Kerry responds to NYT report. He was BLINDSIDED. I knew it.

[beachmom]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/10/kerry_calls_for.html

Kerry said he fears that he and other members of Congress have been misled about Ahmed Karzai's role in drug trafficking, which helps fund the operations of the Taliban insurgents who are taking an increasingly bloody toll on US troops.

“Senior American officials have told me repeatedly that there is no hard evidence linking Ahmed Wali Karzai to drug trafficking. However, after reading press accounts which allege that Mr. Karzai has been on the payroll of the CIA, one of the agencies gathering intelligence about narcotics trafficking in Afghanistan, I have serious questions about the information that Congress is receiving. On questions this serious, it is imperative that we receive reliable, current and accurate information," Kerry said in a statement.

He is not necessarily saying he believes the report, but ends with this:

... the appropriate congressional committees must be immediately provided with the most comprehensive and untainted information about his alleged entanglements.”

Anyone have the full statement or does boston.com have the entire statement?

[beachmom]

1. Excellent: Ackerman is on it.

http://washingtonindependent.com/65561/john-kerry-does-not-like-being-misled

Title of the post: John Kerry Does Not Like Being Misled

After publishing Kerry's statement, he ends this way:

History teaches it doesn’t pay to mislead Kerry about drug-related issues.

And he links to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Committee_report

(Ahem: yours truly put that link up on Twitter last night. Oh, scratch that. I don't think I put it up right because I don't know what I am doing on Twitter. So maybe Spencer and I just think alike.)

TPM on it as well:

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/kerry-demands-more-info-for-congress-after-cia-karzai-ties-revealed.php?ref=fpb

[blm]

2. You should combine those posts into a GD thread. There are DUers here who know this stuff

pretty well and would appreciate what Ackerman's saying.

I think we could see BCCI the Sequel coming to a hearing room theater soon enough.

[beachmom]

4. Good idea.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8720481

[blm]

17. Well done - getting lots of views and recs.

.

[wisteria]

6. No, you are better than what you think. I saw that link last night while I was checking around. n/t

[wisteria]

3. He was blind sighted by Senior American Officials, that is an important point.

And, this only applies to the CIA information and drug trafficking. This has nothing to do with his meetings with President Karzai.
He has to know he can trust the information he is provided with.
And,this is not the first time Congress has been mislead by an administration. Now, who are the Sr. US Officials who may have been withholding information and are they left overs from Bush or are they new in the Obama White House.

[beachmom]

5. These are "intelligence officials", not Obama WH people. nt

[wisteria]

7. Yes, you are right, I misread the information. n/t

[TayTay]

8. I would raise this very point

Exactly so. We know that the CIA and Pentagon were virtually swept of non-Bush and non neo-con people in the last eight years and Sy Hersh's latest bromide was that the Pentagon is not favorably disposed to Obama right now. I would not be surprised that that extends to the spooks as well.

[wisteria]

10. It was just suggested on the Maddow show that the story may have come from that direction. n/t

[ProSense]

9. OT, FYI

Obama thanks Kerry for introducing tax haven legislation.

[wisteria]

11. This is great. I know Senator Kerry has spoken about this matter for a few years now.

It is good to see that something may now be done about it. Yeah!

[karynnj]

12. Remember this?- Kerry speaking of tax shelters at a late 2008 town hall

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5ZlrbkdBNk

There is also a very nice discussion on tax shelters here - between Blum (Kerry's staffer from BCCI days) and Kerry on the national security danger hand and hand with the audacity that the wealthiest people in the country are cheating on their taxes. (July 24 hearing - scroll down and click where indicated - http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/2008hearings.htm )
Kerry and others on the Finance committee have been working on this for a very long time. (The Kerry/Blum conversation starts about 55 minutes in and it is fascinating.)

An interesting way to think of this is a selective tax increase on some of the wealthiest people - that the republicans can't complain about!

[ProSense]

13. Thanks for the links. Good stuff. n/t

[karynnj]

26. Here is Baucus' introduction in the Senate

By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Kerry, and Mrs. Shaheen):

S. 1934. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prevent the avoidance of tax on income from assets held abroad, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act of 2009.

The bill gives the IRS powerful tools to find US taxpayers who are hiding their money in offshore accounts. It includes strong incentives for individuals to properly report income from assets held in offshore accounts. The days of sending your money offshore to avoid paying US taxes are over.

This package is the result of a collaborative effort with the House and has the support of the White House and the Treasury Department. It is fully consistent with the policies in the preliminary draft of offshore compliance proposals that I released in March of this year to detect, deter, and discourage offshore tax evasion.

The bill is a practical solution to a very challenging problem. For the first time, the tax law would authorize the IRS to receive information reports from foreign financial institutions disclosing the identities of their US account holders and the amounts being held in the accounts.

Individuals with offshore accounts would be required to provide details of those accounts on their tax returns.

Trust rules would be significantly strengthened to prevent the true beneficiaries from hiding behind a nominee owner.

It will not be so easy to hide your money from Uncle Sam anymore.

Following the recommendation of the Government Accountability Office, the IRS would have more time, up to 6 years, to find and examine unreported and misreported offshore transactions.

Robust penalties would be in place for those who still try to skirt the rules.

This bill would improve tax compliance without raising taxes on anyone. These are taxes that already are legally owed.

Those who game the tax system by hiding their money in offshore accounts, like those in the recent UBS scandal, unfairly shift the tax burden to honest taxpayers who comply with their tax obligations. The IRS estimates that up to 52,000 individuals hid billions of dollars in offshore accounts through UBS.

Offshore tax evasion is a significant part of the tax gap and it has gone on long enough.

I believe this bill will be a turning point in putting an end to offshore tax evasion.

I look forward to working with my Colleagues here in the Senate and in the House to enact this important piece of legislation this year.

[Inuca]

14. Did the word PELOSI

pop in anyone's mind?

[beachmom]

15. The State Dept. has no comment on the article but said this:

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/28/briefing_skipper_hillary_in_pakistan_the_un_cuba_honduras_iran_sanctions

No real comment (despite determined repeated asking) on the New York Times report stating Afghan President Hamid Karzai's brother is a CIA-supported drug trafficker. "We've made that clear to the government of Afghanistan, that we are very concerned about corruption and... once the elections are completed and we have a post- election administration in place, we're going to discuss these issues with them," said Kelly.

The no comment is in line with the WH. However, what they said about corruption is interesting. I am hoping that Pres. Karzai made assurances that he will clean up the corruption, including his brother.

[beachmom]

16. TAP article w/ an interesting theory:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=10&year=2009&base_name=did_the_generals_dime_out_the

It seems a Republican on the House Intelligence Committee knew about Karzai's brother being on the CIA payroll, but:

That would seem to answer the question of whether or not Congress knew about the relationship, (although John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, seems to not have known) and why no one will talk to Spencer Ackerman about it. I also suspect we're going to hear a lot more about this in the near future.


Stein concludes that "hether or not the CIA has him on its payroll or not is irrelevant, close observers of the situation say, because there's virtually no daylight between Karzai and the U.S. in Kandahar anyway." I would disagree with that--if there was "no daylight" there wouldn't have been a leak. Yesterday Rachel Maddow asked CIA historian Tim Weiner how this information got out, and Weiner said:


I think the generals dimed out the spooks.

Sigh. I think members of the Intelligence Committes in the House and the Senate (at least the Chairmen/ranking members) KNEW what was going on. But members like John Kerry did not. Meanwhile, the military was so furious about it, they leaked the story. I think State and the WH HAD to have known. I mean, obviously, they have the clearance. But not sure if they were focused on it.

[karynnj]

18. If they knew it and didn't tell Kerry as they sent him to meet with Karzai they are braindead

They really need to expand the list of who gets that to include at least the whole Intelligence committee and the heads of both SFRC and Armed Services as they have some oversight. Not to mention, why did the Intelligence committee not note the explosive nature of this.


But even given that, I assume the WH could have informed Kerry. But,here is a top diplomat in Pakistan - http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-10-29-voa6.cfm
and the reaction - http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/29/world/worldwatch/entry5450080.shtml Now, I know Kerry wasn't met with flowers, but he, at minimum, didn't make anything worse. No wonder she wasn't sent to speak to Karzai. (Just venting - and not wanting to put this in the threads on Obama wanting Clinton as VP that speak of her as the greatest Secretary of State ever - something I doubt. (No matter what Pouffle says now we know that she was not vetted and putting David Wade as the VP communication guy, would be pretty unusual if Clinton were seriously in the mixin the mix.)

[beachmom]

19. Was she told to say this? Or was this a gaffe?

Hmmmm. I mean I basically agree with her, but you can't always say how you really feel in situations like this. Actually, scratch that. I do think that parts of the ISI & the pak army are a bit too cushy w/ the Taliban and possibly AQ. That doesn't mean they know where they are.

[karynnj]

20. I don't think so

From things Hollbrooke said the intent was to use HRC to smoothe over some of the hard feelings (here's one link - http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/19-hillarys-pakistan-visit-significant-says-holbrooke-hh-05 ). I would assume that if she was suppose to bring this up, it would be in private. I really can't see what is gained saying this in public.

My guess is that because they have felt the US does not recognize, respect or appreciate what they are doing in fighting the Taliban, this will completely aggravate it. (Now, I know hey also now see the terrorists as an existential threat to their own government, so it is not all altruistic.) From reading the articles on the Kerry trip, what was clear is how prone they were to parse everything and try to find a way to take offense.

[beachmom]

21. Al Jazeera in English has a better article with her comments in context:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/10/2009102919522938695.html

"I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn't get them if they really wanted to," she told a group of newspaper editors during a meeting in the city of Lahore on Thursday.

"Maybe that's the case. Maybe they're not gettable. I don't know."

Clinton is on a three-day visit to Pakistan, where one of her principle objectives is to tackle the anti-American sentiment which is said to be undermining its allies in the Pakistani government.

"I am more than willing to hear every complaint about the United States," Clinton said.

"But this is a two-way street. If we are going to have a mature partnership where we work together" then "there are issues that not just the United States but others have with your government and with your military security establishment."

Clinton was keen to hail the US relationship with Pakistan.

"What we have together is far greater than what divided us," she told students at Lahore University, referring to her relations with Barack Obama, the US president.

"And that is what I feel about the United States and Pakistan."

Unfortunately, it got "soundbited", and it still was a mistake in my view. But not as bad as the naked comment would suggest.

[karynnj]

22. The context is better and I can understand her frustration.

It is good that Al Jazeera which will be heard in the region had the context. They were really a tough country to deal with.

[wisteria]

23. Silver tongued Hillary at it again. n/t

[TayTay]

24. Interesting to have this come out

The allegations against Karzai's brother add up to someone who is playing both sides. He takes money from the US and CIA when it's convenient to him, but also is a drug-runner and defacto contributor to the drug warlords. The drug money is funding the Taliban, so this guy is a double-agent, in essence.

The Pentagon wants some decision from Obama. If the Pentagon caused this leak, to embarrass Obama and the CIA, then what do they want from it? (Or why leak it?) The report is extremely damaging to the any argument to send more troops to Afghanistan since it pretty much posits that nothing positive can happen in that country due to rampant corruption from the President on down.

So, who benefits from this info being leaked? If the Pentagon leaked it, then they are arguing against themselves. Perhaps some sort of COIN vs. CT intra-war? Turf war with the CIA and other agencies?

[wisteria]

25. It has been suggested that the Pentagon is tired of being undermined as they fight the Taliban

and drug trafficking, while Pres. Karzai's brother undermines those efforts with indirect cooperation from the CIA. It has also been suggested this was to play out as a need for the troops McChrystal requested and a new government in Afghanistan.

[beachmom]

27. Unfortunately, we have no viable alternative for a new government.

It comes down to ethnicity. Abdullah Abdullah, who may be a better possible manager than Karzai, is not Pashtun. If he won, this would embolden the Taliban.

Honestly, I think huge swaths of the military want OUT. I heard several years ago right in the thick of the awful civil war in Iraq, that Afghanistan was WORSE. Nobody likes going there.

What I find interesting is that the "anti-war" voices get awfully vague when you ask them how we end this. That is the missing piece. First step is to decide the endeavor is not worth it. The more difficult step is to figure out a way to get out while still keeping an eye on al Qaeda in Pakistan (they just found a passport that matched a 9/11 plotter in an area the Pakistani army just defeated). I believe Hoh when he said al Qaeda is not in Afghanistan now. Isn't that why we went in there? If al Qaeda is not there, isn't our work done? They ARE in Pakistan, but it seems to me that we have a working solution, even if it is uncomfortable.

I have been following anti-war people on Twitter. I want to hear what they have to say and articles they link to. I think they make a compelling case that the situation is not workable; where they are less compelling is explaining how to get out.

[beachmom]

28. Kerry does not think Karzai's brother is on CIA payroll. Hmmm.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20091030/pl_bloomberg/a2dtcc2ydxru

Kerry Signals Renewed Confidence in Afghan President Karzai

Oct. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Senator John Kerry said Afghan President Hamid Karzai is willing to make Cabinet changes to bolster his government’s credibility, and expressed skepticism the beleaguered leader’s brother has links to the CIA.

Kerry, who spoke to Karzai by telephone this morning and had lunch with CIA Director Leon Panetta yesterday, said he doesn’t believe the president’s brother has a “direct relationship” with the CIA, as reported earlier this week in the New York Times.

Kerry expressed confidence in Karzai’s ability to recover from allegations that his government is corrupt and engaged in fraud in the first round of elections Aug. 20.

“I think he is prepared to embrace reforms,” Kerry, 65, said in an interview for Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt,” airing this weekend.

The Massachusetts Democrat also distanced himself from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s public questioning of whether some Pakistani officials know the whereabouts of al- Qaeda during her visit to the country this week.

I read a tweet from a foreign policy writer: "I nominate John Kerry as The Most Gullible Man In The World"

I dont' know. He actually met with Leon Panetta. That would mean Panetta lied to his face.

John Kerry shows Hillary how to be diplomatic when asked questions about .... Hillary:

He said he couldn’t judge Clinton’s timing for raising the question of Pakistani officials’ knowledge of the whereabouts of al-Qaeda militants, which U.S. officials believe are hiding near the Afghan border.

“How you raise those issues, where you raise those issues is obviously a matter of personal preference or I suppose diplomatic policy,” Kerry said. “I think that, at this particular moment, what we’re trying to do is build our relationship and trust with the Pakistanis.”

[karynnj]

29. Kerry's statement is so diplomatic it can be parsed to mean almost anything

while still seeming to make sense. Given the second sentence, I would assume that his "preference" would have been different.

On Karzai, it does seem that either the head of the CIA lied to Kerry's face or he is not on the payroll. In addition, the FP writer did not notice that Kerry said he does not have a "direct relationship", this is different than what the writer said. There is a lot between not having a "direct relationship", which I assume means being on their payroll as the NYT said, and being skeptical of him having "ties" with the CIA.

On Karzai, Kerry really is risky some of his own credibility here. Could it be because the only not completely awful possibility is that Karzai does clean up his act? It seems a very weak foundation for our efforts.
"

[Inuca]

31. And it's not getting better

Source: Abdullah may pull out of Afghan runoff http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33557531/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

[wisteria]

30. Yes, I saw that. And as for the foreign policy writer. I think I will blow off his/her remarks.

Since Kerry is more deeply involved and has inside information that this "foreign policy writer" does not, I have to conclude that Kerry knows what he is doing and is not "smitten" with Karzai. You have to remember, Kerry has been a foreign policy expert for a number of years now. He is also attempting to keep everything on track for the upcoming elections. Lets elect a legitimate government first, then work on the corruption issues.

Is there a link to this so called foreign policy writer? I don't trust some of these writers. They choose sides and then discredit the opposition to further their point of view.

[beachmom]

32. Actually, the more I think about it, the more concerned I am that

Kerry is doubling down in defending this brother.

Just read an article that 100,000 people die every year from heroin, and that heroin is really hitting our kids right now badly. It is extremely pure and very cheap. This is a DIRECT result of what is going down in Afghanistan. And I tend to believe the McClatchy reporter (a very reputable source) that Brother Karzai is involved with corruption/bribery, etc. with the drug trade. What Kerry said was there was no "smoking gun", but as someone else mentioned we never got Al Capone on all of his violent crimes and illicit business dealings; we nailed him on tax fraud. Unfortunately, Afghanistan is not so sophisticated.

That brother is a thug. Period. And I don't see why we have to hang our troops' lives on this guy, who allows drugs to cross the border for a "small fee".

[wisteria]

33. I think Kerry is being diplomatic here. Lets get through the elections

and then push Pres. Karzai to remove those who are corrupt. Right now, we should play it cool. There have been enough reports to be alarmed and suspect that Wali Karzai has his hands in the drug trade, but this is the president's brother and one of the few people President Karzai trusts. To attack the brother right now when there isn't a "smoking gun" does no good. You attack the brother, you are indirectly attacking President Karzai. There may be other ways to finally diminish this man's power and the drug trade. There is more than one way -the Al Capone way- to finally deal with the brother. The drug trade is unfortunately a major source of income for that country,poppy fields permeate the country. President Karzai had begged years ago for help for his country, but the Bush administration ignored him-it was to much of an investment.For the last eight years, Pres. Karzai has not had enough backing or support to be strong enough to fight off the strong forces against him in that country. Now, because of this many view him as weak. I feel President Karzai is someone who is willing to work with us if he does not feel threatened and he trusts us and the commitments we make in his country. We have made a lot of empty promises in the past.

As for the Al Capone comments, I saw that piece written by Aryn Baker from Time. I don't think she is an expert on the region simply because she has a degree in journalism. She also has a degree in Anthropology and worked as a pastry chief in Paris for a couple of years. I think Senator Kerry's credentials are much more impressive on matters such as these. And, he has been involved in foreign policy for over 20 years.

[beachmom]

34. John Kerry is a politician, not a journalist. What he says publicly does not

necessarily equal what he is saying privately.

The election is a joke. Abdullah is out. My opinion is that things have changed quite literally since Monday when JK gave the speech.

The Al Capone thing is a well known story having nothing to do with one reporter. It is difficult to nab Mafia types because their corruption runs so wide and deep. That is my view of Karzai's brother.

I now do not think the "middle ground" COIN strategy JK advocated for will work. On Monday, I thought it might. Now with the developments of the last couple of days, things have changed.

Again, I base my views on Afghanistan on a wide variety of reports and opinions. Just because John Kerry is for something, doesn't mean it will work. See his advocating that Bhutto return to Pakistan. How well did that scheme work? He has made mistakes in this region before, but I give him props for continuing to work hard, learn as much as he can, and try to formulate solutions to very thorny problems.

[wisteria]

35. Wow, your accusing Kerry of indirectly being responsible for Bhutto's murder.

She wanted to return and security issues were discussed. Kerry even tried to have the administration provide more protection. And, then you suggest that he is just a politician - which means what exactly? He isn't a credible voice regarding Afghanistan or other matters of foreign policy?

As for Afghanistan, you are entitled to your opinion, but to suggest that a journalist is wiser than Senator Kerry is just- well is naive in my opinion.Journalists are not all knowing and many are paid to promote one point of view or another. You seem to be suggesting that Kerry has been overcome by the charms of Pres. Karzai and this is clouding his judgment and interfering with him making the decision you would make. As I have said before, Senator Kerry has met with many heads of states and at one time you thought he was good enough to be our President. When did your opinion change about his abilities to lead?

And, I too have done a lot of reading and do not base my opinion solely on what Kerry says. For example, I do not like the drone attacks in Pakistan, I think they are doing more harm than good, but Kerry supports their use. I just think he has the correct approach and there are circumstances that none of us are aware of. Of course, it is obvious that he is parsing his words and is careful what he says in public. But, it is my opinion that we need to stay in Afghanistan and we need to be able to work with Karzai. Pulling out is not an option. I have followed the Afghan government and Karzai for several years now, and I remember a willing partner at one time ready to work with the US.

[MBS]

36. yup, I remember the same about Bhutto

She is the one who pushed to go back.

[beachmom]

43. Um, guys, you remember it wrong:

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

Last month, Rice persuaded Musharraf to let exiled former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto back in the country—and persuaded Bhutto to go back—as part of a power-sharing deal. The idea was that Musharraf, who doubles as army chief of staff, would retain control of the military in the fight against terrorism, while Bhutto would attract the loyalty of Pakistan's increasingly discontented democrats. That ploy, too, turned out to be illusory: Bhutto was attacked the moment she got back; Musharraf showed no interest in sharing power.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122701481.html?hpid=topnews

U.S. Brokered Bhutto's Return to Pakistan
White House Would Back Her as Prime Minister While Musharraf Held Presidency

By Robin Wright and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, December 28, 2007

For Benazir Bhutto, the decision to return to Pakistan was sealed during a telephone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just a week before Bhutto flew home in October. The call culminated more than a year of secret diplomacy -- and came only when it became clear that the heir to Pakistan's most powerful political dynasty was the only one who could bail out Washington's key ally in the battle against terrorism.

Kerry CLEARLY supported this. Otherwise he would not have sent his man to Pakistan to try to persuade Musharaff to remove his uniform:

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=9824

Musharraf may doff uniform before re-election

ISLAMABAD: President Pervez Musharraf may doff his uniform well before the presidential election to win the PPP’s support and remove legal hitches that may invite the intervention of the Supreme Court.

A change of heart in this regard has taken place following meetings held by a Pakistani-American Shahid Ahmad Khan with top presidential aides. Khan, who has been in the capital for the last seven days, is an adviser to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on South Asia and had arrived in Pakistan as the pointman of John Kerry, who is heading this Senate Committee.

Both Shahid Khan and a legal adviser of Musharraf confirmed the strong possibility of the President shedding off the uniform before the polls. The legal adviser declared that the final decision would be made in the next three to four days. The president’s spokesman, however, denied having any knowledge in this regard.

Shahid Khan has held a string of meetings with Musharraf’s top aides. It was against the backdrop of his parleys that Musharraf’s pointmen left for London to negotiate with Benazir Bhutto. John Kerry has sent Khan on a ‘fact finding’ mission. Khan’s visit is to be followed by a flurry of visits by senior officials of the US State Department like John D Negroponte, Nicholas Burns and John Kerry.

Khan, who was the national co-chair of presidential election campaign of Kerry, is presently the adviser to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee (South Asia). He is also an adviser to the Senatorial Committee of the US Congress and to the Democratic Party.

Khan, along with Musharraf’s legal adviser, confirmed to The News of the plan of the COAS-president to shed his uniform before the presidential election. “There is a now a stronger possibility of this than ever before,” Khan told The News when asked about Musharraf’s plan to doff the uniform before the poll.

...

Asked if Senator John Kerry would also be visiting Pakistan, he said: “Yes, probably in the next two months”. He said a senior official of the US State Department, John Negroponte and Nicholas Burns, were also expected to visit Pakistan shortly.

Now maybe the argument can be made that the executive branch, i.e. the Bush Administration, screwed it up. But the fact is the U.S. could not put its own security in Pakistan. It was a tragic event, but it seems huge swaths of the U.S. government wanted this "shotgun marriage of Bhutto & Musharaff" to work. It was a mistake.

[karynnj]

37. I think that Kerry has to temper what he really thinks, not because he is playing politics,

but because it matters what he says. He is a diplomatic player here, where the reporters really aren't, though even what they write can have repercussions. This holds even more for anyone in the Obama foreign policy team. How many people would ever negotiate in good faith with a man, who creates a bond and influences someone to make a difficult decision, then takes the most negative view possible of his character? In addition, there is a big issue on whether Karzai's brother is on the CIA payroll. If he is, Panetta lied to Kerry. If he isn't, why the hell has Panetta not issued an official statement. I realize it might not be believed. I suspect that the answer is he is not an operative we control and he is not on a payroll, but he has provided information to the CIA. He runs Kandahar, a former Taliban stronghold. If he learned anything, what would it say if the President's brother did not pass the information to us?

I do think the issue of whether he helped the CIA has to be considered independently from allegations that he is making money from drugs or that he is a thug. On, the latter, do we have more than the one account, which was pretty bad.

My memory, like yours is that Butto wanted to return, not that Kerry, or any American, pushed her to. In her book, which I only scanned, she went to Congress and spoke to various foreign policy people she previously knew. It sounded to me like he praised her courage in trying to get her country back from Musharraf and there were the efforts you spoke of of Kerry trying to get the administration to push Musharraf to provide more protection. Beachmom is right that did not work and she was assassinated. This though was a risk, with an unfortunately high chance of happening that. This was Butto's decision to make. I never read that Kerry suggested this was a lower risk than it was. Imagine the US were taken over by a military coup, and Kerry was the person, who had the best chance to rally people behind him to take back the country, do you think he would risk his life to do so? He risked his life for far less in Vietnam.

As to Afghanistan, I agree that things look worse - but more because of the NYT story than Abdullah's action. In fact, it was the NYT article that gave him an addition reason. The other thing was that I would be willing to bet the Obama administration and Kerry likely pushed Krazai to accept at least some of those conditions - especially removing the man heading the election commission and closing the ghost poll places. Even in his Monday speech, Kerry emphasized that we can not go beyond the areas with good governance to come in behind us. This week has questioned how many areas of that sort there are - where the good governance would have to come from a lower level than the federal government - which is clearly not capable of good governance. The question is whether there are enough, important enough areas where this is true.

It is only because the consequences of just leaving are so high that that middle approach may be the best option we have - but only if it has a chance to work.

[wisteria]

38. It truly bothers me that we have to support a government whose main source of income is opium.

At one time, it was thought we could introduce and help the people grow and produce other products, but if we are lowering our expectations and only focusing on certain areas, it may be we will need to be more forceful and push Karzai to do what is necessary for the good of all. It appears he was certain to win the election anyway, with all the other candidates out of the race, so he does have the support of many of the Afghani citizens. It is just the view of legitimacy that is very important. Perhaps, Abdullah will go back and negotiate, some have suggested that he left this window of opportunity when he withdrew today but did not boycott the race.

[karynnj]

40. The fact that he likely was going to win is not enough

The thing that bothers me is that some of Abdullah's demands made complete sense. It is extremely arrogant that he kept the same guy in and kept bogus polling stations. I would assume that our administration spoke to him on that.

[beachmom]

39. A politician's job is different from a journalist's. A journalist's ONLY job

is to get the truth out (sadly, there are very few good journalists, but I digress). A politician is elected to do a job and advocate for a position and make it happen. You were saying that you believe JK over Time magazine. Um, sorry but JK knows a lot that he will never reveal publicly. Time, OTOH, has a duty to print what it knows if they can verify that it is true.

As to Bhutto, are you seriously saying you don't know that Kerry's man was in Pakistan trying to help negotiate her return? That is why she called him. He was part of the effort to get her back there!!! Cheney was against the idea, Condi was for it. And Kerry's man was in Pakistan trying to make it happen.

Maybe you missed the report:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=273&topic_id=137147

But Kerry's man was part of the effort to get Bhutto back. And in retrospect it was a bad idea. I never said Kerry was responsible for her death. But he along with many other people involved made a mistake by encouraging her to return, when clearly the security was not going to be there for her.

[ProSense]

41. I'm not getting the point.

Bhutto knew the dangers. Political leaders put their lives on the line all the time for the good of their country. That she was assassinated is a terrible thing. Stil, trying to say that anyone who supported her efforts was wrong is like saying anyone who encourage Bobby Kennedy to run was wrong. Do you think her efforts should have gone unsupported?


The piece you linked to is about a fact finding mission by Kerry related to Musharraf agreeing to shed his uniform. He was actively engaged in diplomacy.

This is also posted in that thread:

BLITZER: You're going back to Pakistan, even though you know you're wanted there on corruption charges, among other things. When, first of all, will you go back to Pakistan?

BHUTTO: I'm leaving on the 17th of October and arriving on the 18th of October. It's 21 days to my departure and I can't wait to get back home.

BLITZER: What makes you think you'll be received any differently than another former prime minister who went back and was quickly kicked out, Nawaz Sharif?

BHUTTO: I'm in a different boat than Mr. Nawaz Sharif. He was sentenced for treason and tax evasion. I haven't been sentenced for any crime. And, secondly, Mr. Nawaz Sharif got the Saudis to stand guarantee for his release and said he wouldn't return for 10 years. I was offered the same deal but I refused. And my husband stayed behind bars without a conviction for eight years. So we're in two different boats. There are no guarantees...

[beachmom]

42. That diplomatic mission was directly related to what Bhutto asked for

in order to come back to Pakistan.

My point is that Kerry backed the concept of her coming back (as did Max Cleland -- I remember when I saw him at Regent U. my question on Pakistan was asked of him, and he said the same exact thing: have Bhutto be P.M. and Musharraf President WITHOUT a uniform as President). "The Americans" supported this position. It was a mistake. We never should have interfered that way. Just because Bhutto took unnecessary risks does not remove the fact that "the Americans", including Kerry & Biden supported that approach.

My larger point, for which I think is getting lost here, is that a seemingly innocuous thing like supporting a popular democratic leader returning to their country turned into a horrible tragedy. That is how treacherous the region is. The idea that America played NO ROLE in events is naive. We damned well did.

Again, I never said Kerry was responsible for her death.

[wisteria]

44. No, but you claimed he screwed up enough that it lead to her death.

To be honest, I don't see how you even fault Kerry for this. It was dangerous for sure, but it was a risk Bhutto was willing to take. Actually, she was very defiant and took great risks with the security she did have. That Senator Kerry furthered the idea and pushed the power sharing, seems to me to be straight forward, it worked for everyones benefit and it was her decision to return. To claim that because he supported and it didn't work out and thus he was wrong,I don't agree. Pakistan was a very dangerous place before Bhutto's return and after. If blame is to be assigned it should be at the Bush Administration and Musharraf. Are you suggesting that simply because it was a risky venture that Senator Kerry and Max Cleland should have talked her out of it?

[beachmom]

46. I never said that. I re-read my post and I never said that.

Let's just drop it.

[wisteria]

47. I agree! n/t

[wisteria]

45. I missed nothing and I understand the role we played.

Was it wrong, the only reason you can say that is because it did not work out and Bhutto was murdered.
And, you honestly think Time Magazine only prints the truth? And that Kerry hides things from the public when he should tell all?
I don't agree with that. Time Magazine has an agenda just like other News Papers and magazines. They are not sworn to tell the truth nor report fairly. I would never believe them more than Senator Kerry. I recognize in his position it is sometime necessary to not reveal everything- sometimes that is the most dangerous thing to do, but generally, I consider him an honest politician.
What has he done to earn your mistrust?

[karynnj]

48. Beachmom has constantly praised Kerry's honesty

I think you miss that she is speaking of the different roles here of journalists vs governmental officials. Kerry cannot reveal everything he is told. Journalists do not attend secure briefings. In the hunt interview, Kerry specifically signaled that he is limited in what he can say.

In addition, even when the information is not from classified briefings, the standards of proof are different. Consider even the Contras. Kerry publicly said only things that he could prove in a court of law. That was the standard he had to meet. Many journalists went farther. Now, it is likely that some additional things journalists wrote were true - and Kerry may well have thought the same things were true, but he couldn't prove them. the journalists may have uncovered more, but Kerry's carry more weight.

In this example, both did what they should have. Had Kerry made a statement that was not true, or even couldn't be proved, he ran the risk of his entire work being discredited. The journalists had to meet a different standard. They could use words that qualify statements - "purportedly" "alleged" - on less proven things.

On Kharzai's brother I suspect that it comes down to what is made by "payroll". Additionally, I would guess that the Obama team have distanced themselves from Karzai, while having Kerry intensify his relationship. When it looked like it could salvage the political situation, Kerry got the credit. If, the state department needs to abandon Karzai in the future, it might be unpleasant here.

[karynnj]

49. Baltimore Sun has an article that explains why Karzai really is likely the best option in

Afghanistan. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation-world/sns-ap-as-afghan-few-options-analysis,0,6756404.story?page=2

(Looking at various papers, Kerry's role is as often described as arm twisting, than friendly.)