Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |   E-mail Dan  |  
Page 2 of 5   <       >

Exposing Bush's Weakness

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

"Administration officials said they are beginning to review the various elements of the aid package but made clear that they hope to coax Musharraf on a democratic path without a dramatic reduction in assistance that they consider crucial in fighting terrorism. . . .

"[S]ome U.S. officials believe the United States needs Musharraf more than he needs the United States. 'We're so invested in counterterrorism strategy in Pakistan's tribal areas -- and aid is the only means available to counter the growing al-Qaeda presence there -- so it limits the options we have available,' said one State Department official not authorized to speak publicly."

Dana Milbank writes in The Washington Post: "Bush and his aides acted yesterday as if Musharraf had made an illegal right on red, or perhaps parked in a handicapped space.

"'What we think we ought to be doing is using our various forms of influence at this point in time to help a friend, who we think has done something ill-advised,' one of Bush's top aides declared from the podium in the White House briefing room. . . .

"So would there be consequences for Musharraf's misbehavior? 'That's going to depend heavily on what we hear, obviously, from the Pakistani government,' he said, making sure to add: 'And that is not a threat in any way.'

"It didn't even rise to a diplomatic slap on the wrist. . . .

"Mr. Anonymous mentioned his hopes eight times in his 40 minutes with reporters. 'We hope that we'll get some clarification on the intentions of the government in the next few days. . . . We are hopeful that we will see some clarification. . . . We hope they will do that.'

"Missing were the serious diplomatic words such as 'outrageous' and 'unacceptable.' In their place were gentle sentiments such as 'unfortunate' and 'disappointed' and, two dozen times, 'concern.'"

For more background, see yesterday's column: Another Bush Backfire.

Opinion Watch

The Los Angeles Times editorial board writes: "Washington's inability to deter Pakistan's Gen. Pervez Musharraf from declaring emergency rule -- a coup d'etat that has been in the works for months -- reveals yet another Bush administration foreign policy failure. As the dictator's goons used clubs and tear gas to crush pro-democracy demonstrations, arrested several thousand lawyers and human rights activists and muzzled the media, President Bush -- the chest-thumping, self-proclaimed defender of freedom and crusader against tyranny everywhere -- bravely declared that he hoped Musharraf would 'take my advice' and hold elections soon. It was a grotesque finale to the now-abandoned doctrine that Bush advanced in his second inaugural address, when he argued that tyranny itself is the mother's milk of extremism. . . .

"Musharraf has never been either a democratic reformer or a reliable ally in the so-called war on terrorism. The truth is that all of the choices in Pakistan are bad. But pouring $10 billion down the gullet of a military dictatorship since 2001 has made U.S. options no better. (That figure does not include covert U.S. aid to Musharraf, estimated at perhaps $5 billion to $10 billion more.)"

The New York Times editorial board writes: "By imposing martial law, Gen. Pervez Musharraf has pushed nuclear-armed Pakistan further along a perilous course and underscored the failure of President Bush's policy toward a key ally in the war on terrorism. The events should not have come as a surprise to administration officials. This is what you get when policy is centered slavishly on a single, autocratic ruler rather than more broadly on his country.


<       2              >


© 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive