Wonder how Hillary would have handled it??
You saw what happened last week when you asked her a DIRECT question.

You’ve completely advanced into the state of delusion. ENOUGH of the Hillary complaining. Every one of us knows your stance on the woman, okay? What the hell does SHE have to do with the fact that every single press secretary acts like this? Dana Perino sold her soul to the devil, just like Tony Snow. Now, they’re professional wafflers.
The President hasn’t called Musharraf directly because he’s an oil man. Chaos is good. The more the merrier. Check out the national gas prices, my friend. Do you think his constitutents (oil) are going to be happy if he calms things down?

I know, I know. Supply and demand. Market factors. Damn liberals…..blah, blah, blah. Go ahead and give me all the ‘legitimate’ excuses/alibis for high gas prices nationwide. Bottom line: Since Shrub took over, national gas prices went from $1.11 to $3.10 and climbing….It’s an unprecedented rise of inflation in a short period of time.

temper temper

I don’t get it… why are you so hellbent on bashing Hillary in each and every topic, no matter now irrelevant it is? Make no mistake, I detest that women, but you don’t see me mentioning her in every post, regardless of what it is about. Whats your incentive to keep going on and on about her?

Alright,, just for friendship sake..
I’ll not say anything about,,, that woman…
Anyone know why Obama has a problem landing at the wrong air ports??

eat me.

Before you do however, recognize the implications of Musharraf suspending Pakistan’s constitution and dissolving its supreme court. Musharraf is now pushing the moderates in his country away from his secular rule and towards the Islamic extremists that are tolerated there.

Since Musharraf is more despised in Pakistan than Osama Bin Laden, pushing moderates away is obviously not a good thing. Were the people of Pakistan to organize behind the extremists so as to topple Musharraf, then nuclear arms would be at the disposal of the friends of the man who killed 3000 Americans on 911. There would be no need to worry about Iran making the bomb; Islamic terrorists would already possess at least 35 nuclear warheads which they would use as they pleased.

There. Now you can eat me. Have a good time and keep up with that tasty discussion on Hillary Clinton. Sometimes, things that are irrelevant help us to die with less anxiety. Just imagine Hillary as a twenty-tentacled sock puppet with an inferiority complex, nuclear nipple rings like grenade pins, the voice of Bob Ross emanating from her varicose, fleshy, venom-soaked vaginal fracture, and a newly tamed and teased perm of sad, withered, deteriorating penises twisted prostrate and miserable from her scalp.

But I don’t want you to have a bad trip or anything…

Calzone -

I don’t think Pakistan is polarized between secularists and Wahabists. I agree that Musharraf’s grab for power is problematic, but it seems to me that regardless of how you characterize Musharaff, there is a strong democratic sentiment among the people of Pakistan. To be sure, in some post-Musharaff scenario they might just elect Wahabists and thereby impose Sharia Law on themselves and an end to democracy, but it seems to me that the population of Pakistan is much more sophisticated than that. I think they value their secular consitution. Isn’t that what is driving all of the lawyers – DWM’s Blues Bros. – into the streets? I don’t think leaving Tim’s ‘unanswered question of the day’ unanswered for the time being is necessarily a bad thing, if it means that the administration is trying to figure out how to approach this the right way. Given the precariousness of the situation, it’s not surprising that this is not immediately clear. More importantly, though, I agree that this challenge is critical; the outcome you describe cannot be permitted and is potentially much more problematic than Iran. Indeed, Wahabists with atom-bombs would be a bummer.

no, pakistan is polarized between shias and sunnis like most of the arab world. Pakistan is unique in that is has some further divisions in political parties, religious orientation and reliance on the state.
Musharraf’s days are numbered, though whether it is a high count or a low count is the subject of much speculation, it is almost a certainty that he will have to give up power sometime soon or risk loosing the support of the armed forces. Without their support, the bombing attempts suddenly become successful.
Regardless of who is elected, the SIS is always in control, much like the CIA is here. There is much power in an organization that trains it’s members to work outside the boundries of law and morality and is accountable to no one but itself.

The implication of that is that most of the SIS personel are handpicked from troops from kashmir. You know, the terrorists that frequently harrass the indian administered side by staging raids and murders. If these guys gain control, you can be assured that Pakistan will hand over a nuke to the terrorists. Can you really expect that the government that created the Taliban, funded it, supplied it and trained will actually work to abolish and destroy it? That would be like asking UBL to condemn al Qaida.

“Can you really expect that the government that created the Taliban, funded it, supplied it and trained will actually work to abolish and destroy it?”

I do because I don’t think the SIS is really pro-Taliban, so much as they are anti- India and Iran. My understanding is that with Afganistan now effectively under US/UN/NATO mandate, the SIS is not really concerned with propping up the Taliban. Second, the SIS seems more like run-of-the-mill gangsters who use their power to enrich themselves. I can’t imagine such like would jeopardize their position by arming religious zealots with nukes.

and yet you still think of others possible actions as if it were ourselves that you speculate on.

Do you really purport to have your finger on the pulse of the pakistani nation? If you think their security services have the same goals and ambitions as our political class, particularly republicants, then you are probably one of those that speculated that the iraqi people would welcome us as liberators and accept us as administrators of their resources. this kind of logic is what left us unprepared for the repercussions of invading a sovereign nation, the morons in charge thought they had everything figured out and failed to plan for the likely developments they were warned about by the experts.

Out with the republicans, put someone that cares in charge.

If the president doesn’t have the courage to break off this relationship in person, then he is a real slug. at least he can take the guy’s phone call and tell him that’s it’s over.