Iraq Needs Regime Change, But Uzbekistan Doesn't?

by Steve

Phidipides in a comment thread below got the jump on me regarding the brewing problem in Uzbekistan, where George W. Bush’s iron-fisted friend Islam Karimov is allegedly battling (where have you heard this before) Islamic extremists and has killed several hundred of his countrymen in doing it, including the killing of women and children.

And what is the Bush Administration’s reaction to their good-buddy tyrant killing women and children; a week after Bush lectured Vladimir Putin for not supporting democracy inside his country and in the countries neighboring Russia?

The White House on Saturday declined to comment on events in Uzbekistan, although on Friday it urged restraint by both sides.

"The people of Uzbekistan want to see a more representative and democratic government. But that should come through peaceful means, not through violence," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Friday.

What the F*ck Scott! Why is it OK for women and children to be killed by your friend Karimov in Uzbekistan in a quest by demonstrators for a democratic government, with nary a word by the White House? But Iraq required regime change and a US occupation that has failed to win the war on terror? And Bush felt he had the moral authority to lecture Putin on this gross inconsistency in our policies?

Oh, I forgot. It was all about the nonexistent WMDs that you and Tony Blair planned to lie to us about nearly a year before the invasion. This inconsistency has nothing to do with the fact that both Iraq and Uzbekistan have oil or natural gas that we can get our hands on. Karimov and Saddam kill their countrymen, but Karimov is our guy, and Saddam was only Reagan and Rummy's guy.