See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On July 6th, 2007 at 9:07 am, ajmontana said:

   Must be their version of “catch and release” geez

2. #2
   On July 6th, 2007 at 9:29 am, malkin_fan said:

   “President Musharraf this morning approved a general amnesty for all those still holed up in the Lal Masjid, the “Red Mosque” of the capital that has been caught up in a firefight with the Pakistani army since 4 July.”

   When did Trent Lott get elected to the Pakistan government?

3. #3
   On July 6th, 2007 at 9:31 am, josetheguerilla said:

   Its curtains for President Musharraf, all the jihadis are going to come out of the shadows now.

4. #4
   On July 6th, 2007 at 9:33 am, JammieWearingFool said:

   Shots fired at Musharraf’s plane

5. #5
   On July 6th, 2007 at 9:36 am, JammieWearingFool said:

   Ooops, hit submit too fast. Was going to say Musharraf’s days may be numbered, and if that is the case, having Islamists with nukes is the nightmare scenario.

6. #6
   On July 6th, 2007 at 9:58 am, captivated_dem said:

   If Pakistan can grant amnesty to jihadists, the US,surely, can grant amnesty to all of our hardworking illegals.

7. #7
   On July 6th, 2007 at 10:17 am, walterc said:

   Must be a graduate of the Bush/Kennedy/Mcain school of government.

   In the words of Forrest Gump, “Stupid is as Stupid does”.

8. #8
   On July 6th, 2007 at 10:29 am, CatoRenasci said:

   The most important thing is to make sure we secure the Pakistani nukes when the Jihadis take over.

9. #9
   On July 6th, 2007 at 10:49 am, Laree said:

   I have to think Musharraf is being advised by someone to take this approach, they give them this Amnesty they can be monitored and followed around. There might be intelligence to be gathered from where these people meet and frequent, including other communications. In the meantime domestically he looks like he is being a reasonable leader.

10. #10
    On July 6th, 2007 at 10:50 am, Rick Moran said:

    Things are deteriorating rapidly in Pakistan – a country with 60 nuclear weapons – and there doesn’t appear to be anything Musharraf can do to stop it.

    The only thing that can happen now to save the situation is for Musharraf to resign and have new leadership take the reins. But who? The secular democrats led by former Prime Minister Bhutto are corrupt and weak – that’s why the army keeps overthrowing them. Besides, there are elections tentatively scheduled for December and it looks to me like Musharraf won’t be able to hang on that long.

    The radical Muslims will not have a chance to govern the country. The army will see to that. Secular in outlook and somewhat pro-western (the rest of the country is radically anti-American), the Pakistani army would rather place another military dictator in office than see the Taliban or other al-Qaeda sympathizer with their fingers on the nuclear trigger.

    But will they have a choice? Pakistan’s alliance with the US has really turned domestic politics in that country upside down. It could be that the army will have to compromise and allow some religous elements into government. This would be dangerous due to the powerful intelligence service’s (ISI) sympathy and support for the Taliban both in Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is not beyond imagining that the ISI could make life extremely difficult for any non-Islamic government that would emerge in the post-Musharraf era.

11. #11
    On July 6th, 2007 at 3:47 pm, Boomer said:

    If Musharraf and his Government fall it will be interesting to see what will happen to keep the Jihadist from getting their hands on some nukes. With the head-in-the-sand attitude of the Western Democracies towards the threat with all the PC BS this could very ugly very quick.

12. #12
    On July 6th, 2007 at 4:04 pm, bipartisancomplainer said:

    The nuke situation is scary! But I also think it might be easier to deal with Pakistan if they were more clearly an enemy. We’ve had to stand behind Musharraf as he handles the delicate balance there, causing us to not have much access to the hiding places of our real enemies. If something like the Taliban was in charge, we could deal with them much more ruthlessly.

13. #13
    On July 6th, 2007 at 4:29 pm, twoninerkilo said:

    As long as it was a “comprehensive” amnesty Boosh will play along, an keep giving that idiot more tax payer dollars.

14. #14
    On July 7th, 2007 at 7:13 am, Dandapani said:

    We are worried about Iran getting the BOMB, when Pakistan already does? Pakistan is one heart beat away from becoming an Islamofacist country with nuclear capability. Be afraid, be very afraid!

15. #15
    On July 7th, 2007 at 11:01 am, ThackerAgency said:

    I agree with bipartisan complainer that we need to deal with a clear enemy in Pakistan. The problem with the situation at the Red Mosque is that now apologists like the guy on the factor last night use it to show that ‘not all muslims are on the same side’.

    The fact is Musharaff brought this on himself with the treaty in the tribal areas last year. This is the end result of appeasement – you have to fight eventually because they won’t quit.

    The reason we aren’t as concerned with Pakistan’s nukes is that they need their nukes as a deterrent to long-time enemy India. Iran’s sole purpose for getting nuclear weapons is to wipe out Israel which is unacceptable. Protection of the state of Israel is also the reason we fight in the middle east – but not so much Africa or N. Korea. However that reasoning wouldn’t go over so well internationally or domestically so they’d rather just have people assume that we fight in the middle east because of oil.

16. #16
    On July 7th, 2007 at 3:53 pm, Bob Sprinkle said:

    I think the US should make it known that if the US is hit with a nuke attack that there are several nations that will receive “automatic” nuclear responses from us. meaning their country would be as Iran says wiped off the map.

17. #17
    On July 8th, 2007 at 3:05 pm, doriangrey said:

    If Pakistan falls to radical Islamic Extremists my guess is that the first nation to start planting mushrooms in Pakistan will be India.

    Many of you are thinking that India wants no part of this because any action on India’s part would only invite terrorist attacks in India.

    The problem with thinking this way is that India is already suffering those car bombing suicide bombing Muslim extremist attacks and has been for quite some time.

    This thinking also ignores the basic fact that India is and did in fact become a nuclear power directly as a result of Pakistan’s development of nuclear weapons.

    Like the United States and the former Soviet Union India and Pakistan have gone through their own nuclear weapons escalation and are currently in the middle of their own cold war.

    India did not and would not sit idly by while Pakistan developed nuclear weapons and the likelihood that India would sit idly by as those nuclear weapon fell into the hands of Islamic extremists whom India has far less reason to trust than they did the secular Pakistani government makes no sense at all.

    New Delhi has zero vested interest in allowing Islamic extremists, who are already responsibly for a very substantial amount of death and destruction in India to possibly obtain the means to blackmail New Delhi or worse set off a nuke in India.

    Islamabad and New Delhi have been just inches away from a nuclear war with each other for a couple of decades now and radical Islamic extremists overthrowing the secular Pakistani government is probably the one thing most likely to actually trigger a nuclear pre-emptive strike by New Delhi.

    The real question regarding the destabilization of Pakistan isn’t who is going to sit idly by while Islamic extremists ransack Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, but which of the nuclear powers are going to strike Pakistan first to prevent that from happening and which of the nuclear power are going to raise holy hell after the fact, possibly leading to a world wide exchange of nuclear weapons.

    In other words the real question isn’t will Pakistan get nuked if radical Islamic extremists overthrow the secular Pakistani government, its strategically speaking a given that it will.

    The real question is…How will China and Russia react when it does happen?

18. #18
    On July 8th, 2007 at 7:19 pm, USpace said:

    I hope the good people of Pakistan defeat these Taliban types or they will be finished as a ‘real’ country…

    absurd thought -
    God of the Universe says
    let extremists rule

    they will drag your country
    back to seventh century

    .
    absurd thought -
    God of the Universe wants
    extremists to have NUKES

    they are looking for fast track
    to seventy-two virgins
    .

19. #19
    On July 9th, 2007 at 12:44 am, ThackerAgency said:

    Dorian, Actually it’s kinda the other way around. Pakistan developed nukes in response to India’s nuclear program.

    India’s nuclear program is much more advanced than Pakistans and India has a lot more bombs than Pakistan.

    We slapped sanctions on India after they detonated their first bomb in the 90′s because in our eyes they ‘violated the nuclear non-proliferation treaty’. So actually it is only recently that the US considers India a friend because of that.

    Now your point is interesting in that someone with a more sinister thought might suggest that a nation like ours could theoretically nuke Pakistan and blame it on India – ooooooh I didn’t just say that. shhhhhhhhhh

20. #20
    On July 9th, 2007 at 12:31 pm, doriangrey said:

    ThackerAgency

    ooooooh I didn’t just say that. shhhhhhhhhh

    Nudge nudge. Snap snap. Grin grin, wink wink, say no more?

21. #21
    On July 9th, 2007 at 2:02 pm, Rick Moran said:

    Thacker:

    India detonated its first nuke in 1974 and were not signatories to the non proliferation treaty. We didn’t even slap their wrist at the time because India was in a border dispute with China at the time.

    When Pakistan detonated its weapon in 1998 (following India’s second nuke test just weeks earlier which was designed to co-opt the Pakistani test everyone knew was coming), we applied limited sanctions targeted at the nuke programs of both countries. Sanctions against both countries have since been lifted.

    Pakistan would know in hours where the bomb that hit them actually came from. Each country’s nukes have a radiological “signature” that is almost impossible to duplicate because it depends on the exact ratio of elements used to build the bomb and bomb casing. We would have to have the exact specifications of an Indian bomb to duplicate it – a very hard thing to do.