JK gets props on NPR story on Pakistan this morning

[MBS]

Was half-listening to NPR "Morning Edition", caught part of a story on Pakistan. Story mentioned (with direct contributions from Pakistanis) how much Sen. Kerry's expressions of sympathy were appreciated. One man praised his "sensitivity, humility, and understanding".
That's my senator! :):thumbsup: (If they had a smilie to convey "swelling with pride", I'd use it here!).
If you missed it, hopefully it's available as podcast on NPR website.

[Luftmensch067]

1. Oh, thanks for posting this!

I suspected this, but the only non-official reaction I'd seen covered was the effigy. This is very nice to know.

[Democrafty]

2. Cool!

I will try to check that out later. Thanks, MBS!

[MBS]

3. link

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/21/133932044/Pakistan-Raymond-Davis
audio and transcript

excerpt of transcript:

JULIE MCCARTHY: In few short days, Washington has gone from severely strained relations with Pakistan to Congress retreating from calls to cut off aid to its ally over Pakistan's detention of the American, Raymond Davis. Senator John Kerry acquitted himself in a brief stop in Pakistan last week in a way that impressed many Pakistanis, delivering condolences to the nation and to the families of the two men killed when Davis opened fire on them. General Talat Masood says the expression of sympathy has gone down well.

General TALAT MASOOD (Pakistani Army): I think that was a very good move. And also to apologize was also very correct and showed a certain level of understanding, sensitivity and humility. I wish they had done that earlier, but it's never too late.

[karynnj]

4. Some of the Pakistani articles emphasized how hurt (and angry)

officials and people were that there was no apology or explanation - other than Davis' obviously untrue story for the first two weeks. In one of the video links, Kerry was asked if he thought this was handled well by the administration - his answer was a quick, unambiguous "no" and then a comment that his answer was "not political" and that he could get his hands slapped (highly unlikely IMO - as no one other than Obama would have the standing.) One thing I did not post - because it was hateful - was a ranting editorial that tore HRC to shreds - precisely because neither she nor anyone in the embassy in those weeks apologized or did anything to take responsibility.

Many articles mentioned Kerry's sincere comments. In the later articles, it really seemed that Kerry's purpose was far more preserving the relationship than getting Davis out - even though that was obviously one of the administration's goals. At any rate, it is clear that the secret war in Pakistan - that was never all that secret - is now front page news. Only time will see if the Pakistani government will survive this. It may be they now can't let him go - there is no quiet way to do so. One Pakistani who impressed me was the foreign minister, removed because he refused to create fraudulent documents that would have shown that Pakistan gave him diplomatic status before this happened. (He was the Pakistani official who son briefly interned for JK.)

[beachmom]

5. Here is an interesting side story. The NYT, AP, WP KNEW that Davis was CIA

but was urged by the U.S. government to not print:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/158752/wikileak-news-views-blog-monday-day-86

NYT, at request of U.S., held story on American accused of murder in Pakistan (Obama has sought his release) actually being CIA. Today it goes with story -- but only after Guardian (as we've noted) scooped it and White House gave NYT okay. Wash Post did much the same. NYT story suggests Pakistan knew he was CIA all along.

Read it all, and weep:


http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/21/nyt/index.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/20/us-raymond-davis-lahore-cia?CMP=twt_gu

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/world/asia/22pakistan.html?_r=2

So, basically, our government lied to Pakistan, lied to the public, and lied to members of Congress, who now look foolish for their demands. Moreso, a major American national newspaper completely bowed down to the Obama Administration's demands not to publish the facts AND furthered the lies, even when they knew it was not true.

What a day.

[wisteria]

6. It seems to me there is a lot more to this entire story which might explain the WH

requesting the papers not go with the story in the beginning. I don't think they would lie about this if it wasn't something big.

[karynnj]

7. What is described is big

Davis and the people in the van that accidentally killed the other Pakistani were all from the same CIA safe house that was "investigating" the terrorist groups in that area of Pakistan - those groups include those that were responsible for the terrorism in India.

What this might mean is that the ISI was - as was rumored for years - involved with them. This might be the CIA vs the ISI - rather than the CIA working jointly with the ISI.

[beachmom]

9. Trust but verify, my friend. The Obama Admin. isn't looking good here.

I mean I get it: they had CIA in country to find terrorist groups. That is understandable. But, basically, they got caught. Obfuscating the issue for weeks doesn't strike me as smart. Glenn Greenwald can overdo it and be a jerk, but OTOH, I think it would be a mistake to dismiss what he says. He has been right from time to time in the past.

[karynnj]

8. I think that though they did not say that he was CIA, Salon goes too far

He says:
"Obviously, that's exactly what The New York Times does. Allowing the U.S. Government to run around affirmatively depicting Davis as some sort of Holbrooke-like "diplomat" -- all while the paper uncritically prints those claims and yet conceals highly relevant information about Davis because the Obama administration told it to -- would be humiliating for any outlet devoted to adversarial journalism to have to admit. "

In fact, the newspaper's descriptions led most of us on DU to think he was a Blackwater like contractor - and all that means. As to the administration, most of their comments were careful not to say that he was a diplomat - just that, in his function, which seemed to be protection, he had diplomatic immunity. Obama's statement that he was a "diplomat" is very troubling. I suspect the lie - and it is a lie - was for American consumption, because the Pakistanis clearly knew he wasn't doing diplomacy.

One concern that I think Obama should think of is how the lying about Davis as a diplomat could open all real US diplomats to the danger of being seen as spies. I think, the Obama administration really screwed up on this and can see why Kerry had to go over there. In retrospect, I suspect the reason was more to keep the relationship from completely failing than in getting this guy released. (It well might be that the US should face the fact that to remain in power, there will be a trial and Davis may be executed - just as he reportedly executed at least one of the Pakistani men. If you reversed this, there is no way we would release a Pakistani spy who killed 2 Americans (maybe CIA) here.)