How does Richardson want us to force Musharraf out?

[2rth2pwr]

"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." http://2008central.net/?p=1599

Should we invade Pakistan to fight on the side of al-Qaeda and the Taliban? Or does Richardson expect us to conduct an assassination? Why should we dictate who runs Pakistan?

WTF?

[Warpy]

1. No, it sounds like he spelled everything out specifically

and your strawman won't stand up.

[SteppingRazor]

4. Hell, it's not even a strawman, technically.

It's just a stupid question.

[chascarrillo]

40. Pretty clear to me, too

Kinda black and white.

[TwilightGardener]

2. A wise leader gathers all the facts and considers all the consequences

before shooting off his mouth. Richardson is not that wise leader.

[1corona4u]

8. Exactly...

not a bright thing to say in the heat of the moment.

[TwilightGardener]

10. Yep---that's why I support Biden over Richardson.

[seasat]

11. He's called for this back in November.

It is not a new statement in reaction to Bhutto's assassination. He stated on CNN on 11/6:

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."

[2rth2pwr]

14. What he said today is calling for regime change. nt

[seasat]

20. How is not sending them money regime change?

If Richardson was advocating marching our military in there to take out Musharraf, yeah, I'd agree with you. However, what we are doing with Musharraf is the same thing we've done with the Shah of Iran, Somoza of Nicaragua, and countless other dictators. We're basically helping prop up a military dictatorship. Their military will survive without the money just as they did when Clinton pulled aid in '98. It's the only leverage we have with him. Otherwise we're guilty of propping up another brutal dictator who represses their people.

[2rth2pwr]

24. You're happy with what happened in '79 with Iran?

Good God.

[seasat]

34. What happened in Iran was because we supported a dictator!

Look at where our support for dictators like Musharraf have led. First it was the war against communism. Now it is the war against terrorism. We supported dictators in Iraq, Iran, Nicaragua, El Salvador, among many others. Where did that get us? Iran was already gone by the time we pulled our support from the bloody Shah. There is still hope for Pakistan. They overwhelmingly support electing a moderate secular president. They also hate the US because of our support of Musharraf. If we pull that support now, there's a chance for reform. If we keep supporting Musharraf, we'll end up in the same situation as Iran.

Clinton pulled support for Pakistan back in '98. Support didn't resume until 9/11. The money we've been sending them has little to no oversight and they've used it to build up their military against a war with India. They've done very little to fight the Taliban. The Pakistani military controls the country and economy. Pulling the "aid" we've sent them won't cause a collapse but it'll provide leverage against the military to encourage reform.

[2rth2pwr]

37. You seem at ease with the idea that whoever replaces Musharaff will be

against the Taliban and would not push the nuclear button. What gives you that confidence?

[TwilightGardener]

17. Wouldn't it be better to understand what happened with Bhutto, and

allow the Pakistanis to come to grips with the tragedy and the resulting political unrest, before insisting that we depose their dictator and impose our idea of "democracy" on them? Talk about jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

[John Q. Citizen]

27. Suspending military aid is what he said. If you want to pretend that means

"...that we depose their dictator and impose our idea of "democracy" on them?" well fine.

But it isn't credible. It just makes you look like a spinner.

I don't care who you vote for, that's your problem. I'm not voting for either Richardson or for Biden.

But let me ask you this. Is it your contention that Biden supports spending US Tax dollars to support the military dictatorship in Pakistan?

It's obvious from Richardson's statements that he opposes this. Where does Biden stand?

[TwilightGardener]

32. I believe Biden asked for a review of aid to Pakistan. Didn't call for halting it.

[SteppingRazor]

3. I don't understand your question. Richardson explains in the very quote you cited...

that he wants Musharraf out, replaced by a broad-based coalition government, and that such ouster should be carried out using diplomatic leverage, including the suspension of military aid.

So, didn't Richardson already answer your question?

[Drunken Irishman]

5. And if it doesn't do squat?

[SteppingRazor]

6. The man's just citing his position.

He hasn't said what he'd do if that fails, but my guess is throw up his hands and get back to negotiating.

[Drunken Irishman]

9. Hopefully...cause we shouldn't go to war over this.

But I'm smart enough to realize negotiating doesn't always lead to results.

[SteppingRazor]

13. Granted. And I really don't think thhat's what Richardson is suggesting here. n/t

[Drunken Irishman]

16. Well after what we've seen with Bush, you can understand why I'm hesitant about "negotiating"

[SteppingRazor]

18. I think it's a trmendous fallacy to equate Richardson with Bush.

Richardson has a long diplomatic history and has sat down with supposed enemies of the USA such as North Korea and Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

Bush is a blood-drenched war criminal with all the morals of a meth-addled rat caught in a corner.

The difference is huge.

[TwilightGardener]

7. Exactly how does one make this happen? How do we "get Musharraf out"?

How does it help our image and standing with Muslims to order or force a regime change, even if they don't like their dictator? People in a Muslim nation tend to get a little touchy when "infidels" tell them what to do, even if they're not happy with their current situation. It's simply NOT UP TO US--same as it wasn't in Iraq. We risk a backlash by treading too heavily here.

[SteppingRazor]

15. It is perfectly within our rights to cut all military aid to Pakistan.

Certainly, Pakistan belongs to the Pakistanis. But it's our military aid, after all.

I don't begrudge Richardson his opinion on the matter. Why shouldn't he be able to say what he thinks?

[TwilightGardener]

19. What are the consequences to cutting aid? The military seems to

be a fairly good source of stability right now. I don't think we want to punish Musharraf by punishing the people of Pakistan.

[SteppingRazor]

21. Hey, I'm not saying that what Richardson says is a good thing or a bad thing.

I'm just saying that what he's saying has to do with the United States' relationship with Pakistan, and in that sense, he's certainly entitled to his opinion.

[2rth2pwr]

12. Why is he calling for regime change?

That is a recipe for cries of Imperialism.

[SteppingRazor]

22. Like I said above, I don't think you can begrudge the man his opinion.

If he thinks that Musharraf is a bad leader and that the man should go, why not say so? No doubt there's plenty of people saying the same thing about Bush. ... or about any other leader in the world, for that matter.

As long as Richardson talks about how foreign aid will be doled out, and keeps the discussion away from sending more doomed soldiers halfway across the world to blow up people in the name of Jesus and democracy, I think the man's entitled to his opinion. Hell, he's running for president -- I hardly think he should be keeping his opinions about the most important foreign policy situations in the world to himself.

[2rth2pwr]

23. True, he has the right to express his stupidity.

When you run for President you should expect to be called on it.

[SteppingRazor]

25. Absolutely. And indeed, I expect the presidential candidates to express their stupidity.

That way, we know not to vote for them.

All that said, I do think Musharraf is a chump who should be tarred, feathered and catapulted over the border into India. Unfortunately, our best bet to replace him just got shot and blown up this morning. So until another option comes along, Musharraf will probably have to do.

[lastliberalintexas]

26. It's a sad state of affairs when even our side

doesn't recognize the call for good old fashioned DIPLOMACY anymore.

Though I doubt that you truly misunderstood what he said, and suspect that you simply want to make political hay over his statment instead. Again I am reminded why I avoid this forum.


As an aside, you people do no favors whatsoever to your candidates. This forum is nothing more than a circle jerk and circular firing squad all rolled into one, and does nothing to convince undecideds such as myself. Carry on.

[2rth2pwr]

29. If calling for the elected leader of a soveriegn nation to be pushed out

is the first step in Richardson's "diplomacy" with a nuclear power, I want nothing to do with it.

[lastliberalintexas]

31. Methinks someone took their own signature too seriously

:shrug:

[2rth2pwr]

33. Debate tactic of someone who has nothing of substance

left to say- attack someone personally.

[lastliberalintexas]

35. Your posts in this thread have demonstrated that

you are not truly interested in debate, only trashing one of the people running against your candidate. Richardson was quite levelheaded and straightforward in his statement, but I guess one can not see that if one is wearing primary colored glasses. You can disagree with the action called for by Richardson without the hyperbole. Sorry if that sounds too blunt, but sometimes the truth hurts. But then I probably should have stopped reading when you referred to Musharraf as "elected."


I don't have an axe to grind in this. I read Biden's statement on Bhutto's murder and thought it was a wonderful piece as well, which reminded me of his foreign policy credentials. I have not seen any other candidate's statements on Bhutto, but will likely read them at some point today, and I am sure they will by and large also call for democratic reforms to that government. I still don't understand why you have such an issue with this statment. Does your candidate support Musharraf remaning in power for some reason?

[2rth2pwr]

36. If you had clicked on the link I provided in the OP

you would have seen the candidates statements. Here is Hillary's-
“I am profoundly saddened and outraged by the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, a leader of tremendous political and personal courage. I came to know Mrs. Bhutto over many years, during her tenures as Prime Minister and during her years in exile. Mrs. Bhutto’s concern for her country, and her family, propelled her to risk her life on behalf of the Pakistani people. She returned to Pakistan to fight for democracy despite threats and previous attempts on her life and now she has made the ultimate sacrifice. Her death is a tragedy for her country and a terrible reminder of the work that remains to bring peace, stability, and hope to regions of the globe too often paralyzed by fear, hatred, and violence.

“Let us pray that her legacy will be a brighter, more hopeful future for the people she loved and the country she served. My family and I extend my condolences and deepest sympathies to the victims and their families and to the people of Pakistan.”


No destabilizing statements before any investigation has been done.

[lastliberalintexas]

39. Good statement too

She is also quite intelligent and competent. Why that translates to a need to try to tear Richardson down is beyond me. :shrug:

Try giving people reasons to vote for Clinton rather than bashing other candidates. You won't win converts by acting like an ass.

[ThomWV]

28. Easy, cut off aid to Pakistan and let the world know it won't resume until he's gone

He'd be dead by daybreak.

[2rth2pwr]

30. Who would then have control of the nuclear weapons? nt

[BeyondGeography]

38. Richardson shouldn't even be considered for VP now

We're supposed to be in charge of Pakistan now in addition to Iraq? This is interventionist, paternalistic crap. It's nuts.