crickets: creeeek, creeek, creekk

Rethugs have been calling Dems traitors since 1945. Since 9-11, a crime that happened on the rethugs watch, the lie of treason has been spewing from their mouths and off their computers every day with no one getting "grief" for it. Now why would you think that anyone would call cheney on this paticular lie.

Dems are no less aware than the GOP that Musharraf's hold on his country is dicey, and cutting his funds would make Pakistan even less stable.

We could invade Iraq, that might do something to shake things up.

Kevin:

I absolutely agree with you that Pakistan is the most dangerous place on earth. It is where Osama bin Laden and Zayman al-Zawahiri, arguably the two most dangerous men on earth, are hiding. They have a mature and proven nuclear weapons program, as well as long-range missiles to deliver them. It's too bad we didn't chase bin Laden and Zawahiri into Pakistan after we had them cornered at Tora Bora. Big mistake. Then, we could have kept going right into Islamabad and remove Musharraf and try to plant democracy where it really needs to be planted. Iraq was absolutely no threat whatsoever to the U.S. in comparison. Pakistan needs regime change in a big way!

The U.S. had mishandled the relationship with Pakistan going back to after WWII, when they were one of the non-aligned countries. We sat idly by when Bangladesh broke away and became another one of the world's basket cases. Then Reagan and his stooges fell for the world's oldest false syllogism (i.e. "the enemy of my enemy is my friend") and got in bed with the ISI and the bloodthirsty mujaheddin like bin Laden, to try to undermine the Soviets. Now, we are stuck playing pattycake with the most deadly and well-armed Islamic country in the world. Maybe they are afraid of Nancy Pelosi - an intelligent, ballsy woman must seem very threatening to the Pakistanis, after dealing with the doughy, pale white men like Cheney with their soft hands from counting money and doing no real work in their pathetic lives.

Conservative Deflator apparently advocates America invading a nation armed with active nuclear weapons.

I tell you what, we really need such liberals in charge of our foreign policy instead of the reckless idiots we have now.

Kevin:
Great comment. I rarely hear Pakistan talked about much at all relative to it's danger to us, but you are right. It is more unstable and unpredictable than the "Axis of Evil" trio, AND it actually has deliverable nukes!

I appreciate your pointing out, too, that nobody has any idea what to do about it.

Excellent comment, Kevin. I will add that Bush did a good job of bringing Pakistan into supporting our efforts in Afghanistan (even though Bush was embarrassed during the campaign when he was unable to identify Pervez Musharrif.)

If anyone has a better idea, speak up.

We could offer the following in exchange for a complete dismantling of their nuke program (and more active assistance against AQ), including surrender of all existing weapons and materials:

- The U.S. would also get India to disarm, and would strike a deal similar to what we did with Egypt and Israel, buying peace from both at considerable expense to us.

- We would sell them the military hardware we OWE them from previous agreements.

- We would let Pakistani agricultural and textile goods compete in the U.S. on an equal footing.

It might not work. Pakistanis are prideful folks, and they might not give up their nukes or their islamists no matter what. But somebody should try.

UM Billy in case you forgot that is what Bush did in Iraq,That was why we where told we had to invade,I know the Righties change there story from day to day but come on keep up.

I will add that Bush did a good job of bringing Pakistan into supporting our efforts in Afghanistan (even though Bush was embarrassed during the campaign when he was unable to identify Pervez Musharrif.)

Yes, signing a peace treaty with the Taliban and allowing bin Laden to hide out in his country was terribly supportive of our efforts in Pakistan.

In some other reality.

Your handle would be more accurate if it were "groundless assertionist" or "shameless propagandist" or the more Native American "Flees When Refuted."

Is anyone curious like me as to why it's Cheney who went to Pakistan to talk with Musharraf, while it's Bush who goes to make what's really nothing more than a photo op in New Orleans?

Seems like we have a Vice-President who's in charge of the White House to me, but what do others here think?

I thought if you harbored terrorists you where our enemy.Cheney is such a lying sack of poo.As a matter of fact I wonder if Cheney was wearing a diaper when them bombs went off.I bet he shit his pants and cried like a baby GET ME OUT OF HERE.WAWWAWAWWAWWAWWAWWAWA

The government of Pakistan is a military dictatorship that overthrew a democratically elected one. It is just more proof that Bush/Cheney don't give a damn about democracy or promoting it. As further evidence, when Pakistan detonated their nukes, Clinton imposed sanctions as required by the non-proliferation treaty. Bush rescinded those and has made no objection to Pakistan's new nuclear plant which will provide much more plutonium for bombs. Every day, in every way, the Bush regime proves its incompetence, lies, stupidity and insanity.

...I will add that Bush did a good job of bringing Pakistan into supporting our efforts in Afghanistan ... ex-lax at 3:57 PM

I don't like the bunkers in Pakistan....
Fucking wogs.
They don't know how to do bunkers.

John John: As a matter of fact I wonder if Cheney was wearing a diaper when them bombs went off.

The only diapers I saw were wrapped around the foreheads of wogs.

Heh.

" If they want to threaten Musharraf with the specter of Nancy Pelosi cutting off his foreign aid, go ahead. If anyone has a better idea, speak up."
Look, Mr. Cheney and his friends are under a lot of stress right now, so why don't you mean people just leave him alone and let him protect freedom throughout the galaxy without your hurtful criticism, OK? I mean, Jeez, dealing with A-Rabs with names that are impossible to spell or pronounce is HARD WORK. So, if playing the Nancy Card works with the A-Rabs, let him.

Yeah, mike, Clinton imposing sanctions on Pakistan, AFTER they had developed nukes, was so very meaningful. Yes, and if Bush had said on September 12.....

"The United States cannot attack Al Queda in Afghanistan, since we need to cross Pakistani airspace to do so, and that means either declaring war on a nuclear equipped Pakistan, or suspending sanctions. Thus we will do nothing."

.....it would have oh so politically tenable.

In a world in which humans don't inhale nitrous oxide on a continual basis (which makes them think that it is even faintly possible, under ANY possible cricumstances, that India would dismantle their nuclear weapons), U.S. strategic interests were screwed the moment Pakistan detonated their nuke. It made nearly all problems immensely more difficult.

David W. - it's Cheney who makes all the important foreign relations visits. Abdullah in Saudi Arabia, Maliki in Iraq, Musharraf in Pakistan, etc.

Bush has been nothing more than the hood ornament on this 6 year drive.

-The U.S. would also get India to disarm, and would strike a deal similar to what we did with Egypt and Israel, buying peace from both at considerable expense to us.

I really, really doubt that we could get India to give up its nukes.

"- We would let Pakistani agricultural and textile goods compete in the U.S. on an equal footing."

I'm sure someone will tell me why this is a bad idea, but I think it's a pretty good one. Get them intertwined with us economically, and I bet we look a lot less evil.

It's not that the Dems have no ideas -- it's that they have no desire to get their finger prints all over the GOP's crime scene.

I'm sorry to say it, but I agree that there would be almost no way to "get" India to de-nuclearize, because what they fear most is not a nuclear Pakistan (rather, the reverse is true) but a nuclear CHINA.

Most of the serious discussion of nuclear war I've seen suggests that what really worries the people who study this issue is the possibility of nuclear war in South Asia.

If the Asia Times is to be believed then Pakistan is doing much more than not looking hard enough for al Qaida.

The Pakistani establishment has made a deal with the Taliban through a leading Taliban commander that will extend Islamabad's influence into southwestern Afghanistan and significantly strengthen the resistance in its push to capture Kabul.

One-legged Mullah Dadullah will be Pakistan's strongman in a corridor running from the Afghan provinces of Zabul, Urzgan, Kandahar and Helmand across the border into Pakistan's Balochistan province, according to both Taliban and al-Qaeda contacts Asia Times Online spoke to. Using Pakistani territory and with Islamabad's support, the Taliban will be able safely to move men, weapons and supplies into southwestern Afghanistan.

.........

Ever since signing on for the US-led "war on terror" after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US, Pakistan has been coerced by Washington to distance itself from the Taliban. The Taliban were, after all, enemy No 1 for harboring Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda's training camps.

So when the opportunity arose, Islamabad was quick to tap up Mullah Dadullah. This was the perfect way in which Pakistan could revive its contacts in the Taliban and give the spring uprising some real muscle, so the argument went among the strategic planners in Rawalpindi - in fact, so much muscle that forces led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) would be forced into a position to talk peace - and who better than Pakistan to step in as peacemaker and bail out its Western allies?

I'm sure someone will tell me why this is a bad idea, but I think it's a pretty good one. Get them intertwined with us economically, and I bet we look a lot less evil.

We're already their major market for poppy products; what more do you want?

A govt with a limited nuclear arsenal is in no position to use it. To do so would most certainly provoke annihilation. To give nukes to terrorists would risk the same. It must be so. The biggest danger comes from independent operators, who would have a very small arsenal and no good delivery system. We cant put the genie back in the bottle, but we can improve our security. Too bad we dont have a government that is interested in doing it.

Oh, it goes without saying that we should have completely free trade with Paksitan, as well as India. It would not have the slightest chance of getting them to dismantle their nuclear weapons, however.

Actually what is, in many respects, harming our interests most in this mess is our imbecilic, idiotic, cretinous War on Drugs. Hear any of our major politicians advocating ending that bit of stupidity?

Oh, it goes without saying that we should have completely free trade with Paksitan...

Yet we do not. Evidently it needs saying.

It's not that the Dems have no ideas -- it's that they have no desire to get their finger prints all over the GOP's crime scene.

100% correct.

If the US ever does invade Pakistan and comes close to overthrowing the regime, the Pakistani military will have its last hurrah by blowing its nuclear wad and vaporizing a dozen Indian cities. That's fairly effective deterrence.

Will Allen,

Hear any of our major politicians advocating ending that bit of stupidity?

You get the entire GOP powers-that-be to state in writing that they won't use such advocacy by Dems as a weapon against them, and I guarantee you'll get lots of Dem leaders to advocate ending that stupidity. Back in the real world, Dems know that any such advocacy will make them vulnerable to the standard set of fear mongering attacks by the GOP and thus aren't stupid enough to advocate such policies.

I stopped reading the post after the phrase 'so horrifically intractable'. This is, of course, the conventional wisdom, but it is completely wrong.

It was clear from the beginning to anyone who bothered to look deeply that Musharraf was playing a double game whose only objectives were to keep himself in power and to extract as much money as possible from the USA in the name of the war on terror. There was never any chance of him coming through for us in terms of making any dent in the terrorist production factories of Pakistan. He was further emboldened by our givernments' treatment of the QA Khan matter.

Everyone has woken up too late.

Great, Edo; as long as my preferred politician doesn't have to risk anything, then he'll pursue the interests of the nation. That pretty much sums up our politics.

ABC News reports that Cheney gets results:

Major Taliban Leader Arrested; Cheney Pakistan Trip Credited
March 01, 2007 4:00 PM

Brian Ross and Martha Raddatz Report:

The reported arrest of at least one top Taliban leader in Quetta, Pakistan may be the first sign that Vice President Dick Cheney's trip there this week worked.

Pakistani officials identified one of the men as Mullah Obaidullah Akhund, considered the third in command of the Taliban.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/03/major_taliban_l.html

Will Allen,

Great, Edo; as long as my preferred politician doesn't have to risk anything, then he'll pursue the interests of the nation. That pretty much sums up our politics.

In what other policy/political arenas do you advocate unilateral withdrawal/capitulation? Just wondering.

Sure, that is how Pakistan plays the game. Perhaps that is how Bush/Cheney/Musharraf together play the game. Every time Pakistan is asked to go tough on Al Qaeda and Taliban, they magically find someone to arrest or attack some terrorist hideout. I guess they parade the captive, score some PR points, and later release him with an apology and some weapons/cash so they can resume harrasing their women, killing civilians, and plotting against the west. And the sad part is Bush looked deep into Musharraf's eyes and fell in love with him. Evil loves evil.

mhr come on you can't be serious about Nicaragua. The main reason the Sandanistas came into power was that the country was run like a mafia organization previous to them. Stop the mindless and baseless bullshit.

Dan Froomkin] After nine days of almost completely ignoring the small pool of reporters who diligently followed him around through seven countries, Vice President Cheney yesterday finally agreed to a short group interview. But only on one condition: The reporters would have to agree not to tell anyone that the person they talked to was him.

Cheney's insistence on being identified as a "senior administration official" -- even when the transcript shows he spoke in the first person -- is in some ways laughably trivial.

But in other ways, the vice president's decision to extort reporters into a ridiculous agreement reflects the contempt Cheney has for the press corps. . . .

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/02/28/top-secret/
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: “Let me just make one editorial comment here. I’ve seen some press reporting says, ‘Cheney went in to beat up on them, threaten them.’ That’s not the way I work. I don’t know who writes that, or maybe somebody gets it from some source who doesn’t know what I’m doing, or isn’t involved in it. But the idea that I’d go in and threaten someone is an invalid misreading of the way I do business.

“I would describe my sessions both in Pakistan and Afghanistan as very productive. We’ve had notable successes in both places. I’ve often said before and I believe it’s still true that we’ve captured and killed more al Qaeda in Pakistan than anyplace else. And I think we’re making progress in Afghanistan.�

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/28/cheney/index.html
[Glenn Greenwald] Cheney's petty demand that he not be identified -- like a petty tyrant's demand that his name never pass anyone's lips -- is just an assertion of secrecy and authoriatarian power for its own sake (even under the rule of Emperor Hirohito, "commoners were no longer forbidden to speak his name or look at his face"). But unlike Hirohito, Cheney is an elected public servant of American citizens and this attempt to prohibit journalists from attributing his own words to him is just bizarrely megalomaniacal and contemptuous, particularly in light of how he virtually went out of his way in the very first sentence to make clear that it was him.

Edo, when did taking risks become the equivalent of capitulation? If Barack Obama advocated ending the drug war, I'd vote for him. Hell, I'd vote for Hillary Clinton if she did so, and I'm so sick of Bushs and Clintons I can barely stand it.

Republican presidents make friends with the nicest people, even when it isn't necessary:

Pinochet

Rios Montt

Batista

The Shah of Iran

Saddam Hussein

Musharraf

Putin

Noriega

Chalabi

The Saudi Royals

Too bad Hitler isn't around, or Bush would be cozying up to him. You can bet Hitler would be harsh with Arab terrorists - concentration camps anyone? Now, that's a program Bush could get on with!

This thread has demonstrated that Democrats are better at conducting press conferences and Republicans are better at capturing al Qaeda leaders.

Shorter faux-lib: Up is down.

Pakistani officials identified one of the men as Mullah Obaidullah Akhund,

Oh yes, we've all heard of him, haven't we...

considered the third in command of the Taliban.

Wow, third in command! I wonder if the Taliban has as many third in commands as al Qaeda seems to.....

Of course, the real irony in this whole episode is how little grief Cheney has gotten for this. I think the reason is simple: Pakistan is the one place that's so horrifically intractable that Democrats are willing to cut Bush a lot of slack in dealing with them.

Frankly, this has been the most pernicious consequence of the DC Democrats' fetishization of "nonpartisanship" above anything else.

It is ludicrous beyond comprehension that we haven't caught bin laden. But the Democrats say nothing. So, reasonable people assume that because Democrats are saying nothing, NO ONE COULD DO A BETTER JOB THAN GEORGE BUSH HAS DONE.

And now you're doing the same thing with Pakistan. C'mon! Don't you think any Democrat could do a better job on Pakistan than Bush has done? At the very least, a Democrat wouldn't have invaded Iraq and inflamed rage against the US all over the Islamic world. Right now, we know very little of what's happened between the US & Pakistan--you think there isn't a Pakistani screw-up as colossal as the Iran memo in this Administration somewhere? Then you give this Administration too much credit.

This is ludicrous. Because Democrats are obsessed with chasing the white whale of becoming the "bipartisan" party that has the adoration of the Washington Post crowd, they won't codemn the Bush Administration's obvious failures that are a direct consequence of their failed foreign policy approach of focusing on nation-states.

When China went Communist, right-wingers screamed it was the failed Democratic policy that caused it. We needed to "get tough." They've been screaming that ever since.

It's time for Democrats to FINALLY strike back, so they can present a new idea on how to conduct foreign policy and keep the nation safe. THhy need to start screaming "who lost the war on terror?" Because we are losing it. Bin Laden is on the run. Al Quaeda's strength is totally rebuilt. We've lost the war in Iraq. We are losing the war in Afghanistan. We are more vulnerable to attack now than before. Katrina showed that our ability to respond to a catastrophic attack has been totally destroyed by this administration.

Right now, the foreign policy approach with the most public support is teh Bush Administration's utterly insane: "they are a bad country. We need to be tough and invade them." McCain is pushing this idea & so is Giuliani. Until we point out that this foreign policy has utterly failed, WE CAN'T CHANGE IT, and one of those guys is gonna win.

When are the Democrats going to figure out that the Washington Post crowd will NEVER believe a political party is nonpartisan? Grow up. Political parties are partisan.

Accept this fact, and put public policy in front of your political preference to be the "nonpartisan" party, okay?

But for God's sake, Kevin, just because the Democrats haven't pointed out that the Bush Administration is screwing up Pakistan doesn't mean they aren't screwing it up.

I know, it's inconceivable, but Dems are more concerned with chasing a stupid white whale of "bipartisanship" than letting the American people know the President has failed and put them all in danger.

US Army developing a beam to induce epileptic paralysis.

Most dangerous job in the world: #3 man in al Qaeda.
Safest job in the world: #1 and #2 man in al Qaeda.

Cheney + Pakistan = Iran

By Jason Leopold

11 August, 2005
Countercurrents.org

I will add that Bush did a good job of bringing Pakistan into supporting our efforts in Afghanistan

Or not so much:

New US intelligence chief Mike McConnell told a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Monday that al-Qaeda is trying to set up training camps and other operations in Pakistan tribal areas near Afghanistan.

“We deny it,� Interior Minister Aftab Khan Sherpao said yesterday, referring to McConnell’s remarks.

So the Taliban announce that bin Laden is alive and well (in Pakistan, surely), Pakistan is being used as a base by the Taliban to launch attacks against NATO forces, and on top of it all our intelligence and plain 'ol common sense says that Al Qaeda is regrouping in Pakistan - who denies it.

Sounds like Bush is doing a terrific job bringing Pakistan into supporting our efforts...if our efforts are to help terrorists find a safe haven from which to consolidate their power and attack our troops.

mhr wrote: "Jimminy Carter greeted Leonid Breznhev with a kiss on their first meeting and was shocked, shocked when he heard that the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan. Carter hadn't heard they were so aggressive."

You are really the most pathetic, ignorant dumbass dittohead I have ever encountered.

"Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention ... We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would. ... The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire."

-- Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser, January 1998

Jimmy Carter's support of the Afghan resistance led directly to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan -- as he expected it would -- and that invasion and the subsequent war led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Reagan's huge arms buildup had everything to do with enriching his backers in the military industrial complex at taxpayer expense, and nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union.

mhr: "And of course Democrats did everything they could to help the Stalinist sandinista regime in Nicaragua."

The Sandinistas were not Stalinist. Obviously you would have much preferred allowing the corrupt Somoza family to treat Nicaragua as its personal fiefdom, as it did for over 40 years after its patriarch, Gen. Anastacio Somoza Garcia, first seized power not long after orchestrating the 1934 assassination of leftist Augusto Sandino (hence the name of his followers -- "Sandinistas").

While many Sandinista leaders subscribed to Marxist doctrine, the majority of the movement's followers were fervent believers in the leftist Roman Catholic concept of Liberation Theology (also known as Reconciliation Theology), which had firm roots in Catholic Jesuit and Maryknoll orders and enjoyed widespread popularity in Latin America in the second half of the 20th century.

As a matter of fact, three of the Sandinistas' most prominent early leaders in the overthrow of Anastacio Somoza were priests, who subsequently held high office in the now government until ordered by Pope John Paul II to resign their positions. Their coerced withdrawal from the government allowed the Marxists within the Sadinista movement to consolidate their power under Daniel Ortega.

As explained by former Catholic priest Phillip Berryman, the Theology of Liberation is "an interpretation of Christian faith through the poor's suffering, their struggle and hope, and a critique of society and the Catholic faith and Christianity through the eyes of the poor."

Basicaly, its adherents believe that Jesus Christ is not only the Son of God and Redeemer but also the liberator of the oppressed, and that the Holy Mother Church should therefore more naturally identify with the downtrodden rather than the government, gentry and military. Its popular appeal in Latin America rested in its inherently Christian mission to minister directly to the poor and oppressed, and lead them to seek justice through political activism.

Most of the overtly political elements of certain liberation theologies have been rejected by the Holy See.

I would urge people wishing to learn more about the subject to read Father Gustavo Gutierrez' seminal 1972 essay on the subject, A Theology of Liberation: Perspectives.

Donald from Hawaii -- thanks for the excellent article, and it really is more of a short article than a mere "comment".

Unfortunately it will be wasted on "mhr" who is a weak-minded, ignorant, know-nothing dittohead and determined to stay that way ... or else he is a parody of one, it's hard to be sure.

Addendum: Anastacio Somoza Debayle -- who was overthrown by the Sandinistas in 1979 -- was the second son of Gen. Anastacio Somoza Garcia, who took power in Nicaragua in 1936 and ruled until his 1965 assassination. Anastacio Somoza Debayle's older brother, Luis, ruled Nicaragua from 1956 to 1967.

The younger Somoza was himself assassinated in 1980 while living in exile in Asuncion, Paraguay.

I type too fast sometimes -- Somoza Garcia was assassinated in 1956, not 1965.

And Daniel Ortega is again the legitimately elected President of Nicaragua, and from what I understand there are indications that his new government stands a chance of doing some good in that long-suffering country.

It should be remembered that the supposedly "Stalinist" Sandinista government twice held elections which were judged by impartial international observers to be free and fair. The first time they won by large margins. The second time -- with the ongoing US-backed Contra terrorist war wreaking years of havoc and misery and death and poverty, with the US government spending millions of dollars to fund the Sandinistas' right-wing Somozista opponents, and promising to bring ever-increasing terrorist brutality upon the Nicaraguan people if the Sandinistas won reelection -- the Sandinistas lost, and when they lost, they left power peacefully as they had promised to do, and became an opposition party.

That is not the record of "Stalinists".

"Too bad Hitler isn't around, or Bush would be cozying up to him. You can bet Hitler would be harsh with Arab terrorists - concentration camps anyone? Now, that's a program Bush could get on with!"

Interestingly, when Hitler was around, George's grandfather was cozying up with him. I guess it runs in the family.

The Pakistan situation is a tough one though. As much as I dislike the policies of Pakistan, we probably can't do much better than what Musharraf is doing. If he leans on the Taliban too hard, he is in danger of being overthrown. And whoever leads the coup is likely to be even worse for our interests. I certainly wouldn't want a Taliban with nuclear weapons. This puts the US in a bind with Pakistan. So our current relationship with with Musharraf is the one aspect of Bush's foreign policy I wouldn't change.

I say, bullshit, Fostert. We should be leaning on Musharraf hard to de-nuclearize and disarm, while we still have a somewhat friendly dictator in power there. The next ones may not be as rational and I don't want several U.S. cities disappearing because we chose to preserve the status quo with our favorite Asian dictator.

By the way, why hasn't anyone mentioned A. Q. Khan , who proliferated nuclear weapons and is now under "house arrest" in some posh villa outside Islamabad. And we tortured some poor goat herders who happened to be the slowest runners in Afghanistan? That Bush is sure 'tough on terror', ain't he?

I'm surprised we haven't administered "the comfy cushions" to Khan, for fucks sake.

Mushy should purge the ISI.

That is all.

Mushy's problem is that he's probably actually too week to accomplish that. He doesn't actually control the western 1/3 of the country. So it's no surprise that the ISI use it to stage their dirty proxy war of terrorism against the west, just as they did when Afghanistan was their bitch (and will soon be again).

We should be leaning on Musharraf hard to de-nuclearize and disarm, while we still have a somewhat friendly dictator in power there.

That's going to be one hard sell after we just gave India the keys to the nuclear cabinet.

SecularAnimist: "And Daniel Ortega is again the legitimately elected President of Nicaragua, and from what I understand there are indications that his new government stands a chance of doing some good in that long-suffering country."

If Mr. Ortega does nothing else but rid Nicaragua of the tens of thousands of land mines still strewn around the country -- muchas gracias to John Negroponte, Elliot Abrams, John Poindexter and of course, the one and only Ollie North -- his administration will be considered a resounding success.

"We should be leaning on Musharraf hard to de-nuclearize and disarm."

While we're wishing for ponies, we can ask the Chinese Communist Party's members to all resign and let China become a democracy.

"I say, bullshit, Fostert. We should be leaning on Musharraf hard to de-nuclearize and disarm, while we still have a somewhat friendly dictator in power there."

We can lean on Musharraf all we want, but he's not going to disarm. His army would rebel, and they are the only ones on his side right now. We could try to take him out, but you might notice that strategy didn't work out so well in Iraq. And it would be an even bigger nightmare in Pakistan. Unfortunately, there's really not much we can do about Pakistan. Our only hope is that if they do fire off some nuclear missiles, those missiles will land in India. The best strategy would be to remain less of a target than India. To Bush's credit (and I hate to give him credit), we are still less of a target than India. As for AQ Khan, we should have at least questioned him. He has some very useful information. Of course, we probablly would have torured him and that would have created a nasty spat. It could have backfired.

Put down the crack pipe, deflator. There hasn't been a ghost of a chance that Pakistan would get rid of it's nuclear weapons since it successfully tested a device, and there is no American policy which would have created a ghost of a chance. Pakistan is not South Africa.

Pakistan is not South Africa.

Or, more to the point, India isn't like any of South Africa's neighbors.

Will Allen: Pakistan is not South Africa.

Germany is not Italy.

Your point?

ex-liberal: This thread has demonstrated that Democrats are better at conducting press conferences and Republicans are better at capturing al Qaeda leaders.

What prison is bin Laden in again?

fostert: As much as I dislike the policies of Pakistan, we probably can't do much better than what Musharraf is doing.

The question isn't what would a rational person be able to do, but what Bush and conservatives should be able to do given what they claim is their philosophy, to wit that it would be okay to nuke Iranian nuclear weapons facilities (and I include developmental facilities or research facilities).

So, if they are willing to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, then they ought to be willing to take out Pakistan's.

Why aren't they proposing this?

Why aren't conservatives demanding this?

We sat idly by when Bangladesh broke away and became another one of the world's basket cases.

It didn't just 'break away,' the Pakistani army inflicted genocide on the darker-skinned, non-Urdu-speaking Bengali Muslims.

The U.S. would also get India to disarm

That is about as likely as China disarming.

If the US ever does invade Pakistan and comes close to overthrowing the regime, the Pakistani military will have its last hurrah by blowing its nuclear wad and vaporizing a dozen Indian cities.

Right, and if Russia attacks the U.S. we'll nuke Canada. </sarcasm>

To Bush's credit (and I hate to give him credit), we are still less of a target than India.

That has nothing to do with Dubya and everything to do with local animosity.

Thank God, Thank God finally someone sees the threat Pakistan poses and have stopped painting rosy pictures.
Instead of going and attacking every other country like Afghanistan, Iraq and recently the whole Lebanon-Syria conflict, if the US had dealt with Pakistan about 5 years ago, when India asked them to and when they had full-nucleur capabilities as well as terrorist contacts, it is likely none of this would have happened(I mean 9/11 since the training grounds were in Pakistan as confirmed by the government as well, even if the finance came from private citizens in the middle east). I'm so glad things are beginning to fall into place for you guys. I really would like to believe Pakistan is as great a country it claims to be, but the truth is around 60% of the population is illiterate and lives in the rural areas, with their tribal leaders making pacts with the government which happens to be a dictatorship. Why did it take so long to figure out!! I cannot tolerate this injustice anymore. Every day, people of Jammu and Kashmir die over the Pakistan-India territorial dispute and it is a well-known fact that government financed terrorist organizations are involved with this. Which means these guys have had training ground for terrorism since 1947!
Please, Please, Please, do the right thing this time. Sort the situation out with Pakistan so that there is a closure for both the US and India, the 2 countries most likely to take the world forward in the right direction, as a multicultural, democratic society. I'm tired of explaining to people what a threat the Pakistani government and the Monsters they have created, pose. Some appropriate action, any appropriate action!