Four Years After Invasion of Iraq, John Walsh Plagiarized Idiotic Support for Spreading Democracy
The political firestorm over John Walsh’s plagiarism has focused primarily on how it will impact his campaign. No surprise there. The Walsh/Daines race is one of a handful of closely watched political contests that will impact the balance of power in the Senate.
After watching the comments roll in on today’s earlier post (somewhat hastily put up) one particular comment from feralcatoffreedom stood out:
OK, so this guy has blundered his way through his career with help from friends with varying excuses for the mistakes. So far that’s just a normal politician. We rarely get the cream of the crop choosing politics as a career. We just don’t. We have to get over the idea that the best and brightest choose to serve. But what I find more troubling about this story is what he plagiarized. Did you read that essay? The “scholars” are as obtuse and stultifying cliched as any of our foreign policy “experts”.
This is what he copied??
““Democracy promoters need to engage as much as possible in a dialogue with a wide cross section of influential elites: mainstream academics, journalists, moderate Islamists, and members of the professional associations who play a political role in some Arab countries, rather than only the narrow world of westernized democracy and human rights advocates.”
Huh? and Duh! This is what is really troublesome. Four “scholars” made up this drivel. This is why we are blundering our way in the Middle East and Ukraine and why ordinary travelers are not safe in airplanes anymore. These are crazy times!
I finally got a little time today to start looking at the actual hodge-podge of lifted language John Walsh used to advance his career seven years ago, and while I haven’t yet read the entirety of the 14 page paper, just the first paragraph was enough for me (you can read the paper yourself here):
When George W. Bush took office in January 2001, few expected that promoting democracy around the world would become a major issue in his presidency. During 2001, the Bush administration did not even address the issue of promoting civil societies, rule of law, free elections and open political processes as major issues of their agenda. During the 2000 presidential campaign Bush and his advisors made it clear that they favored great-power realism over idealistic notions such as nation building or democracy building. Four years later President Bush used his second inaugural speech to define an expansive new mission for American foreign policy based on promoting freedom around the world, it was clear that the president’s interest in democracy was more than a passing fancy.
If you’re thinking it sorta sounds like John Walsh is pimping the Bush Doctrine four years after the disastrous occupation of Iraq, you’d be right. And that timing is important, because Walsh is pining for Iraq to be the shining beacon of democracy for the Middle East right when an act of democracy set in motion the Israeli atrocities happening now. Here’s another excerpt from the junk Walsh passed off as an “academic” paper for the War College (“This project” refers to the occupation of Iraq):
This project will provide a valid argument that the United States must continue to pursue democracy in the Middle East as a key component of the National Security Strategy of the United States of America beyond January 20, 2009 when President Bush leaves office. Democracy is not an unalloyed good and the United States should not blindly attempt to spread democracy to the exclusion of all other goals, but the belief is that U.S. and global interests would be advanced if the world contained more democracies. If the Bush doctrine is successful in laying the foundation for democracy in the region and elsewhere around the world, the spread of democracy in the Middle East will have to remain American policy beyond January 20, 2009. Patience is a must and if we have any hope of successfully promoting freedom as the alternative to tyranny and despair we must be patient.
One problem with this Middle East democracy thing: Hamas.
Elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), the legislature of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) were held on 25 January 2006. The result was a victory for Hamas, who won with 74 seats of the 132 seats, whilst the ruling Fatah won just 45. In terms of votes received, Hamas took 44.45% of the vote, whilst Fatah received 41.43% and of the Electoral Districts, Hamas party candidates received 41.73% and Fatah party candidates received 36.96%.
Since the election of Hamas, Israel has collectively punished the captive Palestinian population. I guess Democracy doesn’t work when these terrorists choose the wrong political faction. Same thing happened in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood.
I don’t see how any self-respecting Montana Democrat can read the drivel Walsh cobbled together and still support the man for higher office.
John Walsh should resign.