surprised by Pakistan's state of emergency." at
states "No one pretends that there are easy answers in Pakistan, where nuclear weapons and growing extremism could come together in the ultimate nightmare
With varying degrees of intensity over the years, Mr. Musharraf has opposed al-Qaeda, and his troops have taken many casualties in the fight. But the state of emergency is basically an admission of failure. He has led his nation down a dead-end street. If Mr. Bush had listened to his own speeches, he might have predicted it."
I read this three times. Before I read it I was thinking that everything that is happening at Pakistan has mirrored our country. Musharraf fired their chief justice and we've had our entire judicial system perverted by W and his Attorney General. W has stacked the US Supreme Court with right-wing extremist ideologues, one Alito--who made his bones by introducing the US to the "unitary executive" powers of the president back in Reagan's days.
Gen. Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency ruining Pakistan's democracy. Well W, due to his bogus "AUMF" which he alleges gives him super-duper unitary executive powers and his "executive signings" has distorted our democracy. We don't have a democracy but an oligarchy.
So, the last sentence "If Mr. Bush had listened to his own speeches, he might have predicted it," does that mean big bro 43 has failed so totally that he is planning on declaring a state of emergency in the US?
The article "Growing Fears of a US Attack on Iran, and an Easy Way to Stop It"
states "This is no time for members of Congress to write letters to the president. It's time for them to revoke the 2001 AUMF and to tell the president that an attack on Iran would be an impeachable offense.
In fact, why wait? It's time for them to impeach him now! This is just his latest crime in the making. And even threatening a war of aggression against a nation that doesn't pose an immediate threat is a violation of the UN Charter, a treaty that the US signed years ago and is bound by."
Suppose the US ignored history and tried to slap-dash a fourth generation warfare tactic against Iran? What could happen? "And if the Iranians respond to a US attack with asymetrical warfare by attacking targets in the US, we could see military rule at home."
The Pandora's Box that Iraq has become is falling apart in every area. Every grade school student knows about the dangers of the Middle East, yet we are to believe that W's expensive, experienced cabinet didn't. W counted on the 4th estate to cheerlead his Iraq war and they did. W is ruining our government as his main policy-GWOT, is causing every aspect of W's government to decay. He's desperate and we have seen how he acts when he's backed into a corner.
What would prevent W from declaring military rule in the US? Big bro 43 doesn't possess ethics. He only is interested in gaining a permanent partisan advantage-he cares nothing about the plight of the common masses of the world.
Yes, the US is a rogue state. Impeach the one who has brought it to this sorry state!
Pakistan, an extremist Islamic country with nuclear WMD is our greatest threat, not the "Axis of Evil" countries. And these ghouls joke about how Iraq is doing better than W's Islamic soulmate Musharraf's country is doing.
The article "Pakistan's Crackdown on Dissent is 'Small Favor' -- That Makes 'Iraq Look Pretty Good'" at
states "This Sunday, after Pakastani President Pervez Musharraf "imposed emergency rule and suspended the constitution in a bid to save his job," an adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "saw a silver lining in the rapid turn of events."
"Thank heavens for small favors," the official said. Compared to Pakistan, "Iraq looks pretty good."
Pakistan needed our help a year ago. It needed a genuine push for democratic processes back in March. We left unchecked, and unhindered, a megalomaniac "enlightened moderator". We keep insisting on our own interests ahead of the interests of the people of Pakistan. We remain steadfast in our belief that those people are not as developed nor as functional as we would like them to be. Pakistan needs a strong dictator. The fallacy ... the gross oversight ... has always been that he was never in control."
I get antsy when I think of big bro 43 gazing into Putin's soul and then two timing him with Musharraf.
The article "Bush's faith in Musharraf tested" at
states "President Bush says he gains influence with world leaders by building personal relations with them. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf got a dose of that diplomacy at the White House last fall, when Bush hailed him as a friend and a voice of moderation.
"The president is a strong defender of freedom and the people of Pakistan," Bush said that day, side by side with Musharraf."
Doesn't W realize that Musharraf got into power as a result of a coup? What compels W to think that Musharraf was a proponent of democracy with that background? W sounds like a teenager with a crush.
It continues "Bush is expected to make his first public comments about the crisis on Monday.
Meanwhile, Rice insisted Sunday that "The United States did not put all its chips on Musharraf."
Some on Capitol Hill aren't buying that.
"This administration has a Musharraf policy, not a Pakistani policy, " said Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a presidential candidate. "Its hands are pretty well tied right now. And it's put itself in a very difficult position, and, in turn, us in a difficult position."
The article "Another Bush Backfire" at
states "President Bush's coddling of Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf suddenly risks being exposed as another case of White House anti-terror policies going spectacularly bad.
The ultimate anti-terror backfire, of course, is the war in Iraq, which U.S. intelligence shows has helped al Qaeda much more than it's hurt it.
But now, with Musharraf declaring emergency rule over the weekend, the country that Bush considers a bulwark against terror may gain infamy as a crucible for terror instead.
Michael Hirsh writes for Newsweek: "After six years of propping up and making excuses for Pervez Musharraf . . . Washington doesn't have many friends left to call on in Pakistan -- perhaps the No. 1 generator of anti-U.S. terrorism in the world today. That's the dilemma that democracy crusader George W. Bush faces after Musharraf, one of his firmest allies, took the dictator's path and declared martial law on Saturday. . . .
"Some U.S. officials now fear that that this nuclear-armed nation is teetering on the verge of chaos, and the result could be every American's worst nightmare: that nuclear material or knowhow, or God forbid, a bomb, falls into the hands of terrorists. 'If you were to look around the world for where Al Qaeda is going to find its bomb, it's right in their backyard,' says Bruce Riedel, the former senior director for South Asia on the National Security Council."
Ben Feller writes for the Associated Press: "President Bush says he gains influence with world leaders by building personal relations with them. Pakistani
President Pervez Musharraf got a dose of that diplomacy at the White House last fall, when Bush hailed him as a friend and a voice of moderation."
Remember W's trifecta remark? Musharraf does as "By unleashing a police state on his country, Musharraf put in motion a trifecta of trouble for the Bush administration. A nuclear-armed Pakistan lurched further into instability, civil rights and parliamentary elections were shoved aside, and the credibility of a Bush-backed leader took an enormous hit."
Renee Schoof and Warren P. Strobel write for McClatchy Newspapers: "The imposition of emergency rule on Saturday in nuclear-armed Pakistan underscores how little influence the Bush administration has on events in a country that has become the bulwark in the U.S. fight against terrorism. . . .
"Washington's lack of influence . . . was palpable. On Friday, both Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in Turkey for talks on Iraq, and Adm. William J. Fallon, the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, had warned Musharraf not to impose emergency rule. But Musharraf didn't even wait for Fallon, who was in Pakistan, to leave the country before making his declaration."
Why can't we have the SCHIPs program pass when you realize "U.S. aid to Pakistan over the past six years has totaled nearly $11 billion, most of it in military hardware and budget support. Immediately after the September 2001 terrorist attacks, President Bush lifted aid sanctions imposed on Pakistan and India after both countries tested nuclear weapons in 1998."
It isn't "bubble boy's", or the State Department's policy anyway. It is that infamous dark side ghoul as "And who's most responsible for that policy? Here's what Rashid wrote in The Post in June: "Current and past U.S. officials tell me that Pakistan policy is essentially being run from Cheney's office. The vice president, they say, is close to Musharraf and refuses to brook any U.S. criticism of him. This all fits; in recent months, I'm told, Pakistani opposition politicians visiting Washington have been ushered in to meet Cheney's aides, rather than taken to the State Department.
"No one in Foggy Bottom seems willing to question Cheney's decisions."
Musharraf has declared a state of emergency to avoid his government. W hasn't declared that but he has been skirting the equal branches of the government since 9/11 and now is doing worse as "Charles Babington writes for the Associated Press: "President Bush enters a new phase of government-by-minority this month, issuing a veto certain to draw the first override of his presidency, and testing even his most loyal allies' limits on spending issues that will dominate the fall agenda.
"The strategy allows Bush to employ every ounce of his presidential powers, imposing his will so long as he is backed by one-third of either house in Congress -- the minimum to sustain a presidential veto. But it could strain his relations with GOP lawmakers as he pushes his tax-and-spending dogma beyond points that even a third of the House or Senate can accept.
"Bush's growing use of the veto, combined with his continued embrace of executive orders and 'signing statements,' signal his willingness to defy large portions of Congress and the public to shape policies in his final year in office."
Kenneth T. Walsh writes for U.S. News: "Faced with potential gridlock almost across the board, Bush has ordered his staff to prepare a variety of executive orders and administrative actions that will let him end-run Congress for the remainder of his term. This has been done by presidents before, but Bush's plans seem more extensive."
So W's "Axis of Evil" countries aren't as big a threat to us as is a country W has been pissing our treasure into, and We've seen W holding hands with the Saudis, who are claiming that big bro 43 ignored their warnings about 9/11. Suppose W listened to "Bandar Bush" rather than flirted with him?
The article "Bandar bin Sultan" at
states "Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud....is a highly influential Saudi politician and was Saudi ambassador to the United States from 1983 to 2005. He was appointed Secretary-General of the National Security Council by King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz on October 16, 2005....
Prince Bandar has formed close relationships with several American presidents, notably George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, who gave him the affectionate and controversial nickname "Bandar Bush".
Who cares what W does his friendships? We have to understand he blew the chance of protecting the US and in addition to the PDB with the title "bin laden determined to attack within the US", which W claimed was vague, he received warnings from Saudis also.
The article "Saudis claim US ignored 'precise' 9/11 warnings" at
states "SAUDI Arabia could have helped the US prevent Al-Qaeda's 2001 attacks on New York and Washington if US officials had consulted Saudi authorities in a "credible" way, a former diplomat said in a documentary aired yesterday.
CNN reported Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former Saudi ambassador to the US, as saying that Saudi intelligence was "actively following" most of the 9/11 plotters "with precision".
The comments are similar to the remarks this week by Saudi King Abdullah that suggested Britain could have prevented the July 2005 train bombings in London if it had heeded warnings from Riyadh, the network said.
Speaking to the Arabic satellite network Al-Arabiya, Prince Bandar - King Abdullah's national security adviser - said if US security authorities had engaged their Saudi counterparts in a serious and credible manner, "in my opinion, we would have avoided what happened".
The article "Turkey demands military deal with President Bush as price for holding back troops" at
states "President Bush will hold crisis talks today in Washington where he hopes to stave off the prospect of a new and perilous front of fighting in Iraq.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, has delayed a final decision on whether to take military action against Kurdish rebels across the border with
Iraq until he hears what Mr Bush has to say in their talks today.
Although public opinion in Turkey is pressing for the use of ground troops, diplomatic sources in Washington say that Mr Erdogan's preferred option if he decides to take action would be for airstrikes on Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) targets inside northern Iraq. He has made plain that he wants US cooperation as the price for exercising restraint, saying of his meeting with Mr Bush in Washington: "I am expecting that this trip will result with the United States taking solid steps."
A few Turkish soldiers were released by the PKK and this allegedly will quiet down this ages old fight for independence. If you believe that you believe in "Mission Accomplished". The article continues "Iraqi Kurdish officials have voiced concern that Ankara is using the PKK as an excuse to threaten the growing prosperity and independence that Kurds are enjoying in northern Iraq.
The United States applauded the efforts of the Iraqi Government to secure the release of the soldiers. Sean McCormack, US State Department spokesman, also urged "continued, deepened, and immediate cooperation between Iraq and Turkey in combating the PKK".
So W has failed in every aspect of his grand mission to bring democracy to the Middle East. Pakistan is a deadly serious threat and what can the US do? W has been developing an intimate relationship with a murderous thug and hoping that will help Pakistan remain a democracy. The US is failing in Iran and no one will discuss Israel's attack on Syria.
W's spot is as precarious as Musharraf's and although W dodged the draft and Musharraf is a military leader as well as president, our war-time president is as ethically challenged as Musharraf is. Everything is falling apart and W has to be thinking that a "state of emergency" in the US would be looking good about now. If Musharraf can hold onto his power for a few years maybe W will try to also. W is probably concerned about impeachment and legal jeopardy. Declaring a delay of the 2008 US elections might be the only he can stay out of jail.