David Broder could share info with other columnists

David Broder was quite shocked and dismayed that GW wasn't more forceful in his response to General Pervez Musharraf becoming a de facto dictator. Indeed, Broder complained that GW's response was "tepid." But, no matter what Musharraf did in his "emergency rule" of his country, GW and co. would nonetheless support him with financial aid. The full column can be found at the Washington Post's website and has been republished in the 8 November edition of the Spokesman-Review.

So here is my opinion on the matter: There are a number of reasons why GW wasn't harshly critical of Musharraf and yet hosted a foreign president Sarkozy from France who did publicly make many harsh criticisms about Musharraf and his crackdown on dissidents and the general citizenry of Pakistan.

1. Because GW has a poor track record when it comes to supporting democracy on the home front. Read Linda Campbell's editorial about the voting rights act and how members of the Justice Dept. under GW had decided to exploit it for partisan ends and against the benefits of minority as well as elderly voters. (Fort Worth Star-Telegram) Republished in the Spokesman-Review on the same day and in the same edition.
2. Because GW has a poor track record when it comes to supporting human rights and upholding international treaties. Such as the Geneva Convention ban on the use of torture. Read David Sarasohn of the Oregonian republished in the same Spokesman-Review edition. The quibbles Sarasohn has is with Judge Mukasey who seems to have a problem understanding whether torture in the form of waterboarding is illegal. When someone says that torture is illegal, then Mukasey would as Attorney General move to enforce the law. Someone check my blog please and e-mail a link to not only Congress but also to Mukasey's office. We have a McCain sponsored bill that says torture is illegal. That bill was passed into law. Therefore, torture is illegal. Now, with Mukasey nuancing all over the map on this, would he as attorney general move to enforce the law?
3. Because GW wanted a Justice Dept. to give him whatever he wanted, warrantless wiretapping, data mining of unsuspecting Americans (not terrorists) he would hardly be on solid ground to tell Musharraf how to conduct his affairs as ruler of his country.
4. Because GW has spent too much time protecting foreign leaders even when their countries have harbored terrorists (the house of Saud), holding too much of a desire to do business with despots (China), wanting to cater to multinational corporations (at the expense of his fellow Americans) and his own extreme religious base...

How truly can anyone expect GW's response to Musharraf to be anything but tepid? He doesn't have the moral authority to act.

Now if David Broder hadn't in many of his Washington Post columns turned a blind eye to GW's many and blatant sins, he would have seen this coming a long time ago. Pakistan has become the latest in GW's list of foreign policy failures.