OK.
So the dog and pony show were out in force today. I guess its going to be democracyfest next year in Palestine.
Sigh.
Well...let's get started disecting.
"But I think it is very possible that it can happen, because I believe people want to live in a free society, and our job is to help it happen."
In a disappointment to some pro-Palestinian campaigners, neither leader raised the prospect of bringing new pressure to bear on the Israeli government.
Instead, Mr Bush said, the obligation rested firmly with the Palestinians to move towards democratic norms, including free elections and freedom of speech.
Mr Blair has been arguing for more political and financial support for the Palestinians to give them an incentive to move towards a free society, promising that "we will do what it takes to build support for that concept".
While Mr Bush indicated that he was open to such support, he also hinted that more robust motivational methods may be involved. "We'll hold their feet to the fire to make sure that democracy prevails," he said.
Many Labour MPs and some ministers had hoped that in the wake of the troubles of Iraq, the Prime Minister would distance himself from Mr Bush's zealous drive to spread democracy around the world and across the Middle East in particular.
But Mr Blair made it clear that he remained a devout believer in that cause, directly linking the security of western states with the promotion of western values.
"There is not stability in the long term without democratic rights for free people to choose their government," he said. "People want their freedom, and we're not going to have our security unless they have that freedom."
Its bizarre, really. Here are a couple of guys who speak of almost nothing but the power and significance of democracy--of the right all people have to the basic freedoms it presupposes--yet they do nothing but undermine and ignore those basic democratic rights. What was it that senator guy said in those debate thingys about faith without works being dead? How do they expect to spread democracy to Iraq and Palestine, when they deny them the basic building blocks of democracy--the right to a free press, to disent, to self-determination, to a transparent, elected government.
But, hey, that might be asking a lot of a guy who refuses to provide them to his own country. Irony is so bitter and so sweet nowadays. Hello? What are we pre-Magna Carta? The main thing about democracy was that the rulers were still supposed to be ruled by the same law as everyone else. Naming Alberto Gonzales Attorney General is the last straw. I have here, for your reading pleasure, four--count 'em--four links, which raise serious questions about Gonzales' intellectual honesty and committment to the rule of law.
Human Rights Watch
Slate
UN
Truthout (this one's really good)
I don't know, maybe its just me, but I think the nation's highest law enforcement officer shouldn't have a spotty record when it come to upholding established law. I seem to remember my American Government prof saying something about any treaty ratified by Congress being the law of the land--I guess that would include the Geneva Conventions.
This should really frighten us. This guy has a career long track record of attempting to twist or manipulate the law to further the ends of his clients. For some lawyers, that's expected--but it shouldn't be for the Attorney General. He is not there to smooth over the Haliburton investigation, Energygate, and the Plume investigation, he's there to prosecute them. How can you possibly not believe that this guy has conflicts of interest in fulfilling his duties?
Bush is appointing the one guy who is intellectually responible for Abu Ghirb, who justified torturing enemy combatants by saying the law of the land was "quaint" and "obsolete". This is not AG material. This is, well, Enron material.
And as to Bush, chalk it up to another example of how he wants to make the Middle East more Western, but wants to run the West like he's a Middle Easterner.
moralquestionsblog.com