Jesus H. Christ. Is this for real? Talk about MASSIVE dick-waving. Isn't this the same guy that uncovered Valerie Plame?

Fuck war.

====

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060921/ts_ ... sharraf_dc

Musharraf: U.S. threatened to bomb Pakistan after 9/11

8 minutes ago

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan said that after the September 11 attacks the United States threatened to bomb his country if it did not cooperate with America's war campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Musharraf, in an interview with CBS news magazine show "60 Minutes" that will air Sunday, said the threat came from Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and was given to Musharraf's intelligence director.

"The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age,"' Musharraf said.

"I think it was a very rude remark."

The Pakistani leader, whose remarks were distributed to the media by CBS, said he reacted to the threat in a responsible way.

"One has to think and take actions in the interest of the nation, and that's what I did," Musharraf said about the cooperation extended by Pakistan.

Musharraf said some demands made by the United States were "ludicrous," including one insisting he suppress domestic expression of support for terrorism against the United States.

"If somebody's expressing views, we cannot curb the expression of views," Musharraf said.

Looks like he got the message, because Musharraf has cooperated with us and many high-profile Al-Qaeda targets have been arrested in Pakistan and turned over to the US for questioning.

People may not agree with President Bush's methods, but they have produced results and we have not had another terrorist attack on American soil in over 5 years since 9/11.

Yeah, and at the expense of what?

Good question - what would you say has been forsaken in return for our safety?

I'd actually like to hear your answer first

Well, we've lost the lives of servicemen and women as well as the many who have been injured in fighting the Worldwide War on Terror.

Beyond that...nothing.

It is telling that you fail to mention some 35,000 Afghan and Iraqi lives, most of whom were innocent civilians.

I do not condone anything Armitage says or does, but I will say that Musharraf is pretty much a thug. But, as Kissinger would say in Real Politik, he is our thug.

True. But if anyone is going to wave his dick about war, it should be Maddox.

It is also telling that you seem to imply that all of those deaths are attributed to the US-led coalition. Wouldn't you say that sectarian violence accounts for the vast majority of that number? Keep in mind that civilian deaths in Afghanistan have been minimal.

And what events have sparked those sectarian events, especially in Iraq?

So you really believe that the US is to blame for sectarian violence? Why, because we gave them the freedom to shoot at each other and blow each other up? This is intellecutally dishonest, wouldn't you say?

As far as specific sectarian incidents go, of course it's ludicrous to blame the US. Responsibility has to be meted out on those who directly commit violent acts.

However, I see it as a Pandora's Box being opened. In Iraq, for example, we had three different groups that have had a history for disliking each other, and stability was kept (rightly or wrongly) when Saddam was in power.

From the estimates I've seen, 35,000 is pretty accurate for the number of deaths that the US is directly responsible for from military action. Factor in the insurgent and other terrorist attacks and you get a number about twice that if not more.

Really? Do you have a link regarding this? I'm not challenging your honesty...it's just that from everything I've read, the vast majority of deaths in Iraq have come as a result of insurgent/terrorist/sectarian violence. If I'm wrong I'll gladly admit it and I think my views would change a bit as well.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060922/ap_ ... MlJVRPUCUl

Bush 'taken aback' by Musharraf comment

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer 25 minutes ago

WASHINGTON -
President Bush said Friday he was "taken aback" by a purported U.S. threat to bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age if it did not cooperate in the fight against terrorism after the Sept. 11 attacks.

He praised Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf for being one of the first foreign leaders to come out after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to stand with the U.S. to "help root out an enemy."

At a joint White House news conference, Musharraf said a peace treaty between his government and tribes along the Pakistan-
Afghanistan border is not meant to support the Taliban.

He said news reports had mischaracterized the deals. "The deal is not at all with the Taliban. This deal is against the Taliban. This deal is with the tribal elders," Musharraf said.

Said Bush: "I believe him."

He said that Musharraf had looked him in the eye and vowed that "the tribal deal is intended to reject the Talibanization of the people and that there won't be a Taliban and there wont be al-Aqaida (in Pakistan)."

In an interview to air Sunday on CBS-TV's "60 Minutes" program, Musharraf said that after the attacks, Richard Armitage, then deputy secretary of state, told Pakistan's intelligence director that the United States would bomb his country if it didn't help fight terrorists.

He said that Armitage had told him, "Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age."

Armitage has disputed the language attributed to him but did not deny the message was a strong one.

Asked about the report, Bush said, "The first I heard of this is when I read it in the newspaper. I guess I was taken aback by the harshness of the words."

For his part, Musharraf declined to comment and cited a contract agreement with a publisher on an upcoming book. However, he told CBS the Stone Age warning "was a very rude remark."

Bush has repeatedly praised Pakistan for arresting hundreds of al-Qaida operatives inside its borders. Pakistan is the world's second-biggest Islamic country, with a population of 160 million.

But the United States has also urged Pakistan to do more to stop militants from crossing from its tribal regions into Afghanistan, where Taliban-fanned violence has reached its deadliest proportions since the American-led invasion that toppled the hard-line regime.

Pakistan earlier this month signed a truce with tribal figures. Afghanistan has protested that the militants are linked to the Taliban, the militant Islamic group that once ruled Afghanistan until driven from power in 2001.

But Both Bush and Musharraf shrugged off such links and said they were united in pursuing terrorists, especially
Osama bin Laden.

"When we find Osama bin Laden, he will be brought to justice. We are on the hunt together," Bush said.

Musharraf echoed him. "We are in the hunt together against these people," the Pakistani leader said.

Bush will have talks Tuesday with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Then, he'll have a three-way sitdown with both leaders at the White House on Wednesday.

Bush must work to placate the concerns of Pakistan, a chief ally in the war on terror, as well as the struggling democratic government in Afghanistan, which is suffering its heaviest insurgent attacks since U.S.-led troops toppled the Taliban in late 2001.

Meanwhile, Musharraf reported progress toward resolving the dispute between India and Pakistan over the shared Himalayan region of
Kashmir. The Pakistani leader cited progress in recent talks with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

"We are moving on the Kashmir dispute," Musharraf said.

Bush seemed pleased. "I'm impressed by this president's will to get something done in Kashmir," he said.

Pressed on how the U.S. might help, Bush said: "The Kashmir issue will be solved when two leaders decide to solve it, and we want to help. The United States can't force nations to reach an agreement just because we want there to be an agreement."

Earlier Friday, White House counselor Dan Bartlett said he didn't know the specifics of what Armitage might have said to the Pakistanis.

"But we have made very clear that we went straight to President Musharraf in the days after 9/11 and said it's time to make a choice: Are you going to side with the civilized world or are you going to side with the Taliban and al-Qaida," Bartlett told CBS' "The Early Show."

White House press secretary Tony Snow that he didn't know what Armitage said. Armitage no longer is in the administration.

"Mr. Armitage has said that he made no such representations," Snow said. "I don't know. This could have been a classic failure to communicate. I just don't know."

"U.S. policy was not to issue bombing threats," Snow said. "U.S. policy was to say to President Musharraf, `We need you to make a choice'."

In his meeting with Musharraf, Bush played middle man in a thorny foreign policy problem that has bubbled up between Islamabad and Afghanistan — two U.S. allies in the war on terrorism who accuse each other of not doing enough to crack down on extremists.

Bush must work to placate the concerns of Pakistan, which is helping the United States track Osama bin Laden and restrain bin Laden's al-Qaida organization, as well as the struggling democratic government in Afghanistan, which is suffering its heaviest insurgent attacks since U.S.-led troops toppled the Taliban in late 2001.

Afghan officials have alleged repeatedly that Taliban militants are hiding out in neighboring Pakistan and launching attacks across the border into Afghanistan. Pakistan, which has deployed 80,000 troops along the border, rejects the accusation and says it's doing all it can to battle extremists.

During Musharraf's visit, human rights activists are asking Bush to press Musharraf to restore civilian rule in Pakistan, end discrimination of women, and stop using torture and arbitrary detention in counterterrorism operations. Musharraf seized power in a 1999 coup. Instead of giving up his military uniform in 2004 as promised, he changed the constitution so he could hold both his army post and the presidency until 2007.

Not easily found. But there have been probably a half dozen reports cited here with quite a wide range of casuality figures, and while 35,000 is probably on the high end of the range for US inflicted casualties, it's still within the range, I believe. Say 25,000 and I'd not even blink.

Doesn't Pakistan imprison people for speaking out against their President or other government rulers?

False logic. You can't use the absence of something to prove that a method worked.

what a great way for one nation to get another to cooperate. is this what we're going to start doing with china, russia and france?