Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Bush pays Pakistan to protect Osama bin Laden

From The Times of India we learn that the U.S. is paying Pakistan $100 million per month to cover their cost of deploying 80, 000 troops along the border with Afghanistan. This is in addition to other aid to Pakistan which brings the total annual payments to approx. $2 billion. Some people are getting upset, but the money keeps flowing.

Here's an excerpt and a link to the full article:

US renting Pak army for $ 100 million a month14 Jul 2007, 0340 hrs IST,CHIDANAND RAJGHATTA,TNN

BlockquoteWASHINGTON: The United States is paying around $ 100 million a month for the deployment of 80,000 Pakistani troops on its border with Afghanistan ostensibly for the war on terrorism, a key US official revealed on Thursday.
The money is meant to be "reimbursements" to Pakistan "for stationing troops and moving them around, and gasoline, and bullets, and training and other costs that they incur as part of the war on terror," US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, told a Congressional panel.
"That's a lot of money," Boucher admitted before the panel about what amounts to a $ 1.2 billion per year reimbursement. "I don't know if it comes to the whole amount of their expenses, but we support their expenses, yes."
In all, US aid to Pakistan is now close to $ 2 billion a year, according to figures provided by Boucher, the top U S diplomat for South Asia.
Besides, the $ 1.2 billion reimbursements, Washington also gave Pakistan an addition $ 738 million in 2006 in assistance programs, including $ 300 million in separate military aid. The overall figure would put Pakistan on par with Israel and Egypt -- with a higher component ($ 1.5 billion) in overall military assistance -- as the top three recipients of US aid.
The Pakistan allocations are being met with deep misgivings and scepticism in Congress and strategic circles where there are growing demands on the Bush administration to tie aid for Islamabad's military to its performance and delivery in the war on terror.
"There are far more jihadists, extremist madrassas, Al Qaida operatives, Taliban safe havens and international terrorist training camps than Pakistani government officials are willing to admit. Is our current aid package, one in which we are providing at least 10 times more for military aid than for basic education assistance, in the best long-term interest of United States national security?" asked Congressman John Tierney, who chaired the hearing that for focused exclusively on the Pakistan question. [...]Blockquote

What the hell, you say--we waste billions all the time all over the world, so what's the big deal?

Here's the big deal! Bush has known since 2005 that Osama bin Laden is sheltering (thriving, actually) in Pakistan, and WHERE, but Pervez Musharraf will not grant permission to the U.S. to enter Pakistani territory to get him.

And George Bush respects sovereign borders sooo much that he will not go in after bin Laden until Pakistan says "OK, c'mon in"?

What an overflowing crock of "bushwa" that is. This is the guy who had no qualms about sending troops into Iraq uninvited, and for NO legitimate reason, but won't go after "Arch-Enemy #1"? If not, why are we even there?

In my view, it's all for show. Invading Afghanistan was the widely-supported U.S. response to 9/11, and was the opening salvo in Bush's "War on Terror". However, Bush planned from the start to make it a PERPETUAL war, and use that as the rationale for his blatantly unconstitutional power grabs and illegal invasions. He is refusing to go after bin Laden because to do so would make it harder for him to continue to justify the concept of "perpetual" war to the American people. If he pinches the head off of the AlQaeda pimple, he'll effectively be cutting off his own head, so he won't do it.

And so Afghanistan is sliding into chaos with the Taliban sweeping back into control, troops are continuing to be sacrificed, money continues to drain from our Treasury for the war profiteers, and Musharraf gets paid $2 billion/yr to protect bin Laden. Sweet deal, huh?

Here are the details from Pensito Review:

If Congress pinched off George Bush's head with impeachment proceedings, they would have destroyed the worlds biggest terrorist organization and "won" the war on terror at very low cost.

No comments: