Richardson wants * to press Musharraf to resign

[bunnies]

A pretty good indication of what he would do as President. Is it the right move? :shrug:


(snip)

Meanwhile, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) called on Musharraf to resign, saying that it is in U.S. interests to have a democratic country that “relentlessly hunts down terrorists.”

“We must use our diplomatic leverage and force the enemies of democracy to yield: President Bush should press Musharraf to step aside, and a broad-based coalition government, consisting of all the democratic parties, should be formed immediately,” said Richardson, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President Clinton. “Until this happens, we should suspend military aid to the Pakistani government. Free and fair elections must also be held as soon as possible.”

(snip)

source:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/bush-08-candidates-condemn-bhutto-assassination-2007-12-27.html

and onother:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7181540,00.html

[1corona4u]

1. Only if one wants to lose the grip on the radicals...

and his army.

[bunnies]

5. Thats what came to my mind too.

Next thing you know... Iraq redux.

[TwilightGardener]

2. No, no no. Not a good idea right now. And the last thing we want to

do is suspend aid to the military, who are about the only competent force against chaos in that country right now. Plus, holding "democratic" elections might give us a result that's WORSE than Musharraf. I'm glad Richardson isn't going to be the nominee.

[jillan]

3. I would be afraid that it would put the country in more turmoil.

But what do I know? I'm just a middle-aged mom from Arizona.

[Inuca]

4. IMHO an incredibly stupid thing to say

This is not the time for ideological purity nor for rash decisions (or rash statements, for that matter).

[kad7777]

6. With all due respect

That's the worst thing that could happen. It would play right in the hands of radicals. radicals, that would have 160 nuclear weapons.

I cringe at the thought of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtGCaqOdIJ4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUC8LeZ1hM4

[global1]

8. Cheney Just Came Out In Support For Richardson For President In '08......

(sarcasm)

[0007]

9. Egads! I wonder if he had a Lone Ranger Costume

[MH1]

7. It's that or continue supporting a bloody dictator who is using our tax $ against us..

Oh wait, why would Richardson think such a silly thing? :sarcasm:

Now might not be the best time to say it... but if we stay silent, don't we acquiesce to Musharraf's incompetence or criminality? (pick one)

[chascarrillo]

11. It's like saying elections should have been canceled after 9/11

The fear of terror should not - must not - be used as an argument against democracy.

It's a gutsy statement by Richardson, and it's sad that I consider it "gutsy". It's the truth.

[seasat]

17. Agreed, a recent poll showed Musharraf was less popular than Bin Laden.

It showed that 46% of Pakistanis approved of Bin Laden while only 38% approved of Musharraf back in September. However 63% approved of Bhutto indicating that they would prefer a secular moderate to run the country over a radical. A poll this month showed that a majority opposed even a power sharing agreement between Bhutto and Musharref. 58% supported an alliance between Bhutto and other anti-Musharref leaders. The danger is leaving an unpopular dictator in power. He is tied to the US in the minds of the Pakistanis and if we continue to support him, they'll turn to a more anti-US leader or overthrow him in a coup.

[jillan]

10. Musharraf is saying that he wants to postpone the elections.

That is a much better move.

[1corona4u]

13. No, not really...

this is what he wanted all along....

[jefferson_dem]

12. What an idiotic thing to propose at this point in time.

Total buffoonery from a self-proclaimed "diplomat."

[zulchzulu]

14. Yeah, let's make Pakistan a headless nuclear state...

WTF?

Have Musharraf step down and have nobody in charge until the elections? Plus, who the hell are we to tell other nation's leaders to step down?

[seasat]

15. The military is the only force more powerful that Musharraf in Pakistan

By pressuring them through the threat of withholding aid, they in turn will put pressure on Musharraf to bring about fair elections and democratic reform. All the surveys of the populace indicate that the majority support a secular leader and not a radical Islamist as president. However, if we continue to support Musharraf, they may turn to someone more radical and anti-US. You've got to have a stick along with a carrot to do diplomacy and Richardson recognizes that the only real stick we have (short of the unacceptable military option) is withhold funding for the Pakistani military.

I mentioned in a another post along with his full press release, Richardson's carrot. It would be economic aid to reduce poverty. The aid would focus on improving secular educational systems, increasing food production, and promoting small businesses. He has proposed micro-loans for small business startups in third world countries like Pakistan.

The alternative is to leave Musharraf in power. He is extremely disliked by the population and likely will be overthrown in a coup. That would be the worst possible option since they may end up with a worse leader and possibly a radical Islamist.

[bunnies]

18. So its time to change another regime?

And if the threat of withholding aid simply turns our "allies" against us... what then? We break out a bigger stick?

[seasat]

19. How is forcing Musharref to hold elections overthrowing a regime?

It's support of dictators like him that got us into trouble in the middle east and other parts of the world. Richardson is clearly not calling for replacing him with a Shah but calling for a coalition of the opposition parties and quickly holding elections. By supplying Pakistan under Musharref military aid, we are supporting his unpopular dictatorship. If you read Richardson's statement, it is clear that if Musharref steps aside the aid will not be withheld. The alternative is to leave in place a leader that is extremely unpopular and may end up overthrown. It may be a repeat of what happened when we support the Shah militarily in Iran.

[TwilightGardener]

20. How do you propose we "force" elections--how do we control that

outcome, anyway? I wonder why Muslim extremists hate the U.S. and commit acts of terror against us. Can't possibly be our unending arrogance, can it?

[bunnies]

24. I did read the statement...

Most of it is right in my OP. And he is clearly calling for Musharref to step down aka regime change. I also didnt see anything about who would control the country until this new government could be formed... or what he would do if Musharref told us to pound sand.

[seasat]

26. He says that he will cut off aid if Musharref rejects it like Clinton did in '98.

Clinton cut off aid after Pakistan started nuclear tests but Bush resumed the aid after 9/11.

We must use our diplomatic leverage and force the enemies of democracy to yield: President Bush should press Musharraf to step aside, and a broad-based coalition government, consisting of all the democratic parties, should be formed immediately. Until this happens, we should suspend military aid to the Pakistani government. Free and fair elections must also be held as soon as possible.

He's clearly calling for a coalition government of the democratic political parties to replace Musharraf followed by elections. While the Pakistani military would probably try to influence the elections, hopefully international monitors and the Pakistani people would try to limit the military's influence.

Another point not mentioned is that Bush's aid to Pakistan comes with almost no strings attached. We've given them over 10 billion in aid since 9/11 and most has gone to military projects. There are some indications they've gone to weapons to attack or defend against India. Pulling the aid will not cause a collapse in the military resulting in anarchy but it will hurt the military enough to gain some leverage. Here's a history of our support of dictators like Musharraf in Pakistan. We suspended aid for their previous military dictator, Khan, in the 70's and it lead to a temporary democracy in the country. The difference is that when the dictator is gone, we need to resume aid with oversight and a focus on economic development.

Our past support of dictators, like Musharraf did not end well and is a major reason why so many in the third world hate us. Look at what happened with the Shah in Iran or Somoza in Nicaragua. The only way we're going to end this cycle is to cut off these dictators and use our diplomatic leverage to encourage reform.

[TeamJordan23]

16. Another careless statement out of Bill. nm

[LiberalFighter]

21. Why would Musharraf or anyone listen to Bushwad?

[Doctor_J]

22. He got him to take off his uniform - can't Gov Richarson be happy with that?

:sarcasm:

[ginchinchili]

23. If this is a good indication of what he'd do as president...

then I'd be reluctant to support him. I'd rather we get more information on this situation in Pakistan than to jump to conclusions and rush into doing something we later regret.

[Evergreen Emerald]

25. oh my god, Richardson is using this horrific death for political gain