Good cop, bad cop — redux

The New York Times reports today that the Bush White House has decided that it’s finally time to get tough with Pakistan when it comes to terrorism. That’s probably a good idea — last week we learned that senior leaders of al Qaeda are operating from Pakistan, have rebuilt training camps, and have “re-established significant control over their once-battered worldwide terror network.”

What strikes me as interesting, however, is how the president is choosing to pressure Pakistan — by using a Democratic Congress as leverage.

Vice President Dick Cheney made an unannounced trip to Pakistan on Monday to deliver what officials in Washington described as an unusually tough message Gen. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, warning him that the newly Democratic Congress could cut aid to his country unless his forces become far more aggressive in hunting down operatives with Al Qaeda. […]

Congressional Democrats have threatened to review military assistance and other aid to Pakistan unless they see evidence of aggressive attacks on Al Qaeda. The House last month passed a measure linking future military aid to White House certification that Pakistan “is making all possible efforts to prevent the Taliban from operating in areas under its sovereign control.”

Pakistan is now the fifth-largest recipient of American aid. Mr. Bush has proposed $785 million in aid to Pakistan in his new budget, including $300 million in military aid to help Pakistan combat Islamic radicalism in the country. The rumblings from Congress give Mr. Bush and his top advisers a way of conveying the seriousness of the problem, officials said, without appearing to issue a direct threat to the proud Pakistani leader themselves.

“We think the Pakistani aid is at risk in Congress,” said the senior official, who declined to speak on the record because the subject involved intelligence matters.

I don’t disagree with the strategy, but let’s be clear about the president’s message here: he’s not all that concerned about Pakistan aiding al Qaeda, but congressional Democrats take counter-terrorism seriously — and they’re unwilling to send aid to a country that won’t crack down on the terrorist network responsible for 9/11.

Fascinating.

For years, Pakistan, ostensibly a U.S. ally, has been looking the other way on terrorists as a means of survival. Bush said nothing, except to praise Pakistan as a democracy and ally. The Republican-led Congress said nothing, because they didn’t want to bother Bush.

But now there’s a real Congress, which places counter-terrorism above the president’s political standing, and which is none too pleased about Pakistan playing a role in allowing al Qaeda to regain strength.

Bush, instead of stepping up and showing some leadership years ago, now tells Pakistan, “You better to do something; those mean Democrats are liable to take drastic measures.”

What’s more, this is the second time in as many weeks that the Bush gang has played the “good cop” to the Dems’ “bad cop” when it comes to the Middle East.

[I]n her recent trip to Iraq, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice used the debate as part of a diplomatic strategy to urge Iraqi political leaders to accelerate their efforts to produce results on the economic and security conditions in Iraq. The NY Times reported:

“Ms. Rice said she used the restiveness in Washington to underline for Iraqi officials the spread of American frustration with Iraq’s lagging political and economic progress.

“She said she had ‘made clear that some of the debate in Washington is, in fact, indicative of the concerns that the American people have about the prospects for success’ if Iraq’s leaders did not quickly take actions to ensure longer-term stability.”

Iraqi leaders took note. Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq’s foreign minister, said Rice “emphasized a great deal the issue of urgency.” Rice stressed to Iraqi leaders that “patience is not unlimited in the United States and that there’s a great deal of frustration,” Zebari added.

So, when it comes to domestic rhetoric, the Bush gang insists that Dems are not only weak, they’re “emboldening” the enemy. When it comes to actual foreign policy, the same Bush gang believes Dems are strong and are aggressively challenging the enemy.

Good to know.

Lest we forget…

“The new Pakistani general — just been elected — he’s not been elected… the guy took over office…it appears he’s going to bring stability to the country and I think that’s good news for the sub continent. ”
“And you can name him? ”
“General, I can name the general… ”
“And it’s…”
“General.”
– WHDH-TV Boston November 3, 1999

  • Did any other VP in history go running around the globe doing State Department work like Cheney is doing right now? I can’t think of one off the top of my head.

    Things must be really desperate if the Dark Lord himself has to go outside the bunker to try and stem the tide of global collapse he himself is responsible for.

  • Cokie Roberts was on NPR using this as an exmple of how the Republicans are gaining politically. Her point is that Bush can now use the Demoratic Congress to accomplish things he has wanted to do (Implying that he couldn’t under a Republican Congress?). Another example of how all developments are good for Bush and bad for Democrats.

  • Yet the NY Times chose the headline “Bush to Warn Pakistan to Act on Terror” as opposed to “Congress forces Bush get Pakistan to Act on Terror”. shheeeshh.

  • So—Cheney tells Pakistan to either shut down the al-Quaeda border crossings, or America is going to bail on him? What’s next—saying the same thing to NATO? SEATO? The UN?

    the mind simply reels….

  • Bush is a dildo, but there isn’t a whole hell of a lot anyone can do regarding Pakistan. If Musharaf ever really moved against the radicals in Pakistan he’d probably be killed.

    One of these days we’ll have the Taliban (or a similar outfit) in control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, and we’ll have to decide if we want to let that stand or not. No good solutions are available, no matter what.

  • Call me a troll if you must, but I draw some comfort from the rank hypocrisy evident here. At least he’s putting some much-needed pressure on Pakistan. It also signals some (albeit mild) acknowledgment that Congress exists and just might have a bit of power to wield. With a little luck some of his ardent supporters might notice how weak he looks doing this.

    I just wish we hadn’t needed to wait six years to see even this little bitty baby steps of progress. Sigh!

  • Bush is embolden Congress.

    He can hardly whine about us cutting off aid when he is using it as leverage. I think it’s a pretty smart move by a retard. So if they don’t act, we can cut off aid, look good at home and scare the hell out of the aid receivers.

  • The news over the weekend had the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Sheik Omar and Osama himself operating supply and training bases in Waziristan along the Paki-Afghan border. Waziristan is on the Paki side of the border.

    I personally think that we should leave Iraq by ten tomorrow morning but these guys are in serious need of a hundred or so cruise missiles followed up by a week of carpet bombing. I don’t mind if they’re safe in their caves as long as we bomb all of the entrances shut.

    After we’re done we can apologize profusely to Musharrif and give him another couple of hundred million.

  • What a way to run foreign policy for Dick and Condi: going around telling the world to watch out because the adults are back in charge in Congress and those Dems mean business. While I like this odd bit of self-deprecating humility from a pair that seldom practices it, their remarks are a very strong reminder of the inability of this generation of Repubs to do anything right. It’s also a welcome reminder to the world that a change in administration will lead to the reemergence of a much different America than they have been used to for the past six + years, in a good way.

  • Unholy Moses at #8:

    What I labeled “hypocrisy” was said best by Carpetbagger himself:

    So, when it comes to domestic rhetoric, the Bush gang insists that Dems are not only weak, they’re “emboldening” the enemy. When it comes to actual foreign policy, the same Bush gang believes Dems are strong and are aggressively challenging the enemy.

  • DrGail–
    Hmmm … still not seeing the hypocrisy. But that’s okay — I don’t want to clutter this thread with Dictionary.com links on what really defines hypocrisy and how neither CB’s post nor any comments actually conform to that definition.

    (And, for the record, I don’t think you’d qualify as a troll since you seem to be engaging in discussion. But I’m more lenient than most).

  • Comments are closed.