Today's Situation Room:

Wolf Blitzer delivers the most important breaking news and political, international, and national security stories of the day. Tune to The Situation Room weekdays 5-7pm ET on CNN.

Wolf Blitzer delivers the most important breaking news and political, international, and national security stories of the day. Tune to The Situation Room weekdays 5-7pm ET on CNN.

BLITZER'S BLOG: Michele Bachmann was right
November 28th, 2011
02:57 PM ET

BLITZER'S BLOG: Michele Bachmann was right

By CNN's Wolf Blitzer

(CNN) – Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann made an important point on Pakistan during the recent CNN national security debate. She said Pakistan is “too nuclear to fail.”

She added: “We’ve got to make sure that we take that threat very seriously.”

She’s right.

The United States and its friends around the world must do whatever it takes to ensure that Pakistan remains friendly and that its nuclear arsenal remains secure.

The last thing anyone in the region or the world needs right now is an extremist takeover of Pakistan.

Bachmann, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, is privy to top-secret information. At the debate, the congresswoman said that Pakistan has 15 nuclear sites spread out around the country and that six attempts “have already been made on nuclear sites.”

I don’t know if those numbers are precise, but they are chilling - if true.

I’ve been thinking a lot about this over the last few days as U.S.-Pakistani relations have deteriorated in the aftermath of an NATO airstrike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, according to Pakistani officials.

The U.S. image in Pakistan was dismal before this latest incident; it is now even worse.

That’s why it’s so important for leaders in both countries to take a deep breath and move on in a constructive way. The nuclear stakes are simply too enormous.

For years, successive U.S. administrations have made major efforts to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. The fear is that Islamist extremists in control of nuclear weapons in Iran would be devastating.

Pakistan already is a nuclear power. It’s imperative that everything be done to prevent Islamist extremists who hate America from taking power there.

In short, the United States must work closely with the Pakistani government to find strong bonds of cooperation despite all the serious differences.

RELATED: The Reads You Need: The relationship between the U.S., Pakistan

Post by:
Filed under: Michele Bachmann • Pakistan • Wolf Blitzer
soundoff (238 Responses)
  1. tcaros

    Everyone knows that Pakistanis are pretty smart.So, of course they have nuclear capability. The Chinese and Korea have same capability. In fact, you can find the information on the web on how to create nuclear weapons. It's a matter of time before most countries have enough smart people to put 2 and 2 together.

    November 28, 2011 at 7:49 pm |
    • Dana in Alaska

      All of the Nuclear Scientists came from countries that had no further use for them. They were not home grown and that includes the ones that helped us create the first two to drop on Japan.. You really need education as you are a VERY STUPID person.

      November 28, 2011 at 10:51 pm |
  2. chablisandbrie

    "Bachmann, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, is privy to top-secret information" – I wouldn't put too much stock in that Wolf. As someone who presumably graduated high school, she was also privy to where the battle of Lexington took place, yet we all know what she learned from that.

    November 28, 2011 at 7:43 pm |
    • SarahTonin

      Remember it was Bachman who said that the hurricane that hit DC was God's wrath! Bachman has never uttered anything worth serious thought!!!

      November 28, 2011 at 8:12 pm |
  3. Media has no idea what they are talking about

    I can assure you no one in Pakistan wants American interference except for the corrupt politicians.The people never see any of the "aid" because it all goes directly to the bureaucrats bank accounts. Our involvement in your war has only gained us more enemies. On top of that NATO killed soldiers who were fighting in your best interest. So please leave us alone.

    November 28, 2011 at 7:42 pm |
  4. Wes

    Wolf, Since when you have joined the ranks of fear mongers. Most Pakistanis are progressive and moderate. That is why islamic parties hardly win any seats in elections there. The best way for US to deal with the situation is not to deal with it at all. We should stop interfering in the countries thousands of miles away and instead worry about economy and creating jobs here in US.

    November 28, 2011 at 7:37 pm |
    • Faraz Rizvi

      Well said! At least Pakistan's problem has to be fixed by Pakistanis themselves (I am a Pakistani). Once there is no war next door, I am confident that we will have more time to look at the real threat of extremism that lives within Pakistan.

      As mentioned earlier, no religious extremist party win elections which shows we don't support them. All we need is some of our own (only our own withouth any foreign mendling) to sort this out.

      November 30, 2011 at 4:12 am |
  5. HN

    Well here is a reality check to all the ones bashing Pakistan and asking for more aggression as it is enough of niceties!



    YOUR MEDIA is making Pakistan the escape-goat for ALL THEIR FAILURES in Afghanistan

    5000-6000 men of supposed Haqqani network in Pakistan is making 100,000-150,000 US and NATO soldiers with high tech technology drag their feet in Afghanistan.

    Are you guys this fool??

    Wake up

    Pack your bags and head back to US before this becomes another Vietnam (if not already). STOP blaming Pakistan. Your mummy-daddy soldiers cant fight as they are animals.

    Stop the aid for Pakistan. Please do that. Its easier then to sort put who is the enemy.

    Bin ladin was a CIA Agent, shook hands with US Presidents. You nurtured and fed him.

    November 28, 2011 at 7:35 pm |
  6. Joshua Ludd

    Pakistan will NEVER be an actual ally to the US, but that doesn't mean that it would then have to be an enemy. We would be best served by basically staying out of their business except to help keep a stable government. This is nowhere near an easy problem, and frankly while I don't see Obama being the best person to deal with it, he is a far far better option than any of the Republicans running right now... yes, even Bachmann. She may be right about one thing, but even a broken clock is right twice a day, and it doesn't make up for the numerous times she has been so grossly, disturbingly wrong about things.

    November 28, 2011 at 7:30 pm |
  7. pacchardon

    The possibilty that Michelle Bachmann is right on anything is news worthy

    November 28, 2011 at 7:28 pm |
  8. Kevin O.

    How does Michele having knowledge bestowed upon her by a committee make her "right"? All she did was spill the beans from a meeting which she is fortunate enough to be a part of.

    That doesn't make her right, it makes her a blabber mouth.

    November 28, 2011 at 7:26 pm |
  9. blue19

    Given Bachmann sits on the house intelligence committee, one would hope she oulw get it right, although specific facts continue to elude her; she's been wrong about anything else she talks about.

    November 28, 2011 at 7:26 pm |
  10. sam

    Wolf, show your evidence first, otherwise you would lose your credibility like other hypocrites.

    November 28, 2011 at 7:26 pm |
  11. rightospeak

    We need to stop worrying about Pakistan and warmongering , Wolf , we have almost a revolution on our hands in the U.S. . We should start worrying about U.S. SURVIVAL .

    November 28, 2011 at 7:25 pm |
  12. damjed

    the containment of nuclear weapons can not be acomplished forever! The genie is out of the bottle! we can only delay the progress of knowledge, foolish to beleive you can stop it!
    the question is how much do you risk to delay for how long? ask yourself a question......100 years from now how many countries will have a nuclear bomb if they want one?

    November 28, 2011 at 7:17 pm |
  13. Derek Wain

    Smart blog by Blitz. Bachmann knows more about foreign affairs than all the other candidates put together. This Constitutional Conservative.
    The anti-American Left hates MB most because she is the most principled and, courageous Constitutional Conservative on the national scene: the little lady with the spine of titanium. She actually believes in enforcing our laws. The Team Obama Left, in and out of the media, believes in "cutting American down to size." Bachmann sees through Barack Hussein Obama's policy of accomodation, apology, and appleasement to the radical Islamists.

    November 28, 2011 at 7:17 pm |
    • SarahTonin

      Derek, MB opens her mouth and stupidity falls out. She's not right, she's running for President!

      November 28, 2011 at 8:15 pm |
  14. SNAPPA

    Are these people living in a dream world? Well, I know Bachmann is but Wolf? Pakistan is already an extremist nation, they hid Osama Bin Laden for crying out loud. Does anyone remember Mumbai? The secret police and military all have Islamist extremist at the helm. The "civilian" government is only for show as far as I'm concerned.

    November 28, 2011 at 7:13 pm |
    • Faraz Rizvi

      I am Pakistani and I was born there. We have vocal lunatics backed by military but we are nor extremists.

      Listening about human life loss in Mumbai was as tragic for me and everyone I know as it was for you.

      I can start sterotyping Indians on Ayodha tradegy or Americans supporting Israel when everyone knew it was wrong?

      November 30, 2011 at 4:24 am |
  15. Chuck

    So how much more is this going to cost the US citizens

    November 28, 2011 at 6:33 pm |
  16. Liz the First

    Even a broken clock is right twice a day. enjoy the moment, Michelle, it may never come again!

    November 28, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
  17. Luke

    You must have a thing for bachmann if you're praising her for coming to a realization that any idiot with a mediocre knowledge of current events came to two days ago. I don't know about you, but I prefer a genuinely intelligent woman, not one who relays information given to her by her associates so that she looks better in the public eye.

    November 28, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
  18. Tennesee3501

    Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is a strong, independent, intelligent, attractive, articulate, powerful and accomplished conservative woman. She has been selected by Forbes Magazine as one of the 100 most powerful women in America. She is ranked number 22 behind Oprah (14), Michelle Obama (8) and Hillary (2). She has also been slected by Time Magazine as one of the 100 most influential Americans, male or female. This terrifies the liberals who want their women wither to be "left wing kooks" or remain quiet, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Michele is living the life which Gloria Steinham and the "Womens Libbers" envisioned for women four decades ago. She has an outstanding education, a husband, a family and a phenominally successful career. She has it all! She is a great role model for American women!

    November 28, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
    • SarahTonin

      You must be a woman and the second example of why, women have the right to vote. MB is the first and both of you are making a case to repeal the privilege!

      November 28, 2011 at 8:19 pm |
  19. jj

    So her script contained one plausible statement. So what, she is never going to be the candidate.

    November 28, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
  20. edsr of Dallas

    Wolf.........yes....Michelle Bachmann is correct....Pakistan is a serious nuclear country. They can hurt us very badly. We have no reason interfering in their affairs and we need to stay out of the backyards of those who do not ask us to be there.

    November 28, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
  21. bart

    Anybody think about taking out their nuclear capability?

    November 28, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  22. Greg, Ontario

    Bachmann, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee..don't make me laugh.

    Just like China and Russia keep you Red Necks in check with mutually assured destruction, India would do the same to a Pakistan. So stop the frakin fear mongering Wolf. We aren't biting anymore.

    November 28, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
  23. jim (in seattle)

    Why is it that our millitary can't seam see (with drons that fly around the clock) that bombinng on a hostal border /pakistan or afghanistan,of a country that realiy dosen't want any involment with the U.S.. Is (to nuclear to fail) have many u.s. citezens woried?.(Maby Israle) How would the U.S.A react if the same thing happened if the British flying drones droped boms on our borter patrol .Would the british tabloieds say (U.S has many nuclear warheads? ) Maby if we would try using there millitary comand and control,things maby might ease up a bit. And rember we always have the nuclear neighborhood of Iran China and Inda. The word is a safe place hu.

    November 28, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
  24. John Worker

    Pakistan has always supported the U.S. since its inception in 1947. In the late 1950s, the U.S. was using Pakistan bases to fly U-2 missions over the Soviet Union. In fact, Francis Gary Power’s 1960 U-2 mission that was shot down over Russia took off from a Pakistan base. Henry Kissinger's initial secret trip to China was facilitated by Pakistan in 1971 which led to the Nixon trip to China in 1972. India was always in the Soviet camp against the U.S. while Pakistan was always in the U.S. camp. Pakistan fought the U.S. war against the Soviets in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989. The defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan led to the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991. Pakistan has supported Bush's war against terror unilaterally since 2001 and has suffered tremendous negative consequences. Pakistan has deployed more soldiers in the war against terror and has lost more soldiers than all of NATO combined. A U.S. citizen Raymond Davis killed two Pakistanis in Pakistan this year but Pakistan still let him go due to its friendship with the U.S. NATO now cowardly kills 24 sleeping Pakistan soldiers at night. Is this the thanks Pakistan gets for always supporting the U.S. and NATO? Michele Bachmann is right that Pakistan has to be supported.

    November 28, 2011 at 6:13 pm |
  25. Brian from Chicago

    Seeing "Bachmann" and "right" in the same sentence really caught my attention. Finding myself agreeing with what he's said was almost as surprising.

    November 28, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
  26. Mr. LT

    Blitz, she read that in the latest Atlantic Magazine, "The Ally from Hell" by Jeffrey Goldberg. I think the phrase "too nuclear to fail' is a great description also, but its not her material, and she didnt reference Goldberg.

    November 28, 2011 at 6:06 pm |
  27. Mike smith

    Blitz didn't you reported on WMD in Iraq same thing and stand in fron of mirror and some think how many innocent US soldiers and Iraqi Citizen has been killed due to your this kind of reporting, How do you sleep at night Blitz ?

    November 28, 2011 at 5:54 pm |
  28. bostontola

    Not a good idea to state this publicly. It will only prove to Iran (and others) that it is worth developing the capability. It may be politically effective, but not good for the country. Show's she is more interested in her election chances than the well being of the US.

    November 28, 2011 at 5:52 pm |
  29. Change

    No, what Michelle Bachmann needs to point out is that the Republican Party she supported during the Bush era and continues to support today are simply responsible for this ongoing conflict simply because they deliberately and recklessly abandoned and subsequently prolonged the Afghan war to start their illegitimate Iraqi war. Furthermore, I wish journalist like Wolf Blitzer would begin to do America a well deserved favor by posing the tough and necessary questions at these out of touch, misguided and reckless Republican politicians once and for all. Mr. Blitzer I thing you should ask Ms. Bachmann and other Republicans from now on had they not abandoned and prolonged the Afghan war to go into Iraq, would this conflict still be taking place today. Wolf, journalist like you owe it to the American people to start asking these Republicans the same kinds of tough questions you people have been asking Democrats for three straight years and stot appeasing to them and lettiong them off the hook because our safety and democracy are at stake here.

    Mr. Blitzer, do you remember the interview you had with US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice about our support of the UN mission to intervene in Libya a few months ago? Do you remember how you crossed examined Ms. Rice as though she was a defendant on trial for murder, asking her the same questions over and over and over? And do you remember asking Ms. Rice almost fifty questions on our involvement in Libya such as what if this and what if that and what after the Libyan government collapses and so on and so forth? And do you remember Ms. Rice telling you that she could not jump ahead of her self until we got there? However I was very pleased of the professional and efficient way in which Ms. Rice answered all of your pointless and silly questions. But now I believe its due time that after eight straight years of running this country into the ground and three additional years of deliberately stalling progress in Washington, you journalists begin posing the tough questions at the GOP who have failed America and the world. That is questions such as why they are not supporting a jobs bill to help fix the economic crisis they created or why don't they admit that they have compromised our national security time and time again or have recklessly murdered our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan without just cause and why they ought to apologize to the families of the American service men and women they have killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Blitzer, you and other journalists have an obligation and responsibility to report the news in a fair, objective and unbias manner so let's have it Wolf. After all, you journalists owe it to the American people especially when your bogus and one sided coverage of the issues helped the GOP to win the midterm and use their new platform in the House of Representatives to stall progress.

    November 28, 2011 at 5:49 pm |
  30. Anonymous010

    I don't know which is more frightening: that Michele Bachmann is privy to top secret information or that she might actually be right about something for a change.

    That said, I don't know how to feel about Pakistan. I can understand their frustration at our raid on bin Laden's compound without their knowledge, but there's also the possibility they were harboring him. So, if they really were cooperating with us and were forthcoming with us, we should apologize and show them respect. If, on the other hand, they were harboring bin Laden, NATO should 'accidentally' drop quite a few more bombs on Pakistani troops.

    November 28, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
    • SarahTonin

      You say that you don't know how to feel about Pakistan. If nothing else it should be clear that they are not our friend. They hid BinLaden, they export terror and support radical extremists within their own borders. The world is their bowl of cherries as long as anyone bows to them because they have nuclear weapons.

      THEY FORGET THAT WE HAVE THEM TOO, LARGER NUMBERS OF THEM AND WAYS TO DELIVER THEM! Their nuclear annihilation rests just off their shores in submarines, just waiting for them to attack us with one. That's reality.

      November 28, 2011 at 8:27 pm |
  31. badcafe

    This is so non-sensical. Everyone's worried about nuclear Pakistan doing something, everyone's worried about antagonizing them, and they're taking full advantage of this one-sided relation. Hey, how about the fact that Pakistani sponsored terrorists periodically create bomb attacks on nuclear India, and export terrorism around the world to other nuclear countries? Why is it that they are not worried about antagonizing other nuclear countries 100 times more powerful than them, but we are. Granted, we want to keep them happy, but at what cost? What about the fact that we are not supposed to negotiate with terrorists?

    November 28, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
  32. outspoken

    Nuclear device is not a toy that you can take from somewhere and use it. Even a third grader knows that. Problem
    is that Pakistan is a muslim country and they have the Nuclear BOMB. That is the problem. This lady doe have any
    expertise about Nuclear BOMB. ASk an Nuclear expert, he will tell you how diffucult to detonate a N-BOMB.
    These are jewish propaganda !! They are like crying baby.

    November 28, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
  33. lineman

    What Bachmann said about our relations with Pakistan has been said many times before by anyone who has ever thought about the issue. It is common knowledge that Pakistan is a nuclear power and common knowledge that all nuclear weapons in all countries that have them must be safeguarded. What is just common sense to everyone else seems to be a monumental achievement in thinking for Bachmann. Be assured that the US is way ahead of things when it comes to US – Pakistan relations.

