The Aftermath Of Mumbai

Sunday's political talk shows were all focused on what happened in Mumbai, who orchestrated the attacks and what to do about it:

Oh Noes!!! Fox News Shows Terrorists Our Strategy In Pakistan!

How do they explain to President Bush how they are with us when they help those against us? Where's the outrage from the right? Calling Mr. Kristol!!! Sean Hannity? Rush? G. Beck?

McCain And Palin Attack The Media In First Interview

There are plenty of reasons to criticize the media, but when they ask valid questions of candidates the people have a right to their honest answers. With John McCain and Sarah Palin, instead of being forthright with voters they blame the media for daring to act as defenders of our democracy.

Whatever Happened To All That Cash We Gave To Pakistan?

Remember how we were going to support Pakistan's efforts to help us fight that "War on Terror" by giving them a billion dollars a year in taxpayer money? Well it turns out that the money might not have been going to the projects we thought they would. Officials in Islamabad have a strong suspicion that we might have been financing a sizable chunk of Musharraf's tiff with India. While Pakistan claims that the U.S. isn't doing enough to help them specifically with counter- insurgency gear, the NY Times makes clear that both sides know the job Bush promised would be taken care of is......well, not being taken care of.

From The New York Times:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — After the United States has spent more than $5 billion in a largely failed effort to bolster the Pakistani military effort against militants from Al Qaeda and the Taliban, some American officials now acknowledge that there were too few controls over how the money was spent. The strategy to improve the Pakistani military, they said, needs to be completely revamped.

In interviews in Islamabad and Washington, Bush administration and military officials said they believed that much of the American money was not making its way to frontline Pakistani units. Money has been diverted to help finance weapons systems designed to counter India, not Al Qaeda or the Taliban, the officials said, adding that the United States has paid tens of millions of dollars in inflated Pakistani reimbursement claims for fuel, ammunition and other costs.

“I personally believe there is exaggeration and inflation,” said a senior American military official who has reviewed the program, referring to Pakistani requests for reimbursement. “Then, I point back to the United States and say we didn’t have to give them money this way.”

Of course all of this is being mentioned by anonymous sources, too afraid to come out publicly and confront their bosses at the State Department and the rest of the Bush Administration. Pervez, a known dictator and general thug is being accused by his opponents of using the funds to prop up his own corrupt government.

Wherever this money is going, we can be sure that Al-Qaeda is alive and well up in their northern mountains that buttress Afghanistan. Billions of dollars wasted, just like the hundreds of billions wasted overall in Iraq and across the world where Bush waves his sword at the global community. It is another shameful testament to his horrific Administration.

And Today's Bushism Is...

Faced with a mildly hostile Congress, record disapproval ratings and leading a war that is going miserably, what is a President to do? Well, if you are George Bush you might want to say something stupid to deflect people from the problems you've created. There are plenty of "bushisms" out there already, but he decided to add another. Here's today's quote and to be fair, the context of it as well.

From RawStory:

REPORTER: Mr. President, you came down so hard on Burma and other nations for their crackdowns on pro-democracy demonstrators, yet you seem to be giving Musharraf a pass. So, the question is: Why are you going so soft on Musharraf? Is there a double-standard?

BUSH: I spoke to President Musharraf right before I came over here to visit President Sarkozy, and, uh, my message was that we believe strongly--in elections, and you ought to have elections soon. And you need to take off your uniform.

You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time.

So I had a very frank discussion with him. Look: Our objective is the same in Burma as it is in Pakistan, and that is to promote democracy. There is a difference, however: Pakistan has been on the path to democracy. Burma hadn't been on the path to democracy, and it requires different tactics to achieve the common objective. And, uh, as I told you, I just spoke to President Musharraf before I came here and my message was very plain, very easy to understand, and that is: "The United States wants you to have the elections as scheduled, and take your uniform off."

Not only did he create a new Bushism, he continued to lie about the double standard between Pakistan and Burma. He also demonstrates he has no idea about who is on what path to democracy in either country. Supporting a dictator with a billion dollars a year to do almost nothing is Bush's idea of someone who respects the rule of law (even though Musharraf doesn't give a damn) while the U.S. does next to nothing to help free the immensely popular Aung Suu Kyi.

People call him stupid, moronic and incompetent, but it takes real skill to say and do all the terrible and stupid things throughout his Presidency. Oh and by the way, having the office of President entails the job of being the Commander-in-Chief in case you didn't know.

Shephard Smith Badgers Caroline Wadhams Over Nukes And Pakistan

Smith tells Wadhams that she can't have it both ways when talking about the danger with Pakistan and nuclear weapons. The only thing is that it is Shephard that is trying to have it his way. You can't go on air and blindly make people afraid without addressing the geopolitical realities on the ground.

"Lobbyists Are People Too" From Pakistan

Hillary's memorable words about lobbyists at YearlyKos continue to haunt her three months later. She definitely loves those influence peddlers that roam the halls of Congress, "people" being paid by all sorts of corporate and national entities, including the government of Pakistan. So when Hillary said that lobbyists were people too, maybe she meant the representatives of a military dictator with nuclear weapons.

From The Huffington Post:

Like others in the race for the White House, Hillary Clinton has strong words for Pakistan, but has yet to propose the United States seriously consider limiting its aid to the country. But unlike the other leading Democratic presidential hopefuls, Edwards and Obama, she has accepted tens of thousands of dollars from Pakistan's lobbyists, Cassidy & Associates. Its founder, Gerald Cassidy, long ago maxed out his donations to her.

According to the Foreign Agents Registration Act website, Pakistan recently hired Cassidy and Associates for a one year, $1.2 million/year contract. The Cassidy contract with Pakistan makes for good reading. For the $1.2 million, "target audiences will be identified for critical message reception," and Cassidy will inventively move beyond pushing pieces in the mainstream media, also focusing on blog outreach. In other words, Cassidy will shill and propagandize for one year, and use its contacts in Washington--presumably including Clinton--to ensure that the billions in aid are not diminished, regardless of what the government does to its citizens and its elections. According to The Hill, Pakistan's lead lobbyist is Robin Raphael, who served in the Clinton administration.

While not prohibited by law, accepting such a donation necessarily raises questions about the effect this relationship--and similar ones--will have on her policies in the White House towards Pakistan should she win the 2008 contest, or in the US Senate should she not. The influence of money is never straightforward, of course. Joe Biden, the other democratic Presidential candidate to receive money from Cassidy, has called for cutting off support to Pakistan if it does not change course.

I'm glad to see that Hillary is such a people-person.

Ah, The Irony Of It All

If there is one thing you must applaud the Bush Administration for, its their chutzpah. The irony, sad and pathetic as it is, is quite funny when you look at their record and compare it to their actions. Take for example the crisis in Pakistan. The dictator that we have given a billion dollars a year to fight terrorism has now shut down any type of democracy that might have been progressing in that cataclysmic country. The White House has some advice for them (no, not this advice) and from it, you can hear the jokes burgeoning out of the statements.

From ThinkProgress:

During today’s White House press briefing, spokeswoman Dana Perino condemned Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s declaration of “emergency rule” in Pakistan. She said that the administration is “deeply disappointed” by the measure, which suspends the country’s constitution, and believes it is never “reasonable” to “restrict constitutional freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism”:

Q: Is it ever reasonable to restrict constitutional freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism?

MS. PERINO: In our opinion, no.

George Bush would never, never ever, never restrict our freedoms, right?

Pakistan Matters

Forget Iran, this is the country we need to be paying attention to. While Bush continues to be friendly with a dictator, Pakistan is extremely unstable and now the house of cards might be falling. Canadian CBC News does a lengthy segment on the situation in what is termed "the most dangerous country in the world."

Spreading Tyranny In The Middle East

The neo-cons are so obsessed with spreading "democracy" around the world, they often forget that the means can copy the means instead of achieving the ends. With Pakistan falling into chaos yesterday George Bush's White House is in crisis mode, as a nuclear country just went nuclear politically speaking. The Bush Administration is in part responsible for propping Musharraf's dictatorship up and now it coming back to haunt them.

An Op-Ed in the New York Times highlights just how bad it is, for Pakistan and the Bush Administration:

Teresita Schaffer, an expert on Pakistan at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, called General Musharraf’s action “a big embarrassment” for the administration. But she said there was not much the United States could do.

“There’s going to be a lot of visible wringing of hands, and urging Musharraf to declare his intentions,” she said. “But I don’t really see any alternative to continuing to work with him. They can’t just decide they’re going to blow off the whole country of Pakistan, because it sits right next to Afghanistan, where there are some 26,000 U.S. and NATO troops.”

The hand-wringing began even before General Musharraf imposed military rule. Ms. Rice said she has had several conversations with General Musharraf in the past few weeks — the last one two days ago — in which she appealed to him not to declare emergency powers. The American ambassador to Pakistan, Anne W. Patterson, had also been exhorting General Musharraf and his top deputies against making that step, Ms. Rice said.

“We were clear that we did not support it,” Ms. Rice said, speaking to reporters aboard a flight from Istanbul to Israel, where she is traveling for regional talks. “We were clear that we didn’t support it because it would take Pakistan away from the path of democratic rule.”

But even as she criticized General Musharraf’s power grab, Ms. Rice stopped short of outright condemnation of General Musharraf himself, even going so far as to credit him for doing “a lot” — in the past — toward preparing Pakistan for what she called a “path to democratic rule.”

That seeming contradiction highlights the quandary in which the Bush administration now finds itself.

It will be interesting to see how Pakistan develops over the coming days and weeks, especially if an election can be held, if it all. Not to put it lightly of course, especially with armed fundamentalists in the country's hinterlands who would love to take over the nuclear arsenal. That would be the worst scenario and hopefully unlikely to occur. Nevertheless, we are left with a Pakistan that has seriously veered of course on the democratic road....something anyone could have seen coming years ago.

Feingold Goes After Petraeus

One of the shining lights in the Senate....Russ Feingold questioned Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker about the sensibility of fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq as opposed to Pakistan and the rest of the world.

Obama Flexes His Muscles, Hits Liberals In The Face

So if you haven't heard, Barack Obama made a major terrorism speech yesterday that was meant to show he can cower to the centrists and others farther right that he won't be a liberal crybaby, or whatever Republicans call us. Apparently looking big, mean and tough like the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania is appealing to the Illinois Democrat.

From The Huffington Post:

In his speech Obama sought to affirm his credentials as a prospective Commander in Chief who would not only end the war in Iraq, but who would also aggressively mount an offensive against Islamic terrorists.

His posture provoked immediate criticism from some quarters.

Chris Bowers, a blogger who writes on Open Left, argues that Obama is mistakenly trying to win the approval of the Washington establishment:

"No Democrat running for President tells the country that he will deploy more troops to Afghanistan and conduct military strikes in Pakistan without Pakistan's approval in order to appeal to the primary electorate."

Wanting to be a strong leader is one thing, being an abrasive bully before winning a single primary delegate is another. If Obama thinks this type of talk is going to win him votes on the left, he has another thing coming. Rock stars are great at attracting plenty of people at first, but go from political celebrity to Presidential material that appeals to the primary electorate is going to take more than ripping pages from George Bush's book.