Captain's Quarters Comments - Latest Comments in Richardson: We Must Force Musharraf Out Of Power

Re: Richardson: We Must Force Musharraf Out Of Power

colorless.blue.ideas — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 01:42:07 -0000

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.

Re: Richardson: We Must Force Musharraf Out Of Power

SaipanDrunkenSailor — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:18:53 -0000

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/new...

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.

Re: Richardson: We Must Force Musharraf Out Of Power

jr565 — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:16:38 -0000

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.

Re: Richardson: We Must Force Musharraf Out Of Power

essucht — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:02:45 -0000

Richardson has become a joke

Re: Richardson: We Must Force Musharraf Out Of Power

TyCaptains — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:59:19 -0000

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.

Re: Richardson: We Must Force Musharraf Out Of Power

jr565 — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:39:01 -0000

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.

Re: Richardson: We Must Force Musharraf Out Of Power

jr565 — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:15:41 -0000

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.

Re: Richardson: We Must Force Musharraf Out Of Power

TyCaptains — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:54:37 -0000

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?

Re: Richardson: We Must Force Musharraf Out Of Power

TyCaptains — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:03:35 -0000

Laugh, I'd give you a point if I could for the clever use of "swiftboating"!

Re: Richardson: We Must Force Musharraf Out Of Power

captained — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:49:46 -0000

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?

Re: Richardson: We Must Force Musharraf Out Of Power

TyCaptains — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:37:28 -0000

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.

Re: Richardson: We Must Force Musharraf Out Of Power

TyCaptains — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:35:31 -0000

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.

Re: Richardson: We Must Force Musharraf Out Of Power

Justin K. — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:11:28 -0000

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.

Read up:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/...

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.

Re: Richardson: We Must Force Musharraf Out Of Power

JohnFrank — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:57:14 -0000

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.

Re: Richardson: We Must Force Musharraf Out Of Power

infidel65 — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:25:26 -0000

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.

Re: Richardson: We Must Force Musharraf Out Of Power

clever_hans — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:19:48 -0000

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.

Re: Richardson: We Must Force Musharraf Out Of Power

clever_hans — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:03:18 -0000

You see, Ty, when we call you leftists traitors, we're swiftboating you.

I think we can all agree with that statement.

Re: Richardson: We Must Force Musharraf Out Of Power

Bennett — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 07:14:03 -0000

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.

Re: Richardson: We Must Force Musharraf Out Of Power

captained — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 07:13:06 -0000

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?

Re: Richardson: We Must Force Musharraf Out Of Power

herddog505 — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 06:32:10 -0000

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.

Re: Richardson: We Must Force Musharraf Out Of Power

hammy — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 05:22:19 -0000

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.

Re: Richardson: We Must Force Musharraf Out Of Power

davod — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 04:55:20 -0000

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.

Re: Richardson: We Must Force Musharraf Out Of Power

RichardsonCampus — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:07:59 -0000

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.

Re: Richardson: We Must Force Musharraf Out Of Power

Guest — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:44:33 -0000

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)

Re: Richardson: We Must Force Musharraf Out Of Power

unclesmrgol — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:05:49 -0000

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.