ace..listen to Asmaa Mahfouz's video...it is about human rights, not economics.
And, ace, if you are going to claim that the uprising in Egypt validates the Bush doctrine, at least understand what the doctrine was all about.....
....preemptive strikes against regimes that were perceived to be hostile or dangerous to the US.....and/or regimes that were theocratic and harbored terrorists.
Neither was the case in Egypt.
Quote:
The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to secure itself against countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.
...the Bush Doctrine", as it came to describe other elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate; a policy of spreading democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating terrorism
The expression was used at least once, though by Vice President Dick Cheney, in a June 2003 speech in which he said, "If there is anyone in the world today who doubts the seriousness of the Bush Doctrine, I would urge that person to consider the fate of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
|
Which might explain why many Bush neo-cons are continuing to make baseless claims about the Muslim Brotherhood as a driving force of the uprising.
To suggest that the uprising is the Bush Doctrine at work is a stretch, to say the least.