So we're ready to jump on Iran for being a "potential threat" to civilization and democracy; but when Pervez Musharraf declares a state of emergency in his country, suspends the constitution, fires the Supreme Court justices that opposed him, cancels the democratic elections that he had been previously "advocating," shuts down all kinds of media within the Pakistani border and has armed policemen beat protesting lawyers in the streets, it's okay? We'll probably keep funding them, although we KNOW they have nuclear weapons and will probably disintegrate to a state of civil war within the next few weeks, opening up a power vacuum in Southeastern Asia that could very well lead to terrorist militias getting their hands on atomic bombs, if not something more powerful?
And you, President Bush. I have a question for you, you good for nothing, power and oil hungry, greedy, corporate asshole. Isn't this man, the one who is now stripping his people of all their human rights, has clearly rejected any kind of democracy prevailing in his country, and will continue to rule an oppressed people with his overbearing military, the one you always called "a critical ally" to your inconclusive "War on Terror"? And you're going to continue to pour millions of dollars of aid into the Pakistani military, because you rather have "stability than democracy"?
Where was that logic when we went into Iraq, you inconsistent coward? I'd say Iraq was pretty stable when we invaded them in the name of "democracy," starting a war, putting our nation's credibility (or what was left of it) on the line, killing thousands of innocent soldiers and civilians. But no. Then democracy was important, especially since you were so sure that they had weapons of mass destruction.
Well, Pakistan ADMITS, has ADMITTED, has BRAGGED about their nuclear weapon program for years. They have been ignoring international pleas to not declare a state of emergency in their country. But Musharraf has outright ignored these pleas, has done everything the international community has told him not to do; and you haven't made one call to the authoritarian jerk to tell him he's wrong? Because you want "stability"? And I'm sure hundreds of protesting lawyers getting beaten and arrested in the streets is stability. I'm sure thousands of students and journalists holding protests in the streets that are unconstitutionally and unjustly getting shut down is stability. I'm sure that, when the previous Chief Justice of The Supreme Court, Iftikhar Chaudry, says that "everything that is happening today is illegal, unconstitutional and against the orders of the Supreme Court," that signifies stability, too.
No. Who am I to say anything to you, great and powerful President? I'm just a lowly student with a passion for blogging and reading The New York Times. What would I know? There's no way I could possibly say that you're a cowardly president with no backbone and possibly be right. There's no way I could say that you have inconsistent theories, inconsistent policies, but a consistently failing administration on almost all fronts and possibly be right. There's no way.
But that's not going to stop me from saying it anyway.
And you, President Bush. I have a question for you, you good for nothing, power and oil hungry, greedy, corporate asshole. Isn't this man, the one who is now stripping his people of all their human rights, has clearly rejected any kind of democracy prevailing in his country, and will continue to rule an oppressed people with his overbearing military, the one you always called "a critical ally" to your inconclusive "War on Terror"? And you're going to continue to pour millions of dollars of aid into the Pakistani military, because you rather have "stability than democracy"?
Where was that logic when we went into Iraq, you inconsistent coward? I'd say Iraq was pretty stable when we invaded them in the name of "democracy," starting a war, putting our nation's credibility (or what was left of it) on the line, killing thousands of innocent soldiers and civilians. But no. Then democracy was important, especially since you were so sure that they had weapons of mass destruction.
Well, Pakistan ADMITS, has ADMITTED, has BRAGGED about their nuclear weapon program for years. They have been ignoring international pleas to not declare a state of emergency in their country. But Musharraf has outright ignored these pleas, has done everything the international community has told him not to do; and you haven't made one call to the authoritarian jerk to tell him he's wrong? Because you want "stability"? And I'm sure hundreds of protesting lawyers getting beaten and arrested in the streets is stability. I'm sure thousands of students and journalists holding protests in the streets that are unconstitutionally and unjustly getting shut down is stability. I'm sure that, when the previous Chief Justice of The Supreme Court, Iftikhar Chaudry, says that "everything that is happening today is illegal, unconstitutional and against the orders of the Supreme Court," that signifies stability, too.
No. Who am I to say anything to you, great and powerful President? I'm just a lowly student with a passion for blogging and reading The New York Times. What would I know? There's no way I could possibly say that you're a cowardly president with no backbone and possibly be right. There's no way I could say that you have inconsistent theories, inconsistent policies, but a consistently failing administration on almost all fronts and possibly be right. There's no way.
But that's not going to stop me from saying it anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment