![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.keshertalk.com/nav-commenters.gif)
« The insurgency began, and we missed it | Home | Why Wait? Hold the Primaries NOW »
August 30, 2007
Sharansky on Bush, the Lonely Dissident
Jerusalem Post interviews Natan Sharansky:
"Many politicians and institutions that should be promoting democracy and freedom are cynically reluctant to do it, because Bush raised the agenda," Sharansky went on. "That's why I give Bush an "A" for raising the idea, a "C" for implementation and I give his opponents, who abandoned the idea, an "F," because they are attacking Bush not for inconsistency in implementing the agenda but for raising it. Their approach denies the people of the Middle East the ability to live in freedom."
Sharansky called Bush "a lonely dissident for democracy in the White House" because of his lack of support. But he cited three cases where Bush could have and should have been more consistent in his insistence on democratization: the Palestinians, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.On the Palestinian issue, Sharansky tried unsuccessfully three times to persuade Bush not to allow the Palestinian Authority election last year that was won by Hamas.
"I told Bush before and after [the vote] that quick elections cannot replace the democratic process," Sharansky said. "Elections require a free society. Elections have to be the last step of the democratic process."
Sharansky credited Bush and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for encouraging liberty in Egypt, Lebanon and Syria. The 4,000 Egyptian judges who wrote President Hosni Mubarak that their electoral system had to be changed would not have taken such a risk without American support, Sharansky said. He praised Bush for pressuring Mubarak to release from jail a dissident for democracy, Saad Eddin Ibrahim.
Go read the rest at the link. I especially like the reported exchange between Sharansky and Condi Rice about Saudi Arabia.
Remarks. When questioned about which "candidate running for US president who could implement his vision better than Bush had", Sharansky was curiously evasive, answering instead that "he did not know of anyone who believed in his ideas more than the current president." But believing in something and being able to implement it are two different things, as Sharansky himself was at pains to point out. So I'm wondering why (if the reported synopsis of the exchange is correct) Sharansky was unwilling to answer the question.
Asher Abrams | 08/30/07 at 08:55 PM | Categories: - Nation-building
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.keshertalk.com/cgi-bin/mtb.cgi/6589
Comments
My (cynical) guess as to why Sharansky ducked the question is that Sharansky's think tank gets some funding from Bush/Cheney.
savtadotty | September 1, 2007 06:36 PM
Sharansky's integrity has passed the test; there is no chance he would be influenced by "funding from Bush/Cheney."
Some people see a burglar under every bed.
miriam | September 8, 2007 10:15 PM
