UPDATE: Mark appeared this morning on the G. Gordon Liddy show to discuss this and other issues. Listen to audio clip here.
OK, class, someone tell us: what's been the attitude of the New York Times and the elite media at large toward democracy-building in Iraq?
What's that, Johnny? That it was naive for George Bush to imagine that democracy was attainable in a Muslim country riven by religious and ethnic factions? Correct.
OK, then, who'd like to predict the Times's reaction to Pres. Bush's measured response to the curtailing of democracy in Pakistan by Pervez Musharraf, perhaps our most important ally in the region in the war against terrorism?
What's that, Janie? Pakistan being another Muslim country riven by religious and ethnic factions, George Bush has adopted the appropriately pragmatic course?
Wrong! Call it a trick question, but I did say "the Times's reaction." No, the correct answer is of course that Times is blasting President Bush for the insufficiency of his efforts to promote democracy in Pakistan.
First came yesterday's editorial, "The Pakistan Mess," which contained these nuggets:
By imposing martial law, Gen. Pervez Musharraf has pushed nuclear-armed Pakistan further along a perilous course and underscored the failure of President Bush’s policy toward a key ally in the war on terrorism.. The events should not have come as a surprise to administration officials. This is what you get when policy is centered slavishly on a single, autocratic ruler rather than more broadly on his country.
Mr. Bush, who says he cannot win the anti-terrorism war without General Musharraf but clearly can’t win it with him either, acquiesced in his misdeeds. The Faustian nature of the bargain is more apparent than ever.
Ultimately, democracy, not dictatorship, is the best hope for a stable Pakistan.
Then this morning, Maureen Dowd sounds a similar note in "Mushy: "Handsome in Uniform." Dowd imagines herself as Bush, giving a revised version of his second inaugural address. Dowd-Bush delivers the following, the sarcasm-meter pinned to max:
Once I thought my daddy was a wimp for cuddlin’ up real close with dictators, tradin’ stability for freedom. But now I gotta admit, that’s a darn fair trade.Three years ago, I believed that the most important question history would ask us was: Did our generation advance the cause of freedom?
But now I am older and wiser. I know that the most important question history will ask us is: What’s a little martial law between friends?
OK, class dismissed. Oh, last thing. For future quizzes on the NYT's opinion, remember, you'll never go too far wrong in assuming that whatever the Times' past policy, when it comes to the latest development, George Bush will always be wrong.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Nightmare
November 7, 2007 - 09:16 ET by kdoliverMark,
Haven't you learned? The TIMES knows everything!!! That is why their circulation continues to grow. Wait, that was a nightmare I had last night. Sorry.
http://thelazytriathlete.blogspot.com/
Dubya's Own Words
November 7, 2007 - 09:34 ET by momodoAll Maureen Dowd is doing is exposing the hypocrisy of Bush espousing democracy everywhere but then having to cozy up with dictators to deal with the realpolitik disasters he has caused. I put together a side by side comparison of Bush's actual speech and Dowd's twist. The man is being hoisted by his own petard.
http://dowdreport.bl...
Dowd Report: All MoDo, All The Time
Dowd is a misguided,
November 7, 2007 - 09:42 ET by NL207Dowd is a misguided, liberal nincompoop. Bush is entirely consistent in his foreign policy. He is coddling up to foreign governments, regardless of their particular political persuasions, based on how those relationships affect US interests.
Do you think for one minute that any kind of ideologue is going to allow the relationship that exists with the ChiComms to continue if democracy and free government is the litnmus test? I don't.
Hypocrisy. You. Dowd. All one and the same. When Bill Clinton was engaged in Realpolitik, the Times was all agog over his brilliance. When Bush does it, he's a fascist fool. You clowns are all the same.
Ew!
November 7, 2007 - 09:43 ET by heldmywYou linked to MoDo's site?
Go wash your hands! You don't know where she's been...
You must mean the
November 7, 2007 - 11:09 ET by ahusserYou must mean the destabilizing of the middle east when Carter stopped backing the Shah based on the fact that the Shah was a dictator. Gee that was a real success. Now we have a nut bag muslim fundamentalist state with nuclear weapons. We need to blame Carter for 9-11 he is the real cause. How about when Kennedy stopped backing President Diem in Vietnam by having him killed that was another Democratic success. This unreasoned stupidity has cost countless lives and treasure. Oh yeah how bout the Democrats spitting on our close ally Turkey by signing that stupid memo about Armenia, something that happened near 100 years ago. Yeah there was no lefty agenda there was there. If you have noticed these "dictatorships" like Pakistan have major problems with Islamic fundamentalists. Turkey is a secular democracy with Islamic fundamentalist issues, so is Saudi Arabia (A Kingdom). Yeah Democrats may believe they are principled but are really really dumb. If Democrats dont stop shooting themselves in the foot they aren't going to have any toes left.
It's just too bad that Libs
November 7, 2007 - 12:31 ET by mattmIt's just too bad that Libs aren't moved by facts.
You summed it up quite nicely...but I believe the Liberal's complicity with, or enabling of tyrants and the resulting deaths of millions goes way back before Diem.
The Left opposed military action that would have stopped Hitler by 1938.
In 1860 the Dems of the South started a war in order to maintain slavery...
How the Dems have acquired a reputation as freedom-loving, peace-loving benefactors of humanity is astounding...except when you consider the fact that they have controlled the media and the education system for over 100 years...
"All Maureen Dowd is doing
November 7, 2007 - 19:01 ET by ckc1227"All Maureen Dowd is doing is exposing the hypocrisy of Bush espousing
democracy everywhere but then having to cozy up with dictators to deal
with the realpolitik disasters he has caused."
Nonsense. Promoting and believing in democracy is fine, but in the real world, not every country is a democracy. That means you have to deal with non-democratic countries now and then. Doing so doesn't make you a hypocrite, it makes you a realist.
Interesting though, how little outrage there is on the left over Chavez, or Fidel. The only way to change their opinion of these guys is for them to become allies of the US.
Theocracy democracy okay as long as it's anti American
November 7, 2007 - 09:51 ET by Dee BunkI'm so sick of the left. They dislike our country and our free market values so much that they could care less how brutal a regime is or how they come to power. The only dictators and Aristocracies worth attacking are ones who don't threaten us. So if Musharraf were telling Bush to F'off or he'll nuke us and giving terrorist sanctuary then they wouldn't complain about his power and would shower him with money.
some things never change.
November 7, 2007 - 19:26 ET by UndercoverConservativeIt's "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" if you're a conservative or Republican.
Use force to stabilize or punish a hostile nation, and you're attacked for it. use negotiation and money, and you're attacked for it. Let people do their own thing, and you're attacked for it.
Only thing these hate mongers would even come close to tolerating is Bush committing public ritual suicide. But then they'd complain about violence on TV or some sort of offense to the blade makers, or calling him a coward for cutting out.
It's what I've been saying since the last election-there is and can be no compromise with the Left. Compromise is now defined as "give us everything we want" to them. If you're going to be insulted, attacked and defiled for trying to balance interests, then why bother to try to balance at all? Do the right thing, every time, as you see fit. Then let history judge you. Because no matter what, the media will NEVER give you a fare shake.
Pakistan WAS a democracy
November 8, 2007 - 06:55 ET by momodoThat is, it was until Saturday. Pakistan is a dangerous nuclear armed country that threatens its neighbors and harbors terrorists. Why aren't we invading? Oh, I forgot. No oil.
Dowd Report: All MoDo, All The Time
If it is ALL about oil...
November 8, 2007 - 07:16 ET by UnsaneSo, if we only fight for oil, why aren't we adding Alberta as the 51st state?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.