The Belgravia Dispatch: Pervez Hearts Honest Abe

November 05, 2007

Pervez Hearts Honest Abe

...my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government--that nation--of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law, life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it.

President Abraham Lincoln, as quoted by General Pervez Musharraf in his speech to the Pakistani nation declaring a state of emergency (go to approximately the 4:50 minute mark):

And yet, as foreign diplomats recount, the General seemed (in a meeting with the diplomatic corps) much more consumed by domestic political enemies than the scourge of Islamist terrorists destabilizing the polity:

At the meeting, the general primarily railed against his political opponents, with special venom reserved for the Supreme Court. When asked by a diplomat to describe specific plans to crack down on terrorists, General Musharraf gave only a vague answer.
“He effectively dodged the question and turned to the military presence in the room and asked them to organize a briefing for ambassadors,” said one of the Western diplomats. “It wasn’t very clear in terms of what was actually being done.”

The second Western diplomat said: “There was serious concern that terrorism and security was not front and center. What was really amazing was him going on and on and on about how bad the judiciary was.”

Le plus ca change.

Posted by Gregory at November 5, 2007 11:34 PM

Comments

Bush will eat this stuff up. A guy, a 'regular' guy, just doing the best he can against all comers, in order to save the nation, and the people, he loves. And so the 'regular guy', doing the best he can, sets forth.....after the most liberal elements in his nation. Yep, there is a real model here that some may learn from. Yep, Bush will eat this kind of appeal up. Cheney even more. And Addington/Yoo crowd the most.

I hope one day they use this defense at their well earned trials. Better yet, at their sentencing.

Posted by: jonst at November 6, 2007 08:52 AM | Permalink to this comment

If the $10 billion dollars in (mostly) military aid we send to Pakistan isn't being used to fight the Taliban (and its Pakistani brethren) in the tribal areas, why are we providing that military aid?

Posted by: p_lukasiak at November 6, 2007 09:26 AM | Permalink to this comment

Is this the beginning of the end of Musharraf? Is turning loose the army on Pakistan's lawyers the same as in 1963 when Diem, the American-created dictator of the American-created country called South Vietnam turned loose his American-trained Special Forces on Buddhist Monks? If Musharraf is overthrown like Diem and the Shah of Iran were, who is likely to come after him? The Sunni Islamic Militants or someone more moderate like Bhutto?

Note: One big difference between Musharraf and Diem & the Shah is that Musharraf may be backed by the US, but he is not an American creation like Diem was & he does not owe his being in power to the US like the Shah did. Whether this will be enough for Musharraf to survive and continue in power remain to be seen.

Posted by: David All at November 6, 2007 05:59 PM | Permalink to this comment

An islamic dictator with real WMD harboring Taliban extremists. Government of the islamofascists by the islamofascists for the islamofascists. No oil but.

Posted by: AlanDownunder at November 6, 2007 10:55 PM | Permalink to this comment

Ok, Alan, where is the correlation?

The US supports the following terrorist "Islamofascist" regimes -- Saudia Arabia and Pakistan. But the first has oil, and the second does not.

So the US desire to support dictators, opppose democracy, and support terrorists, is not correlated to oil.

The US opposed the dictatorship in Iraq, which was secular and anti-"Islamofascist".

So the US supports a "Islamofascist" dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, and opposed one in Iraq.

So US support for dictatorship is not correlated to "Islamofascism".

Posted by: Jose Ciudadano at November 7, 2007 07:07 PM | Permalink to this comment

	« The Highs and Lows... \| Main \| An Edifice of Half-Truths, Lies & Obfuscations » November 05, 2007 Pervez Hearts Honest Abe ...my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government--that nation--of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law, life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it. President Abraham Lincoln, as quoted by General Pervez Musharraf in his speech to the Pakistani nation declaring a state of emergency (go to approximately the 4:50 minute mark): And yet, as foreign diplomats recount, the General seemed (in a meeting with the diplomatic corps) much more consumed by domestic political enemies than the scourge of Islamist terrorists destabilizing the polity: At the meeting, the general primarily railed against his political opponents, with special venom reserved for the Supreme Court. When asked by a diplomat to describe specific plans to crack down on terrorists, General Musharraf gave only a vague answer. “He effectively dodged the question and turned to the military presence in the room and asked them to organize a briefing for ambassadors,” said one of the Western diplomats. “It wasn’t very clear in terms of what was actually being done.” The second Western diplomat said: “There was serious concern that terrorism and security was not front and center. What was really amazing was him going on and on and on about how bad the judiciary was.” Le plus ca change. Posted by Gregory at November 5, 2007 11:34 PM Comments Bush will eat this stuff up. A guy, a 'regular' guy, just doing the best he can against all comers, in order to save the nation, and the people, he loves. And so the 'regular guy', doing the best he can, sets forth.....after the most liberal elements in his nation. Yep, there is a real model here that some may learn from. Yep, Bush will eat this kind of appeal up. Cheney even more. And Addington/Yoo crowd the most. I hope one day they use this defense at their well earned trials. Better yet, at their sentencing. Posted by: jonst at November 6, 2007 08:52 AM \| Permalink to this comment If the $10 billion dollars in (mostly) military aid we send to Pakistan isn't being used to fight the Taliban (and its Pakistani brethren) in the tribal areas, why are we providing that military aid? Posted by: p_lukasiak at November 6, 2007 09:26 AM \| Permalink to this comment Is this the beginning of the end of Musharraf? Is turning loose the army on Pakistan's lawyers the same as in 1963 when Diem, the American-created dictator of the American-created country called South Vietnam turned loose his American-trained Special Forces on Buddhist Monks? If Musharraf is overthrown like Diem and the Shah of Iran were, who is likely to come after him? The Sunni Islamic Militants or someone more moderate like Bhutto? Note: One big difference between Musharraf and Diem & the Shah is that Musharraf may be backed by the US, but he is not an American creation like Diem was & he does not owe his being in power to the US like the Shah did. Whether this will be enough for Musharraf to survive and continue in power remain to be seen. Posted by: David All at November 6, 2007 05:59 PM \| Permalink to this comment An islamic dictator with real WMD harboring Taliban extremists. Government of the islamofascists by the islamofascists for the islamofascists. No oil but. Posted by: AlanDownunder at November 6, 2007 10:55 PM \| Permalink to this comment Ok, Alan, where is the correlation? The US supports the following terrorist "Islamofascist" regimes -- Saudia Arabia and Pakistan. But the first has oil, and the second does not. So the US desire to support dictators, opppose democracy, and support terrorists, is not correlated to oil. The US opposed the dictatorship in Iraq, which was secular and anti-"Islamofascist". So the US supports a "Islamofascist" dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, and opposed one in Iraq. So US support for dictatorship is not correlated to "Islamofascism". Posted by: Jose Ciudadano at November 7, 2007 07:07 PM \| Permalink to this comment		About Belgravia Dispatch Gregory Djerejian, an international lawyer and business executive, comments intermittently on global politics, finance & diplomacy at this site. The views expressed herein are solely his own and do not represent those of any organization. More About the Author Email the Author Recent Entries Lunch w/ the FT... Robert Strange McNamara Biden on Israel/Iran Mea Culpa (Part II) Something of A Mea Culpa Search Search this site: The News Financial Times New York Times Wall Street Journal The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation Real Clear Politics Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs Across the Aisle Marc Ambinder American Footprints The American Scene Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Washington Monthly James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Huffington Post Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Marc Lynch Josh Marshall Progressive Realist Obsidian Wings George Packer Gideon Rachman Andrew Sullivan Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy Steve Walt James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Foreign Affairs Commentariat Foreign Affairs Foreign Policy Le Monde Diplomatique National Interest Law & Finance Barron's Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog Seeking Alpha The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Think Tanks AEI Baker Institute Brookings Carnegie Cato CFR CSIS Heritage IISS Intl Crisis Group USIP Security Janes Fed. American Scientists Defense Tech Global Security Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Books American Scholar LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street Arts & Letters Daily TNR's The Book The City Curbed Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice Epicurean Corner Wine Terroirs The Burgundy Report Richard Kelley Andrew Jefford Archives Browse Archives Syndicate this site: Belgravia Dispatch Maintained by: www.vikeny.com Powered by

	© 2010 Belgravia Dispatch