Lou Dobbs: Pakistan's President, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, has carried out another coup to preserve the status quo, and the result has been violence and civil unrest. But chaos is hardly limited to Pakistan.
Some 100,000 Turkish troops are massed on Iraq's northern border eager to attack Kurdish rebels. Iran continues to defy the West in its pursuit of nuclear weapons, while supporting Shiite insurgents in Iraq. More of our troops have been killed this year in Iraq than in any year since the war began, and the war has now lasted longer than World War II. It is no coincidence that as instability and violence spreads through the Islamic world, and particularly in the Middle East, the price of crude oil is nearing $100 a barrel. The United States also faces critical geopolitical and economic challenges from Russia and China, while the U.S. dollar plummets in world currency markets and our credit markets are racked by a trillion-dollar subprime-mortgage crisis and nearly 2 million home foreclosures.
Lou Dobbs is right but his view of the 2008 election is off. I do not share his optimism that people will wake up or as you know, that the elections if they occur will be untainted. I think if they are held they will once again be stolen. Anyway he mistakenly believes the surprise this November will be the election of a man or woman of great character, vision and accomplishment, a candidate who has not yet entered the race. No way in hell unless it is Gore! Anyway if you want to read all his thoughts Here they are
I hate to tell him but it is a lot worse than all that. Yes this has been going on longer than WW2 but it will be more comparable to the Hundred Years War, the US society will come close to failure, and the challenge from Russia and China may be financial for now but when we attack Iran it will be militarily and world war three will be the result in Bush's Forever War and it will not be avoided.
What is happening in Pakistan will not be quelled and will erupt, and then... Bush said he directed Rice to deliver this message: "We expect there to be elections as soon as possible and that the president should remove his military uniform." They were the president's first public comments on the situation since Musharraf imposed a state of emergency, suspended his country's constitution, ousted the country's top judge, stifled independent media and deployed troops to crush dissent. He called it necessary to prevent a takeover by Islamic extremists. It will not be prevented period!
Bush mixed concern for Musharraf's actions with praise for Pakistan's cooperation in combating al-Qaida terrorists believed to be rebuilding strongholds on the largely lawless border with Afghanistan. "President Musharraf has been a strong fighter against extremists and radicals," Bush said at the end of an Oval Office meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Even a senior administration official, at a White House briefing, merely called Musharraf "a friend who we think has done something ill-advised." The official spoke on condition of anonymity so he could talk more freely about the behind-the-scenes thoughts of the White House. Read Bush's comments on Musharraf
*I want to add that while musharraf is concentrating on arresting opponents Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and assorted terrorists and Insurgents are preparing to go after him, those nukes, Afghanistan, and more. Anyway Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto escalated her confrontation with the government by calling on Pakistanis to rise against the imposition of emergency rule by Pervez Musharraf, the nation's president and army chief. "I appeal to the people of Pakistan to come forward. We are under attack," Ms. Bhutto told a news conference after holding talks with other opposition leaders in Islamabad.Bhutto vowed to lead a protest march by her Pakistan People's Party Friday to the garrison town of Rawalpindi, which also is home to Gen. Musharraf. The government has banned the protest, raising the prospects for large-scale clashes between supporters of Ms. Bhutto and security forces. You know they will happen!
*After a few days when she carefully calibrated her response to the imposition of emergency rule by avoiding direct comments on Gen. Musharraf, Ms. Bhutto, 54 years old, seems to be warming to her role as the most prominent voice of opposition -- and one of the few main opposition politicians not in jail. Wednesday, she issued an ultimatum to Gen. Musharraf to step down as army chief and end emergency rule by next week. "We will launch a long march to Islamabad if he does not restore the constitution and hold elections on schedule," Ms. Bhutto said. "How many people can they put behind bars? We will produce so many that they will not have enough jails." you'll be surprised! with Musharrafs term ending on the 15th and an announcement coming on the day before, you know they will not be on time.
*Bhutto warned the government of serious repercussions if it tried to detain her. "God willing, there will be a flood of people. If I am arrested, people should continue the struggle," she said. Gen. Musharraf nor Ms. Bhutto -- both of whom have received American support for a power-sharing deal they reached last month but is now on hold -- will likely be able to defuse the militancy, according to Shaukat Qadir, a retired brigadier-general who has served extensively in Pakistan's border areas. "Both Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto are viewed as American stooges," says Mr. Qadir. "This will give rise to a stronger militancy." Read about the rise in stakes
**This is all about support for Bush and the so called war against Islamists and Bhutto's march Friday will be well worth watching! It will lead to direct total chaos in Pakistan and spread from there. With the mess Bush has created in that region, the mess he has created in the middle east, the mess he is creating with Russia and China over the missile shield, the mess he has made in South America our own back yard, Bush has purposely set the world up for his Forever War and it will not be avoided. You can only guess what the future will bring to the world and the mess he has made out of "our America"
James Joiner
Gardner Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com
5 comments:
It's coming Jim:
President Musharraf’s declaration of martial law in Pakistan has engendered two sorts of reactions in the world: mutiny and uproar from the legislative arm within Pakistan and doleful finger-wagging from most Western governments, nowhere more so than in the US.
Speaking in front of reporters at a press conference beside Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, President Bush expressed disappointment with President Musharraf’s decision. “We expect there to be elections as soon as possible…and the president should remove his military uniform.” But any doubts about the Bush administration’s dependence on Musharraf were quickly dispelled. “We want to continue working with him to fight these terrorists and extremists,” Bush said. In addition, it’s been made clear that cuts in aid are extremely unlikely. “We are reviewing all of our assistance programs, although we are mindful not to do anything that would undermine ongoing counterterrorism efforts,” said Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
Given that the vast majority of arrests in Pakistan since martial law was declared have been lawyers, it’s somewhat ambiguous what President Bush means by “terrorists and extremists.” Of course, Pakistan does have a problem with Islamic extremists who are angry with Musharraf’s turnabout since 9-11. Previous to Musharraf’s deal with Washington— which for his help in Afghanistan lifted sanctions initially enacted over Pakistan’s nuclear defiance and poured in aid which has totaled $10.59 billion currently—he was a critical supporter to the Taliban. According to a policy paper written by Leon T. Hadara of the CATO Institute, “leading Pakistani political, military, and religious figures and radical Islamic groups were providing direct support in the form of financial resources and military assistance…(to the)…Taliban and al-Qaeda.”
If Washington’s support for Musharraf as he seizes power to forestall a court decision on the legality of his dual power as president and military commander teaches us anything, it’s that democracy promotion is an afterthought in US foreign policy. Or better put, a euphemism for free-market promotion, whether in the cone of South America during the seventies or in Iraq today.
But what about democracy at home? Here in the US? If the Bush administration ever felt desperate enough politically, could it or would it ever arbitrarily declare martial law? A yes answer might not be so far out there, and it would arguably be legal, thanks to a rider inserted in the 2007 Defense Authorization Act.
Defense Authorization Acts are passed every fiscal year to authorize appropriations for the Department of Defense. When the 2007 draft was written, amendments were made to the “Insurrection Act,” a bill passed in 1807 to give the president power to deploy troops in the event of an insurrection or rebellion. The main changes made to the Insurrection Act were primarily in §333. The Defense Authorization Act of 2007 summarized the changes as follows:
[(Sec. 1076) Revises federal provisions allowing the President to utilize the Armed Forces in connection with interference with federal and state law to allow the President to employ the Armed Forces and National Guard in federal service to restore public order in cases of natural disaster, epidemic or other public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or domestic violence. Requires the President to notify Congress within 14 days of the exercise of such authority. Authorizes the President, when exercising such authority, to direct the Secretary to provide supplies, services, and equipment to persons affected by the situation.]
So in short, where the original Insurrection Act only permitted the declaration of martial law in the face of a rebellion, the new changes allow the president to declare martial law for virtually anything deemed an emergency.
Also alarming was a phrase added to §334 of the new Insurrection Act.
[Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.]
“Those obstructing the enforcement of the laws” could of course potentially be interpreted to apply to anyone the administration saw as an obstruction to its policies i.e. peaceably demonstrating activists, opposition political leaders, etc.
So now that the president has new broad powers to declare martial law, and, unlike Pakistan, a supreme court that’s in many ways philosophically aligned with the Bush Administration, the question is: are there any feasible scenarios under which Bush might declare martial law before his term is up? Though the likelihood for such a move might require a fickle time-line of events, it’s probably not as unlikely as some might think.
Imagine the following occurs seven months from now: The Bush Administration is intent on bombing Iran but has been forestalled by a worsening of events in Iraq, perhaps Turkey invades the North. The administration fears a Democrat won’t take care of Iran as they see fit, and polls show the Democratic nominee has a fifteen point lead in the looming election. Then a hurricane devastates the Gulf Coast again. Claiming as its motive a wish to respond quicker than it did with Katrina, Bush declares martial law and suspends the upcoming election. Suddenly, there’s that critical extra time needed to expand the war.
Again, though it requires a darkly fortuitous turn of events for the Bush administration, such reasoning might appeal to them if Vice President Dick Cheney’s reported fascination with expanding the war in the Middle East is threatened by something as burdensome and capricious as the people’s choice for change in the next election. In fact, I would argue that the Bush administration, apparently unbothered by low poll numbers, might see it as a necessity.
So pay special attention to what happens in Pakistan in the coming weeks and months. Despite the multitude of geopolitical reasons that the Bush Administration is supporting President Musharrafs’ usurpation of democracy lays the fact that Bush and Co. might be looking to do the same themselves in a worst-case scenario of their hegemonic scheming. With their track record of deceit at home and corporate crusading in the Middle East, the images we see on television of Pakistani lawyers being thrown into paddy-wagons might be a sneak preview of things to come in the US. Stranger things have happened in the last seven years.
larry
Most definitely! I was just over Lydia's looking for you and was going to say the same thing. Wait until Friday! Are yopu here?
worrisome..all of it...very....
I agree if our 08 elections are held the right side will steal it again. If they can do it 2 elections in a row...what possibly could stop them from doing it again? Nothing, and no one!
Friday will be a bad day I think for Bhutto and her followers. I think they will find themselves on the bad side of many guns and lots of ammunition. Her day will have come and gone. If Musharraf can do some of the things this past week with the Supreme Court Justices and their Constitution...he can certainly order mass shootings under the guise of keeping peace in the streets. They'll trump something up on her to nail her for. He's not going to share power with anyone...she's deluding herself.
enigma
Yes it is very troubling and what is happening in Pakistan will not be quelled but will spread throughout the entire world as this entire mess comes to fruition.
Sumo
Yes it does not bode well for Bhutto, her followers, Pakistan, us or the world, as the military crackdowns and confrontations will spread around the world and will not be avoided.
Post a Comment