« It Takes Astute Observation, Not Mea Culpas | Main | Trent and Mitch »

November 25, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b97969e200e54f8d446b8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Does this Sound Familiar?:

Comments

So, was this silence ineptitude? Or was it deliberate?

Some of the tin foil hatters insit that Bush wants to see how this plays out, as a trial balloon.

Why does MArio Cuomo want to see us marching in the streets in protest?

Maybe the US diplomats were saying one thing and the Pakistanis assumed they were hearing something else from Bush and Cheney. If they were State Dept folks then you can almost guess they have little credibility with anyone. And does Cheney get goosebumps from Musharraf?

Given your post from yesterday, it would be interesting to see what role if any the Saudis played in signalling their thoughts on a crackdown. How much Saudi money is flowing to elements of the Pakistani military sheltering Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters in Waziristan? For that matter, I have often wondered how much of a role the Saudis played in financing Khan's nuclear bazaar, and whether they received some kind of payment in kind in the form of a nuclear weapon or two?

Looseheadprop -

maybe it was silence, maybe it was ineptitude, or maybe it was just the fact that the US has no good options in Pakistan right now, other than bribing the locals, due to the colossal errors of policy in the region over the last 7 years.

Sounds like a yellow light to me. Wonder what percentage of people go on through yellow lights?

Read in the New York Times yesterday that Syria would not sign onto the middle east conference unless the issue of the Golan Heights was put on the agenda. I guess the middle of the road stance was that all issues could be discussed but not necessarily put on the agenda. Seems like the so called "progressive" blogosphere is somewhat silent about this upcoming conference. But what else is new? When it comes to the Israeli Palestinian conflict or the power of Aipac in determining our foreign policy in the middle east the progressive blogosphere is not much different than the Mainstream, they self censor.

Oh you may have someone like Jane Hamsher (who I have politely challenged) throw Aipac in the title of one of her blogs (wow don't go to far out on the limb Jane) cough cough. But Jane, Christy and many other bloggers are chicken shit to rip into this issue with their keen minds and sharp tongues and write about these critically important issues. They sure can tear up representatives that they do not agree with vengeance. Will be waiting to see if they write about the upcoming conference with any depth or will they just skim the surface if they write about it all?

Betting on the skim strategy. I have heard they get hammered if they approach these topics. The so called "progressive" blogs are basically no different than the MSM on these issues. they march to the I-lobbies demands.

Blog clogs in the progressive blogosphere.

given that the usa put musharaf in power, it isn't any suprise the usa continues to try to prop him up with whatever means necessary.. usa leadership couldn't give a rats ass about military law imposed on others.. they would probably institute it in the usa if they could.

I'm starting to think that the operative logic is that a destabilized world is good for the US Economy.

-- Because the US response was "muted," Pakistan interpreted American silence as a green light to instituting martial law --

How else could it have been interpreted? It was a green light. It's not like the US has a history of opposing strong men we like.

What can one say? If you're sitting anywhere else in the world, it has been sort of obvious since 2001 that Dick Cheney is not only in charge of Pakistan policy (Washington-based), but he is (or thinks he can be) in charge of Pakistan, the parts he cares about, which do not include the northwestern territories. What he cares about is the border with Iran, which means Baluchistan, where Musharraf has suppressed a nationalist movement so that U.S. forces may have a jumping-off base -- three, actually, I believe.

Meanwhile, Washington is happy to keep up the pretence of fighting the Taliban / al-Qaeda in Afghanistan (mainly wasting NATO ISAF bodies), which Washington seriously does not care about, since that was the Musharraf-Cheney trade-off. Why should Dick Cheney care about al-Qaeda, after all? Or Afghanistan? Or a lot of dead Brits and Dutch and Canadians? That's the PR sideshow. Cheney has other things on his mind.

according to CNN, it's "fundamentalists" and "the taliban" who are protesting musharraf's emergency rule. all those fundamentalists in western dress, looking like lawyers in suits and ties, just to f*ck with our heads, i guess. and sharif and bhutto, mouthpieces for the taliban, no doubt.

actually, IIRC sharif was president when Pakistan was one of 3 countries to recognize the taliban as the legit government of afghanistan, so my snark is probably a bit ham-handed. apologies.

Oh it's just another April Gillespie moment in Bushian diplomacy -- what could go wrong?

IMO what it all comes down to is what Bush and the people around him can understand and what they can't. Bush can understand a dictator and having one person to be either the target of his power (as was Hussein) or the target of his overtures (as has been Musharef).

With Musharef, there is one pressure point for Bush. One guy he is running his paying offs through, with his secret meetings and black budget. That's about all FOX can comprehend and sell as well. Heck, Tom Friedman with his Obama/Cheney ticket can't seem to understand much more.

When someone tries to open up a broader picture, it's beyond Bush's capacity. He's not a chess player and he's surrounded by the kind of petty minds that understand waterboarding and not intelligence gathering; that understand payoffs to big players - be it dictators or Halliburtons - but can't even begin to understand populist movements. They can mouth and sell talkingpoints like "*They* hate us for our freedoms" but can't deal with the reactions of a populace that deals with dysfunctional goverment and looks to "radical priests" and radical groups for food, health care and basic support systems.

So the response is what you have from a dumbed down foreign policy. This analysis piece:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071125/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_mideast_summit;_ylt=Ajjjoje5.9ncxyZPiIidswSs0NUE
about the Annapolis summit, while pretty lacking on its own, points out the Bush/Rice concept of Bush's place in the scheme of world politics.

His self-generated vision, adopted by his administration, is that the man who is afraid of horses "rides herd" on other world leaders to force them on a personal front to his will, without regard to their countries needs and populace and without any broader vision of governance.

From the link above:

Bush's only effort at direct intervention was brief and disappointing. It was a June 2003 meeting with Arab leaders in Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt, followed by the "Red Sea Summit" in Jordan.
...
Bush told reporters aboard his plane afterward that his role was to "ride herd" to keep the process moving.

"I show up when they need me to call people to account..."

So he is flummoxed over what to do other than work with one person on a one to one, let me project my power over you, basis. And when that one person makes their own decisions and leaves him unable to stop them in that decision, but also untutored on their domestic issues and unwilling to make a stand that will force Bush to have to be briefed on a myriad of people and personalities and national and local interests as opposed to just the one person he thinks he "knows" then Bush takes the child's option and clings to the one he knows.

It's behind the stay the course strategies.

It's the childlike view (childlike in the Lord of the Flies and unsupervised playground bullies sense of childlike). It's the kind of world view that takes you into the talks in Annapolis with Rice running the show (presumably because, even in heels, she can juggle names and events better than Bush) and with the only standard that anyone bears being one that says, "Bush is committed to remaining committed."

just an FYI on the "does this sound familiar" theme

I'm a fucking idiot loose on the comic pages, but I do have an amazing memory

I got 7000 years of recorded history condensed and stored in my brain along with a lot of other interesting tidbits

and all I can say it that Santyanna dude didn't have a clue

remembering the past does NOTHING to prevent repetition

I'm jus sayin, is all ...

Picking up on Mary's childlike view of Bush, I thought I would repost this YouTube video that I linked to last night on FDL.
It is called "Little Jimmy Liked to Jump."

It is a cautionary tale about a boy (with blood red little boots) who jumped into ever bigger puddles despite warnings from his elders. Beware the big puddle with teeth!

The money quote:
"Little Jimmy loved to jump. Big splashes were his goal,
But this puddle opened up, and swallowed Jimmy whole."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5tYxkd-tqU&feature=related

clarification:
Mary's perceptive view of the childlike Bush

Sounds like a yellow light to me. Wonder what percentage of people go on through yellow lights?

Read in the New York Times yesterday that Syria would not sign onto the middle east conference unless the issue of the Golan Heights was put on the agenda. I guess the middle of the road stance was that all issues could be discussed but not necessarily put on the agenda. Seems like the so called "progressive" blogosphere is somewhat silent about this upcoming conference. But what else is new? When it comes to the Israeli Palestinian conflict or the power of Aipac in determining our foreign policy in the middle east the progressive blogosphere is not much different than the Mainstream, they self censor.

Oh you may have someone like Jane Hamsher (who I have politely challenged) throw Aipac in the title of one of her blogs (wow don't go to far out on the limb Jane) cough cough. But Jane, Christy and many other bloggers are chicken shit to rip into this issue with their keen minds and sharp tongues and write about these critically important issues. They sure can tear up representatives that they do not agree with vengeance. Will be waiting to see if they write about the upcoming conference with any depth or will they just skim the surface if they write about it all?

Betting on the skim strategy. I have heard they get hammered if they approach these topics. The so called "progressive" blogs are basically no different than the MSM on these issues. they march to the I-lobbies demands.

Blog clogs in the progressive blogosphere.


Girl, you need to start your own damned blog and leave others out of this.

I was doing research and came across this article from 9/22/06, Armitage's famous "We'll bomb you back to the Stone Age" threat to Musharraf just after 911.

At the bottom of the article is this interesting snippet on some nifty Counter Proliferation work, that seems to have been done by a Sharp Team at the CIA - sharper at knowing what was going on in nuclear Pakistan than even Pervy, himself.

CIA? CPD? What are the chances?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article647188.ece

(snip)

President Musharraf also spoke about his embarrassment when informed at the UN in 2003 by George Tenet, who was then CIA Director, that Pakistani nuclear weapon technology had been passed to Iran and North Korea by the father of the Pakistani nuclear bomb, A. Q. Khan.

“[Tenet] took his briefcase out, passed me some papers. It was a centrifuge design with all its numbers and signatures of Pakistan. It was the most embarrassing moment,” President Musharraf told CBS.

He learnt then, he says, that not only were blueprints being given to Iran and North Korea, but that the centrifuges themselves — the crucial technology needed to enrich uranium to weapons grade — were being passed to them.

“[Khan] gave them centrifuge designs. He gave them centrifuge parts. He gave them centrifuges.

“[The shipments] were not done once. They must have been transported many times.”

Ah, but was he embarrassed because the illicit scheme was uncovered or because he didn't know about it beforehand? It is easy enough to say that you don't know what your officials are doing.

Bush didn't, ahem, know that ***most*** of his senior officials were desperately trying to find a reporter to tell about Ms Plame's real job? Really??? It wasn't 1X2X6, it was everybody blabbing on command. He didn't know about torture and rendition despite signing super secret executive orders? He didn't know about domestic spying despite sending Card and Gonzales to bully a semi-conscious Ashcroft on his sickbed?

These dictators are quite good at evading responsibility.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad