Category: Politics

Check out this new ad for Obama from MoveOn.org

A closer look at present-day Pakistani politics will reveal a strange, ironic similarity to a run-of-the -mill Bollywood flick.

Former Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, reluctantly supports the ruling party mostly to keep his old nemesis, President Musharraf at bay. Ideally, he would like to be in charge and have his revenge on President Musharraf. While in power, he claims to have been betrayed by then General Musharraf and forced into exile. Now he is back to his motherland, thanks to the people of Pakistan. But uppermost in his mind is “revenge” – revenge for the wrong done to him and his family. His first and sometime only goal (usurping complete political power coming a close second) is to send Musharraf to prison and destroy him for good.

President Musharraf is hanging on to power in the fervent hope that Zardari and Sharif self-destruct, thereby facilitating his return. Thankfully for him, he is still best friends with a certain cowboy from Texas who has big bucks, weapons and armies at his disposal.

To complicate matters, the judges whom Musharraf fired are rearing to return. Zaradri and Sharif both have outstanding cases against them which could possibly send them both to prison. Understandably, they can’t seem to agree on the return of the judges despite a groundswell of support for it among the masses. Unfortunately, the current Prime Minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) is mostly a front for Mr. Asif Zardari, widower of Ms. Benazir Bhutto and can hardly dream of having his way even if he so wished to.

Bin Laden, the notorious international terrorist and his men are gunning for all three. He and his henchman are holed out in the mountains bordering Afghanistan. They have one overriding goal, to destroy the cowboy from Texas and his ilk. (Cracking his whip you can almost hear him booming, “Kitne Aadmi the!”)

And then there is Imran Khan , the eternally handsome, aristocratic playboy turned politician aspiring to clean up Pakistani politics. Between hanging out with the Godrej family, the who is who of India and the rest of the world, he does find time to make an occasional protest.

Then there is A.Q Khan the nuclear scientist who many believe was scape-goat-ed, betrayed and demonized by President Musharraf. On the one hand he too seeks revenge and wants to come clean before his death. On the other hand, there are international goons and spies from Iran to North Korea hovering around him for more “secret formulas”.

Last but not the least, there are billions of dollars in cash that the US is pumping into Pakistan. The Pakistan army thus far had a strangle hold on this liberal cash flow. With the democratically elected government in charge this bounty has to now be shared between the army, the ISI and the civilian government authorities.

Caught in the middle of all this (bless their hearts!) are the Pakistani people trying to lead their everyday lives in the midst of this unfortunate mayhem.

It is hard to imagine that this is not a Bollywood plot! There are villains, goons and terrorists chasing each other around in an eternal cat and mouse game. There is money, there are nuclear arsenals and secret nuclear formulas, there is violence, back-bitting, treachery and lots of hard cold cash.  A few item numbers can be thrown in around the Imran Khan character to round off the Bollywood formula. If Imran were younger and one of the others involved had a daughter to round of his love interest….O, please I should stop now! (Btw, considering that this plot is unfolding in public domain on a daily basis and there are easily 10 characters to play, perhaps Kamalahasan would have done well to adapt this theme for his Dasavatharam !:-).

On a more serious note, there is little doubt that the current situation in Pakistan sounds very much like a familiar Bollywood script, except that the conventional happy ending seems next to impossible.  In fact, it is a complete mystery as to where Pakistan is headed. Unfortunately, none of the current powers-that-be appear to know either.

Across the border, Indian politics is no better as the final climax of the trust vote is just round the corner.

Ok, here comes yet another book from someone closely involved with the White House. With this book former Bush White House press scretary Scott McClellan joins the ranks of George Tenet, David Kuo, Richard Clarke and others. It is hard to take such folks too seriously because you never know what their real motivations are. At the same time it would be unwise to disregard such books completely. Clearly “mistakes were made” and when they were made Mr. McClellan was a part of it. Trying to come clean now doesn’t absolve him of all the responsibility. He was obviously not just another insider. As the public face of the White House one could argue that he should have been privy to most of the decisions prior to them being made. Waiting for so long to come out with his version can be construed as being somewhat disingenuous. At the same time it can be “positioned” as wanting to make peace with oneself. In any case, it is sad to see seeming loyalists turn against the boss after the fact.

Irrespective of Mr. McClellan’s motivations the Bush White House has yet another media crisis to deal with. Not surprisingly, the White House criticized the book. Dana Perino, White House Press Secretary said, “Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House,” she said. “For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad. This is not the Scott we knew.”

Expect Karl Rove and the Fox Network to go after Scott McClellan in a big way over the next several days and weeks while the so-called liberal media goes to town with specific interpretations of various excerpts as the book hits the stands.

The media now has a new story to slice and dice. McClellan will no doubt sell a lot of books and enjoy the limelight. Unfortunately, success of such books is likely to lead to more such books and the same cycle will carry on with the media. It is questionable as to whether these books serve any larger purpose than to keep the cycle of controversy going in Washington and making some public figures richer than they already are. Thankfully, with the elections round the corner and the democratic party nomination mess in the offing, I suspect that this story is unlikely to stay around for long.

Senator’s Obama’s view that as President of the United States he would be willing to talk to so-called enemies of the US seems to have remained a topic of controversy. First it was Senator Clinton who termed it as “naive“. Now we have conservative columnists lamenting that Senator Obama’s gaffe has become policy. There are really two issues here. One, what is Senator Obama’s actual stand on the issue? Second, should the US should be willing to talk to purported problem states?

Firstly, Senator Obama deserves credit for at least being consistent. Just as he has always been against the war in Iraq, this is another issue where he has been very consistent and thankfully, different and bold. When asked about Cuba in an earlier debate he clearly pointed out that he was against the mindset that meeting with the US President was a privilege that had to be earned. It’s heartening to learn that there is at least one candidate in the race who fervently believes in talking to one and all. Clearly, without a doubt there is no ambiguity about Senator Obama’s position on the issue.

Another recent article pointed out that President Kennedy had a similar mindset and ended up having a rough meeting with the Russians where Krushchev lectured him. The ultimately objective when world leaders meet is often world peace among other things. Besides, considering all the harm the US has caused around the world (along with the good) shouldn’t there at least be room for other world leaders to vent their frustrations, anger and disappointment in close doors meetings with the US President? It is only fair that the US President give other world leaders a hearing even if it risked getting a earful. At a minimum it will send the message that the US is willing to listen as opposed to always lecturing the world on freedom and democracy when it suits the US. The widely accepted reality after eight of President Bush is that the US is significantly disliked all around the world and there is plenty of appeasement (yes appeasement!) that the US could indulge in across the globe. The fear that the US President might be lectured to because of the precedent from over 40 years ago is irrelevant and out of place in today’s world.

On a related note, it helps to realize that we are living in an age where the bulk of the US population is extremely active on the Internet and the rest of the world is following suit. The Youtube, Facebook and Google generations live a life of near complete openness and seemingly inherent equality. This generation (and possibly future generations) talks about everything under the sun to everyone on their blogs, forums and emails. They hold mass conversations online, give and take advice from all and sundry from across the planet. It is ironical that is in this day and age US elected representatives and so called thought leaders in the media are debating over who the US President should talk to or not talk to! As Fareed Zakaria points out, “the world has shifted from anti-Americanism to post-Americanism”. It’s about time the US got off its high horse and talked actively to countries around the world while they still want to talk to the US!

How out of tune with the future can John McCain, Hillary Clinton and others get? At a minimum Senator Obama deserves all the credit for at least bringing an independent forward-looking view to the discussion.

Check out this hilarious video of a guy who wakes up after a seven year coma!

John Edwards’ soon to be endorsement of Senator Obama is a good example of too little too late. It seems obvious that Senator Edwards was waiting to make sure he picks the ultimate likely nominee to back. His fear of backing the wrong candidate probably resulted in him waiting too long to make the call. His endorsement so late in the game comes across as an opportunistic move to do just enough (so as not to be deemed insignificant) as opposed to providing genuine whole-hearted backing. Not surprisingly as the WSJ reported:

People close to Mr. Edwards have said that he sees deep flaws in both Sens. Clinton and Obama. He thinks Sen. Obama lacks the fire to wage war against special interests in Washington, and objects that Sen. Clinton takes money from lobbyists and is part of the inside-the-beltway aristocracy, which he considers to be the problem with American politics.

From the Obama camps’ perspective, this endorsement would have come in handy prior to the West Virginia primary (or to help divert media attention at the height of the Rev Wright controversy) so some of Senator Clinton’s “hard-working white Americans who had not completed college” might have been convinced to switch camps. At the least, he could have helped narrow the embarrassing margin in West Virgina had he campaigned actively for Senator Obama. In any case, despite the delay in making the endorsement, it is a win-win situation for both men. From Senator Obama’s point of view, this is one more step in his claim to unite the Democratic party. As for Senator Edwards, this move was probably just enough for him to remain relevant and perhaps have a role to play in the event of an Obama Presidency.

The victory in Pennsylvania is being hailed by Hillary fans as “turning the tide”. The victory might be a turning of the tide, but unfortunately it is the wrong turn. It is the turn that saw the Clintons resorting to Karl Rove style TV ads. It is the turn that helps spread and re-inforce a slew of myths such as: white working class Americans will not vote for Obama, America is not ready for a black President, Obama can’t win big states and can’t survive the Republican attack machine, to name a few. It is the turn that saw the worst of Senator Clinton on display in her desperate attempt to claim the nomination, the claim that Republicans will throw mud at Obama were he to become the nominee and so anything goes, not withstanding. It is the turn that saw the Clintons and their team cozying up to Fox News, Hannity & Colmess and the like.

Can it get any worse? It certainly looks like it can.

It is obvious that the Republicans love to see Hillary as the candidate because they clearly fear an Obama candidacy. Not to mention that her recent George Bush-like “Obliterate Iran” comment targeted and timed for the Pennsylvania polls (a clear low point in her campaign) helped her win the hearts of many on the Republican side. When confronted with such questions in the past she has been for more restrained by often stating that she “does not want to deal with hypotheticals”. Her recent tactics confirm that the divisive, false propaganda, “Karl Rove style swift boating” isn’t a prerogative of only the Republicans. As this primary campaign drags on those tactics that gave the world eight years of George Bush might soon pale in comparison as the Clintons go all out to win the elusive nomination.

At the moment the Democratic party leadership is aimlessly watching from the sidelines as this primary battle continues and the Republicans enjoy the show to the utmost. The only bad news for the Republicans these days is that John McCain has to try real hard to be in the news. Ironically in an attempt to not be forgotten by the media and the electorate he named his recent tour of small towns as “tour of forgotten cities”.

The cliched mantra of “you snooze, you lose” seems like an apt reminder for the Democratic party elders to get their act together and bring this race to a closure before further damage is inflicted on the party’s chances this November.

After a long break, another debate. Despite frequent back and forth (unlike past debates) between the candidates, I found myself struggling with debate fatigue. I couldn’t get myself to focus. I had to return to read the transcript to recall the exact words spoken. There wasn’t really much of a debate per se. Instead there was just constant attempts to gain political mileage by jockeying and trying to score some points.

ABCNews Tries to Make Up for It’s Previous Debate

ABCNews decided to not show the debate live on the West coast! It took an obscure link on Google (that didn’t work in Firefox) to see the debate live on the web. To make matters worse the live feeds appeared in a tiny window that could not be re-sized. It appeared as though ABCNews had decided to play tough even before the debate started. Likewise the moderators, Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos appeared to have arrived with a pre-planned intent to attack Senator Obama probably to fight back the accusation from last time that ABCNews moderators were soft on Senator Obama and hard on Senator Clinton.

Despite Senator Obama’s best efforts to drive home the point that beating relatively insignificant issues to death and playing politics — “I do think it’s important to recognize that it’s not helping that person who’s sitting at the kitchen table who is trying to figure out how to pay the bills at the end of the month.” is of little use when it comes to addressing issues of the people, the moderators continued to do precisely that. They pounded away at Senator Obama on his flag pin, Rev. Wright, and his acquaintances with questionable records, among other issues. Senator Obama responded (rightly so) with — ” So this kind of game, in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, is somehow — somehow their ideas could be attributed to me — I think the American people are smarter than that. They’re not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn’t.”

In short, ABCNews did a terrible job of raising the level of discussion in this debate. Instead they stuck to the themes that are likely to generate press and rake up controversies. It remains to be seen over the next few days whether this objective is achieved.

Hillary Goes Flat Out

The other most noticeable fact of the debate was that Senator Clinton seemed to have decided that this was her last chance. She gave it all she had, held nothing back, and attacked at every slightest opportunity. Her approach indicated a certain degree of desperation but she displayed none of it. I suspect though that she came away looking a lot less likable than she ever did.  Senator Obama on the other hand appeared to be mostly on the defensive as the moderators and Senator Clinton seemed to “pile on” to him at every instance.

The recent Senate hearing with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker (or the Surge Twins as section of the press seems to refer to them) did little to re-assure Americans about anything. But it certainly helped confirm what the public had inferred for the most part. Here are some of my takeaways from the hearings.

1. There is no end in sight. (“We’ll know when we get there, and we don’t know when we’re going to get there.” Senator Evan Bayh)
2. Things are better than before but not better enough to start withdrawing troops. (We haven’t turned any corners. We haven’t seen any lights at the end of the tunnel.” General Petraeus)
3. These two gentlemen can’t commit to when troop withdrawals can begin. (“The Champagne bottle has been pushed to the back of the refrigerator. And the progress, while real, is fragile and is reversible,” General Petraeus.)
4. With the strong support of the President there is going to be no change until his term runs out. (“The top American military commander in Iraq could have all the time he needs before reducing American forces there further,” President Bush.)
5. Despite the awful situation in Iraq, politicians in Washington can’t bury their partisanship. (“We’re no longer staring into the abyss of defeat, and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success,” Mr. McCain said.)
6. The Congress can’t do anything about the present situation except wait and watch and enjoy the limelight at hearings and issue tough talk statements in the press.
   
7. There is no point blaming these gentlemen or calling them names (thankfully MoveOn didn’t have an ad this time around!), they are just doing there jobs of dealing with a mess that they had little to do with creating.
   
8. Sadly, there is going to be no respite for the already overstretched US armed forces.
9. The US can’t get out of Iraq until it defines what it means by success in Iraq as rightly pointed out by Senator Obama (See, the problem I have is if the definition of success is so high — no traces of al Qaeda and no possibility of reconstitution; a highly effective Iraqi government; a democratic, multi-ethnic, multi- sectarian, functioning democracy; no Iranian influence, at least not of the kind that we don’t like — then that portends the possibility of us staying for 20 or 30 years.If on the other hand, our criteria is a messy, sloppy status quo, but there’s not, you know, huge outbreaks of violence; there’s still corruption, but the country’s struggling along but it’s not a threat
   to its neighbors and it’s not an al Qaeda base; that seems, to me, an achievable goal within a measurable time frame.)
10. The US invaded Iraq and destroyed Iran’s biggest enemy. The administration promised to find WMDs and found none. There was no Al Qaeda before the US went to Iraq and now they are there in plenty. All the focus is now on Iraq while Afghanistan is getting worse by the day. Despite this deplorable state of affairs, if John McCain wins the White House, the US will continue in America for many years to come (as he himself has mentioned many a time). And if this were to happen the US will be alienating countries around the world who might still willing to co-operate with America to help extricate itself from this awful mess. Voting a Democrat to the White House will at least signal to the world that the American public is serious about a fresh look at its Iraq policy with a strong intent to withdraw its troops.