Cynical leaders of the "free" world

[mahnmut]

Musharraf declared state of emergency in Pakistan, in order to "fight terrorism". Dissident leader Benazir Bhutto is effectively under home arrest, her house blocked by fence and concrete blocks, and surrounded by police. No demonstrations are allowed on the streets of Pakistan.

Meanwhile, Bush and his new puppy Sarkozy issued calls for Musharraf to proceed with the planned elections in Pakistan, and quit his chief-of-military position.

Now, isn't it ironic? Both presidents are simultaneously the political heads of their respective states, and chief of military. Their Constitutions say so. But then, didn't Bush previously say that the US Constitution is "just a piece of paper" for him?

The even more ironic thing is, Bush would gladly have used the terrorism "threat" again to cut even more of his citizens' civil rights. Including the declaration of a state of emergency in US, "if need be" (in case something really extreme like 9-11 happens). But of course, these are the presidents of two huge powers, and they can tell Musharraf whatever they want, even if they have to ignore the hypocricy of their own words.

Comments

[xvfui.livejournal.com]

In order for hypocrisy to be present, they have to be guilty of doing what they say they disapprove. Bush and Sarkozy are civilian commanders in chief. Musharref makes no such pretense. There's a vital distinction in that.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the nuance explanation.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

"There's a vital distinction in that." - Which is?..

[xvfui.livejournal.com]

Musharref isn't a civilian. Duh.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Big deal.