Nancy Johnson: "Huh? I Got Pakistanis In My District??"

Ask Joe Biden... (0.00 / 0)

(Aside: Anyone know how many Pakistanis there are in the 5th CD?)

I hear he's an expert on such matters.

---

by: Scarce @ Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 16:28:08 PM UTC

Tons of Pakistani-Americans in 5th CD (0.00 / 0)

I don't have any official figures--but there are ton of Pakistani-Americans in the fifth CD...and they are going out to vote in droves for Murphy over this stupid ad. Al Qaeda exists in over 60 countries around the world and is most active in Western Europe. All the London bombers were born and raised in the UK--not Pakistan. The Pakistani government was a major help in uncovering the latest plot in London and preventing the loss of innocent life. Next to the United States, Pakistan is the country that has lost the most soldiers in the effort to capture Bin Laden.
However, it's not easy for the Pakistani government help America since the US bombing of the area and the war in Iraq has made it harder for moderates in the region to control the radicals. So instead of strengthening the hand of the moderates in the region and thanking the Pakistani government for its efforts, Johnson thinks a good idea to insult and antagonize the Pakistani people.

Rather than exploit the fear of Pakistanis, Johnson ought to explain why she supports the NSA wiretapping program, which was declared unconstitutional by a Michigan court.

Why does she support the violation of the FISA Act? The FISA Act already allows the government to wiretap without a warrant as long as they obtain a warrant from a secret court 72 hours afterwards. Over 99% of all secret warrant request have been approved. The only reason Johnson could oppose the enforcement of FISA is if she thinks the government ought to have NO oversight whatsoever over the secret surveillance of Americans.

This ad was a cheap attempt to play on people's fears and stereotypes of Pakistanis in an effort to divert attention from the fact that Johnson supports the unconstitutional NSA wiretapping legislation.

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."--James Madison

---

by: sufi @ Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 16:58:30 PM UTC

stereotyped ads (4.00 / 1)

How about one with racist white american rednecks who hate people from every other country and every other religion, because they don't know SHIT about the rest of the world beyond what their 3rd grade teachers and 1st grade government fed them.  The ad can play up on my fear that any foreigners I meet will lump me in with the first group.

---

by: concorde @ Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 12:31:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Aren't you describing Republicans? Nyuk, nyuk. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: snorwich @ Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 16:33:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you, Branford Boy (0.00 / 0)

BranfordBoy, thank you for making this comment "An anti-crime spot featuring Italian mobsters and black teenagers? An ad touting her aid to alcoholism rehab programs featuring Irish drunks stumbling out of the Blarney Stone Pub?" thus, pointing out how wrong it is to stereotype and scapegoat immigrants whatever their ethnicity.

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."--James Madison

---

by: sufi @ Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 17:05:28 PM UTC

Stephanopoulos/George Will: Terrific Ad (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Scarce @ Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 17:50:26 PM UTC

Pakistan freed 2,500 Taliban and al Qaeda fighters (0.00 / 0)

Pakistan empties jails of Taliban, frees Daniel Pearl's killers

The Fall of Waziristan: An Online History

On June 25, I sounded the alarm that a truce would be in the offing in North Waziristan. The Pakistan Army was taking a pounding, and President Musharraf lacked the will to fight in the region became apparent. All along, Musharraf and the Pakistani elite attempted to draw distinctions between the Taliban and “miscreants” and “foreigners” - which is merely code for al-Qaeda. The failure to realize the Taliban and al-Qaeda worked towards the same end, and have integrated political and command structures, led the Pakistani government to cut deals with the 'local Taliban' and the eventual establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan. The Taliban and al-Qaeda are by no means finished with their goals of carving out safe havens along the Afghan-Pakistani border.

---

by: notcho @ Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 19:20:40 PM UTC

More... (0.00 / 0)

BBC: Pakistan 'Taleban' in peace deal

ABC: Pakistan Gives Bin Laden Free Pass

The REAL Reason for Secret Tribunals? Pakistan Terrorism Timeline

Before 9-11 Pakistan was regarded as hostile to the USA and complicit in international terrorism against the USA.  The terrorist training camps funded by the CIA and Saudis and run by Pakistan's ISI to resist the Soviets in Afghanistan had morphed into the world's leading terrorism resource. 

Since 9-11 Pakistan has been embraced by the Bush administration as an ally and received billions of dollars of grants, loans and weaponry.  Given that Pakistan is linked to ALL major terrorism attacks before 9-11, on 9-11 and since 9-11, you have to wonder whose side they are on.

Timesonline: Just whose side is Pakistan really on?

Critics point out that the six top Al-Qaeda officials so far captured, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammad (KSM), the mastermind of 9/11, were all arrested in Pakistan. They were not hiding in caves but living in cities like Karachi and Faisalabad. KSM was picked up in the military cantonment of Rawalpindi.

---

by: notcho @ Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 20:00:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pakistan (0.00 / 0)

is the new Panama.

Musharraf is the new Manuel Noriega.

Wikipedia: Panama

In 1968, a Coup toppled the government of the recently elected Arnulfo Arias Madrid. Gen. Omar Torrijos eventually became the leading power in the governing military junta, and later became an autocratic strong man until his death in an apparent airplane accident in 1981. After Torrijos's death, power was eventually concentrated in the hands of Gen. Manuel Noriega, a former head of Panama's secret police. Noriega was implicated in drug trafficking by the United States, resulting in difficult relations by the end of the 1980’s.

Manuel Antonio Noriega Moreno (born February 11, 1938) was a Panamanian general and the de facto military leader of Panama from 1983 to 1989. Contrary to several sources, Noriega was never President of Panama. He was initially a strong ally of the United States and worked for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from the late 1950s to 1986.

Noriega will be be eligible for parole in 2007.

---

by: notcho @ Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 21:52:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The important thing to keep in mind (4.00 / 1)

is that Pakistan became even more of what it was on Nancy Johnson's watch.

Pakistan with the help of Saudi financing became the key source for support and funding of organizations like al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Go back and read Seymour Hersh's articles about Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan.

And remember the Saudis paid for the Pakistani Nuclear program built in part on North Korean technology and that technology was then exported to Iran.

In all the years leading up to and following 9/11, Rubberstamp Representative Nancy Johnson refused to demand accountability and refused to provide oversight.

FEITH & COMPANY: SOME DOTS

Q: Who Gave Pakistan THE BOMB? A: The GOP Did

Mark this down in your list of points to bring up whenever Democrats are accused of being weak on National Defense: The reason Pakistan has nuclear weapons is because Presidents Reagan and Bush lied to Congress in order to keep billions of dollars of aid flowing to Pakistan during the 80's.

---

by: notcho @ Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 22:59:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

understanding local politics (4.00 / 1)

The media has widely reported that Pakistan has "freed Taliban and Al Qaeda" suspects from prisons--but there is no discussion as to whether the people captured were actually found guilty of anything. Did they have lawyers? Was there a trial? What evidence was against them? Where are the case reports?

After the US invaded Afghanistan, because our troops could not speak the language and lacked interpreters, they were just rounding up people randomly. According to recent reports, many of those in Guantanamo were chicken farmers and truck drivers, innocent people in the wrong place and the wrong time. 

There were also reports of the Pakistani government rounding up innocent Arabs in the country, and selling them to the United States as "proof" that there was Al Qaeda in Pakistan. Not every Arab in Pakistan is an Al Qaeda operative.

Also, even the United States released Afghan prisoners in a similar incident:

The US military in Afghanistan has begun to release a few detainees as part of efforts to persuade the Taleban to end their insurgency.
It has also been offering an amnesty to militants who pledge support for the government of Hamid Karzai.

The detainees are suspects held after the fall of the Taleban in 2001.

The US is holding more than 500 suspected Taleban insurgents at its two main bases in Afghanistan, Bagram and Kandahar.

The amnesty to militants initiative is still in its early stages, but US commanders hope it could eventually tempt many Taliban to give up fighting.

Because this strategy had some effect in Afghanistan, Pakistan tried it. So the question is: If it's okay for the United States to release these prisoners, why is it wrong for Pakistan to do the same? Why is Pakistan held to a higher standard than our own government?

Also, the United States also made a deal with forces associated with the Taliban in an attempt to control the violence:

KARACHI - Such is the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan, compounded by the return to the country of a large number of former Afghan communist refugees, that United States and Pakistani intelligence officials have met with Taliban leaders in an effort to devise a political solution to prevent the country from being further ripped apart.

According to a Pakistani jihadi leader who played a role in setting up the communication, the meeting took place recently between representatives of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the US Federal Bureau of Investigation and Taliban leaders at the Pakistan Air Force base of Samungli, near Quetta.

The source told Asia Times Online that four conditions were put to the Taliban before any form of reconciliation can take place that could potentially lead to them having a role in the Kabul government, whose present authority is in essence limited to the capital:

* Mullah Omar must be removed as supreme leader of the Taliban.
* All Pakistani, Arab and other foreign fighters currently engaged in operations against international troops in Afghanistan must be thrown out of the country.
* Any US or allied soldiers held captive must be released.
* Afghans currently living abroad, notably in the United States and England, must be given a part in the government - through being allowed to contest elections - even though many do not even speak their mother tongue, such as Dari or Pashtu.

So if it's okay for the United States to make a deal with these tribal leaders, why is it wrong for Pakistan? Why is Pakistan held to a different standards?

Instead of arriving at these facile conclusions, maybe we should try to understand the local politics of Pakistan and how it's important for our govermnent to win over the local tribal leaders if we can hope to find Bin Laden and improve security in the nation. Also, consider how difficult it must be for Musharraf to control the radical elements within his country, with the war in Iraq and allegations of torture going on. Think about the fact that hundreds of Pakistani soldiers have died trying to help US forces--and this has domestic implications for Musharaff.

The fact is that US military operations are radicalizing the population and making it very hard for us to empower the moderates to help us capture these terrorists.

What may be even more disturbing that reading about the US making a deal with the Taliban after the invasion is to read that just months BEFORE 9/11, the United States gave millions of dollars of aid to the Taliban regime. How do we explain that?

Furthermore, it is helpful to recall that all these Al Qaeda fighters were first introduced to Pakistan/Afghanistan by the United States that enlisted their help to fight the Soviets.

My purpose here is NOT to defend the Pakistani government--my purpose is to explain that the United States bears heavy responsiblity for the problems we face in trying to bring the 9/11 perpetrators to justice. It's not entirely fair to single Pakistan out on this issue when there is plenty of rather ugly and suspicious behavior from all sides of this conflict.

Finally, you linked to a quote in which Pakistani official Shaukat Sultan Khan said that Bin Laden "would not be taken into custody, as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen."...but this was posted on an ABC blog--I could not find the source article so I don't know when this quote was made--was it made just months prior to 9/11 when the United States was funding the Taliban regime? Or was it made later. I have a more recent quote in which the Pakistani officials make it clear that Bin Laden would be captured if found. Check this:

"Pakistan is committed to its policy on the war on terror, and Osama caught anywhere in Pakistan would be brought to justice," the country's top army spokesman, Gen. Shaukat Sultan, told The Associated Press.

Bottom line is that we cannot capture Bin Laden unless we work with the people on the ground in that region. Our efforts to work with them will be much more effective after we end the war in Iraq which is fueling extremism.

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."--James Madison

---

by: sufi @ Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 02:33:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nancy's biggest challenge... (4.00 / 1)

...is having a clue about ANYthing.  I wouldn't trust the woman to match her shoes with her blouse, let alone make any cogent decisions related to national security.  The ad is simply mind-numbing, fear-meddling nonsense.

---

by: TC @ Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 02:49:27 AM UTC

This is getting a little ridiculous (4.00 / 1)

This thread has gotten way off base.  The people who complained were not Pakistani diplomats going to the Big E, it was made by people who live here.  They are our neighbors and we frequent their businesses and they vote.  I just delivered some Ned lawn signs to a Pakistani here in Norwich.

Right after 9/11, I was at my regular gas station that is run by Pakistanis.  I had an American flag sticker on my truck and he wanted to know where he could get some.  He and others were very nervous about a backlash against Muslims and I felt really bad for them.  I realized that I consistently patronized three or four Pakistani business and have had nothing but positive experiences.  My point is that they have become a part of the landscape and should be accepted as such.

These people are here for the same reason all of our ancestors came here, the chance for a better life.  The Pakistani community is tired of being stereotyped by political thugs like Nancy Johnson and other fear mongerers of her ilk.  Lets remember that this is not geopolitics, it's an election here in Connecticut and let's keep it local.

---

by: snorwich @ Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 03:38:09 AM UTC

The point (4.00 / 2)

The point of the original post was about not whether we, as individuals, should love or hate any ethnic group. In this great land of ours, everyone is free to dislike everybody else.

What's astonishing (to me) is that a presumably sophisticated candidate like Nancy Johnson would allow her campaign to single out and insult an ethnic group. The only possible explanation is that she just didn't realize that there were any Pakistanis in her district to be insulted (hence the headline).

To further elucidate my original point, consider this. There are Irish terrorists, too. And Irish terrorists have lent material support to Islamic terrorists, selling them weapons and other materiel. Can you imagine Nancy Johnson running an ad that said, "A telephone call is placed from New York to a known terrorist in County Monaghan, Ireland. A terrorist plot may be unfolding..."?

No. And the reason is her campaign people know that the Connecticut countryside is lousy with Irish and they'd be hopping mad.

If nothing else, this sad episode will serve to let Johnson and other Republicans know that Paksitanis exists, they're here, they're smart (they built an atomic bomb, let us not forget), and they vote.

---

by: BranfordBoy @ Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 12:54:06 PM UTC

Thanks again, BB (0.00 / 0)

Basically, Nancy Johnson singled out Pakistan because she believed, mistakenly, that it would not cost her any votes to offend the Pakistani-American community in CT. Even posters on MLN, like mel_gibson, who once referred to me as a "macaca" and who exhorted Pakistani-Americans to "shut up" about their "precious criminal terrorist homeland" would never make simililar remark to Irish-Americans, telling them to "shut up" about their "precious criminal terrorist homeland" even though the IRA has been associated with terrorism. Nobody should ever slander somebody's homeland in this way--regardless of the faults of that homeland's government.

I guess the natural tendency is to target the weak if it's perceived to be politically beneficial.

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."--James Madison

---

by: sufi @ Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 16:57:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Funny, (4.00 / 2)

How nancy's ad forgets to include the fact that the government can act immediately, and get a Warrant up to 72 hours afterwards!  She makes it look like to object to this Wire tapping means tons of paperwork has to be done FIRST.

Nancy Johnson, just another Distorting, lying, Republican.

---

by: PamB @ Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 19:01:57 PM UTC

Enough! (4.00 / 1)

The back and forth in this thread is accomplishing nothing. No one is going to convince anyone of anything.

Let's keep our eyes on the prize, call it a night, and get a good night's sleep.

Tomorrow is another day.

---

by: BranfordBoy @ Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 02:08:27 AM UTC

Ahem - why doesn't her ad mention Iraq? (4.00 / 1)

If I can dodge the issue about Pakistan and the immigrant community for a moment, why hasn't anyone asked Nancy Johnson why her ad features a country that is not the "central front" in the "GWOT"?

Shouldn't her ad say the caller was from Iraq, since that is where we have to fight the terrorists or they'll follow us home?

If Nancy Johnson doesn't swallow her own propaganda, then she is admitting that Iraq has nothing to do with the "GWOT" and that the real place we need to concentrate on is in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan.

Even her own ads make the point against her. I have yet to see anyone point that out. Rather than debate the details of obtaining a court order, which, while true, are going to be lost on the average viewer, we need to hit back.

Nancy Johnson knows that our presence in Iraq isn't helping fight the terrorists. But she's done nothing about it. In fact, she still continues to champion our bloody occupation.

How can we trust Nancy Johnson to protect America when she supports invading the wrong country at the wrong time for the wrong reasons?

Nancy Johnson is weak on national security. Her inability to stand up to the Bush administration is making us less safe.

Vote Chris Murphy for a safer america.

---

by: OrangeTownBlueDem @ Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 14:19:30 PM UTC