Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Kerry, Lugar defend Pakistan aid

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
OhioChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-05-11 10:35 PM
Original message
Kerry, Lugar defend Pakistan aid
Source: CNN

May 5, 2011 7:08 p.m. EDT

CNN) -- Two of Pakistan's key supporters in the U.S. Congress have acknowledged "real and serious questions" about Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan, but defend sending money to that country nonetheless.

During a Senate hearing Wednesday assessing the limits of U.S policy in Pakistan, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D- Massachusetts, said that although he is "curious" about whether components of Pakistan's military or intelligence services were involved in protecting the compound's infamous resident, the U.S. should not rush to judgment that might ultimately hurt its national security.

"No matter what we learn about the events that preceded the killing of Osama bin Laden, we still have vital national security interests in this region, and we have worked hard to build a partnership with Pakistan, fragile and difficult and challenged as it may be at times," Kerry said.

Committee Ranking Member Richard Lugar, R-Indiana, said that recent events have raised questions about Pakistan's reliability as an ally, but cautioned that it is "a strategically vital country with which we must engage."

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/05/kerry.lugar.pakistan/index.html



From Earlier:

U.S. will stand by Pakistan, Clinton says

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4840232

Pakistan Can Still Count On U.S. Aid

http://www.businessinsider.com/pakistan-can-still-count-on-aid-from-the-us-2011-5

Interestingly enough, I did catch an interview this week with Carter and he said that ties/aid with Pakistan were still crucial, amongst other things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-05-11 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ChromeFoundry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-05-11 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Obviously they have the interests of the US in mind...
Edited on Thu May-05-11 10:49 PM by ChromeFoundry
and India's interests are secondary.


And, I bet that they have a hell of a lot more intelligence on this subject than you can dream you have.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 06:07 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. Weak. Same defense republicans used
to justify GW's Iraq war. "They know a lot more than we do"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-05-11 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. "Pentagon Breaks Silence on Pakistani Role"
WASHINGTON — A top Pentagon official said Thursday that Obama administration officials “do not have any definitive evidence at this point” that Pakistan knew that Osama bin Laden was living in a compound in a garrison city only 35 miles from Islamabad, but she said that Pakistan would have to work hard to rebuild relations with the United States Congress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/world/asia/06pentagon.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 06:35 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. 35 miles from Islamabad, nuttin.' He was within 2 of our city blocks of Pakistan's West Point.
Edited on Fri May-06-11 06:38 AM by No Elephants
Living behind tall walls, topped with barbed wire, paying kids to play elsewhere, burning all garbage and otherwise behaving in a manner that would arouse suspicion.

Why would Public Enemy #1 and "architect" of 911, choose such a location within the borders of a U.S. "ally in the WOT"--unless he had some reason to believe he'd be safe, despite highly visible and highly suspicious behavior within spitting distance (almost)of that ally nation's military?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #3
13. Some people grasp at straws ..... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
4. I think there are a lot of misperceptions about what the "Kerry Lugar Bill" actually consists of....
Edited on Fri May-06-11 12:02 AM by Turborama
To try and help solve that, here it is: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-962
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 07:03 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. The Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009, which
authorizes "appropriations for fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to promote an enhanced strategic partnership with Pakistan and its people, and for other purposes," and "shall remain in effect beyond 2013," except for subsections (b)(1)(B), (j), (k), and (l) of section 5?

I must be missing your point.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. What is sickening is that there is no quid pro quo
for this aid. It is just a blank check for Pakistan to fund all sorts of terror without having to meet ANY milestones.

If Pakistan is so desperate for money, why not do some of the things like --

a) Have Pakistan hand over the nukes as collateral
b) Make Pakistan defund Kashmiri and other terrorists
c) Tell Pakistan that any connection to a terrorist incident anywhere, no matter how tenuous, shall result in cutting off of the aid.

Lastly, why are aid funds allowed to be used for warships, tanks, missiles, fighter jets, long distance bombers etc. when the Taliban have none of those? Are we really that dumb?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #14
20. Interesting that you apply a lower standard with regard to Tamil Nadu's involvement
in the finance of the Tamil separatists in Sri Lanka's civil war.

But that's okay because ... because it's India?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #20
28. I wouldn't support state sponsored terror by India either.
Tamil Nadu government was not funding LTTE. It was friends and relatives -- not the government.

India actually assisted the Sinhalese government in Sri Lanka -- not the LTTE.

If you may recall, an LTTE terrorist assassinated Rajiv Gandhi because of that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. I'm glad to hear that you wouldn't support it.
There was a story I saw which I may try to find a post here for comments, but this was many months ago, maybe even last year, where a female Tamil official was chastised for acknowledging the financial ties between some in Tamil Nadu and the Tamil Tigers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 05:58 AM
Response to Reply #28
43. state sponsored terror by Israel is okay though, I guess. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 05:58 AM
Response to Reply #20
42. Tamil
Is there any country in the world in which we don't waste U.S. taxpayers' money?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
27. That was section 10, "Term of Years" right at the bottom. Here are the other 9 sections...
Edited on Fri May-06-11 12:34 PM by Turborama
Text of S. 962 (111th): Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009

111th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 962
AN ACT

To authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to promote an enhanced strategic partnership with Pakistan and its people, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The people of Pakistan and the United States have a long history of friendship and comity, and the interests of both nations are well-served by strengthening and deepening this friendship.

(2) In February 2008, the people of Pakistan elected a civilian government, reversing years of political tension and mounting popular concern over governance and their own democratic reform and political development.

(3) A democratic, moderate, modernizing Pakistan would represent the wishes of the Pakistani people and serve as a model to other countries around the world.

(4) Economic growth is a fundamental foundation for human security and national stability in Pakistan, a country with over 175,000,000 people, an annual population growth rate of 2 percent, and a ranking of 136 out of 177 countries in the United Nations Human Development Index.

(5) Pakistan is a major non-NATO ally of the United States and has been a valuable partner in the battle against al Qaeda and the Taliban, but much more remains to be accomplished by both nations.

(6) The struggle against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and affiliated terrorist groups has led to the deaths of several thousand Pakistani civilians and members of the security forces of Pakistan over the past 7 years.

(7) Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, more al Qaeda terrorist suspects have been apprehended in Pakistan than in any other country, including Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, and Abu Faraj al-Libi.

(8) Despite the sacrifices and cooperation of the security forces of Pakistan, the top leadership of al Qaeda, as well as the leadership and rank-and-file of affiliated terrorist groups, are believed to be using Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and parts of the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Balochistan as a haven and a base from which to organize terrorist actions in Pakistan and globally, including--

(A) attacks outside of Pakistan that have been attributed to groups with Pakistani connections, including--

(i) the suicide car bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, which killed 58 people on June 7, 2008; and
(ii) the massacre of approximately 165 people in Mumbai, India, including 6 United States citizens, in late November 2008; and
(B) attacks within Pakistan, including--
(i) an attack on the visiting Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore on March 3, 2009;
(ii) an attack at the Marriott hotel in Islamabad on September 9, 2008;
(iii) the bombing of a political rally in Karachi on October 18, 2007;
(iv) the targeting and killing of dozens of tribal, provincial, and national holders of political office;
(v) an attack by gunfire on the U.S. Principal Officer in Peshawar in August 2008; and
(vi) the brazen assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto on December 27, 2007.

(9) In the 12-month period ending on the date of the enactment of this Act, Pakistan’s security forces have struggled to contain a Taliban-backed insurgency that has spread from FATA into settled areas, including the Swat Valley and other parts of NWFP and Balochistan. This struggle has taken the lives of more than 1,500 police and military personnel and left more than 3,000 wounded.

(10) On March 27, 2009, President Obama noted, ‘Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe-haven in Pakistan.’.


(11) According to a Government Accountability Office Report (GAO-08-622), ‘since 2003, the administration’s national security strategies and Congress have recognized that a comprehensive plan that includes all elements of national power--diplomatic, military, intelligence, development assistance, economic, and law enforcement support--was needed to address the terrorist threat emanating from the FATA’ and that such a strategy was also mandated by section 7102(b)(3) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 22 U.S.C. 2656f note) and section 2042(b)(2) of the Implementing the Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-53; 22 U.S.C. 2375 note).

(12) In the past year, the people of Pakistan have been especially hard hit by rising food and commodity prices and severe energy shortages, with two-thirds of the population living on less than $2 a day and one-fifth of the population living below the poverty line according to the United Nations Development Program.

(13) The people of Pakistan and the United States share many compatible goals, including--

(A) combating terrorism and violent radicalism, both inside Pakistan and elsewhere;
(B) solidifying democracy and the rule of law in Pakistan;
(C) promoting the economic development of Pakistan, both through the building of infrastructure and the facilitation of increased trade;
(D) promoting the social and material well-being of Pakistani citizens, particularly through development of such basic services as public education, access to potable water, and medical treatment; and
(E) safeguarding the peace and security of South Asia, including by facilitating peaceful relations between Pakistan and its neighbors.


(14) According to consistent opinion research, including that of the Pew Global Attitudes Survey (December 28, 2007) and the International Republican Institute (January 29, 2008), many people in Pakistan have historically viewed the relationship between the United States and Pakistan as a transactional one, characterized by a heavy emphasis on security issues with little attention to other matters of great interest to citizens of Pakistan.

(15) The election of a civilian government in Pakistan in February 2008 provides an opportunity, after nearly a decade of military-dominated rule, to place relations between Pakistan and the United States on a new and more stable foundation.

(16) Both the Government of Pakistan and the United States Government should seek to enhance the bilateral relationship through additional multi-faceted engagement in order to strengthen the foundation for a consistent and reliable long-term partnership between the two countries.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:

(1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES- The term ‘appropriate congressional committees’ means the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.

(2) COUNTERINSURGENCY- The term ‘counterinsurgency’ means efforts to defeat organized movements that seek to overthrow the duly constituted Governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan through violent means.

(3) COUNTERTERRORISM- The term ‘counterterrorism’ means efforts to combat al Qaeda and other foreign terrorist organizations that are designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189), or other individuals and entities engaged in terrorist activity or support for such activity.

(4) FATA- The term ‘FATA’ means the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan.

(5) NWFP- The term ‘NWFP’ means the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, which has Peshawar as its provincial capital.

(6) PAKISTAN-AFGHANISTAN BORDER AREAS- The term ‘Pakistan-Afghanistan border areas’ includes the Pakistan regions known as NWFP, FATA, and parts of Balochistan in which the Taliban or Al Qaeda have traditionally found refuge.

(7) SECURITY-RELATED ASSISTANCE- The term ‘security-related assistance’ means--

(A) grant assistance to carry out section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2763);
(B) assistance under chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2311 et seq.);
(C) assistance under chapter 5 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2347 et seq.);
(D) any equipment, supplies, and training provided pursuant to section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163; 119 Stat. 3456); and
(E) any equipment, supplies, and training provided pursuant to section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 368).

(8) SECURITY FORCES OF PAKISTAN- The term ‘security forces of Pakistan’ means the military and intelligence services of the Government of Pakistan, including the Armed Forces, Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, Intelligence Bureau, police forces, levies, Frontier Corps, and Frontier Constabulary.

(9) MAJOR DEFENSE EQUIPMENT- The term ‘major defense equipment’ has the meaning given in section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2794(6)).

SEC. 4. STATEMENT OF POLICY.
It is the policy of the United States--

(1) to support the consolidation of democracy, good governance, and rule of law in Pakistan;

(2) to support economic growth and development in order to promote stability and security across Pakistan;

(3) to affirm and build a sustained, long-term, multifaceted relationship with Pakistan;

(4) to further the sustainable economic development of Pakistan and the improvement of the living conditions of its citizens, including in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, by expanding United States bilateral engagement with the Government of Pakistan, especially in areas of direct interest and importance to the daily lives of the people of Pakistan;

(5) to work with Pakistan and the countries bordering Pakistan to facilitate peace in the region and harmonious relations between the countries of the region;

(6) to work with the Government of Pakistan to prevent any Pakistani territory from being used as a base or conduit for terrorist attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, or elsewhere in the world;

(7) to work in close cooperation with the Government of Pakistan to coordinate military, paramilitary, and police action against terrorist targets;

(8) to work with the Government of Pakistan to help bring peace, stability, and development to all regions of Pakistan, especially those in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border areas, including support for an effective counterinsurgency strategy;

(9) to expand people-to-people engagement between the United States and Pakistan, through increased educational, technical, and cultural exchanges and other methods;

(10) to encourage and promote public-private partnerships in Pakistan in order to bolster ongoing development efforts and strengthen economic prospects, especially with respect to opportunities to build civic responsibility and professional skills of the people of Pakistan; and

(11) to encourage the development of local analytical capacity to measure progress on an integrated basis across the areas of donor country expenditure in Pakistan, and better hold the Government of Pakistan accountable for how the funds are being spent.


SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDS.
(a) Authorization- There are authorized to be appropriated to the President, for the purposes of providing assistance to Pakistan under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.), the following amounts:

(1) For fiscal year 2009, up to $1,500,000,000.
(2) For fiscal year 2010, up to $1,500,000,000.
(3) For fiscal year 2011, up to $1,500,000,000.
(4) For fiscal year 2012, up to $1,500,000,000.
(5) For fiscal year 2013, up to $1,500,000,000.

(b) Availability of Funds-

(1) IN GENERAL- Of the funds appropriated in each fiscal year pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in subsection (a)--

(A) none of the amounts appropriated may be made available after the date of the enactment of this Act for assistance to Pakistan unless the Pakistan Assistance Strategy Report has been submitted to the appropriate congressional committees in accordance with subsection (j); and

(B) not more than $750,000,000 may be made available for assistance to Pakistan in any fiscal year after 2009 unless the President’s Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan submits to the appropriate congressional committees during that fiscal year--

(i) a certification that assistance provided to Pakistan under this Act to date has made or is making substantial progress toward achieving the principal objectives of United States assistance to Pakistan contained in the Pakistan Assistance Strategy Report pursuant to subsection (j)(1); and

(ii) a memorandum explaining the reasons justifying the certification described in clause (i).

(2) MAKER OF CERTIFICATION- In the event of a vacancy in, or the termination of, the position of the President’s Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, the certification described under paragraph (1)(B) may be made by the Secretary of State.

(c) Waiver- The Secretary of State may waive the limitations in subsection (b) if the Secretary determines, and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees, that it is in the national security interests of the United States to provide such waiver.

(d) Sense of Congress on Foreign Assistance Funds- It is the sense of Congress that, subject to an improving political and economic climate in Pakistan, there should be authorized to be appropriated up to $1,500,000,000 per year for fiscal years 2014 through 2018 for the purpose of providing assistance to Pakistan under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

(e) Sense of Congress on Security-related Assistance- It is the sense of Congress that security-related assistance to the Government of Pakistan--

(1) should be provided in close coordination with the Government of Pakistan, designed to improve the Government’s capabilities in areas of mutual concern, and maintained at a level that will bring significant gains in pursuing the policies set forth in paragraphs (6), (7), and (8) of section 4; and

(2) should be geared primarily toward bolstering the counter-insurgency capabilities of the Government to effectively defeat the Taliban-backed insurgency and deny popular support to al Qaeda and other foreign terrorist organizations that are based in Pakistan.

(f)Use of Funds-

(1) IN GENERAL- Funds appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) shall be used for projects intended to benefit the people of Pakistan, including projects that promote--

(A) just and democratic governance, including--

(i) police reform, equipping, and training;
(ii) independent, efficient, and effective judicial systems;
(iii) political pluralism, equality, and the rule of law;
(iv) respect for human and civil rights and the promotion of an independent media;
(v) transparency and accountability of all branches of government and judicial proceedings;
(vi) anticorruption efforts among bureaucrats, elected officials, and public servants at all levels of military and civilian government administration;
(vii) countering the narcotics trade; and
(viii) the implementation of legal and political reforms in the FATA;

(B) economic freedom, including--

(i) sustainable economic growth, including in rural areas, and the sustainable management of natural resources;
(ii) investments in energy and water, including energy generation and cross-border infrastructure projects with Afghanistan;
(iii) employment generation, including essential basic infrastructure projects such as roads and irrigation projects and other physical infrastructure; and
(iv) worker rights, including the right to form labor unions and legally enforce provisions safeguarding the rights of workers and local community stakeholders;

(C) investments in people, particularly women and children, including--

(i) broad-based public primary and secondary education and vocational training for both boys and girls;
(ii) food security and agricultural development to ensure food staples and other crops that provide economic growth and income opportunities in times of severe shortage;
(iii) quality public health, including medical clinics with well trained staff serving rural and urban communities;
(iv) vocational training for women and access to microfinance for small business establishment and income generation for women; and
(v) higher education to ensure a breadth and consistency of Pakistani graduates to prepare citizens to help strengthen the foundation for improved governance and economic vitality, including through public-private partnerships;
and

(D) long-term development in regions of Pakistan where internal conflict has caused large-scale displacement.

(2) FUNDING FOR POLICE REFORM, EQUIPPING, AND TRAINING- Up to $100,000,000 of the funds appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) should be used for police reform, equipping, and training.

(g) Preference for Building Local Capacity- The President is encouraged, as appropriate, to utilize Pakistani firms and community and local nongovernmental organizations in Pakistan, including through host country contacts, and to work with local leaders to provide assistance under this section.

(h) Authority To Use Funds for Operational and Audit Expenses-

(1) IN GENERAL- Of the amounts appropriated for a fiscal year pursuant to subsection (a)--

(A) up to $10,000,000 may be used for administrative expenses of Federal departments and agencies in connection with the provision of assistance authorized by this section;

(B) up to $30,000,000 may be made available to the Inspectors General of the Department of State, the United States Agency for International Development, and other relevant Executive branch agencies in order to provide audits and program reviews of projects funded pursuant to this section; and

(C) up to $5,000,000 may be used by the Secretary to establish a Chief of Mission Fund for use by the Chief of Mission in Pakistan to provide assistance to Pakistan under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.) to address urgent needs or opportunities, consistent with the purposes outlined in subsection (f) or for purposes of humanitarian relief.

(2) AUTHORITY IN ADDITION TO EXISTING AMOUNTS- The amounts authorized under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) to be used for the purposes described in such subparagraphs are in addition to other amounts that are available for such purposes.

(i) Use of Funds- Amounts appropriated or otherwise made available to carry out this section shall be utilized to the maximum extent possible as direct expenditures for projects and programs, subject to existing reporting and notification requirements.

(j) Pakistan Assistance Strategy Report- Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, or September 15, 2009, whichever date comes later, the Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report describing United States policy and strategy with respect to assistance to Pakistan. The report shall include--

(1) a description of the principal objectives of United States assistance to Pakistan to be provided under this Act;

(2) the amounts of funds authorized to be appropriated under subsection (a) proposed to be allocated to programs or projects designed to achieve each of the purposes of assistance listed in subsection (f);

(3) a description of the specific projects and programs for which amounts authorized to be appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) are proposed to be allocated;

(4) a list of criteria and benchmarks to be used to measure the effectiveness of projects described under subsection (f), including a systematic, qualitative, and where possible, quantitative basis for assessing whether desired outcomes are achieved and a timeline for completion of each project and program;

(5) a description of the role to be played by Pakistani national, regional, and local officials and members of Pakistani civil society and local private sector, civic, religious, and tribal leaders in helping to identify and implement programs and projects for which assistance is to be provided under this Act, and of consultations with such representatives in developing the strategy;

(6) a description of all amounts made available for assistance to Pakistan during fiscal year 2009 prior to submission of the report, including a description of each project or program for which funds were made available and the amounts allocated to each such program or project;

(7) a description of the steps taken, or to be taken, to ensure assistance provided under this Act is not awarded to individuals or entities affiliated with terrorist organizations; and

(8) a projection of the levels of assistance to be provided to Pakistan under this Act, broken down into the following categories as described in the annual ‘Report on the Criteria and Methodology for Determining the Eligibility of Candidate Countries for Millennium Challenge Account Assistance’:

(A) Civil liberties.
(B) Political rights.
(C) Voice and accountability.
(D) Government effectiveness.
(E) Rule of law.
(F) Control of corruption.
(G) Immunization rates.
(H) Public expenditure on health.
(I) Girls’ primary education completion rate.
(J) Public expenditure on primary education.
(K) Natural resource management.
(L) Business start-up.
(M) Land rights and access.
(N) Trade policy.
(O) Regulatory quality.
(P) Inflation control.
(Q) Fiscal policy.
(k) Notification Requirements-

(1) NOTICE OF ASSISTANCE FOR BUDGET SUPPORT- The President shall notify the appropriate congressional committees not later than 15 days before obligating any assistance under this section as budgetary support to the Government of Pakistan or any element of such Government and shall describe the purpose and conditions attached to any such budgetary support.

(2) SEMIANNUAL REPORT- Not later than 90 days after the submission of the Pakistan Assistance Strategy Report pursuant to subsection (j), and every 180 days thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees that describes the assistance provided under this section. The report shall include--

(A) a description of all assistance provided pursuant to this Act since the submission of the last report, including each program or project for which assistance was provided and the amount of assistance provided for each program or project;

(B) a description of all assistance provided pursuant to this Act, including--

(i) the total amount of assistance provided for each of the purposes described in subsection (f); and

(ii) the total amount of assistance allocated to programs or projects in each region in Pakistan;

(C) a list of persons or entities from the United States or other countries that have received funds in excess of $100,000 to conduct projects under this section during the period covered by the report, which may be included in a classified annex, if necessary to avoid a security risk, and a justification for the classification;

(D) an assessment of the effectiveness of assistance provided pursuant to this Act during the period covered by the report in achieving desired objectives and outcomes, measured on the basis of the criteria contained in the Pakistan Assistant Strategy Report pursuant to subsection (j)(4);

(E) a description of--

(i) the programs and projects for which amounts appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) are proposed to be allocated during the 180-day period after the submission of the report;

(ii) the relationship of such programs and projects to the purposes of assistance described in subsection (f); and
(iii) the amounts proposed to be allocated to each such program or project;

(F) a description of any shortfall in United States financial, physical, technical, or human resources that hinder the effective use and monitoring of such funds;

(G) a description of any negative impact, including the absorptive capacity of the region for which the resources are intended, of United States bilateral or multilateral assistance and recommendations for modification of funding, if any;

(H) any incidents or reports of waste, fraud, and abuse of expenditures under this section;

(I) the amount of funds appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) that were used during the reporting period for administrative expenses or for audits and program reviews pursuant to the authority under subsection (h);

(J) a description of the expenditures made from any Chief of Mission Fund established pursuant to subsection (h)(3) during the period covered by the report, the purposes for which such expenditures were made, and a list of the recipients of any expenditures from the Chief of Mission Fund in excess of $10,000; and

(K) an accounting of assistance provided to Pakistan under this Act, broken down into the categories set forth in subsection (j)(8).
(l) Government Accountability Office Report- Not later than one year after the submission of the Pakistan Assistance Strategy Report under subsection (j), and annually thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report that contains--

(1) a review of, and comments addressing, the Pakistan Assistance Strategy Report; and

(2) recommendations relating to any additional actions the Comptroller General believes could help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of United States efforts to meet the objectives of this Act.

(m) Sense of Congress on Funding of Priorities- It is the sense of Congress that, as a general principle, the Government of Pakistan should allocate a greater portion of its budget to the recurrent costs associated with education, health, and other priorities described in this section.

(n) Consultation Requirement- The President shall consult the appropriate congressional committees on the strategy in subsection (j), including criteria and benchmarks developed under paragraph (4) of such subsection, not later than 15 days before obligating any assistance under this section.

SEC. 6. LIMITATION ON CERTAIN ASSISTANCE.
(a) Limitation on Certain Military Assistance- Beginning in fiscal year 2010, no grant assistance to carry out section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2763) and no assistance under chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2311 et seq.) may be provided to Pakistan in a fiscal year until the Secretary of State makes the certification required under subsection (c).

(b) Limitation on Arms Transfers- Beginning in fiscal year 2012, no letter of offer to sell major defense equipment to Pakistan may be issued pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.) and no license to export major defense equipment to Pakistan may be issued pursuant to such Act in a fiscal year until the Secretary of State makes the certification required under subsection (c).

(c) Certification- The certification required by this subsection is a certification to the appropriate congressional committees by the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence, that the security forces of Pakistan--

(1) are making concerted efforts to prevent al Qaeda and associated terrorist groups, including Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, from operating in the territory of Pakistan;
(2) are making concerted efforts to prevent the Taliban and associated militant groups from using the territory of Pakistan as a sanctuary from which to launch attacks within Afghanistan; and
(3) are not materially interfering in the political or judicial processes of Pakistan.
(d) Waiver- The Secretary of State may waive the limitations in subsections (a) and (b) if the Secretary determines it is important to the national security interests of the United States to provide such waiver.
(e) Prior Notice of Waiver- A waiver pursuant to subsection (d) may not be exercised until 15 days after the Secretary of State provides to the appropriate congressional committees written notice of the intent to issue such waiver and the reasons therefor. The notice may be submitted in classified or unclassified form, as necessary.
(f) Annual Report- The Secretary of State, after consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees an annual report on the progress of the security forces of Pakistan in satisfying the requirements enumerated in subsection (c). The Secretary of State shall establish detailed, specific requirements and metrics for evaluating the progress in satisfying these requirements and apply these requirements and metrics consistently in each annual report. This report may be submitted in classified or unclassified form, as necessary.


SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON COALITION SUPPORT FUNDS.

It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) Coalition Support Funds are critical components of the global fight against terrorism, and in Pakistan provide essential support for--

(A) military operations of the Government of Pakistan to destroy the terrorist threat and close the terrorist safe haven, known or suspected, in the FATA, the NWFP, and other regions of Pakistan; and

(B) military operations of the Government of Pakistan to protect United States and allied logistic operations in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan;

(2) despite the broad discretion Congress granted the Secretary of Defense in terms of managing Coalition Support Funds, the Pakistan reimbursement claims process for Coalition Support Funds requires increased oversight and accountability, consistent with the conclusions of the June 2008 report of the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO-08-806);

(3) in order to ensure that this significant United States effort in support of countering terrorism in Pakistan effectively ensures the intended use of Coalition Support Funds, and to avoid redundancy in other security assistance programs, such as Foreign Military Financing and Foreign Military Sales, more specific guidance should be generated, and accountability delineated, for officials associated with oversight of this program within the United States Embassy in Pakistan, the United States Central Command, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the Office of Management and Budget; and

(4) the Secretary of Defense should submit to the appropriate congressional committees and the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a semiannual report on the use of Coalition Support Funds, which may be submitted in classified or unclassified form as necessary.

SEC. 8. PAKISTAN-AFGHANISTAN BORDER AREAS STRATEGY.

(a) Development of Comprehensive Strategy- The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and such other government officials as may be appropriate, shall develop a comprehensive, cross-border strategy that includes all elements of national power--diplomatic, military, intelligence, development assistance, humanitarian, law enforcement support, and strategic communications and information technology--for working with the Government of Pakistan, the Government of Afghanistan, NATO, and other like-minded allies to best implement effective counterterrorism and counterinsurgency measurers in and near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border areas.

(b) Report- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a detailed description of a comprehensive strategy for counterterrorism and counterinsurgency in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border areas containing the elements specified in subsection (a) and proposed timelines and budgets for implementing the strategy.

SEC. 9. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that the United States should--

(1) recognize the bold political steps the Pakistan electorate has taken during a time of heightened sensitivity and tension in 2007 and 2008 to elect a new civilian government, as well as the continued quest for good governance and the rule of law under the elected government in 2008 and 2009;

(2) seize this strategic opportunity in the interests of Pakistan as well as in the national security interests of the United States to expand its engagement with the Government and people of Pakistan in areas of particular interest and importance to the people of Pakistan;

(3) continue to build a responsible and reciprocal security relationship taking into account the national security interests of the United States as well as regional and national dynamics in Pakistan to further strengthen and enable the position of Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally;

(4) seek ways to strengthen our countries’ mutual understanding and promote greater insight and knowledge of each other’s social, cultural and historical diversity through personnel exchanges and support for the establishment of institutions of higher learning with international accreditation; and

(5) explore means to consult with and utilize the relevant expertise and skills of the Pakistani-American community.


You're welcome.

BTW I've highlighted a few things I think some people might not already know, this doesn't mean I think anything else in it is less important.

Also, SEC. 2. (9) doesn't tell the full story so far.

The stats for the 'militants' below are out of date, there are at least 4 more to add to that total as of Sunday:

War in North-West Pakistan

Date March 16, 2004 – ongoing
(7 years, 50 days)

Location Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (formerly known as NWFP) in Pakistan

Casualties and losses

Pakistan:

3,117 security forces members killed (2,351 soldiers)
6,512 soldiers wounded
857+ soldiers and policemen captured (558 released)

Tribes: 235+ killed,

United States: 15 soldiers killed

17,742 militants killed or captured as of February 2010

The big picture, with all the references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_North-West_Pakistan


(EDITED TO FIX A FORMATTING ERROR & A TYPO)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #27
32. I quoted the exact title and the term, but I'd looked at the entire bil.
Edited on Sat May-07-11 03:02 AM by No Elephants
Your origninal post had mentioned the Kerry Lugar bill. I gave the exact title and term, as if to say, "You mean this one? I seem to be missing your point." It was also a way of saying, you mean an appropriations bil for Pakistan? I seem to be missing your point."

My giving the exact title was also my way of indicating to you that I had indeed looked at the bill before replying. Apparently, you assume people read only what they quote in their posts?


"You're welcome."

For what?

I had followed the link in your first post and read the bill at the website, so I had no need for a copy and paste. Never asked you for one--or for anything else. However, if you had wanted to actually respond to my post, you could have simply stated your point, which you still haven't done.

You seemed to feel your point is self evident from reading the Act. Obviously, I didn't agree.

From your bolding, I now surmise, among other things, that you mmay assume that Pakistan has been spending our foreign aid $$ on what our internal laws specify and only on those things. I don't think that is necessarily so. (I also don't think our lawmakers even believe that, but that's another story entirely.)

However, I've been left to guess what you may have meant and, for many reasons, I shouldn't be doing that. So, I'll stop.

Your first post had claimed people misperceive the Lugar Kerry bill. I'd never read it before; but, when I did, the full text did not surprise me. So, I had no idea what your point in claiming people misperceive it was. Still don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 04:54 AM
Response to Reply #32
41. My "point" was to clear up any possible misperceptions by providing the bill for people to read
You say you hadn't read the bill before and read it for the first time after I posted the link.

You didn't have to say thank-you, but I said you're welcome anyway out of habit.

Just because you weren't surprised by what's in it doesn't mean no-one else might be. There are a lot of misperceptions online about what's in the bill. Good for you in perceiving correctly what was in it in advance of reading it. Sadly, the possession of extrasensory perception is a rare skill and I had to spend time providing the bill in its entirety for those who are misperceiving what's in it and may be surprised with what they read.

I was doing this as a public service and it was not meant to be about me or any specific individuals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 12:42 AM
Response to Original message
5. Lugar has no chance of winning his primary next year
Hey, he's a true believer, knowing he will lose to a tea bagger and still acting like a neo-con.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 06:08 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Good ... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. Why do you prefer a Teabagger to Lugar?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Because
he is a sucker, taken in by Pakistani lies and deceit and still continues to throw money at Pakistan without making Pakistan do anything in return.

At least a teabagger won't provide blank check.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. Endorsing the Tea Party now?
I think you're on the wrong forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. No ... the question was about the primary. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 03:16 AM
Response to Reply #21
35. Yes, but your reply (#12) went to post-election. You assumed a bagger who beat Lugar would win
the election and went from there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #35
44. You're 100% accurate n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChromeFoundry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-08-11 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #35
47. How'd I miss this gem? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-08-11 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #35
51. Well spotted.
Edited on Sun May-08-11 11:33 AM by Turborama
Doesn't matter though, it seems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-09-11 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. Crickets, still? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #12
19. If you are endorsing the racist Tea Party, you are violating DU's terms of service.
:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. I am not endorsing the whole tea party ... come on
The question was vis a vis the republican primary -- not the general election
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. It's fine to disagree with aid to Pakistan and what Kerry and Lugar state.
It's another thing to cross the line and affirm support for the Tea Party.

I'm not trying to silence you or those who feel as you do. My views on Pakistan are very much in the minority; I am aware of that and fine with being odd one out (along with a few others).

What you won't find me doing is, for example, endorsing an opposing party's candidate running against an anti-Pakistan Democrat. At worst, I will remain silent.

Have a nice weekend, cosmicone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. I hear you
But .. endorsing a teabagger in the primaries increases the chance of a democrat winning the general election

Peace !

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 03:37 AM
Response to Reply #26
38. Well, that's what totoindere said in his 12:16 p.m. post, but that's not what your Reply 12 said.
Sir or madam, I have no idea what your politics are. For all I know, you may be the bluest poster here. However, your responses on this issue have not been consistent with each other. That's all I'm sayin'.

Btw, I'm not sure I want more aid to Pakistan, either. But I am not willing to have a teeabgger replace a moderate Republican in the Senate, if we have to have one or the other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #38
46. The idea is to get a good progressive Democrat to win that seat in Indiana.
If we have to practice some strategy here and support a teabagger in the Republican primary because the bagger would lose to the Dem in the general, then so be it. It is true that I would prefer Lugar to a bagger, but I would also prefer a Democrat to Luger. And it might well be (I haven't seen any polling on this) that Lugar would be favored to win the general election whereas a bagger would not be.

This reminds me of what happened here in Nevada. When Angle won the GOP primary not many of us Democrats shed a tear over that because we realized that it would give Reid the best shot at holding on to his seat. And of course, that is in fact what happened.

Did we want Angle to become a senator from Nevada? Of course not. And I admit that our strategy was a risky one. If Angle had won it would have been a disaster. But fortunately everything turned out as we had hoped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-08-11 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #26
49. As a person who was born in Indiana, I think there is some risk that
you get a tea party candidate.

Not to mention - you likely get a RW Chair of SFRC if we lose the Senate - which is very possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-08-11 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #22
48. It shows that you would prefer a tea partier to one of most reasonable
Republicans there is. You also ignore that the winner of the Republican primary there is likely to be the winner. Not to mention that it means that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will possibly be chaired by a very right wing Senator if the Republicans gain control.

Your hatred for Pakistan - well noted for months - appears to make you willing to turn destroy this committee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #19
24. Endorsing a Tea Party candidate against a Democrat in a general election would
certainly be a TOS violation. But I don't think that saying that you want a Republican, Lugar, to lose his primary to someone else, Tea Party or not, would be a TOS violation. In fact, I have seen people at DU say they hope that a Tea Party candidate might win in a primary because that candidate would be more likely to lose to a Democrat in the general election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Yes, thanks for the correction - you are right.
Sorry, folks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 03:24 AM
Response to Reply #25
36. Maybe, but please see Replies 12 and 35.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 03:27 AM
Response to Reply #24
37. Yes, but s/he was assuming the bagger would win the election..
Please see Replies 12 and 35.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 02:32 AM
Response to Reply #12
33. teabaggers would give corporate whores blank checks , take away women's rights
i guess all of that is ok with you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #33
45. *Crickets* n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #12
34. I'm not sure Lugar -- or Kerry or anyone else--has been taken in. They sure
are not saying things that suggest rose colored glasses.

In fact, they've been coming closer to telling an unpleasant truth than politicians ever seem to--at least when they are not speaking of the other Party or an opponent. And, it's also fairly evident Obama didn't trust Pakistan.

Would you welcome Kerry's departure as well? It was his bill, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #10
31. I do, and I have been saying for years tea baggers are better than neo-cons
They are much, much less pro war than the chicken hawk neo-cons. If you had to have a puke like in Alaska, I openly wish Joe Miller would have beaten Lisa Murkowski in Alaska. Against wars and against the Patriot Act. Hmm, seems logical for me.

Now don't get me wrong. I am in no way endorsing tea baggers. But I will take 50 Ron Paul's over 50 Bush's any day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 03:49 AM
Response to Reply #31
40. Years? LOL! Not surprised you'd prefer a Teabagger to moderate Lugar, though.
Edited on Sat May-07-11 04:10 AM by No Elephants
"But I will take 50 Ron Paul's over 50 Bush's any day.

Not surprised by that either.

I usually don't remember--or try to remember--who posts what. Makes it easier not to carry grudges or suspicions from one thread to another.

However, I do remember the bent of your posts on other LBN threads and every one of your LBN posts I've noticed has had the same theme as your Reply 31 on this thread.

Edited to add references to LBN because I rarely read in other forums and have no idea what Ter posts elsewhere on this board.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 06:50 AM
Response to Original message
9. "We've always known Pakistan is a big Satan, but we think we're better off paying off them anyway."
Edited on Fri May-06-11 06:54 AM by No Elephants
Which begs the question, "Why do you think we're better off paying off a big Satan anyway?"

Elected folk saying what they really mean could eventually lead to an outbreak of real democracy; and, Lord knows, no one wants that, except maybe the small percentage of the human population of the U.S. that still bothers to vote--and even they don't seem to REALLY want it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. Pakistan even used
the aid received for the flood victims to buy arms and support terrorism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChromeFoundry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Link?
or a screenshot from their General Ledger system would be helpful in taking you seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-08-11 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #16
52. 48 hours later and...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. They also brought Benazir Bhutto back from the dead.
Seriesly. !!11!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
30. If we're standing by Pakistan and giving them aid, I hope
they will return all the pieces of that helicopter; left behind by the Seals.

Thanks for the thread, Ohio Chick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 03:41 AM
Response to Reply #30
39. I saw video of little kids picking up pieces from the wreckage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Keith Bee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-08-11 01:42 AM
Response to Original message
50. Uggh!
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC