Next up for revolution is... YEMEN!

[CaptainChewbacca]

Link

SANAA, Yemen — Yemen's opposition parties have announced they are joining young protesters trying to bring down the country's longtime president.

Sunday's announcement marks the second major setback in two days for President Ali Abdullah Saleh, a key U.S. ally. On Saturday, two powerful chiefs from his own tribe abandoned him, and anti-government protesters mustered the largest crowds yet.

The mainstream opposition parties had been reluctant to join the protests, preferring instead a wait-and-see strategy.

However, on Sunday they said they would hold rallies Tuesday to show solidarity with the protesters. In recent weeks, Yemen has seen daily protests, inspired by successful uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia.

Its really mind-boggling how things were static in these countries for decades, and now in mere months everything is changing.

[weemadando]

A lot of that status quo in Yemen was due to the fact that speaking against the government would either get you imprisoned/murdered by the government directly or by the USA after reliable intel from the Yemeni government identified you as a terrorist.

Its hard to keep up the pace with that kind of system when large protests that receive international attention start happening. Though of course, despite the fact that they've been protesting since the start of this round of Middle Eastern unrest, the western media can only accept that one nation of brown people at a time could do something.

Two or more at once and you might *confuse* folks.

[K. A. Pital]

"Long-time US allies" go belly up. I wish the folks in Yemen good luck. Nothing is worse than Duvalier-like assholes sitting as lords over you.

[PainRack]

Seriously, has things actually been static for the past few years or are we actually seeing what the War on Terror previously stifled?

Prior to 2001, there was plenty of talk about revolutionary fervour in Iran, Algeria, agitation in Libya and etc. Some of it was democratic, the militant movement in Algeria was not. Egypt faced increased political unhappiness that was highlighted in the past few years when food inflation caused riots.
The unemployment bomb and so forth wasn't resolved, even as governments liberalised. Dubai went into debt, crashing that country promise of providing a better life "eventually".

[Rogue 9]

Seriously, has things actually been static for the past few years or are we actually seeing what the War on Terror previously stifled?

Some former Bush administration officials are now arguing that what we're seeing now is not only healthy, but is the direct product of Bush's "freedom agenda," that they say is only now bearing fruit. Sounds more than a little fishy to me, but the point is that the architects of the War on Terror at least didn't intend to stifle this sort of thing - or say they didn't.

[Mr Bean]

Seriously, has things actually been static for the past few years or are we actually seeing what the War on Terror previously stifled?

Some former Bush administration officials are now arguing that what we're seeing now is not only healthy, but is the direct product of Bush's "freedom agenda," that they say is only now bearing fruit. Sounds more than a little fishy to me, but the point is that the architects of the War on Terror at least didn't intend to stifle this sort of thing - or say they didn't.

Which would be fine, except for the small fact that the War on Terror enlisted the very men who are being deposed as our close friends and allies. It's rather like celebrating the Nazi's celebrating the fall of the corrupt Benito Mussolini regime to the freedom loving Americans during WWII.

It's not a great comparison but some quick searches yielded no obvious historical comparison between two one country trying to celebrate the fall of another ally.

[xerex]

It's not a great comparison but some quick searches yielded no obvious historical comparison between two one country trying to celebrate the fall of another ally.

the USSR trying to take credit for democracy in Eastern Europe in 1989 ?

[JME2]

It's not a great comparison but some quick searches yielded no obvious historical comparison between two one country trying to celebrate the fall of another ally.

the USSR trying to take credit for democracy in Eastern Europe in 1989 ?

In Soiviet Russia, democracy credits you.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I think what we're seeing is less due to the WOT and the more the result of decades of suppression, the economic malaise, and the spread of instantaneous social media coming to a head.

[Gil Hamilton]

Some former Bush administration officials are now arguing that what we're seeing now is not only healthy, but is the direct product of Bush's "freedom agenda," that they say is only now bearing fruit. Sounds more than a little fishy to me, but the point is that the architects of the War on Terror at least didn't intend to stifle this sort of thing - or say they didn't.

I understand that the War on Terror's interaction with anti-government protestors in Yemen was actually more like this

Yemeni Official: "Allah damn it, this guy keeps publishing mean things about us! Hey, US Official!"
US Official: "What's up, proud ally in the War on Terror?"
Yemeni Official: "This guy is a terrorist working for al-Qaeda. *holds up menu for a Kebab-to-Go place* Here is our totally not made up evidence that he was involve in money with like the USS Cole or something. We wan--for God's sake don't actually read it, there's no time!-- we want you to pick the terrorist up.

*a few months later, Yemeni Official is on the phone with the US Official*

Yemeni Official: "So about that guy? ...A broomstick, you say? Oh, man, never mind... and he still says he doesn't know anything about al-Qaeda? Well, I'm sure you can keep him in Cuba for a while without charges, since if you charge him the totally classified nature of our evidence would be compromised. Great, thanks. By the way, want to come over to the compound? I know a great Kebab place that delivers...


So, I'm sure that the War on Terror probably fostered this some way, but perhaps not directly.

[mingo]

Some former Bush administration officials are now arguing that what we're seeing now is not only healthy, but is the direct product of Bush's "freedom agenda," that they say is only now bearing fruit. Sounds more than a little fishy to me, but the point is that the architects of the War on Terror at least didn't intend to stifle this sort of thing - or say they didn't.

I knew that sooner or later that prick would say "See, I told you so (heh, heh, heh), Freedom's on the march! Now Libyan gynecologists can practice their love will their patients and put food on their families and it's all part of history judging me as a GREAT President!"

[Rogue 9]

Some former Bush administration officials are now arguing that what we're seeing now is not only healthy, but is the direct product of Bush's "freedom agenda," that they say is only now bearing fruit. Sounds more than a little fishy to me, but the point is that the architects of the War on Terror at least didn't intend to stifle this sort of thing - or say they didn't.

I knew that sooner or later that prick would say "See, I told you so (heh, heh, heh), Freedom's on the march! Now Libyan gynecologists can practice their love will their patients and put food on their families and it's all part of history judging me as a GREAT President!"

To my knowledge, Bush himself hasn't said a damn word; it was Paul Wolfowitz and a few others that I heard it reported on. I'll see if I can find a link tomorrow morning; right now I'm short on time before work.

[FaxModem1]

So, Egypt, Libya, then Yemen, any bets on who is next?

[Mr Bean]

So, Egypt, Libya, then Yemen, any bets on who is next?

Syria or possible Iran are the long shots.

[J]

So, Egypt, Libya, then Yemen, any bets on who is next?

I think it would be easier to list who isn't next. Oman is seeing some protests, reported to be the first of their kind in decades and if Facebook is anything to go by Saudi Arabia is scheduled for March 20th.

[Rogue 9]

I knew that sooner or later that prick would say "See, I told you so (heh, heh, heh), Freedom's on the march! Now Libyan gynecologists can practice their love will their patients and put food on their families and it's all part of history judging me as a GREAT President!"

To my knowledge, Bush himself hasn't said a damn word; it was Paul Wolfowitz and a few others that I heard it reported on. I'll see if I can find a link tomorrow morning; right now I'm short on time before work.

Ah, here we are. It was an interview on NPR; here's the transcript.

GUY RAZ, host:

Now in recent days, some former staffers of President George W. Bush have argued that the so-called freedom agenda pushed by the administration is now starting to bear fruit across the Middle East.

Elliot Abrams, the deputy national security adviser for global democracy strategy under President Bush is one of those people who's been making that case.

Mr. ELLIOTT ABRAMS (Senior Fellow, Middle Eastern Studies, Council on Foreign Relations): What the president began to say after 9/11 was that there was no special exception for the Arab world, that we had supported stability in the Middle East at the cost of liberty. And that we weren't going to get stability either. And, of course, this is at a time when most of these regimes look completely stable. So the point I was making is he had it right in saying that these were not as stable as they appeared to be.

RAZ: Do you acknowledge that there could be a messy period? There could be a long period even, where many of these countries won't just have deposed pro-American leaders, but may actively become anti-American.

Mr. ABRAMS: I don't think they'll become anti-American. But messy period, sure. I mean, every country that has become a democracy has had a messy period. The thing is, we're in favor of democracy. We're Americans. We're supposed to be supporting democracy not just at home. We believe in it for every people around the world. How could we not be thrilled and excited by what we're seeing in the streets of Tripoli and Manama and Cairo and other places?

RAZ: What would you propose the United States do? I mean, you say that, you know, that the United States should support this and should actively support it, but how?

Mr. ABRAMS: We have a number of ways of helping countries in transition through AID, through the National Endowment for Democracy, through the Republican and Democratic Party institutes and through a lot of NGOs. Training people who are setting up a party for the first time in - how do you organize a party? How do you communicate with voters? How do you reach out? We know a little bit about this, so do the Europeans. So especially the people who've been through it a lot more recently than we have - the Poles, the Czechs, the Chileans. And we ought to try to organize and make sure that people, especially with more recent experience, get over to these new democracies or countries trying to be democracies and give them whatever help they can.

RAZ: Many, many people, fairly or unfairly, argue that, you know, the Bush administration pushed the freedom agenda at the point of a gun, and Iraq and Afghanistan were sort of their primary examples. If in fact this is the result of an ideal or values that were proposed by President George W. Bush or going all the way back to Woodrow Wilson, what happens now? I mean, should the United States actively back other movements in other Middle Eastern countries?

Mr. ABRAMS: I'm not arguing that the United States should have a policy of overthrowing everybody's government. We had nothing to do with the uprising in Tunisia or Egypt or in Libya. These are spontaneous moves on the part of the people of those countries.

The question really is, when they make that move, how do we react? And I'm just suggesting that we should react favorably. We should react by saying, you know, it's your country, but anything we can do to help freedom expand, we want to do. We believe in it and it's in our interests.

RAZ: In a few moments we're going to hear from Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett. They are former National Security Council staffers under President Bill Clinton. They argue that Iran will be the big winner out of all these uprisings throughout the Middle East. Do they have a point?

Mr. ABRAMS: I think they have half a point. I think there are two sides to this coin. And one side is there's turmoil, you know, they're instability. That offers opportunities for people who like to sell instability, who are going to support extremist groups. There's no question that there are many more opportunities for Iran, let's say, in Egypt or Tunisia now than there were when they were dictatorships.

But the other side of the coin is that Iran is a dictatorship. Nobody in the streets of Tunisia or Libya is asking for Ayatollahs and stolen elections and revolutionary guards throwing you in prison. They're asking for freedom.

And I think that in a matter of one year, two years, this will look very different for Iran, because the Middle East is turning democratic. I think, therefore, that it hurts Iran, particularly in the area of soft power, reputation, influence that's so important.

RAZ: That's Elliott Abrams. He was a foreign policy adviser to President Reagan and President George W. Bush. He's now a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Elliott Abrams, thank you.

Mr. ABRAMS: You're very welcome.

RAZ: In a moment, a different view from two former National Security Council advisers on why Iran may actually be the ultimate winner.

[Simon_Jester]

To my knowledge, Bush himself hasn't said a damn word; it was Paul Wolfowitz and a few others that I heard it reported on. I'll see if I can find a link tomorrow morning; right now I'm short on time before work.

Is it just me, or has Bush himself been laying pretty low? I mean, it's normal for a former president to more or less retire after leaving the White House, yes. But I could easily imagine the Republicans actively trying to keep him from running around endorsing things; he didn't leave office as a popular man.

Even when they want to more or less continue his policies, they probably won't want the name of Bush as a label on the policy. If Obama has been discredited by his role in the ongoing depression and the Afghanistan War, Bush has been discredited at least as thoroughly, in the eyes of many of the same people.

Or am I barking at shadows?

[JME2]

Is it just me, or has Bush himself been laying pretty low? I mean, it's normal for a former president to more or less retire after leaving the White House, yes. But I could easily imagine the Republicans actively trying to keep him from running around endorsing things; he didn't leave office as a popular man.

Even when they want to more or less continue his policies, they probably won't want the name of Bush as a label on the policy. If Obama has been discredited by his role in the ongoing depression and the Afghanistan War, Bush has been discredited at least as thoroughly, in the eyes of many of the same people.

Or am I barking at shadows?

I don't think you are. Aside from the inauguration, Hati, his memoirs, and the World Series, it's been all quiet on the Crawford front -- and frankly I hope it stays that way.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Is it just me, or has Bush himself been laying pretty low? I mean, it's normal for a former president to more or less retire after leaving the White House, yes. But I could easily imagine the Republicans actively trying to keep him from running around endorsing things; he didn't leave office as a popular man.

Generally former US Presidents go away quietly. They may dabble in philanthropy but they know how hard the job is and they won't really do anything to undermine a sitting President or interfere in a political process. The exception to this is a certain peanut-farmer who shall remain nameless.

[Sarevok]

As much as I am enthusiastic about long oppressed people rising up I wonder when will it stop. The protesters can't keep their continuous rate of success one after another. It may be depressing but soon we may be hearing about protests in some nations stiffing down.

[Phantasee]

So, Egypt, Libya, then Yemen, any bets on who is next?

You forgot Tunisia, Bahrain, others, and you forgot that the people of Yemen have been protesting since Tunisia. Or do you only know about countries that CNN has reported on?

[Akhlut]

As far as I can tell, the only nations in the Middle East and North Africa that haven't experienced protests in some manner are Israel, the U.A.E., and Western Sahara. Even Djibouti, Mauritania, and Kuwait are getting in on the action.

[weemadando]

So, Egypt, Libya, then Yemen, any bets on who is next?

You forgot Tunisia, Bahrain, others, and you forgot that the people of Yemen have been protesting since Tunisia. Or do you only know about countries that CNN has reported on?

See my post further up. How can there be revolutionar protests in more than one country at once.

YOU'RE RUINING OUR NEWS CYCLE!

[Gandalf]

Generally former US Presidents go away quietly. They may dabble in philanthropy but they know how hard the job is and they won't really do anything to undermine a sitting President or interfere in a political process.

I think that's a bit of a shame.

I'd like to hear from people who have actually held that position. It'd be a nice change from the gormless twits I see on US news media. I'd rather listen to an ex-president for sixty seconds than Huckabee/Beck/other for an hour.

[Slacker]

Well, Clinton occasionally pops his head up, but he's pretty much the exception.

On-topic, Kuwait's pretty much bought it's people off-I'd read a report where the government cut a check for seven grand and a year's worth of rice for everyone in the country, and the protests just stopped for rather predictable reasons.

I'm really curious how Jordan's going to go. The royal family there has a better head on their shoulders than most of the others in the Middle East, and could well decide becoming a true constitutional monarch might be a better move than losing their country.

[Block]

Well, Clinton occasionally pops his head up, but he's pretty much the exception.

On-topic, Kuwait's pretty much bought it's people off-I'd read a report where the government cut a check for seven grand and a year's worth of rice for everyone in the country, and the protests just stopped for rather predictable reasons.

I'm really curious how Jordan's going to go. The royal family there has a better head on their shoulders than most of the others in the Middle East, and could well decide becoming a true constitutional monarch might be a better move than losing their country.

The problem in Jordan is claimed to be with the elected officials, so I'm not quite sure what you think the King can do. It's not like he's sitting on piles of oil money like Saudi, who also bought its people off today, and Kuwait