2004 Democratic Presidential Candidates and Pakistan

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re: stuka

republicans have been caught lying and misrepresenting intelligence to pursue an $87 billion war...it is all over the papers...you can`t miss it...

nasah:

i will remind you of your pledge in november.

what i`d like to see is how fox news reacts in case their beloved president loses.

Hey Armu., Great article, very diligently written.
But i believe the case now for Pakistan lies in `correcting` itself and weed out that terrorism from our land for good. We have no choice. The decision for us has been made. And it has been made elsewhere. So does it matter if a Democrat comes to the White House or this Republican stays? Itll be daft thinking if we are not to learn from our past and not improve ourselves. Time demands astute and rapid planning right away. Unfortunately, we dont have much time.
Your writing clearly reflects the choice between the lesser or the two evils. But, we must not forget that the bigger devil replaces the smaller one. Always.

any democratic dog is better than this Bushy Bumbling Buffoon.......

now it turns out that this Dyslexic Dimwit has not only `Faulty Intelligence` -- he is also mathematically challenged -- look at his Medicare calculations....

how did we end up with such a Moron........the stupidest president in the entire hisitory of the United States....

O God if you exist -- give us a sign -- get rid of this moron in November 20004 -- and I will reconvert into Your devout Muslim once again.......

.....o God........the MORON has not only bankrupted us Morally............he is about to bankrupt us Financially......a miscalculation 530 billion dollars?.....pleeeze get rid of him in November.....we can`t AFFORD this Miscalculatin Mongoloid.....o Lord ....get rid of him........pretty pleeze

It probably does not matter too much for pakistan, whichever administration is in the white house. I think they have to continue supporting Musharraf, and Kerry does seem to have the best grasp on such foreign policy issues amongst all the democrat contenders. A Kerry/Edwards ticket will be a formidable one, though Karl Rove and the republican machinery will try to paint Kerry as a massachusetts liberal. Edwards is by far, the best communicator amongst all the candidates and the nomination was his if `national security` had not played a major role in this election. Dean will probably drop out soon, as will Clark.

Good article. I would say that Clarks proposal (of which I was not aware) of sending Saudi commandos to Pakistan/Afghan border, if true, is quite ludicrous.

On a point of history, the Republican leaning to Pakistan has not been dictated solely by external circumstance. The Republicans have always had a more pragmatic, solution based foreign policy which implicitly means alliances based on shared objectives (containing the cold war) rather then shared ideologies (democracy) That has had disadvantages (Iran 1977-1978) and advantages (Reagen actually succeeded in getting the hostages out where Carter failed)

Good article. It is worth recalling the political organization of Muslims in the last presedential elections. In hind sight, american muslims made two key mistakes:

1 - Muslims should not have selected their vote based on a few issues. It were Bush`s kind comments regarding abolishing secret evidence law that won muslims hearts. Perhaps his comment on being ``gentler`` in foriegn policy made muslims think that the sanctions against Iraq could be lifted and perhaps Palestinians may have some hope. In the process we overlooked his alliance with nut cases like Jerry Falwell, and Pat Roberson.

2- The second key mistake american muslim voters made was to forget the fact that historically liberal governments tend to give more importance to civil liberties than the conservative ones. This is true whether its a christian conservative, jewish conservative or a muslim conservative government anywhere in the world.

A fair, intelligent analysis.

An excellent assessment! If the Iraq situation and Terrorist hanging out in Pakistan-Afghan area would not change perceptibly, even the Democrat President would not have much to change in the current policy.
The US is working on the premise that by encouraging Musharaf and his group in the army, the US can at a minimum, make sure to neutralize terrorists in that area. The bigger news would be the capture of the big guns of the terrorist hiding in the mountain.
The long term element in the US policy is that the policy makers feel that by encouraging the peace process between India and Pakistan the alternate to the army rule in Pakistan can be developed. That is precisely where the problems crop up for Musharaf and his group. The Jihadi elements in Pakistan army and outside of it are dead-set against improving relations with India. Especially de-escalation in Kashmir situation would hurt the Jihadi group politically.

The US is also putting pressure on Musharaf to deal with the nuke issue in Pakistan. The reason behind that is clear. If Musharaf finally fails to maintain grip, the likelihood of nukes falling in the hands of unsavory elements increases manifold.
The US will continue to work in these areas

• Minimize opposition to Musharaf in the Pakistan Army.
• Ensure a complete control of the nukes by the Musharaf group.
• Continue to pressure Pakistan to neutralize the terrorists in Pakistan.
• Encourage India to normalize relations with Pakistan and in turn, Pakistan to cool off its support to Jihadi in Kashmir.

Next few months would be interesting in the US-India-Pakistan relations. With election almost around the corner, the current US administration would like to see some solid progress in terrorist situation in Pakistan including the arrest of OBL. If that is not possible, Al Zawarhi would be acceptable.