These days, it seems everyone is a critic of President Bush – and often for good reasons.
The latest charge being levied against him is an odd one which you wouldn’t expect to be a negative: loyalty.
Detractors are claiming that while forging a friendship with the president of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, Bush saw many positive traits in the man but failed to see the makings of a dictator.
For the better part of the past month, it’s been nearly impossible to avoid the media coverage of Musharraf, who declared emergency rule in Pakistan Nov. 3. Since then, Musharraf has suspended the country’s constitution, imprisoned opposition leaders, closed down several newspapers and TV stations and refused to give an exact date for when general elections will take place.
Nov. 16 marked the first instance where a U.S. official (John Negroponte) attempted to persuade Musharraf to end the emergency state and he hasn’t succeeded yet.
In the wake of September 11, 2001, Pakistan pledged to help Bush hunt down and dismantle al Qaeda and the Taliban. It was at that time that the unlikely pairing of the two heads of state began. Bush saw a powerful general who used reason and claimed to practice democracy. Musharraf saw a potentially huge ally that could supply him with the aid he needed to stay in power.
Since their first meeting, Musharraf has been to the United States several times. In 2003 it was to visit Camp David – a perk reserved for the President’s closest friends and allies. Indeed Bush and Musharraf became close following 9/11 as the latter vowed to step down as leader of his nation’s army and give way to democracy. That, of course, has not happened.
How did Bush misread his most trusted friend in the Middle East so badly? Dubya is a man that believes strongly in “personal diplomacy,” meaning he makes connections with people like Musharraf and then stick with them. The problem is that Bush “personalized” his relationship with the leader of Pakistan, and with Musharraf essentially implementing a semi-dictatorship, his relationship with Bush is under fire as well.
Bush’s loyalty has come back to hurt him in the past. When cabinet members Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales didn’t work out he proved incredibly reluctant to fire or even chastise them. In this case that decision isn’t up to Bush; but according to a Nov. 18 New York Times article, the administration is looking into having Musharraf replaced by another general. It’s interesting that didn’t happen sooner, especially given Bush’s penchant for nation-building and the fact that Osama bin Laden is still on the loose.
You’d think some people would learn their lesson – that’s clearly not the case with this administration, which is content to keep making the wrong choices until January 20, 2009 – the last day of Bush’s term.
The latest charge being levied against him is an odd one which you wouldn’t expect to be a negative: loyalty.
Detractors are claiming that while forging a friendship with the president of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, Bush saw many positive traits in the man but failed to see the makings of a dictator.
For the better part of the past month, it’s been nearly impossible to avoid the media coverage of Musharraf, who declared emergency rule in Pakistan Nov. 3. Since then, Musharraf has suspended the country’s constitution, imprisoned opposition leaders, closed down several newspapers and TV stations and refused to give an exact date for when general elections will take place.
Nov. 16 marked the first instance where a U.S. official (John Negroponte) attempted to persuade Musharraf to end the emergency state and he hasn’t succeeded yet.
In the wake of September 11, 2001, Pakistan pledged to help Bush hunt down and dismantle al Qaeda and the Taliban. It was at that time that the unlikely pairing of the two heads of state began. Bush saw a powerful general who used reason and claimed to practice democracy. Musharraf saw a potentially huge ally that could supply him with the aid he needed to stay in power.
Since their first meeting, Musharraf has been to the United States several times. In 2003 it was to visit Camp David – a perk reserved for the President’s closest friends and allies. Indeed Bush and Musharraf became close following 9/11 as the latter vowed to step down as leader of his nation’s army and give way to democracy. That, of course, has not happened.
How did Bush misread his most trusted friend in the Middle East so badly? Dubya is a man that believes strongly in “personal diplomacy,” meaning he makes connections with people like Musharraf and then stick with them. The problem is that Bush “personalized” his relationship with the leader of Pakistan, and with Musharraf essentially implementing a semi-dictatorship, his relationship with Bush is under fire as well.
Bush’s loyalty has come back to hurt him in the past. When cabinet members Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales didn’t work out he proved incredibly reluctant to fire or even chastise them. In this case that decision isn’t up to Bush; but according to a Nov. 18 New York Times article, the administration is looking into having Musharraf replaced by another general. It’s interesting that didn’t happen sooner, especially given Bush’s penchant for nation-building and the fact that Osama bin Laden is still on the loose.
You’d think some people would learn their lesson – that’s clearly not the case with this administration, which is content to keep making the wrong choices until January 20, 2009 – the last day of Bush’s term.
No comments:
Post a Comment