[Newsbot]

<strong>Filibuster Cartoon</strong>
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20071108" target="_blank">Dressing up the hog</a> (click to view)
<strong>Date: </strong> November 08, 2007

<br>General Musharraf, the tyrant who runs Pakistan, declares martial law late last week, suspending the constitution, arresting his political opponents, flooding troops into the streets, and ushering in rule-by-decree. This was obstensibly done as part of a crackdown on Islamic terrorists, but there\'s obviously a huge element of opportunism involved as well. In recent months Musharraf\'s rule has seemed weaker than ever before, as high-profile protests mount in opposition to his rule, and exiled former politicians like Benzir Bhutto return to openly contest his power. <br> <br>Along with the Pakistani people, the big loser in all of this has been President Bush, General Musharaf\'s staunchest ally. Mr. Bush has invested a lot of capital (as well as cash) in the assumption that Musharraf is a dictator unlike other dictators; one that is geninuely competent in fighting terrorism, and aims to restore democracy to his people. Both gambles may be proving false.

[CanadianJeff]

You know it's funny but this is the first I've heard of the US getitng invovled with General Musharraf. Makes sense the North American media wouldn't cover the issue though. I mean what would happen to the president if the public found out he was funding dictators.

[Psudo]

Bush has been using General Musharraf's cooperation as the primary reason he hasn't gone into Pakistan to look for Osama Bin Ladin. It's a weird situation, choosing between yet another national invasion and allying with the local dictator to get the terrorist leader.

[Calbeck]

Well, there's also the fact that Pakistan has nominally been a US ally for a rather long time, in part for the same reasons we were allied with Hussein's Iraq: containment of Iran. Also, the Pakis have nukes, the Indians have nukes, and both are pissed off about the Kashmir region...hence, voila! Diplomacy.

[EmperorLiam]

Quote:

I mean what would happen to the president if the public found out he was funding dictators.

Umm.... he would be remembered as a great President?

Cough... Ronald Regan.. cough.

[Psudo]

Liam, your analysis of the man is as flawed as your spelling of his name: Ronald Reagan. 1) "the public" knew Reagan was supporting friendly dictators as allies against the great hostile dictatorships of Communism, causing many of them to vote for his re-election, and 2) if you think supporting specific dictators as part of a greater strategy also means supporting dictatorship generally, you should check how many nations were dictatorships before and after Reagan's administration.

Democracy spread dramatically during Reagan's tenure. For starters, Chile, El Salvador, Haiti, South Korea, Taiwan, Pakistan, Bolivia, Honduras, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Guatemala, Albania, and Nepal all saw democratic reforms or the first free elections in decades or ever in that time. Chinese democrat Fang Lizhi said, "We were inspired by the idea of the American revolution that Reagan championed. That's why the students built a statue of Liberty in Tiananmen Square." Google for "democratic wave" for more information on the global move toward democracy in that era.

And unless you can argue Reagan did not contribute to the rise of global democracy under his watch, don't imply he didn't earn his reputation as a great president.

[Prestwick]

You get the feeling that sodding generals uniform is super glued to him, eh?

[CanadianJeff]

Frankly I hold Bush and Regan on diffrent levels of morality and intelligence. That's mostly why I questoin just who Bush choses as an ally. any man willing to undercut congress to get things done isn't very respectfull of democracy.

Frankly on the flip side I'm just as worried about the democrats doing the same. I've heard too many "I would have never voted yes if I knew what we know now". No one wants to fess up and say "I voted yes becuase I made a large mistake and now we have to live with the consequences of that error".

It's all about pointing to what we "Wish" we did or will do rather then what we have done. That's the thing that gets me about this situation.

[Psudo]

CanadianJeff wrote:

any man willing to undercut congress to get things done isn't very respectfull of democracy.

Does this rule include Supreme Court decisions declaring laws unconstitutional? Or executive veto power? The use of executive orders? All of these circumvent or undermine acts of congress and show disrespect for a certain, narrow definition of democracy, yet they promote the checks on governmental power that enable personal liberty.

I assume you didn't intend to oppose checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative branches of government, but you didn't draw that line clearly.

I join you in opposing the politics of regret; when elected politicians proclaim they wish they'd done otherwise, they are either trying to revise their history or they're proving they failed in the execution of their duties. They're either liars or incompetent. Why would anyone vote for that?

[CanadianJeff]

Sorry I should have drawn that line. What I should really provide as an example is how the Vice president and his lawyer David Addington pushed through many a paper in the justice department for the president to act with more open and extreme actions.

Here's a good Washington Post article that gives a brief glimpse.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/c ... _on_presi/

Ultimatly it was the President who singed most of these things into law and I can understand the need for haste given the type of enemy that was and remains in play. But ultimatly it was undercutting the system by shifty means of lawyers and paper pushing.

That's the kind of thing that makes me flinch. I put it on the same level as a Canadian prime minsiter forcing his party to put through a bill that he knows full well the public doesn't support. He does so by forcing a "Vote yes or your out" mentality on the issue. It realy doesn't help democracy when everyone can't speak their mind.

I may not always like what others have to say but the one major thing I've learned in life is that you can't learn the truly human things about life with your mouth open.