After President Bush’s recent trip to the Middle East, many analysts criticized Bush for failing to live up to his pro-democracy rhetoric. Bush spoke of the importance of freedom in the Middle East, but he praised autocratic Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and didn’t meet with “one Saudi dissident or political activist, much less a democrat.”

Today in Human Rights Watch’s World Report 2008, HRW Executive Director Kenneth Roth argues that Bush’s disingenuous freedom rhetoric has retarded the global spread of democracy. Rather than “support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture” — as Bush promised to do in his second inauguration address– Bush’s policies have convinced “autocrats that mere elections, regardless of the circumstances, are sufficient to warrant the democrat label.”

In a troubling parallel to abusive governments around the world, the US government has embraced democracy promotion as a softer and fuzzier alternative to defending human rights… As such unworthy claimants as the leaders of Egypt, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, and Nigeria wrap themselves in the democracy mantle with scant international objection, the concept of democracy gets cheapened, its human rights component cast aside.

The report also found that the administration’s efforts to rationalize “the invasion of Iraq in terms of democracy promotion,” has also emboldened autocrats “to equate pressure on them to democratize with an imperial, militarist agenda.”

Dictators have learned that conjuring up visions of Iraq can be a useful way to blunt pressure to democratize. And governments that might have defended a more robust vision of democracy are reluctant to do so for fear of being seen as joining the Bush agenda.

Roth argues that “to prevent the appeal of ‘democracy’ from being abused,”there is an “urgent need to reclaim the full meaning of the democratic ideal. Beyond elections, democracies must contain “a meaningful array of political parties, independent media outlets, civil society organizations that give citizens—including minorities—a broad range of opportunities to band together with others to make their voices heard, and a legal system that ensures that no one—and especially no government official—is above the law.” Bush should take note.

Next month the Bush administration will begin renegotiating a ‘long term relationship’ with the government of Iraq. According to the New York Times, the administration will insist “that the government in Baghdad give the United States broad authority to conduct combat operations and guarantee civilian contractors specific legal protections from Iraqi law.”

But most Iraqis fear that the new agreement would further erode Iraqi sovereignty and transform Iraq into a “dependent state.” According to an Iraqi opinion poll released in September 2007, a majority of Iraqis have little confidence in American and coalition forces and oppose a prolonged U.S. military presence in Iraq.

- 58 percent of Iraqis have “not very much confidence” or no confidence in the U.S. and UK occupation forces

- 80 percent believe that U.S. and coalition forces have done “quite a bad job” or “a very bad job”

- 79 percent of Iraqis “somewhat oppose” or “strongly oppose” the presence of coalition troops

- 72 percent of Iraqis believe the presence of American forces is making the security situation worse

Despite their opposition, 77 percent of Iraqis still think that a long-term U.S. presence is unavoidable–a belief that is “highly correlated with support for attacks on U.S.-led forces.” In fact, according to a 2006 World Opinion Poll, there is “some evidence that if the United States were to make a commitment to withdraw according to a timetable, support for attacks would diminish.”

Thus as the Bush administration codifies the presence of American troops in Iraq into the foreseeable future, it runs against the grain of Iraqi public opinion, undermines its “democracy” rhetoric, and puts American lives in danger.

UPDATE: ThinkProgress is reporting that this agreement is unprecedented and potentially unconstitutional.

After meeting with military officials, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, opened today’s committee hearing “with an expression of concern about trends in Afghanistan.”

I believe that we currently risk a strategic failure in Afghanistan and that we must do what it takes to avoid this disastrous outcome. We must re-prioritize and shift needed resources from Iraq to Afghanistan. We must once again make Afghanistan the central focus in the war against terrorism.

Indeed, total violence increased by 27 percent from a year ago. According to Retired Lt. Gen. David Barno, the former U.S. commander in Afghanistan who testified in front of Skelton’s committee today, the number of roadside bombs increased by 425 percent between 2004 and 2007; suicide bombings soared from “three in 2004 to more than 130 in 2007.”

The enemy in Afghanistan — a collection of al Qaeda, Taliban, Hezb-e Islami and foreign fighters — is unquestionably a much stronger force than the enemy we faced in 2004.

During a 2004 interview with Canadian television, president Bill Clinton criticized the Bush administration for shifting resources from the hunt for Bin Laden to Iraq and subcontracting the search to the Pakistanis.

Why did we put our number 1 security threat in the hands of the Pakistanis with us playing a supporting role and put all of our military resources into Iraq, which was, I think, at best, our number 5 security threat. After the absence of a peace process in the Middle East, after the conflict between India and Pakistan and all the ties they had to Taliban, after North Korea and their nuclear program…But we basically are dependant on him to find bin Laden, to find al-Zawahiri, to break in and find the computer people and give it to us because we got all our resources somewhere else in Iraq.

After failing to capture bin Laden during the battle for Tora Bora in 2002, the administration is still depending on Pakistan to bring bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri, his top deputy, to justice. But yesterday, during talks with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf suggested that Pakistani troops are no longer hunting for bin Laden and Zawahri:

The 100,000 troops that we are using … are not going around trying to locate Osama bin Laden and Zawahri, frankly. They are operating against terrorists, and in the process, if we get them, we will deal with them certainly.

While Bush has argued that catching bin Laden is “not a top priority use of American resources,” bin Laden continues to seek nuclear weapons and inspire jihadists. Unfortunately, by outsourcing the hunt for bin Laden to a reluctant ally and starting a war that has recruited and inspired jihadists, the Bush administration continues to undermine America’s security.

Today’s New York Times offers anecdotal evidence of how former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani went to extraordinary lengths “to punish anyone, vindictively and aggressively” for criticizing him or his administration.

As mayor, he made the vengeful roundhouse an instrument of government, clipping anyone who crossed him…“There were constant loyalty tests: ‘Will you shoot your brother?’ ” said Marilyn Gelber, who served as environmental commissioner under Mr. Giuliani. “People were marked for destruction for disloyal jokes.”… He cowed many into silence.

Giuliani’s strong dismissal of critical opinion, and emphasis on loyalty is reminiscent of the ways in which President Bush politicized every aspect of the federal government, with devastating consequences. Giuliani should take note: the Bush administration revealed that “potential disaster lurks behind what we had previously assumed to be a grand virtue: loyalty.” Below is a partial list (compiled by fellow ThinkProgress interns and BodyPolitik contributors Ona Keller and Jordan Grossman) “of the White House’s efforts to politicize the federal agencies“:

- Department of Justice: “After the 2004 election, administration officials quietly began drawing up a list of US attorneys to replace. Considerations included their perceived loyalty to Bush and a desire by White House political adviser Karl Rove to increase voter fraud prosecutions, documents and testimony have shown.” [Boston Globe, 5/6/07]

- Interior Department: “A midlevel Interior Department official” received a “phone call from [Vice President Dick] Cheney in 2001, setting in motion a secret move to undermine the science of federal biologists who had said diverting water from the Klamath would violate the Endangered Species Act and devastate two imperiled species of fish.” [The Oregonian, 6/30/07]

- Defense Department: “The Defense Department…has stepped up intelligence collection inside this country since 9/11, which now includes the monitoring of peaceful anti-war and counter-military recruitment groups.” [MSNBC, 9/14/05]

- Office of the Surgeon General: “The first U.S. surgeon general appointed by President George W. Bush accused the administration on Tuesday of political interference and muzzling him on key issues like embryonic stem cell research.” [Reuters, 7/10/07]

Like Giuliani, the Bush administration regularly dismissed dissenting opinion (anyone from former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil, to General Eric Shinseki, to the NIE on Iran) and stacked the ranks with ideological loyalists. These moves stifled decision making and landed the United States in an unpopular war and left the American people asking for change. If the New York Times article about Giuliani’s loyalty tests is any indication of how the former mayor will govern as president, Americans can expect more of the same from a Giuliani White House.

Did Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) flip-flop on healthcare? During last night’s fiery debate, Obama claimed that “I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single payer. What I said was that if I were starting from scratch, if we didn’t have a system in which employers had typically provided health care, I would probably go with a single-payer system.”

Today, the Clinton campaign released a 2003 video of Obama in which the senator sounds like a proponent of a single-payer system. “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal healthcare coverage… I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world is spending 14%, 14% of its gross national product on healthcare, cannot provide basic healthcare insurance to everybody…. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. And as all of you know, we may not get their immediately.”

Still, it is unclear if Obama ever believed that single-payer was politically feasible. One would have to read a full transcript of his comments; Clinton’s abridged video, which ends in mid-speech, may have cut the nuance. (For the record, the Obama campaign still maintains that he has been consistent. In fact, Obama makes the feasibility argument in a 2007 speech posted on Clinton’s YouTube page.)

But if he did support single-payer, Obama could argue that, like Clinton’s, his views on healthcare have matured. In fact, Clinton openly admits that her current plan is different than her 1994 proposal and even maintains that her ‘evolution’ on healthcare is “invaluable preparation for dealing with the problems in the health care system today.” From the New York Times:

But now, as Mrs. Clinton heads into her re-election campaign and a possible bid for the presidency, she is trying to recast the political disaster of 1994 as something else: as a badge of honor, as a symbol of lessons learned and, perhaps most significant, as invaluable preparation for dealing with the problems in the health care system today…

Mrs. Clinton’s approach to health care is strikingly different this time around, a measure of her evolution from an impatient agent of change to a cautious senator — and potential presidential contender — keenly attuned to the political center.

The consequences of the Bush administration’s stubbornness and political inflexibility should dissuade voters from supporting candidates who are unwilling to adapt their policies to circumstance. In this context, Clinton’s attacks echo the Republican talking points of the 2004 election. The Democrats should stop their bickering and engage in a substantive policy debate about single-payer healthcare.

In today’s New York Times, reporters David Kirkpatrick and Michael Powell erroneously characterize Mike Huckabee–who believes that his candidacy is divinely inspired– as a moderately religious politician who walks a fine line between “pulpit and podium.”

For the most part, Kirkpatrick and Powell ignore Huckabee’s numerous attempts to blend personal religious conviction with public policy and quote evangelical sources who marvel at Huckabee’s ability to downplay the role of religion in his conception of government.

Some evangelical observers say they marvel at Mr. Huckabee’s knack for making even the most conservative tenets of orthodox Southern Baptist faith, about creation, the accuracy of the Bible or gender roles, sound downright moderate when he is speaking in television interviews or at public debates.

Kirkpatrick and Powell also fail to correct the record about Huckabee’s disingenuous explanation for why he signed his name to a 1998 Southern Baptist Convention statement which suggested that a wife is subordinate to her husband. Huckabee has argued that “‘the position required no subordination at all.’ It meant, he said, both husbands and wives ‘mutually showing their affection and submission as unto the Lord.’”

But according to Richard Land, president of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, “the statement says that while the husband and wife are equal before God, ‘the wife does not get veto power over the husband’s decision.’

“Somebody has to be in charge,” Land explained. “The Bible says the husband is in charge.” While the husband should “solicit his wife’s views,” ultimately “he is going to make the decision.” The reason, Land said, is that Southern Baptists believe that “God holds the husband accountable for the household.”

In their article, Kirkpatrick and Powell reprint Huckabee’s dodge and quote an evangelical leader who called Huckabee’s explanation “masterful.”

The two reporters also assert, rather ironically, that Huckabee “has indeed made an art of escaping politically delicate questions about theology.” In reality, by downplaying Huckabee’s strong religious convictions and his views about the role of religion in public life, Kirkpatrick and Powell misrepresent Huckabee as a more moderate politician. The former governor has often crossed the line between “pulpit and podium.”

Consider the following:

- In an interview with Beliefnet.com, Huckabee “clarified his view that the Constitution should be amended to be brought in line with God’s will — and he directly equated homosexuality with bestiality.”

- Huckabee has close connections to Christian Reconstructionists.

- In in Des Moines, Huckabee told bloggers who supported his candidacy that they were “doing the Lord’s work.”

- “At a Republican Governors Association Dinner speech in 2004, Huckabee had a mock three-minute telephone conversation with God. During that time, Huckabee said that “we kind of think you’d hang in there with us, Lord, we really do.”

- “In 1997, Huckabee claimed that Jesus would have agreed with him on supporting the death penalty.”

In his Nevada victory statement former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney omitted Iraq from the list of issues Americans are concerned about.

