Pakistan

[lord of the mark]

On Clinton and Maliki, the French FM has some interesting things to say:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070827/...ea/france_iraq;_ylt=Ap_Le8BGKhdXceWxgVUKNIpvaA8F




"He said he focused on Iraq to summarize the challenges facing that country and the world, "not to congratulate myself for the Iraqis welcoming this initiative or to answer the objections raised during the visit — in particular the ones coming from the prime minister, to whom I apologized this morning and who might be leaving us shortly."

[Ramo]

What she said was probably true though. Certainly no less true than that failures in Iraq help the Democrats. Thats reality, and a reality a candidate should be prepared for, either way. AFAICT its not likely to hurt her in the general election, its created more of a stir on the left.

It was probably true. Just like the Obama statement about killing civilians in was true. Clinton's is a statement that the left, by and large, agrees with. The only reason why it has created a stir on the left is because they realize it's bad politics. Telling the general electorate that they're dumb enough to be swayed to voting GOP after the fear factor is ramped up isn't a vote-getter. The problem here is with the substance of what she was saying, while you were criticizing Romney's smear of what Obama said.

Its becoming clear to me that the surge has largely done what Kagan said it would, militarily.

You mean, getting us back to pre-surge levels of violence (the AP, BTW, pointed out that during the 2/3 of the year so far, there have been 1,000 more reported civilian deaths due to sectarian violence than all of 2006)? Yay! And there's no telling how much the recent decline in violence should be associated with Summer.

The Kurds are not stupid

That's right. And they know that Da'wa/SIIC can deliver on their major political objectives in a way that any other possible governing coalition couldn't.

There's a very good chance that we're going to have similar alliance in a year and a half, possibly even with Maliki still in the reins. Clinton and Levin's statements are simply bad diplomacy. Trying to work out a feasible withdrawal with a guy that you called for a soft coup against is not the easiest of things.

anyway, back to Pakistan.

It looks like theres been major activity in the talks between Bhutto and the govt.

Yep, that's been happening for a while. Sharif might get into the action too. I still really dislike this whole power-sharing concept. Musharraf is a ****ty excuse for a Democrat, who's helped the military loot the Pakistani economy. He's in a position of weakness, and shouldn't be deferred to anymore (Bhutto mostly seems worried that Perv would declare marshal law if his opponents were adamant about his exclusion). I also don't like Bhutto losing credibility vis a vis Sharif (who, ironically, the PML-Q prefers), something that has a potential of happening.