Registan.net

I’m going to quote this Instapundit post, in its entirety:

November 06, 2007

WHY IS THE WORLD MORE CONCERNED with Musharraf’s coup than with Hugo Chavez’s emerging dicatatorship? Because enemies of the United States, like Chavez, get a pass.

posted at 09:29 AM by Glenn Reynolds

Did that make any sense to you? Me neither.

Update: The Instapundit tries to clarify: we maybe should care about Pakistan because of the nukes, “but I’m not hearing it so much from the people complaining about the lack of democracy” (what?). He whines about Hollywood actors wanting to hang out with semi-fashionable Latin American socialist dictators. And he doesn’t like how more people are condemning Musharraf’s “coup” (which isn’t) than they are Chavez’s.

My comment still stands: the man is incoherent. To compare the two is beyond daft; to retreat into the standard “he’s OUR son-of-a-bitch” trope is pathetic considering how often Musharraf has undermined U.S. interests; to pretend Chavez poses any real threat to American interests beyond angering oil companies whose conduct in poor countries make them truly limp targets of pity is to be ignorant of his real power and influence in the region. So he is not just incoherent, he is also ignorant. But we knew that already.

Meanwhile, rather than whining that people share differing opinions of which dictator is less favored among actors with high-school educations, we could look at how Pakistan’s instability has contributed to our accelerating failure in Afghanistan—you know, the “real” war on terr-uh. Chavez’s role outside of Venezuela is not even remotely as pernicious.

Even better, I could just link to what mature adults have to say about the crisis (and Rafiq really posted an excellent op-ed), rather than bothering with the pathetic whining.

Stumble it!