world that Bush didn't give a damn about or spend billions of dollars to overthrow.

I respectfully decline to make your acquaintance.

American "journalists" are about 95% liberal

Could you support that statement? Also, if you could provide the criteria by which you determine which journalist is "liberarl", I should appreciate that as well.

Thank you.

I will pass. It is just opinion, and I have no desire to enter a debate.

Pissed myself laughing last night at the lousy speech given by Gadaffi Jnr "It is either us or another Iran". A barstool awaits him for the rest of his life "I used to be someone big in Libya..."

It was a fine demonstration of exactly why Libya doesn't want him running things...

"My Daddy got me this job" How will the poor bastard fare at the Jobcentre? Answers on a postcard please.

>> It was also often said that Arabs are primitive (but noble) tribal folk ...

Oh yeah...an addition...this is another piece of garbage largely perpetrated by "journalists", or at least, an area never investigated. In fact, the Western world is heavily indebted to the Arab culture for furthering and preserving science and mathematics. Now, everything gets bound up with Islam and religion such that we forget that, once upon a time, every other phrase was not "God willing."

Yes indeed. When Richard Coeur de Lion faced Saladin it was Richard who was the barbarian...

Well, Ben Ali is as good a French viceroy as any, I suspect.

Some commentators have been talking about the Arab revolution as representing the true end of colonial rule in the Middle East. I think they have a point.