I wonder if this indicates an acknowledgement on Pakistan’s part that the Taliban is regaining significant influence, especially near the Waziristan border area, so they need to make some concessions? And/or wariness about recently increasing coziness and nuke permission deals between the US and India? Pakistan certainly seemed to be talking, and fighting, much tougher on terrorists back in late 2001 than they are now.
No, that’s not quite what I’m saying-- I’m just saying that I understand why the Dems aren’t up in arms about this. There isn’t a good solution. What Bush is doing may not be the best solution, but pissing Pakistan off by trying to isloate them will just turn them into a bigger Iran, with nukes.
You’ll have to ask Bush that.
Hey, you’re the blog-hound, not me. I don’t frequent any of them (lefty or righty). I gave you cites from the Washington Post and MSNBC in the Pit thread. If you want to call them right-wing blogs, then we don’t have much to discuss between us.
I know what GW will say. The Dems are “cut and run.” His appeal on being more effective is to the voters and what the voters, not GW, think is what counts.
This claim of having stopped many potential terrorist attacks is getting out of hand. I saw some relatively minor Republican official on MSNBC a day or two ago. His claim was but for GW there would be US cities in ruin, thousands dead of anthrax, and no air travel whatever because of fear.
The Washington Post and MSNBC have reported that Clinton could have gotten bin Laden if he’d wanted to??