Zardari Gives A Lesson In Glibness
By Steve Hynd Sunday Sep 28, 2008 7:30amWolf Blitzer, on Sunday's Late Edition interviewed Pakistan's new President, Asif Ali Zardari about his nation's involvement in the War On Terror, and specifically clashes over incursions into Pakistan by US troops. Zardari provided a lesson in glib lying which could be required viewing for a certain type of Western politician (step forward John McCain and Sarah Palin). Not a single "tell" was in evidence as 'Mr. Ten Percent' wildly spun to make himself and Pakistan sound all things to all presidential hopefuls.
Download | play 
Download | play
Many thanks to Heather for the vids.
In the interview, Zardari claimed that the US was being "over-indulgent" (I think he meant over-zealous) in its incursions on Pakistani territory and appealed to the Bush administration just to "give us the intelligence" and that Pakistan would then do what was needed.
When asked about allegations from the US and other allies that elements in the Pakistani military and ISI intelligence agency shielded or aided some anti-US militant leaders, he said that was all in the past and that his government had full control of Pakistan's military. "Our democracy is trustworthy" he said. Yet in recent months, Zardari's government have tried at least three times to exert more authority over the shadowy ISI, and have had to climb down each time after pressure from the military. The ISI was directly accused of involvement in the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul back in
On recent reports, from both Pakistani and American authorities, that Pakistani troops had fired on US helicopters at least once and perhaps as many as three times - completely in accord with military statements saying Pakistan would defend against incursions at 'all costs" and would unhestitatingly "open fire" - Zardari stuck to his own tale that "open fire" is just a warning and that "only flares" to warn US forces had been used.
(Later in the interview, Zardari also said that if Pakistan captured Bin Laden it would try him in Pakistan rather than extradite him for trial on 9/11 charges, before hurredly doing an about face when Blitzer pressed him on this matter.)
But the most fervent spin of all was when Zardari tried to square himself with Obama, in case the latter should become President. When asked about Obama's policy (the one that both Bush and Sarah Palin apparently agree with but John Mccain doesn't) that the US should act unilaterally inside Pakistan if it is unable or unwilling to take action of its own, he said:
ZARDARI: Senator Obama answers that, if the Pakistani authorities are unwilling, but in this case, Pakistani authorities and the president of Pakistan is more than willing.
BLITZER: Are you confident that you have control over all elements of the security forces, that you're all on the same page, as far as the United States and the war on terror is concerned?
ZARDARI: Most definitely.
BLITZER: Absolutely?
ZARDARI: Absolutely.
All done with hardly a flicker. It's easy to see why Mr. Ten Percent is now one of the richest men in Pakistan without ever running an actual business. But if American leaders trust him at his very changeable word then caveat emptor.
Login or Register to post comments.
Zadari went on to say..."And if you believe that, I have some swamp land outside Karachi you may be interested in."
Well, at least Palin's foreign policy experience gained from keeping a watch on Canada (you know, "that side of Alaska with all that land") has prepared her to take on this mad man.
Hmmm, I wonder when Osama will "release" another video. I'm guessing about 4 1/2 weeks from now. He only shows up when there's a vote the repugnicunts are nervous about.
Careful, Mr Zardari; Amurkkka knows what to do with evildoers:
One false move and we'll give you $700,000,000,000.00
notice Mccain called him kardari instead of Zardari
did anyone find out what kind of note he had (is that allowed ) which he kept staring at instead of making eye contact with his opponent?
and notice he had a hump similar to the one Bush wore in 04
Doesn't pass the smell test, never did, never will!
What did bin Laden do in Pakistan that he should be tried in a Pakistan courtroom?
sorry i was referring to McCain in the debate
alright i am going to be attacked now for being off topic
It's not spin. It's called 'diplomacy'. Obama made his statement well aware of the Pakistani efforts. Zardari made his, well aware of the fact that Obama isn't in a political situation where he can outright dismiss attacks on Pakistani turf.
I see Cernig continues to push his pet conspiracy theory that Pakistan is in cahoots with the Taliban. Bullshit.
"Later in the interview, Zardari also said that if Pakistan captured Bin Laden it would try him in Pakistan rather than extradite him for trial on 9/11 charges, before hurredly doing an about face when Blitzer pressed him on thie matter."
According to the FBI website:
"Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world." http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
Its funny that there is no direct mention of 9/11. I don't think they have enough evidence to extradite for 9/11 and isn't this the same reason the government of Afghanistan would not hand him over to the US in the first place?
Too bad Zardari cant tell the truth... "We are shooting at US forces to stop them from invading my country and killing my people".
"I see Cernig continues to push his pet conspiracy theory that Pakistan is in cahoots with the Taliban. Bullshit."
Pakistan was in cahoots with the Taliban pre-911...there is little evidence to suggest that the Pakistan ISI has cut all ties to the Taliban since "911" and a lot of intel that they are probably playing a double game.
this topic continues the perpetual war and american military hegemony meme. he is simply saying that it's his fucking country and who is the US to determine that there is "actionable intelligence" on anything? the same asshats who try to bribe people they openly mock and hate!
we killed 90 civilians and CNN is trying to report that it was only half that and 30 were al qaeda. total bullshit. we are violating the geneva conventions and pakistanis are shooting back. plain and simple.
I think it's wrong to try to demonize any middle east country or entity on the basis of anything relating to 9/11. Any 'official' information pertaining to 9/11 has turned out to be lies.
we are creating the necessity for the world to become an armed camp.
I've spoken to a number of Pakistanis who say Zardari is much worse than Mushariff.
BobFlash @ 8:
too bad the government closed it's Usama Bin Laden sector. if we actually were looking for him this meme might have some credibility.
more and more, it makes Usama look like an invention, like Kaiser Sose'.
Is Cernig actually attempting to legitimize the United States and Barack Obama advocating that it has the unilateral right to attack a sovereign country? What this post does not mention is that about ten days ago, hours after U.S. military officers told Pakistani leaders that America respected Pakistan's sovereignty, a suspected U.S. missile strike killed at least 6 people, 2 of them children. Will Obama or Bush now try to raise these people from the dead so that they can be reunited with their families? What the United States is doing in the Middle East and in surrounding areas could be taken right out of the page from Professor Andrew Bacevich's latest and extremely relevant book The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism where Bacevich observes that:
"Great powers wage 'small wars' not to defend themselves but to assert control over foreign populations. Historically, 'small wars' are imperial wars. The wars in which the United States currently finds itself engaged are no exception."
Obama's claim that he is an antiwar candidate flies in the face of his desire to send U.S. troops into countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as Georgia [and also Iraq, where he wants to leave close to 100,000 American troops in that country along with 100,000 civilian contractors, including the infamous Blackwater organization]. Obama, like Kerry before him, is not arguing that these small wars are unjust or immoral; rather, he is saying that he can do a better job of waging these 'small wars' better than his Republican counterpart, which goes a long in demonstrating that neoliberals like Obama can be just as destructive in their foreign policy positions as neoconservatives.
theWalrus @ 11:
just like in NY, Bloomberg is worse than Julianna. No one would have suspected it.
Zardari's gotta be nervous.
Within mere hours of his first announcing that Pakistan would oppose USer incursions, there was a deadly car-bombing in Karachi.
Everybody recognized it as a warning, but nobody said it was a warning from Darth/Bush to lighten the fuck up...
This is probably the stupidest, most ignorant write up I have seen on c&l yet.
"we killed 90 civilians and CNN is trying to report that it was only half that and 30 were al qaeda. total bullshit. we are violating the geneva conventions and pakistanis are shooting back. plain and simple."
The "90 civilians" incident happened in Afghanistan south of Herat--more than 200 miles from Pakistan.
"I think it’s wrong to try to demonize any middle east country or entity on the basis of anything relating to 9/11. Any ‘official’
information pertaining to 9/11 has turned out to be lies."
NOT TRUE--check out the "911 report"--there is very little in there that has was debunked later...
It is simply a fact that Pakistan was THE LARGEST supporter of the Talibs pre-911 ---even Pakistanis have said that---likely the Pakistan ISI TODAY is still the largest state entity with close ties to the Talibs...
as a Pakistani, I am deeply embarrassed that the biggest crook and liar in town is now our president. there was a rumor going around karachi that if a girl wants to get raped, she should wander over to where Mr. 10% was playing polo. What it really shows is that there is no such thing as democracy in Pakistan. The biggest, baddest thug gets to control everyone. And thats all it comes down to.
What's more distressing is that his wife's assassination gives him more political cover and good will with the west. Make no mistake, Zardari and his wife, along with their family and political party, ran Pakistan into the ground. And they won't hesitate doing it again.
Raza Sohail @ 18:
I've heard this too from friends from Pakistan, but isn't it good, or at least surprising, to see another puppet standing up to his US masters? Its his military protecting Pakistan from US invasion. It reminds me of the new Iraqi government demanding time lines for the US withdrawal.
Alexdem @ 7:
Hardly a conspiracy theory.The ISI have cooperating with the Taliban and other even less savory groups for decades. Musharraf was able to negotiate a live and let live truce with his own intelligence service but he never had control and I doubt if Zardari carries much weight with them. Of course he must be trying to do something. Clearly someone's toes are getting stepped on. Hence the bombs.
OK, so after all this dust settles, can someone tell me where the hell is Osama Bin Laden?
Raza Sohail @ 18:
ZARDARI IS ANOTHER IDI AMIN.
CERNIG said......."Zardari claimed that the US was being “over-indulgent” (I think he meant over-zealous) in its incursions....
No Cernig, he definately meant what he said and I wouldn't doubt his command of the English language. After all, his education comes from Oxford and I'll trust "the Queen's English" or American anyday. This from a Canadian, living 12 minutes from the US border.
To frame it in terms you'd understand; Indulgence........You know, like the OINKER who pigs out at the buffet you've provided at Super Bowl half-time. Zealous? The Oinker's rush to the line...the 3 ladies he's knocked over getting there. Are we a bit clearer on this?
Ok, so I've been watching Palin too much...a wee bit condenscending I admit. lol
AlexDem, set out a counterargument with cites then. In fact, if you send it to the Newshoggers general email address (it's on the site) I promise to publish it there as a guest post - unaltered. Remember to account for Kashmiri terror groups, the LeK and M Ibrahim's safe haven as well as the Indian embassy in Kabul and the statements of NATO allies as well as the recent about-face in US intelligence opinions.
Errol, "Is Cernig actually attempting to legitimize the United States and Barack Obama advocating that it has the unilateral right to attack a sovereign country?"
No. And if you'd read any of my other posts on the subject, you'd know that. As I’ve previously argued, it’s the second part of Obama’s Pakistan policy that really needs implemented - not the first.
BobFlash @ 19:
I deal with ex-Pakistani/Indian/Bangladeshians every day and this is their take on this;
First of all, there's a history of interference in this region by other countries, namely the British. They are a proud people. Proud of their 1,000 or so history.
Secondly, there are not only Aal-Qeuda in the hills but more lethal...the Taliban but the Taliban in many ways are in fact RESPECTED by Afganis and Pakistanians. They respect them for what they stand for, their Patriotism and disdain for the USA because of how the USA turned their back on them after they defeated the Russians in the 80's. There is no trust.
Lastly, This is their country and if these groups are going to bother anyone, they feel it should be them and they don't feel they need the USA protecting them, especially when they are tossing missiles indiscrimantly into neighbourhoods.
Hearing them express it this way, seeing their passion...I'd take a different route if I was either Obama or McCain.
To fight for your country in another country isn't the same as fighting for your country and family and culture in your own country.
REMEMBER THE ALAMO, even the most Hollywood-embellished version.
Dexter Filkins in the NYT today: The Long Road To Chaos In Pakistan
And at VetVoice, Brandon Friedman:
But if C&L readers aren't interested then I'll stop posting on the subject.
Regards, C
JEB @ 9:
I've read your post 3 times and have concluded...you're agreeing with Cernig!!
I'll say it again folks. Find the Bill Moyers interview with Andrew Bacevich (both transcript and video are available on his website) and invest 1/2 hr. (30 minutes) in the enlightment of what this ex-Colonel, West Point grad, Professor of International Affairs @ Boston College has to say.
It this type of awareness to really sufisticated, history-ladened information that brings you closer to understanding the truth.....and then the blog board gains because you took the time.
Besides Eric Margolis, this was the most interesting interview I had heard in years.
Furthermore, I think John and Nicole should DD this interview and get it on the site.
This guy is a total snake, not really too different from Musharraf, except that he's a greedy lying thief as well...the US alliance with Pakistan is a joke. Who needs enemies when you have "friends" like these?
Majicman, here's the Moyer's video.
Just to get this straight once and for all - I do NOT agree with unilateral aggressive incursions into Pakistani territory, I agree with Gareth Porter that they're dangerously destabilizing and could easily lead to a nuclear-armed state falling into chaos. I think Obama's wrong to concentrate on that part of his Pakistan policy - he should be concentrating on the non-military aid part instead and figuring out ways to give Pakistani civilians (NOT Zardari, maybe the lawyer's movement) enough oomph to actually reform the military and ISI. Then Pakistan might be able to clean its own house, but it certainly can't do it with the current set-up.
Regards, C
kray28 @ 31:
I agree completely, but what option does Pakistan have.
Cernig @ 27:
Brandon Friedman is trying make a distinction between Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and the United States' position toward those countries when in fact they are all one and the same. What Friedman and other neoliberals like Barack Obama do not wish to acknowledge is that the United States has no right to unilaterally take military action against these and any other countries that are not threatening the United States.
It is also advisable that Cernig should be a lot more concerned with the bellicose rhetoric emanating from Barack Obama than with the foreign policy positions of Pakistani's president Zardari, especially when one remembers that one of the specious reasons that Bush gave for invading Iraq was to overthrow Saddam Hussein. As heinous as Zardari may or not be, that still does not justify the hawkish statements that continue to flow from the mouth of the neoliberal Obama. And please, do not try and say, Cernig, that you are not pleased with Obama's bellicose rhetoric because while that may be true, the emphasis on your post is focused upon Zardari than it is upon the militant oratory of Barack Obama.
Cernig @ 27:
I hope you don't stop posting on this and similar subjects. I love this place but your posts raise the tone here and give people a chance to explore a more nuanced view of complex situations outside of the US. I can't say I always agree with you but I'll give you this: you don't bring a knife to a gunfight.
Errol, you concede it "may be true" that I don't like Obama's aggressive rhetoric on Pakistan as I've proven with a link to a post of mine but I shouldn't say so (because this post isn't twice as long while I write all that again).
Ummm...how does that make sense?
I've said he's too aggressive on Iran too. Must I repeat the whole argument, with cites, everytime I write on that subject now? In three months every post will be book length.
Here's how I see it - you came with preconceptions that I supported Obama and Bush's current rhetoric on Pakistan. I don't but you can't shake off your preconception and just admit it so you retreat to illogicality.
I didn't agree with Bush's original head in the sand attitude to Pakistan's proxy use of terror groups either, by the way. I've written dozens of posts over the last four years on the subject saying so. Now that bush agrees with obama, folk (e.g. AlexDem) are willing to assume that anyone who says the ISI uses terror proxies agrees with Bush. That's illogical too. There's a more nuanced long-term position available for those who didn't just notice this issue recently.
Regards, C
PS Peter G, thanks. I don't always agree with you either, but you put forward robust arguments and are willing to consider actual evidence rather than just stand on your preconceptions. Respect.
He's A God!
Teach Me, Teach Me!!!
;)
Hey Cernig,
Can you explain what terror groups and terror proxies are? and How their actions are different than U.S. intervention?
Cernig @ 36:
Mutually agreed then. As far as Obama's rhetoric goes; it is only to be expected. The very word "Iranian" is loaded with malevolent connotations to which any presidential candidate must bow. Pretty much like religion. I believe that Obama is much more likely to pursue a soft power approach in practice. Certainly the situation in Pakistan demands that sort of approach. Under the heading of "regretting what you wished for", can you imagine the situation any president would be in if he tasked the intelligence agencies to find proof of a link between the government of Pakistan and say, Bin Laden and they did. Very awkward moment. A pissing match with a nuclear power, no matter how modest, is not something to look forward to.
Peter G @ 39:
As awkward as knowing that at one time Bin Laden was once backed by the U.S.?
oops I said
"As awkward as knowing that at one time Bin Laden was once backed by the U.S.?"
not Peter G, apologies to all I screwed up the quote scripting.
[Actually, it WAS Peter G to whom you were responding in this case. See his response at 39-Sitemonitor]
Erroll @ 34:
Erroll,
First off, neoliberalism is an economic term, so I'm not sure how it applies here. . .unless you're just using the idea of "new" liberalism to mean someone who's pro-military and who supports an active and engaged form of U.S. foreign policy. Second, the assertion that Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan "are all one and the same" is a dangerous--and incorrect--assumption to make. The situation in Arab Iraq isn't remotely close to the situations in non-Arab Afghanistan and Pakistan. As for unilateral action, I agree, it should be avoided if at all possible. But I'm curious, would you have been against unilateral action in Afghanistan after 9/11? Do we need to build a consensus after a direct attack? Because the same people responsible for that attack are the same people threatening Pakistani government stability.
BobFlash @ 40:
I think we're all pretty conversant with the facts Bob. It's not a bad point to make however. That's always the blowback from playing Realpolitik. Yesterday's "Friends" are today's enemies. Remember when Saddam Hussein was the proxy for challenging Iranian hegemony in the Persian Gulf? What was a few Kurds between friends back then?
BobFlash, sure.
Terror groups are any non-State actor using violence, that you don't support. (If you support them, they magically morph into Freedom Fighters). Terror proxies are groups that will take "commissions" in return for often-clandestine State support. US intervention sometimes uses terror proxies (e.g. the MeK in Iran) but prefers the use of a State military. Did I really need to write this? Of course not. I suspect that instead you were assigning positions to me (i.e. that I support all US interventions) that I don't have.
Regards, C
Peter G @ 43:
Yes that was my point exactly, but if the U.S. wants a war with Pakistan they can easily find a reason or make one up.
I have to catch myself with the word "war". I don't think its likely that America will come out and declare war anymore. Instead I suspect there will just be many more "military engagements" like Iraq, Vietnam.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
PeterG,
Yup
Brandon Friedman @ 42:
Brandon
By the United States engaging in unilateral action in Afghanistan, i.e. sending in its military to hunt down terrorists, that was akin to an elephant trying to crush a flea or using a cannon to kill a bug. A perfect example of overkill [no pun intended]. Bush's and Obama's desire to send in American soldiers is what Andrew Bacevich was referring to in my comment # 14, regarding America's insistence upon continually engaging in small wars. The best way to go after suspected terrorists is to combine police work with intelligence agencies around the world along with the possible assistance of the army of the host country where the terrorists may be located. But if the United States, either under the imperial presidencies of McCain or Obama, continues to insist upon using military force throughout the Middle East and the rest of the world, it will always be resented and hated by those countries that it is using its armies and bombs against.
Speaking of bombs, it is instructive to recall that 500 lb. and 2000 lb. American bombs being dropped from American fighter planes ripped apart 90 Afghan civilians last August, despite the U.S. military claiming that they had supposedly killed 35 militants. The United States continued to insist that they had killed terrorists until it was discovered that an Afghan at the scene had taken pictures of the carnage revealing the dead bodies of the children that the Americans had slaughtered. If that Afghan individual had not taken those pictures one can be certain that the U.S. military would have continued to claim that only "militants", who were apparently disguised as 6 month old infants, had been killed by those bombs.
You claim that there is a distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan. Do you actually believe, as Obama does, that the United States should blithely send in its troops into those countries where it believes that terrorists may be located? Terrorist groups are supposed to be in 50 other countries. Do you propose that the United States use its military to invade those 50 other countries? As I mentioned in comment #14, the U.S. killed 6 Pakistanis recently, 2 of them children, apparently believing that those deaths were justified because they probably thought, to use one of Obama's terms, that they had "actionable intelligence." As all too frequently happens, that intelligence did not prove to be too intelligent. Who will weep for the unnecessary deaths of those 6 Pakistani people? Who will grieve for the unjustifiable deaths of those 90 Afghans who were slaughtered by American bombs? Certainly not Barack Obama, whose bellicose rhetoric will ensure that if he becomes president more innocent people will end up very dead because of his militant foreign policy.
Cernig @ 44:
I'm not sure if you needed to write this, but I'm glad you did. Most of the time, the word "terrorist" is meant as "an enemy, perceived or real, of the U.S." But it is a word that draws out emotion and is often used to invoke fear instead of rational thought. For this reason I think that anybody that uses words like "terrorist" should be asked for a definition.
Thanks, BobFlash. I understand why you asked now - I'm always willing to explain myself. Sometimes too willing :-)
Regards, C
I was under the impression that, like his wife and Musharraf, Zardari is bought and paid for by the United States. The American leaders trust him not in spite of his corruption but because of it. (This information comes from a close Pakistani friend so no ref link.)
With this in mind it looks to me like Zardari is saying exactly what he needs to say. The Americans have push him beyond his influence of control and he's stuck in a very awkward position. On the one hand the people of Pakistan are outraged the Americas have attacked their country so as the leader he needs take action. However if he wants to maintain White House support he has to bow to his U.S. masters.
also ...
"When asked about Obama’s policy (the one that both Bush and Sarah Palin apparently agree with but John Mccain doesn’t) that the US should act unilaterally inside Pakistan if it is unable or unwilling to take action of its own"
Its hard to understand what John McCain's opinion is from one day to the next, but I think that on the day of the debate he agrees with Obama's policy of attacking allied nations, however he feels that Obama should not telegraph this position to the world. ... Yes, he states this as he is telegraphing his position to the world.
Cernig @ 49:
No problem, Im glad things are getting friendly again ;-)
I feel bad about screwing up the quotes. Because of my mistake you are quoted a few times as saying something you did not say. Maybe the mod can fix that for me. Sorry.
[No problem. I think I FIFY-Sitemonitor]
One thing I noticed during this interview with Wuff,
Wuff asked him something typically stupid about his wifes assasination, Zardari's eyes showed some real fury.. If I were Wuff.. I would stay out of Pakistan. :) Just an observation.
I came across this article today from Harpers: "Inside the Pakistan-Taliban Relationship". It's an interview with lahore based author and analyst Ahmed Rashid, who was pointing out the connections when the Bushies didn't want to know.
Key grafs:
Of course, Wendy Chamberlin, Bush's ambassador to Pakistan for years, recently said "One thing we never understood is that India has always been the major threat for Pakistan." ( http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/08/clueless.html )She's a career diplomat and almost certainly knows better - but the Bush administration pretended not to understand for years. It's only with the Indian embassy in Kabul bomb that it became to hot to look the other way entirely.
Regards, C
Login or Register to post comments.