*How do you solve a problem like Musharraf ?
*
Stay far, far away from him. I’d be surprised if his career doesn’t end in coup or revolution. I doubt any long term good will come from any relationship with him.
So, pretend that he’s a will 'o the wisp? Or a clown, perhaps?
So we stay far, far away. Then, instead of one rogue state that is a sanctuary & training ground for jihadists (Afghanistan), we have two (including one with nukes). Sounds like an excellent strategy. :rolleyes:
Apparently this is the wrong forum for show tune references.
I was wondering how far Der Trihs was going to let that discussion go… Thanks for ruining it. 
Don’t forget Iraq, which we conquered - and by doing so made the terrorists far stronger. The flaw in your reasoning is the assumption that our relationship with Pakistan’s dictaor will stop Pakistan from becoming “a sanctuary & training ground for jihadists”. At most, it will make sure the maximum terrorist activity from Pakistan is aimed at us specifically.
A bit more sunlight thrown on this issue today. So, it turns out it wasn’t Bush who said it to Musharraf, it was Armitage. And Armitage didn’t say it to Musharraf, he said it to someone else, who relayed it up the chain. I still can’t figure out how many people this alleged quote went thru before it got to Musharraf. Then we find out that the good General is pimping a book. As Andera Mitchel said on Hardball today (paraphrased): We need to take this with several grains of salt.
Please. What seems to be the problem here? Iran, Pakistan and even upstart Venezuela? Bombs away.
After all you ARE Americans and going by all the films I’ve seen in my already lenghty lifetime, you are both A-The heros in the right and B-Never ever lose.
Don’t sweat it. Watch some John Wayne instead.
John Wayne in The Alamo. I’ll never forget it.
As I suggested back in post 24, Musharrif’s revelation knocked Bush off his game today.
This bit from the press conference sounded quite odd in the context of threats to bomb Pakistan back to the stone age:
Of course, Armitage’s denial was weasily: “I didn’t command any airplanes,” but he did admit to using “strong language” to convey his demands to Pakistan’s military intelligence agency.
Obviously, you can credibly threaten a stone age even if you personally don’t command any airplanes, but instead represent a country that does have airplanes. Whatever the actual verbiage involved, the US was reduced to playing hardball with Pakistan quite early in the game.
GeeDub is really big on this “looking into the eye” stuff. We used to call it “vibes”, I’m sure the Prez prefers “gut feeling” (“feminine intuition” is right out!) Famously, he peered into the…soul?..of Vlad the Impaler Putin and saw, to our universal astonishment, a man who could be trusted. IIRC, had a similar deep and abiding insight into Ahmed Chalabi, The Man Who Will Never, Ever Be King. And so with Gen. Musharaff…
Mr. Bush, it would seem, thinks himself an excellent judge of character. Imagine that.
To be fair, I doubt he’d have any trouble or be mistaken by “looking into my eyes.” Then again, I’d also light-up his ears…just in case.
Hopefully Bush has learned a thing or two from these failed romances. “Once bitten, twice shy”. Or in his case, “twice bitten…” Even the slowest among us wise up eventually.
Anyways, call me skeptical, but I’m with the Administration on this one. I doubt this strong language was used. Reasons:
-
The allegation of the “bombed back to the Stone Age” ultimatum isn’t exactly new; it’s been floating around for five years now.
Rehashing these claims on 60 Minutes is the best foreign policy theatrics since…, well, Chavez’s “John Wayne” impression. -
The fellow Dick Armitage supposedly personally relayed the threat to, ISI-Director-cum-spook-chief Mahmoud Ahmad, was fired by Musharraf upon his arrival back in Pakistan a couple weeks after the terrorist attacks. Apparently Musharraf didn’t have the highest confidence in the guy. Musharraf has been around a while – he knows full well the ISI and their long history of undermining the Pakistani leadership. Considering the purging, as well as Ahmad’s apparent close ties with the Taliban, and even his possible involvement with al-Qaeda and the 9/11 plot, somehow I doubt Musharraf places any more credence in his statements than I do.
-
Even if Bush is still all doe-eyed over Musharraf, the feeling surely isn’t reciprocated. Privately the Pakistani leadership is worried that, in the event of a favorable outcome in Iraq, the U.S. will turn on them in betrayal them and invade Pakistan. Possibly, they believe, on the pretense of securing nukes from falling into hands of the Islamic extremists – which, actually, is a reasonable fear, as ironically it looks like maybe we have threatened them with this in the past. Musharraf is undoubtedly looking ten steps ahead and scouting the possible outcomes.
So I think we’re asking the entirely wrong question here. It shouldn’t be “what could President Bush possibly hope to gain by threatening to annihilate his allies?”, but rather “What could Pres. Musharraf possibly hope to gain by airing these five-year-old accusations here and now in such a public forum?”
It was? From the NYT:
“I didn’t say it” is weasely? Man, you’ve got some tuff standards.
That’s a joke, right? The movies prove it???
So W looked into the liar’s eyes and pronounced "I believe him, you know? "
Or didn’t that happen either?
When the Pakistani news was available on the Drudge report ,I read it regularly and discoverered that most of the no. 2 we so proudly hailed as our military success were done by the Pakistanis. They have been doing the work,for whatever reason.
Dawn, the “Leading English Newspaper of Pakistan covering national & international news” is still available.
Here’s their coverage of the meeting: Bush unaware of ‘bombing to stone age’ threat: Pakistan-US understanding on ‘hot pursuit’ claimed
Hope you’re not wearing a cap. Would’ve gotten blown right off.
Aha! So you admit that no actual evidence can be found in John Wayne movies! Boy, he got you good that time!