A bit odd, isn't it, that the Americans are wagging their finger at President Musharraf, telling him he can't be both president and commander-in-chief.
It seems to have escaped their notice that another president, much nearer home, occupies a precisely similar dual role. But I've not yet seen any calls for Dubya to step down in order to 'save democracy'.
The same old humbug of "do as I say, and not as I do".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Wagging a finger means three are pointing straight back...
Ha ha. Very good anticant.
BTW.
Thanks for the Battenburg. Very nice!
Yes, Anticant. Just this morning I heard President Bush saying that President Musharraf should take off his uniform.
And I was wondering what was the meaning of this, because as we all know wearing a uniform isn't necessary for a tyrant to tyrannise, until I suddenly got it: Bush never wears a uniform except when he acted that film scene of landing on an aircraft carrier to boast about the ending of the Iraq war.
Does anybody really believe that for Musharraf to rule in Pakistan it is necessary that he steps down in the army, when it is evident that without the army's help he cannot be President of Pakistan?
It is also at the least curious that another regime backed by "the West" - that of Georgia - has also declared the state of exemption.
Will the third one be the United States of America?
I deleted my previous post because of an involuntary mistake.
I meant to say state of emergency. I'd recommend the following reading:
State of Exception
The President is the Commander-in-Chief in the US. Commander-in-Chief is a civilian position in the US.
But, the President in the US has to leave military service before he (or she) is eligible to be sworn in.
Mushy is still in charge of the Pakistani Army, in uniform, and he uses his military power to maintain political power. To be a true President, he needs to go through an election process, and he needs to retire from the military.
Bush could be criticized for not wearing a military uniform enough in his youth, but he could hardly be criticized for wearing it too much, or for refusing to take it off.
It's a fairly important point, but one that seems to have been missed in your post, Anticant.
Bash Bush -- that's fine. I do -- but I try to get my facts straight.
Bash America, too -- that's fine as well -- but get the facts straight.
This is an example of where I think you cross the line, Anticant -- you come off as anti-American. Your mind is made up, and you don't take time to get the facts straight.
You say you are not anti-American, and I believe that you do not intend to be, but I think you come off that way sometimes, and I think that is hard to avoid, given the anti-American politics that have permeated so much of Western Europe (and elsewhere) for the past several decades.
I'm aware of the distinction you draw, YD, but how real a difference is it when the appearance is the same?
In any case, what business has Bush to tell Musharraf, or any other non-American, what to do? This is what underlies much of the 'anti-Americanism' you complain about - the assumption that Americans not only know other peoples' business better than they do, but that America has the right - some would say the duty - to impose her views on the rest of the world by military and economic force.
Insofar as I am anti-American, it is because of the hubris shown by your politicians of all parties, the sheeplike ignorance of the rest of the world apparent among the bulk of your population, the complacent assumption that you are 'God's own people' and that your values and culture are the best there ever has been or could be, and your purblind patriotism which denies all the misdeeds of the USA around the world since World War 2.
I am certainly anti-American insofar as I value British and American culture above that of the USA, and I don't want Europe Americanised any more than I want it Islamised.
Perhaps a dose of isolationism would be good for both the USA and the rest of the world. Then we could all get on with tending our own gardens, instead of trampling around each other's.
And, of course, even if the American president cannot technically be a member of the military, he can, as commander-in-chief, issue orders to the armed forces, define their rules of operation [as in excusing them from international obligations in such matters as the use of torture], and grant pardons for breaches of the law.
So what is the actual difference between the positions of Bush and Musharraf, YD?
Thank you for finally admitting you anti-American bias! :)
So what is the actual difference between the positions of Bush and Musharraf, YD?
One controls more nuclear weapons than the other -- and is more likely to use them!
It isn't 'biased' to be anti-American in some respects - just common sense!
Neither Bush nor Musharraf are fit persons to have their fingers on the nuclear trigger [who is??].
Not Musharraf himself, but his Islamic supplanters, are highly likely to use nuclear weapon if they get the chance, don't you think?
Post a Comment