Why did the US government give $10 billion to Pakistan?

[bascule]

http://www.slate.com/id/2177249/fr/rss/

 

Why are we doing this?

 

This country harbors the former head of the international nuclear black market (A.Q. Khan). He supplied nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea, and Al Qaeda, but the exact extent of his activities is unknown because Pakistan refuses to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency or the US to interview him.

 

This country remains a terrorist haven. But hey, throwing money at the problem will solve it.

 

Why exactly are we giving them $10 billion?

[iNow]

Any comments I can make as to "why" we did this would get smacked down hurridly by those who see the world via a different perspective, those who migh call me a Bush hater (so what, I'm justified in my frustrations, right?) so I will instead ask a question of my own.

 

How is India going to react to this?

[DrDNA]

Why exactly are we giving them $10 billion?

 

A. Friendship is expensive

B. We are stupid

C. If we don't pay them they will hate us

D. They will hate us anyway

E. Jello brand pudding is better than the generic brand

F. Musharraf is gonna pocket a big chunk of this

G. We don't want them to join "the axis of evil"

 

????

[iNow]

E. Jello brand pudding is better than the generic brand

 

This one is a powerful point. I've quoted it here for accuracy.

[DrDNA]

It is getting ugly over there. Maybe we should give them some more money...

Quote

""Bhutto Under House Arrest in Pakistan

Nov 9, 7:17 AM (ET)

By ZARAR KHAN

 

(AP) Police use tear gas to disperse supporters of Pakistan's former Prime Minister Benzair Bhutto...

 

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - Pakistani police placed opposition leader Benazir Bhutto under house arrest Friday, uncoiling barbed wire in front of her Islamabad home and reportedly rounding up 5,000 of her supporters to block a mass protest against emergency rule.

 

Bhutto tried twice to leave by car but was blocked by police after a scuffle with her supporters who tried to remove a barricade. The former prime minister had planned to address a rally in nearby Rawalpindi, defying a ban on public gatherings....""

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071109/D8SQ50I83.html

End Quote.

[Saryctos]

When someone enters the country and bombings seem to follow them around, do you really want them out and about?

[Mr Skeptic]

Why exactly are we giving them $10 billion?

 

Probably part of our policy of spreading democracy and toppling tyranny all around the world.

[Sayonara]

Why are we doing this?

 

Don't ask me; they're your stupid leaders.

[ecoli]

And the worst part, is that they're using tax dollars from US citizens that will probably wind up the in the hands of terrorists.

 

Ever since the cold war, the US has supplied weapons and materials that have wound up on both sides of warring parties. This is a stupid waste of the citizen's money. Why are the citizens of our country paying for citizens of another country to kill each other (and potentially us).

Our foreign policy is screwed up, and, for the most part, we're just too apathetic and stupid to put a stop to it.

[iNow]

Musharaf has promised elections, and he will be "taking off his uniform" to signal a return to civilian rule, but he stated that he would not lift the state of emergency despite our repeated calls that he do so. Many are calling for his complete removal from office.

 

Musharaf is in office due to his firing of the supreme court justices and military coup, but still Secretary of State Rice states that Pakistan is a close US ally.

 

Last night, in a letter from Democrats to the president, they stated the importance of directing this aid money toward counter terrorism, but it appears the assistance to Pakistan will remain despite internal pressure to do otherwise.

 

The rhetoric is showing that this is our way of getting democracy to that country and helping their people, but me personally... I'm skepticial that our desire for democracy elsewhere is the driving force for sending such a huge sum of money. That's just me though.

 

 

Making this move even more curious is the fact that a fair electoral process would likely cause Musharaf to lose his seat in office. My guess would be that, if he is truly agreeing to fair elections, then the money is more of a bribe directly to him than for humanitarian-type aid. I have no data to support this speculation, so please treat it as such.

[ydoaPs]

And the worst part, is that they're using tax dollars from US citizens that will probably wind up the in the hands of terrorists.

Don't US tax dollars go to terrorists anyway?

[ecoli]

Don't US tax dollars go to terrorists anyway?

probably... does that make it ok?

 

Musharaf has promised elections, and he will be "taking off his uniform" to signal a return to civilian rule, but he stated that he would not lift the state of emergency despite our repeated calls that he do so. Many are calling for his complete removal from office.

 

if the people don't like him, the election should do that job.

 

 

Making this move even more curious is the fact that a fair electoral process would likely cause Musharaf to lose his seat in office. My guess would be that, if he is truly agreeing to fair elections, then the money is more of a bribe directly to him than for humanitarian-type aid. I have no data to support this speculation, so please treat it as such.

I'm not sure... I think they alloted the money to specific places... though it's all military. but if Musharaff is still the general...

[DrDNA]

if the people don't like him, the election should do that job.

 

The problem is he appears to be adept at playing games with the "process". He originally came to power in a military coup in '99, putting the PM in exile.

 

When their supreme court ruled that he could not be both a Pres and a military officer (he's a general and head of the military), he fired and jailed the supreme court and replaced them with his own guys. He has also suspended the constitution, closed all private television channels and declared an emergency. Basically, they are under martial law.

 

He keeps changes the rules.

 

The rule as I understand it also states that he can only have 2 terms. Not counting the ones he has already extended. The paralmentary style process just gave him a second term by a huge majority. Who were they....of course they just so happen to be his guys. The new elections for parlament are in early 2008 so he hurried it up. So, what is he gonna do then? I doubt that he is going to allow a completely "fair" election.

 

It is also apparent that he is playing both sides of the fences with the US and radical Islam.

[iNow]

Nice post, DrDNA.

 

What's curious to me also is that Bush is supporting him as a man, while there are something on the order of 150 million people in Pakistan who don't like him. Kinda makes you go "hmmm" since our motivation is described as supporting a democratic process.

[DrDNA]

What's curious to me also is that Bush is supporting him as a man, while there are something on the order of 150 million people in Pakistan who don't like him. Kinda makes you go "hmmm" since our motivation is described as supporting a democratic process.

 

Do you think that our current policy towards Musarraf looks a little familiar?

Maybe just a little bit like our policy was towards Sadam a few years ago.....?

 

I sure do hope it turns out better, but I'm not very optimistic.

[Pangloss]

Pangloss in 2013: "Dammit Hillary you just got through raiding my wallet to pay for Iraq, and now you want to do WHAT?!"

[iNow]

Musharaf has promised elections, and he will be "taking off his uniform" to signal a return to civilian rule, but he stated that he would not lift the state of emergency despite our repeated calls that he do so. Many are calling for his complete removal from office.

 

Musharaf is in office due to his firing of the supreme court justices and military coup, but still Secretary of State Rice states that Pakistan is a close US ally.

 

Last night, in a letter from Democrats to the president, they stated the importance of directing this aid money toward counter terrorism, but it appears the assistance to Pakistan will remain despite internal pressure to do otherwise.

 

The rhetoric is showing that this is our way of getting democracy to that country and helping their people, but me personally... I'm skepticial that our desire for democracy elsewhere is the driving force for sending such a huge sum of money. That's just me though.

 

 

Making this move even more curious is the fact that a fair electoral process would likely cause Musharaf to lose his seat in office. My guess would be that, if he is truly agreeing to fair elections, then the money is more of a bribe directly to him than for humanitarian-type aid. I have no data to support this speculation, so please treat it as such.

 

 

 

 

 

Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/world/asia/28bhuttocnd.html?hp

She was killed on Thursday in a combined shooting and bombing attack at a rally in Rawalpindi, one of a series of open rallies she had insisted on holding since her return to Pakistan this fall, after years in self-imposed exile.

 

A woman of grand ambitions and a taste for complex political maneuvering, Ms. Bhutto, 54, was long the leader of the country’s largest opposition political party, founded by her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Even from exile, her leadership was firm, and when she returned, she proclaimed herself a tribune of democracy, leading rallies in opposition to Mr. Musharraf, like the one at which she died.

 

In a foreshadowing of the attack that killed her, a triumphal parade that celebrated her return to Pakistan in her home city of Karachi killed at least 134 of her supporters and wounded more than 400. Ms. Bhutto herself narrowly escaped harm.

 

Her political plans were also sidetracked: she had been negotiating for months with the country’s military leader, President Pervez Musharraf, over a power-sharing arrangement, only to see General Musharraf declare emergency rule instead.

 

 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSSP320563

India said the assassination of of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto on Thursday was a tragedy and a terrible blow to the democratic process.

 

"In her death the subcontinent has lost an outstanding leader who worked for democracy and reconciliation in her country," Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in a statement.

 

"The manner of her going is a reminder of the common dangers that our region faces from cowardly acts of terrorism and of the need to eradicate this dangerous threat."

 

Bhutto was killed in a gun and bomb attack as she left an election rally in the Pakistani city of Rawalpindi, ahead of a national election due on Jan. 8.

 

 

 

What are we doing as a people? How much more senseless must humanity become?

[DrDNA]

What are we doing as a people? How much more senseless must humanity become?

 

 

This is not good. What a sad, sad, and predictable turn of events.

But I say that we are gonna do nutin.

 

According to the current AND most recent past administration, they are the "good guys" helping us fight the "war on terror".

W has strong ties to Pakistan. Bill had very strong ties to Pakistan.

 

And Hillary has strong ties to Pakistan.

Quote:

"Like others in the race for the White House, Hillary Clinton has strong words for Pakistan, but has yet to propose the United States seriously consider limiting its aid to the country. But unlike the other leading Democratic presidential hopefuls, Edwards and Obama, she has accepted tens of thousands of dollars from Pakistan's lobbyists, Cassidy & Associates. Its founder, Gerald Cassidy, long ago maxed out his donations to her.

 

According to the Foreign Agents Registration Act website, Pakistan recently hired Cassidy and Associates for a one year, $1.2 million/year contract. The Cassidy contract with Pakistan makes for good reading. For the $1.2 million, "target audiences will be identified for critical message reception," and Cassidy will inventively move beyond pushing pieces in the mainstream media, also focusing on blog outreach. In other words, Cassidy will shill and propagandize for one year, and use its contacts in Washington--presumably including Clinton--to ensure that the billions in aid are not diminished, regardless of what the government does to its citizens and its elections. According to The Hill, Pakistan's lead lobbyist is Robin Raphel, who served in the Clinton administration.

 

While not prohibited by law, accepting such a donation necessarily raises questions about the effect this relationship--and similar ones--will have on her policies in the White House towards Pakistan should she win the 2008 contest, or in the US Senate should she not. The influence of money is never straightforward, of course. Joe Biden, the other democratic Presidential candidate to receive money from Cassidy, has called for cutting off support to Pakistan if it does not change course."

End Quote

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zephyr-teachout/lobbyist-for-pakistan-max_b_71379.html

[YT2095]

maybe along the same reasoning that you lot gave the afgans stinger missiles and funding during the Russian invasion (and now regret it).

 

sometimes an enemy of your enemy is NOT your friend!

[DrDNA]

In case anyone is not familiar with the current and past admins relationship with Musharraf/Pakistan:

Quote "Hillary's Musharraf: Mrs. Clinton's forgotten fling with the Killer of Karachi

By Greg Palast

Online Journal Guest Writer

 

 

Nov 14, 2007, 00:21

 

Email this article

Printer friendly page

 

 

November 13 -- He was the other man in Hillary's life. But it's over now. Or is it?

 

You've seen all those creepy photos of George Bush rubbing up against Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, the two of them grinning and giggling like they're going to the senior prom. So it's hard to remember that it was Hillary and Bill who brought Pervez to the dance in the first place.

 

How that happened, I'll tell you in a moment.

 

But first, let's get our facts straight about the man in the moustache. Musharraf, according to George Bush, The New York Times, NPR and the rest of press puppies, is "our ally in the War on Terror." That's like calling Carmine Gambino, "Our ally in the War on Crime."

 

Musharraf's the guy who helped the Taliban take power in Afghanistan in 1996. And, through his ISI, Pakistan's own KGB, he is still giving the Taliban secret protection.

 

And this is the same Musharraf who let Khalid Sheik Muhammed, Osama's alleged operations chief for the September 11 attack, hang out in Quetta, Pakistan, in the open, until Khalid embarrassed his host by giving a boastful interview to Al Jazeera television from his Pakistan hang-out.

 

And this is the same Musharraf who permitted his nation's own Dr. Strangelove, A.Q. Khan, to sell nuclear do-it-yourself bomb kits to Libya and North Korea. When the story of the flea market in fissionable materials was exposed, Musharraf and Bush both proclaimed their shock -- shock! -- over the bomb sales. Musharraf didn't know? Sure. Those tons of lethal hardware must have been shipped by flying pig.

 

But, unlike Saddam and Osama, creations of Ronald Reagan's and George Bush Sr.'s Frankenstein factories, Musharraf was a Clinton special.

 

And it all began with an unpaid electricity bill. In 1998, Pakistan wouldn't pay up millions, and they owed billions, to British and American electricity companies. And for good reason: the contracts called for paying insanely high prices. It smelled of payola -- and ultimately, the government of Pakistan filed charges against power combine executives and canceled the contracts. That's the rule under international law: companies can't collect on contracts they obtained by pay-offs.

 

But these weren't just any companies. One was a Tony Blair favorite, Britain's National Power. The other was Entergy International, a sudden big-time player in the international power market based out of, oddly, Little Rock, Arkansas. Despite the Clinton administration's claim to fight foreign corruption, this was an exception. Clinton and Blair voted to cut off Pakistan's funding from the IMF. Pay-up the power pirates, they told Pakistan, or starve.

 

Why was President Clinton so determined to crush Pakistan because of an unpaid bill to some Little Rock company? This was not just any company. But that wasn't much. More important, Entergy and its partners, the Riady Family of Indonesia had just paid about half a million dollars to Hillary's old Rose Law Firm partner Webster Hubbell. Odd that, hiring Hubbell. Why would Entergy pay big bucks to Hubbell as a "consultant" when he was on his way to jail for a felony. Hubbell was doing time because he refused to testify against Ms. Rodham.

 

Did President Clinton know about the payment to Hubbell? Clinton denied it to the press, but under oath, to the FBI, Bill said he "wouldn't be surprised" if the Riadys told him about the payoff to Hubbell in one of Bill's several private meetings with them in the Oval Office.

 

Was there a connection between Entergy's kindness to Hillary and her law partner and the power company's extraordinary sway with the administration? From inside information on energy policies to a favor requested of Tony Blair's office by Hillary's office, Entergy could do no wrong. Certainly, their consortium's executives wouldn't have to stand trial in Pakistan.

 

And Entergy got its money. On December 22, 1998, Pakistan's military, at the direction of General Pervez Musharraf, sent 30,000 troops into the nation's power stations. At the time, Entergy's partners told me, "A lot changed since the army moved in. Now we have a situation where we can be paid. They've found a way to collect from the man in the street." Yes: at gunpoint, according to Abdul Latif Nizamani, a labor union leader who spoke with me after Musharraf's gang had arrested him.

 

With Pakistan's army in control of the nation's infrastructure, and acting as guarantor of payment to the US and UK power giants, General Musharraf's final takeover of the entire government nine months later -- a "surprise" coup to the Western press -- was, a forgone conclusion. And the Clintons, complicit, like Bush today, could say little.

