Judicial Watch has named its ten most corrupt political figures of 2007, and the list may surprise. It includes a number of very well-known politicians who have received little attention for their questionable business deals. Among them are:
Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA): ...Feinstein reviewed military construction government contracts, some of which were ultimately awarded to URS Corporation and Perini, companies then owned by Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum...
Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR): ...[Huckabees] career has also been colored by 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governors office...
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL): ...n 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed...
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): ...snuck a $25 million gift to her husband, Paul Pelosi, in a $15 billion Water Resources Development Act recently passed by Congress. The pet project involved renovating ports in Speaker Pelosi's home base of San Francisco. Pelosi just happens to own apartment buildings near the areas targeted for improvement, and will almost certainly experience a significant boost in property value as a result of his wife's earmark...
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV): ...over the last four years, Reid has used his influence in Washington to help a developer, Havey Whittemore, clear obstacles for a profitable real estate deal. As the project advanced, the Times reported, Reid received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Whittemore. Whittemore also hired one of Reids sons (Leif) as his personal lawyer...
Don't draw conclusions before reading the whole list. I've highlighted Huckabee and Obama (among presidential candidates) because their cases have received less scrutiny to date. It's worth noting however, that Mayor Giuliani and Senator Clinton earned places on the list as well. What's notable to me is that most Americans are quite familiar with the accusations against Scooter Libby, Rudy Giuliani, and Larry Craig (for example), but are unlikely to have read anything about the cases of Speaker Pelosi, Senator Feinstein, Senator Obama, or Senator Reid. I wonder why that is? read the whole thing...
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/28/2007 12:05 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[15 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Why do you think they become politicians?
And where's my man Murtha?
#3
WHOA, just whoa. * Does this mean = infer BENAZIR was killed for DOING A HILLARY, i.e. US DemoLeft criticizing Hillary for turning REPUBLICANIST/-ESQUE???
Consider PAYVAND > RESEARCH: GLOBALIZATION, IMPERIALISM, MILITARISM, SOCIAL IMPERIALISM, AND US NATIONAL DEBT.
This is my 2008 slogan: Reasonable Person for President. That is my hope, what I ask Iowa to produce, and I claim here to speak for thousands, millions. We are grown-ups, we know our country needs greatness, but we do not expect it and will settle at the moment for good. We just want a reasonable person. We would like a candidate who does not appear to be obviously insane. We'd like knowledge, judgment, a prudent understanding of the world and of the ways and histories of the men and women in it. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
12/28/2007 06:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Reasonable? Joe F. Biden? What's she smoking? The man may have read a thousand "raw threat files" but he has the judgement of a hamster. Less, actually; he can be counted on to do exactly the wrong thing.
Iowa has a habit of putting MORONS in the lead. Prior times in Iowa there have been Pat Robertson with 25%, Buchanan before him with almost 30%, and Keyes consistently draws 5-10% when he has been in there.
Iowa republicans are IDIOTS - live live off the government teat of Farm Subsidies. Similar case can be made for NH - its absolutely unrepresentative of the nation and the party.
Right now, we are getting candidates in the lead based on the small minded bullshitters who judge the candidate on how they personally kowtow to local yokels, instead of policy and important matters.
Why the hell does the R party let these yahoos set the tone for the campaign? Iowa and NH are never in play for R candidates these days, and definitely do not represent the national party, nor any electable majority of the population.
Stronghold R states like TX & TN should be the kickoff states.
Regional key swing states like FL (pushes the SE), OH (influences Mid West), PA (influences NJ, VA, WV) and CO (influences rocky mtn west) ought to be rotated through as early states as well.
#5
yeah, I had to clean my flatscreen after that Boden and Dodd approval. Two of the biggest preening assholes in love with their image and voice. Apparently she thinks their narcissism (second only to Edwards) will keep them busy and outta the adult's way...If you recall, Dodd was a Sandinista buttboy, eager to push that Boland crap to keep Reagan in check, and keep the commies in power. That alone disqualifies that POS. Biden is a vapid empty suit with bad hairplugs who loves the sound of his own voice
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/28/2007 17:29 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Guys, I don't agree with Peggy about Dodd (he sided with the commies in the Cold War) or Richardson (particulary after yesterday's stupid comment), but I posted the article because her basic point is, I think, not really disputable. We need an adult as the next President.
Posted by: Mike ||
12/28/2007 18:03 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The choices of the various Wall Street Journal editors seem to be out of favour with Rantburgers today, Mike.
#8
no disagreement with the premise or your posting it, Mike. We need an adult. I just disagree with her breezing by the faults of her fellow northeasterners Dodd and Biden. Yesterday's comment by Richardson, that we should "force Musharaff from power" was stupid, dangerous, and ultimately plays into the fever dreams of America's opponents, internal and external. He should be "forced" to drop out after that.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/28/2007 19:43 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Richardson's still in the race? I'd thought he'd be running for governor of Chiapas, or Pyongyang.
A really good background piece on why the U.S. has long concerned itself with the Persian Gulf region, with lots of hard numbers on the production and consumption of oil by America and others. Teaser exerpts -- go read the whole thing. Hat tip Lucianne.com
Few subjects matter as much as oil, the Persian Gulf and American foreign policy. But few subjects are less well understood. Even relatively sophisticated observers will attribute American interest in the Persian Gulf to Uncle Sam's insatiable thirst for crude, combined with an effort to gain lucrative contracts for American oil firms. The U.S. on this view is something like a global Count Dracula, roaming the earth in search of fresh bodies, hoping to suck them dry. I'm willing to be known as relatively sophisticated. It's a step up from naive, after all. ;-) The next bit surprised me, but then I'm not terribly knowledgeable about things financial.
The U.S. today depends on the Middle East for only a small portion of its energy supplies. Still the world's third largest oil producer and holding large coal reserves, America is significantly less dependent on foreign energy sources than the other great economies. Imports account for 35% of U.S. energy consumption versus 56% for the European Union and 80% for Japan. Nearly half the oil and all the natural gas imported by the U.S. comes from the Western Hemisphere; sub-Saharan Africa supplies most of the balance. Only 17% of U.S. oil imports and less than 0.5% of our natural gas come from the Persian Gulf; 80% of Japan's imports come from the Gulf, and by 2015 70% of China's oil will come from the same source.
The oil market, of course, is global, and if something were to happen to the Middle Eastern supplies, prices would rise world-wide, and the U.S. economy would be seriously disrupted. But domestic supply is not the key to American interest in the Gulf. Although I s'pose there are those who'd say that so long as our companies get to pump it out of the ground, we don't care who actually uses it... but I'm under the impression that U.S. companies aren't nearly as much of the pumping in the Gulf as they used to.
For the past few centuries, a global economic and political system has been slowly taking shape under first British and then American leadership. As a vital element of that system, the leading global power -- with help from allies and other parties -- maintains the security of world trade over the seas and air while also ensuring that international economic transactions take place in an orderly way.
For this system to work, the Americans must prevent any power from dominating the Persian Gulf while retaining the ability to protect the safe passage of ships through its waters. The Soviets had to be kept out during the Cold War, and the security and independence of the oil sheikdoms had to be protected from ambitious Arab leaders like Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser and Iraq's Saddam Hussein. During the Cold War Americans forged alliances with Turkey, Israel and (until 1979) Iran, three non-Arab states that had their own reasons for opposing both the Soviets and any pan-Arab state.
Posted by: trailing wife ||
12/28/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
A world of insecure and suspicious great powers engaged in military competition over vital interests would not be a safe or happy place.
Ya, unlike the wonderful World---where Russia and China doing everyng they can to sabotage US in ME---we enjoy now.
#2
When we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan we blocked the Russians from selling there oil cheaply to the Euro's, this is why Putin,France, and Germany are pissed at us. They can only sell to us and buy our high priced crude. Why do you think we sent paratroopers into the north for control of the Russian pipeline and the Brits got basra to protect BP's interest at that port. BP=Standard Oil US company 1 the rest of the world 0. I like it that way. Our nation was once on a Gold Stanard now an oil standard, next is Nuke standard. We have a lockdown on the oil, now we need to control the Nuke standard.
Posted by: Ho Chi Theresh4727 ||
12/28/2007 10:44 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Anyone who is "relatively sophisticated" who still cannot figure things out suffers from the widespread problems of inability to reason and economic illiteracy. That oil is a global commodity that is key to all industrial economies is enough for anyone who can in fact reason to understand its importance.
I can think of no other issue (there must be some - just haven't struck me) like this one, however, in that the conventional public wisdom, from Dubya on down to academic twits and ordinary non-political citizens, is fundamentally illiterate: that we should seek "energy independence", or that such a thing has any real meaning. This made no sense whatsoever (economically, technically, or strategically) before 9/11 - after those attacks, it is simply astonishing that anyone can continue to think that it's a question of physical commodity access, in a globalized economy with proliferation of weapons technologies. It's about power, and security, and prosperity, and the laws of economics apply to energy as to anything else.
No feasible transition in energy technologies will change the importance of oil to economic security (including our own) for a very long time, no imaginable changes or policies will make our security less dependent on engagement with the outside world.
No conceivable marginal change in oil consumption patterns and prices will produce an effect on producing countries sufficient to "de-fund" their efforts, conventional or otherwise, to oppose and hurt us - Friedman's illiterate ravings notwithstanding.
I've not the slightest concern that in fact the US will actually adopt any pointless and wasteful policies in this regard, as people's economic common sense puts a speed bump in the way (same as with the global climate scam).
We could impose a net reduction in economic welfare on ourselves by somehow reducing use of the best commodity (oil) other than through market pricing. This sacrifice of wealth-creation would accomplish precisely nothing WRT all the other issues - security, terrorism, global competitiveness, involvement in the MidEast - as the rest of the world continues on the whole to act rationally (using oil as it is currently used) or perversely (using the undiminished proceeds from oil to fund terrorism, anti-US actions in Iraq/Afghanistan/Africa/etc., wahhabi madrassahs).
The percentage of our oil imports from the Gulf could triple, or drop to nothing, and there would be no effect on these calculations. If one doesn't see that, then one doesn't even understand the issues under consideration.
Even if we (the U.S.) built several hundred nuclear reactors in the next twenty years, we'd make only a marginal dent in our need for oil. Sure, we'd have plenty of electricity, but that's a smaller part of the energy need here. We need oil for the vehicles and for industry; coal and nuclear power simply won't do. And 'alternative' energy so far is a pipe-dream and a scam (though a profitable one, ask Archer-Daniels Midland).
Oil is fungible. It's a commodity. The profits go to those who pump it cheap and sell it large. And the only way to reduce the money flowing to the Middle East is to discover enough oil elsewhere, oil that can be pumped cheap and sold in millions of barrels a day, to make a difference. That (very likely) isn't happening (don't talk about oil shales).
So we're stuck. We're stuck on oil. Question is, are we also stuck on stupid?
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/28/2007 13:13 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Steve and Verlaine are basically correct.
The only way to do without oil in its current quantity is be replacing it with technologies (vehicular in particular) that don't need oil but accomplish the same thing.
Just like coal replaced wood 200 years or more ago electricity will replace oil. BUT, while nuclear and coal can replace the generation of electicity it is not portable like oil so your car can't run on it efficiently.
When the electric vehicle (or hydrogen which is a whole nother topic) infrastructure can match or exceed the oil based infrastructure, then we'll be on to something as demand for oil and its importance will wane. Till then, no and then ain't too soon.
#6
But we aren't really in the Gulf for our own need for oil, if currently only 35% of what we use comes from imports, and only 17% of that from the Gulf. (According to my daughter's calculator, that makes 6% coming from the Persian Gulf). Yes, oil is a fungible commodity, but surely that makes U.S. dependence less rather than more, as we buy from abroad when it's cheaper, and use more of our own when more expensive. And certainly we can't force the other major consumers, whose major suppliers are in the Gulf, to stop sending their money there... after all, some are the countries that haven't even tried to meet the Kyoto CO2 reduction commitments they've been so enthusiastic about, and the others are rapidly growing economies.
The new battery technologies will likely cut significantly into whatever percent of our oil consumption used for transport and travel, and likely that of the other First World countries... but not that of China and India, until their economies mature to the point where they can afford the upcharge for such fripperies.
This piece was printed yesterday on page A-11 of the Wall Street Journal, not exactly the reading material of the financially naive. Why do you suppose the writer decided to so address that particular audience, and why do you suppose the WSJ editors chose to publish it?
After one year of Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, public approval ratings for Congress have sunk below their level when Republicans were still in control. A Post poll this month put the approval score at 32 percent, the disapproval at 60.
In the last such survey during Republican control, congressional approval was 36 percent. So what are the Democrats to make of that? They could be using this interregnum before the start of their second year to evaluate their strategy and improve their standing. But if Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House and leader of their new majority, is to be believed, they are, instead, going to brag about their achievements.
In a year-end "fact sheet," her office proclaimed that "the Democratic-led House is listening to the American people and providing the New Direction the people voted for in November. The House has passed a wide range of measures to make America safer, restore the American dream and restore accountability. We are proud of the progress made this session and recognize that more needs to be done."
While surveys by The Post and other news organizations show that the public believes little or nothing of value has been accomplished in a year of bitter partisan wrangling on Capitol Hill, Pelosi claims that "the House has had a remarkable level of achievement over the first year, passing 130 key measures -- with nearly 70 percent passing with significant bipartisan support."
That figure is achieved by setting the bar conveniently low -- measuring as bipartisan any issue in which even 50 House Republicans broke ranks to vote with the Democrats. Thus, a party-line vote in which Democrats supported but most Republicans opposed criminal penalties for price-gouging on gasoline was converted, in Pelosi's accounting, into a "bipartisan" vote because it was backed by 56 Republicans.
There is more sleight of hand in her figures. Among the "key measures" counted in the news release are voice votes to protect infants from unsafe cribs and high chairs, and votes to require drain covers in pools and spas. Such wins bulk up the statistics. Many other "victories" credited to the House were later undone by the Senate, including all the restrictions on the deployment of troops in Iraq. And on 46 of the measures passed by the House, more than one-third of the total, the notation is added, "The president has threatened to veto," or has already vetoed, the bill.
One would think that this high level of institutional warfare would be of concern to the Democrats. But there is no suggestion in this recital that any adjustment to the nation's priorities may be required. If Pelosi is to be believed, the Democrats will keep challenging the Bush veto strategy for the remaining 12 months of his term -- and leave it up to him to make any compromises...
Posted by: Fred ||
12/28/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
she may well go down as the worst speaker ever. With all of the qualified women in the world that could have performed in this position - she's not one of them.
Republicans are the party of the rich. Isn't that an immutable law of American politics? While certainly a popular truism for the past half-century, it's getting a little rusty today, dampened by new information about public opinion and voter behavior.
Consider these developments. According to a recent analysis in the Wall Street Journal, President Bush beat the Gucci pants off John Kerry by 58 percent to 41 percent among those earning more that $100,000 per year. But these voters became less Republican two years later, choosing the GOP over the Democrats by only a 51 percent to 47 percent margin in the 2006 elections. And now the numbers have flipped completely. According to a recent Wall Street Journal poll, those earning over $100,000 want a Democrat to win the White House in 2008 by a 48 percent to 41 percent margin, and prefer a Democratic Congress by 45 percent to 42 percent.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
12/28/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Social and economic conservatives don't need to be mutually exclusive. In fact, I would argue that there is a synergy there.
But when they are exclusive, I would advise each that they need each other, due to that synergy, as well as the notion of "hanging separately", as per our Founding Fathers.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
12/28/2007 5:50 Comments ||
Top||
#2
oh please. Like the slave owners of the south weren't "the party of the rich".
Like the socialist/communist party weren't the "we are the elite" party.
The dem's have always been on the wrong side of history. All that is old is new again.
#3
I would also add (IMO) that for the most part the person who goes around saying "I'm an economic conservative, but a social liberal", a la Andrew Sullivan, isn't a conservative at all, but rather a cultural Marxist who doesn't like to pay taxes. Look for these people to move increasingly to the Dems (as Sullivan has)over the next few years. Not sure what effect this might ultimately have on the political landscape.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
12/28/2007 7:52 Comments ||
Top||
#4
So, the "Tax the rich" works on these people because they know there will be enough loopholes to run a Chinese armored division through and will have offshore accounts so they don't have to pay as well. Wonderful.
Remember children, class struggle leads to the death of the privileged in revolutions. Oh wait, you only took how the white people are at fault for everything version. Prepare to be educated.
#5
Ironically, the "country club dems" thing is spot on. I've seen bumper stickers on cars at local CC parking lots that would have gotten the cars owners blackballed back in the day. And as the riff-raff filter in , the old school conservatives file out...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
12/28/2007 11:25 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Fred ||
12/28/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I've gotta get this bastard credit. He manages to always get the headlines. In economics, he may be a freaking moron, but as far as PR is concerned, he's a genius.
#2
One other thing the author of the critique didn't mention - it was the caving in during the period of the '50's - '70's by management to union demands for retirement plans and health care that is the single most powerful factor eroding the competitiveness of U.S. business today. Those times may have been good for the workers, and these times may be good, too, in terms of pensions and income stream security for those workers in retirement, but the havoc big labor and a cowardly management class wreaked on the nation was considerable.
But the rest of his article is spot on, and lying propagandists like Krugman need this type of response, particularly critiquing the mythology that the type of affluence of the 1950's is something that can be duplicated ever again. It was a unique time in history, with a unique set of circumstances that won't ever happen another time. The notion that we can somehow get back to that scenario by promoting labor and government regulation would actually make for a worse scenario, not a better one, of far fewer jobs in today's world where the labor market is increasingly global. Krugman's fairy tale needs to be dispelled, as often and loudly as possible.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
12/28/2007 6:07 Comments ||
Top||
#3
One of the greatest economic impacts of the 1950 was the effect of all those who took advantage of the post WWII GI Bill. The shear volume of people attending advanced education, before the age of useless academic paper and programs, put the footing to the American economy that no other nation could achieve for generations.
To understand the implications of Benazir Bhuttos assassination for Pakistan, first imagine what that country would look like without her Pakistan Peoples party. It has been overwhelmingly a dynastic party and she was the last politically viable representative of the Bhutto dynasty. Without her to hold it together, it is highly probable the PPP will disintegrate.
In the short term, this is likely to benefit President Pervez Musharraf and the army but, in the longer term, Islamist extremists may have the most to gain.
If the PPP does fragment, the ability of the army to use patronage to put together coalition governments including some of these PPP fragments will be greatly increased. General Musharraf will also most probably gain more freedom of manoeuvre vis a vis Washington. American pressure on him will be diminished, for the US no longer has a strong pro-American civilian leader to promote in his place.
At a time when the US is becoming increasingly exasperated with Gen Musharrafs administration and Democratic leaders such as Barack Obama have been making openly menacing speeches US options have become radically limited. Breaking with Gen Musharraf now means breaking with Pakistan as a whole, with potentially disastrous consequences for the war on terror and the conflict in Afghanistan.
Because Musharraf fought them to the limited extent that he could, whereas Sharif and Bhutto appeased Islamists - since that's what their supporters wanted - while making eyes at the West. Like I said, the Pakistani people, not their leadership, are our enemy. There is limited support at the polls for Islamists because people like Sharif and Bhutto have co-opted the Islamists' issues, not because Pakistanis believe in secularism.
Judging what the people of Pakistan "really want" is a tough job. Optimists generally point out that Islamist parties get only a small percentage of the vote. Thats true, but its also too simple. Nawaz Sharif is a mainstream politician with strong public support. He himself is "secular," but was also a protege of the Islamist-leaning General Zia, and has long been willing to ally with Islamists. Sharif was even reportedly aided by Osama bin Laden, and came close to instituting Sharia law when he was in power. Sharif was a serious potential power-holder before Bhuttos assassination, and other than Musharraf, is the only major politician left standing today. Giving power to Sharif, or a Sharif-based coalition, is one way in which elections could lead to a significant degree of power for Islamists.
Sharifs defenders point out that, whatever he may say publicly, he is in fact a savvy secularist who was willing to work with the Clinton administration against terrorists. Its true that Sharif is perfectly capable of playing the habitual double game of Pakistani politicians. But in the current climate, the source of Sharifs power lies in appeals to anti-Americanism. Already in the election campaign, Sharif has bragged about ignoring repeated phone calls from President Clinton, when Clinton was concerned about the development of Pakistans atomic bomb. I refused five phone calls from Clinton, boasts Sharif, while Musharraf buckled to Bush post-9/11 after just one phone call. Thats how this "democrat" asks for votes. (For more on Sharifs bogus democratic record, and on the weak nature of Pakistans democratic "tradition," see "Democracy Myth.")
The question of how far democracy will help the Islamists (as by bringing in a mainstream ally like Sharif) is only one side of the problem. As Sharifs anti-American election appeal makes clear, whether they would openly endorse suicide bombings or not, many Pakistanis are opposed to Americas war on terror. They may not want to be directly ruled by Osama bin Laden, but they respect bin Laden because he stands up to the United States. Even if Pakistanis wouldnt vote for an overtly Islamist candidate, the public is largely opposed to any military campaign against the Taliban in the countrys tribal Northwest.
Pakistanis arent against Musharraf because hes a dictator so much as theyre against him because he allows the Americans to push Pakistans army into a fight with the jihadists. After Musharrafs first coup, few Pakistanis mourned for "democracy." They were just as tired of corrupt and incompetent rule by "democratic" leaders like Bhutto and Sharif in 1999 as they are fed up with Musharraf today. Its not democracy, or the lack thereof, that drives the bulk of the people for or against a particular regime, but the general deterioration of conditions in Pakistan.
Polling data may show support for Bhutto, but its not because of her strong anti-terror position, but in spite of it. Bhuttos support comes partly from her regional allies, but also from those who remember the populist quasi-socialist policies of her father. The economic dreams of Pakistans poor are with Bhutto. Her supporters are poor people who havent benefitted from the growth of Pakistans economy under Musharraf. Theyre attracted to Bhuttos socialism, not to hopes for liberal democracy or military assaults against the Taliban. Bhuttos sophisticated backers always billed her to Americans as someone who could convince her reluctant constituency to accept a war on terror that the Pakistani people really dont want.
So its a mistake to read support for Bhutto as support for the war on terror. I dont think she could have turned public opinion around on that anyway, and I think its even less likely that her PPP successor could do so. Americans may see Bhuttos assassination as final proof that Pakistanis ought to support the war on terror. But Pakistans "democratic" politicians are more interested in using the assassination to turn the public against Musharraf.
Another thing that gets missed is that even (or especially) many of Bhuttos most Westernized and secular supporters despise the war on terror. The question is less how many Pakistanis support the Taliban than how many support Americas war on terror within Pakistan. The answer is, not very many. And this is a big part of why an illiberal and purely electoral democracy in Pakistan is a problem.
Right now we face the very real prospect of an electoral coalition in which Sharif and allied Islamists hold significant power. Yes, Sharif would still run a double game against terrorism to mollify the Americans, but it would be vastly more tenuous than even Musharrafs game is now, and would constantly threaten to collapse into anti-American demagoguery (now a key source of Sharifs popular appeal). Even an electoral victory by a Bhutto successor could mean trouble. Bhuttos supporters do not favor the war on terror, and could in any case fall into conflicts with the army that would lead to further chaos. And remember, Bhutto and Sharif alternated in power, and their respective parties and coalitions would surely alternate again. Disenchantment with a regime ruled by a Bhutto successor would lead to victory in the next election for an even more virulently anti-American Sharif-Islamist coalition. This is the future of "democracy" in Pakistan.
#1
Note that Bhutto's supporters are venting against Musharraf instead of Al Qaeda, which has claimed credit for Bhutto's death, or Sharif, who is al Qaeda's stalking horse in Pakistan.
Lost in all the frenzied reaction to the Bhutto assassination is any consistency of critique. So we hear that the U.S. is to be blamed for not pressuring Musharraf, and yet blamed for putting all our eggs in the democratic basket of Benazir Bhutto. So what is it, are we naive and utopian to keep trying to plug away in fostering consensual governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, pressuring Syria to keep out of Lebanon, and jawboning the Gulf monarchies and Mubarak, lecturing Musharraf, etc. or are we cold-blooded and cynical in dealing in the here and now with these existing autocracies?
And the furor over WMD is not logical either. The greatest diplomatic lapse in the last quarter-century was the allowance of Pakistan to go nuclear in 1998, in part due to the failures of the CIA (over three administrations) and the distractions and lack of consistency in dealing with the final stages of this crisis by the distracted Clinton administration.
Yet, we know that Iraq will not reacquire WMD; our supposedly brilliant intelligence agencies claim Iran quit its nuclear-weapons program in 2003 (right after our removal of Saddam), Libya came clean about the same time and for the same reasons, and we are told North Korea has at least ostensibly ceased.
So when we talk about our current failures vis-a-vis Pakistan and the general chaos abroad, history may take a longer view, and see that our present dismal prospects in Pakistan derive in large part from its nuclearization (Khan was exposed and his nuclear profiteering abroad shut down in 2003/4) a decade ago, and that, contrary to conventional wisdom, we have done pretty well in trying to limit the number of new nuclear states during the last few years.
Posted by: Mike ||
12/28/2007 12:44 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[15 views]
Top|| File under:
The real disaster is that the State Department knocked off Musharraf in favor of either Nawaz Sharif or Bhutto, neither of whom were inclined to stand up to the Islamists while they were in power.
FOR the next several days, you're going to read and hear a great deal of pious nonsense in the wake of the assassination of Pakistan's former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto.
Her country's better off without her. She may serve Pakistan better after her death than she did in life.
We need have no sympathy with her Islamist assassin and the extremists behind him to recognize that Bhutto was corrupt, divisive, dishonest and utterly devoid of genuine concern for her country.
She was a splendid con, persuading otherwise cynical Western politicians and "hardheaded" journalists that she was not only a brave woman crusading in the Islamic wilderness, but also a thoroughbred democrat.
In fact, Bhutto was a frivolously wealthy feudal landlord amid bleak poverty. The scion of a thieving political dynasty, she was always more concerned with power than with the wellbeing of the average Pakistani. Her program remained one of old-school patronage, not increased productivity or social decency.
Educated in expensive Western schools, she permitted Pakistan's feeble education system to rot - opening the door to Islamists and their religious schools.
During her years as prime minister, Pakistan went backward, not forward. Her husband looted shamelessly and ended up fleeing the country, pursued by the courts. The Islamist threat - which she artfully played both ways - spread like cancer.
But she always knew how to work Westerners - unlike the hapless Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who sought the best for his tormented country but never knew how to package himself.
Military regimes are never appealing to Western sensibilities. Yet, there are desperate hours when they provide the only, slim hope for a country nearing collapse. Democracy is certainly preferable - but, unfortunately, it's not always immediately possible. Like spoiled children, we have to have it now - and damn the consequences.
In Pakistan, the military has its own forms of graft; nonetheless, it remains the least corrupt institution in the country and the only force holding an unnatural state together. In Pakistan back in the '90s, the only people I met who cared a whit about the common man were military officers.
Americans don't like to hear that. But it's the truth.
Bhutto embodied the flaws in Pakistan's political system, not its potential salvation. Both she and her principal rival, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, failed to offer a practical vision for the future - their political feuds were simply about who would divvy up the spoils.
From its founding, Pakistan has been plagued by cults of personality, by personal, feudal loyalties that stymied the development of healthy government institutions (provoking coups by a disgusted military). When she held the reins of government, Bhutto did nothing to steer in a new direction - she merely sought to enhance her personal power.
Now she's dead. And she may finally render her country a genuine service (if cynical party hacks don't try to blame Musharraf for their own benefit). After the inevitable rioting subsides and the spectacular conspiracy theories cool a bit, her murder may galvanize Pakistanis against the Islamist extremists who've never gained great support among voters, but who nonetheless threaten the state's ability to govern.
As a victim of fanaticism, Bhutto may shine as a rallying symbol with a far purer light than she cast while alive. The bitter joke is that, while she was never serious about freedom, women's rights and fighting terrorism, the terrorists took her rhetoric seriously - and killed her for her words, not her actions.
Nothing's going to make Pakistan's political crisis disappear - this crisis may be permanent, subject only to intermittent amelioration. (Our State Department's policy toward Islamabad amounts to a pocket full of platitudes, nostalgia for the 20th century and a liberal version of the white man's burden mindset.)
The one slim hope is that this savage murder will - in the long term - clarify their lot for Pakistan's citizens. The old ways, the old personalities and old parties have failed them catastrophically. The country needs new leaders - who don't think an election victory entitles them to grab what little remains of the national patrimony.
In killing Bhutto, the Islamists over-reached (possibly aided by rogue elements in Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, one of the murkiest outfits on this earth). Just as al Qaeda in Iraq overplayed its hand and alienated that country's Sunni Arabs, this assassination may disillusion Pakistanis who lent half an ear to Islamist rhetoric.
A creature of insatiable ambition, Bhutto will now become a martyr. In death, she may pay back some of the enormous debt she owes her country.
What is it the State Department does? It flies into places, and a lot of the people, Congressman Dreier is a good example, a Congressman flies in, he meets with eminent persons in Islamabad or Karachi, or wherever, and he comes away thinking that these people speak for the country. They dont. Its the fierce, implacable young men of 18, 19 and 20, that nobody knows the names of, who never get to meet anybody important, who are Pakistan. Thats what Pakistan is. Theyre the people who provide untold numbers of volunteers for the jihad, and who when you say oh, who would like to be the one who blows himself in front, and takes Benazir Bhutto with him, and the whole room puts up its hands. None of those people ever meet with Congressman or Senators, or anyone from the State Department. But they are the reality of Pakistan, and poor Benazir Bhutto, Im afraid, was a Foggy Bottom delusion.
#2
On Friday, December 21st, a suicide bomber launched an attack upon a mosque in Charsadda district in NWFP, killing 57 people. The mosque was attended by Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao, the interior minister in the last government. Friday prayers are regarded as especially important in Islam, and what made the attack more shocking was that it happened at a service for Eid al-Adha the remembrance of Abraham's order to sacrifice Isaac. Sherpao was not injured in last Friday's attack, but it appears that the bomb was aimed at him. Sherpao is a supporter of Musharraf and belongs to his PML-Q party. A newly-formed Islamist coalition called the Tehrik-i-Taliban claimed responsibility for the mosque bomb.
I have to question Mr. Morgan's competence: the Muslims insist that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who was to be sacrificed.
#3
Probably Mush will postpone the election for 90 days or so.
Although the newspaper in the US all mention rioting, the post assassination violence has been moderate (not even as violent as the French intifada riots a few weeks ago).
#4
I have to question Mr. Morgan's competence: the Muslims insist that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who was to be sacrificed.
Phat, I missed that, but I suppose we can cut Morgan (who incidentally I think is one of the better commentators on Islam) a bit of slack, as even Wiki seems to have got it wrong.
#5
Mohammud's geneology is not in the Koran but Ishmael is mentioned a bunch of times (Isaac is also mentioned but I think not as often).
The anti Mohammud tribe the quraysh tribe believed themselves to be descended from Ishmael - this caused some problems in early Islam and there are several competing geneologies. By the middle ages, the muslims believed themselves to be descended from Ishmael and for a time required converts to Islam to also join one of several (I think 12) tribes of Ishmael as part of their conversion (some parts of Islam may still do this).
Asyria conquered the Ishmaelites about the same time they conquered the northern tribes of Israel. They killed many Ismaelites and scattered
the remainder so there are probably no 'pure blood' Ismaelites around anymore.
A letter to the editor published by the Frontier Post, with a few paragraph breaks added by me for clarity:
Every time I decide not to think, write or speak about Pakistan and horrible situation there, something happens and I cant help to express my views. I hate to think about a country where 48 million illiterate are living and have lowest standard of life but then I dont blame them for their illiteracy because they are forced to live in dark by elite.
I decided not to celebrate Eid in New York because Muslim community was divided over when to celebrate Eid and I did not want to be part of that because I hate to see that we Muslims even cant celebrate our festivals on same day and have no unity at all, then there comes a breaking news about suicide attack in Charsadda during Eid prayers and my blood boils to see all those innocent Pakhtuns who were going to celebrate their Eid festival were victims of this horrible suicide attack, innocent people whose families were going to celebrate Eid were forced to mourn by some fanatic who had no value of his life or others, all those who were killed on this day of joy were pukhtoons and that was their crime and sin. Who is behind these attacks???
Its not rocket science to figure out. Bunch of cowards from Osamas Al-qeada who are hiding in rat holes are responsible for this genocide of Pakhtun nation. Osama the traitor of Islam and an agent of enemies of Islam destroying Pakhtuns and their land.
On the other hand confuse and illiterate mullahs are selling their soul and preaching hatred and playing in the hands of Talibans and innocent Pakhtuns are paying the price. We all know who are Talibans, thanks to ISI who produced them during so called Afghan jihad against former Soviet Union, former hateful military dictator Zia imposed Afghan refugees on Pakhtuns land and military trained these refugees to fight against Soviets, these Talibans did not see music centers then or did not see girls going to schools because they were on pay roll of ISI and other foreign powers, when Osama and his company lost support and financial aid from west and isi after the withdraw of Soviets from Afghanistan, Osama company turned their guns against west and Pakhtuns, its amazing mullahs and Talibans dont see music centers or girls schools in Punjab but they see everything in Pakhtunistan.
Pakistan's fundamentalism was mobilized and made sectarian by the government of Zia. It also became jihadi and terrorist with a lot of financial support from the United States and Saudi Arabia. Jihadi leaders came into possession of considerable wealth, which they shared with the state apparatus in Pakistan.
The army under General Zia combined three interest groups: the army, the clergy and the industrial elite. The latest suicide attack in charssada proves that Mush regime has been failed in security of citizens and Pakhtuns, this regime must resign now for its failures and it also proves that terrorists network is way stronger and organized then Mush security forces.
This regime must crush these militants, their leaders and supporters, unfortunately there are people in Mush regime and ISI who support these militants, lousy politician and son of former military dictator Zia, Ijaz Ul Haq had close links with terrorists of lal majis mullahs, people like him should be questioned, if Mush regime can't control these militants then NATO forces across the border should be allowed to crush these militants before they kill more innocent people.
#2
As noted in this letter most ex pat Pakistanis and, probably most Pakistanis realize that their terrorists are Muslims (he even says Mullahs) who take their holy books seriously (or militantly). The writer can't bring himself to put it this way but he comes much closer than he would a few years ago.
It is said that there is "nothing new under the sun". When it comes to politics in Pakistan, this certainly seems to ring true. Friends, allies and enemies spin around and flip like in George Orwell's novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four. Nawaz Sharif's marriage of convenience with the Pakistani military and ISI did not last very long. They ostensibly fell out over the fighting in the area known as Kargil, both blaming the other for the misadventure.
Nawaz sacked Musharraf on October 12, 1999, while Musharraf was flying back to Pakistan from a foreign visit. Nawaz would not let his plane land, causing the military to seize the airport in Karachi and save Musharraf, whose plane was quickly running out of fuel and in danger of crashing. Musharraf quickly proclaimed military rule, arrested the Prime Minister and dissolved the Government and the National Assembly. This time there would be no pretense of any constitutional trappings. This was an old-style military coup.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john frum ||
12/28/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[12 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
Compare wid WND > TERRORISTS NEW MISSION: PROTECT PRESIDENT BUSH; + PALS CHILD: "WE ALL CAN BE SACRIFICED [EXPENDABLE?]".
Perv is behind all mischief in Pakistan and abroad so that the West being most scared of extremist fund him to fight the jihadis which he also supports/funds therefore killing off democracy and retaining the Military mullah alliance!!!!When will Bush realise Perv like Zia is the PROBLEM in Pakistan?????
Posted by: Paul ||
12/28/2007 10:23 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Okay Paul, you convinced me. Now what, exactly, is Bush supposed to do to improve the situation?
The West needs to stop supporting Military govts which are very unpopular in Pakistan and support democratic parties which are not tainted by corruption!
Posted by: Paul ||
12/28/2007 14:54 Comments ||
Top||
#5
...support democratic parties which are not tainted by corruption
As though we have democratic parties which are not tainted by corruption! You expect a lot of others that we seem to fail to achieve ourselves.
With Benazir Bhuttos assassination, it no longer matters if General Pervez Musharraf remains Pakistans President.
With the huge political vacuum created by the passing away of Pakistans tallest leader, power has effectively passed on to General Ashfaq Pervez Kiani, who can no longer remain in the shadow of the man whom he succeeded as the chief of army staff only a few weeks ago.
All of Musharrafs antics since September 11, 2001, have had the single purpose of perpetuating his rule in Pakistan.
On Thursday, a greater institutional responsibility fell on Kianis shoulders: that of preserving the armys supreme role in Pakistans politics as that countrys only remaining institution with any degree of stability.
Every corps commander in Pakistan will have one thought uppermost in his mind tonight. How could this assassination have happened in Rawalpindi, the seat of the Pakistani armys General Headquarters (GHQ), the sanctum sanctorum of the Pakistani establishment for at least half a century?
In November, Benazir wanted to hold a rally in Rawalpindi similar to the one at which she met her tragic end today. But Benazir was persuaded by the army brass to abandon the idea. That persuasion was a reflection of the armys determination to insulate its GHQ from the tumult of Pakistani politics and retain its image as the countrys ultimate stabilising force.
Benazirs acquiescence in that effort reflected her new willingness to accommodate the army in her political calculations.
Kiani will attempt in the coming weeks to restore that balance in the body politic of Pakistan. But he can only do that now, if at all, by distancing himself from Musharraf.
It is the supreme irony of Pakistan that every President or Prime Minister who has appointed a new chief of army staff has miscalculated in his choice. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto chose General Zia-ul Haq because he thought Zia was a mouse among the lions and would pose no threat to him. Zia literally devoured Bhutto, ousting him from power and then executing him.
Nawaz Sharif made the same mistake in choosing Musharraf to head the GHQ. Sharif was overthrown, but he escaped with his life, thanks to the US President and the king of Saudi Arabia.
In the coming months earlier, if Musharrafs stars are crossed it will be the incumbent Presidents turn to regret his choice.
Kiani is unique as the army chief: he is the only general who headed the scheming, conspiratorial, secretive Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to have risen to the very top of the armys ladder. He will want to retain the confidence of the ISI, with its fingers in multiple pies, and preserve the armys overarching role within the Pakistani state at the same time.
That now requires considerable tight-rope walking, for which Musharraf is a liability.
When Kiani and Musharraf looked each other in the eye at the emotional ceremony at which the army chiefs baton changed hands a few weeks ago, they would have recognised the value of their compact.
Kiani could never have hoped for a better President, one from his own ranks who would indulge the army and vice versa. That compact made it irrelevant who became Prime Minister after the January 8 election.
With Benazir gone, that compact lies in ruins. And Musharraf does not have the political capital to ressurect or refashion it any more.
Washington is one capital where this new weakness in Islamabad is unmistakably recognised. On Thursday morning when US President George W. Bush, on holiday at his ranch at Crawford was alerted to the developments in Pakistan, the Americans were initially at a loss. White House spokesman Scott Stanzel could not even bring himself to name Benazir lest it undermine(d) reconciliation as the state department described todays events at the same time because Benazirs assassination has abruptly ended the version of democracy carefully choreographed in London and Washington with the dead Peoples Party leader as a key player.
Nawaz Sharif, the only other tall leader in Pakistan, rejected the idea of reconciliation and formation of a national government even before Benazirs body was moved from the hospital.
Kiani may yet be able to make Sharif change his mind but only if Musharraf leaves the political scene for good.
Pakistans army has normally stepped aside when the streets are in flames. That was how Zulifqar Ali Bhutto assumed power. His daughter similarly came to power when the army gave way after Zias death.
Kiani may choose to repeat history by brokering yet another compromise in Pakistans chequered politics that retains the quiet dominance of the army GHQ over the country.
As the late Benazirs military secretary in 1988, who met her in Dubai and London during her exile, he has enough strings to pull within her Peoples Party,which is bereft of a second rung leadership. That makes Kiani the man to watch in the weeks and months to come.
Posted by: john frum ||
12/28/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
On the other hand, the place may just go up in flames and break into its costituent ethnic pieces.
#2
Which might be the best thing in the long run. The Baluchis would have a state that might be economically viable, the Pasthtuns could be walled off, and the rest of Pakistan would be a smaller, more homogenous state that might (because of its size) have no choice but to settle with the Indians and live in (relative) peace.
Of course, the short run to get there could be especially frightening.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/28/2007 12:43 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The biggist deal in this whole Pakistan affair is to secure their nuclear weapons, delivery systems, and key components, like triggers. If we could do that, even with allies that we do not especially care for, like the Russians, or India, we could let Pakistan head into anarchy and burn itself out.
I do not care much about Pakistan. They are an extremely divided society caused by their own doing. I hope that they get things sorted out in a positive way.
I do care about their nuclear weapons, and I would like to see that threat to civilization solved. Done.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
12/28/2007 18:29 Comments ||
Top||
Views on the war in Iraq now transcend reasonable discussion. The war rests in the realm of emotion, warped by the hysteria of partisan bickering.
The result is that we have forgotten why we invaded Iraq in long-ago 2003. We cannot agree why we had problems after the stunning removal of Saddam Hussein. And we are not sure either whether we are winning or why we even should.
#1
Meanwhile, it would appear that President Bush is going to use one of the Palestinian terrorist groups as part of his security entourage in the West Bank. His visit to the West Bank, which is supposed to bolster Abbas, will include security provided by the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.
That could prove interesting. I do hope President Bush doesn't end up martyred to the cause, leaving Mr. Cheney to wind up the term... incidentally ending the State Department control of foreign policy for the nonce.
The Instapundit and Insta-Wife interview Jonah Goldberg on his new book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. There's a streaming audio player at the link; you can also get it via iTunes or download it here.
I listened to it on the way in to work this morning. It's quite fascinating. Can't wait for the book.
Posted by: Mike ||
12/28/2007 12:55 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
What can I say---it's Lee Harris
Today, no self-respecting conservative wants to be thought stupid, not even by the lunatics on the far left. Yet there are far worse things than looking stupid to othersand one of them is being conned by those who are far cleverer than we are. Indeed, in certain cases, the desire to appear intelligent at all costs can be downright suicidal. Throughout history people have come along who were able to outtalk and outthink their neighbors, like the paradox-bearing sophists of ancient Greece or the mocking philosophes of the eighteenth century French salon. The bell curve virtually guarantees that there will always be those who can pull the wool over the eyes of the rest of us, and if we once begin to listen to their spiel, then we find that before we know it we have been taken advantage of. It is not easy to outfox the fox, and those who try often end up on the unpleasant end of the food chain.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
By David S. Broder
