Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Bush's Pakistan Paradox

By Robert Scheer, Truthdig. Posted July 11, 2007.


One of the biggest obstacles to defeating al-Qaida may be Bush's friendship with Pakistan -- parts of which are "havens for the terrorist network."
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

As Iraq continues to disintegrate, and our top generals and in-country ambassador predict that U.S. troops will need to die there for decades in order to prevent a full-scale regional blood bath, it is important to recall the reasons why we got into this mess. The marker of what will go down in history as "Bush's folly" is that this idiot of a president invaded a country that had absolutely nothing to do with terrorist attacks on the United States or WMD threats to America while coddling the military junta in Pakistan, which was guilty on both counts.

(For newspaper editors inclined to strike my reference in this syndicated column to our "idiot president" as excessively pejorative, I refer them to one definition of idiot in Webster's New Riverside University Dictionary: "being unable to guard against common dangers and being incapable of learning connected speech.")

Two news stories this week underscore the extreme irrationality and utter moral depravity of the Bush administration in exploiting the 9/11 attack to justify the invasion of Iraq. They both concern Pakistan, the close ally of the Taliban government when Afghanistan hosted Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist network. And, as opposed to Iraq, Pakistan did have weapons of mass destruction and facilitated their proliferation to "rogue nations." Both examples provide damning evidence that Bush cared not a whit about WMD or about preventing another 9/11-style attack, because the danger of both existed in Pakistan, which he befriended, rather than in Iraq, which he invaded.

The first report details that Pakistan has effectively lifted the minimal house arrest restraints imposed on A.Q. Khan, the father of the "Islamic bomb," who presided over the transfer of nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran. The second is a devastating New York Times report that the United States failed to attack an important al-Qaida gathering in Afghanistan at which top terrorist leaders were present, out of fear of alienating Pakistan's dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

Recall that Bush boasted in his 2004 presidential debate with Democratic candidate John Kerry that "we busted the A.Q. Khan network," when, in fact, neither Khan nor any of the top ringleaders of his nukes-for-sale operation have ever been brought to trial. Some had to hold high positions in the Pakistani government in order for the shipment of Pakistan's most highly valued nuclear technology to go unimpeded. Perhaps it is for that reason U.S. agents have never been allowed to interview Khan, let alone subject him to the waterboarding torture reserved for those who wouldn't know a nuke if it hit them upside the head.

While American agents still aren't allowed to talk to Khan, an AP reporter had no difficulty interviewing him this week, reporting that the minimal restraints of his house arrest have been lifted. Thus, he is now, echoing that Southwest Airlines commercial, free to move about the country -- if not the world. So, Bush did not bust Khan's network, but on the contrary he allowed it to function for years out of fear of embarrassing Musharraf at a time when Bush was cozying up to the dictator who had quickly pardoned Khan of all possible crimes.

Not offending Musharraf also led the Bush administration in 2005 to jettison a planned attack on a high-level al-Qaida gathering in Pakistan that U.S. intelligence had learned of. Bin Laden's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was in attendance, and the capture of the man thought to be actually running al-Qaida would have allowed Bush to begin making good on his promise to get the perpetrators of 9/11 "dead or alive."

Instead, as The New York Times reported, the mission was abandoned in the final moments, as Navy SEALs in parachute gear sat on C-130 cargo planes, because "it could jeopardize relations with Pakistan." The Times quoted Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, as saying, "The reluctance to take risk or jeopardize our political relationship with Musharraf may well account for the fact that five-and-a-half years after 9/11, we are still trying to run bin Laden and Zawahiri to ground."

No wonder that top U.S. officials charged with defeating al-Qaida feel frustrated. As the Times reported, "Their frustration has only grown over the past two years, they said, as Al Qaeda has improved its ability to plan global attacks and build new training compounds in Pakistan's tribal areas, which have become virtual havens for the terrorist network."

Heckuva job, Bushie.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: bush, pakistan, al-qaida

Robert Scheer is the co-author of The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq. See more of Robert Scheer at TruthDig.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
TIME TO BOMB THE HELL OUT OF THESE TRIBAL REGIONS........
Posted by: kbest on Jul 12, 2007 5:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, that is right. Another "Shock and Awe" campaign in areas which al-Qeada is building. The same terrorists which alot of looney lefties claim doesn't even exist. How absurd! The threat is real. We need to bomb the hell out of this area. No more pussyfooting around.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You're an idiot Posted by: ladmeaux
Nonsense
Posted by: Brucewxx on Jul 12, 2007 7:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
US' position would be a lot worse if Musharraf is not there as Parkistan will be much more dangerous. You are lucky to have him there and should be careful not to push him too hard. With him, the situation is at least manageable. It is really arrogant or naive to think otherwise.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Terrorists in Pakistan--Actually the Taliban
Posted by: militaryhater on Jul 12, 2007 11:03 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Al Qaida is just a word Bush and the neo-cons use to clump all groups that are not with us as they have no time to deal with details while they focus on seizing the Oil.

We need the terrorists to exist in Pakistan or we would have no base to stand on to keep this war going. We can't say 'This is a WAR for OIL, even when we all know and so does the rest of the world that is what we are fighting for.

I wouldn't be surprised if we made a deal with Pakistan to let these Taliban bases in the mountains in Pakistan to exist so we could keep the WAR movement going.

Congress knows about the war being for oil and they are all on the same page. America wants and is arrogant to believe that we should OWN the oil over there. As Bush said, in a town meeting once that the media pretended he never said, 'do you want the the Arabs telling you the price of oil? Do you want them to control the oil?'

We need the terrorists in Pakistan, otherwise the War for oil and maybe even a war for opium can continue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is Scheer Brain Dead?
Posted by: ladmeaux on Jul 13, 2007 12:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh yeah, Musharaff is the problem - ever hear of the ISI? Or for that matter Pakistani history? Sunni madrasas, thousands of them, have been churning out extremists and Taliban-style fundamentalists for almost thirty years now. But its not just Pakistan - hopefully you are aware of this Mr. Scheer. Islamic terrorists, Al-Qa'ida style, are joining up and training all over the Islamic world, from Morocco to Malaysia, thanks to the US's brutal and hopelessly bungled war in Iraq, a country that will cease to exist as soon as we leave. Oh, but back to Pakistan. The ISI - Zia, both Bhuttos, Musharaff - no one can control the ISI, factions of which support Islamic extremism. The group that took over the Red Mozque? Funded by the ISI. Musharaff is battling his own government. That Musharaff has lasted this long is a miracle. Its a hopeless situation, and I would say that the US is very lucky to have Musharaff at the helm in Pakistan - by all accounts, he is extremely moderate and pro-Western.

But Pakistan will never become another Iran - there are too many moderates there, and if it did, India would nuke Islamabad faster than you can say Indira Gandhi.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

impeachment
Posted by: gsaephanh on Jul 13, 2007 1:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Call in your vote TODAY for impeaching Bush and Cheney at this number: 202-225-0100

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office is taking calls voting for Impeachment of Bush/Cheney at 202-225-0100. PLEASE CALL TODAY. At the toll free capitol switchboard #s below, you can also call your particular district’s congressional representative to insist that they support impeachment for Cheney. E.g., for Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s H Res 333 for Cheney; please say:

“In addition to supporting Kucinich’s bill H Res 333, I would also support a similar Impeachment Resolution against Bush, especially after the disgraceful Scooter Libby sentence “commuting” and the following issues: wiretapping, torture, numerous 9/11 intelligence misrepresentations, the continued occupation of Iraq, gross negligence during Hurrican Katrina, the Valerie Plame CIA leak, […list your other grounds…] ..”[see resolutions on tab #2 for other grounds for impeachment]).

LANIC requests that Americans call today…Not tomorrow or next week. Every call adds to the extraordinary grasswoots and nationwide movement’s pressures on House Speaker Pelosi to act now .before further innocent lives are lost in Iraq and elsewhere. Last week 28 Americans lost their lives. Over the July 4, 2007 weekend over 400 Iraqis lost their lives…

SEND MAIL TO HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: Attn: Nancy Pelosi, House Representative/Speaker of the House, 235 Cannon H.O.B., Washington, DC 20515 ; Pelosi’s Fax # 202 225-8259

Pelosi’s e-mail address :

Americanvoices@mail.house.gov

CC her at: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov

Please send her a pro-impeachment email and a specific call to endorse H Res 333. Note: On Saturdays/Sundays, Pelosi’s office has a comment line at which you can leave a voicemail. Your message will be transcribed and relayed to her. Please do encourage your family/friends to contact the same number. Refer them to www.bcimpeach.com for the actual telephone #s & contact info.

Find out who your Congressional representative is and call that person. For toll free numbers to your Congress rep: (800) 828 – 0498; (800) 459 – 1887; or (866) 340 – 9281. You will be connected once you name your congress person. The staff aid should take detailed notes and provided to the Congressional representative.

Final Note: Please say “I support Impeachment based on ____. I’d like to know where “[representative name]” stands on this issue.” Let’s strike while the Libby fury keeps the iron hot! Please call and Act Now!

PLEASE ALSO CONTACT THESE KEY CONGRESSIONAL REPS RE IMPEACHMENT:
Representative Capitol Phone Capitol Fax
Howard Berman 202-225-4695 202-225-3196
& 818-944-7200 818-994-1050

MAILING ADDRESS FOR BERMAN
Congressman Howard L. Berman
14546 Hamlin Street, Suite 202
Van Nuys, CA 91411

Henry Waxman 202-225-3976 202-225-4099
Loreta Sanchez 202 225-2965 202-225-5859
D. Watson 202 225-7084 202-225-2422
LindaSanchez 202 225-6676 202-226-1012
L. Solis 202 225-5464 202-225-5467
A. G. Eshoo 202 225-8104 202-225-8890
L. Roybal/Allard 202 225-1766 202-225-0350

http://www.bcimpeach.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Nukes Please
Posted by: jim's op/ed on Jul 16, 2007 5:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't Pakistan subject to the same scrutiny and weapons inspectors when the non-proliferation treaty is violated?
So was it OK for Dr.Kahn to sell nuke materials and technology for money?
Not an ethical dilemma; just greed without the benefit of a moral compass.
Seems to becoming more common in the"sandboxes of planet earth".
Shouldn't the U.N. be taking steps to bring the criminals to justice? Fat chance..

I fail to comprehend the thinking behind the production of nuclear power and weapons. Why continue to produce nuclear waste without a method for safe disposal . It is called hazardous waste because of the consequences of disposal. So your options are either bury it for a thousand years or sell to some third world "bad ass wannabees" with the possibility they will build a bomb and use on you or your neighbor.
It would be more encouraging to watch humans evolve and learn from our mistakes as opposed to continue down the same bumbling path.

jim's op/ed

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement