the two faces of dick cheney

[Mavdog]

nothing like speaking out of both sides of one's mouth. how cheney on one day criticizes russia and then on the next embraces someone even more authoritarian shows much about this administration, specifically how honesty is NOT an option...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheney's two-sided foreign policy
By E.J. Dionne
Published 2:15 am PDT Tuesday, May 9, 2006

WASHINGTON - It came as something of a shock to have to agree with Vice President Dick Cheney, but what he said last week about human rights in Vladimir Putin's Russia was accurate, even laudable.

Then Cheney went to Kazakhstan, and you wondered if it was the same guy talking.

Speaking to Eastern European leaders gathered in Lithuania, Cheney made the essential point about Putin's government: "Opponents of reform are seeking to reverse the gains of the last decade."

"In many areas of civil society, from religion and the news media to advocacy groups and political parties," Cheney said, "the government has unfairly and improperly restricted the rights of her people." Amen to that.

Cheney also accused Russia of using its energy resources to push around its neighbors. "No legitimate interest is served when oil and gas become tools of intimidation or blackmail," he said in an obvious reference to the games Putin has played with Ukraine over natural gas deliveries.

It's good for leaders of our government to tell the truth - they might even consider making it a habit. Cheney's comments were a vast improvement on President Bush's claims five years ago of spiritual affinity with a Putin who was already showing his authoritarian streak.

"I looked the man in the eye," Bush said on June 16, 2001. "I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul, a man deeply committed to his country."

Comparing the Bush of 2001 with the Cheney of 2006 calls into question our president's talent for reading souls and makes you wonder: Who lost Russia? If Cheney had left matters there, he might have won the gratitude of human rights advocates everywhere. But just one day later, he went to Kazakhstan, whose president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, won re-election last December with 91 percent of the vote.

Call me judgmental, but national elections in which incumbents get 91 percent are rarely honest. Our own State Department's report on Kazakhstan released this March noted that "observers criticized that election as falling short of a number of international standards."

More ominously, the report noted that that "members of the security forces committed human rights abuses" and that the "government's human rights record remained poor." Recent legislation, the State Department added, "seriously eroded legal protections for human rights and expanded the powers of the executive branch to regulate and control civil society."

Sounds like Putin, doesn't it? Indeed, Nazarbayev, who has been in power for 15 years, is a former Communist Party hack who has been accused of large-scale corruption. Writing in the Financial Times last week, Isabel Gorst summarized the situation compactly: "Kazakhstan's judiciary is corrupt. The independent media is stifled."

But did Cheney challenge the Kazakh government? On the contrary, the vice president said of Nazarbayev that "we met some years ago and I consider him my friend." How nice. Kazakhstan itself, Cheney said, "has become a good friend and strategic partner of the United States" for help in Afghanistan and Iraq and "cooperating with us in the global war on terror."

When pressed by reporters about Kazakhstan's record on democratic reform, Cheney replied: "Well, I have previously expressed my admiration for what has transpired here in Kazakhstan over the last 15 years. Both in terms of economic development, as well as political development, I think the record speaks for itself." Indeed it does.

OK, foreign relations are a complicated business and the United States often has to work with unsavory regimes. Kazakhstan has energy we need and could provide a way of bypassing Russia in shipping gas to the West.

But this administration has made the large claim that promoting democracy is a central element of its foreign policy. Did Cheney have to offer his "friend" Nazarbayev such a warm embrace? Did anyone in our government consider that what Cheney said in Kazakhstan could undercut what he said about Russia? Is it too much to ask the administration that it avoid such neck-snapping cognitive dissonance? It's hard to be a shining idealist on a Thursday and a hard-core realist on Friday.

The United States shouldn't back away from its commitment to democracy in the world. It should take that commitment more seriously

[FishForLunch]

E.J Dionne should let the administration know which dictators the left like (Castro, Chavez, Saddam)