Today, the people of Nevada voted for change in Washington. For far too long, our leaders have promised to take the action necessary to build a stronger America, and still the people of Nevada and all across this country are waiting. Whether it is reforming health care, making America energy independent or securing the border, the American people have been promised much and are now ready for change.

And while Nevada Republicans considered “the economy and illegal immigration…[the] top problems facing the country,” Iraq and terrorism ranked in the top four. According to an October article in the Las Vegas Review Journal, “the Middle East conflict weighs heavily on the minds of Nevadans” and most linked the war in Iraq, which “has cost nearly 4,000 American lives, about $2 million a week” a strain on the economy.

Nationally, voters consider the war in Iraq a top priority. According to a CBS News/New York Times Poll from January 9-12, Iraq ranked second in importance behind jobs and the state of the economy. Voters also “continue to trust Democrats more than Republicans on most key issues, according to the latest data from a Rasmussen Reports tracking poll.”

Democrats get the nod on nine of ten issues we asked about…When the War in Iraq is isolated as a separate foreign-policy issue, Democrats enjoy an eight-point advantage of 47% to 39%, the same margin they held in November.

Thus, the above is just another indication that Romney is out of touch with American voters and their priorities.

Today, when President Bush proposed a $145 billion economic aid package, he “called again for Congress to make permanent the tax cuts that were enacted several years ago and are to expire in the next three years.”

Passing a new growth package is our most pressing economic priority. When that is done, Congress must turn to the most important economic priority for our country, and that’s making sure the tax relief that is now in place is not taken away…So it’s critical that Congress make this tax relief permanent.

Bush’s cynical attempt to seize the current economic downturn and press Congress to make his tax cuts permanent was recently rebuffed by Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke. As Kevin Drum pointed out, extending Bush’s tax cuts wold have “no effect on the economy right now, but it would likely make future economic problems even more intractable.”

Bernanke is saying, as clearly as he can, that a temporary economic downturn shouldn’t be used as a cynical excuse to pass new long-term tax cuts or to make existing tax cuts permanent. Not only would that have no effect on the economy right now, but it would likely make future economic problems even more intractable. In other words, Bernanke isn’t nuts: he thinks tax cuts reduce revenue and make long-term deficits worse.

According to the Washington Post, “Bernanke explicitly and repeatedly urged Congress not to conflate policy changes that might make sense in the long run with those that would provide immediate help for the economy.”

In an interview with Beliefnet.com, former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee “clarified his view that the Constitution should be amended to be brought in line with God’s will — and he directly equated homosexuality with bestiality.”

QUESTIONER: Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.

HUCKABEE: Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.

At first glance, Huckabee’s argument sounds homophobic, on closer examination it betrays the former governor’s willingness to place his private religious creed above rational decision making– the very basis of a secular democracy– and a personal inability (or unwillingness) to make logical and rational distinctions within law.

As Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick points out, polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality “are illegal because, [unlike gay marriage], they cause irreversible harms.”

…there are sound policy and health reasons to ban sex with animals…one can plausibly argue that there is a rational basis for states to ban polygamous and polyamorous marriages in which there has been historical evidence of an imbalance of power, coercion (particularly of young girls), and an enormous financial burden placed on the state. None of these arguments can be made against gay marriage.

Similarly, Andrew Sullivan highlights the importance of distinguishing between rational decision making and Huckabee-style hysteria.

The precise challenge for morally serious people is to make rational distinctions between what is arbitrary and what is essential in important social institutions…If you want to argue that a lifetime of loving, faithful commitment between two women is equivalent to incest or child abuse, then please argue it. It would make for fascinating reading. But spare us this bizarre point that no new line can be drawn in access to marriage–or else everything is up for grabs and, before we know where we are, men will be marrying their dogs. It is intellectually laughable.

Huckabee’s demeaning and intellectually dishonest answer trivializes, patronizes and demeans homosexual relationships and reveals that the governor is more than willing to insert his personal religious interpretation into government. More alarming still, is his inability to make the obvious distinctions between gay marriage (a union between two consenting adult men or two consenting adult women) and a union between “a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal.”

Because Huckabee is unable to make the kinds of rational distinctions necessary to govern America, he is unfit for office.