"Why Does Pakistan Have A Veto Over Our National Security?"

[Pirate Smile]

From the Huffington Post:

Bill Scher
Why Does Pakistan Have A Veto Over Our National Security?
Here’s a crazy idea for how the UK and the US could respond to the July 7 terror attack: get Osama bin Laden.

Conveniently, our CIA chief says he has “an excellent idea where he is.” CNN, the BBC and others reported that his full remarks suggested he thinks Osama is in Pakistan.

What’s stopping us? Pakistan, our “ally,” doesn’t allow US troops to enter its country in pursuit of terrorists. As the NY Times reported back in Dec.:

Pakistan does not permit American military and intelligence forces in Afghanistan to cross the border to go after militants. This prohibition on cross-border "hot pursuit" makes it relatively easy for Taliban and Qaeda fighters to initiate attacks on American bases in Afghanistan, and then quickly escape to the safety of Pakistan. American soldiers have complained about being fired on from inside Pakistan by foreign militants while Pakistani border guards sat and watched.
As a result of the restrictions, American military and intelligence personnel in Afghanistan are no longer really hunting for Mr. bin Laden, an intelligence official said.

In the 2004 campaign, George Bush said, “The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France.” His convention’s keynote speaker, Zell Miller, said, “Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide.”

Well, Bush has decided for some time that Pakistan should have a veto over our national security. Pakistan decides where our troops can go to defend America.

Unfortunately, getting Osama three years too late won’t have the same impact that getting him right after 9/11 would have.

Last year, the CIA reported that the cancer of Al Qaeda has metastasized, so demolishing the Al Qaeda organization at this point wouldn’t change much:

The steady spread of Usama bin Ladin's anti-US sentiment – the wider Sunni extremist movement and through the broad dissemination of al-Qa’ida's destructive expertise - ensures that a serious threat will remain for the foreseeable future<,> with or without al-Qa’ida in the picture.

We should fully understand since the terrorist threat has grown much larger than Osama, capturing or killing him does not solve all our problems. But he’s still unfinished business. Bush needs to be asked the question: why do you continue to give Pakistan veto power over our national security?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/bill-scher/why-does-pakistan-have-a-_3837.html

[dogday]

1. Bush said, if you harbor the terrorist

you are just as bad as the terrorist.

[FreedomAngel82]

5. Yep

But isn't Pakistan considered a friend and ally on the "war on terror"?

[dogday]

10. Another Lie on Bush's Part

just put in on the pile of lies. I know the pile is getting big, but GB just keeps on with the lies....

[lapfog_1]

2. If we "get" OBL (or bogeyman #2 Zarqawi)

some might feel like the "war on terra" is over...

And that is NOT in the PNAC playbook. Endless war is.

[shraby]

3. I think Mashariff (sp?) knows something

that ** doesn't want told and if we go into Pakistan after Osama, he'll spill the beans.

[Seeing Red]

4. Pakistan has a veto over our national security

...because Bushco don't care enough about Osama Bin Laden to really go after him. The pipelines were built, so we're happy now.

And anyways, at least we dont have to submit a permission slip to PARIS every time we want to defend America right? I mean, THAT was the true threat and we've eliminated it...

[FreedomAngel82]

6. Nah

We just have to have a slip for Pakistain instead. Still a "p" name. ;)

[Seeing Red]

11. yes but the important thing is that a true PATRIOT is doing it...

we have a real AMERICAN PATRIOT sending the permission slips to Musharraf, as opposed to the tratorious liberal pig, John Francois Kerry.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. 'cuz military dictatorships are our pals.

[The Magistrate]

8. The Real Problem, Ms. Smile

Is that we do not dare invade Pakistan. It is a sizeable and turbulent country, full of people who hate us, living on a terrain offering great obstacles to the flow of supplies, and boasting a reasonably effcient military backed by nuclear weapons. A usccessful invasion would suffer thousands of casualties, and require the infliction of perhaps a million. The stomach for it does not exist in the current regime, though it probably did exist in the populace of our country in the autumn of 2001....

[Pirate Smile]

9. Right, it is complicated but cowboy Bush should get called on his

rhetoric especially considering how they used it against Kerry during the election - i.e. "France gets a veto".

I didn't write it, it was on the Huffington Post, but I thought it was an interesting way to frame the question of "Where's Osama?"