Hadley switches from "Tibet" to "Nepal" - What the heck? (Video)

Ok, this is really weird. Today, Bush National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley was on Fox talking about whether Bush would boycott the Olympics' opening ceremony, and talked about the issue of "Tibet." Later the same morning he went on ABC and discussed the same issue, but he consistently talked about "Nepal."

(As Think Progress and CrooksandLiars point out, these are 2 distinct places.) Very curious -- is Hadley just a moron? Or is there some diplomacy reason that someone would tell him to actively switch from "Tibet" to "Nepal" between shows?

Video below. Full video of both shows are here.

If you have any expertise in diplomacy-speak, please do pipe in!

UPDATE: Looks like the AP actually hid this from it's readers. This sentence was from ABC, where Hadley exclusively said Nepal:

"The whole issue of opening ceremonies is a nonissue," Hadley said. "I think it is a way of dodging what really needs to happen if you're concerned about" Tibet.

(Bold added)

•  Well...

  Hadley is a moron.

  I had noticed the same thing, so you're not nuts.  The only explanation I can think of is the Nepalese elections that Carter is monitoring.

  Steph didn't catch it so he's a moron too.

  by ek hornbeck on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:49:56 PM PST

  •  Maoists still in lead in Nepal election

    By BINAJ GURUBACHARYA, Associated Press Writer
    Sun Apr 13, 2:34 PM ET

    KATMANDU, Nepal - Nepal's former communist rebels picked up more seats Sunday as they extended their lead in early returns from elections that will shape the Himalayan nation's political future.

    The Maoists — labeled a terrorist organization by the U.S. — secured 61 seats out of 115 in constituencies where counting was complete and were leading in most other areas where votes were still being tallied, the Election Commission said.

    The Maoists' strong early showing has surprised most observers, who before the vote had them placing third behind the country's traditional electoral powers, the centrist Nepali Congress and The Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninists).

    link

    by ek hornbeck on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:52:22 PM PST

    •  I hope

      they're nice Maoists, and not Pol Pot Maoists.

      by bugscuffle on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:55:12 PM PST

      •  Unfortuneately it Doesn't look good:

        From a 2005 BBC News article:

        [They] emulate the Shining Path's stated objective of destroying government institutions and replacing them with a revolutionary peasant regime...

        In the summer of 2004, the rebels abducted hundreds of school children for a week-long "re-education" course on Maoist ideology right under the noses of the security forces on the outskirts of Kathmandu.

        The Maoists may not yet have the strength to win their "People's War" but they are too strong to lose it.

        From a NYT article on the election:

        Their rivals accuse the Maoists of bullying their way to power in a campaign marred by violence and intimidation. The Maoists insist they do not want to go back to war, but neither have they renounced armed struggle. Judging by the campaign, critics here and abroad say they do not trust that yesterday’s insurgents will act as democrats in the future...

        There's more in the article about violence in the election, much of it blamed on the Maoists.

        And then this:

        His party calls for overhauling the state and abandoning "feudal property relations" for a "capitalistic mode of production." Prachanda promises to improve the economy with a railroad that would link Lhasa, in Tibet, to the Indian border.

        "We are fighting against feudalism, we are not fighting against capitalism," Prachanda said in the interview. "In the phase of our socioeconomic development, it is not possible to have a socialist revolution. We are saying that this is a bourgeois democratic revolution.

        "We will create a conducive atmosphere to have more profit for the capitalist. We are not going to do anything else than that."

        The article goes on to state that many in Nepal don't believe these declarations for capitalism and democracy are true.

        by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:38:27 PM PST

    •  The funny thing is that before the election...

      ... I heard BBC reporters blithely talking about how everyone in Nepal loves the royal family, and how the royalist Nepali Congress party was going to run away with the victory.  This could get very messy.

      by tbetz on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:48:01 PM PST

      •  Nepali Congress

        is not a royalist party.  They have consistently opposed the monarchy by pushing for democracy, and suffered a great deal of political persecution for it.  It had socialist origins and is still a member of the Socialist International, although it has recently moved in a neoliberal, free market direction.

        They have sometimes cooperated with the monarchy in forming governments, but only in conjunction with a broad coalition of other parties.

        by Jonathanonymous on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:26:01 PM PST

        •  Thanks for the correction.

          All I remember is that the BBC was playing up the angle that everyone in Nepal loves the royal family, and that it was a done deal.

          by tbetz on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:56:16 PM PST

          •  My impression is

            that the royal family has had a dramatic fall from almost godlike status 20 years ago to nearly universal scorn today.  The royal family massacre a few years ago, in which the only surviving royal prince was never completely freed from suspicion, played a big role, as did his sudden decision to end democracy and crush dissent by force.  But that is based on reports that were written by westerners, and Nepalese students in the US, so the view in the countryside might be different.

            I wonder if you are thinking of Bhutan, which recently had it's first election right next door? There the royalist party did win overwhelmingly.
            http://news.bbc.co.uk/...

            The Nepalese were also an issue in that election, because the ethnic minority living in Bhutan was forced into refugee camps outside of the country ahead of the elections, to ensure a "pure" citizenry.

            by Jonathanonymous on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:06:23 PM PST

            •  You are indeed correct.

              In fact, I StephenHadleyed™ Bhutan and Nepal.

              Thanks.

              by tbetz on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:48:43 AM PST

    •  I volunteer at a legal clinic

      that offers aid to asylum cases, and I have had a few refugees from Nepal, so I have done a little reading on the human rights situation.  As in most countries with severe sectarian conflict, nearly everyone is guilty.

      However, the Maoist rebels are extremely effective at using fear and intimidation to keep the areas under their influence in check.  Most of Nepal still consists of small villages, where informants can monitor the political views and activities of residents.  I don't see how free and fair elections can be held in that environment.

      by Jonathanonymous on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:11:39 PM PST

•  Not only that....

  when he was saying Nepal (!!!!!??????), the interviewer did NOT correct him...
  this the the National Security Advisor??

  by la urracca on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:50:41 PM PST

•  As I said in open thread

  to Republicans -- they all look alike.  I'm sure they don't see it as a faux pas.

  by gchaucer2 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:52:08 PM PST

•  Brainfart.

  Nobody corrected him?

  Are you sure he wasn't talking about Nepal?  Didn't their King just abdicate or something?

  by bugscuffle on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:53:52 PM PST

  •  No, I saw it too

    The conversation was specifically about boycotting the opening ceremonies because of the Tibet issue.  There was no connection to Nepal at all.  It made no sense.

    by Lauren S on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:27:31 PM PST

    •  The video is on the ABC Website

      Link to video

      In regards to AP covering for Hadley, ABC surely isn't.

      ABC News' Mary Bruce Reports: National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said this morning the president "has no reason not to go" to the Olympic games in Beijing. But Hadley was hesitant to give a definitive response on whether or not Bush will attend the opening ceremonies. "If countries are really concerned about Nepal (sic), we shouldn’t have this sort of non-issue of opening ceremonies or not. They should do the hard work of quiet diplomacy to urge the Chinese government -- in their interest -- to take advantage of this opportunity to do something," Hadley said in a "This Week" appearance.

      He went on to say that a boycott of the Olympic games would not be the best avenue for dealing with concerns over human rights. "The way to deal with the issue of Nepal (sic) is not by some -- a statement that you’re not going to the opening ceremonies and say, therefore, I checked the Nepal (sic)box."

      Instead, Hadley said the President is opting to pursue a broader diplomatic approach. "What he’s doing on Nepal (sic) is what we think the international community ought to be doing, which is approaching the Chinese privately through diplomatic channels and sending a very firm message of concern for human rights, a concern for what’s happening in Nepal (sic), urging the Chinese government to understand that it is in their interest to reach out to representatives of the Dalai Lama, and to show, while the whole world is watching China, that they are determined to treat their citizens with dignity and respect. There is an opportunity here."

      The commenters at the ABC link are blasting both Hadley and Stephanopolous over it.

      by Lauren S on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:34:42 PM PST

•  Yeah!

  I caught that too on ABC and thought the same thing... Intentional, diversionary doublespeak! Per usual from BushCo.

  by coffeeinamrica on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:53:56 PM PST

  •  why didn't russert correct him?

    I saw it and thought it very odd- if Hil or Obama said that they would be on the top of Yahoo and CNN for a reported serious, career ending gaffe.

    by peacevoice on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:20:51 PM PST

    •  Not Russert

      Think you mean Stephanopolous.

      by HoldEmAccountable on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:46:07 PM PST

      •  you're right

        I "misremembered"!  thanks though, I wonder why George didn't say anything?

        by peacevoice on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:20:57 PM PST

•  I saw this as well (and posted on the OT)

  But I had thought that there were 6 references to Nepal (when he clearly meant Tibet) on This Week.  I think I may have miscounted.

  by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:59:03 PM PST

  •  It was at least 5 times

    ABC quotes 5 mentions in their article.

    by Lauren S on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:36:10 PM PST

  •  Wow it was actually 8 times

    I just watched the video again and he said "Nepal" 8 times in 2 minutes, even referring to working with the Dali Lama.  That's disturbing.

    by Lauren S on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:41:13 PM PST

•  Bush only hires people dumber than him.

  So yes - he's a moron.

  by Little on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:03:53 PM PST

  •  Oh, come on now

    Bush only hires people dumber than him.

    That make for an extraordinarily small pool of candidates.

    I think just 'dumb as a rock' is sufficient to meet requirements in the Bush administration.

    by yellowdog on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:10:29 PM PST

•  what??? no 'both' button???

  quite obviously it was 'both'.

  by pickandshovel on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:08:50 PM PST

•  because of Neo-Con Repub rule:

  this is one of MANY reasons that we (the US) are in trouble:

  Sunni, Shia -- Tibet, Nepal

  did these guys go to school??  

  by sc kitty on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:20:19 PM PST

•  sounds like a nominee for worst person

  if anyone on Olbermann's staff is paying attention

  by teacherken on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:37:20 PM PST