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		Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch "Awake" --New York Times "Always-Worth Reading" --Andrew Sullivan Recent Entries A Brief (and Belated) Word on Chas Freeman What Would Real--Rather Than Rhetorical--Change in U.S. Foreign Policy Look Like? Of War, and Tent Hospitals The Obama Imperative Some Addt'l Thoughts Re: Georgia McCain: Let's Compound the Blunder! Georgia On My Mind Should We De-Emphasize The Terror Threat in U.S. Foreign Policy? (Very Belated) In-House News Straits of Hormuz Search Search this site: About the Author Email the Author English Language Media New York Times Financial Times 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 WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics Foreign Affairs Commentariat Foreign Affairs Foreign Policy Le Monde Diplomatique National Interest Non-English Language Press Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs Across the Aisle Marc Ambinder America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Law & Finance Barron's Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog 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 LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street Arts & Letters Daily The City Curbed Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice Archives March 2009 January 2009 November 2008 August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 Syndicate this site: Belgravia Dispatch Maintained by: www.vikeny.com Powered by

	© 2007 Belgravia Dispatch