Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Battle won, war still ongoing.

If you are still in the GOP, you are an extremist.

When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.

I’d hate to be the candidate who lost to this guy.

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

We are aware of all internet traditions.

Republican obstruction dressed up as bipartisanship. Again.

We still have time to mess this up!

Despite his magical powers, I don’t think Trump is thinking this through, to be honest.

Republicans in disarray!

Second rate reporter says what?

Republicans are radicals, not conservatives.

The words do not have to be perfect.

Let’s finish the job.

When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?

The cruelty is the point; the law be damned.

I really should read my own blog.

Speaking of republicans, is there a way for a political party to declare intellectual bankruptcy?

Something needs to be done about our bogus SCOTUS.

Putin must be throwing ketchup at the walls.

Come on, media. you have one job. start doing it.

But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.

Damn right I heard that as a threat.

Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard

You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / Oopsie

Oopsie

by | 18 Comments

This post is in: ,

Bush forgot to tell Congress that Pakistan’s nuclear program has ramped up and begun work on a plutonium bomb:

The Bush administration acknowledged yesterday that it had long known about Pakistan’s plans to build a large plutonium-production reactor, but it said the White House was working to dissuade Pakistan from using the plant to expand its nuclear arsenal.

[…] The reactor, which reportedly will be capable of producing enough plutonium for as many as 50 bombs each year, was brought to light on Sunday by independent analysts who spotted the partially completed plant in commercial-satellite photos. Snow said the administration had “known of these plans for some time.”

The acknowledgment came as arms-control experts and some in Congress expressed alarm about a possible escalation of South Asia’s arms race. Some also sharply criticized the administration for failing to disclose the existence of a facility that could influence an upcoming congressional debate over U.S. nuclear policy toward India and Pakistan.

“If either India or Pakistan starts increasing its nuclear arsenal, the other side will respond in kind,” said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), co-chairman of a House bipartisan task force on nonproliferation. “The Bush administration’s proposed nuclear deal with India is making that much more likely.”

So, why does Pakistan need 50+ plutonium bombs a year when a few is probably enough to keep India off the lawn? Maybe somebody can locate A.Q. Khan and ask him.

One has to wonder how Congress will react to this blatant disregard for its constitutional role in government. Will they convene hearings? Demand accountability? Ha ha, I made a funny. Of course the few who bother to respond will specter.

Reader Interactions

18Comments

  1. 1.

    Pb

    So, why does Pakistan need 50+ plutonium bombs a year when a few is probably enough to keep India off the lawn?

    Um… “Pakistan has a right to defend herself”? Hey, it could be worse, at least they don’t already have 100-200 plutonium bombs, right?

  2. 2.

    srv

    It would be a really bad thing for the public to know the things that our government knows and other countries know that our government knows.

  5. 5.

    The Other Steve

    It would be a really bad thing for the public to know the things that our government knows and other countries know that our government knows.

    We don’t know what we don’t know, and we do know what we do know. Those who don’t know do know that they don’t know what we don’t know.

  6. 6.

    VidaLoca

    Of course the few who bother to respond will specter.

    The idea of turning “specter” into a verb is almost as appealing as the project of turning “santorum” into a noun…

  7. 7.

    Slide

    I’m confused. Doesn’t this violate Dick Cheney’s One Percent Doctrine

    “Even if there’s just a 1 percent chance of the unimaginable coming due, act as if it is a certainty” ?

    Isn’t there at least one percent chance that Pakistan will be in the hands of Islamic Fundamentalists over the next 20 years or so? Do we really want this country to have the ability to create 50 nuclear weapons a year?

    Despite President Bush’s call for democracy in the Middle East, his administration has strengthened military rulers by ignoring the domestic transgressions of those who cooperate in the terror fight, argues journalist and author Ahmed Rashid. Pakistan, where General Pervez Musharraf has held power since a 1999 coup, is a key US ally in the War on Terror. Inside the country, tensions between the army and opposition politicians have enabled the military to dominate Pakistan’s political system and foreign policy. In spite of opposition protests, Musharraf has insisted that he will remain both president and army chief, and a leading opposition politician was recently arrested for criticizing military influence. Even Pakistan’s elected prime minister is believed to be subservient to the army and has led unsuccessful efforts to consolidate Musharraf’s power. Although his policies have caused a legislative logjam and growing public resentment, Musharraf remains “supremely confident” because he maintains US support, writes Rashid. The Bush Administration is committed to military control of Pakistan, believing that “the army can fight the war against terrorism better than civilian politicians.” But Washington’s support may ultimately undermine the Bush administration’s anti-terrorist efforts, Rashid asserts. Many in the military have ties to Islamic fundamentalist groups and may be providing covert support for the Taliban in Afghanistan and militants in Kashmir.

    .

  9. 9.

    Pb

    Heh. I screwed that up. As I was saying, it’s more like the ‘less than 1%’ doctrine, only used against ridiculously unlikely threats, at the expense of the likely ones.

  10. 10.

    sglover

    Suppose this has anything to do with the Bush Administration also trying to fast track a sale of F-16 fighters to Pakistan?

    I’m curious about how this interacts with the hands-off nuclear deal that President Fuckwit announced with India. In particular, I wonder if Fuckwit deep-sixed the intelligence about Pakistan, in order to dominate a one-week news cycle with stories of his foreign policy “accomplishment” in Delhi. This is what passes for strategic thinking with the worthless criminals who now run our government.

  11. 11.

    Jill

    Slide and PB…the doctrine is really defined as “on the 1% chance that this fear-mongering will benefit the pResident and his party.”

  12. 12.

    Rusty Shackleford

    Why aren’t we more worried about Bin Laden and Pakistan than we are? Everybody in the world knows that OBL is hiding in the frontier land in Pakistan near the Afghani border.

    Is it a “if you nab OBL, ISI will pop Musharraf and give nukes to the Taliban” deal that were stuck with?

  13. 13.

    Tsulagi

    Not to worry. Your ever vigilant CIC continues to be on top of things and has looked into the soul of Musharraf and the Pakistani nation. You know, the dictator and country who only a few short years ago officially recognized and supported the Taliban.

    A.Q. Khan, who sold nuclear technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea among others? He’s like a rock star there.

    If in a not too distant year there is an untidy event as the result of a big boom, you can be sure Condi will put it in proper perspective for us. Any present day PDB urging caution can be breezily dismissed. Condi: “Sure, the title of the briefing in big, bold block letters says ‘100 PLUTONIUM BOMBS WITHIN A NATION FULL OF ISLAMIC CRAZIES INCLUDING OSAMMA IS NOT FUCKING GOOD!’ But everyone knew that. We were tired of swatting flies.”

  14. 14.

    Andrew

    This is pretty cool. We’re moving steadily towards the point where the US will have to launch nuclear weapons at someone (Pakistan, NK, etc.) or get nuked by some rogue elements. Or both!

    As a long time fan of the Mad Max series, I welcome the coming post-apocalytic future. However, I would prefer zombie hordes to Master Blaster.

  17. 17.

    Krista

    US will have to launch nuclear weapons at someone (Pakistan, NK, etc.) or get nuked by some rogue elements. Or both!

    Pardon me as I edge further and further away from the border…

  18. 18.

    Pb

    The Other Steve,

    Wait. Actually… Isn’t this Clinton’s fault?

    Not really, as usual.

    I mean the Pakistani nuke tests were in ‘98 if I recall.

    Yeah, but a lot happened before then as well, going back to Bush I and even Reagan… By Bush II/Iraq standards, Reagan probably should have gone to war with Pakistan starting in 1980 or so when they didn’t have nukes, but by 1986-1988 or so it was way too late because they were already up to Iran/North Korea levels of possibly having/obtaining nukes.

Comments are closed.