DesperatelyObvious.com

“We have made it clear to all nations, if you harbor terrorists, you are just as guilty as the terrorists; you’re an enemy of the United States, and you will be held to account.” - George Bush

Great. Unfortunately, on the surface it seems impossible that Bush could possibly mean what he says here. With a brief look at the facts, he is clearly condemning the U.S. itself.

To argue otherwise seems to create a contradiction. Take one recent example – Former Bolivian President, Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, who has been charged with genocide in Bolivia. Lozada was responsible for orchestrating the massacre of about 60 people (including at least one child) and injuring about 400 others in a suburb of La Paz in October 2003.

Lozada soon fled to the United States after his administration came under extreme protest by the people of Bolivia. Over a year ago, Bolivia requested extradition of Lozada and a few other members of his staff. The request has been ignored.

Or look at an even more obvious, well-known example. In addition to bombing restaurants and hotels, the terrorist Luis Posada Carriles is perhaps most infamous for his involvement in the 1976 bombing of a Cuban civilian airline, killing 73 passengers. The U.S. has denied Posada’s extradition to Venezuela, citing fears that he might be subjected to torture there. This response seems almost laughable now considering America’s stance on fair treatment of terrorist suspects.

Now compare this to our handling of Afghanistan. Those who harbor terrorists, are no better than terrorists. If you don’t hand over Bin Laden, we will bomb you to the stone age. And no, we will not provide you with evidence.

Surely the Bush administration must be aware of this apparent contradiction on the issue of harboring terrorists. But in reality, there is no contradiction—the doctrine just requires a very literal reading. If you harbor terrorists, then you are no better than a terrorist. We can harbor terrorists, and that’s fine, but if we suspect you of harboring terrorists we will bomb you.

Nevertheless, the people of the United States adhere to a higher moral standard than those in control. We have the ability and the responsibility to ensure that these terrorists being harbored in the United States are brought to justice.

Petition to bring Lozada to justice

In line with Bush’s democratic ideals, Washington has expressed that it is “extremely disappointed” over the coup in Thailand. A State Department correspondent stated plainly, “There is no justification for it. It is a step backward for democracy.” Although not quite ready to wage another war, Bush is surely losing sleep over the military takeover.

We don’t have to go back far to find another example of Bush invoking democratic ideals after a coup of a democratically elected leader. His actions in praising the 2002 coup of Hugo Chavez show the true flexibility of this democratic ideal. The Bush Administration immediately approved the takeover and recognized the new government.

Unfortunately for Bush, Chavez was restored to power only hours later. Displeased with the result, the White House praised the takeover participants, mainly business class and members of the military, announcing that Venezuelans “have sent a clear message to President Chavez that they want both democracy and reform.” The coup was simply described as a crisis brought on by “actions encouraged by the Chavez government.”

Fortunately, the New York Times reemphasized the U.S. doctrine, for those of us who didn’t understand this peculiar lesson in democracy. Rightfully, the Times condemned the Military coup in Thailand stating that the leader’s removal “from office is a decision that belongs to Thailand’s voters, not an ambitious army general.”

The editors, however, understand the pragmatism of knowing when and when not to support democracy. The NY Times hailed the violent ousting of democratically elected Chavez: “Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator.”

To the Times credit, after realizing that Chavez was going to remain in power, they admitted remorse over their enthusiasm, stating they had “overlooked the undemocratic manner in which he was removed.” The author’s mistake is understandable. With so much elation from Washington and U.S. investors, it would surely be asking too much for the editors to take an honest look at the facts.