• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Bush More Emphatic In Backing Musharraf

Status
Not open for further replies.

Eric P

Member
By Michael Abramowitz and Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 21, 2007; Page A01

President Bush yesterday offered his strongest support of embattled Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying the general "hasn't crossed the line" and "truly is somebody who believes in democracy."


Bush spoke nearly three weeks after Musharraf declared emergency rule, sacked members of the Supreme Court and began a roundup of journalists, lawyers and human rights activists. Musharraf's government yesterday released about 3,000 political prisoners, although 2,000 remain in custody, according to the Interior Ministry.

The comments, delivered in an interview with ABC News anchor Charles Gibson, contrasted with previous administration statements -- including by Bush himself -- expressing grave concern over Musharraf's actions. In his first public comments on the crisis two weeks ago, Bush said his aides bluntly warned Musharraf that his emergency measures "would undermine democracy."

The shift yesterday appeared part of a broader strategy to ease the crisis in Pakistan. Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte carried a terse message to Musharraf during talks last weekend, urging the general to step down as chief of the army. Now, after this strong personal show of support from the president, the Bush administration expects the general to shed his military uniform before the end of the month, an administration official said.

Several outside analysts and a key Democratic lawmaker expressed incredulity over Bush's comments and called them a sign of how personally invested the president has become in the U.S. relationship with Musharraf.

"What exactly would it take for the president to conclude Musharraf has crossed the line? Suspend the constitution? Impose emergency law? Beat and jail his political opponents and human rights activists?" asked Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a presidential candidate. "He's already done all that. If the president sees Musharraf as a democrat, he must be wearing the same glasses he had on when he looked in Vladimir Putin's soul."

Bush was asked in the interview if there is any line Musharraf should not cross. "He hasn't crossed the line. As a matter of fact, I don't think that he will cross any lines," Bush replied, according to an ABC transcript. ". . . We didn't necessarily agree with his decision to impose emergency rule, and . . . hopefully he'll get . . . rid of the rule. Today, I thought, was a pretty good signal, that he released thousands of people from jail."

Tom Malinowski, Washington director of Human Rights Watch, said that "it's hard to imagine how the administration will be able to achieve anything in Pakistan if the president is so disconnected from reality."

"Almost everyone in Pakistan who believes in George Bush's vision of democracy is in prison today," Malinowski said. "Calling the man who put them in prison a great democrat will only discredit America among moderate Pakistanis and give Musharraf confidence that he can continue to defy the United States because Bush will forgive anything he does."

Bush has closely linked his administration to Musharraf since the weeks after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, when the Pakistani president sided with the United States in its drive to oust the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. Although the current crisis has prompted the administration to launch a review of its aid to Pakistan, officials said yesterday that they are looking favorably at continuing most economic and military aid, which has surpassed $10 billion since 2001.

Musharraf has provided extensive assistance to the United States in its efforts to seize high-profile al-Qaeda suspects, but his devotion to the fight has been increasingly questioned by some U.S. officials and outside experts. Musharraf "is not only not indispensable; he is a serious liability" to U.S. policy, a new report by the International Crisis Group said.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said in an e-mail message that the president was sincere in his comments to ABC. "He does believe that President Musharraf believes in democracy, and there is evidence to that fact based on the reforms he'd put in place over the last several years," she said. "Musharraf has made a mistake and took a detour -- we are hopeful that he will restore the constitution and get the country back to that path to democracy."

Some officials indicated that the view among many in the administration is that Musharraf may be able to survive the crisis and remain in power.


"Unless the opposition parties can mount some kind of street campaign, it looks like Musharraf will stay in power for the near future," said Stephen P. Cohen, a Brookings Institution scholar and an authority on South Asia. "It is now up to the generals. When you have no effective state, no rule of law, it's only people with guns who can remove a leader -- and that means the generals."

Husain Haqqani, a longtime adviser to former prime minister Benazir Bhutto who now teaches at Boston University, said Bush's comments yesterday suggest that "the president of the United States does not grasp the situation in Pakistan correctly," adding: "Musharraf's support and significance to the United States is overestimated by a White House that is bogged down by other concerns."

Biden said the onus is on the Pakistani leader: "Right now, it matters less what President Bush thinks and more what Musharraf does to put Pakistan on a democratic path."

In the interview with ABC News, conducted at Camp David, Bush disputed the suggestion that he has put too much faith in Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup.

"He's been a loyal ally in fighting terrorists. He's also advanced democracy in Pakistan," Bush said. "He has said he's going to take off his uniform. He's said there will be elections. Today he released prisoners, and so far I've found him to be a man of his word."

well, he hasn't set up secret prisons and outsourced his torture, which we know bush doesn't consider crossing the line, so i guess bush really believes in what he says
 

Eric P

Member
worldrunover said:
I think Bush is trying to get Musharraf to give him his secrets so he can do the same thing here in about 10 months.

well then he should just talk to Putin
 

Snowden

Banned
worldrunover said:
I think Bush is trying to get Musharraf to give him his secrets so he can do the same thing here in about 10 months.

Yeah no kidding. Bush says that he's been a valuable asset to fighting terrorism. I find that hard to believe, considering the biggest terrorists are those two assholes.
 

bob_arctor

Tough_Smooth
". . . We didn't necessarily agree with his decision to impose emergency rule, and . . . hopefully he'll get . . . rid of the rule. Today, I thought, was a pretty good signal, that he released thousands of people from jail."

:lol
bush.gif
 

DEO3

Member
So we run around the Middle East killing people in the name of democracy, yet our two best friends are a monarchy in Saudi Arabia and a dictator in Pakistan. GEE GUYS I WONDER WHY EVERYONE HATE US AND WANTS TO FLY OUR PLANES INTO OUR BUILDINGS AND SHIT.

On an unrelated note, god DAMN is Cookie Crisp fucking amazing or what?
 

bob_arctor

Tough_Smooth
DEO3 said:
On an unrelated note, god DAMN is Cookie Crisp fucking amazing or what?

I love it but still feel bitter that they discontinued the Vanilla kind. I am also still bitter that current Trix is some sort of bastardized version of the old Trix I grew up on.

At least Fruity Pebbles and Capt. Crunch refuse to change, God bless their sugary hearts.
 

APF

Member
So, we should abandon our alliances with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and doing this will make us safer from the threat of terrorism.
 

bob_arctor

Tough_Smooth
APF said:
So, we should abandon our alliances with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and doing this will make us safer from the threat of terrorism.

Well, it would at least make us safer from the threat of sheer hypocrisy.

President Bush yesterday offered his strongest support of embattled Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying the general "hasn't crossed the line" and "truly is somebody who believes in democracy."


In his first public comments on the crisis two weeks ago, Bush said his aides bluntly warned Musharraf that his emergency measures "would undermine democracy."



Hey, is Osama on house or cave arrest? That's a tricky one.
 

APF

Member
So again, is the solution to have weaker alliances, or to have a weaker rhetorical shout-outs to democracy?
 
APF said:
So, we should abandon our alliances with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and doing this will make us safer from the threat of terrorism.

Bush: "I want democracy to flourish in the Middle East"
*Middle Eastern Country which is somewhat democratic does something completely totalitarian*
Bush: "S'all good."
 

bob_arctor

Tough_Smooth
APF said:
So again the question is, weaker alliances or weaker rhetoric?

Wait, how will condemning Mush wholesale make us less safe from terrorism? Will he let Osama out the cave like a rabid dog? Will he open the doors to the nuke house and say "Black Friday, bitches!"

On another note, we've agreed to talk with Iran about how to make Iraq more secure (there's symmetry there I just know it).
 
It'd be nice if such kind words for Musharraf came with the promise of crushing Taleban support on the border with Afgahnistan or something... as it is it just looks like Bush is sullying his own reputation to glorify a troubled general in a very precarious position.

It is highly important Pakistan remains stable though... Look what happened with the removal of Iraq's ruthless dictator... Saddam did keep shit in order. What if Musharraf is the same?
 

APF

Member
Bob: I think you're right that there's some bizarre connection; it's this idea that the solution to the complicated balancing act of international diplomacy is to make enemies of your friends and friends of your enemies.
 

Dyno

Member
radioheadrule83 said:
It is highly important Pakistan remains stable though... Look what happened with the removal of Iraq's ruthless dictator... Saddam did keep shit in order. What if Musharraf is the same?

It's not the same situation. Pakistan has had civilian leaders for half of its 60 years as a country, military dictators for the other half. There is no institution or group that ruled as long or completely as Saddam did in Iraq.

Also, Iraq is Arabic, Pakistan is Indian; they have very different cultures.
 

bob_arctor

Tough_Smooth
APF said:
Bob: I think you're right that there's some bizarre connection; it's this idea that the solution to the complicated balancing act of international diplomacy is to make enemies of your friends and friends of your enemies.

Subtle, very subtle. Bravo!

Edit: Also, this shouldn't stop Bush from condemning what Mush is doing instead of bullshitting like he did with that "hasn't crossed the line" crap.
 
Dyno said:
It's not the same situation. Pakistan has had civilian leaders for half of its 60 years as a country, military dictators for the other half. There is no institution or group that ruled as long or completely as Saddam did in Iraq.

Also, Iraq is Arabic, Pakistan is Indian; they have very different cultures.

I'm not completely educated on Pakistan or anything but I'm aware of those basic differences. I suppose I just feel everywhere seems to go to shit these days...
 

Dyno

Member
APF said:
Bob: I think you're right that there's some bizarre connection; it's this idea that the solution to the complicated balancing act of international diplomacy is to make enemies of your friends and friends of your enemies.

No. It's far simpler than all that.

Bush made a ten billion dollar alliance of convenience with an unworthy leader. Musharraf has proven himself to be both ineffectual in the War on Terror and a tyrant to his own people. Bush was wrong to choose him but he'll never admit that so we get these ridiculous statements and empty assurances.

It's called international diplomacy enacted by a person with no skill in the matter whatsoever.

See? Easy!
 

Dies Iræ

Member
Fuck.

This is the most vile proof of Bush's contempt for democracy.

Let's invoke Venezuela, the strongest example:

2000 - Chavez is democratically elected by popular vote. The Carter Democratic Watchdog approves the elections. The fact that Chavez is a lowly farm boy with no political backings makes this an impressive win for democracy - especially in a nation with a bloody, dictatorial history.

2001 - Chavez invokes the Enabling Act to oust the US corporations controlling Venezuela's oil so that he can use his nations oil profits to help the Venezuelan people.

2002 - Bush administration stages a military coup d'etat in Venezuela with the support of the Spanish government and business community. One day after being removed at gun point and flown to a remote location, Chavez returns to power. Over 2 million Venezuelan's protested in the streets of Caracas for his return.

2003 - Bush includes Venezuela on the "axis of evil".

2006 - Chavez calls out Bush at the UN. He calls Bush the greatest terrorist of our day. In an act of incredible irony, Bush calls him a threat to democracy.

2007 - Chavez invokes the Enabling Act for the third time, a law enshrined in the constitution. He can only use it with majority vote from the Venezuelan congress, which is elected democratically by the people. Remember, he's used it twice before benevolently - furthermore, six Venezuelan governments have used it prior to his own.

Bush now considers Chavez a Leninist dictator attempting to build a South American socialist bloc modeled after the Soviet bloc. The media's all over Chavez - slandering him with similar bullshit.

Bush was elected by a republican-controlled supreme court and the corporate media in 2000. Bush attempted to overthrow a democratic government in 2002. He successfully overthrew another democratic government in 2004 (Aristide in Haiti). Bush initiated a proxy war in Somalia along racist/partisan lines when the (Islamic) United Courts finally achieved balance after over a decade of anarchy. Bush refuses to recognize the democratically elected Hamas as anything other than a terrorist organization - restricting half a billion dollars in aid per year to starving civilians. Bush has escalated tensions with Iran, manufacturing reasons for war that are wholly untrue - including the case that Iran has nuclear weapons, the exact lie he told about Hussein. Bush has labeled Hezbollah a terrorist organization - something Canada and the EU have not. Because it isnt. Over 80% of Christians in Lebanon support Hezbollah. Bush supported the illegal invasion of Lebanon in 2006, and initiated the illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively. Both were against international law, the latter seeing over 750,000 dead as of last December and 3.5 million people permanently displaced/homeless.

I think the case that Bush has little respect for democracy has been made countless times. At this point, I would argue that Bush hates democracy.
 

Eric P

Member
Dies Iræ said:
Fuck.

This is the most vile proof of Bush's contempt for democracy.

Let's invoke Venezuela, the strongest example:

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
 

Snowden

Banned
Dies Iræ said:
Fuck.

This is the most vile proof of Bush's contempt for democracy.

Let's invoke Venezuela, the strongest example:

2000 - Chavez is democratically elected by popular vote. The Carter Democratic Watchdog approves the elections. The fact that Chavez is a lowly farm boy with no political backings makes this an impressive win for democracy - especially in a nation with a bloody, dictatorial history.

2001 - Chavez invokes the Enabling Act to oust the US corporations controlling Venezuela's oil so that he can use his nations oil profits to help the Venezuelan people.

2002 - Bush administration stages a military coup d'etat in Venezuela with the support of the Spanish government and business community. One day after being removed at gun point and flown to a remote location, Chavez returns to power. Over 2 million Venezuelan's protested in the streets of Caracas for his return.

2003 - Bush includes Venezuela on the "axis of evil".

2006 - Chavez calls out Bush at the UN. He calls Bush the greatest terrorist of our day. In an act of incredible irony, Bush calls him a threat to democracy.

2007 - Chavez invokes the Enabling Act for the third time, a law enshrined in the constitution. He can only use it with majority vote from the Venezuelan congress, which is elected democratically by the people. Remember, he's used it twice before benevolently - furthermore, six Venezuelan governments have used it prior to his own.

Bush now considers Chavez a Leninist dictator attempting to build a South American socialist bloc modeled after the Soviet bloc. The media's all over Chavez - slandering him with similar bullshit.

Bush was elected by a republican-controlled supreme court and the corporate media in 2000. Bush attempted to overthrow a democratic government in 2002. He successfully overthrew another democratic government in 2004 (Aristide in Haiti). Bush initiated a proxy war in Somalia along racist/partisan lines when the (Islamic) United Courts finally achieved balance after over a decade of anarchy. Bush refuses to recognize the democratically elected Hamas as anything other than a terrorist organization - restricting half a billion dollars in aid per year to starving civilians. Bush has escalated tensions with Iran, manufacturing reasons for war that are wholly untrue - including the case that Iran has nuclear weapons, the exact lie he told about Hussein. Bush has labeled Hezbollah a terrorist organization - something Canada and the EU have not. Because it isnt. Over 80% of Christians in Lebanon support Hezbollah. Bush supported the illegal invasion of Lebanon in 2006, and initiated the illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively. Both were against international law, the latter seeing over 750,000 dead as of last December and 3.5 million people permanently displaced/homeless.

I think the case that Bush has little respect for democracy has been made countless times. At this point, I would argue that Bush hates democracy.

Do you really believe all the bullshit you spew, or do you think everyone else is stupid enough to believe it. I'm just kind of curious on what your angle is here.
 

APF

Member
Eric P said:
if we ignore Venezuela has been brought into this, then maybe we can keep it on topic
THAT'S NOT HOW I ROLL


edit: the idea that Bush was wrong to go the diplomatic route wrt Pakistan post-9/11 is just jaw-droppingly crazy. The idea that it was indicative of diplomatic incompetence at the time is just completely, willfully ignorant.
 

bob_arctor

Tough_Smooth
Evonus said:
Do you really believe all the bullshit you spew, or do you think everyone else is stupid enough to believe it. I'm just kind of curious on what your angle is here.

While I'm convinced Dies Iræ is actually Noam Chomsky, please, feel free to completely tear apart his post anyway. IF YOU DARE!!
 

Dyno

Member
APF said:
edit: the idea that Bush was wrong to go the diplomatic route wrt Pakistan post-9/11 is just jaw-droppingly crazy. The idea that it was indicative of diplomatic incompetence at the time is just completely, willfully ignorant.

Why so? He's a military dictator who stole power from a civilian government in a coop. On principle alone any democratic nation should not provide aid to Pakistan until a civilian government is reinstated and protected from further predation of the military wing.

Diplomatic cordiality is one thing, but Bush thought it was a swell idea to give 10 billion in military aid, and investment that has never paid off.

Pakistan and Musharraf couldn't have been the great ally in the War on Terror as Bush insists. The Pakistan military had close and binding relations with the mujahideen throughout the Soviet/Afghanistan occupation. Military and ISI officers are old friends with the Taliban chiefs. They were allowed to hide out in Peshwar. Osama Bin Laden made his escape in that route.

The Bush Administration has ignored history in a vain hope that they could purchase a foreign army to man the eastern flank in their fight against the Taliban. That flank naturally proved porous for the reasons I outlined above. It was unsound judgement, a huge waste of money, and worst of all it undermined the efforts of NATO soldiers who had to deal with fleeing fighters and a safe haven they couldn't shut down.

This has nothing to do with Pakistan anymore however, it's about Bush trying to save face from yet another foreign policy blunder.
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
From what I've read, it sounds like Zalmay Khalilzad has become a big mover behind US-Afghan policy. He was never a big fan of Musharraf, whose deal was engineered/supported by Powell back in the day.

So the US set up negotiations between Bhutto and Musharraf a while back, and seems to be edging away from unconditional support of Musharraf. Bhutto has addressed audiences in DC talking about her commitment to fighting terrorists. It feels like the US is either tilting towards her, or hedging their bets. The sense is that Musharraf hasn't been doing enough to fight the Taliban et al, and that his hold on power isn't stable enough anyway, so it would make sense to align with Bhutto.

So Bush's comments are a bit surprising, but he's always stuck by foreign leaders who he perceived to be on his side, and it's not like the US is sponsoring a coup or anything.
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
There was a report in an Indian media outlet about the CIA reaching out to high-ranking Pakistani military officials, with an eye towards a post-Musharraf government. I'm not sure how reliable that report is, but overall the administration seems to be taking some of its eggs out of the Musharraf basket.

I'm guessing the foreign aid will continue in any case, since it's basically a blank-check bribe to Pakistan's military, and they'll figure heavily into the political situation no matter how it shakes out.

Of course, maybe the US should just occupy Islamabad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom