"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Red Mosque Siege in Pakistan and the Board

Yesterday, the editorial board of The NY Times had some advice for the Bush Administration regarding General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. Of Musharraf the board said:

“he has done far less than he promised — and far less than is needed. It’s not clear which side his intelligence services are rooting for, while Taliban and Qaeda fighters continue to find shelter and support on Pakistan’s side of the Afghan border.”

One cannot disagree that Musharraf’s Pakistan has done less than promised in the fight against terrorism, however via the opinion of the toiletPaper all the nuance that they find commendable in a Kerry, they don’t apply to themselves with regard to a problem that is not at all as simple as they would like.

Question to the board: whose intelligence will Musharrafs be if he is replaced whether Democratically or by other means?

The board believes:

Washington needs to make clear to the Pakistani people that America is the ally of their country, not their dictator, and that the United States favors the earliest possible return to free elections and civilian rule.”

Well, this is hard to disagree with as well; but their people are definitely a mixed bag as are the many different parts of the government there. America is the ally of their country,” including one assumes of Mohammed Abdul Aziz and Abdur Rashid Ghazi; the fellas in the lead on the Red Mosque stand-off.

Did the boards words strike fear in Musharraf and lead to the recent military storming of the mosque? Hmmmmm…..

BBC News considers the consequences of the siege:

“Pakistan's military ruler, Gen Pervez Musharraf, has often been accused of tolerating elements in the military and the intelligence services who are known to maintain ideological and strategic links with the country's Islamic militants.

That includes those holed up in Islamabad's Red Mosque (Lal Masjid).

So does the final showdown at the mosque mean that Gen Musharraf is moving decisively against those elements - and if so, what are the consequences?”

The board should consider more than just their simplistic biased views when blowing the hot air of their clarion call; whatever the subject.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/8479943656982506143

  • DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

    Please give this Post/Blog a Vote - Top Blogs

  • Linkfest Haven, the Blogger's Oasis
    Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Right Celebrity, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Right Truth, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, CommonSenseAmerica, Conservative Cat, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.


    © blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks