Can anyone read between the lines with what is happening to Mussaref???

[hang a left]

I was reading an article today in the LA Times and from the smell of things and Negropoint's visit; I can only assume the CIA/ISI darling has fallen out of favor with this administration.

Been real busy and have not been able to keep up on the day to day news out of Islamabad.

Anyone have an online course I can take??

on edit: ing

[TwilightGardener]

1. I think we ought not meddle right now, frankly. Yes, we wasted money

and faith on Musharraf, and they don't have a democracy right now, and things are bad there for the moment, but we have a tendency to make things worse when we try to intervene. The Islamic population won't take kindly to our obvious interference in their affairs--might make them swing away from us completely and embrace radicalism (they're already leaning that way, apparently). Demanding that they hold elections, in which we try to get Bhutto in there, is risky.

[JCMach1]

2. If they are unhappy, the Negroponte will orchestrate his departure-

There are many choices for the CIA as any number of Pakistani politicians have and always will be on the TAKE.

So far, the CIA and Musharef have done everything they can to keep Bhutto as PLAN B.

[TwilightGardener]

9. I'm wondering why Negroponte, and not Condi, in this situation?

Is she not equipped to handle this?

[JCMach1]

16. She isn't... Negroponte is a dirty dealer from way back... Plus, Pakistan is HIGHLY

patriarchal...

[hang a left]

3. You must be kidding right??

I believe there is only a mythical divide amongst US intelligence apparatus and that of Pakistan's. So any political upheaval has been conducted by both for a reason.

[TwilightGardener]

8. I don't think so--we're really dealing with an unpredictable situation here, and

not one that we wanted. We were played for fools, giving shitloads of money and support to this guy in the hopes that he'd play ball for our team, and now BushCo has egg on its face--and all they can do is verbally persuade and cajole Musharraf into acting like less of a dictator. We won't be cutting off aid or doing any other serious sanctioning. If Musharraf goes down (and I do think he fears for his life), and Bhutto's not safely elected, there's risk of a coup, or an election result that we don't want.

[ConsAreLiars]

12. Well, if you regard the PNAC gang as "our team" you probably are speaking for a minority.

A powerful one, granted. If you don't believe you are a part of the US imperialist apparatus, then you might reconsider the use of terms like "our" and "us" when talking about missions by the bloody-handed black ops agent Negroponte.

[robinlynne]

7. The money was not wasted. It kept Osama Bin Laden alive and safe, giving

the US an excuse to wage wars. In addition it helped to spread nuclear secrets around, another reason to wage wars.

[underpants]

4. I always figure that the "attempts on his life" were the CIA scaring him back into shape

the oddest part of this is that Bush failed to secure the supply line to the soldiers in Afghanistan.

[1932]

5. Confessing that I know nothing about this, but if I had to guess, I'd say that

Mussharaf came to power because of the incredible corruption of recent governments who ran Pakistan as a profit-maker for the west and for the powerful in Pakistan, including Bhutto. The US was probably relieved that Mussharaf came to power and not religious extremists, after knowing that either a military coup or theocratic coup was the logical consequence of the breaking point previous corrupt governments pushed Pakistan toward.

I suspect that Musharraf was actually moving Pakistan toward a functioning, fair society, but, for some reason, the west decided it is now time to go back to the wealth concentrating, western-friendly governments (becaue either it's time to get private enterprise back in the game, or because they want instability again, or both), and now the west is backing Bhutto.

[SoCalDem]

6. I think our government encouraged Bhutto to go and test the waters

Musharref has been ready willing and able to take our money, but that's about it..

I think Bush wants bin laden before he leaves office, and maybe he promised Bhutto the moon, if she could unseat Musharref, and somehow wrest power from him..and allow us into the areas where bin laden might be..
I think she's gonna end up getting killed, but that won't make Bush lose any sleep..

[Swamp Rat]

10. Interesting point about Bushler promising Bhutto

I, too, think Bhutto is likely going to be killed.

[lvx35]

11. "he promised BhUTTo the MOON, if she could unSEAT Musharref"

I have no doubt that BhUTTo is a US puppet player, as is PERVez, and SODOM Hussein back in the day. You can always tell a CIA job by the fact that their names seem to be cognate with some dirty word...Next time some guy with a name like Salvador Allende gets replaced in a coup by a guy named something like Augusto PENIS-shay you'd know what happened... :)

[bigtree]

14. I think Bhutto promised Bush the moon

and has re-assumed her own crusade for power. I like the all-inclusive alliances she's been seeking against Musharraf.

[Emit]

13. I found this thread from the other day interesting

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2278384#2278623

and this article posted by leftchick on the above thread interesting, as well:
http://tonykaron.com/2007/11/13/benazir-vs-musharraf-is-punch-vs-judy

But I'm with you -- if anyone can shed some light on it all, by all means, enlighten us.

[stillcool]

15. I'm failing..

my on-line course..but Asia Times has some interesting stuff:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page.html

and here's some more:

Pakistan: Princess Ferragamo at the Barricades
It’s all about “regime change”

by Mike Whitney

Global Research, November 16, 2007
informationClearingHouse.info - 2007-11-15

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why the crooked Princess Ferragamo--Benazir Bhutto—has returned to Pakistan. Bhutto’s been traipsing all over Washington trying to garner support from think-tank heavies and establishment powerbrokers to help her stage a political come-back in Islamabad. She even hired a high-powered public relations firm to polish her image so the media wouldn’t focus too much attention on her past transgressions. Allegations of money laundering and corruption have haunted Bhutto ever since she was driven from office in 1996. Last month, General Musharraf cut a deal with Bhutto which freed her from the prospect of criminal prosecution and allowed her to return home. The arrangement ignored the judicial system entirely. The $1.5 billion that she and her husband allegedly “received in a variety of criminal enterprises” has simply disappeared down the memory hole.

Another tidbit the media seems to breezily disregard is Bhutto’s role in supporting Islamic extremism; the very dragon she is now expected to slay. According to Wikipedia: “It was during Bhutto’s rule that the Taliban took power in Kabul and gained prominence in Afghanistan. She viewed the Taliban as a group that could stabilize Afghanistan and enable trade across the Central Asia republics. Her government provided military and financial support for the Taliban, even sending a small unit of the Pakistani army into Afghanistan.”

But, then, anyone can make a mistake and Bhutto has since offered her sincere regrets and promised to rid Pakistan of the ‘scourge of terrorism’. This must be music to the ears of her new patrons in Washington.

It’s astonishing how quickly one can "see the light" when their career depends on changing their point-of-view.

US historian, Arthur Herman, in a letter published in the Wall Street Journal, described Bhutto as “One of the most incompetent leaders in the history of South Asia;” adding that she and other Pakistani elites hated Musarraf because he is “muhajir”, born of Indian Muslims. Herman claims, “Although it was muhajirs who agitated for the creation of Pakistan in the first place, many native Pakistanis view them with contempt and treat them as third-class citizens.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7337

From The Sunday Times
September 2, 2007
How the West summoned up a nuclear nightmare in Pakistan
Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark reveal how misguided deals with Pakistan have created a terrifying threat of nuclear terrorism
America’s reason for sustaining Musharraf in power is that the alternative is even less appealing. The upper reaches of the army, and the retired military elite, are rife with Islamists – a legacy of General Zia ul-Haq, the zealot who both ramped up the nuclear programme and gave the military a religious mission when he was president from 1978-88.

The tragedy is that America’s gamble on Musharraf has not paid off. Washington’s nightmare is a nuclear Pakistan controlled by fundamentalists. Yet Musharraf presides over a country that is not only still a nuclear proliferator but the real source of the Islamist terrorism menacing the West.

Al-Qaeda has merged with Pakistan’s home-grown terrorists, spawning new camps, new graduates and new missions abroad – including the July attacks in London in 2005.

At least 17 of the worst Sunni terror groups banned by the US and the UN have been allowed to operate openly and launch recruitment drives, using flimsy cover-names, most of them operating within sight of the Pakistan military.

The Taliban reformed after Musharraf signed a secret pact with its supporters in Waziristan – the tribal region of northwest Pakistan – in 2004, and again in 2006, leading to what Nato commanders in Afghanistan complained of as a 300% increase in attacks on UK and Afghan forces.

US intelligence sources have accused elements of Pakistan’s intelligence establishment and army – including General Mo-hammad Aziz Khan, who until October 2004 was Musharraf’s chairman of the joint chiefs of staff – of coaching and sheltering the neo-Taliban.

Pakistan today stands on the failed states index at position 12, just below Haiti, in worse shape than North Korea and Burma. Yet Musharraf’s government has been rewarded with a 45,000% increase in US aid since 2001, taking assistance levels to more than $10 billion, five times more than received by any other country (including Israel).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2368174.ece

US blamed for Pakistan insecurity
Hekmatyar opposes the presence of foreign
troops in the region


Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, leader of a powerful armed group in Afghanistan, has accused the United States of trying to destabilise Pakistan.

In an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera, Hekmatyar said: "Washington wanted Pakistan to face the same destiny as Iraq and Afghanistan."

Hekmatyar, who heads the Hezb-e-Islami group, is opposed to the government of Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president. He also fought against the Soviet occupation in the 1980s.

Hekmatyar was briefly Afghanistan's prime minister after the Soviets withdrew. He fled Kabul after the Taliban took over.

Hekmatyar, who is now on the run, said the deterioration of security in Pakistan was a natural outcome of Islamabad's policies and its very close relations with Washington.

"As long as the US military presence continues in the region, the situation will remain the same," he said.

'US design'

"The United States wants Pakistan to face a similar fate to that of Afghanistan and Iraq. The United States believed that lighting the flames of war in Pakistan would ease the intensity of war in Afghanistan, and that is why they bombed mosques, schools and villages in Pakistani tribal areas.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/239CCFD5-4A63-4A5E-9DBB-E01F3024C184.htm

[bigtree]

17. those complaining about her support of islamic extremists

don't have a very good point if they want to use her support of the Taliban as an example. Even today there is support from Karsai in Afghanistan for some elements of the Taliban he knows he can't eradicate. Musharraf has made deals with some factions of the Taliban in Pakistan.

And, don't forget our country's relationship with the Taliban (Zalimay Khalizad) to effect the oil pipeline through Afghanistan.