Bush of the Flies
Can you imagine - Human Rights Watch has had the temerity to criticize poor imperial george's performance. The advocacy organization thinks that our government should be promoting democracy or something I guess, instead of bolstering and making whoopee with dictators and totalitarian governments. What a concept, especially if you as a leader or pompous ass were to be so vainglorious as to carry on about how committed you are to promoting democracy whenever microphone proximity happens to trigger yet another of your classic public narcissism/glossolalia seizures.
On a practical level, of course, it is doubtless a lot easier to cut a deal with those sleazy dictators and authoritarian governments, and to hell with whatever swill you have offered up to the audience in your own Jerry Lewis-on-a-bad-day fashion. Almost no dialogue or negotiations are probably needed. In contrast, actually promoting democracy, much like taking any serious steps to actually reduce the risk of terrorist impacts on the US of A, is Hard Work. As anyone actually paying attention has come to learn, the bush administration's program for the latter has basically involved kicking and cans.
In the meantime, not surprisingly, prissy little george et al have undoubtedly actually fostered a full-on boom in terrorism. So the scorecard for george must read at best something like Promoting Democracy - D; Fighting Terrorism - D-. Of course those grades blend in well with the rest of his record. The part we have been to allowed to see, of course.
Talk about a child left behind.
But that gets me thinking about Lord of the Flies, not exactly something you want your federal leaders to be emblematic of.
It's fascinating how routinely these even-vaguely counter-authoritarian articles are offered in carefully buffed terms, rarely if ever in anything even vaguely resembling the standard snarling parlance of the would-be tough guys in the WH. I don't know whether to take that for a maturity and decorum that few if any in the current administration are familiar with, or the usual corporate media obeisance to those same empowered paranoid ones. But the fact that this article by contrast uses the words "harsh critique of the Bush Administration" did get my attention.
From the Washington Post yesterday, Feb. 1, 2008:
A leading human rights group said Thursday that the United States has lost its moral authority by supporting autocratic governments in strategic countries despite their continuing violations of civil liberties.
Human Rights Watch, a New York-based advocacy group, has used its past 17 annual surveys to highlight the most egregious humanitarian crises in the world and to note improvements when warranted. The latest report marks a break with that tradition by focusing on democracy and the ways in which U.S. influence have affected other countries' pursuit of it.
The group delivers a harsh critique of the Bush administration, suggesting that by accommodating autocratic allies in the fight against terrorism, it has failed to meet its declared goal of promoting democratic values.
In an introductory essay titled "Despots Masquerading as Democrats," Kenneth Roth, the organization's executive director, blasts such leaders as Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia and Vladimir Putin of Russia. Roth accuses them of finding "utility in holding electoral charades to legitimize" their reigns.
"Such divorcing of democracy from the international standards that give it meaning helps to convince autocrats that mere elections, regardless of the circumstances, are sufficient to warrant the democrat label," the essay notes. "Rarely has democracy been so acclaimed yet so breached, so promoted yet so disrespected, so important yet so disappointing."
Roth also writes that the Bush administration's ability to speak out effectively for human rights has suffered since disclosures about its clandestine network of CIA-run jails, the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the use of secret military tribunals, harsh interrogation methods and "rendition," or the covert transfer of terrorism suspects. The report describes those practices as "a troubling parallel to abusive governments around the world."
-clip-
On a practical level, of course, it is doubtless a lot easier to cut a deal with those sleazy dictators and authoritarian governments, and to hell with whatever swill you have offered up to the audience in your own Jerry Lewis-on-a-bad-day fashion. Almost no dialogue or negotiations are probably needed. In contrast, actually promoting democracy, much like taking any serious steps to actually reduce the risk of terrorist impacts on the US of A, is Hard Work. As anyone actually paying attention has come to learn, the bush administration's program for the latter has basically involved kicking and cans.
In the meantime, not surprisingly, prissy little george et al have undoubtedly actually fostered a full-on boom in terrorism. So the scorecard for george must read at best something like Promoting Democracy - D; Fighting Terrorism - D-. Of course those grades blend in well with the rest of his record. The part we have been to allowed to see, of course.
Talk about a child left behind.
But that gets me thinking about Lord of the Flies, not exactly something you want your federal leaders to be emblematic of.
It's fascinating how routinely these even-vaguely counter-authoritarian articles are offered in carefully buffed terms, rarely if ever in anything even vaguely resembling the standard snarling parlance of the would-be tough guys in the WH. I don't know whether to take that for a maturity and decorum that few if any in the current administration are familiar with, or the usual corporate media obeisance to those same empowered paranoid ones. But the fact that this article by contrast uses the words "harsh critique of the Bush Administration" did get my attention.
From the Washington Post yesterday, Feb. 1, 2008:
A leading human rights group said Thursday that the United States has lost its moral authority by supporting autocratic governments in strategic countries despite their continuing violations of civil liberties.
Human Rights Watch, a New York-based advocacy group, has used its past 17 annual surveys to highlight the most egregious humanitarian crises in the world and to note improvements when warranted. The latest report marks a break with that tradition by focusing on democracy and the ways in which U.S. influence have affected other countries' pursuit of it.
The group delivers a harsh critique of the Bush administration, suggesting that by accommodating autocratic allies in the fight against terrorism, it has failed to meet its declared goal of promoting democratic values.
In an introductory essay titled "Despots Masquerading as Democrats," Kenneth Roth, the organization's executive director, blasts such leaders as Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia and Vladimir Putin of Russia. Roth accuses them of finding "utility in holding electoral charades to legitimize" their reigns.
"Such divorcing of democracy from the international standards that give it meaning helps to convince autocrats that mere elections, regardless of the circumstances, are sufficient to warrant the democrat label," the essay notes. "Rarely has democracy been so acclaimed yet so breached, so promoted yet so disrespected, so important yet so disappointing."
Roth also writes that the Bush administration's ability to speak out effectively for human rights has suffered since disclosures about its clandestine network of CIA-run jails, the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the use of secret military tribunals, harsh interrogation methods and "rendition," or the covert transfer of terrorism suspects. The report describes those practices as "a troubling parallel to abusive governments around the world."
-clip-
posted by Sir Gumbo at 10:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home