Richardson Mourns Bhutto, Calls for Musharraf to Step Down

[seasat]

Here's the press release from Governor Richardson.

DENISON, IA -- New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson issued the following statement this morning after the assassination of Pakistani opposition leader and former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

"Benazir Bhutto was a courageous woman. Her death, and the deaths of so many of her supporters, is more than just a tragedy. It is a testament to the will of the Pakistani people to see democracy restored. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of those who died today.

"Ms. Bhutto knew the dangers to her safety. But she would not be intimidated. We also must not be intimidated.

A leader has died, but democracy must live. The United States government cannot stand by and allow Pakistan's return to democracy to be derailed or delayed by violence.

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.

It is in the interests of the US that there be a democratic Pakistan that relentlessly hunts down terrorists. Musharraf has failed, and his attempts to cling to power are destabilizing his country. He must go."

Richardson is a former United States Ambassador to the United Nation

Here's what he said about Pakistan back on November 6th.

Among Democrats, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who has promoted himself as the candidate with the best foreign-policy experience, was the most explicit in calling for an end to U.S. foreign aid to Pakistan if Gen. Musharraf, who is both head of the army and president, does not restore democratic order. Mr. Richardson chastised the administration for a "very weak and ineffectual" response, and said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's comment that she was "disappointed" in the Pakistan leader did not go far enough.
"You know, you're disappointed at a football game," Mr. Richardson told CNN. "You have to be stronger." If he were in Mr. Bush's shoes, he said he "would send Vice President Cheney, who is a buddy of Musharraf's, to Pakistan and say to him, 'Unless you seriously go after al Qaeda, unless you restore your constitution, bring back the Supreme Court and have elections in January, we're going to cut off your aid.' I think it's that serious."

He has also called in previous speeches for Pakistan to reform their educational system so as not to indoctrinate children into radical Islam. Gov Richardson has also called for a Marshall plan to aid in reducing poverty in Pakistan and other third world countries. His point is that reducing poverty will promote a better image of the US, reduce the attraction of radical terrorist organizations to these folks, and it's the right thing to do. Richardson has also pointed out in previous speeches that to reduce tensions in Pakistan, we need to mediate a settlement between Pakistan and India over Kashmir. In another speech he emphasized that the world needs a plan to deal with a take over of Pakistan by radical elements. We need to make sure that their nuclear weapons and materials won't fall into the wrong hands. Overall he has promoted a sound and detailed policy to deal with Pakistan and other middle east countries that are possibly unstable.

[MethuenProgressive]

1. k&r

:kick:

[chascarrillo]

2. Hear hear

Best statement that I've seen from any candidate, bar none.

It's easy to make a statement sympathizing with Bhutto and the cause of democracy (see: rest of the Dems) or one that plays on fear (see: every Republican) - but a clear, direct, political reply that pulls no punches... damn, Richardson nailed it.

[MethuenProgressive]

3. Only Richardson made a bold statement, all other Dems played it safe.

:kick:

[seasat]

6. Richardson's foriegn policy is a neccessary radical change from the past.

Bold statement like his are needed in these times. This is one of the reasons I first supported him. The other candidates (except Kucinich) are following similar past foreign policy methods that have lead to some of the problems we now face. Richardson stated that sometimes human rights trumps national security in foreign policy. Supporting repressive dictators for dubious gains in combating terrorism (or communism in the past), can bring short term gains but greater long term losses.

When Richardson gave his policy speech on Iran, he discussed all our mistakes in past that helped lead to their current political state. He listed how we overthrew their government and put in place the Shah. How we supported the Shah even after it was clear that he was a brutal dictator. How we supported Iraq in a bloody war that killed off a generation of Iranian men. Few politicians are honest and bold enough to mention those. We want to believe that all our government's actions are pure.

Richardson's policy proposes pulling support from dictators who violate human rights. He supports negotiating with all of them and offering economic aid in turn for increased civil liberties and democracy. Our past support of dictators from Iraq, Iran, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuba, Chile, and others have resulted in terrible human rights conditions for the people of those countries and lower international security. We should tie our aid and trade to human rights as he has long proposed.

We've gotten little from Musharraf from the over $10 billion that we've sent him. Musharraf may have let Bhutto be assassinated according to an email from her before her death. Musharraf was a major supporter of the Taliban prior to 9/11 and has cut a deal to let them operate in his country. A. Q. Khan, the father of their nuclear program, sold nuclear technology to some of the most repressive regimes in the world. Musharraf has directed brutal crackdowns on those that oppose him. He's taken over $10 billion dollars from us and only given a minor portion to the people for economic aid. The rest has gone to purchase military equipment such as F-16 fighters. Some (perhaps most) of the money given him has been used to build the military for a war with India instead of going to fight terrorists. The current view of the Pakistani people of the US is decidedly negative because of our support of Musharraf. It looks like we are headed towards another long term loss in our Pakistan foreign policy.

Even if we pull our money from Musharraf, the country will not collapse. Clinton and Shrub I both pulled aid from Pakistan and they continued along. The difference is that we won't be funding another brutal dictatorship and may be able to encourage change in their political system. Musharraf stepping down and a coalition of the democratic parties taking his place would go a long way towards quelling the current unrest in the country. The polls of the Pakistani people show they overwhelmingly support a moderate secular leader over Musharraf. The best result of an election would at best be a reformer that can move the country in the right direction and work with moderate elements of the military. The worst would be that the military rigs the election so that someone favorable to them is elected. Even in that case, they'll be less likely to use some of the repressive tactics of Musharraf since they would want our support renewed and wouldn't want to contribute to the current instability in Pakistan. Upon renewable of aid, we should require with verification that economic aid reaches the poor in the outer regions of Pakistan. That would go a long way towards limiting the influence of the Taliban.

Richardson's policy makes sense to me and could give us a long term gain in the region. However, it requires a new focus in foreign policy that isn't limited by a binary view of the world. The "enemy of my enemy is my friend" policy has failed us in the past.

[Carrieyazel]

4. This shows why Richardson, and NOT Clinton or Obama should be our nominee.

Richardson's foreign policy experience is miles ahead of the two "front-running" candidates. He can bring peace to the world. The other two do not know how.

[pgh_dem]

5. Absolutely. Listinening to Hussein Haqqani (?)

On MSNBC bringing up the 'If something happens to me, blame Musharef' emails she obviously shared with a number of correspondents.

Richardson recognized what the political snipers should have:
Obama and Clinton should not be worried about each other. They should be worried about the dictator with nukes in Pakistan who (in any sane world) should be suspect #1 in the assassination. Show the voters how you would deal with that, that's the right approach, and that's what Richardson did.

Whoever the spokemodel Shuster is talking to just mentioned Richardson's statement then immediately changed the topic to Iowa and horse race bullshit.