A comparison of Fred D. Thompson’s appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press with Joe Biden’s appearance CBS’s Face the Nation demonstrates the vast difference between the Democrat and Republican world views.
As most TRS readers by now know, Gen. Musharraf suspended the Pakistani constitution and declared martial law. The Supreme Court has been dismissed. Soldiers are surrounding the homes of several liberal (by Pakistani standards) political and judicial leaders. Of course, those soldiers just might be a comforting sight to the Pakistani liberals who have been the object of several foiled suicide bombings in recent weeks. Gen. Musharraf’s declaration hardly moves Pakistani democracy forward, at least in the short run.
Schieffer and Russert demonstrated their Democrat roots by framing the questions to both Biden and Thompson as if Musharraf’s suspension of the Pakistani constitution and declaration of martial law as somehow entirely within an American President’s control. Biden, of course, grabbed the bit and ran.
First, both Schieffer and Russert conflated the domestic Pakistani political situation with America’s relationship with Pakistan. Musharraf is pro-western. If Musharraf controls Pakistan the Pakistani government will continue to operate in a manner that is largely, although not entirely, consistent with American international needs. As with all foreign policy decisions the gain from destabilizing Musharraf must be balanced against the likely loss.
Moreover, the risk of any US action must also be weighed against the gain. Pakistan is the only Islamic nation with a nuclear weapon. Many elements within the Pakistani public, scientific and intellectual elites closely identify with militant Islam. Destabilizing Musharraf also risks placing Pakistan’s nuclear assets in contact with terrorists who would use them in a heartbeat. Whatever attempt to contain Islamofascism would be replaced with actual support for bin Laden and Al Qaida.
Delaware Joe opened with a crazy attack on President Bush as the cause of Musharraf’s action, without, of course, describing how American policy could have forestalled Musharraf’s action. In what has become the normal substitute for reason in the liberal critique of American politics, simply pressed the attack as a failure of a “Musharraf” policy rather than a “Pakistan” policy. What then, Senator, would you have done? That question remained unanswered.
However, Delaware Joe did provide a look at what he would do. First, he would have a plan to get out of Iraq (now, there’s a surprise). Then, assuming that we could exit Iraq without victory, the troops apparently aren’t coming home, they’re going to Afghanistan. Once deployed in Afghanistan the American military posture would be forward, poised to invade Pakistan so as to capture Osama.
How could anyone think that a large scale American military invasion of Pakistan could fail to discredit the fragile hold pro-Western Pakistanis have on their government and military. God knows TRS rarely rejects the rapid use of American power as an instrument of American security but Delaware Joe sounded just like the jingoes that discounted all risk in starting WW 1. The worst aspect of the Biden Pakistan policy-he’s the best the Democrats have on foreign policy, a veritable FDR compared to the other socialist pacifists in the Democrat field.
FDT sounded very Presidential on the subject. First, he laid out the risks of any American policy toward Pakistan. FDT spoke clearly of the American preference for a more democratic Pakistan. At the same time, Fred also urged the need for patience and the avoidance of snap decisions. FDT recognized that the Pakistani domestic crises might sort itself out without any US action. FDT discounted the idea of sanctions against Musharraf, presumably because of the risk that a destabilized Musharraf would be replaced by anything from a vacillating western style parliamentary gridlock to a near Sudan like failed state. At either end the risk that Paki nukes or other military and intelligence assets certainly would seem to urge caution in confronting the less democratic aspects of the Pakistani elite.
Fred gave Joe a beat down like Ali gave Frazier in Manila.
As most TRS readers by now know, Gen. Musharraf suspended the Pakistani constitution and declared martial law. The Supreme Court has been dismissed. Soldiers are surrounding the homes of several liberal (by Pakistani standards) political and judicial leaders. Of course, those soldiers just might be a comforting sight to the Pakistani liberals who have been the object of several foiled suicide bombings in recent weeks. Gen. Musharraf’s declaration hardly moves Pakistani democracy forward, at least in the short run.
Schieffer and Russert demonstrated their Democrat roots by framing the questions to both Biden and Thompson as if Musharraf’s suspension of the Pakistani constitution and declaration of martial law as somehow entirely within an American President’s control. Biden, of course, grabbed the bit and ran.
First, both Schieffer and Russert conflated the domestic Pakistani political situation with America’s relationship with Pakistan. Musharraf is pro-western. If Musharraf controls Pakistan the Pakistani government will continue to operate in a manner that is largely, although not entirely, consistent with American international needs. As with all foreign policy decisions the gain from destabilizing Musharraf must be balanced against the likely loss.
Moreover, the risk of any US action must also be weighed against the gain. Pakistan is the only Islamic nation with a nuclear weapon. Many elements within the Pakistani public, scientific and intellectual elites closely identify with militant Islam. Destabilizing Musharraf also risks placing Pakistan’s nuclear assets in contact with terrorists who would use them in a heartbeat. Whatever attempt to contain Islamofascism would be replaced with actual support for bin Laden and Al Qaida.
Delaware Joe opened with a crazy attack on President Bush as the cause of Musharraf’s action, without, of course, describing how American policy could have forestalled Musharraf’s action. In what has become the normal substitute for reason in the liberal critique of American politics, simply pressed the attack as a failure of a “Musharraf” policy rather than a “Pakistan” policy. What then, Senator, would you have done? That question remained unanswered.
However, Delaware Joe did provide a look at what he would do. First, he would have a plan to get out of Iraq (now, there’s a surprise). Then, assuming that we could exit Iraq without victory, the troops apparently aren’t coming home, they’re going to Afghanistan. Once deployed in Afghanistan the American military posture would be forward, poised to invade Pakistan so as to capture Osama.
How could anyone think that a large scale American military invasion of Pakistan could fail to discredit the fragile hold pro-Western Pakistanis have on their government and military. God knows TRS rarely rejects the rapid use of American power as an instrument of American security but Delaware Joe sounded just like the jingoes that discounted all risk in starting WW 1. The worst aspect of the Biden Pakistan policy-he’s the best the Democrats have on foreign policy, a veritable FDR compared to the other socialist pacifists in the Democrat field.
FDT sounded very Presidential on the subject. First, he laid out the risks of any American policy toward Pakistan. FDT spoke clearly of the American preference for a more democratic Pakistan. At the same time, Fred also urged the need for patience and the avoidance of snap decisions. FDT recognized that the Pakistani domestic crises might sort itself out without any US action. FDT discounted the idea of sanctions against Musharraf, presumably because of the risk that a destabilized Musharraf would be replaced by anything from a vacillating western style parliamentary gridlock to a near Sudan like failed state. At either end the risk that Paki nukes or other military and intelligence assets certainly would seem to urge caution in confronting the less democratic aspects of the Pakistani elite.
Fred gave Joe a beat down like Ali gave Frazier in Manila.
15 comments:
Sorry Uncle Ted,
You are way off on this one. Joe Biden is Joe Biden... but Fred Fred looked and sounded terrible. This is our savior of the party?
Wouldn't feel so hot about FDT this morning if I was a supporter... if he can go toe to toe with Russert, how is he going to handle the Dem attack machine?
FDT may not be the GOP's savior but too bad he isn't Secretary of State. Condi's promotion of our flavor of democracy to the Islamic world is a total catastrophe.
What she's really after is the installation of political feminism which means divorce, family breakdown and disrespect for men. Many ordinary Muslim men in the street would rather blow themselves than become the equivalent of today's totally pussy whipped American and European male.
I agree a 100% with Ted the last thing we need is a nuclear Pakistan turning into a Sudan or Somalia.
Eisenhower was no fan of dictatorship. But he also realized America's best interests are served by stability overseas. Hence our very cautious foreign policy best represented by standing aside in the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and in Viet Nam after the French defeat at Dien Bien Fu.
From what I can see of the major candidates of both parties I'm the only grownup in the race with a grounded sense of what's really possible. That comes in part from watching 3 major failed wars, Korea, Viet Nam, and now Iraq.
Our addiction to failed military adventures brings to mind patients suffering from alcoholism, drug addiction or habitual gambling. They can talk the talk of what constitutes reasonable behavior but likely for genetically influenced reasons can't walk the walk.
Re FDT the party ignoring the risks his active lymphoma has for his ability to wage a good campaign, or serve out a full term, is very shortsighted. We likely have another Tsongas situation with FDT.
Utterly ridiculous for FDT to assert his lymphoma is a chronic disease like adult onset diabetes. He lost his credibility with me saying that.
Scheeze Klein, what the fuck are you babbling about? Was looking through some of the Iowa and NH Presidential campaigns slide show on the NY Times and there wasn't a single one of you. Really flying under the radar huh pal?
What is twelve days and counting since you laid that phony threat against you out there? Still waiting for an explanation......
Mark Klein said:
"Many ordinary Muslim men in the street would rather blow themselves than become the equivalent of today's totally pussy whipped American"
Would rather blow themselves, would rather blow themselves? How do you do that, Klein? If men, like dogs, could do that, 2/3rds of us would never leave the house. What is this penis / oral sex fixation you have, Klein? Maybe drop the Presidential bid and run for Senate. Sounds like you and Larry Craig could form quite a little fraternity...........
Disgusting.
Sorry. Left out the word "up". Put more simply become suicide bombers.
Ken--Did you really believe I intended to say men would blow themselves?
Klein you live in such a fantasy world of lies and delusion there's no telling what the hell you're talking about.
.......and another thing Klein, answer Saccamano's question you slob.
ABC News' Eloise Harper reports:
Not only is Senator Clinton comfortable in the kitchen, she wants you to bring your mops, vacuum cleaners and brushes when she gets to the White House.
Clinton speaking in West Burlington, IA, told a story about how she is going to clean up the White House.
Telling it, Clinton rested her hand on her head and said "oh my goodness I feel like we are going to get into the White House again and we are going to walk around and say where do we start to clean up this mess?"
Clinton remembered an audience member who shouted once out when she told this story before - "that's what women are good at cleaning up the mess." Clinton said "bring your vacum cleaners bring your brushes bring your brooms bring your mops."
she really is depending on democrat women and women all over the united states to vote for her because they are to believe that Hillary has EVER spent time in the kitchen being a woman? Did we even ever figure out if Billary is a WOMAN???
For The New York Times, daily circulation fell 4.51% to 1,037,828 and Sunday plunged 7.59% to 1,500,394.
Daily circulation at The Washington Post was down 3.2% to 635,087 and Sunday was down 3.9% to 894,428.
Daily circulation at The Boston Globe tumbled 6.6% to 360,695 and Sunday fell about the same, 6.5% to 548,906.
It's called new media, dickhead.
Why get a subscribtion when you can get it free on line.
Blah blah blah...
It isn't new media, dickwad. It's content, asswipe. The stuff you see on this blog does not appear in the daily news here in Iowa..that's why the circulation is low.
You really don't know anything at all do you - shitmachine?
Yup - couldn't find it. I looked all over the Register "free" site and couldn't find anything about Hillary wanting to clean out the white house or anything about circulation news.
So, I guess MY move away from Print has to do with CONTENT, not that it's a free version of the print copy. I don't read their frickin free site either much...I always hope, but am always dissapointed.
If Hillary gets to the White House, I wonder if she'll return all the things she stole when they left the last time.
I wonder if they'll repair all the computers they broke by removing the letter "w" from them.
Lovely people those trailer park trash clintons.
Where did all that furniture go that they stole?
Shit Ken, is "fry an egg" a threat?
Fink and twink?
Love that old school shit talk.
Post a Comment