President Attempting to Plant Seeds in Pakistan for DNC Harvest

The goal is to put the DNC at a disadvantage

The Article appears to be greasing the wheels to set up the DNC for an unneeded compromise with the President. [NYT: Bush to Warn Pakistan to Act on Terror (DAVID E. SANGER, MARK MAZZETTI), Published: Feb 26, 2007. ]

Recall the lesson of Abramoff and the Indian Reservations: Just when you think the President is going to support you and work with you, behind your back you discover he's done the opposite.

DNC leadership is encouraged to view this article as fair warning of what the President plans to do with secret executive orders: The opposite, increase funding, and contradict the positions Members of Congress have been led to believe are in force.

* * *

After abandoning Afghanistan for an illegal war in Iraq, the President is making another smokescreen

The GOP habit, when faced with a problem, is to distract attention by implying that if Party 2 does not do something; Party 3 will respond. Note, Party 1 -- the President -- is getting a distraction.

This trick gets played in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Lebanon. Did we leave anyone out?

* * *

Recall the Indian Reservation problem Abramoff had: He wasn't able to secure a deal, but still went on a Golf Trip. Despite accepting money, the GOP knew the required legislation wasn't going to go through. Yet the Republicans were there still suggesting that if the Indian tribes didn't provide the "contributions" [read: "bribes"], they would lose their income from gambling casinos. Abramoff, despite knowing the deal fell through, but didn't tell the Indian Council the deal was off, but left with the money. Or so he thought.

Same thing appears to be happening with Pakistan. The President has no idea what the Speaker is or isn't doing with appropriations.

It's not credible to believe that the President has woken up to the DNC control of the House.

The real objective isn't to send a signal that the President is doing anything, but more of the same: Distract attention by suggesting Party 1 and Party 2 are linked, and have to work something out. The bad news gets blamed on others; and if there's victory, the President takes credit.

* * *

The President’s announcement that [a] DNC might cut aid unless [b] Pakistan does something seems striking.

1. The President and Vice President have been linked to AlQueda funding;

2. The US hasn't focused on Afghanistan;

3. US military leaders and the President have given up on AlQueda leadership.

The prospect of a DNC "cut" for funding to Pakistan is meaningless for the President to suggest. The House may or may not do something. It doesn't appear the President is genuinely concerned with what does or doesn't happen in Pakistan.

Notice the President isn't saying that he'll support or reject the funding cut, but saying it is the Congress that is going to do the cutting.

Perhaps someone might want to remind Musharraf of the Scottish Golfing charade.

* * *

It doesn’t seem credible that US government funding for Pakistan will or will not change on what Pakistan does. The US needs Pakistan, and a threat to approve a House decision to adjust funding doesn't seem credible.

For Bush to say that Musharraf is "failing to live up to his commitments" is absurd when contrasted with the President's meaningless commitment to the rule of law while he defies his oath.

We'll have to see more about the peace deal Musharaff has, and compare it with the President’s decision, order, and approval to not take action in Afghanistan, and openly cooperate with the Taliban and AlQueda to target the new excuse of the week -- The country which offered to help do what the President refused to do: Iran.

* * *

For the US to argue that Pakistan's efforts have waned is meaningless: This was the American example. Pakistan isn't to blame for the mess in Afghanistan any more than the DNC or Iran are for the mess in Iraq -- the responsibility lies with the failed American leadership and President.

The comedy is the US leadership is whining that Pakistan strategy is or isn't working; while pretending the US strategy was working in Iraq. Again, another smokescreen.

Just as we the People rejected this President on Iraq, the President wants it both ways: Rewarding failed GOP leaders who refuse to hold him to account; then pretending that Pakistan has to achieve results. If only the Katrina victims had this kid of interest; America's actions in Louisiana as Afghanistan know the value of this President's "concern with results" -- zero.

* * *

There's little to believe the President is listening to anything the DNC is saying. It's not credible to believe the White House spin that the President is or isn’t' being urged to do anything with Pakistan. The real Pressure is on the President and Iraq. Pakistan is off the radar.

Any claim that the DNC has or hasn't argued for something is irrelevant. This President when it came to Iraq has openly argued wrongly that the Congress has no role; to suggest the President is listening to the DNC on Pakistan is absurd.

* * *

Notice the contrast on options. With Iran, the US says all options are on the table; but with Pakistan, the US is saying options are off the table.

There's an inconsistent argument in Pakistan. Notice the problem with Pressure. On one hand the President is reported to call for Pakistan to do more; but now he's reversing himself and saying that action would undermine Musharraf. That makes no sense: Either the US wants action or not; either Musharraff, by using force is strong, or he is not; either action is or isn't taken; and either action that the US wants is good or bad for Iraq.

The US position in putting pressure on Iraq is not consistent with the excuse that action might be destabilizing. This is absurd, circular; but if true, paints a picture for Bush about why he should take action in Iran -- as with the supposed problem with Pakistan, the real problem for the US is if it attacks, the Iranians might provide the "shock" to the United Stats in the form of expanded combat, world options, supported by Russia, China, Cuba and Venezuela.

* * *

The possible reason for this language may be simple: A ruse to make the DNC believe the President is listening to them. The President is repeating many nice themes, but none of them are convincing as applied to Pakistan; nor as a measure of the President’s believe the DNC might do or not do something.

* * *

Recall the excuse for inaction in Afghanistan. The US was saying it didn't want to do too much. The prospect of Iran doing something seem remote; the concern the US should have is if Pakistan leadership is being used as a sock puppet, what happens when the Vice President gets bored?

This President has a problem in that he's trying to argue for or against Pakistan action against AlQueda; while the US is supporting AlQueda. It cannot be argued that AlQueda advance, failure, or success is a problem for the US when the US is actively contributing to their status.

Curiously, that various plots have been linked with a geographical location is a different tone. Before, it was linking it to specific people and groups, regardless their location. This is an important change in the focus. The Vice President is supporting ALQueda to oppose Iran.

* * *

It's unclear what information quality existed before; or whether Pakistan's actions or inaction has affected the information. This would imply that Pakistan can only receive information, but is unable to actively get it. This doesn't seem likely. ISI has forces which are undercover in Afghanistan, not so much to stabilize the region, but to keep an eye on the Indian agents attempting to stir up trouble.

It appears Musharraf doesn't want to admit that his agents in ISI are still operating, and monitoring the Indian support for the anti-Pakistani elements.

The key isn't that Pakistan has ended its activities, only that it is pretending that the information deliveries have changed. This doesn't appear to be true in that the US -- despite a lack of HUMINT -- is suggesting that it knows something. Again, whether the US really knows this is secondary. Despite inferior US intelligence, the US would have us believe that there is some basis to make an assessment about Pakistan; and Pakistan would have us believe that its information is worse than the United States.

This isn't adding up.

* * *

It's also incorrect to suggest that the White House is bending over to do what the DNC wants; or that the DNC has overly demanded anything. No, We the People wanted leadership. The DNC is merely reminding the President of what we the People want.

Suggesting the DNC is "threatening" anything is incorrect. There is no give an take as the GOP does; "threatening" is something the President and GOP do.

"Aggressive attacks" isn't something that the DNC is emphasizing; it's something that the US leadership has refused to do.

The language appears to be a warm-up for US action against Iran. It appears the language includes words that are designed to be things that the DNC might say, "That sounds like a good idea." But, beware: If this word, as it appears, is not a true reflection, the next step is for the GOP to argue, "DNC wanted action in Pakistan and Afghanistan; why not Iran?"

Be cautious with how the GOP implies what the DNC is or isn't doing or saying. Note closely the language the GOP is implying the DNC are using; and make it clear that this language -- rightly or wrongly characterized -- is only about a specific situation, region, or event. Again, this does not consider the possibility that the real DNC concerns are the opposite; or that the Pakistan discussion have been a ruse.

Also keep in mind the moving standard on the Iraq AUMF, and the floating standard as it applies to Iran. Think of a piercing moving: ON the left side, the US is muddling the line and law with Iraq into Iran; on the right side, the US is doing the same with Pakistan on Afghanistan.

The goal appears to be to link US military action under the Sept 2001 and Iraq AUMFs, but move from the right (from Afghanistan) and the left (from Iraq) into Iran without getting any new Congressional review. To suggest that Congress is concerned contractors the US position that Congress has no role, which it does.

* * *

Consider how the 785+300M for Pakistan compare with the original estimates back to 2001; and how these budget figures compare with the FY06 and FY07 original baselines going into FY07 and FY08 respectively. When they start throwing numbers around, the key is to focus on the changes, not the size of the dollars. The President may have already cut the funding, but hopes to blame Congress; or he's added money that Congress has no position on, or is not justified; or he's used a secondary country to provide funding which Congress has not been informed, possibly Australia or Saudi Arabia through the UK banks in the Virgin Islands, or Deutche Bank which appears interested in the RNC funding issues.

* * *

Let's pretend what the Presidents says about the DNC is true: that they do want a change. What's curious about the article is that there's no DNC comment or quote. One would think that f the DNC did want something, there's been a quote from one of the DNC leaders.

If this were a real position, the article would have no reason to characterize that position as "rumblings" but over statements. This inconsistency suggests the GOP Characterization of the DNC position is misleading, with another purpose beyond Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Curiously, despite this "big threat" form the DNC, the US leadership -- apparently "in agreement" with this Congress -- should be willing to be openly quoted. Again, the lack of sourcing, and failure to quote the DNC suggests the GOP is twisting something around into a less than artful representation.

* * *

Saying that Pakistan aid is "at risk in Congress" doesn't mean anything. The GOP is ignoring Congress; and openly stating Congress is irrelevant, which it is so long as it refuses to confront the President. The House is relevant, but the Senate refusal to be relevant does not paint a unified image. This is irrelevant. The President cannot make the House do anything; whether the Congers does or does not have a position on something is meaningless as long as they cannot agree and refuse to cooperate with each other, much less the President.

It's not credible that the GOP-connected staffer is concerned about their name being published because of "intelligence" matters; they don't want to be connected with something that the DNC isn't being asked about. Raising further doubts about the motivation, reliability, and credibility of these statements, not to mention their characterization of an opposing party's position.

* * *

Now we find the truth: It's not Congress that has a position, but the President who wants to create the impression of change. No, this is more blaming, and failure to take responsible for what went wrong.

Suggesting the US is "not allowed" in the area is meaningless. The US government hasn't stopped itself from ignoring the US Constitution; hasn't stopped at the doors of US citizens; hasn't stopped itself from committing war crimes in Eastern Europe. It's not credible that the US is operating under "Constraints" or "rules." A “unitary executive” – if that theory were true, could ignore reality, make his own rules, and ignore all constraints. The ruse is to believe Congress cannot make rules; but the US is “constrained” by Pakistani realities. Congress needs to challenge the US leadership for this inconsistency. [Foreign relations questions to Rice.]

No, the US botched Afghanistan, left, and wasted time in Iraq with illegal warfare.

The only constraints the US operates under in Afghanistan and Pakistan are conditions the US government agrees to or chooses to ignore.

Suggesting the US might not be "allowed" to do something is meaningless.

* * *

Saying the US "cannot" order something -- but "only encourage" -- is meaningless. The President was given authority after Sept 2001 to do all he could in Afghanistan, not Iraq.

Suggesting that the US can or cannot do anything undermines the "Unitary Theory" of the President: That he has total control. If the US wanted to do something it would; whether that action was or was not prudent is not debatable -- it is not.

* * *

Suggesting that the relationship between the US and Pakistan leaders have "always" been test is not a credible assertion. The US, despite Pakistan's human rights violations, has openly praised the Pakistani leaders. Saying "always been tense" is questionable. The author contradicts this tone by saying, "deeply skeptical" as opposed to the more extreme, "No confidence." The point isn't that there is or isn’t tension; but the emphatic assertion of something that is not extreme, certain, or as good or as bad as it might.

* * *

Notice also the contrast the GOP and President are taking on issues of power, negotiations, and limitations on authority.

The concerns of "limiting" and "power" do not appear to be concerns about Pakistan in Afghanistan; but about themes the US President wants to drive home with Congress.

This article appears to be creating an illusory stage whereby the US President will advance his themes, and suggest the Congress is approving them. This is a further misrepresentation and misdirection.

Also, suggesting that the "deal" would prevent Pakistan from doing something is incorrect. When Pakistan grants locals more discretion, that is not a prevention, but a grant of latitude. Again, the comparison with the US situation appears to be deliberate.

Notice what Pakistan is doing what the President, GOP, and Senate refuse: Establishing specific criteria. Whether these are real, enforced, or workable is secondary. If Bush wants something, he needs to demonstrate he's establishing, and enforcing specific criteria, nothing he's done in Iraq; nor is he willing to accept from Congress. This inconsistency raises further doubts about the seriousness of this language in re Pakistan; and the motivations to use these words now.

* * *

It's useful to contrast the US position on AlQueda in Afghanistan-Pakistan with that in Lebanon. The two are not consistent. And the Pakistanis are enforcing things that the US supposedly wants -- as an image -- but is ignoring in practice.

The standards of Pakistan are clear; the US refuses to assent to similar standards. It may be true that AlQueda has control in Afghanistan; the question for Congress is why the US leadership is "concerned" about things which contradict the US-Pakistani (apparent) benchmarks; but the US position in re Lebanon is the opposite: Open support for the same enemies, but no benchmark.

* * *

The US intelligence officials sited in the article are of dubious expertise, competence, and reliability. Contrary to the assertions that there were "clear" linkages between one group and another, the UK and intelligence community has not supported that contention. At best the evidence is weak; and worst the plot was a fantasy.

The claims -- that trials show or do not show something -- are questionable. The Americans have fabricated evidence. That someone has trained in Pakistan is meaningless. Some UK Courts have not found the training to be illegal.

It is possible this "training" emphasis is designed to build someone for the US trials targeting American citizens who have rejected the American war crimes.


* * *

The commentary -- that the Pakistani leader is or is not swaying, veering, or oscillating -- is meaningless. This smacks of the same "wavering" between Iran and Syria -- fictional, meaningless, irrelevant, and a distraction.

* * *

Summary

The article is not a high quality article. There are internal inconsistencies.

The timing of the themes appears related to the US President effort to lay the foundation for compromise. This is a ruse.

The President does not appear to be concerned with any theme presented; the goal is to induce the DNC to believe the President is listening. In response the DNC will be likely asked to give up on something that they have no requirement to waiver.

As you move beyond Pakistan, notice how the US leadership attempts to point to this information as "evidence" the US Congress is getting listened to; and watch for what the President demands in "return."

Recall the lessons of the Abram off Indian Tribes. Even if the DNC were to compromise on something, the President is secretly doing the opposite.

This article appears to be designed to begin planting seeds in the DNC leadership minds that progress is being made, but distract attention from the Executive orders which do the opposite. The DNC leadership is encouraged to carefully review the supposed DNC "opinions" on these issues; and point out the obvious: If this was such "good news" why didn't the US leadership go on the record and have a joint DNC-GOP news conference full of DNC quotes?

No answer means there's a problem with the motivation of this information; and what is really going on. More is on the way.