Hillary to Pakistan: US taxes everything that moves...

Hillary said two things of note to the Pakistani press:

“I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where [the leadership of Al Qaeda] are and couldn’t get them if they really wanted to.”

That’s to the point. But do the “really want to?”

and

“We (the United States) tax everything that moves and doesn’t move, and that’s not what we see in Pakistan.”

She put this statement in the context that taxing everything that moves is a very good thing and that Pakistan ought to start doing the same to address the demands their population growth will place on their infrastructure needs. What if Pakistanis, as many in the US, don’t want to tax everything that moves and doesn’t move? Is Pakistan’s national government the only entity over there capable of producing anything for the public good? That is the philosophy of our own politicians. It is not a good thing that our politicians are exporting their sense of human helplessness that only a national government can overcome.

Here is the story from Pakistan’s “Daily Times”:

LAHORE: The leadership of Al Qaeda is in Pakistan, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Thursday. “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 added.
“Maybe that’s the case; maybe they’re not gettable. I don’t know... As far as we know, they are in Pakistan,” Clinton told senior Pakistani newspaper editors in Lahore, AFP reported.

“The percentage of taxes on GDP (in Pakistan) is among the lowest in the world... We (the United States) tax everything that moves and doesn’t move, and that’s not what we see in Pakistan,” she said.
“You do have 180 million people. Your population is projected to be about 300 million. And I don’t know what you’re going to do with that kind of challenge, unless you start planning right now,” she said.
“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”.

It is true that Pakistan needs to get its security system in order before we “have a mature partnership.” Unfortunately I believe their security system is just about where most of their population wish it to be – applying “rope-a-dope” on the United States.

Middle East Heading South

President B. H. Obama and the Iraqi government have assured Iraq is a lost cause for the western world. This article describes how the unmotivated Iraqi government is dropping the ball on the hand-off of the US counterinsurgency initiatives. With the inevitable withdrawal of US troops in the next 18 months to 2 years, this Iraqi government predisposition to revert to the past will spell perpetual conflict and tribal anarchy until the next dictator or Sharia-endowed leader rises up.

While I'm about predicting things in the middle east, here are four more predictions that will be like watching a slow motion train wreck over the next several years:

Afghanistan: Afghanistan has already been described as Obama's Vietnam. In two years, we will tire of that mire and decide there are other actions we can take to deceive ourselves into believing that we are being productive at achieving whatever objective we have over there. Within four years, we will be out of Afghanistan whether there is lasting reduction of Al-Qaeda influence or not.

Pakistan: A nuclear-armed nation on the brink of revolution. What to do. What to do. We won't do enough. We will not safeguard the nukes. We will not prevent a radical Islamic takeover. There is now "galloping Talibanization" occurring in Pakistan. Within two years, we will resign ourselves to a west-hating controlled Pakistan who will effectively use it's nuclear power to coerce western influence-reducing concessions out of us. Obama will do whatever it takes to minimize their hatred toward us. We can expect an increasing number of Kum-bay-Yah moments from B. Hussein O. in the middle east.

Iran: The US will be effective in preventing Isreal from destroying Iran's nuclear facilities. UPDATE: During todays' (Tuesday, May 18) meeting between Obama and Netanyahu, Obama effectively neutralized any Israelli action against Iran by guaranteeing another 8 months of talk with Iran. See here and here. Here is one example of Obama's arm twisting. If Obama simply wanted notice from Israel to ready or protect American troops in the area, he would have said this privately - as in "Top Secret". This public demand was a political move to further distance himself from Israel and further cozy up to Muslim nations. Netanyahu will become a paper tiger. Again, within two years, we will resign ourselves to being subject to an Islamic, nuclear-armed Iran who will effectively use it's nuclear power to coerce western influence-reducing consessions out of us.

Israel: If two out of three of these predictions materialize, Israel's existence is in doubt in 4 years. Islamic dominance in Europe and the US will accelerate.

I hope I am dead wrong on all of them.

Rice satisfied with Pakistan Blowing Smoke

The headline might just as well have said: "Rice satisfied with Pakistan Pblowing Smoke."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met the President of Pakistan yesterday to mollify India. The USA Today Headline actually reads: "Rice satisfied with Pakistan's anti-terror stance."

President Asif Ali Zardari promised Rice "strong action" will be taken against elements in his country that were involved in the terrorist attacks in Mumbai.

Then his face flipped around when he said he would not hand over 20 suspects wanted by India and said they would be tried in Pakistan if there was evidence of wrongdoing because his administration would likely face a backlash from Muslim groups and nationalists if it simply handed over the suspects to Pakistan's old foe India.

What we have here is a failure to really want to take action against the terrorists in Pakistan. It just so happens that the "elements in his country involved in the terrorist attacks in Mumbai" include the same Muslim groups and nationalists from whom he fears a backlash.

Fact one is he would receive the same Muslim backlash whether he sent the scum to India for trial, or he convicted them in Pakistan. Fact two is he doesn't have the political or military will or capital to try and convict them within Pakistan - Pakistan is a Muslim controlled nation. Fact four is Islam desires to destabilize the region so it can broaden its imposition of Sharia law upon other nations. Fact five is the purpose of the publicity from the Rice/Zardari visit is appeasement to neutralize India's outrage of continuing attacks from Islamic-controlled Pakistan.

Bottom line: The west continues to be ignorant of Islams fundamental teachings and ultimate objectives and fearful of upsetting that "peace-loving religion." We prefer to tolerate the sporadic outrage of terrorism rather than take decisive action against it.

Random Thoughts About India, Pakistan, Islam...

Islamic "ambassadors" from Pakistan brought terror to Mumbai, India last week. These ambassadors are reported to have a multi-hundred acre training site inside Pakistan and support from Pakistan's equivalent to our CIA.

Meanwhile, John McCain and Secretary of State Rice visit India and, in effect, tell India not to get excited, declaring that the US will not allow India to strike back at Pakistan. That is like Great Britain telling the US not to strike Afghanistan or Osama bin Laden after 9-11.

At this moment President-elect Obama is vindicating himself vis a vie McCain when he declared yesterday referring to the Pakislami visit to Mumbai, "Sovereign nations obviously have a right to protect themselves."

This is consistent with and reenforces his campaign statement of August 1, 2008, when he declared, concerning Pakistan, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will". He was criticised by Republicans, of all people, for being trigger happy and irresponsible.

Well, I would like to criticise John McCain for being a namby pamby milktoast who can't clearly express a consistent thought.
...McCain, and Obama.

Would decisive military action by India be impulsive? Hardly. Our own National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell recently expressed that the same group that carried out last week's attack is believed to be behind the 2006 Mumbai train bombings that killed more than 200. Terrorist bombings are an ongoing event in India. I wish we would all get over calling such bombers "suspected militants." What is the common denominator of 99.9% these terrorist acts? We know it's not the Methodists or the League of Women Voters. Hint: Its public relations team calls it "The Religion of Peace." That's about as true a depiction of Islam as Pakistan being called effective at ridding itself of Islamic terror camps.

Ex-Press Secretary Tony Snow (RIP - and I liked the guy) oozed way too much optimism about Pakistans' efforts against Islamist extremists when last year he said "Pakistan was working hard to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban... "At the same time, we recognize the sovereignty of the Pakistani government and realize that they're putting on a serious push ... They're taking the fight to al Qaeda"

Are they really? Sure sounds like a lot more talk than fight. What is the difference between Pakistan promising a "joint investigation" and "a fox in the hen house?" Not much.

The US will make a huge mistake if we discourage India from eliminating any Islamic training camp that is known to exist inside Pakistan. But, unfortunately for the rest of us, we don't even have the will to eliminate Islamic training camps in our own nation. We are peddling insanity with our failure to act in our own defense, never mind India's. We are laisse-faire-ing our own demise - ignoring the cancer within us.

And we want India to do the same with a hostile Islamic cancer at their back door.

Slowest Response to a Major Fire I've Ever Seen

I was watching live scenes of the Islamabad, Pakistan, Marriott hotel fire this morning. The first scenes broadcast on Fox cable appeared to be about 30 minutes or so after the initial Islamic terrorist bombing occurred. No fire fighting was in sight. Only after 30 to 40 additional minutes of broadcast time (well over an hour after the initial blast) did any visual of firefighting appear - one lone stream of water aimed erratically at the hotel.

Like Saudi Arabia, one has to wonder about the dedication of this "significant ally" toward the defense of American interests. I would not be surprised if there was a purposeful deference toward allowing the hotel to burn - a show of Pakistani and radical Islams' disdain toward American efforts to thwart Islamic "extremism" (or Islamic "mainstremism" is perhaps more accurate) in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Pakistan appears to have gotten a bit edgy since the US has become more effective in thwarting al Quida activity in the border regions between itself and Afghanistan. This is our "slap on the wrist" for daring to be effective - which Pakistan does not have the will to be.

Chilling

It's bad enough that Islamists assassinated Benazir Bhutto, the ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan yesterday. What is chilling is the preference of the average Pakistani on the street for a political leader...

46% for Osama Bin Laden, the acknowledged mastermind of 9/11 and the "destroy the west" mantra.

38% for current Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf

9% for US President George Bush (this is hardly a surprise since his polls are not much higher in the US.)

What does this tell us about the direction of Pakistan and their nukes? Additional background is provided here.

Couple this with the second most popular baby's name in Great Britain: "Muhammad", the forebear of "the religion of peace." (Where is my little "puking" emoticon when I need it?)

I Don't Blame Musharraf

Pakistan is a "moderate" Islamic nation, it has been our ally in the war on terror (which really should be renamed, more accurately, "the war on the religion of hate and intolerance") and it has lots of nukes.

There has been increasing terrorist activity by the Jahadi wing of Islam in Pakistan (blowing up non-Muslim businesses, etc.) not to mention their hosting (involuntarily???) Al Quida in the Paki-Afgan mountains. Our nation has urged President Musharraf to do something meaningful in response to this recent run up in Jahadi activity in his nation.

So now Musharraf is doing something: clamping down on dissident activity, e.g. civil rights attornies, the media, and others who are making his fight against terrorism difficult.

And the United States and Britain are objecting. Michell Malkin calls this a "train wreck".

It appears we are expecting Musharraf to fight Islamic terror in the same way we do... without knowing who the enemy is and without teeth. And we will withhold our billions in aid if he does things his way and not our way. Wow. Yes, trainwreck.

Do I need to spell out the likely outcome if we bribe him to do things "our way?"

If he insists on doing things HIS way...

* We will withhold our billions in aid and the radicals Musharraf was resisting will fill the vacuum
* We will have the first nuclear armed radical Islamic nation.

Or, if he bows to OUR demands...

* He will be ineffective in his fight against the radicals
* We will have the first nuclear armed radical Islamic nation.

We don't yet, as a nation, realize who the enemy is, and thus we haven't discovered the measures necessary to combat it. And we want to handcuff Musharraf in the same way we handcuff ourselves. I hear the train a comin'...