Bachmann: ‘Arab Spring’ a bad thing, caused by Obama

While many have thought that the recent movements in Arab countries to throw off longtime dictators are a good thing, maybe even a step towards democracy in those lands, Michele Bachmann disagrees.

She told an audience in North Carolina Thursday that throwing out the dictators may pose a threat to Israel and that President Obama is to blame.

“You want to know why we have Arab Spring?” Bachmann asked in the appearance. “Barack Obama has laid the table for the Arab Spring by demonstrating weakness from the United States of America.”

The Huffington Post notes that Bachmann has expressed concerns in the past about the democratic movements in the Middle East:

In a speech two weeks ago in L.A., Bachmann referenced the “rise of radical elements” as one unfortunate product of the revolutions.

This week, she upped her criticism of Obama for not doing more to prevent the toppling of the Arab dictators.

 “The number one duty of the president is to be the commander in chief,” Bachmann concluded.

Comments (10)

  1. Submitted by Tommy Johnson on 09/30/2011 - 02:45 pm.

    This stuff cannot be made up. The scariest aspect is that she actually has believers/followers.

  2. Submitted by James Hamilton on 09/30/2011 - 02:55 pm.

    This is so wrong on so many levels.

    A former Carter campaign volunteer attacks Carter for failing to have the back of the Shah of Iran, thereby leading to the rise of the Ayatollahs and the jihadist movement.

    Obama “set the table” for popular uprisings against other autocrats – by calling for peace based on negotiations which address the 1967 borders – and that’s bad, apparently, because we couldn’t control who came to power as a result. (Note that Obama has not called for a complete retreat to ’67 borders or final borders that don’t recognize Israel’s legitimate security concerns.)

    This isn’t an election for Whacko-In-Chief, though it continues to look like it. I suspect the idea of President Bachmann scares the players in the Middle East, including Israel, even more than she scares me.

  3. Submitted by Bruce Leier on 09/30/2011 - 03:24 pm.

    Yes democracy is very scary for authoritarions like MB.

  4. Submitted by Thomas Swift on 09/30/2011 - 04:47 pm.

    Let’s take a moment to look at what “Arab Spring” has meant.

    A moderate, secular ruler in Egypt replaced by a military junta.

    Libya is in the hands of rebels with undetermined agendas.

    Syria is slaughtering it’s citizens.

    Minor uprisings and corpses sprinkled just about everywhere else.

    Oh yeah…and violence along the Israeli border.

    Now, I understand that many leftists would love to see Israel burnt to the ground, but that ain’t gonna happen, kids. So aside from the pleasure of watching Jews squirm, where do any of you the see good stuff?

    Where is this Democracy you speak of, Bruce?

    Tunisia seems pretty calm, but was it a hotbed of turmoil in the region before hand?

    The one thing I can’t agree with is that the Organizer in Chief should take a hit for any of this…poor guy is bumbling along so pathetically not doing anything means he’s not doing anything wrong.

  5. Submitted by Paul Brandon on 09/30/2011 - 07:53 pm.

    Mr. Swift:
    A few comments:

    I don’t think that the former Egyptian political prisoners would call Mubarak a moderate. He was a reactionary dictator; just ours.
    As for Libya; would you prefer Qaddafi’s agenda (Lockerbee)?
    Syria, of course, hasn’t changed.
    And what’s this preoccupation with accusing those on the political left of being antisemitic? I am sure that I am not the only liberal Jew who finds this offensive.

    Since there is no such person as ‘Organizer in Chief’, I am assuming that you are referring to the current President. I would have been delighted if his Middle Eastern policies had differed more from those of his predecessors. Unfortunately, despite the lip service, his position is just as pro Israel. Understandable, and possibly justified, although I don’t think in the long run supporting the likes of Netanyhu is good for Israel. If you take a look at where our money is going, our Middle Eastern policy has not been changed.

  6. Submitted by Neal Krasnoff on 10/02/2011 - 11:36 am.

    Paul Brandon wrote:

    “And what’s this preoccupation with accusing those on the political left of being antisemitic? I am sure that I am not the only liberal Jew who finds this offensive.”

    That’s because the left *has* become anti-Semitic, which is why I resigned from the DFL and the Democratic Party recently.

    You’re not the only Jew here, landsman.

  7. Submitted by Don Wallen on 10/03/2011 - 01:16 pm.

    I think we need to make a careful distinction between opposing policies of the State of Israel and “antisemitism” OK?

  8. Submitted by Paul Brandon on 10/03/2011 - 03:05 pm.

    Neal–
    My point is that there is a difference between SOME on the left (including a few Jews) being antisemitic and making a blanket characterization.
    I understand your point, but you have abandoned any leverage you might have had to counter this trend. Right now, it’s the Democrats or the Republicans, and while the Republicans (at least in some places) are playing up to Jews right now, I don’t think that they have our best interests in mind.
    We’re cannon fodder, chaver.

    Don–
    Exactly!
    Otherwise half of the Jews in Israel would be antisemitic 😉
    Tony Kushner has a good statement on this.
    see http://www.jewishindependent.ca/archives/Aug07/archives07Aug24-01.html

  9. Submitted by Doug Gray on 10/03/2011 - 08:17 pm.

    In the 1980s, U.S. conservatives termed like-minded dictators overseas “authoritarians,” as opposed to their so-called “totalitarian” lefty variety of tinpot tyrants, and claimed the former were better than the latter because the former opposed the Soviet Union. Now that they don’t have that bogeyman, they wring their hands over “radical elements” in the Arab opposition movements/new governments, much as George III wrung his hands in 1775 over the “wicked and desperate persons” behind his American subjects’ rebellion.

    I for one am glad that, at least for the next year or so, the U.S. has leaders who might just manage to guide us through what may prove to be a watershed moment in the history of the Middle East without burning through hundreds of thousands of lives, trillions of dollars and untold quantities of sacred honor in the process.

    Unfortunately, both parties in Congress seem to agree that the proper response in this time of crisis is to savage the budget for diplomats. (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/state-dept-reeling-from-budget-cuts/2011/09/29/gIQAm87ODL_story.html) It is as if they believed the proper followup to the successful invasion of Afghanistan would have been to refuse to commit enough resources to avoid bungling the operation against Bin Laden, forget about helping to install a stable government there and instead pull most of the troops out to invade a third country that posed no immediate threat. Oh, right, they did, didn’t they.

  10. Submitted by Neal Krasnoff on 10/04/2011 - 06:34 am.

    Mr. Brandon: If you have to quote the vile Tony Kushner, that all we need to know.

Leave a Reply