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]

Actually Bush sincerely believes that what he's doing is always the best for his country and people. He is so fanatic in this respect that his mentality borders on that of Ahmadinejad (they are like soul brothers). The bad thing is that the people who make up Bush's gvernment, his political advisors, geopolitica strategists and military specialists, and the think-tanks that are forming his policies, have a different approach from his. And ultimately, it is Bush who is always the scapegoat in front of the public opinon ("Well, he's the President, right?")

So yes, I was a little incorrect in my assessment about his "intentions".

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the nuance explanation.

[tvuutietyle24.livejournal.com]

I see another hypocrisy: the media are quick to denounce the situation in Pakistan but nothing about Venezuela?

Does it mean that being a marxist authoritarian president is more acceptable than abuses from a right-wing leader? Sadly, it sounds so.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Dont worry, VNZ is also on the shortlist.
Just, Pakistan is a bit more urgent. Because of the nukes. Question is, who's gonna hold the briefcase with the launch codes?
Venezuela can wait, but not for too long.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

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

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

You once made a good parallel. Is GWB the most important figure? Its like i had asked you whether Jonathan Mann (the news anchor) is the most important figure in CNN.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

It sounds so but it isn't so. It's a question of priorities. Noone cares who is marxist and who is right-wing. The geopolitical interests are above all.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

I don't see a problem for any global superpower to deal with both Pakistan and Venezuela. I think the US have other plans about Venezuela.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

The parallel is not very correct but yes I meant something like that.

[xvfui.livejournal.com]

Musharref isn't a civilian. Duh.

[xvfui.livejournal.com]

And maybe b/c, quite frankly SA isn't a strategic threat to world security.And I think we've pretty well disproven the theory that South American and Latin American countries are going to be the staging ground for the communist assault on America.

The threat, then, is what, exactly? He has our oil? It isn't on our soil. it isn't ours.

[xvfui.livejournal.com]

Ah, of course, it's the MEDIA's fault. Congratulations on excellent use of the straw man. Nicely played.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Big deal.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

...which is the main problem. ;-)

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

The Media is the "fourth power" in society. It's a factor too, in shaping the public opinion. Which itself is not a unsignificant factor either.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

The western media is forgetting that Pakistan ruled by Musharaf, even a dictator Musharaf, is far more acceptable to the west than a Pakistan ruled by the Talibans. I also want Bhutto to rule Pakistan, even a corrupt Bhutto. But in reality she cannot hold the country in order for long against the Talibans.