Yes, that is really the headline of this AP story (thanks to Jeffrey Imm), as silly as it is. What did Bush and Musharraf do to affect this recommitment? Cut their index fingers and hold them together? Seriously, why was such a "recommitment" necessary, unless one party has been somewhat lacking in its commitment? But no one in Washington seems to care about why that might be so.
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) -- President Bush and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf recommitted their nations Saturday to the difficult task of hunting down terrorists still hiding here and across the globe.Bush came to Pakistan - despite terrorist dangers that demanded extraordinary security - to bolster Musharraf, who straddles a delicate political divide in this impoverished but growing Islamic nation.
The U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are unpopular here, and Pakistan's strong anti-American sentiment was reflected in the thousands who demonstrated across the country against Bush's visit. While there are suspicions that al-Qaida and Taliban operatives maintain some degree of safe sanctuary inside Pakistan, Musharraf has defied criticism he is too cozy with Washington to be a strong U.S. partner in the anti-terrorism campaign.
Bush said his visit convinced him that Musharraf is as committed as ever.
"We will win this fight together," Bush said after more than an hour of private talks with Musharraf. "While we do have a lot of work to be done, it's important that we stay on the hunt."The United States also sees Musharraf as a leader who favors a more open, moderate and tolerant Pakistan. Standing alongside the Pakistani leader whom Bush calls his "buddy," the U.S. president stopped short of criticizing Musharraf on the pace of democratic advances, only gently calling for elections scheduled for next year to be "open and honest."
Hmm...seems to me that allowing a large group of muslim lunatics to practice "democracy" is just what the doctor ordered for another Hamas style victory. Also, Robert, I was wondering if you'd heard Howard Bloom's take on the Pakistan situation? Would you consider Bloom a credible source? I greatly respect your opinion, and would like to know your thoughts on the matter. My apologies if the Bloom piece is old news, I'd not heard of him until a few weeks ago.
Rats. What we really need is an uncommitment to the war on terror and a first commitment to the war against the people who commit terrorism in the name of their medieval ideology, Islam. "War on terror" needs to be tossed in the dustbin as soon as possible, along with other entirely fictional nonsensical concepts like "hijacked religion of peace", "Islamophobia", "Islamic tolerance", etc.
l have heard Howard Bloom on late night talk radio, l think it was on Art Bell lunatic late night show. anyhow Howard is a Democrat who thinks (at least that night) that Bush is the best of the two parties to fight terror. He says that the Dems have it all wrong.. prol wants Bush to be more proactive. but belives that Bush is not good for the economy, does not like tax cuts l guess.
US and other Western nations has poured billions of dollars in various forms to Pakistan since 9/11 - enabling a boom in Pakistan's economy.
The aid will continue to come in as long as Al-Qaeda exists.
Musharraf will always make it sure that the threat from Al-Qaeda remains.
Simultaneously he has to keep up the impression that he is, indeed, fighting the terrorists.
US are the source of foreign aid that keeps Pakistan going and it's high time that they demaned more value for money.
l have heard Howard Bloom on late night talk radio, l think it was on Art Bell lunatic late night show. anyhow Howard is a Democrat who thinks (at least that night) that Bush is the best of the two parties to fight terror. He says that the Dems have it all wrong.. prol wants Bush to be more proactive. but belives that Bush is not good for the economy, does not like tax cuts l guess. --Lulu
Yup, that's where I heard him. Before you get the wrong idea about me (lunacy and all...), I've noticed that Art or George seem to interview someone somewhat credible about every 4-5 weeks. A recent example would be Charles R. Smith. He was interviewed about China as a future military threat, and current terrorism supporter. But, you're right; the show is mostly about UFO's and bigfoot...which sort of calls the credibility of all the guests into question. Which is why I was seeking Robert's opinion on whether Bloom was a nutball or not. As to him being a Dhimmocrat; even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut, right? So, if he has any useful ideas concerning our dealings with our "peaceful and tolerant" muslim friends, then it might pay to give a listen, IMO. Thanks for the response.
What did Bush and Musharraf do to affect this recommitment? Cut their index fingers and hold them together?
Maybe they held hands like Bush and the Saudi prince.
Seriously, why was such a "recommitment" necessary, unless one party has been somewhat lacking in its commitment?
And that's certainly happened. Pakistan has let al Qaeda and Taliban remnants get lodged in their western provinces; they need to decide whether or not that territory belongs to the rest of Pakistan, and should thus have to play by the rules. Musharraf, meanwhile, is feeling the squeeze from the usual "tiny minority of extremists" over any possible action to that effect, and, more interested in power than doing the right thing, is waffling.
Of course, the US has also failed to keep up the pressure on Pakistan-- remember the "no negotiations!" line after 9/11? The need for that stance has not gone away.
But will either side of this issue-- Musharaff's waffling and the US' having looked the other way-- be addressed for what it is while Bush is in Pakistan? Unlikely.
There will, however, be a press conference reiterating what good friends and allies we are, a photo-op, and handshake, and possibly a playing of "Reunited" by Peaches & Herb.
Shortly Mr. Bush will come out with one of his famous quips:
"I've gazed into Pervie's soul and I trust him completely..." or "You're doin' a great job, Mooshie..."
Can't you just see it? The langorous gaze into limpid eyes... the tender holding of hands... the cheek kiss... the precious little pet name meant to denote fondness, closeness, something akin to puppy love....
Sometimes this man's gewgaw is just too much to take...
"War on terror" needs to be tossed in the dustbin as soon as possible, along with other entirely fictional nonsensical concepts like "hijacked religion of peace", "Islamophobia", "Islamic tolerance", etc.
- Hulegu Khan.
While we are at that, toss the 'Religion of Peace' itself, in the nearest garbage-compacter. In any case, excellent point, Hulegu Khan!
The aid will continue to come in as long as Al-Qaeda exists.
Musharraf will always make it sure that the threat from Al-Qaeda remains. - Sandracottus.
Does this mean Pakistan is protecting 'Al Queda'? Hummmmmmm !?
Good point, Sandracottus.
Sometimes this man's gewgaw is just too much to take... - jsla.
Me too! I think, if Bush hasn't already converted to Islam, he is, at the least, Islam's useful idiot!
Of course, the US has also failed to keep up the pressure on Pakistan-- remember the "no negotiations!" line after 9/11? The need for that stance has not gone away. - Shinoliite.
Speaking of 9/11, the role of Pakistan is researched and documented, by Bernard Henri Levy, in 'Who Killed Daniel Pearl' here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0971865949/103-9449251-5055858?v=glance&n=283155
wikipedia bio on Musharraf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pervez_Musharraf
from reading it, it appears that he's a Kemal Ataturk of Pakistan.
Education:
"Musharraf attended Saint Patrick's High School, Karachi graduating in 1958 before going on to attend Forman Christian College in Lahore."
"Shortly after coming to power, and on numerous occasions afterwards, Musharraf expressed admiration for the secularist reformer of Turkey, Kemal Atatürk, outraging religious radicals in the country."
bear in mind that the Prime Minister that he toppled in the coup d'etat was an Islamist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawaz_Sharif
"Nawaz was thrown in prison and tried by Pakistan's Anti-Terrorism Courts, which sentenced him to several life sentences for corruption, hijacking, tax evasion, embezzlement, and terrorism in 2000. The military government agreed to commute his sentence from life in prison to exile in Saudi Arabia."
so, when Dubya says Musharraf is our "buddy" - well, i believe him. he's one of the good guys in my view.
so, when Dubya says Musharraf is our "buddy" - well, i believe him. he's one of the good guys in my view. --archduke
I tend to agree, although not because W says so. I only wonder how long Musharraf can evade assassination attempts. His population doesn't seem very supportive of his position...
"The United States also sees Musharraf as a leader who favors a more open, moderate and tolerant Pakistan. "
Irrelevant - he'll only last until he's removed by assasination or election. What matters is what the majority of this nuclear muslim country wants. Survey results etc can show that. That is how we should be selecting friends.
Wasn't the Shah of Persia a good buddy??
Mushi is -perhaps- the best of all the worst.
While the 'aid,' or better Jiziya, pours in, he has a good chance to remain in power.
But without an iron fist, without dictatorial powers he has no chance and every call for 'democracy' in such a country is as lunatic as the Mohammedan revival, or better the whole Islamic ideology...
Mushi won't be there forever and 'radical' Islam will follow once he's gone. In the meantime we spend billions to keep Mushi alive, is it worth it? Hardly.
He needs cotrol of his army. As long as they are well paid, he is safe.
But it should be upto the Saudis to bankroll him. Look at it this way - if Pakistan comes under MMA/al Qaeda rule, al Qaeda will have a base to strike at Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. So it's they who should be made to bankroll Musharraf's regime.
If such a regime takes over? US should take out Pak nuclear sites with ICBM's. Also, such a regime would force India out of its own dhimmitude position - that would have less credibility when terror allies of Kashmiri jihadists are running the Pak government.
While Nawaz Sharief was an Islamist, it was Benazir Bhutto who supported the Taliban to power.
What did Bush do to get this from Pakistan? He can't be promising more American ports they are already spoken for.
Infidel Pride - what would the human cost be and what risk of contamination in taking out the Pakistani nuclear sites? If it could be done cleanly, not a bad idea...
It's been more than four years, and Bush can't catch Osama yet?
As Raymond Chandler said on the first page of his 1st novel:
"It didn't seem like he was really trying."
Musharref seems more interested in just surviving himself, so I don;t begrudge him.
But Bush is supposed to get the psychotic s.o.b. who killed 3,000 of my neighbors in one hour.
He sucks as a bounty hunter.
Would'nt this war on terror also include telling the world the truth about Muhammad??