A writer for the Los Angeles Times wrote today about Musharaff and Bush being friends and how it made her feel betrayed...as she stated, "Oh, George. Why do you you hate America?".http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brooks15nov15,0,7992029.column?coll=la-home-commentary
I love the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of the Press!
Such great U.S. Constitutional rights!
Look at what people can write! Isn't it amazing what buffoons they can make of themselves, giving half-truths, being a "Bush-Basher"? Amazing!
Regarding the content of the article, Bush almost certainly would not have known key international political figures during his campaign.
"What were you thinking, George?"
"Back on the presidential campaign trail in 2000, you couldn't even come up with Pervez Musharraf's name when some smarty-pants reporter gave you a pop news quiz. Those were the days!", says Brooks.
Government 101: Being a Governor is much different than being The President of the United States of America. International politics are usually not necessary in that position.
Regarding what President Bush is doing about the situation in Pakistan, Brooks says,
"Osama thanks you."
"And what are you doing about all this? Nothing!"
"You're not calling on Musharraf to step down and hold elections, you're not threatening to pull the plug on any U.S. military aid, you're not opening up links to the grass-roots democratic opposition. Which means there's little chance that we'll get what we say we want -- and what most Pakistanis want: a moderate, democratic Pakistani government. Instead, our policies will continue to inspire and strengthen Islamic extremism."
Aside from the fact the President Bush is President of the United States of America and is not in charge of politics in Pakistan, multiple sources report him taking action earlier this month, and again yesterday. (One source, MSNBC.MSN.com is linked here)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21675162/
"President Bush, personally intervening in the political crisis in Pakistan, told President Pervez Musharraf on Wednesday he must hold parliamentary elections soon and step down as army leader.", stating that Musharraf cannot be the president and the head of the military at the same time.
Another source states (linked here newsday.com)
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wopaki155461660nov15,0,6434158.story
"...the White House is trying to distance itself from him (Musharraf) and build connections to other Pakistanis. Increasingly, "the general view, I think, is that we're in the end game," said Marvin Weinbaum, who monitors U.S. policy toward Pakistan at Washington's Middle East Institute."
"Backing away from Musharraf requires delicate diplomacy that will fall this weekend to Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte..."
"Washington also is thought likely to be quietly advancing a message to Pakistani leaders that it is ready to look beyond the Musharraf era and to work with the general's successors. "I think that message already is being delivered through third parties," Weinbaum said."
Those are just two, out of numerous sources, with reliable information regarding the situation in Pakistan and how it is, in actuality, being handled.
Additionally, if you were a political power, as the United States is, do you really think that you would be divulging everything to the U.S. media? Look at our media! Look what they do with the information!
Would it be better to have Hillary in power?
Let me remind everyone where we are with good ole boy Hillary.
If Hillary were in power, we'd have a whole lot of Hill-ta-pay...
...socialist programs...raising all taxes by 40% (not exact figure...may be higher than that)
yes, giving everyone a certain amount of money at anytime is socialism
yes, her health care plan is socialism
yes, there are more and they all add to our taxes...just take a look at the mistakes done by the French and the one thing they are doing right at this time...fixing their socialist economy.
...ties to China...campaign finance reform?
...all of the "blah, blah, blah" that Hillary shoots out of her mouth...would have to go through Congress like it has to with every other President and she probably wouldn't fulfill most of her promises anyway.
...etc., etc., etc.
(see link provided to Hillary's campaign site)
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
We need to take information from reliable sources, instead of listen to opinions like those from Brooks' article at
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brooks15nov15,0,7992029.column?coll=la-home-commentary
which reveals her own Freudian angst, venting toward the President of the United States, without knowing all of the crucial details...making a heehaw out of her knowledge of International Relations.
No comments:
Post a Comment