The libs are bent out of shape because of Ed's use of the word "force"; but why? Richardson clearly meant he wants Musharraf to be removed from power. How that is accomplished doesn't really matter, does it? Some of you think Richardson didn't mean a military invasion. You may be right, but don't be so sure. Barack Obama wanted us to invade, even before yesterday's events. The main question should be: why do these libs want Musharraf removed from power? Do you believe he was responsible for Bhutto's death? If so, show us the proof. The people who wanted her taken out the most are Al Qaeda/Taliban, the very people who admitted responsibilty yesterday. This isn't an Agatha Christie whodunnit where the least likely suspect emerges as the perp. This is real life, where the most likely suspect is indeed the perp. Musharraf had little to gain from Bhutto's death. So I return to the question: why do these libs want Musharraf removed from power? Benazir Bhutto's death was very sad, but it wasn't the 'worst day in Pakistan's history' as Nawaz Sharif claimed yesterday. Had it been Pervez Musharraf who was assassinated, however, that truly would be a disaster for all of us. That would have made me very, very afraid. Bill Richardson and some of the commentators here would presumably have welcomed it. One has to wonder why.
hammy
· 2 years ago
what worries me most about Richardson and all the democrats is Jimmy Carterism----That mere words and attitude can solve foreign problems. The fact is that Pakistan and India are both nuclear powers and violent enimies of long standing. Jihadism is just the spark that could set off a nuclear castrophe. Given the Democrats inability to do anything but posture for the television cameras, It is a nightmare to imagine the Democrats in charge of foreign policy. As I see it, its not the Democrats will be too aggressive, its that they will posture, appease and when the result is another Democrat foreign policy disaster blame the U.S. or someone else.
captained
· 2 years ago
I just love how George Bush is somehow an imperial warlover for suggesting that Iran -- an enemy -- should have regime change, while the liberal commentators here laud Richardson for demanding Bush to pressure someone who has been an ally to give up power, without understanding anything about the people who would fill the vacuum. Regardless of whether he used the word "force", which appeared in the AP's initial report, withholding aid has the same effect, and it's idiotic.
TyCaptains
· 2 years ago
1> Who is agreeing with Richardson? I see some that believe Musharraf isn't a good guy, and no, just because he's the enemy of our enemy doesn't automatically make him a "good guy".
2> I agree that "forcing" Musharraf out would be a terrible, terrible blunder. That said, withholding aid and "forcing him out" are entirely too different things and shouldn't be equated by you. For an example of this, I'd like to point out that many here believe Richardson implies removal by MILITARY force - a singularly idiotic idea of epic proportions.
Mwalimu_Daudi
· 2 years ago
That said, withholding aid and "forcing him out" are entirely too different things and shouldn't be equated by you.
Given your tendency for inaccuracy and distortion, that Clintonian explaination is perhaps to be expected. If we withhold aid, the Musharraf government might very well collapse and be replaced with something much worse. Don't think that Richardson and others who advocate this can escape responsibility by arguing the meaning of the word "force".
Carter did not "force" the Shah of Iran out. He sat by while the Shah's government collapsed, and spent the rest of his pathetic presidency getting blindsided by the Islamofascists. We are still paying for it today. Where is the profit in repeating what is probably Carter's worst mistake?
TyCaptains
· 2 years ago
Given that I have been entirely correct in my previous statement (e.g. some here have mentioned that yes, Richardson did indeed mean a military coup), it seems you are off the mark, as usual.
If we're the only thing holding Pakistan together, it's already DOA.
Tell me, exactly what should have Carter done with the Shah? Suppress the Iranian population? You seem to think that the Shah would have been the home-coming queen if only Jimmy, the ever popular football captain, would have asked him out. So much for your march for freedom, eh?
And before you try in vain to excoriate for being some sort of terrorist lover, no, I've always believed that Iran was a far, far, bigger threat than Iraq.
Bennett
· 2 years ago
I know, isn't it so silly. Why anyone would think someone as nice as Bill Richardson would mean military force. Just bizarre. It's clear he meant force as in, cajole, beg, encourage, coax, wheedle, exhort, charm, entice...like that. Something civilized. And truly effective.
Not something with guns and big bad men all armored up riding around in humvees. I mean, really. It's laughable. A Democrat? Suggest we use military force? Hysterical.
Well, at least our man Bill didn't suggest that the UN send in a peace-keeping force.
TyCaptains
· 2 years ago
Well seeing as the Captain's update did indeed clear up the context, Richardson did NOT mean by a force of arms. Thanks for the effort though, really.
captained
· 2 years ago
How else do you "force" someone with an army behind him from power? Are you really that obtuse, or just that determined of a Richardson apologist?
TyCaptains
· 2 years ago
Geez, I love how you play the victim card and feel the need to wield the bully pulpit.
I've already said that removing Musharraf would be a terrible, terrible blunder but for you to interpret Richardson's statement as a coup is just an example of you projecting. He clearly meant through some other diplomatic measures (perhaps offering sanctuary? A nice french villa?). You're grasping at straws.
You can accuse him of being naive, a moron, hopelessly out of the touch with reality - and all of those I completely agree with (I'm not a Richardson fan nor have I ever considered voting for him) but to intimate that he's calling for a military coup is simply deception through distortion.
captained
· 2 years ago
Ty: Show me where he said "force".
Me: Here's where he said "force".
Ty: Oh. Well, he didn't mean it.
Me: Uh-huh.
And, where exactly do I play the "victim" in my response?
TyCaptains
· 2 years ago
Laugh.
Was Nixon "forced" out of office?
Was Gary Hart "forced" out of office?
How about Delay?
By Richardson's own use of the phrase, "diplomatic leverage", he is calling for...DIPLOMATIC LEVERAGE, i.e. NOT **MILITARY** Force. I can't believe you so strongly feel the need to cast every Democratic as the enemy that you would be so partisan as to sacrifice your integrity.
You can't even get the argument straight in your latest reply. The argument is about what pressure is involved in "force" not that he ever used the word or meant to use it - obviously he did.
And you play the victim by calling anyone who would dare question the great Captain. I simply started asking for the word-for-word transcript. I didn't think you were so thin skinned or self-righteous that you would blow a gasket when questioned. How dare we think for ourselves, eh? We should question the MSM (and rightly so) but not you?
jr565
· 2 years ago
How do you propose we actually force him out of leading his govt wihtout the use of force? Unliike say Hart or Nixox, Musharraf is not part of our govt and bound by our dictates or by political consideration that occur in our country. Usually by diplomatic leverage we would have to offer something to a foreing leader or threaten that foreign leader with force or removal if he does not capitualte. Since you're suggesting that Richardson was not suggesting the use of foce when use used the word "force" he must have been suggesting some incentive of some kind to offer Musharraf? You'd have to offer an awful lot to get someone to do something against their interest, and if they say no wouldn't you then have to resort to force to geth them to agree to your terms? Richardson: Hey Musharaff, we want you to go. We'll offer you a billion dollars Musharraf: No thanks. Richardson: (since he's not actually threatening force)Ok thenn.
And how would it serve our interest if in fact it was al qaeda that carried out the attack? Since al qaeda is also fighting Musharaff and since he has been offering us assitance, and since there hasn't yet been an election so if Musharafff were to step down there woudn't really be somene running the country while the push to democracy was under way. So our enemy is Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda kills off someone we hope will bring about democracy in Pakistan. Rather than "force" Musharaff to get tougher with Al QWaeda with us, lets instead cut off our nose to spite our face and force Musharraf to resign. His suggestion is asinine on its face.
TyCaptains
· 2 years ago
You must have missed at least two of my posts wherein I stated that it would be a terrible, terrible blunder to "remove" Musharraf. And by remove, I do NOT limit that words definition to something Tony Soprano would be fond of.
Bennett
· 2 years ago
I was agreeing with you. It's ridiculous to think a Democrat would ever advocate the use of anything but a UN resolution. Especially Bill Richardson, who seems very sweet and gentle. There's no way he'd ever use any kind of force beyond a sharp word or two.
jr565
· 2 years ago
I think if you look at his statement, Richardsons intent is to in fact force or press Musharaf to step down, which is in effect forcing him out. So its a call for a regime change.
Here is his statement: "We must use our diplomatic leverage and force the enemies of democracy to yield: President Bush should press Musharraf to step aside, and a broad-based coalition government, consisting of all the democratic parties, should be formed immediately. Until this happens, we should suspend military aid to the Pakistani government. Free and fair elections must also be held as soon as possible." Thus it is a call to both withhold aid AND make Musharaff step down, which you agree is a terrbile blunder. And as Ed asks, how does he propsose to do this without resorting to force. Who are the enemies of democracy he wishes to target here, Musharaff or the jihadists? And who is he suggesting we use diplomatic leverage against? Musharaff or the jihadists? Not sure that the enemies of freedom will really respond to diplomacy what with their killing of dimplomats and opposition leaders and car bombs. And you can't deal with the pro democratic forces because they aren't in place yet and don't control anything. The only group you could apply diplomatic pressure to to assist in the forcing the enemies of democracy to yield would be Musharaff and his govt who Richardson also wants to force out. Its a stupid statement of epic proportions, because it makes no sense whatsoever, and there would be no way to achieve the results Richardson is asking for, especiall teh "forcing the enemeies of democracy to yield" part, but through force. I don't even know what incentive youu could convince Musharaff to step down with, but the threat of force at the very least.
docjim505
· 2 years ago
Cap'n Ed: Richardson fortunately doesn't have a prayer of victory in the primaries. It's worth considering, however, that he will likely be a candidate for Secretary of State in any Democratic administration that wins in November 2008, if not a running mate on the ticket. Keep that in mind when thinking about whether to get involved in the next election.
It's a helluva state of things when you vote to put an idiot into office to keep an even bigger idiot out.
Depending on the MSM's mood, watch for this cowpat of an idea of Richardson's to either be described as a "muscular statement on foreign policy" (as was The Dope's idea to invade Pakistan a few weeks ago)... or just swept down the memory hole with nothing more to mark its grave than a slightly embarrassed cough.
bikerken
· 2 years ago
"It's a helluva state of things when you vote to put an idiot into office to keep an even bigger idiot out."
First I laughed, then I cried. Pathetic, but true.
jharp
· 2 years ago
You guys have been wrong about everything. And Richardson is a non entity regardless.
And I took his quote that we should use diplomacy to force them. " We must use our diplomatic leverage and force the enemies of democracy to yield"
Genghis_Khan_2007
· 2 years ago
I sometimes wonder what reporters think when they here stuff like this. But then, I think I figured it out. Reporters are so busy acting all-knowing and elitist, that when they actually realize nonsense like this, there is this aversion to being the "guy who called someone out" because they are all left-leaners anyway. Its not popular among their peer group to criticize another leftty.
None of them are going to risk the sideways glances of their colleagues by asking a straightforward common sense follow-up because its just not popular to question a fellow left-leaner....after all, that ain't W up there. Cause if it were, they would be knockin each other sideways to yell out follow-up questions and even pose them in a condescending manner. You see, later, at their cocktail parties or whatever gathering they attend (most likely of fellow left-leaners), there would be congratulations and plenty of back-slapping. Just like most of us, they want to be part of a group. Unfortunately, their group leans left and its just not cool to lean right....or to even appear to lean right by asking a straight-forward follow-up.
NoDonkey
· 2 years ago
By the way, did any of the brain dead "reporters" present ask Richardson what President Bush should do to "force" Musharraf out?
That would be a logical follow up question, it would seem.
Also, if Richardson is so pro-Democracy in Pakistan, why is he so anti-Democracy in Iraq?
Richardson was peachy-fine with Saddam. He thinks things were better with him in power.
His "plan" to end the conflict in Iraq is to immediately withdraw all US troops and then sit down with Iran and Syria to hash things out.
So Bill doesn't like Musharraf, but he's OK with the leaders in Syria and Iran.
Seems to me that notion would elicit just a few timely follow-up questions, but then, I'm not a "journalist".
So why does the media waste time sending "reporters" to Democrat press conferences?
Seems to me all that is needed is a tape recorder, since "reporters" at Democrat press conferences don't seem to ever ask follow-up questions to the inanity that is spewed by Democrats.
runawayyyy
· 2 years ago
Richardson is pro-democracy in Pakistan? Are you sure? I seem to recall that Musharaff recently won what appeared to be a free and fair election. Was Richardson one of the leftists that insisted we should have left saddam alone because he was "elected"? Does Richardson think the iraqi "election" that saddam won was free and fair? Has anyone put forth a shred of evidence that the election in Pakistan was not? Are these leftists really saying we should get rid of freely elected leaders and spare the ones whose elections are a sham?
NoDonkey
· 2 years ago
Is there any depth to which a Democrat politician cannot descend?
Richardson is an obvious jackass and clown, yet he's the most qualified Democrat in the race to be nominated for the Presidency, currently.
This is not an isolated incident. Democrats say idiotic things like this on a daily basis, yet receive a free pass.
Just one more episode in a long drama, that convinces me that anyone currently holding elected office as a Democrat, should resign immediately for the good of the country. These people should have no influence over the lives of sane adults and should be kept away from sharp objects.
ExurbanJon
· 2 years ago
Jeez. Maybe Obama can chime in with another invasion threat.
Excellent point, ExurbanJon. You beat me to the punch!
TomB
· 2 years ago
In the perfect world it would be nice to have a democratic Pakistan as an ally. In the real world we'd rather have somebody to talk to. Guys like Richardson (and most of the treacherous left) simply want to put a monkey wrench on the "Bush's war", any way he can, not really having a clue.
Mwalimu_Daudi
· 2 years ago
Richardson is the second major Democrat candidate to propose some kind of attack on Pakistan. This is after we have had to endure years of self-righteous lecturing from Democrats about how Bush has pursued a unilateral foreign policy that ignored the advice of allies. Now Richardson wants to rub out an ally. Coming on the heels of Obama's "bomb Pakistan" proposal, one cannot help but think that Democrats are hell-bent upon meeting al Qaeda's benchmarks for US policy.
bikerken
· 2 years ago
What a stupid thing to say. Has anyone told him that this is indeed a nuclear armed country and there is nobody waiting in the wings that looks like they could be elected and are sane enough to take over this nuclear armed country in a safe way? If Musharraf is pushed out without another strong democratic leader put in place, Al Queada and the Taliban with take over that country in a heartbeat. This is a very dangerous situation. I agree, this numbskull doesn't have the brain power to be postmaster let alone president. I don't see how he got nominated to begin with, everything he touched during the Clinton administration when to hell!
Fight4TheRight
· 2 years ago
Great comment here bikerken! Knowing Richardson..like most Dems, he read a NYT report on the assassination and noticed the reports of the people blaming Musharraf for the assassination - well, this was al Qaeda/Taliban but of course, Richardson was one of the countless Dems who stood up in front of America for two years and claimed al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq!
I wonder...does Richardson know that the "heir" to Musharraf's power in Pakistan is a former PM who literally paid off bin Laden millions of dollars a number of years ago?
Richardson's standing as a candidate dropped like a rock and it's easy to see why. And to answer your last question, bikerken, as to why Richardson was even nominated (or supported to run)...I'd say it probably was with the blessing of the Clintons in exchange for Bill keeping his mouth shut about that nasty Vince Foster deal.
HNAV
· 2 years ago
WOW !
amazed at the ignorance and juvenile response...
is he in the race as a Clinton manipulation of some kind?
yikes...
bikerken
· 2 years ago
Most people think hes kissing Hilbillerys keester for a VP or Sec of State spot.
DayTrader
· 2 years ago
I have seen more speculation that Hill if nominated will lean toward drafting Warner from Virginia to try to garner southern support.
DayTrader
· 2 years ago
I have seen the opinion expressed that there are several players on the Dem side that are intentionally only playing filler roles to keep the question times short for the top 3 so only canned responses are required.
After all Hillary is claiming all her experience and frankly Richardson Biden or Dodd could challenge her on that if they were serious candidates but crickets chirp.
kimsch
· 2 years ago
Of course, Richardson's deciding that Musharraf needs to be out of power because of the Bhutto's assassination (may God be with her and her family and the entire country of Pakistan) presupposes that Musharraf (or his people) had something to do with Bhutto's death.
It would more likely be AQ or the Taliban for two reasons. 1 - it's a blow to Musharraf and the US. 2) she was a woman in a position power. 'nuff said.
Lightwave
· 2 years ago
...or that AQ is in fact trying to throw Pakistan into civil war in order to claim its nuclear weapons in the chaos. Like it or not Ed, "Who rules Pakistan" is one hell of an important security issue to the US, as long as it remains A) a nuclear power and B) a hotbed of Islamic terror.
NoDonkey
· 2 years ago
No Democrat is going to badmouth the terrorists.
Just Republicans and allies of the United States.
Terrorists just need our understanding. They are downtrodden victims of capitalism, you see.
Were I a betting girl, I'd say Baitullah/Taliban of Pakistan was responsible with a nod of approval by AQ's Zawahiri/OBL and other associated terror groups. A fragile alliance between Benazir's PPP and Musharraf would have united a good % of Pak's population against the global Islamic jihad movement. There has been previously documented threats against Benazir by new Pak Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud and the terror groups under the umbrella of AQ. Thus, Taliban or AQ associated, the assassination cannot be a surprise.
What is a surprise is the frightening the lack of historic overview by all too many... most especially those asking for the CIC position. This may prove an aid for our own election, as we can weed out those "too stupid" to serve in the Oval Office.
While Bhutto will be lamented as a loss of another voice and public figure for a Muslim democracy, I am more concerned about another of Baitullah's named targets... eitiher marked for death or escape to the folds of "the bad guys". That would be A.G. Khan.
JohnMcJunkin
· 2 years ago
Maybe this incident simply illuminates the fact that just because the MSM says a candidate has foreign policy cred - it may or may not be true. Mark Levin just made a great point in The Corner - although the CW is that McCain gets a boost today as the right's presumptive foreign policy heavyweight, in reality, his staunch support for our efforts in Iraq must be weighed against the numerous times he has joined with the Dems in opposition to waterboarding, etc. I have always felt that his support for our Iraq efforts was a cynical ploy to shore up support from at least a segment of the conservative electorate. The one thing we know for sure is that Huckabee's stock dropped dramatically today.
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
Regime change. Richardson. Something rhymes here.
amr
· 2 years ago
He would have told us to not support the USSR during WWII, I guess. In war one takes the allies it can get; maybe with reservations, concern and looking to the problems that might crop up at end of hostiles, but your country's survival usually is the first goal not the character of your ally.
dhunter
· 2 years ago
But his ads say he has negotiated all kinds of peace treaties!
Just another Dem supporting AlQeada, its what they do best it seems.
So if you like women in burkhas elect a Dem.
tacodawn
· 2 years ago
When I heard Major Garrett/FNC report this I had to rewind my dvr...I couldn't believe it.
Let's compare Mitt's/Rudy's/Fred's/President Bush's comments to Richardson's.
Tom Paine
· 2 years ago
Proof that Democrat "leaders" are just a bunch of arrogant imperialists at heart. Good point about his next job in a Democrat administration.
Adjoran
· 2 years ago
Bhutto's assassination is a terrible blow to democracy and peace in the Muslim world. Her coalition would have commanded a majority in Parliament, making her again the Prime Minister. Her death makes Musharraf's position less secure. The only benefactors are Sharif, the other former PM (who had no chance against Bhutto in an election and who was sympathetic to the radicals, giving them their foothold in the intel services), and al Qaeda, who had previously attempted to assassinate her.
There are difficult days ahead. Richardson's asinine comment is about the worst thing we could do. Democrats are so deeply wedded to defeat and retreat in Iraq that none of them have the credibility to lead the country in such times.
McCain and Giuliani will probably get a boost politically, and perhaps Thompson will as well, given his "tough-guy" image, as the most qualified to handle the situation. Romney and Huckabee will be hurt somewhat by their lack of foreign policy experience. Any sane citizen who had supported Ron Paul should get the wake-up call now.
Verlin Martin
· 2 years ago
"A leader has died, but democracy must live..."
When did Bhutto get elected? Sad day for Pakistan and all those who fight for the freedom of pakistanis but the leader is still alive.
brit
· 2 years ago
Type your comment here.Why assume that Musharraf is responsible, there are many others in Pakistan who will be delighted with this. Better to support Musharraf as the Devil we know than to create a vacuum for the rest.
submandave
· 2 years ago
Let me see if I understand this logic. AQ, attempting to undermine Pakistani democracy and seize power assasinates a leading democratic figure so we, of course, should kick the strongest Pakistani anti-AQ leader out of power?
Democrats: "realists" when idealism counts (e.g. Iraq) and "idealists" when realism counts (e.g. Pakistan). In sum, just plain dangerous in a position of power.
Molonlabe28
· 2 years ago
Richardson isn't running for President.
He is running for Vice President, which is why he won't criticize HRC.
Anthony Ragan
· 2 years ago
He'd be the Return of Warren Christopher.
waka waka
· 2 years ago
Richardson is a complete buffoon. I don't get it. How are his pronouncements so totally out of sync with his resume?
Del_Dolemonte
· 2 years ago
Hey wiki wiki
Richardson's "foreign policy experience" includes his negotiations with the North Koreans, which they snookered him on.
Later on, Bubbah Clinton made him "Energy Secretary". As such, he ignored a warning by OPEC that they were cutting their production. A year later, the price of heating oil went up a dollar a gallon, abd put many people in northern New England out of business.
Richardson was famously quoted at the time saying this:
"We were caught napping".
bikerken
· 2 years ago
Problem is, there is NOBODY ready or able to assume power there right now. You can bitch about Mussaref's warts all you want or even Butto's, but If Mussaref is ousted, then you have a nuclear armed country essentially up for grabs and it has Taliban and Al Queda living within its borders. I can't imagine anything more dangerous than that. If it does happen that this country kills Mussaref too, we may get into a situation that requires the world to step in and stomp out the fire before it explodes.
One of the downfalls of living in the United States all your life is that you expect things to be like you see them here all the time. We seem to think that life only presents us with good choices and bad choices. We need to learn that when you are only presented with bad choices, take one. The fact is that you can't expect a country that is essentially a drug dealing, terrorists pandering, crime ridden free for all to suddenly become a well-behaved democracy overnight. People criticized Bhutto saying she was corrupt, but that is the way life is over there. To call someone corrupt in the middle east is odd to them because that is the way they do business, they would say they are a good business man. And to all you nimrods who constantly talk about what the US did wrong, and what we should have done, I say any of you who are or have been divorced need to shut up and look in the mirror. And to those of you who haven't had the balls to get married yet, you need to read Teddy Roosevelts Man in the Arena speech. Here is the best excerpt from it:
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
Bhutto wasn't perfect, but she was most definitely in the arena. Throwing Mussaref out is not going to make things better.
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
This is Pakistan's "Archduke Ferdinand" moment, with many of the same possibilities.
Justin K.
· 2 years ago
Look, Ed, whether or not Richardson actually used the word "force" is irrelevant (by the way, where's that update?). There are different kinds of force the US gov't can exert in the world (something right-wingers tend to forget) and leveraging our military aid and diplomatic support to get Musharaff to step aside, hold real elections and/or share power is one option we should consider. He's pretty clearly doing a lousy job. I agree that aking military action against Pakistan would be a very bad idea BUT RICHARDSON NEVER PROPOSED THAT.
That said, the list of alternatives to PM isn't ideal either, but everyone here who assumes that PM's ouster means the Taliban or AQ takes over just doesn't know about Pakistan. There are real opposition parties like Bhutto's PPP, the Army, liberal constituencies like the lawyers who took to the streets when PM sacked the Chief Justice, and Islamist parties who, while a nasty bunch, are committed to political power in Pakistan rather than international jihad. There are lot of ways this crisis could shake out, and the US needs to think about how it can help promote the interests of liberal, pro-democracy constiuencies in the political arena and marginalize Islamist extremists. The Army, being the most powerful political actor in the country, will probably have to be involved in an power-sharing agreement, but PM's crackdown on the liberal opposition only empowers extremists, as we've seen today.
This is where the Shah comparisons are relevant. We overthrew Mossadegh in Iran in 1955, installed a dictator, and created the antipathy to America and desctruction of liberal instiutions that gave us the Ayatollahs. We risking doing that again by backing PM and not pushing harder for democracy and accountability.
Finally, those of you who say Pakistan is in the Middle East, well it ain't. It's in S. Asia, part of the Indian subcontinent, and economically, culturally, linguisitically, politically, and historically quite different from the Arabic/Persian/Turkish civilization of the middle east.
It's the ignorance on display here that sent us to war in Iraq, chasing nonexistent WMDs. It's the kind of ignorance that gets people killed.
davod
· 2 years ago
Richardson forgets that Bhutto was revilled by the Rat Bags for being Uncle Sam's woman. As Musharraf was for being the US's man.
Hopefully, now it is clear that some in the US want Musharraf removed, he will receive some respite from the numerous assassination attempts.
JohnFrank
· 2 years ago
why is it that you believe force implies military action? If you knew anything about BR's foreign policy record, which is quite extensive, you will see that he rarely, if ever, advocates violence. You can be very forceful without firing a bullet.
I will most certainly not be voting for Richardson, but that's because I'm a conservative through and through. This is a nonissue, and you're grasping at straws while trying to stir the pot.
Justin K.
· 2 years ago
infidel65, once again you're not responding to what Richardson actually said. How dictators are removed actually makes a great deal of difference. Since Pakistan is a US ally, we have leverage there (economic and military aid, diplomatic recognition) which we didn't have with Saddam Hussein's Iraq or with Iran currently. The problem is that Busch and co. have been unwilling to actually use that leverage. We can potentially shape outcomes there without military force. (BTW, Obama never wanted to invade, he said we may need to be more aggressive in targeting AQ targets in the frontier regions, you know, the people who actually attacked us on 9/11).
Look, by any standard, PM's regime is failing. He's lost the support of the people, liberal urbanites and conservative rural folks both, he's oppressed pro-democracy groups while making deals with Islamists, trampled on the rule of law, and plunged the country into the crisis. IIn the midst of all this, AQ and the Taliban just keep getting stronger. Ideals aside, this chaos makes him an ineffective ally. Pushing him to step aside, or into some kind of power sharing deal, could help.
I actually think Condi and co. had a good idea when thay tried to work out a power-sharing deal between Bhutto and PM, before PM scotched the plan. Right now, we don't have a lot of good options, but PM is no longer a force for stability and security in Pakistan, quite the opposite, and we need to consider other options.
jr565
· 2 years ago
when you say the support of the people which do you mean? Those who say he isn't doing enough to bring about democracy in the ME, or those who say he's too much of America's puppet? What other options are you suggesting, and how long is the transition from Musharraf being forced out to our replacement getting installed and up to speed. Who exactly are you suggesting as an alternative? Bhutto is dead. Killed by those in Pakistan who think that Musharraf is too much of America's puppet and want to do away with democracy and have no qualms about killing political leaders and innocent people to get their way.
The chaos is being fostered by the jihadists, and at the very least Musharaf has been fighting them with us (and they've tried killing him on mutiple occasions). How is making Musharaf step down somehow going to reduce the chaos since he's the only one actually fighting those causing the chaos in that country? I would think that the overriding issue is the chaos, and while democracy is the long term goal, we have to deal with the chaos otherwise democracy will always fail there. Anytime some like Bhutto steps up, all thats needed to derail the process is someone to murder her? And that seems to happen a lot.
The issue with Musharaf, is not that he hasn't assisted us, but that because he's trying to placate the various factions and reduce the chaos somewhat but that he hasn't assisted us enough. However, as the jihadists start killing off people like Bhutto, adn recognizing his rule on the edge of collaspse, becuase of the forces he tried to placate, we can cajole him rather than stepping down, to fight the jihadists more effectively as its in his interest
Seriously, what other options are you suggesting? he lifted the state of emergency early though in retrospect he might have been right to impose the state of emergency in the first place considering what we're facing now with Bhutto's murder, he stepped down as military leader, he has assisted us in fighting Al Qaeda. it would be folly to make him step down, without something else there to take his place that is both more reliable and more effective, that has the will of the people and will be expected to fight the terrorsts and not deal with them against us. Musharaf isn't perfect, but you havne't really provided us with the better alternative, (and Bhutto is no longer part of the equation) or how long the transition would be between when Musharaf steps down and the next leader (whoever that is) steps up and what wil happen while that transition takes place.
essucht
· 2 years ago
Richardson has become a joke
NoDonkey
· 2 years ago
Even fellow Democrat Chris Dodd thinks Richardson is a dope:
“I think that is a dangerous idea, and I am sort of surprised Bill Richardson would make that recommendation,” Dodd said. “Can you tell me who is going to then be controlling the keys to the nuclear weapons in Pakistan when Musharraf is not there? And if you can’t answer that question, then be careful what you wish for.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7599....
The Democrats who have been lying and slandering President Bush for the past eight years have no idea at all what they're doing. Put in his position, there is no indication they would have the slightest idea what to do and would invariably do and would have done a far worse job.
colorless.blue.ideas
· 1 year ago
I live in New Mexico, where Bill Richardson is governor. He settled in New Mexico (he has no historic ties here) in order to enter politics.
When trying to describe Mr. Richardson's politics to others, I usually use an analogy. Imagine a male version of Hillary Clinton, but one who reacts less to polls and more to a gut feeling from those around him. Imagine someone who looks for opportunities where he can appear successful by playing a "middle road", which results in embarrassing the U.S. Finally, imagine someone who does not quite have the integrity of Hillary Clinton, but is smoother in being vindictive.
That more-or-less describes Mr. Richardson. I don't think he is as strongly ideological as Mr. Obama or Ms. Clinton, but he seems to have a stubborn streak concerning of what is often described as a "feel-good" appearance: it is not important what he does, as much as it is important that it is played in the press positively.
IMHO, Mr. Richardson is not campaigning for the presidency: he is campaigning for the vice-presidency, with the intention of using that in some eight years as a stepping-stone upward. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the way he has been maneuvering supports such an analysis.
Justin K.
· 2 years ago
To be fair to Richardson, you guys clearly didn't actually read what he said. He never talked about invasion or any kind of millitary action. He said the the US should use diplomatic and economic pressure to encourage Musharaff to step down and create a more democratic coalition gov't. While it's hard to say right now whether this would acutally be the best idea, its certainly not unreasonable.
As for the folks claiming Mushareff won a free and fair election. You're wrong. He won a rigged referendum asking if should stay in the presidency, yes or no. No alternative given. Saddam Hussein and other dictators have held several elections.
The bottom line, Mushareff is pushing Pakistan to the cliff and the Bush administration has bee enabling him. We give him billions in untracable cash, ostensibly to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and he instead spends it on weapons to fight India and makes a truce with the Taliban. The current political crisis in Pakistan started not when the general moved against Al Qaeda, but when he fired the chief justice of the supreme court, who ruled that the constitution wouldn't let him be president and chief of the armed forces at once. Since this state of emergency started, he has jailed liberal opposition leaders and violently squashed protests by lawyers and other who want to see the rule of law restored. He's proved more devoted to crushing the liberal center than the Islamist fringe.
Try actually learning a little something about the world before you bloviate.
Mwalimu_Daudi
· 2 years ago
Justine K.: Do you remember the Shah? He got tossed under the bus in exactly the same way you and Richardson are proposing. It was a disaster for the US and the world - not to mention the Iranians.
Is it really possible that you don't see that?
Next time try actually reading a little history before you bloviate. Better yet – how about learning from history?
captained
· 2 years ago
Oh, sure, it's our fault that a career diplomat doesn't know how "force" sounds. Apparently, looking at what the alternatives are is also too much for Ambassador Richardson.
Nice try. Play again sometime.
MarkT
· 2 years ago
I couldn't find the word "force" anywhere in the linked story - I wonder if yahoo changed the text? The story reads this way now:
"Alone among the White House contenders, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson called on President Bush to pressure Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to step aside in favor of a coalition government. '"Until this happens, we should suspend military aid to the Pakistani government...'"
MarkT
· 2 years ago
The Baltimore Sun has this as the Richardson quote:
"We must use our diplomatic leverage and force the enemies of democracy to yield: President Bush should press Musharraf to step aside, and a broad-based coalition government, consisting of all the democratic parties, should be formed immediately. Until this happens, we should suspend military aid to the Pakistani government. Free and fair elections must also be held as soon as possible."
TyCaptains
· 2 years ago
Even in the Captain's original post, the use of the word "force" is NOT NECESSARILY by Richardson but rather the journalist.
That is, until we see a word-for-word transcript where Richardson does indeed use that word, then we are left with nothing to castigate him with - at least in this subject.
captained
· 2 years ago
Richardson used the word "force" in his statement. See my update.
TyCaptains
· 2 years ago
Sorry, I'm blind (not far from the truth unfortunately...) but where is this update?
And I'm sincerely humbled that you would bother to reply to me. I just prefer to read things with as much context as possible so thanks.
TyCaptains
· 2 years ago
Mind showing us the actual Richardson transcript word for word where he used the word, "force"? I couldn't find it in the article but perhaps your google-fu is better than mine.
Anthony
· 2 years ago
A better example than the Shah might be the American role in toppling Mossadegh (sp.?) and, I believe, reinstating the Shah. There are also Latin American examples where, yes, toppling leaders, even passively, does not reap the benefits that Richardson might expect.
gregdn
· 2 years ago
Actually Richardson is merely espousing the Bush Doctrine. Remember, we're not going to support dictators anymore? It was ridiculous when Bush said it and it comes as no surprise that Democrats would pick up on it.
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
Ah, but he espoused it when even Bush isn't going anywhere near it.
And the "Bush Doctrine" wasn't ridiculous when we found that Russia, France, and Germany, the three biggest boat anchors for action in Iraq, were suborning the UN sanctions and profiting from Saddam's behavior. There was never going to be a consensus, because it was not in the national interests of the other parties to have one.
Doc
· 2 years ago
Yeah, all liberals and democrats want Islamafasists to take over the country and rape our women. All liberals are for the destruction of the U.S. Oh, and they are cowards too.
Hmmm, that must be why the administration has done so much good for our country.
I bet it feels good to have voted for Bush the peacemaker two times in a row! What heros!
Thanks for calling me a traitor and coward, by the way. How American of you to try to group everyone who doesn't agree with you into a single stereotype.
Have you ever considered that liberals might be right on occasion, and you wrong?
Just wondering...
TyCaptains
· 2 years ago
Don't try reason here - it don't fly.
captained
· 2 years ago
Don't try unsupported hyperbole here -- it don't fly.
Fixed it for you.
TyCaptains
· 2 years ago
Oh come on now, do I need to point out that quite a few posters here say precisely that, that the Dems are traitors, yadda yadda yadda.
This isn't to say that YOU, the Capt, believe this, but it IS said by quite a few of those here.
clever_hans
· 2 years ago
You see, Ty, when we call you leftists traitors, we're swiftboating you.
I think we can all agree with that statement.
TyCaptains
· 2 years ago
Laugh, I'd give you a point if I could for the clever use of "swiftboating"!
Anthony Ragan
· 2 years ago
I've never said that the Democrats are traitors (as defined by the Constitution). However, an honest examination of the words and actions of leading Democratic figures over the last 5-6 years leads one to two inescapable conclusions: 1) That those words and actions have given aid and comfort to the enemy; and 2) They have a lot in common with their Copperhead forebears of the 1860s.
--Anthony (Los Angeles)
iconoclast
· 2 years ago
the dem leadership--pelosi, reid, murtha--and a number of others--McDermot, Kucinich, etc.--are definitely traitors. there are some democrats that aren't traitors, but they definitely don't control the party.
does that make it clear for you?
TyCaptains
· 2 years ago
It actually does, thanks.
My problem with the current political schism that exists in this country is that we (all of us) are too lazy in that we fall back on sweeping generalizations.
LenH
· 2 years ago
Let's see... Bill Richardson is currently serving as Governor of New Mexico. In the past he has served as a U.S. Representative, Ambassador to the United Nations, and U.S. Secretary of Energy. He may have a clue as to what he is talking about. What are your credentials, Ed? What qualifies you, other than your status as a rather successful conservative blogger, to vilify his comments?
clever_hans
· 2 years ago
Mr. Richardson's comments vilify themselves.
Cap't Ed's just doing the job the hard left media won't do: calling attention to the self-vilifying comments of democrat Bill Richardson.
I think deep down, that is what really galls you. You leftists have grown accustomed to the mainstream media airbrushing the gaffes of democrats in power. Remember how they covered for JFK? And how they tried to cover for Bill Clinton? I think you folks were more comfortable in the last century, in your glory days. Well, you need to move on. We have evolved as a people. Let the sun shine in, bro.
docjim505
· 2 years ago
So, LenH.... Are you saying that you SUPPORT what Richardson said? If so, why? And what lofty "credentials" do you have that give YOUR opinion greater weight than Cap'n Ed's?
Here's a tip: next time, you can save yourself some keystrokes when somebody criticizes a democrat and just type, "Oh, yeah? Well, you're a big, fat poo-poo head!"
As for Richardson wanting to "force" Musharaff out of power... Unbelievable. And this after years of libs ASSURING us that you can't force democracy on people at the end of a gun. Be interesting to see how Richardson would react if somebody claimed that Musharaff is "contained", eh?
unclesmrgol's list of US policy goals is pretty good. I'd like to see a real democracy in Pakistan that would back the United States to the limit in our actions around the world, but at this point, I'm willing to settle for a nominal ally run by a (more or less) benevolent despot. It certainly beats the alternative.
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
Stupidity knows no bounds. That's for Richardson, who is speaking before anyone knows who killed Bhutto. And, besides, wasn't Richardson a Clinton appointee? That, in my mind, does nothing to increase either his rated knowledge or intelligence.
We should do that which is in our national interest to do, and it's obvious that the following are our necessary goals in Pakistan and in the following order: 1. Assuring that Pakistan is a US ally, 2. Maintenance of Pakistani government control over its nuclear armaments (part of the military aid Richardson would deny Pakistan), 3. Destruction of alQaeda and its allies, 4. Democracy for Pakistan, as exemplified by a return to civilian rule of law.
As you can see, democracy ranks below several other issues in Pakistan, particularly since we are aiding Pakistan in items 2 through 4 via continued friendship with the power elite.
So, how does Richardson help the issues in Pakistan with his statement. I don't see any upside to it -- only downsides: 1. Antagonizes a probably innocent Musharraf with regard to US intentions, 2. Aids rioters and violent anti-government protest in Pakistan at exactly the time calm words are needed, 3. Drives a wedge between Richardson and any possibility of him being a negotiator in Pakistan.
So, I think, as an American citizen and a commenter on Ed's blog, that Richardson's comments are counterproductive to any constructive role by either him or our Government.
As for Ed's qualifications, you are here rather than with your peers over at wonkette, and that says volumes.
LenH
· 2 years ago
Wonkette? My peers do not hang out over at Wonkette. My peers hang out at the Daily Kos. So there.
So, tell me, did you feel the same when George Bush was talking about "forcing out" Saddam Hussein? In your expert opinion, developed over years and years of public service, what differentiates one dictator from another?
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
So why do you hang out at wonkette if your peers are over at Daily Kos? Or, even better, why are you here when your peers are over at Daily Kos?
So, to answer your question in such a manner that even one like yourself can understand:
What differentiates one dictator from another is a) how nasty they are to the united states, and b) how nasty they are to their own people.
For example, Pakistan isn't very nasty when compared to Iraq under Saddam.
You shoot at us, and we are liable to invade. I like that kind of Barbary Pirates kind of response.
And, with respect to my years and years of public service -- well, you can keep guessing because you aren't worthy of the knowledge.
Mwalimu_Daudi
· 2 years ago
Come now - you are not seriously arguing that serving in Congress makes one an expert on anything except earmarks? And what major foreign policy initiatives did New Mexico start?
RichardsonCampus
· 2 years ago
No foreign policy initiatives, but Richardson has been involved in foreign policy for decades now. His stewardship of NM has brought great things to the state (raise in teacher pay, transportation infrastructure) but obviously nothing major in a worldly sense. However, he is one of the best negotiators of our times--he has gotten the Sudanese, Fidel Castro, etc, to hear the U.S.'s positions and, in some cases, act on them. He never used force, just sheer diplomacy, which is what he's advocating in the case of Pakistan. Don't misconstrue his statement--he is no arguing for a military attack. Instead, he's lobbying for a diplomatic conversation, and I see little wrong with it.
All Comments
The main question should be: why do these libs want Musharraf removed from power? Do you believe he was responsible for Bhutto's death? If so, show us the proof. The people who wanted her taken out the most are Al Qaeda/Taliban, the very people who admitted responsibilty yesterday. This isn't an Agatha Christie whodunnit where the least likely suspect emerges as the perp. This is real life, where the most likely suspect is indeed the perp. Musharraf had little to gain from Bhutto's death.
So I return to the question: why do these libs want Musharraf removed from power? Benazir Bhutto's death was very sad, but it wasn't the 'worst day in Pakistan's history' as Nawaz Sharif claimed yesterday. Had it been Pervez Musharraf who was assassinated, however, that truly would be a disaster for all of us. That would have made me very, very afraid. Bill Richardson and some of the commentators here would presumably have welcomed it.
One has to wonder why.
2> I agree that "forcing" Musharraf out would be a terrible, terrible blunder. That said, withholding aid and "forcing him out" are entirely too different things and shouldn't be equated by you. For an example of this, I'd like to point out that many here believe Richardson implies removal by MILITARY force - a singularly idiotic idea of epic proportions.
Given your tendency for inaccuracy and distortion, that Clintonian explaination is perhaps to be expected. If we withhold aid, the Musharraf government might very well collapse and be replaced with something much worse. Don't think that Richardson and others who advocate this can escape responsibility by arguing the meaning of the word "force".
Carter did not "force" the Shah of Iran out. He sat by while the Shah's government collapsed, and spent the rest of his pathetic presidency getting blindsided by the Islamofascists. We are still paying for it today. Where is the profit in repeating what is probably Carter's worst mistake?
If we're the only thing holding Pakistan together, it's already DOA.
Tell me, exactly what should have Carter done with the Shah? Suppress the Iranian population? You seem to think that the Shah would have been the home-coming queen if only Jimmy, the ever popular football captain, would have asked him out. So much for your march for freedom, eh?
And before you try in vain to excoriate for being some sort of terrorist lover, no, I've always believed that Iran was a far, far, bigger threat than Iraq.
Not something with guns and big bad men all armored up riding around in humvees. I mean, really. It's laughable. A Democrat? Suggest we use military force? Hysterical.
Well, at least our man Bill didn't suggest that the UN send in a peace-keeping force.
I've already said that removing Musharraf would be a terrible, terrible blunder but for you to interpret Richardson's statement as a coup is just an example of you projecting. He clearly meant through some other diplomatic measures (perhaps offering sanctuary? A nice french villa?). You're grasping at straws.
You can accuse him of being naive, a moron, hopelessly out of the touch with reality - and all of those I completely agree with (I'm not a Richardson fan nor have I ever considered voting for him) but to intimate that he's calling for a military coup is simply deception through distortion.
Me: Here's where he said "force".
Ty: Oh. Well, he didn't mean it.
Me: Uh-huh.
And, where exactly do I play the "victim" in my response?
Was Nixon "forced" out of office?
Was Gary Hart "forced" out of office?
How about Delay?
By Richardson's own use of the phrase, "diplomatic leverage", he is calling for...DIPLOMATIC LEVERAGE, i.e. NOT **MILITARY** Force. I can't believe you so strongly feel the need to cast every Democratic as the enemy that you would be so partisan as to sacrifice your integrity.
You can't even get the argument straight in your latest reply. The argument is about what pressure is involved in "force" not that he ever used the word or meant to use it - obviously he did.
And you play the victim by calling anyone who would dare question the great Captain. I simply started asking for the word-for-word transcript. I didn't think you were so thin skinned or self-righteous that you would blow a gasket when questioned. How dare we think for ourselves, eh? We should question the MSM (and rightly so) but not you?
Usually by diplomatic leverage we would have to offer something to a foreing leader or threaten that foreign leader with force or removal if he does not capitualte.
Since you're suggesting that Richardson was not suggesting the use of foce when use used the word "force" he must have been suggesting some incentive of some kind to offer Musharraf? You'd have to offer an awful lot to get someone to do something against their interest, and if they say no wouldn't you then have to resort to force to geth them to agree to your terms?
Richardson: Hey Musharaff, we want you to go. We'll offer you a billion dollars
Musharraf: No thanks.
Richardson: (since he's not actually threatening force)Ok thenn.
And how would it serve our interest if in fact it was al qaeda that carried out the attack? Since al qaeda is also fighting Musharaff and since he has been offering us assitance, and since there hasn't yet been an election so if Musharafff were to step down there woudn't really be somene running the country while the push to democracy was under way.
So our enemy is Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda kills off someone we hope will bring about democracy in Pakistan. Rather than "force" Musharaff to get tougher with Al QWaeda with us, lets instead cut off our nose to spite our face and force Musharraf to resign.
His suggestion is asinine on its face.
Here is his statement:
"We must use our diplomatic leverage and force the enemies of democracy to yield: President Bush should press Musharraf to step aside, and a broad-based coalition government, consisting of all the democratic parties, should be formed immediately. Until this happens, we should suspend military aid to the Pakistani government. Free and fair elections must also be held as soon as possible."
Thus it is a call to both withhold aid AND make Musharaff step down, which you agree is a terrbile blunder. And as Ed asks, how does he propsose to do this without resorting to force. Who are the enemies of democracy he wishes to target here, Musharaff or the jihadists? And who is he suggesting we use diplomatic leverage against? Musharaff or the jihadists? Not sure that the enemies of freedom will really respond to diplomacy what with their killing of dimplomats and opposition leaders and car bombs. And you can't deal with the pro democratic forces because they aren't in place yet and don't control anything. The only group you could apply diplomatic pressure to to assist in the forcing the enemies of democracy to yield would be Musharaff and his govt who Richardson also wants to force out.
Its a stupid statement of epic proportions, because it makes no sense whatsoever, and there would be no way to achieve the results Richardson is asking for, especiall teh "forcing the enemeies of democracy to yield" part, but through force. I don't even know what incentive youu could convince Musharaff to step down with, but the threat of force at the very least.
It's a helluva state of things when you vote to put an idiot into office to keep an even bigger idiot out.
Depending on the MSM's mood, watch for this cowpat of an idea of Richardson's to either be described as a "muscular statement on foreign policy" (as was The Dope's idea to invade Pakistan a few weeks ago)... or just swept down the memory hole with nothing more to mark its grave than a slightly embarrassed cough.
First I laughed, then I cried.
Pathetic, but true.
And I took his quote that we should use diplomacy to force them. " We must use our diplomatic leverage and force the enemies of democracy to yield"
None of them are going to risk the sideways glances of their colleagues by asking a straightforward common sense follow-up because its just not popular to question a fellow left-leaner....after all, that ain't W up there. Cause if it were, they would be knockin each other sideways to yell out follow-up questions and even pose them in a condescending manner. You see, later, at their cocktail parties or whatever gathering they attend (most likely of fellow left-leaners), there would be congratulations and plenty of back-slapping. Just like most of us, they want to be part of a group. Unfortunately, their group leans left and its just not cool to lean right....or to even appear to lean right by asking a straight-forward follow-up.
That would be a logical follow up question, it would seem.
Also, if Richardson is so pro-Democracy in Pakistan, why is he so anti-Democracy in Iraq?
Richardson was peachy-fine with Saddam. He thinks things were better with him in power.
His "plan" to end the conflict in Iraq is to immediately withdraw all US troops and then sit down with Iran and Syria to hash things out.
So Bill doesn't like Musharraf, but he's OK with the leaders in Syria and Iran.
Seems to me that notion would elicit just a few timely follow-up questions, but then, I'm not a "journalist".
So why does the media waste time sending "reporters" to Democrat press conferences?
Seems to me all that is needed is a tape recorder, since "reporters" at Democrat press conferences don't seem to ever ask follow-up questions to the inanity that is spewed by Democrats.
Richardson is an obvious jackass and clown, yet he's the most qualified Democrat in the race to be nominated for the Presidency, currently.
This is not an isolated incident. Democrats say idiotic things like this on a daily basis, yet receive a free pass.
Just one more episode in a long drama, that convinces me that anyone currently holding elected office as a Democrat, should resign immediately for the good of the country. These people should have no influence over the lives of sane adults and should be kept away from sharp objects.
Needless to say, the Netroots are already blaming Bush:
http://exurbanleague.com/2007/12/27/bhutto-and-...
I wonder...does Richardson know that the "heir" to Musharraf's power in Pakistan is a former PM who literally paid off bin Laden millions of dollars a number of years ago?
Richardson's standing as a candidate dropped like a rock and it's easy to see why. And to answer your last question, bikerken, as to why Richardson was even nominated (or supported to run)...I'd say it probably was with the blessing of the Clintons in exchange for Bill keeping his mouth shut about that nasty Vince Foster deal.
amazed at the ignorance and juvenile response...
is he in the race as a Clinton manipulation of some kind?
yikes...
After all Hillary is claiming all her experience and frankly Richardson Biden or Dodd could challenge her on that if they were serious candidates but crickets chirp.
It would more likely be AQ or the Taliban for two reasons. 1 - it's a blow to Musharraf and the US. 2) she was a woman in a position power. 'nuff said.
Just Republicans and allies of the United States.
Terrorists just need our understanding. They are downtrodden victims of capitalism, you see.
Ray Robison author of Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents
http://www.bothinonetrench.com
Were I a betting girl, I'd say Baitullah/Taliban of Pakistan was responsible with a nod of approval by AQ's Zawahiri/OBL and other associated terror groups. A fragile alliance between Benazir's PPP and Musharraf would have united a good % of Pak's population against the global Islamic jihad movement. There has been previously documented threats against Benazir by new Pak Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud and the terror groups under the umbrella of AQ. Thus, Taliban or AQ associated, the assassination cannot be a surprise.
What is a surprise is the frightening the lack of historic overview by all too many... most especially those asking for the CIC position. This may prove an aid for our own election, as we can weed out those "too stupid" to serve in the Oval Office.
While Bhutto will be lamented as a loss of another voice and public figure for a Muslim democracy, I am more concerned about another of Baitullah's named targets... eitiher marked for death or escape to the folds of "the bad guys". That would be A.G. Khan.
Just another Dem supporting AlQeada, its what they do best it seems.
So if you like women in burkhas elect a Dem.
Let's compare Mitt's/Rudy's/Fred's/President Bush's comments to Richardson's.
There are difficult days ahead. Richardson's asinine comment is about the worst thing we could do. Democrats are so deeply wedded to defeat and retreat in Iraq that none of them have the credibility to lead the country in such times.
McCain and Giuliani will probably get a boost politically, and perhaps Thompson will as well, given his "tough-guy" image, as the most qualified to handle the situation. Romney and Huckabee will be hurt somewhat by their lack of foreign policy experience. Any sane citizen who had supported Ron Paul should get the wake-up call now.
When did Bhutto get elected? Sad day for Pakistan and all those who fight for the freedom of pakistanis but the leader is still alive.
Democrats: "realists" when idealism counts (e.g. Iraq) and "idealists" when realism counts (e.g. Pakistan). In sum, just plain dangerous in a position of power.
He is running for Vice President, which is why he won't criticize HRC.
Richardson's "foreign policy experience" includes his negotiations with the North Koreans, which they snookered him on.
Later on, Bubbah Clinton made him "Energy Secretary". As such, he ignored a warning by OPEC that they were cutting their production. A year later, the price of heating oil went up a dollar a gallon, abd put many people in northern New England out of business.
Richardson was famously quoted at the time saying this:
"We were caught napping".
One of the downfalls of living in the United States all your life is that you expect things to be like you see them here all the time. We seem to think that life only presents us with good choices and bad choices. We need to learn that when you are only presented with bad choices, take one. The fact is that you can't expect a country that is essentially a drug dealing, terrorists pandering, crime ridden free for all to suddenly become a well-behaved democracy overnight. People criticized Bhutto saying she was corrupt, but that is the way life is over there. To call someone corrupt in the middle east is odd to them because that is the way they do business, they would say they are a good business man. And to all you nimrods who constantly talk about what the US did wrong, and what we should have done, I say any of you who are or have been divorced need to shut up and look in the mirror. And to those of you who haven't had the balls to get married yet, you need to read Teddy Roosevelts Man in the Arena speech. Here is the best excerpt from it:
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
Bhutto wasn't perfect, but she was most definitely in the arena. Throwing Mussaref out is not going to make things better.
That said, the list of alternatives to PM isn't ideal either, but everyone here who assumes that PM's ouster means the Taliban or AQ takes over just doesn't know about Pakistan. There are real opposition parties like Bhutto's PPP, the Army, liberal constituencies like the lawyers who took to the streets when PM sacked the Chief Justice, and Islamist parties who, while a nasty bunch, are committed to political power in Pakistan rather than international jihad. There are lot of ways this crisis could shake out, and the US needs to think about how it can help promote the interests of liberal, pro-democracy constiuencies in the political arena and marginalize Islamist extremists. The Army, being the most powerful political actor in the country, will probably have to be involved in an power-sharing agreement, but PM's crackdown on the liberal opposition only empowers extremists, as we've seen today.
This is where the Shah comparisons are relevant. We overthrew Mossadegh in Iran in 1955, installed a dictator, and created the antipathy to America and desctruction of liberal instiutions that gave us the Ayatollahs. We risking doing that again by backing PM and not pushing harder for democracy and accountability.
Finally, those of you who say Pakistan is in the Middle East, well it ain't. It's in S. Asia, part of the Indian subcontinent, and economically, culturally, linguisitically, politically, and historically quite different from the Arabic/Persian/Turkish civilization of the middle east.
It's the ignorance on display here that sent us to war in Iraq, chasing nonexistent WMDs. It's the kind of ignorance that gets people killed.
Hopefully, now it is clear that some in the US want Musharraf removed, he will receive some respite from the numerous assassination attempts.
I will most certainly not be voting for Richardson, but that's because I'm a conservative through and through. This is a nonissue, and you're grasping at straws while trying to stir the pot.
Look, by any standard, PM's regime is failing. He's lost the support of the people, liberal urbanites and conservative rural folks both, he's oppressed pro-democracy groups while making deals with Islamists, trampled on the rule of law, and plunged the country into the crisis. IIn the midst of all this, AQ and the Taliban just keep getting stronger. Ideals aside, this chaos makes him an ineffective ally. Pushing him to step aside, or into some kind of power sharing deal, could help.
Read up:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/south_asia/...
I actually think Condi and co. had a good idea when thay tried to work out a power-sharing deal between Bhutto and PM, before PM scotched the plan. Right now, we don't have a lot of good options, but PM is no longer a force for stability and security in Pakistan, quite the opposite, and we need to consider other options.
What other options are you suggesting, and how long is the transition from Musharraf being forced out to our replacement getting installed and up to speed. Who exactly are you suggesting as an alternative? Bhutto is dead. Killed by those in Pakistan who think that Musharraf is too much of America's puppet and want to do away with democracy and have no qualms about killing political leaders and innocent people to get their way.
The chaos is being fostered by the jihadists, and at the very least Musharaf has been fighting them with us (and they've tried killing him on mutiple occasions). How is making Musharaf step down somehow going to reduce the chaos since he's the only one actually fighting those causing the chaos in that country?
I would think that the overriding issue is the chaos, and while democracy is the long term goal, we have to deal with the chaos otherwise democracy will always fail there. Anytime some like Bhutto steps up, all thats needed to derail the process is someone to murder her? And that seems to happen a lot.
The issue with Musharaf, is not that he hasn't assisted us, but that because he's trying to placate the various factions and reduce the chaos somewhat but that he hasn't assisted us enough. However, as the jihadists start killing off people like Bhutto, adn recognizing his rule on the edge of collaspse, becuase of the forces he tried to placate, we can cajole him rather than stepping down, to fight the jihadists more effectively as its in his interest
Seriously, what other options are you suggesting? he lifted the state of emergency early though in retrospect he might have been right to impose the state of emergency in the first place considering what we're facing now with Bhutto's murder, he stepped down as military leader, he has assisted us in fighting Al Qaeda. it would be folly to make him step down, without something else there to take his place that is both more reliable and more effective, that has the will of the people and will be expected to fight the terrorsts and not deal with them against us.
Musharaf isn't perfect, but you havne't really provided us with the better alternative, (and Bhutto is no longer part of the equation) or how long the transition would be between when Musharaf steps down and the next leader (whoever that is) steps up and what wil happen while that transition takes place.
“I think that is a dangerous idea, and I am sort of surprised Bill Richardson would make that recommendation,” Dodd said. “Can you tell me who is going to then be controlling the keys to the nuclear weapons in Pakistan when Musharraf is not there? And if you can’t answer that question, then be careful what you wish for.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7599....
The Democrats who have been lying and slandering President Bush for the past eight years have no idea at all what they're doing. Put in his position, there is no indication they would have the slightest idea what to do and would invariably do and would have done a far worse job.
When trying to describe Mr. Richardson's politics to others, I usually use an analogy. Imagine a male version of Hillary Clinton, but one who reacts less to polls and more to a gut feeling from those around him. Imagine someone who looks for opportunities where he can appear successful by playing a "middle road", which results in embarrassing the U.S. Finally, imagine someone who does not quite have the integrity of Hillary Clinton, but is smoother in being vindictive.
That more-or-less describes Mr. Richardson. I don't think he is as strongly ideological as Mr. Obama or Ms. Clinton, but he seems to have a stubborn streak concerning of what is often described as a "feel-good" appearance: it is not important what he does, as much as it is important that it is played in the press positively.
IMHO, Mr. Richardson is not campaigning for the presidency: he is campaigning for the vice-presidency, with the intention of using that in some eight years as a stepping-stone upward. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the way he has been maneuvering supports such an analysis.
As for the folks claiming Mushareff won a free and fair election. You're wrong. He won a rigged referendum asking if should stay in the presidency, yes or no. No alternative given. Saddam Hussein and other dictators have held several elections.
The bottom line, Mushareff is pushing Pakistan to the cliff and the Bush administration has bee enabling him. We give him billions in untracable cash, ostensibly to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and he instead spends it on weapons to fight India and makes a truce with the Taliban. The current political crisis in Pakistan started not when the general moved against Al Qaeda, but when he fired the chief justice of the supreme court, who ruled that the constitution wouldn't let him be president and chief of the armed forces at once. Since this state of emergency started, he has jailed liberal opposition leaders and violently squashed protests by lawyers and other who want to see the rule of law restored. He's proved more devoted to crushing the liberal center than the Islamist fringe.
Try actually learning a little something about the world before you bloviate.
Is it really possible that you don't see that?
Next time try actually reading a little history before you bloviate. Better yet – how about learning from history?
Nice try. Play again sometime.
"Alone among the White House contenders, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson called on President Bush to pressure Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to step aside in favor of a coalition government. '"Until this happens, we should suspend military aid to the Pakistani government...'"
"We must use our diplomatic leverage and force the enemies of democracy to yield: President Bush should press Musharraf to step aside, and a broad-based coalition government, consisting of all the democratic parties, should be formed immediately. Until this happens, we should suspend military aid to the Pakistani government. Free and fair elections must also be held as soon as possible."
That is, until we see a word-for-word transcript where Richardson does indeed use that word, then we are left with nothing to castigate him with - at least in this subject.
And I'm sincerely humbled that you would bother to reply to me. I just prefer to read things with as much context as possible so thanks.
It was ridiculous when Bush said it and it comes as no surprise that Democrats would pick up on it.
And the "Bush Doctrine" wasn't ridiculous when we found that Russia, France, and Germany, the three biggest boat anchors for action in Iraq, were suborning the UN sanctions and profiting from Saddam's behavior. There was never going to be a consensus, because it was not in the national interests of the other parties to have one.
Hmmm, that must be why the administration has done so much good for our country.
I bet it feels good to have voted for Bush the peacemaker two times in a row! What heros!
Thanks for calling me a traitor and coward, by the way. How American of you to try to group everyone who doesn't agree with you into a single stereotype.
Have you ever considered that liberals might be right on occasion, and you wrong?
Just wondering...
Fixed it for you.
This isn't to say that YOU, the Capt, believe this, but it IS said by quite a few of those here.
I think we can all agree with that statement.
--Anthony (Los Angeles)
does that make it clear for you?
My problem with the current political schism that exists in this country is that we (all of us) are too lazy in that we fall back on sweeping generalizations.
Cap't Ed's just doing the job the hard left media won't do: calling attention to the self-vilifying comments of democrat Bill Richardson.
I think deep down, that is what really galls you. You leftists have grown accustomed to the mainstream media airbrushing the gaffes of democrats in power. Remember how they covered for JFK? And how they tried to cover for Bill Clinton? I think you folks were more comfortable in the last century, in your glory days. Well, you need to move on. We have evolved as a people. Let the sun shine in, bro.
Here's a tip: next time, you can save yourself some keystrokes when somebody criticizes a democrat and just type, "Oh, yeah? Well, you're a big, fat poo-poo head!"
As for Richardson wanting to "force" Musharaff out of power... Unbelievable. And this after years of libs ASSURING us that you can't force democracy on people at the end of a gun. Be interesting to see how Richardson would react if somebody claimed that Musharaff is "contained", eh?
unclesmrgol's list of US policy goals is pretty good. I'd like to see a real democracy in Pakistan that would back the United States to the limit in our actions around the world, but at this point, I'm willing to settle for a nominal ally run by a (more or less) benevolent despot. It certainly beats the alternative.
We should do that which is in our national interest to do, and it's obvious that the following are our necessary goals in Pakistan and in the following order:
1. Assuring that Pakistan is a US ally,
2. Maintenance of Pakistani government control over its nuclear armaments (part of the military aid Richardson would deny Pakistan),
3. Destruction of alQaeda and its allies,
4. Democracy for Pakistan, as exemplified by a return to civilian rule of law.
As you can see, democracy ranks below several other issues in Pakistan, particularly since we are aiding Pakistan in items 2 through 4 via continued friendship with the power elite.
So, how does Richardson help the issues in Pakistan with his statement. I don't see any upside to it -- only downsides:
1. Antagonizes a probably innocent Musharraf with regard to US intentions,
2. Aids rioters and violent anti-government protest in Pakistan at exactly the time calm words are needed,
3. Drives a wedge between Richardson and any possibility of him being a negotiator in Pakistan.
So, I think, as an American citizen and a commenter on Ed's blog, that Richardson's comments are counterproductive to any constructive role by either him or our Government.
As for Ed's qualifications, you are here rather than with your peers over at wonkette, and that says volumes.
So, tell me, did you feel the same when George Bush was talking about "forcing out" Saddam Hussein? In your expert opinion, developed over years and years of public service, what differentiates one dictator from another?
So, to answer your question in such a manner that even one like yourself can understand:
What differentiates one dictator from another is
a) how nasty they are to the united states, and
b) how nasty they are to their own people.
For example, Pakistan isn't very nasty when compared to Iraq under Saddam.
You shoot at us, and we are liable to invade. I like that kind of Barbary Pirates kind of response.
And, with respect to my years and years of public service -- well, you can keep guessing because you aren't worthy of the knowledge.