Third Party & Independents Archives

November 18, 2007

No Accountability for Pakistan Aid

The Bush administration has secretly funded Musharraf to better protect and defend Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and laboratories. About 100 million dollars of American taxpayer’s money has been used for this purpose, sent to Pakistan in the forms of helicopters, night vision goggles, and nuclear detection equipment, according to a NY Times article.

Sounds like a Robin Williams joke. The Pakistani government is so competent, they need American nuclear detection equipment to find their own arsenal. Ought to be comforting news for India.

The rub is, Pakistan's military dictator, Musharraf, won't allow American officials to evidence where and how all this aid is being used, or even whether it is being used at all to protect and defend their nuclear arsenal. Is this another case of the Bush Administration finding ever creative ways to spend tax dollars for profits to the military industrial contractors, while not caring what happens to the purchases after they are made, as has been the case in the billions in Iraq?

And why is 100 million dollar nuclear protection spending secret in the military budget? Make that was. Oops! It's not a secret anymore. The NY Times sat on this story for 3 years at the request of the Bush Administration. When the NY Times advised the Bush Administration it was reopening its investigation of this, the Administration withdrew its request that the NY Times remain mum on the issue.

Was the Bush Administration concerned that the Indians or American people might object to the Pakistani government protecting their nuclear weapons from the Islamic Fundamentalists with our aid? Why the secrecy? There appears to be no strategic national security issue requiring the secrecy for this spending. And there is a pattern here. This 100 million dollars is small compared to the known $10 billion sent to Pakistan, to fight terrorism and terrorists. Not much results or accountability for those billions either.

$10 Billion and years after 9/11, the architect of the 9/11 attacks still operates out of Pakistan. That is a serious lack of accountability for American tax payer spending in Pakistan. This "ally" to America, is now reported to be engaged in torturing and arresting lawyers, judges, journalists, and others protesting for democratic elections with Benazir Bhutto on the ballot, and Musharraf stepping down as military chief. Pres. Bush yesterday said he was taking Pakistani President and military dictator Musharraf at his word that elections would be held early next year. This is Musharraf's third postponement of elections. Would you take this dictator's word if you were President of the U.S.?

This ally, for all our efforts and money, has apprehended a couple of al-Queda operatives, but has left the al-Queda organization in their Pakistani strongholds. Many a scam is based on giving a little, to get a whole lot in return. At $10 billion of American aid, it appears Musharraf has found a sucker with a fat wallet in Pres. Bush.

For all the aid, Pakistan is now less stable, and less predictable, not more. Sounds familiar to the Bush Administration's relationship with Iraq. Big spending, less stability. Prompting MORE spending. Who is profiting at tax payer's expense? With less stability as the outcome of that spending, it is certainly not the American tax payer who is profiting.

And with military contractors disappointed by the only 'moderate' rise in defense spending since 2000 (just close to 4% of federal outlays), the pressure must be on to find new and creative ways to spend tax dollars on military objectives. Apparently, accountability for that spending has no place in their push, or the Bush Administration's yielding to the pressure. But, who is concerned about $10 billion to Pakistan when 1.6 Trillion has been spent on the Iraq decision?

I think it was PT Barnum who said: There is a sucker born every minute. And they all showed up in 2000 and 2004 to elect one of their own to the highest office of the land. PT Barnum would be proud of Pres. GW Bush and General Musharraf.

Posted by David R. Remer at November 18, 2007 06:27 AM
Comment #238645

Everyone knows that Bush prides himself in his ability to judge character. Just look at the people he has chosen for his administration. His gut can see into men’s souls.

Posted by: jlw at November 18, 2007 10:50 AM
Comment #238646

And Bill Clinton was labeled “Slick Willy”. Bush sure as hell can’t spell prestidigitator, and likely doesn’t know what it is, but for sure, he are one!!
This would just piggyback on what jlw said.

Posted by: Jane Doe at November 18, 2007 01:26 PM
Comment #238647

$100 million in Pakistan? $10 billion? $500 billion in Iraq? Yes, but look at just how much we have gained!


Oh, come on. That money was greatly appreciated by the Defense Industry, companies providing privatized armies, Halliburton, not to mention the wonderful effect upon oil prices, which have allowed corporations like Exxon to record the most profitable quarters in the history of capitalism. Don’t forget the United Arab Emirates and US port security!

Hey, the money is well spent. It’s just a matter of perspective and priorities.

Get with the program!

Posted by: phx8 at November 18, 2007 03:04 PM
Comment #238650

Musharrif is accountable like the Shaw of Iran was accountable. His accountability will come back to haunt us like the Shaw’s did.

Bush say’s he has been accountable and he would like to prove it to us but, Cheney classified the accountability, top secret.

Posted by: jlw at November 18, 2007 04:47 PM
Comment #238678


That is a chilling point, one that I never thought about. There are some serious parallels between Pakistan now and Iran in the late 70s, and if that government falls to fundimentalism, imagine the carnage they could cause with a nuclear arsenal. I would expect India to be the first one in the crosshairs. Ugh.


Posted by: leatherankh at November 19, 2007 09:56 AM
Comment #238690

Please tell me about any aid that we give, including to our own citizens, that ANYONE is accountable for.
You make like this never happens.
It’s not a new concept - even for Bush.

Posted by: Marie at November 19, 2007 02:56 PM
Comment #238696

There IS accountability for this and all aid. The American taxpayer. Yours and my wallet.

It is time for revolution my friends.

When the wealthy have bought our government, and airwaves, are slowly destroying our newspapers, and creating religious fundamentalist turmoil for political gain, it is time to revolt.

This post will likely create a homeland security file on me, and if I become visible…it’s off to Gitmo…or Bosnia or some dark cell in Cheney’s labrynth of S&M.

Why are we the only industrialized nation without national healthcare?

Because Britney Spears panties and a lapdog Washington press have stolen it from you. It’s in your CEO’s shower curtains and gold plated sinks.

Americans do not vote. Hillary has already bought the election. But she is the one who fought the insurance companies for healthcare, right. Guess who is a large contributer to her campaign? Ask yourself Why????

It is time for a revolution. Vote. But when that system again fails us…what choices are we left with? Wait until we become a nation of Slaves supporting the wealthy classes? Oh Wait, America has a few hundred years of history of that. I wonder why Immigration is such a big issue. We all benefit from the slave labor don’t we? Maybe its the Irish Mexicans fault things are so messed up. Maybe it’s the Bolsheviks Islamofacist.

Time for another revolution. I about representative Democracy?

Posted by: googlumpugus at November 19, 2007 04:27 PM
Comment #238719

Pakistan is one humongous wildcard sitting in the deck of the future. Its nuclear weapons and technology aren’t of much use against the Pakistani people, and if Musharraf is brought down, perhaps by the very military he commands, civil war in Pakistan becomes a real possibility with dramatic consequences for the entire Middle East, both short and long term.

India and China (among others) have a real stake in insuring that a terrorist organization does not take control in Pakistan. But, they may not be able to prevent it. But, they certainly cannot afford to hesitate to react to it.

Why Americans believe they have some magic wand of leadership ensuring that they alone can resolve such situations which may have no positive resolution is truly a Rubic’s Cube to comprehend. Money, a nuclear arsenal, and a lavish military are not the answer to all problems foreign. There are situations which may best be left to the regional neighborhood to resolve, as opposed to crossing oceans to make them global affairs.

Whether Pakistan is one of those or not, is beyond my informational base to assess. But, my fear is, no one in the American government is considering this option. I certainly see no hint of it in the mutterings of American officials.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 19, 2007 10:19 PM
Comment #238720

googlumpugus, interesting comments. What if America’s 1 trillion dollar annual underground economy is comprised partly of Patriotic citizens who refuse to fund these foreign engagements they know to be boomeranging back on their country?

It would partly explain why the government turns a blind eye to this vast and growing underground economy which never incurs the taxes the rest of us pay. Going after this underground might send voices of protest and reason to the public surface, and that would not be good for governing politicians of any party.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 19, 2007 10:24 PM
Comment #238721

leatherankh, I would expect India to be the first to react without hesitation before the Pakistan crosshairs could even be sighted.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 19, 2007 10:26 PM
Comment #238736


Either way, if someone first strikes, it’s gonna be a huge mess. Doesn’t matter if it’s Pakistan or India. And I don’t want to even think what a tailspin the world economy would go into if one of the fastest growing GDPs out there has a couple of smoking craters where cities once were and a 10 or 20 million dead.


Posted by: leatherankh at November 20, 2007 01:10 AM
Comment #238738

leatherankh, true enough.

But, that is all the more reason America should have maintained the strings attached that we retain and will exercise our right of accountability for how, where, and on what those funds are spent on, to insure OUR money is NOT being spent against our own interests. As has been the case of billions in Iraq, and very likely 100’s of millions in Pakistan.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 20, 2007 03:27 AM
Comment #238752

There is no accountability in this Administration. Never has been, never will be.

USAD has been funneling money to terrorists organizations and all Rice can say is that she will look into it. Fire her ass.

Posted by: jlw at November 20, 2007 10:52 AM
Post a comment