Epstein Secrets

al and kind of no-holds-barred way, how we conceive the region." Not only does the new approach have little in common with the "freedom agenda" of George W. Bush, but it is also a scaling back of the more expansive American role that Mr. Obama himself articulated two years ago, before the Arab Spring mutated

here can be a peaceful political transition in the Arab world," said Richard N. Haass, who served in the EFTA00694510 State Department during the Bush administration and is now president of the Council on Foreign Relations. "But here, the administration is largely silent and seems uncertain as to

le in common with the "freedom agenda" of George W. Bush, but it is also a scaling back of the more

ention, when necessary. She was among those who persuaded Mr. Obama to back a NATO air campaign in Libya to avert a slaughter of the rebels by Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. But Mr. Obama drove the process, officials said, asking for formal briefings in the Situation Room and shorter updates during his daily intellige

are placing at risk the very survival of the human species," he said in a 2006 speech at the United Nations. In the same speech he called President George W. Bush "the devil." Page I 1 of 6 EFTA00615157 For years, he succeeded in curbing American influence. He breathed life into Cuba, the hemisphere's only

top military officials, pressing them to assist in returning Mr. Chavez to office. The collapse of the coup, which received tacit support from the Bush administration, and Mr. Chavez's swift return to power signaled a shift in his presidency. Seemingly chastened, Mr. Chavez promised compromise and

s. In the same speech he called President George W. Bush "the devil." Page I 1 of 6 EFTA00615157

of his biographers, Cristina Marcano, said Mr. Chavez had spoken of being influenced by "The Green Book," the three- volume political tract by Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya. Once in power, Mr. Chavez established ties with Colonel Qaddafi and other Middle Eastern leaders who similarly used oil resources to butt

ions of dollars in aid and massive Western state-building efforts following the 1995 Dayton Accords. Similarly, the Iraqi exiles who told President George W. Bush that divisions among country's Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish communities could be easily overcome in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq either underestimated o

des with a recapitulation of the defense of the welfare state made in his 2010 book "Ill Fares the Land," as well as a prolonged castigation of the Bush administration for the Iraq war and rising inequality. In the end, what is striking about this book is the great difference between the 20th-centur

larly, the Iraqi exiles who told President George W. Bush that divisions among country's Sunni, Shiit

not blocking the no-fly zone over Libya, but he feels burned by it — that we went from protecting civilians to toppling his ally and arms customer, Muammar el-Qaddafi. It's true. But what an ally! What a thing to regret! And, now, the more Putin throws his support behind the murderous dictatorship of Bashar al-As

te Department official under President George W. Bush who is advising Mr. Romney. "He sat out the Iran

State Department official under President George W. Bush who is advising Mr. Romney. "He sat out the

crises reflect an absence of leadership from the Obama administration," said Kristen Silverberg, a former State Department official under President George W. Bush who is advising Mr. Romney. "He sat out the Iran protests, has faltered on Syria and let the Russians know he'll be even more `flexible' after our

foreign policy will be an advantage for him, particularly because of his record of pulling troops out of Iraq, helping topple the government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in Libya, taking robust action against terrorists and authorizing the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. He is the "first real national security De

em, they turned to terrorism only when they were unable to bring about the grand popular revolutions they sought. Perhaps the worst mistake of the Bush administration's response to 9/11 was to make terrorism itself America's principal target. Terrorism was never more than a symptom of this dysfunct

aside though it was — at least deserves credit for finally recognizing the real source of America's problems in the Middle East. The great shame of George W. Bush's presidency is that the war on terrorism was not a smaller adjunct to that broader effort, rather than the other way around. We have no one but our

ems in the Middle East. The great shame of George W. Bush's presidency is that the war on terrorism w

s, retreating into the privacy of their homes. In the public space, there was now the cult of the rulers, the unbounded power of Saddam Hussein and Muammar el-Qaddafi and Hafez al-Assad in Syria and Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia. The traditional restraints on power had been swept away, and no new social con

But these days Gates is less worried about political crossfire and more focused on the legacy of his own tenure, which bridged the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. He is determined to define his own legacy as Pentagon boss, and eager to push back against one of the more vocal criticisms of hi

hin the same party. And so I think there is no consensus on a role in the world." In some ways, the first part of his tenure was easier. During the Bush years, money was never an issue. By contrast, Obama faced a harsh economic reality, and Gates tried to get in front of the issue by shrinking the

tenure, which bridged the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. He is determined to defin

for nondemocratic regimes are always preferable to hard ones, even if the process takes some time. A moral argument can be made that monsters like Muammar el-Qaddafi in Libya and Kim Jong-il in North Korea should be overthrown any way they can, as fast as we can, regardless of the risk of short-term chaos. But t

ons of dollars in aid and massive Western state-building efforts following the 1995 Dayton Accords. Similarly, the Iraqi exiles who told President George W. Bush that divisions among country's Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish communities could be easily overcome in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq either underestimated

es with a recapitulation of the defense of the welfare state made in his 2010 book "Ill Fares the Land," as well as a prolonged castigation of the Bush administration for the Iraq war and rising inequality. In the end, what is striking about this book is the great difference between the 20th-centu

arly, the Iraqi exiles who told President George W. Bush that divisions among country's Sunni, Shiit

Libya, but he feels burned by EFTA_R1_00228265 EFTA01841729 it — that we went from protecting civilians to toppling his ally and arms customer, Muammar el-Qaddafi. It's true. But what an ally! What a thing to regret! And, now, the more Putin throws his support behind the murderous dictatorship of Bashar al- A

Moubayed NYT The Syrian President I Know David W. Lesch Article 3. Article 2. Brookings The Syr

am glad we have a president who sees America that way. That argument cannot just be shrugged off, especially when confronting a dictator like Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. But, at the same time, I believe that it is naïve to think that we can be humanitarians only from the air — and now we just hand the situation off