First, fire Condoleezza Rice. This woman has been at the center of every US foreign policy disaster from 9/11 through the assassination of Mme. Bhutto. It is a combo of bad judgment calls and a jinxed career based on a self-regarding, self-assured ignorance. If one didn't know better one might assume that she was responsible for the death of Lincoln, or that she stood on the grassy knoll in Dallas. Incompetence wed to arrogance might suit Bush's cabinet, but it does not play well in the real world. By placing their bets on Iraq rather than cleaning up the mess in Afghanistan, Secretary Rice and the president have set back US security by a decade.
Second, aim a fire hose at Rudy Giuliani to keep him from exploiting an already dreadful situation by claiming that he would be the man to resolve it. Never in American history has a candidate appeared who has so exploited tragedy for his own purposes. One could almost hear Rudy thinking "I'm in the game again!" What would Rudy do? Well, he would kiss his Judy for luck, or lust, and then proclaim that he would hang tough against the terrorists, without any understanding of the dynamics of Pakistan's politics. Rudy is the kid who throws the firecracker into the crowd to disperse it and causes more death and destruction. His fellow aspirants on the Republican side -- with the exception of Ron Paul -- would follow suit, minus the lust. Make it a very large fire hose that could keep them all at bay.
Third, let the Democrats observe a day of silence. No, make that a week of thinking. I'd ask for a month but a week is already stretching it. This is a tough problem with no easy answers, maybe no answers at all, just a time for questions. Our influence in the world has been squandered by a profligate administration, and our options are few, not to be wasted in proclamations, threats, or gassy odes to democracy. What authority we have left should be used quietly, instructively, and collectively with what remains of our allies. We don't want to hear a word from the Clinton camp about her alleged experience of which she has very little, or from Obama about fresh ideas until he has some. Practical policies, real strategies, not self-regarding rhetoric are required in putting out fires.
Four, let the American people consider how they have put themselves and their families in harm's way by re-electing George W. We now face a possibly renegade nuclear power, one that has connections to Al Qaida, and much of this has come as a result of the disastrous Bush/Cheney policies. Let all of us talk less, think more, and tread softly. These are dangerous times.
Read more reactions from HuffPost bloggers on Benazir Bhutto's assassination
Great post, but I would say the likelihood of any of these things happening is about "nil".
Fire George W., impeach him and Cheney would redeem Americans for voting Bush into office (the first doesn't really count, right?).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-biden/a-new-approach-to-pakista_b_71733.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-biden/we-need-a-pakistan-policy_b_71399.html
Joe Biden on CIA tapes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-biden/special-counsel-needed-to_b_77692.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/10/biden-calls-for-special-c_n_76044.html
Joe Biden on Iran and Impeachment of Bush
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-biden/meeting-the-iranian-chall_b_75628.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/30/biden-to-bush-bomb-iran-_n_74778.html
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I fail to find anything in the Constitution that says we have either the right or the obligation to impose our values, politics, or economic system on other countries. Our attempts to do so have had repercussions most find objectionable, both here and abroad.
As a nation, our most sane course would be to simply STFU when it came to offering advice or attempting to influence internal events in other countries. At a minimum, we should make it a first principal to do no harm.
But what we should be doing is looking for answers right now. There are alternatives to Benazir Bhutto that can run for office and help to bring democracy back to Pakistan, but we've got to be behind them. Moreso, we have to know if Musharraf was involved at all with Bhutto's assassination, because if he was, then whomever is going to carry the torch for Benazir will have a chance. Silence is one thing, but solving the problem is another, and people have to wake up and realize that sitting around isn't solving the problem. If you have a voice that can reach a lot of people, you've got to be screaming that we've got to solve this problem at the top of your lungs.
Why are American so faith-based? They refuse to accept any other reality that that which they create in Washington, D.C. It is even called the Washington consensus.
It is time to become evidence-based in all we say or do. I frankly could not care less what someone believes. In a court of law, opinions are subject to being excluded from evidence, even those of experts unless they are within the experts field of expertise and based upon a first-hand knowledge of "facts" or other facts within another expert's personal knowledge.
The legal "process" allows for a thorough exploration of the basis for an expert's opinion, including bias. In foreign policy these is no such "process," just politics.
The Bush administration not only bases their foreign policy on ideology rather than facts, but intentionally wraps facts around the policies they have already formulated.
Steeping one's self in religious dogma is what is convincing some people to blow themselves up. We so readily see the fallacies in this form of thing yet our leaders are "belief-based," not "reality-based." I am all done with faith-based people who elevate their beliefs to some form of fact.
Incidentally, I don't think what you say about the cartoon-villain Giuliani or the sly Centrist Clinton is over the top at all. I agreed with what you said about Obama's ideas too, but I changed my mind and thought better of him when I read the comments about his statement.
Isn't the Huffington Post wonderful?
The fact is though, regional violence has been a common circumstance long before the U.S. came into existence. Our mistake is in thinking we can change this circumstance or in believing people might be less willing to kill each other than not. History suggests otherwise. Why we insist upon electing leaders who know and understand so little outside a very narrow scope escapes me. Except to say, it is that same limited knowledge of other people and cultures that so limits us as a nation. Perhaps, as a nation, our hearts are in the right place, but we are nonetheless conflicted in our motivations. And that conflict is a direct result of how thoroughly big business and global finace influences our elected officials.
Just ask yourself how is it that we have leaders who propose a piousness that is so at odds with their conduct? As voters and citizens we have not made good choices. Hopefully, this will awaken us to the fact that we have have an obligation to be more attentive when it comes to casting our ballot. A good starting point is acknowledging the futility and counterproductiveness of the violence in which we are participants. Funny thing about killing. Even in defense, you don't feel good about it in the morning.
The only thing that this article makes truth is the bleating of the Democratic sheep. I am sick of hearing them speak about Bhutto. Let us recall she was a corrupt official. Yet she gets the hero treatment. Bush is called on as being corrupt, yet he is vilified.
Indeed, I wish for people to wake up and realize the dangerous world we live in. However, let us levy the blame where it lies. I'm not sure whether Al-Qaida or the Pakistani government was responsible, but neither of them are the American government.
There, that should go a long way towards calming fears of Pakistan becoming a rogue nuclear state. Generals who view themselves as players on the world stage are unlikely candidates to be taking orders from dangerous religious fanatics hiding out in primitive caves in some of the most god forsaken terrain on this planet.
The thought that along with jaw dropping debt, and a ruined infrastructure we might also pass along to our children and grandchildren the need to seek protection from a neuclear attach by hiding under their desks.
Those evangelical pukes have a lot to answer for. I think I will make a poster and nail it to the door of the church.
The ignorance of our leaders is so profound, particularly in moments such as these.
I agree with you about Condi Rice, she is the worse Secretary of State, who works for the worse President ever.
I agree with you about Hillary Clinton vaulted "experience" amounting to nothing as while she was first lady, she did not have security clearance; she was not a cabinet member so her vote never counted while her husband was President. Also, politicians of Clinton's era in both the Democratic and Republican parties are the ones who have put U.S. foreign policy in the miserable condition that it's in.
However, I disagree with you regarding Obama's fresh ideas, etc. statements. He's come up with plenty of good ideas, including going into the Pakistan mountains (whether Pakistan likes it or not) and getting Bin Laden already. Who can argue with that?
Also, I bet Obama wouldn't be holding up the Musharraf’s dictatorship either.
Some commentators said that Obama's speech after Mrs. Bhutto's death was cold but I disagree. Obama acknowledged the grief those are experiencing about her death, but pointed out that "we" should be supporting the political aspirations of the Pakistani people. To that end, President Bush is obviously not interested in supporting the Pakistani people but rather his man Musharraf. Why would Bush push for immediate elections before Mrs. Bhutto's party can get another candidate up and running? Due to Mrs. Bhutto’s assassination, Musharraf is running for re-election un-opposed.
In my mind by supporting immediate elections, President Bush looks implicit in Mrs. Bhutto's assassination, as all eyes are looking at Musharraf as her murder, and not the terrorists as the television commentators are trying to make us believe.
I agree with you about Hillary Clinton vaulted "experience" amounting to nothing as while she was first lady, she did not have security clearance; she was not a cabinet member so her vote never counted while her husband was President. Also, politicians of Clinton's era in both the Republican and Democratic parties are the ones who have placed U.S. foreign in the miserable place that it's in.
However, I disagree with you regarding Obama's fresh ideas, etc. statements. He's come up with plenty of good ideas including going into the Pakistan mountains (whether Pakistan likes it or not) and getting Bin Laden already. Who can argue with that?
Also, I bet Obama wouldn't be holding up the Musharraf’s dictatorship either.
Some commentators said that Obama's speech after Mrs. Bhutto's death was cold but I disagree. Obama acknowledged the grief those are experiencing about her death, but pointed out that "we" should be supporting the political aspirations of the Pakistani people. To that end, President Bush is obviously not interested in supporting the Pakistani people but rather his man Musharraf. Why would Bush push for immediate elections before Mrs. Bhutto's party can get another candidate up and running? Due to Mrs. Bhutto’s assassination, Musharraf is running for re-election un-opposed.
In my mind by supporting immediate elections, President Bush looks implicit in Mrs. Bhutto's assassination as all eyes are looking at Musharraf as her murder, and not the terrorists as television the commentators are trying to make us believe.