In talks all around the country for years now I've been advocating tying U.S. aid to Pakistan, as well as to Egypt, to its combating of the jihad ideology. This is not that, but it is closer than we have been.
"U.S. aims to reshape Pakistan aid," by Peter Spiegel for the Los Angeles Times:
WASHINGTON — With the Pakistani government in turmoil, senior Pentagon officials are quietly moving to overhaul the system of massive U.S. military aid to the country by more directly tying the payments to Islamabad's success in combating Islamic militants.Defense Department officials also want to require detailed accounting of how Pakistan spends about $1 billion in annual payments and greater control by Washington over spending.
The steps would fundamentally change one of the Bush administration's signature relationships of the post-Sept. 11 era, when it forged an alliance with the military regime of President Pervez Musharraf against Islamic extremists and began providing huge sums with little oversight.
The Pentagon is focusing on the largest and most controversial aid program, known as the Coalition Support Funds. The proposal to link payments to specific objectives would revamp the current practice of reimbursing Pakistan for money it says it spent....
Reimbursing Pakistan for money it says it spent?
Who originated such a daft plan in the first place?
The State Dept no doubt.
We cannot let President Bush, our Commander-in-Chief, off the hook for nonsense like this. In fact, "reimbursing Pakistan for money it says it spent" sounds exactly like an idea conceived by our slow-to-wroth president.
At the very least, such policies are implemented in his name by people he has appointed and whom he maintains in office.
It costs Money to Fly over one Country while in the process of killing their Friends.
The Cash is far more ecomonical than the expence of Conventional Weapons to accomplish the same Goal.
On the other Hand, another 6-7 billion worth of GBU's in all their denominations would seem to be rather handy Today.
How can a government send another government billions of dollars with no accountability for how the funds are spent? It boggles the mind.
"The State Dept no doubt."
Gotta love those bush apologists. Since it's a military aid program, it would seem that it's not directed by the State dept. but in any case note this. If bush let the State Dept design aid programs to a country of such strategic importance as Pakistan w/out strict White House oversight, he's a fool. if, on the other hand, the White House had a direct hand in designing this program, as I believe is the more likely possibility, he's just as big a fool.
Bush has been bad news for America from day 1. His priority was 'immigration Reform (aka amnesty) for criminals, nothing for Americans, just his rich cronies and powerful friends. America will pay heavily for electing Busy to white house.
It is common for receipient nations to bribe the donor nations by paying a commission. It will be interesting to see how much is the commission and who got it in washington ? Is Abramaff part of the schemes as his restaurant served as meeting point for pakistan army officials and pentagon.
The proposal to link payments to specific objectives would revamp the current practice of reimbursing Pakistan for money it says it spent...
I have been trying for years to get the IRS to do just that. Reimbursing me for money I say I spent.
If there is one thing I like, it is spending money and getting reimbursed so I can spend it again and...How sweet it is, or would be, if the IRS would go for it, but they wont...Of course Pakistan does not answer to the IRS...maybe it should...now there's some real terrorism. Maybe the IRS could seize Pakistan's nukes. They had no trouble seizing mine...but that's another story...
"reimbursing Pakistan for money it says it spent"
With what money, exactly? The US government is, as far as I recall, running on a huge deficit itself?
America will pay heavily for electing Busy to white house.
We already are. We're also paying for Bill Clinton. Imagine how much we'll have to pay after eight years of Hillary! That's the bad thing about democracy. No one to blame but voters. No convenient dictators to point to.
Heck, we're still paying for electing Jimmy Carter, and that was thirty years ago!
No doubt the Taliban & other representatives of
'Religion of Peace'will be happy to get their hands on xtra from prime Infidel Cash Cow-
America.
Because no matter what 'democratic'exhortions from Bush & State Department Dicks, money or arms
rushed to Pakistan, Mushies'fall is as imminent as Shah was [another regime kept in power by U.S].
The fault is U.S's disastrous Foreign Policy, dictated not by anyone with any knowledge in this area but driven by corporate greed of incumbent Presidents & their Oil rich buddies-all out to make big bucks!
Ordinary Americans have every right to be furious
with what is being done with THEIR TAXES FOR IS THEM WHO PAY AND PAY AND KEEP ON PAYING FOR MISTAKES OF THE PRESIDENT AND HIS MEN.
Unless U.S citizens boot out these moronic scions
of wealthy tax dodging dynasties and elect an HONEST MAN OR WOMAN [if indeed there is one to be found] to highest office, the future looks bleak.
Just as American Public are denied seeing coffins of
their sons & daughters returning from Afghanistan & Iraq in airliffs of the Dead [all photos censured,that's democracy for you] the REAL cost of these wars is being concealed in monetary terms. U.S is so many trillions in debt, it ain't funny if it ever was-leaving the country weak as never before,demoralised and facing certain defeat in Iraq,Afghanistan and Pakistan[3 we know
about].
And what will Bush do about it? He'll walk away
smiling knowing HE will never be dragged to the Hague, able to enjoy luxurious retirement...Wake up America before it's too late.
There was a report on BBC Radio 4 on 10th November by Tariq Ali a well known Pakistani who has made a comfortable living for almost 50 years working for a Marxist revolution – in Britain of course, not Pakistan that would be too dangerous and he’s not that stupid.
This was on a "news programme" rather than a news broadcast and I did not catch the whole report as he p------ me off. He said some Pakistani army units had refused to fight the taliban and a group of young army officers in the frontier province were facing a Court Martial for the same reason.
This is not the sort of report the MSM and particularly the BBC likes to carry so the interviewer did not go into it. Does any else know anything?
Considering that all Muslims read the same Qur'an and are duty-bound to obey it, how come we can even assume that the Pakistani Prez is reliable and on our side?
I've written to "W" and my Senators and Congressman with my very knowledgeable version of Islam. Now it's everyone else's turn!!! Someday he is going to get the message and if hundreds of us write with the same but individually worded message, someone at the WhiteHouse is going to see the light. Don't give up! If you are as angry and worried as I am, write letters! As quoted in another post to rational:
"What if the little rain should say,
'So small a drop as I
Can ne'er refresh a drooping earth,
I'll tarry in the sky.'"
Shouldn't this have been the case from the beginning? Government stupidity knows no bounds.
And I speak of the US government in this case.