Why no AQ attacks? Maybe ... because of Bush?

Meanwhile, in entirely related news, one of the most dangerous men in the world has broken his silence, and it doesn't bode well for our "ally" Musharraf.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4964884&page=1

 

Admittedly, I don't know much about American politics, including political history. I'm just wondering aloud, mainly. It's certainly nothing I get upset or obsessed with.

 

This isn't really news. I am confident that the US has known all along that the Pakistani government was involved. Khan was merely the scapegoat. Hell, he's still doing it from his "house arrest."

 

And yet President Moral Clarity still does business with Pakistan.

 

Sometimes you have to hold your nose and pick your friends. See: 2004, presidential election.

 

That same statement could be said about both candidates running for president, as well.

 

The US has always publicly stated that the Pakistani government didn't know about Khan's activity. They have to do that in order to keep the public off their back enough to allow for "good" relations with Musharef.

The idea is that we are better off with the devil we know, Musharef, than the one we don't, his eventual replacement.

 

I find the telling failure of that article's central assertion - that we really have no way of knowing at this moment whether we're any safer, after spending trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives, and corrupting our own founding principles - bonechilling.

 

I understand that. It's just infuriating to see Bush vacillate between realpolitik (i.e., better off with the devil we know) and "moral clarity" (i.e., not dealing with ANY devils at all).

 

Is it possible that one reason there has been no attacks on American soil since 9/11 is the focus has been on our presence in Iraq?
What will happen when we pull out?

 

You're kidding, right?

 

If you do it in time, she probably won't get pregnant.