Musharraf’s Appeasement Strengthened al Qaeda
Posted by StormWarning on 14 Mar 2008 at 08:44 pm | Tagged as: Commentary, Current Affairs, International Issues, Jihad, Opinions, Pakistan
This should come as no surprise to anyone (but maybe it does). Acting Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael Leiter says that al-Qaeda is stronger because of Musharraf’s 2006 ceasefire deal with Islamic militants in the region bordering Afghanistan. With the Pakistani security forces staying out of the region, al-Qaida militants resettled and re-established in the NW Tribal areas. Leiter said:
“I think that safe haven has made al-Qaida stronger today than it was two years ago…that has allowed it to recruit, train, and deploy individuals in plots against Western Europe and potentially the homeland or, the United States.”
This assessment is shared by Mike McConnell, US-DNI.
See earlier posts comparing Musharraf to Neville Chamberlain here.
al Qaeda, Michael Leiter, Mike McConnell, Musharraf, Taliban
Stormwarning,
I apologize in advance for this being off topic. I tried to post the following comment at Debbie’s Right Truth, but it was rejected. It may show up later, but I’m not sure. Anyway, I think you needed to hear this. I also apologize if this offends you, but it is not directed at you primarily. I am loathe to judge others, but I am sick of some of the crap I read about Obama.
Many Republicans think it’s acceptable to discredit a war hero like John Kerry but they would scream bloody murder if the same were done to McCain’s military record. I realize that Debbie and others at Right Truth don’t like McCain politically, but they would never hold him to the same standards as any Democrat. That’s why I was surprised to see your comment. I respect your opinion and your vote for McCain, but I didn’t understand your implication.
My comment on Right Truth:
This is what George W. Bush has to say to the American people…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVynnbx1Xsc
And here is what Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson had to say about September 11, 2001…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-CAcdta_8I
According to Falwell, the United States of America DESERVED to be attacked on 9/11.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-CAcdta_8I
How is that any different from “God Damn America”?
According to Falwell, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT GOD DID TO AMERICA ON 9/11.
Yes, McCain called Falwell and others “agents of intolerance” in 2000, but he kissed and made up in 2006 when McCain decided to run again.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=1779141&page=1
And let’s not forget John McCain’s acceptance of John Hagee’s endorsement. Mr. Hagee called the Catholic Church the Great Whore. And what was McCain’s response to this: “When he endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for and believes.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULeBsdSGZx4
To Debbie and everyone else here: just admit that you are biased and your responses to equally offensive Republicans is hypocritical.
To Stormwarning: Obama did distance himself from Mr. Wright. Perhaps McCain should also distance himself from Mr. Hagee. Also Stormwarning, are you implying that Obama doesn’t love this country? tsk, tsk, tsk…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080315/ap_on_el_pr/obama_pastor;_ylt=Anw8uTH3EjZzarv_0HoYkNGs0NUE
There’s really no need for any of you to respond to my comment unless you admit that your criticisms of Democrats are biased and hypocritical. Republicans and their surrogates are just as bad, but I doubt any of you can admit this simply, self-evident fact.
All of you are a joke.“TA,” to an extent I am amused by your leaving this comment here. Yes, Debbie and I leave comments on eachother’s posts and yes, we are “Internet” friends (she and I have spoken live once). However, except on the topic of Obama and Reverand Wright, Debbie and I disagree on many things, including as you will see/read below, on the importance of Obama’s middle name.
On the other hand, it gives me a chance, if you come back to read my reply to make things clear. I will not vote for either Democratic candidate. All candidates are flawed. Give the Drudges and the rest of the Internet “community” a long enough chance, and they will dredge up something that a candidate wished they hadn’t. That being said, I oppose Obama for his positions and views, and especially his sparse experience (If you knew me better, you’d know that I don’t usually “imply” anything…I just come out and say it, loud and clear!)…I do not question whether he loves this country.
I don’t believe that in today’s world, we can afford to have a President who learns on the job (that goes for Mrs. Clinton too). Obama is flawed, perhaps not by his youth or his inexperience, but by the people around him. His wife has not helped him. And his Rev. Wright is abominable. Wright is what is wrong with this country…and Rev. Wright, by his words, does not love this country.
If you read more of the posts that I’ve written here (up until hearing his preacher preach his hate filled rants), they were all consistent with your views. I have consistently fought against the use of his name as a cudgle, for example, and I have railed on about how the Turban shot was immaterial. Here are a few that you should read before you “group” type cast me.
It Could Have Been Bush (in the Turban)
Redux: POTUS - “No Foreign Policy Experience Needed”
What’s In a Name?
Internet “Discourse” Reaches Real Politics
Politics and Religion
Political “Experience” & The Bhutto Assassination
By the inclusiveness of the last line of your comment here, while I will keep your comment, I will delete the last line as its use of the word “all” includes me, and I don’t belong under that group blanket.
Stormwarning,
Thanks for the sensible response. Although I respect your opinion concerning experience and the Presidency, I disagree with you. Bush had 5 years as Governor of Texas, and Cheney and Rumsfeld MANY years of experience. Are you saying their years of experience (especially Cheney and Rumsfeld) served them well in the handling of the two wars we are still waging? If I’m not mistaken, they didn’t have to perform on the job training. They had plenty of years to prepare for this administration.
McCain said he would have handled the wars differently, but that is purely hypothetical. Just as the comments of Obama and Clinton are. So your assumption that Obama’s sparse experience is a disadvantage cannot be proven. It is simply your belief.
I’m sure many said Abraham Lincoln didn’t have enough experience to serve as President during a time of increasing tensions. In fact, Lincoln only served 2 years as a US Representative and many other years as a lawyer before becoming President. Did Lincoln’s experience (or lack of) serve as an advantage or disadvantage during the Civil War? And Nixon’s coverup of Watergate and expansion of Vietnam? Did Nixon’s 8 years as VP and 3 years as Senator serve as an advantage or disadvantage? I can offer many other examples, but I hope you get the point. Experience is an unknown when it comes to the Presidency.
As for my original post, you and others have failed to address McCain’s religious ties. I agree with you that Mr. Wright’s comments are indefensible (but understandable). That’s why Obama has denounced and distanced himself from Mr. Wright. But the same cannot be said of McCain. Did you read my original comments and watch the videos. McCain accepted the endorsement of a preacher who called the Catholic Church the Great Whore. And McCain also accepted Falwell’s blessing. Falwell said the US deserved to be attacked on 9/11. How is God Damn America any different from America deserved to be attacked? Please explain.
And how did McCain respond to calls for him to denounce and reject Mr. Hagee’s endorsement: “When he endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for and believes.” Why is acceptable for McCain to disregard radical religious views, but Obama must fully denounce and reject? Please explain.
Now, I’d appreciate it if you’d have this debate on Right Truth as that is where it belongs. Clearly, however, I don’t believe that Wright’s tirades are “understandable” as you wrote…I certainly do not believe that.
Comment deleted because the commenter didn’t listen to my last statement that I wasn’t going to debate politics here, or in this thread. Further, since the original comment was intended for Debbie at Right Truth, I ask that “TA” either use his own blog or post his comment at Right Truth. That said, topic is closed
TA, considering that I commented that I wasn’t going to debate this topic here, you’ve now crossed my imaginary line. Therefore, your last comment has been deleted without being read.
Whatever, dude. I thought more of you. Take care.
Stick to my topics and I’ll interact. Insist on debating someone else’s topics, I won’t do it. You may still think whatever you wish. But I have no intention of debating politics here. And I really hate it when someone says the word “dude.” Buh-bye!
[...] An individual, having difficulty in commenting on another blog, brought his comment here. After cordially responding to his comment, I also wrote that I would not debate that particular topic here, and that it should [...]
Storm Warning,
Musharraf was in no position to effectively take on Al Qaeda in NWFP because he was too busy playing the politician and trying to appease both the Pakistani’s and the the US at the same time. He even mismanaged his Army by assigning his frontieer Pashtun troops to confront their own clansmen (the insurgents). Well of course, they refused to fire upon their own tribesmen and ended up surrendering to them instead. He attempted to take on religious extremism against the Madrassas which led to the start of suicide bombings in much of Pakistan.
On a positive note, judging by the outcome of recent elections, the Pakistani people are not prepared to be ruled by Islamic Sharia or by religious fundamentalists. The Islamic parties did poorly, allowing the progressive PPP to win the elections
I believe Musharraf’s effectiveness as a “key ally” against the “War on Terror” ended 3 years ago. Unfortunately, I do not believe the Pakistan government is ready to fight that battle on their soil. Any move to do so now will tear the country apart.
Respectfully,
Tariq
Tariq, now I’m just guessing, but I suspect that from your position, you have alot more information available to you than I do from my public domain access only. Having said that, I agree with you completely. Musharraf screwed up big time with the “fight” vs al Qaeda in the NWFP, and yes, I’ve never trusted the Pashtun. As for his being an ally, the fact that he never would countenance the US sending troops into the area to ferret out bin Laden and folks tells me clearly that he never intended to pursue bin Laden, seeking a balance that he hoped would keep him in power.
I appreciate the time that you spent reading my posts and leaving this comment, however.