This is a 'Moderate Voice?'
Americans. How dare they speak to Cuba about democracy!
And, of course, as is always the case when anyone gets a bee in his bonnet about something, the REAL QUESTION is, why doesn't the entire Big Media machine have the same revelation as I have just had, and write about it as single-mindedly as I intend to do?
What set him off? This:
He's appalled that the world will think Rice and Bush speak for Americans! That any of us might agree with that. "Please remember that, for the world, President George W. Bush and Ms Condoleezza Rice speak on behalf of the American nation/people. Those, including the media/journalists, who maintain a silence and overlook their remarks, would appear to be in agreement with what their leaders have been saying/doing."
He'd be glad to know that at least some journalists in my newsroom found the end of Castro's long rule "sad." But he's right; they never got to actually say that in print.
No, I guess what we really wanted Rice to say was, “As Fidel Castro’s 49-year-rule ended formally, the Bush Administration urged Cuba to stay exactly where it was, on the path to ‘heroic socialist utopia’ and let its 11 million citizens complete ‘the destruction of the Yankee empire’. ‘We urge the Cuban Government to persist in its struggle to thwart dissent and personal expression among its people, and to cooperate with anti-American governments and groups throughout the world. And build more political prisons, too,’ Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, said in a statement shortly before Raúl’s accession."
So what's the reason this blogger wants to damn Bush administration officials for urging democracy on Cuba?
Pardon my ignorance, but is it not arguable that Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are enjoying more democracy now than they had in the summer of 2001? And that Bush Administration policies may have had something to do with that? For all the things you can blame on this administration, anti-democratic foreign policies seem the one thing they get credit for -- especially compared to every other American administration since the start of the Cold War.
While the US administration’s priority in Pakistan seems to be to safeguard the position of President Pervez Musharraf (unmindful of the fact that the ex-military dictator has been humiliated in the recent polls), it delivers a homily to a country in its backyard (with whom it has been at the ‘original’ unending ‘war’ for the past 50 years) about the virtues of democracy. There has to be some limit to blatant hypocrisy.
And, of course, as is always the case when anyone gets a bee in his bonnet about something, the REAL QUESTION is, why doesn't the entire Big Media machine have the same revelation as I have just had, and write about it as single-mindedly as I intend to do?
Where is the great American tradition of responsible journalism? Is the media/blogosphere scared of presenting the facts? Who will harm them if they do? What happened to the famous tradition of investigative journalism? What else could be the reason? An interesting subject for research.
What set him off? This:
“As Fidel Castro’s 49-year-rule ended formally, the Bush Administration urged Cuba to move towards ‘peaceful, democratic change’ and let its 11 million citizens become ‘masters of their own lives’. ‘We urge the Cuban Government to begin a process of peaceful, democratic change by releasing all political prisoners, respecting human rights and creating a clear pathway toward free and fair elections,’ Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, said in a statement shortly before Raúl’s accession."
He's appalled that the world will think Rice and Bush speak for Americans! That any of us might agree with that. "Please remember that, for the world, President George W. Bush and Ms Condoleezza Rice speak on behalf of the American nation/people. Those, including the media/journalists, who maintain a silence and overlook their remarks, would appear to be in agreement with what their leaders have been saying/doing."
He'd be glad to know that at least some journalists in my newsroom found the end of Castro's long rule "sad." But he's right; they never got to actually say that in print.
No, I guess what we really wanted Rice to say was, “As Fidel Castro’s 49-year-rule ended formally, the Bush Administration urged Cuba to stay exactly where it was, on the path to ‘heroic socialist utopia’ and let its 11 million citizens complete ‘the destruction of the Yankee empire’. ‘We urge the Cuban Government to persist in its struggle to thwart dissent and personal expression among its people, and to cooperate with anti-American governments and groups throughout the world. And build more political prisons, too,’ Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, said in a statement shortly before Raúl’s accession."
So what's the reason this blogger wants to damn Bush administration officials for urging democracy on Cuba?
The past record of the present US administration’s policies and actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan does not inspire confidence that the motive was to allow democracy to flourish in those countries.
Pardon my ignorance, but is it not arguable that Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are enjoying more democracy now than they had in the summer of 2001? And that Bush Administration policies may have had something to do with that? For all the things you can blame on this administration, anti-democratic foreign policies seem the one thing they get credit for -- especially compared to every other American administration since the start of the Cold War.
Labels: Bloggers, Cuba, democracy, George W. Bush