 

Just months before he left office, President Clinton paid a sudden visit to Musharraf. Congressional Democrats were stunned. Musharraf had quickly shown himself to be a Taliban-loving, unbalanced dictator who violated US treaty terms by exploding a nuke and threatening to incinerate our ally India. Notably, the ambassador with Clinton made payments to the electric companies a top item on his agenda.

 

Favors done; favors repaid. Nothing new under the sun, but it's a dangerous game, Senator Clinton.

 

All right, maybe you can say that President Clinton's blessing of the radioactive dictator can't be blamed on Hillary, despite the smelly money chain going from Arkansas to Karachi. But, be honest, the lady sure as heck ain't running on her record as a senator; her whole pitch is, "re-elect Clinton."

 

And I'd rather tell you this story before you hear it from President Giuliani.

 

Nevertheless, let's not lose sight of the current danger. While the Clinton's may have handed us the Lunatic of Lahore, it's George Bush who leaves mints on his pillow. I have no information that Clinton knew of the sales to North Korea. The Bush administration did and, we discovered at BBC, blocked the CIA investigation that could have exposed it in 2001. And that, Mr. Bush, is a very, very dangerous game. The problem of creating Frankensteins, whether an Osama or a Saddam or a Musharraf, is that these creatures are often known to rise and turn on their creators.

 

But I'm sure we'll correct the error. Four years ago, as Bush was proclaiming victory over the Butcher of Baghdad, I wrote, "Given our experiences with Saddam and Osama, our monsters tend to get out of control after about 11 years. Therefore, we can expect, in the year 2013, that President Jeb Bush will have to order the 82d Airborne into Pakistan to remove Musharraf, the Killer of Karachi."

 

Unfortunately, we may not have that long.

 

Based on Greg Palast's investigations for the Guardian papers of Britain 1998-2001. Palastis the author of the New York Times bestseller, Armed Madhouse: from Baghdad to New Orleans -- Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild.He is currently on assignment in Ecuador for BBC Television.

 

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal"

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2637.shtml

End Quote

[Sisyphus]

Bad bad bad. For everyone. Please, please let Musharef not be responsible.

[Pangloss]

Just awful.

 

Al Qaeda claims responsibility for this, but it's interesting that so many people don't believe them, almost as if they prefer to believe that the government, or the US, were behind it. Which of course plays right into Al Qaeda's hands. Bhutto was extremely popular with young men, who are so angry, why, who knows, they might just want to... blow themselves up!

 

Interesting article in the new issue of Time about this.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1698828,00.html

[iNow]

Bhutto was extremely popular with young men, who are so angry, why, who knows...

 

Because they want to work, they want to provide for their families, and the current administration is actively preventing them from doing this.

 

It wouldn't be so easy for everyone to believe that the Pakistani or US government was behind this if experience hadn't shown that such a scenario was so incredibly plausible. However, to your point, it's easier to rattle the societal hornet's nest when one has martial law implemented.

 

 

 

"My mother told me not to talk about this topic on my mobile or telephone because the government may tape it."

[Pangloss]

I'm afraid I don't know nearly as much as I think I should about Pakistan's socio-political landscape. Every time I do read something it strikes me as a fascinating example of interworld politics -- a unique mishmash of vastly differing cultures. But I digress -- tonight's Lehrer report mentioned the jobs angle as well (that young men felt she would get jobs for them). That, obviously, would work against Al Qaeda's purpose (keep them unemployed and angry). And of course Bhuto was even more west-favorable than the current government. And she was a woman. And she was winning in the polls. Extremists, needing only one good reason, instead were given several.

 

And a job that seemed incredibly difficult is now infinitely more so. I actually find myself looking back on the horrors of the previous weeks as being infinitely preferable -- a time of actual optimism in comparison with what her country now faces, and I wonder how this can possibly have been allowed to happen.

[bombus]

Ho ho ho, this is how the world works - how it's always worked. Governments are just gangsters operating on a bigger scale. Democracy in a capitalist society is a sham which allows Joe Public to think he's got a say, but actually we only get a say on the most trivial of issues.