Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

November 21, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

BUSH LOOKS INTO ANOTHER SOUL....You know, I'm willing to cut George Bush a fair amount of slack over Pakistan. There are just no good answers there. But did he really say this about Gen. Pervez Musharraf?

He's been a loyal ally in fighting terrorists. He's also advanced democracy in Pakistan.

Enough's enough. Bush may feel like he has no choice but to support the guy, but it's a travesty for a self-proclaimed democracy promoter to grovel like this over someone with Musharraf's record. Just stop it.

Kevin Drum 11:41 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (57)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

You know, I'm willing to cut George Bush a fair amount of slack over Pakistan. —Kevin Drum

Whatever for? It's a clusterfuck of a country ready to drive off a cliff. They haven't done shit to roust either al Qaeda or the remnants of the Taliban. We have wasted something like $10 billion on them over the last five years. Khan played (plays?) a huge role furthering nuclear proliferation. They are not an ally in any sense of the word.

Posted by: JeffII on November 21, 2007 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

Bush may not be the best analyst of souls but he can spot a kindred spirit a mile away

Posted by: walt on November 21, 2007 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

At least he didn't say to Musharraf: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."

Posted by: Econobuzz on November 21, 2007 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

Bush has no sense or shame, irony or self awareness. He just can't and stand there and say such things. I think he really believes up is down. The hangover is going to be a whopper but once he's gone the sense our long national nightmare is over will be palpable.

Posted by: steve duncan on November 21, 2007 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

I do not think W. Bush or most Americans care at all about Pakistanis, which is why the president has provided aid and comfort to a military dictator with the blessing of opinion makers. This typical American policy of ignoring native people's right to rule themselves in the pursuit of some short term goal, regardless of its merits for national security, creates a lot of unnecessary suffering and, I think, is very counter productive in the long run to the very national security claimed to drive the policy in the first place.

Posted by: Brojo on November 21, 2007 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

Um ... not sure what definitions of "loyal ally" and "democracy" Bush is using, but openly refusing to go after terrorists and imprisoning those who speak out against the government don't meet the definitions in the dictionary I use.

He must use Conservapedia.

Posted by: Mark D on November 21, 2007 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

At least he didn't say to Musharraf: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."

Ouch....

Posted by: Disputo on November 21, 2007 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

They haven't done shit to roust either al Qaeda or the remnants of the Taliban.

That's putting it mildly.

Pakistan under Mush has in fact been the primary sponsor of the Taliban and protector of AQ.

Posted by: Disputo on November 21, 2007 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

You know, I'm willing to cut George Bush a fair amount of slack over Pakistan. There are just no good answers there.

BS. The good answer would have been to push for the restoration of democracy in Pakistan from the beginning instead of enabling yet another dictator.

Posted by: Disputo on November 21, 2007 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

Since neither Bush nor Musharraf were elected in any true democratic sense of the word, they do have a lot in common. Musharraf's kabuki dance with the Northwestern tribal areas is a joke, as well. Six years after 9-11 and there is no real progress in finding Usama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri and bringing them to justice. You can bet a fair amount of that $10 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars we have given to Musharraf has found it's way into ISI's pockets, who are long-time patrons of bin Laden. What a sad joke. We are paying to fund the people who trained the man who masterminded the slaughter on 3,000 Americans.

Life under George W. Bush has become more and more of a surrealistic nightmare....

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on November 21, 2007 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, when George Bush, Dick Cheney, et al., use the word "democracy," they are not talking about a particular form of government which is opposed, say, to dictatorship. For them "democracy" or "democratic" means anything that they approve of or desire and "un-democratic" means whatever they oppose. Sort of like the way all the Soviet republics used to be "democracies" in their own view.

If I recall correctly, George Orwell pretty much said the last word on this in his Politics and the English Languge.

Posted by: David in NY on November 21, 2007 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, yes, thank Google, here's Orwell's explanation, circa 1946:

It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.

Actually, in recent years, I had thought that the word "democracy" had acquired respectability again, through a growning understanding that it did not apply to regimes run by dictators, presidents-for-life, and so on. But, as usual, Bush is taking us back to the bad, bad old days.

Posted by: David in NY on November 21, 2007 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you seem to doubt that Bush acting on his gut is the best for the U.S. For shame!

Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 on November 21, 2007 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

RIght after 9/11 here in NYC I used to raise a smile from people by telling them, "Remember how Bush admitted during the debates that he didn't know the name of the president of Pakistan? Bet he knows it now!" This did crack everyone up -- it's ancient history, but Bush did originally run on a "no nation building" platform.

Posted by: Diana on November 21, 2007 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Six years after 9-11 and there is no real progress in finding Usama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri and bringing them to justice.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on November 21, 2007 at 12:13 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Au contraire:
CNN-Aired December 28, 2006 - 19:00 ET

ED HENRY: You know, going back to September 2001, the president said, dead or alive, we're going to get him. Still don't have him. I know you are saying there's successes on the war on terror, and there have been. That's a failure.

FRANCES TOWNSEND: Well, I'm not sure -- it's a success that hasn't occurred yet. I don't know that I view that as a failure.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Success, like democracy, is all in how you define it. Bushco owns the dictionary now so they get to define anything in any way they like.

Posted by: steve duncan on November 21, 2007 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK
Enough's enough. Bush may feel like he has no choice but to support the guy, but it's a travesty for a self-proclaimed democracy promoter to grovel like this over someone with Musharraf's record.

This is the same President that has praised Saudi Arabia's "democracy" record in the same breath as condemning the lack of "democracy" in Iran.

"Democracy", to Bush, just means "siding with Bush".

Posted by: cmdicely on November 21, 2007 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK


Stomping your metaphorical foot and crying "Naughty, naughty" won't do, Kevin.

Bush is so devoid of any sense of what a democracy is that he can't even pretend it's something he reveres.

The country is in deep trouble. These people are so pervasive and so deeply entrenched that getting rid of them is going to be difficult.

One thing I've find very disturbing is the racism--some of it baldly overt--among young men in their 30s and 40s.

h

Posted by: h on November 21, 2007 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

Throughout his Presidency Bush has publicly praised people working with him or for him and almost never publicly criticized them. He evidently believes in the aphorism about getting more bees with honey than vinegar.

In the case of Musharraf, Bush's exaggerated compliment sounds a bit goofy, but I don't think it hurts. If anything, it encourages Musharraf to follow through on his promise to resign from the military and hold early January elections.

Posted by: ex-liberal on November 21, 2007 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

David in NY, I hope you won't mind if I h/t and bum your Google find to update my own post about this. Meanwhile, my head's still aching from watching that video hours ago.

Posted by: lotus on November 21, 2007 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

He's also advanced democracy in Pakistan.

Was that before or after the overthrew the elected democratic government in a military coup, suspended the Constitution, and jailed his political opponents, lawyers, and human rights actitivists?

Posted by: Stefan on November 21, 2007 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal: He evidently believes in the aphorism about getting more bees with honey than vinegar

Which is why he invaded Iraq, cause he's all about the honey. God, conservatism is a parody.

Posted by: Northern Observer on November 21, 2007 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

Musharraf is a dictator with no interest in democracy. The taliban are bat-shit crazy. Which one would you rather be in charge of Pakistan's nuclear weapons?

Posted by: anandine on November 21, 2007 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

I think we've suspected it for some time, but it is now clear that Bush's conception of what democracy means is, shall we say, ajustable.

Posted by: Ted Frier on November 21, 2007 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

Musharraf is a dictator with no interest in democracy. The taliban are bat-shit crazy. Which one would you rather be in charge of Pakistan's nuclear weapons? Posted by: anandine

That's not even part of the equation. The Taliban isn't going to take over Pakistan. They are tolerated, and they will be allowed, once NATO and the U.S. leaves, to try to retake Afghanistan, which will keep their mischief in Pakistan to a minimum. Their power does not extend beyond the border region/tribal territories.

And let me also remind you that our nukes are "overseen" by someone who is essentially "bat-shit crazy" and, perhaps, just a drinking binge away from launch.

Posted by: JeffII on November 21, 2007 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

Bush says whatever he is told to say. He's an empty suit.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on November 21, 2007 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

The Taliban isn't going to take over Pakistan. They are tolerated, and they will be allowed, once NATO and the U.S. leaves, to try to retake Afghanistan, which will keep their mischief in Pakistan to a minimum. -- JefII

According to The Guardian today, never mind that waiting-for-NATO-and-the-U.S.-to-bug-out part:

"The Taliban has a permanent presence in 54% of Afghanistan and the country is in serious danger of falling into the group's hands, according to a report by an independent thinktank with long experience in the area. ..."

Posted by: lotus on November 21, 2007 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

If anything, it encourages Musharraf to follow through on his promise to resign from the military and hold early January elections.
Posted by: ex-liberal

Really? Or does it encourage Musharraf to go on doing what he's doing since he knows he will get no retribution from this administration?


C'mon, ex-fib, you don't even try any more.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on November 21, 2007 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

Is it true that Musharraf's Bush-nickname is "Pervy"?

Posted by: Quaker in a Basement on November 21, 2007 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

"Throughout his Presidency Bush has publicly praised people working with him or for him and almost never publicly criticized them."

Dear heart, of what relevance is this? All you're doing is proving Kevin's point -- that Bush will say anything about someone else on the sole basis that the person in question will publically hang with Bush.

"He evidently believes in the aphorism about getting more bees with honey than vinegar."

LOL.... Does he, dear? How did that work in Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, "Old Europe," Venezuela, Iran, and the countless other opportunities that Bush has failed to employ anything even remotely resembling "honey"?

"In the case of Musharraf, Bush's exaggerated compliment sounds a bit goofy"

No, dear, they sound batshit crazy and totally devoid of reality. No wonder you're defending them!

"If anything, it encourages Musharraf to follow through on his promise to resign from the military and hold early January elections."

ROFL.... So let's see: Bush has given Musharraf a free pass, hasn't cut off even a smidgen of the money we're bribing him with, hasn't really pushed him in any meaningful way, and this somehow "encourages" Musharraf to change course? Right.... So tell us, what color is the sky in your world?

Posted by: PaulB on November 21, 2007 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

You're very welcome, lotus. I appreciate the credit, but your link to it doesn't seem to work.

Alos, cmdicely has expressed the same sentiment -- democracy to Bush means what he wants it to mean, nothing more, nothing less -- but Orwell as usual said it best.

Posted by: David in NY on November 21, 2007 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

It makes sense, Kevin, if you substitute the word "capitalism" for "democracy", which is how Bush understands the word.

Posted by: Charlie H on November 21, 2007 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Don't you people get it? 9-11 changed EVERYTHING! History! Logic! The Law of Thermodynamics! IT ALL CHANGED!!!!! Pakistan is a Democracy! New Zealand is a Socialist Theocracy! Denmark is governed by a Pornography Cartel! All ATM machines are inhabited by the ghost of my grandmother!

Accept the facts. Learn to love the post 9-11 era. All you have to do is sleep.

Posted by: CT on November 21, 2007 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

If only our pet dictators would remain our pets... It'd save us so much trouble.

Posted by: e. nonee moose on November 21, 2007 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB: LOL.... Does he, dear? How did that work in Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea,

Not too badly. In Afghanisatan the Taliban was overthrown and a democracy established, although the current insurgency remains ominous.

In Iraq, Saddam was overthrown, democracy was established, Al Qaeda in Iraq was defeated, and the current success of the surge strategy gives hope that a stable democracy may persist.

In NK, the 6-party talks that Bush demanded resulted in an agreement by NK to disassemble their nukes.

Plenty of problems remain in all 3 countries, but there has also been pleny of progress.

Posted by: ex-liberal on November 21, 2007 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

He evidently believes in the aphorism about getting more bees with honey than vinegar

If you can't even get this basic aphorism right, why are we supposed to think you know what you're talking about in any other area?

Posted by: Mnemosyne on November 21, 2007 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

Drat the luck, David in NY. Try

http://folo.wordpress.com/2007/11/21/a-serious-liability

ex-liberal, may I suggest you try the link at 1:29?

Posted by: lotus on November 21, 2007 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

"Not too badly."

ROFL.... Well, sure, if you're a total idiot who is woefully and willfully uninformed. Dear heart, not only are things not going well in Afghanistan, Iraq, and North Korea, but since your hero used nothing at all resembling "honey" with respect to those countries, your point is moot.

Do try to keep up, dear, won't you? I like more of a challenge.

Posted by: PaulB on November 21, 2007 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

Bush's view of democracy is a Straussian one
...Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical – divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow. But unlike fellow elitists like Plato, he was less concerned with the moral character of these leaders. According to Shadia Drury, who teaches politics at the University of Calgary, Strauss believed that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior."
This dichotomy requires "perpetual deception" between the rulers and the ruled, according to Drury. Robert Locke, another Strauss analyst says,"The people are told what they need to know and no more." While the elite few are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Strauss thought, the masses could not cope....
According to Drury, Strauss had a "huge contempt" for secular democracy.

Of course, it's unlikely, if not inconceivable, that Bush learned this on his own, but he had good teachers: neo-cons who have now shifted to Giuliani.

....Plenty of problems remain in all 3 countries, but there has also been pleny of progress.ex-lax at 2:33 PM

The government of Afghanistan would no more survive without American military support than the government of South Vietnam did. The government of Iraq will not either. The progress you claim is death, destruction and despair to the victims of Bush's wars.

Posted by: Mike on November 21, 2007 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

Why would you want to cut some slack to GWB over the terror factory that is Pakistan which is ruled by a dictator?

Obviously, your fundamental premise on Pakistan is, at best, completely misguided.

You should be insisting that GWB follow his own advice and much advertised conviction, and immediately send our troops to affect a regime change there.

Posted by: gregor on November 21, 2007 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks, Mike. If that's Strauss, the hell with him. And Bush too, while I'm at it.

Posted by: David in NY on November 21, 2007 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

His daddy said the same thing about Ferdinand Marcos, and look what happened to him.

Unfortunately, we got Michelle Malkin in the deal.

Posted by: John Thullen on November 21, 2007 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

Does democracy mean "freedom" or "voting" ?

A moderate monarch or military coup leader with power might indeed provide more freedom for the people than an elected fundamentalist government, or a weak representational elected leader, such as the mayor of Kabul, Hamid Karzai, or Maliki, who are too weak to prevent widescale injustices on their own. A violent or corrupt minority will set a country's agenda. A highly civilized population is required for voting democracy to work. Won't work where corruption and/or violence are endemic.

Posted by: Luther on November 21, 2007 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

If only our pet dictators would remain our pets... It'd save us so much trouble. Posted by: e. nonee moose

Yes. That's the problem in dealing with leaders/cultures that share few if any of the same values. Of course, the Bush administration shares pretty much the same "values" as most of the authoritarian regimes who are our "allies." But you know what I mean.

But even viewed from a real politik stand point, you still have to pick you shitheals carefully if you can't afford to walk away all together. And as we have pretty much nothing in common with the Pakistanis, other than being carbon-based life forms, and no common strategic interests, why did we ever get in bed with these clowns?

Posted by: JeffII on November 21, 2007 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

Does democracy mean "freedom" or "voting" ?

Well, it appears that this needs to be stated for the record:

Dictatorship is not democracy no matter how benevolent it is.

It really shouldn't require a degree in polisci to understand that.

Posted by: Disputo on November 21, 2007 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

Every American should hang their head in shame that we keep in power a man this severely mentally retarded as President. Actually, that statement is degrading to the mentally impaired, because even if they don't grasp abstract concepts like "freedom" and "democracy", at least they stick with the tangible stuff they do know about.

Bush doesn't even have the smarts to keep his mouth shut about that, though! He can't just say, "I like Mushie! Mushie likes candy, and I like candy too. Mushie is cool." And God forbid two neurons come together in his head to make up actually plausible bullshit, like "Mushie is cool because he's keeping people safe from the bad extremist Islamic meanies."

No no - words like "democracy", "freedom", "peace", "security" sit in the bottom of his brain pan in the "things that are nice" area, and when Bush likes someone, he just scoops up a couple of words from the pan and out of his mouth they go. Musharraf is our pal, so of course he wants "democracy", "freedom", "racecars", "decency", "sunny days", "peace", "landing on carriers", "justice", "chocolate ice cream", "spaceships to Mars", and "dinosaurs". He's such a nice man! Just like the nice Donald Rumsfeld ("best defense secretary we've ever had"), and his nice pal Harriet Meirs ("most qualified for the Supreme Court").

Let's face it - Bush's brain has not developed to the point where words like "democracy", "qualified", or "best" have meanings!

Posted by: a1 on November 21, 2007 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

Even if US conservatives were resigned to the fact that Pakistan would only be a worthy ally under an authoritarian regime, why invest so much in Musharraf? Surely we should hedge our bets by looking for someone else to support, if only to light a fire under the general's ass by getting him to do what we want him to do.

Even by their own standards, the Bush administration has dropped the ball on Pakistan. We don't really have any options to Musharraf from a national security POV because we haven't been looking for any over the past several years. And if he suddenly goes, we don't know what the results would be. Pakistan is turning into what they used to call the Shah's regime by the mid-1970s, a "one-bullet state". One well-placed guy with a rifle on a rooftop could cause the whole thing to come collapsing down.

Posted by: sweaty guy on November 21, 2007 at 8:24 PM | PERMALINK


ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan's Supreme Court, stacked with judges friendly to President Pervez Musharraf, on Thursday threw out a final challenge to his re-election and paved the way for him to quit as army chief.

gwb has one more thing in common with the general..

Posted by: mr. irony on November 22, 2007 at 9:13 AM | PERMALINK

mr. irony and others here like paradoxes. Here are a couple you folks might like to analyze:

1. When Bush tried to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq, critics said he was carrying out the policy of wrongheaded neoconservatives. OTOH these critics blast Bush for failing to bring democracy to Pakistan. Now, he's wrong for not following the neoconservative approach.

2. Pakistan was a military dictatorship since before Bush took office. In January, the military dictatorship will be replaced by an elected civilian government, albeit in a flawed election. This change in government appears to be a step forward toward democracy, or, at least, not a step backward. So, why are critics in this thread who support democracy blasting Bush?

My explanation of these paradoxes is that Bush's critics just don't like him. In their eyes, anything he does is wrong.

PS - A happy Thanksgiving to all.

Posted by: ex-liberal on November 22, 2007 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK


ex: 1. When Bush tried to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq, critics said he was carrying out the policy of wrongheaded neoconservatives.


name one critic in reference to afghnaistan

Posted by: mr. irony on November 22, 2007 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

ex: Now, he's wrong for not following the neoconservative approach.

the problem is inside your brain...

how can gwb be for democracy when his biggest non-israeli ally in the region was a general who took power in a coup?

Posted by: mr.irony on November 22, 2007 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

ex: albeit in a flawed election. This change in government appears to be a step forward toward democracy, or, at least, not a step backward. So, why are critics in this thread who support democracy blasting Bush?


you answered your own question...

you do know..saddam won all the elections he ran in...while ruling iraq...

right?

ex...didn't your mama teach you any shame?

Posted by: mr. irony on November 22, 2007 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

ex: My explanation of these paradoxes is that Bush's critics just don't like him. In their eyes, anything he does is wrong.


some people learn from their mistakes...

you appear to be oblivious of that fact..

how convenient...

but...hilarious..

Posted by: mr. irony on November 22, 2007 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

ex-lax at 11:03 AM:
1. When Bush tried to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq....

The notion that Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to bring democracy is revisionist history. If Bush is pro-democracy, why did he try to overthrow a democratically elected president of Venezuela and overthrow a democratically elected government in Haiti? Why did he never try to promote democracy in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan or Uzbekistan? The invasion of Afghanistan, in case you forgot was to get bin Laden. Since that is a failed mission, we installed the pro-Soviet Northern Alliance which only controls the city of Kabul. The invasion of Iraq was to 'protect American from a mushroom cloud' even though the IAEA reported there was not nuclear program in Iraq and Blix's weapons inspectors reported that there were no WMD in Iraq. It is doubtful that the government in either country would survive without American military support.

2.....In January, the military dictatorship will be replaced by an elected civilian government, ....

After the "elections," Musharraf will still be the dictator.

....In their eyes, anything he does is wrong.
Everyone, aside from Bush's little lick spittles, can clearly see that everything he does is wrong, all his decisions have been wrong, and that everything he says is a lie.

Posted by: Mike on November 22, 2007 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

"1. When Bush tried to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq"

Dear heart, you were talking about "honey," remember? Do tell us where in Bush's policies that he has applied "honey," won't you? Free clue: it wasn't in Afghanistan or Iraq. You can't even keep your own talking points straight!

In any case, dear heart, Bush didn't "try to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq," so your point is both foolish and moot.

"critics said he was carrying out the policy of wrongheaded neoconservatives."

Yes, dear, and in the process, he has destabilized the entire Middle East, strengthened al Qaeda, strengthened Iran, strengthened extremism, caused a dramatic increase in terrorist acts, and made us less safe than we were before, at a cost of trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives. I'd say that those policies were, in fact, "wrongheaded," wouldn't you, dear?

"OTOH these critics blast Bush for failing to bring democracy to Pakistan."

No, dear, we are "blasting" Bush for being a liar and/or a moron.

"Now, he's wrong for not following the neoconservative approach."

No, dear, he's wrong because he's a moron, as are you.

"2. Pakistan was a military dictatorship since before Bush took office."

Which is why his pronouncements that Pakistan is a model of democracy were so hilariously stupid, dear.

"In January, the military dictatorship will be replaced by an elected civilian government,"

No, dear, it won't, but that won't stop Bush (and you) from declaiming that it has been.

"This change in government appears to be a step forward toward democracy, or, at least, not a step backward."

ROFL.... Dear heart, are you really this stupid or are you just playing stupid?

"So, why are critics in this thread who support democracy blasting Bush?"

Because he's a liar and a moron, dear, as are you.

"My explanation of these paradoxes is that Bush's critics just don't like him."

Yes, dear, but that is because you're a liar and a moron.

"In their eyes, anything he does is wrong."

And we have ample evidence for this view, dear.

Posted by: PaulB on November 22, 2007 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

Do not always talk about Bush. Go Black Friday shopping! Here is my shopping list:
http://www.globalgmail.com/upload/BFridayHotDeals.pdf
This is a dead Friday better than politicians.

Posted by: Jack on November 22, 2007 at 9:40 PM | PERMALINK

There are just no good answers there.

How about this. President just says "Hey Perv, unless you do X, we stop the monthly $10 million direct cash transfers to you"

Yes, I really do believe its that simple.

Posted by: Brautigan on November 23, 2007 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

Salman Rushdie's take on Pakistan is that you either get a dictatorship and rolling promises of future elections or massive corruption with the Bhutto family. Considering this, it dawned on me that this explained the oddity of continuously seeing hordes of demonstrators dressed in suits and ties, the lawyers in waiting.

(Notes from Rushdie lecture on "The Culture Wars" Nov 6, 2007, Gt. Barrington, Ma.)

On a more serious note, Sir Salman opined that Pakistan is really quite secular and should not be willy nilly thrown into the Islamo-Fascist WWIII right wing propaganda debate category. That the demonstrators are in Western dress might in this light be deemed a very big socio political favorable.

Personally, I'm hopefully optimistic that the Pakistani engineering class as well, the guardians of the Pakistani nuclear weaponry, also favors a Western motif over Talibanic fashion, scimitar optional.

Posted by: cognitorex on November 24, 2007 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly