To me, the situation in Pakistan is proof positive of how dangerous Third World countries governed by either dictators or Theocrats of any ilk can be when they have nukes. I'd almost go so far as to say it validates the PNAC bomb Iran fanatics. Except for one thing....the USA has the carrot and the stick to deal with these situations IF they are led by an intelligent group of people (not the PNAC). Sadly, of course, that is not the case at this point. Whether the next administration will be able to put policy above politics is what our next election is all about.
Posted by T2 at December 31, 2007 03:01 PM...the will of the Pakistani people be respected
Can such "will" be known? The worldwide (with few exceptions) leadership vacuum that limits the choice of the people between some version of the Northern Alliance or Taliban says nothing about the will of the people. Pakistan gets the Bhutto Dynasty or the army. The US gets the Bush or Clinton dynasties.
Given how the west has made such a mess of Pakistan over the past few decades (centuries if we include the Brits), maybe we should just leave them alone for a while to sort out THEIR problems. Of course that would make India a bit nervous, but perhaps that will encourage them to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Agreement and join the world community.
Posted by Marie at December 31, 2007 03:13 PMmarie-
sharif is a third option. backed by the saudis. fun choices.
Posted by Turkana at December 31, 2007 03:20 PM"The US gets the Bush or Clinton dynasties." Marie....there is no comparison between a staunch, well-heeled and well-connected East Coast Bush Family which has been either in the back or the front of US Conservative politcs/crime for decades more than half a century and a guy who was raised in rural Arkansas by a working class mom and stepdad and whose sole political experience prior to running for president was in backwater state politics. No comparison in fact, at all. Compare George W. Bush to his father, a CIA head, a US Vice President and a US President and Bill Clinton's father...an unknown who he doesn't even speak to. Some dynasty.
Posted by T2 at December 31, 2007 03:39 PMT2 - Do you really think that Bill Clinton would have made it to the WH without the full backing of a monied set? AR may be a backwater state but WalMart, Tyson, Jackson Stephens aren't backwater money. Nor are the Clintons poor today.
When is a political dynasty a dynasty? One good measure is when the family controls a political party - on that basis the Clintons might be more powerful than the Bushes. Generally I dislike term limits for political office, but as we have only one President, maybe we should limit that office to eight years for any one family.
Posted by Marie at December 31, 2007 03:52 PMmarie-
had bobby kennedy not been assassinated, i'd have been fine with him following in his brother's footsteps, and with his younger brother following his. i judge each candidate on the merits.
Posted by Turkana at December 31, 2007 03:57 PMTurkana: ...had bobby kennedy not been assassinated, i'd have been fine with him following in his brother's footsteps,...
As JFK only had less than three years in the WH, electing RFK could have been okay. But I would not be okay with eight years of JFK, eight of RKF and eight of Teddy. How does one judge each candidate on merit? Hell, half the time we don't know what's even true about the individuals that run for POTUS. Based on merit, I wouldn't vote for any of those running this time around because not one of them has on balance earned any merit points on doing the people's business as opposed to the business of corporate America. Plus, it's impossible for me not to view anyone that voted for the IWR as either stupid or so personally ambitious that the lives of others matters not to them.
Posted by Marie at December 31, 2007 04:17 PM"had bobby kennedy not been assassinated, i'd have been fine with him following in his brother's footsteps..."
The problem with this statement is that JFK would not be welcomed in today's Democratic party.
"... business of corporate America."
I take it that your retirement plan is based totally on Government handouts or what you have stashed under your mattress.
Posted by bagley at December 31, 2007 04:39 PMmarie. You can define dynasty any way you want. I define it as a long thread of control. Dynasty's in ancient China were in place for centuries. The Bush's have held court since the 1940's. Eight years is not a dynasty. period. If it were, there wouldn't be a statistical tie in Iowa tonight. If eight years was a dynasty, the Supreme Court would not have handed the 2000 election to George W. Bush. They did. Having a brother control votes in a key state that hands you the presidential election and watching the nation's Media look the other way...that's a indication of dynasty. Being impeached for a simple marital indescretion...the type John F. Kennedy did on a weekly basis, is not a dynasty. If you are in a dynasty, albeit a historically slight one, you get away with anything you want. Google George W. Bush.
Posted by T2 at December 31, 2007 06:01 PMWashington’s approach seems to be military force (vis-à-vis Iraq, Somalia, Hamas); military dictatorship (vis-à-vis Pakistan, Israeli control over Palestine); and no compromise (vis-à-vis Hezballah, Hamas, Islamic Courts Union, Iran). Is this approach working or do we need a fundamentally different way of behaving toward the world?
"...military force..."
And you would deal with these terrorists who hack the heads off people in what other way? If the terrorist's starting position is "I want to hack your head off," would you negotiate an arm or a leg? Perhaps both?
"...Israeli control over Palestine..."
Please identify for me a map (circa 1945) clearly identifying a geographic region named "Palestine" and a further reference to a citizenship "Palestinian." (And let us not forget that these are the territories that the Muslims use to launch rockets and missiles into Israel.)
"...vis-à-vis Hezballah, Hamas, Islamic Courts Union, Iran.."
And such "compromising" organizations / country these examples of enlightened modernity are.
Try again William deB. Mills: just another ignorant Leftist.
Posted by Bagley at December 31, 2007 06:29 PM"Generally I dislike term limits for political office, but as we have only one President, maybe we should limit that office to eight years for any one family."
Marie, I agree. Earlier on TLC, we all were blogging about the possible run of Jeb Bush. If I remember correctly, no one here was very happy with that thought. I think in terms of what if George Herbert Walker Bush, George Walker Bush, and John Ellis Bush (J.E.B.)would all three be elected to the WH. Think here of twenty years (if Jeb were to serve eight years) of one family control. Is that what we want in a Democracy?
awwwww, bagless bagley is sooooo concerned about the islamomarxomooreohitlercrackerjackofascists, but not so concerned that he is willing to enlist or pay mores taxes for Dear Leader's $2 TRILLION failed war of aggression
Posted by gay veteran at January 1, 2008 09:21 AMGay Veteran, people in cults are always brainwashed.
Posted by Judith at January 1, 2008 09:30 AMListen to the conversation from a Muslim analyst on the political ramifications on the War on Terror in Pakistan.
Coverage of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
http://www.hotconflict.com/blog/2008/01/benazir-bhutto.html