How Can Bush Lecture Putin on Democracy?

Bill Hare
Political Cortex
07/16/2006 08:37:05 PM EST


Unmitigated gall is frequently linked to appalling ignorance, the type that feeds colossal delusions of grandeur. Such is the case with George W. Bush in his recent bold attempt to lecture Russia's President Vladimir Putin on democracy.

According to Bush, Putin has not been opening up the windows sufficiently to allow the fresh sunshine of democracy to radiate Russia. In one of Mike Wallace's most important interviews toward the close of his long CBS career, the television journalist questioned Putin on the leader's home soil about democracy.

Putin had a quick response. Knowing that Wallace worked for CBS, he asked bluntly about one of his veteran colleagues. "What happened to Dan Rather?" the Russian president wanted to know. He was aware of the tragedy that occurred during the 2004 election.

Fearful of offending the Bush White House and Karl Rove, CBS essentially bounced its veteran evening news anchorman for pursuing a story about Bush's National Guard service. With the exception of some allegedly false documents represented by examining experts to be authentic, the story contained the solid ring of truth.

There was evidence that Rove may have been involved in creating and planting the false documents, but that part of the story was never seriously investigated.

Wallace's response to Putin was typical of a questioner caught off guard. He presented a feigned confidence and responded that CBS was planning to use Rather on stories and that he remained a part of the network's future plans.

Those of us familiar with network tricks of the trade realized that the die had been cast and that CBS would seek to save face by using Rather on a few stories, after which he would "retire" from the scene to perform duties elsewhere. This was precisely what occurred.

The network hierarchy virtually threw itself at the feet of the Bush White House after it was explained that Rather's investigation into the Bush National Guard story was putting CBS in peril of a loss of news access. Rather than fight on behalf of an experienced journalist pursuing a legitimate story his bosses shamefully capitulated.

So Putin shrewdly knew what he was doing. He let Wallace know that, as the old saying goes, "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." When Bush pursued the same topic of democracy in Russia last week Putin proved to be more than a match for the blustery visitor. "You mean democracy such as you have in Iraq?" Putin was reported to have replied in words to that effect.

Vladimir Putin undoubtedly knew that he could have said a great deal more than that to Bush concerning the staggering deficiencies of his Administration on the subject of democracy.

Thomas Jefferson, the sage of Monticello, was concerned enough about liberty to design a Bill of Rights that for two centuries had won the respect and support of leading conservatives and liberals throughout history.

So what has the team of Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft provided as a substitute? Following the blanket "We are at war!" declaration following the 9/11 tragedies the Patriot Act was submitted as necessary legislation, with a subservient Congress, with few exceptions, solidly endorsing the dangerous legislation.

Would Jefferson be delighted to know that his Bill of Rights protective safeguards were substituted for preventive detention of the type used characteristically against blacks in apartheid South Africa?

Then again, how did Cheney vote when he was a Member of Congress and legislation calling for the release of Nelson Mandela was presented? Cheney cast his nay vote, preferring to see Mandela continue to languish in prison for opposing fascist oppression in his nation.

Does Cheney feel a current squeamishness concerning his own actions? Can he envision the possibility of a war crimes trial at The Hague with the looming specter of a dank, darkened cell awaiting him upon conviction?

Bush should also remember that Putin was actually elected by the people of Russia. Was Bush elected in America in 2000 or 2004? The first time around Bush occupied the White House through the calculated machinations of his brother Jeb in Florida along with co-conspirator Katherine Harris as well as that famed Republican National Committee television network referred to as Fox News.

Remember that it was at Fox where the station's news executive and ex-Nixon media guru Roger Ailes had none other than Bush's cousin John Ellis riding shotgun Election Night. Ellis declared, surprise of all surprises, that George W. had been elected!

When it took a push beyond that, there was the Opus Dei team of Antonin Scalia and his eyes and ears Clarence Thomas to rule invalid a recount in Florida that was being conducted in accordance with the Florida Constitution.

So much for the supposedly heralded Reagan Doctrine of allowing the states to decide matters within their purview. Such a doctrine is only used punitively to deny federal court redress. After all, what is more important than propelling a neocon Republican into the White House?

If 2000 was the year for the tandem of Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris to shine in Florida, in 2004 the Republicans had a new star. Former professional football player Ken Blackwell, Ohio's Secretary of State, was the new glittering light of the Republican team.

Blackwell displayed a propensity of tackling with the best of them. He ran roughshod over his fellow African Americans in cutting as many as he could from the election rolls while those that remained were subjected to huge lines at polling stations in a cold, driving rain.

Meanwhile lily-white Ohio suburbanites voted effortlessly. Walden Dell's Diebold team also rendered yeoman duties through a judicious juggling act of adding Bush votes while those of Kerry were subtracted.

Such is George W. Bush's democratic legacy. He is in no position to lecture Putin or anyone else on democracy.

Story Link

-Buck

Anonymous