<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1-alpha" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Keith Olbermann&#8217;s special comment on Clinton&#8217;s remarks</title>
	<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/05/24/keith-olbermanns-special-comment-on-clintons-remarks/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:13:06 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: squashed</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/05/24/keith-olbermanns-special-comment-on-clintons-remarks/#comment-519129</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 23:29:29 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/05/24/keith-olbermanns-special-comment-on-clintons-remarks/#comment-519129</guid>
					<description>During the 1990s, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and successive governments employed Islamic extremism to challenge the Indian claim to Kashmir by undermining India's conventional military superiority with asymmetrical attacks on soft and symbolic targets in Kashmir.

The ISI also attempted to gain &quot;strategic depth&quot; with regard to India by creating an arc of influence from Central Asia to Afghanistan. While Pakistan's military establishment is regarded as professional and secular (with the exception of Zia, who attempted to bring Islam into the political and military sphere), it has not hesitated in using Islamic extremism to battle its enemies. This was seen in Pakistan's support for the Taliban regime in Afghanistan until September 11, 2001, and support for Islamic extremist groups in Kashmir.

Under President Pervez Musharraf, Islamic extremists entered Pakistan's mainstream political sphere as Musharraf empowered extremists in order to marginalize Pakistan's secular opposition parties while using the growth of Islamic extremism to justify his non-democratic rule. 

www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JB27Df02.html




www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JB23Df03.html

Fractured election verdict
First, a close assessment of the election results in Pakistan will show that what is available from the February 18 polls is a fractured verdict by the Pakistani people.

A coalition government has become inevitable. This does not augur well for political stability. Coalition politics would be far too sophisticated for Pakistan at this juncture. The requisite political culture of give-and-take needs to develop over time. Besides, PPP and PML-N are both centrist parties, which are vying more or less for the same political space. A political alliance between the two parties - a &quot;grand coalition&quot; - cannot endure for long due to their mutual antipathies rooted in history and their divergent ideologies.
Also, Washington has a sense of uneasiness about the PML-N's plank of &quot;Islamist nationalism&quot;. It may not be warranted, but it is there. PML-N seems to be already anticipating an early mid-term poll and likely sees the February 18 election as only a &quot;semi-final&quot;. In any case, PML-N's priority will be to consolidate in the heartland province of Punjab, where it is poised to form the government.

As for the PPP leadership, its priorities are different from PML-N's. After some 11 years in political wilderness, the party seniors are naturally eager to grasp the opportunity to form the new government at the federal level as well as in Sindh province. In Sindh, PPP may well have to co-habit with the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), the party of migrants from India, which is a strong supporter of Musharraf. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that PPP does not have the stomach for confrontational politics at this juncture. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>During the 1990s, Pakistan&#8217;s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and successive governments employed Islamic extremism to challenge the Indian claim to Kashmir by undermining India&#8217;s conventional military superiority with asymmetrical attacks on soft and symbolic targets in Kashmir.</p>
	<p>The ISI also attempted to gain &#8220;strategic depth&#8221; with regard to India by creating an arc of influence from Central Asia to Afghanistan. While Pakistan&#8217;s military establishment is regarded as professional and secular (with the exception of Zia, who attempted to bring Islam into the political and military sphere), it has not hesitated in using Islamic extremism to battle its enemies. This was seen in Pakistan&#8217;s support for the Taliban regime in Afghanistan until September 11, 2001, and support for Islamic extremist groups in Kashmir.</p>
	<p>Under President Pervez Musharraf, Islamic extremists entered Pakistan&#8217;s mainstream political sphere as Musharraf empowered extremists in order to marginalize Pakistan&#8217;s secular opposition parties while using the growth of Islamic extremism to justify his non-democratic rule. </p>
	<p><a href='http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JB27Df02.html' rel='nofollow'>www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JB27Df02.html</a></p>
	<p><a href='http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JB23Df03.html' rel='nofollow'>www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JB23Df03.html</a></p>
	<p>Fractured election verdict<br />
First, a close assessment of the election results in Pakistan will show that what is available from the February 18 polls is a fractured verdict by the Pakistani people.</p>
	<p>A coalition government has become inevitable. This does not augur well for political stability. Coalition politics would be far too sophisticated for Pakistan at this juncture. The requisite political culture of give-and-take needs to develop over time. Besides, PPP and PML-N are both centrist parties, which are vying more or less for the same political space. A political alliance between the two parties - a &#8220;grand coalition&#8221; - cannot endure for long due to their mutual antipathies rooted in history and their divergent ideologies.<br />
Also, Washington has a sense of uneasiness about the PML-N&#8217;s plank of &#8220;Islamist nationalism&#8221;. It may not be warranted, but it is there. PML-N seems to be already anticipating an early mid-term poll and likely sees the February 18 election as only a &#8220;semi-final&#8221;. In any case, PML-N&#8217;s priority will be to consolidate in the heartland province of Punjab, where it is poised to form the government.</p>
	<p>As for the PPP leadership, its priorities are different from PML-N&#8217;s. After some 11 years in political wilderness, the party seniors are naturally eager to grasp the opportunity to form the new government at the federal level as well as in Sindh province. In Sindh, PPP may well have to co-habit with the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), the party of migrants from India, which is a strong supporter of Musharraf. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that PPP does not have the stomach for confrontational politics at this juncture.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: clytemnestra</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/05/24/keith-olbermanns-special-comment-on-clintons-remarks/#comment-518909</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 08:32:31 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/05/24/keith-olbermanns-special-comment-on-clintons-remarks/#comment-518909</guid>
					<description>I'm going to defend Foucault here . . . . did any of you see the change in tone?  She came out blazing and then after some calm talk where some people explained that they got that it could be a (as I put it) mental push pin marking time it, but it was still a stupid statement ... she agreed it was a stupid statement.

There is a possibility of progress from both sides.  but we all gotta talk and &lt;b&gt;LISTEN&lt;/b&gt;

*****

J.Goff, Droll Jester of Tomatoey Goodness\
- thank you I will check it out .. I am literally on for a few minutes, off doing things, on for a few more minutes

later </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I&#8217;m going to defend Foucault here . . . . did any of you see the change in tone?  She came out blazing and then after some calm talk where some people explained that they got that it could be a (as I put it) mental push pin marking time it, but it was still a stupid statement &#8230; she agreed it was a stupid statement.</p>
	<p>There is a possibility of progress from both sides.  but we all gotta talk and <b>LISTEN</b></p>
	<p>*****</p>
	<p>J.Goff, Droll Jester of Tomatoey Goodness\<br />
- thank you I will check it out .. I am literally on for a few minutes, off doing things, on for a few more minutes</p>
	<p>later
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Foucault</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/05/24/keith-olbermanns-special-comment-on-clintons-remarks/#comment-518888</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 06:50:18 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/05/24/keith-olbermanns-special-comment-on-clintons-remarks/#comment-518888</guid>
					<description>
&quot;*eyeroll* It’s not all about you, Foucault.&quot;

I didn't say it was. I was just glad that someone in this mix is able to see the sexism and implicit violence towards women that others chose not to acknowledge for whatever reasons. I think that is commendable on your part. 
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>&#8220;*eyeroll* It’s not all about you, Foucault.&#8221;</p>
	<p>I didn&#8217;t say it was. I was just glad that someone in this mix is able to see the sexism and implicit violence towards women that others chose not to acknowledge for whatever reasons. I think that is commendable on your part.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: squashed</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/05/24/keith-olbermanns-special-comment-on-clintons-remarks/#comment-518879</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 00:20:58 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/05/24/keith-olbermanns-special-comment-on-clintons-remarks/#comment-518879</guid>
					<description>www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/26/223028/306/444/523329

From My Life by Bill Clinton - page 407, first sentence, last paragraph:

    On April 7, we also won in Kansas, Minnesota and Wisconsin. On April 9, Paul Tsongas announced that he would not reenter the race. The fight for the nomination was effectively over. I had more than half the 2,145 delegates I needed to be nominated, and had only Jerry Brown to compete with the rest of the way in.

And a few pages over...

    On June 2, I won the primaries in Ohio, New Jersey...Finally, I had clinched the nomination.

Last week Hillary Clinton said this, among other things of course, in South Dakota:

    &quot;My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary,&quot; Mrs. Clinton told the paper’s editorial board, &quot;somewhere in the middle of June.&quot;

=====

&lt;i&gt;clytemnestraMay 26, 2008 at 12:45 pm
He can’t be both and Islamist and a nationalist. &lt;/i&gt;

I'll google the article tomorrow. He is.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><a href='http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/26/223028/306/444/523329' rel='nofollow'>www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/26/223028/306/444/523329</a></p>
	<p>From My Life by Bill Clinton - page 407, first sentence, last paragraph:</p>
	<p>    On April 7, we also won in Kansas, Minnesota and Wisconsin. On April 9, Paul Tsongas announced that he would not reenter the race. The fight for the nomination was effectively over. I had more than half the 2,145 delegates I needed to be nominated, and had only Jerry Brown to compete with the rest of the way in.</p>
	<p>And a few pages over&#8230;</p>
	<p>    On June 2, I won the primaries in Ohio, New Jersey&#8230;Finally, I had clinched the nomination.</p>
	<p>Last week Hillary Clinton said this, among other things of course, in South Dakota:</p>
	<p>    &#8220;My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary,&#8221; Mrs. Clinton told the paper’s editorial board, &#8220;somewhere in the middle of June.&#8221;</p>
	<p>=====</p>
	<p><i>clytemnestraMay 26, 2008 at 12:45 pm<br />
He can’t be both and Islamist and a nationalist. </i></p>
	<p>I&#8217;ll google the article tomorrow. He is.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: J.Goff, Droll Jester of Tomatoey Goodness</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/05/24/keith-olbermanns-special-comment-on-clintons-remarks/#comment-518866</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2008 22:21:54 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/05/24/keith-olbermanns-special-comment-on-clintons-remarks/#comment-518866</guid>
					<description>*eyeroll*  It's not all about you, Foucault.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>*eyeroll*  It&#8217;s not all about you, Foucault.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Foucault</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/05/24/keith-olbermanns-special-comment-on-clintons-remarks/#comment-518859</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2008 21:41:54 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/05/24/keith-olbermanns-special-comment-on-clintons-remarks/#comment-518859</guid>
					<description>Thank you J. Goff. For once you truly impress me. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Thank you J. Goff. For once you truly impress me.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: J.Goff, Droll Jester of Tomatoey Goodness</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/05/24/keith-olbermanns-special-comment-on-clintons-remarks/#comment-518816</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2008 17:39:10 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/05/24/keith-olbermanns-special-comment-on-clintons-remarks/#comment-518816</guid>
					<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/25/keith-olbermanns-idea-for_n_98557.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Google.&lt;/a&gt;  LITERALLY TWO SECONDS.  Please.  When it's Clinton in the cross hairs, the outrage is less, isn't it?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/25/keith-olbermanns-idea-for_n_98557.html" rel="nofollow">Google.</a>  LITERALLY TWO SECONDS.  Please.  When it&#8217;s Clinton in the cross hairs, the outrage is less, isn&#8217;t it?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: clytemnestra</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/05/24/keith-olbermanns-special-comment-on-clintons-remarks/#comment-518813</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2008 17:24:21 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/05/24/keith-olbermanns-special-comment-on-clintons-remarks/#comment-518813</guid>
					<description>J.Goff .. proof?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>J.Goff .. proof?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: J.Goff, Droll Jester of Tomatoey Goodness</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/05/24/keith-olbermanns-special-comment-on-clintons-remarks/#comment-518803</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2008 16:27:36 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/05/24/keith-olbermanns-special-comment-on-clintons-remarks/#comment-518803</guid>
					<description>Side-stepping Foucault, I just really want to say this:

I think Clinton's statements, especially in light of what not only 1968 did to the Democratic Party, but what it did to the Civil Rights Movement, were poorly thought out, and her apology should have been better.  That having been said, you people who are busy going gaga over Keith Olbermann do remember that this is the same fuck who called for Hillary's death and/or torture in a back room for the good of the party, correct?  Or am I the only one who remembers it?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Side-stepping Foucault, I just really want to say this:</p>
	<p>I think Clinton&#8217;s statements, especially in light of what not only 1968 did to the Democratic Party, but what it did to the Civil Rights Movement, were poorly thought out, and her apology should have been better.  That having been said, you people who are busy going gaga over Keith Olbermann do remember that this is the same fuck who called for Hillary&#8217;s death and/or torture in a back room for the good of the party, correct?  Or am I the only one who remembers it?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: clytemnestra</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/05/24/keith-olbermanns-special-comment-on-clintons-remarks/#comment-518752</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2008 12:45:00 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/05/24/keith-olbermanns-special-comment-on-clintons-remarks/#comment-518752</guid>
					<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;he is also Islamist/nationalist and a US stooge&lt;/blockquote&gt; 

He can't be both and Islamist and a nationalist.  Both preclude the other.  He may be wearing the cloak of Islamist because it buys him points in the NWFP, etc. BUT to truly be an Islamist means that you reject nationalism. 

The &quot;Islamists&quot; want him out BECAUSE he is preceived to be a US stooge.  Recent attempts on his life and the how close to his person they have become show the disaffection for him and how they have infilrated the military, a group which he has worked hard to keep (and must keep).

If Bush goes into Iran he will have created a &quot;crescent&quot; of instability with terror organizations reaping the benefits - they will also have an unfettered line to move between 2 to 3  to 4 continents.  If Pakistan does fall there nuclear ordinance will roam every where.

Musharaff is still in power - and it's never been as simple as demanding he hold elections.  Under Bill we neglectted Pakistan because it was no longer a staging ground for our fight against the soviets. Just as we neglected Afghanistan.  That neglect helped foster what we are dealing with today.


</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<blockquote><p>he is also Islamist/nationalist and a US stooge</p></blockquote>
	<p>He can&#8217;t be both and Islamist and a nationalist.  Both preclude the other.  He may be wearing the cloak of Islamist because it buys him points in the NWFP, etc. BUT to truly be an Islamist means that you reject nationalism. </p>
	<p>The &#8220;Islamists&#8221; want him out BECAUSE he is preceived to be a US stooge.  Recent attempts on his life and the how close to his person they have become show the disaffection for him and how they have infilrated the military, a group which he has worked hard to keep (and must keep).</p>
	<p>If Bush goes into Iran he will have created a &#8220;crescent&#8221; of instability with terror organizations reaping the benefits - they will also have an unfettered line to move between 2 to 3  to 4 continents.  If Pakistan does fall there nuclear ordinance will roam every where.</p>
	<p>Musharaff is still in power - and it&#8217;s never been as simple as demanding he hold elections.  Under Bill we neglectted Pakistan because it was no longer a staging ground for our fight against the soviets. Just as we neglected Afghanistan.  That neglect helped foster what we are dealing with today.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
