Quantcast

«

»

Sep 22 2011

Bachmann’s Craziest Argument Yet

This is just bizarre:

Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann on Friday decried the “Arab Spring” that has toppled three dictators and given rise to pro-democracy protests across the Middle East for promoting the “rise of radical elements” across the region.

In a speech to about 400 Republicans gathered for the state party’s fall convention here, the three-term Minnesota congresswoman blamed President Obama for “the hostilities of the Arab spring” and expressed regret that “we saw (Egyptian) President (Hosni) Mubarak fall while President Obama sat on his hands.”


And what does she think should have been done? There was only one possible way to prevent Mubarak from being deposed by his own people — we would have had to invade yet another Muslim country to impose a dictatorship on them. And that wouldn’t cause us any problems or anything, would it? It wouldn’t reinvigorate Al Qaeda and help them recruit new members. It wouldn’t radicalize the predominately pro-Western Egyptian population at all or anything.

And it wouldn’t contradict the entire justification our government gave for invading Iraq and all our rhetoric about the importance of spreading democracy in the Muslim world. It wouldn’t require us to militarily occupy a hostile country, at enormous cost in blood and treasure, neither of which we can afford. It wouldn’t make us look like imperialists who invade nations and oppress people out of our own political necessity, not at all.

Once again, the world looks far different from reality on Planet Wingnuttia.

17 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Mr Ed

    I’m only going to give this 7 Bachmanns on the crazy scale. Too many republicans I know support democracy as an article of faith but worry that voters will get it wrong.

    Now an invasion to change a government is not necessary. We deposed a democratically elected government in Iran and replaced it with a loyal dictator and that worked out well. And if I remember correctly we might have manipulated a few governments in the Americas. In the short term this worked.

  2. 2
    freemage

    No, no, Ed. The issue is that as soon as it became apparent Mubarak was going to be deposed, Obama should’ve airlifted thousands of good, white, male Christian preachers into the area, each surrounded by a heavily armed platoon to protect them as they converted the people to Holy Jeebus and passed out Bibbles. If people wanted to vote, they’d have to first spit on a copy of the Koran; that would keep the ebil Mooslims out of power.

  3. 3
    raven

    Obama did help get rid of Omar Gaddafi of Libya.

    Gaddafi was a supporter of terrorism and a long time enemy of the USA who spent years trying to develop nuclear weapons. IIRC, his most egregious act was the Pan Am Lockerbie bombing, when a 747 loaded with innocent civilians blew up.

    In other words, we won one of our little wars for once. It didn’t take 8 years, cost 2 trillion dollars, and American casualties were around zero.

    Idiot Bush started two wars. Iraq was just a stupid and costly mistake that cost the lives of two of my friends. Afghanistan is still dragging on.

  4. 4
    raven

    Not too sure why Michele Bachmann is still in the running for the Tea Party nomination.

    She is way too cognitively impaired for even the Lunatics Party.

    I suspect it is just for the entertainment value. Crazy people are so cute when they try to act normal and she has a great, if unintended, sense of humor.

    She would make an immensely entertaining president.

  5. 5
    wheatdogg

    At a certain level, Bachmann’s remarks remind me of the dominant political philosophy of China’s current leadership. Any sort of public outcry, any sort of mass gathering by the public = a prelude to revolution (how ironic!). China’s leaders fear real democracy, because they know they will probably be out of their cushy jobs, free housing and fancy cars in a New York minute. So, they push a kind of paternalism on Chinese society: we know what’s best for a “harmonious society;” anyone who tries to rock the boat will be dealt with quickly and efficiently. (To wit, artist Ai WeiWei and Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo)

    Bachmann has the same kind of paternalistic attitude as China’s leaders. Current leadership (Mubarak), good, because he’s already in power and father knows best. Organized protests by the public, bad, because they’re just unruly children.

    One wonders which side of the Revolutionary War she would have been on.

  6. 6
    quinne

    I think it’s even simpler than that. Whatever President Obama did would have been wrong, whether it be support Mubarak, sit by and let things take their course, or actively depose him. There is absolutely NOTHING he can do to please them. It’s almost to the level of Stupid that if he said the sky was blue they’d come back and say it’s orange.

  7. 7
    raven

    Whatever President Obama did would have been wrong,…

    YES!!!

    It’s that simple. These are the people who blame Obama for the earthquakes in Japan and Virginia. The hurricanes on the east coast. The tornadoes in Missouri and Alabama. For not putting out the wildfires in Texas.

    While I’m not a huge fan of Obama any more, he does have some solid accomplishments.

    1. The war in Iraq is about over with for the USA. Whole months go by without a single US soldier killed.

    2. We did easily and quickly help get rid of Omar Gaddafi.

    3. Obama didn’t crash the US economy. OTOH, it’s pretty hard to crash an economy flat out on the floor to start with.

    Not much of a list but all Bush did is start two huge and vastly expensive wars, destroy the US economy to the point where it will take a decade to fix, and kill two of my friends, dead in Iraq.

  8. 8
    Bronze Dog

    Bachmann has the same kind of paternalistic attitude as China’s leaders. Current leadership (Mubarak), good, because he’s already in power and father knows best. Organized protests by the public, bad, because they’re just unruly children.

    That ended up reminding me of Siam’s special ability in Civilization V, “Father Governs Children,” which provided extra bonuses from allied city-states.

    It also reminds me of a point made about the way fundies raise their kids. The goal of parenting is supposed to be raising kids to become independent adults in their own right. That means they will eventually make decisions the parents don’t agree with. Indoctrination, however, tends to treat children as tools to be used for the religion. They’re raised to be subservient to an authority figure, and when they’re old enough to be in authority, they’re not prepared for it. It’s easy to see how that leads to dysfunctional families.

    We’re supposed to be spreading democracy so that the people of other nations can enjoy the same freedoms we do (or, in some cases, used to). “Unfortunately,” that can lead to their citizens doing something our leaders disagree with. Dictators tend to be easier to control, at least in the short term, which is why we have alliances of convenience, not of principle.

    Of course, as soon as such a dictator thinks he’s gotten powerful and entrenched enough to sway us, he’s going to start flexing his muscles. Yesterday’s ally of convenience becomes tomorrow’s rogue nation.

  9. 9
    mingfrommongo

    Mrs. Bachmann is playing polulist, pandering to Americans’ #1 fear. If the Arabs have freedom, they may vote to stop selling oil to us. Freedom’s great and all, but not for The Other, and not if it means gas prices will go up.

  10. 10
    unbound

    “She is way too cognitively impaired for even the Lunatics Party.”

    No…no she isn’t. I think you underestimate the ability of the members of the Lunatics Party to rationalize.

  11. 11
    juice

    Actually none of these countries has gotten “democracy” yet. With that said, Iraq isn’t all that democratic today either. Maybe in a decade it will be, but not right now. Afghanistan, well…

  12. 12
    Musca Domestica

    Are all (not every single one of course) American polititians this obsessed with war, or is it just the Republicans, who have nothing intellectual to bring to the table?

  13. 13
    captain_spleen

    I think her nonsense has something to do with Israel. Mubarak was a leader Israel was able to work with. Now that the future of Egypt is up in the air, Israel’s nervous.

  14. 14
    slc1

    Re jonhendry @ #13

    Given the recent attack on the Israeli embassy in Cairo, it would appear that the Government of Israel has much to be nervous about.

  15. 15
    Michael Heath

    wheatdogg:

    China’s leaders fear real democracy, because they know they will probably be out of their cushy jobs, free housing and fancy cars in a New York minute.

    Perhaps but there’s a good argument as well. Fareed Zakaria’s book, The Post-American World, provides an excellent rationalization from China’s leaders on why they defend their technocratic authoritarian regime; where democratic India’s relatively horrid performance in spite of their advantages buttresses China’s argument.

  16. 16
    Aquaria

    “She is way too cognitively impaired for even the Lunatics Party.”

    Nearly all of the people who voted for her, and who are all fired up about her running for President are dumber than she is.

    You don’t think smart people vote for that moronic bag of batshit crazy, do you?

  17. 17
    lpetrich

    This makes me wonder what she thinks about the rest of the Arab Spring. That it’s like Egypt, nothing but opportunities for Islamists to take over? Does she also weep for the former leaders of Tunisia and Libya? Especially Muammar Khadafy. :D

    I imagine her saying “Poor poor Muammar. Hounded by the so-called National Transitional Council and running like hell across the Sahara Desert. It’s terrible that we insisted on acting like such a bunch of do-gooders and helped those NTC rats rather than standing by a great defender of Western values and an ally in the fight against Islamic extremism and terrorism.”

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site