    November 28, 2011 at 5:38 pm |
  34. AJ

    So NATO killed 24 Pakistani soldiers on Pakistani soil without any provocation and Pakistani's are the bad guys. What a twisted world we live in......

    November 28, 2011 at 5:38 pm |
    • SarahTonin

      No AJ they aren't the bad guys. This wasn't an intentional act. It couldn't be. The response from Pakistan is the outrage. Anyone who values life will mourn those soldiers who lost their life. The indignation is the Pakistani response!

      November 28, 2011 at 8:31 pm |
  35. Tom Yeseta

    It's time to take a look at Ron Paul's policy suggestion: use trade and diplomacy to make our relations with Pakistan valuable to them and to us...

    November 28, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
    • SarahTonin

      Ron Paul is the only reasonable and sane candidate running for the Presidency. Obama is ridiculous and there isn't a GOP candidate, except Paul, that makes any common sense!

      November 28, 2011 at 8:33 pm |
  36. TexMan

    She is actually right on this one.

    But 1-10 out of a 100 does not make her presidential material.

    November 28, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
  37. Adam1974

    Funny thing is Bush was criticized for not using drone attacks along the Afghan-Pakistan border more frequently. Obama comes in, juices up the drone attacks, gets wide congratulations, and helps destabilize a nuclear state. Why is Obama not criticized for the same 'cowboy diplomacy' that so many liberals faulted Bush for?

    November 28, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
    • God Failed Again

      Obama's trying to clean up the mess that Bush created! Illiegal war in Iraq and a needless war in Afghnistan, the cost of which has push us all into the financial toilet that we are in today. Not to mention sleeping with Wall Street, big oil and big corporations, allowing them to run the country into the ground. Bush was a disgusting excuse for a leader.

      November 28, 2011 at 5:55 pm |
    • Ken

      Because Obama got results..

      November 28, 2011 at 6:07 pm |
    • Loy Ann

      BLITZ!! Whether or not she was right or wrong, let's all pray that she will never be the one to have access to that red button!! Or any other one of those GOP clowns! Can you imagine Herman Cain as our Commander In Chief? He thinks Pakiistan is a city in Ohio or something!! During the debate, every GOP candidate appeared eager and willing to take the U.S. into a war at the drop of a hat. NOT GOOD!!!

      November 28, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
    • 2 reasons

      1. The anointed one can do no wrong.

      2. Hypocrisy is the order of the day when you're on the left.

      November 28, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
    • whoa!

      why, because Obama wants to succeed in stabilizing Afghanistan and killing Bin Laden... Bush/Cheney were not... they wanted the boogey man out there to keep us scared and under control.... that's how fascists work... understand now?

      November 28, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
    • GetReal

      President Obama didn't order the recent attacks that killed the 24 Pakistani Border troops. That was clearly a localized communications mistake, which will most likely blow over. Otherwise, I think that he and Hillary have done an excellent job of walking a narrow line between the Paki government and taking out terrorists who use Pakistan for safe haven.
      Do you also criticize President Obama for killing Osama Bin Laden?

      November 28, 2011 at 6:59 pm |
    • Walken1

      Fact is, most liberals do criticize Obama for escalating the drone strikes in Pakistan. The folks that agree with his policies in Pakistan are either the same folks that would have agreed with them if it was Bush doing them, or are spineless politicians that would simply agree with anything their party's leader is doing – something that BOTH Repubs and Dems are extremely familiar with.

      November 28, 2011 at 7:12 pm |
    • Tom H - Seattle

      I'm a Democrat, and I agree with you.Granted, Obama was able to do what Bush could not - get Bin Laden and others, but the same cowboy mentality is at work. The only difference is competence; one has it, the other doesn't.

      November 28, 2011 at 7:56 pm |
    • capeX

      I think Bush was criticized for his war in Iraq . The one in afghanistan was required. He was also criticized for not raising taxes when going into these wars, which is the reason why the deficit increased. Obama's decision to get Bin laden was the one only a few in the world have courage to take . I admire that about your president. I am envious to some extent my country doesn't have that kind of leadership .
      Pakistan has a dual policiy, They want to help the terrorists till Americans leave the region and then leverage them to use against India so that the Drugs+ ISI + Oil money = Arms equation keeps working fine.

      This is a very short term equation and is not at all good for the future prospects of that country or their people. The educated masses in Pakistan are scarily close enough culturally and ideologically to the Indians , the very survival of Pakistan as a separate country hangs on the lynch pin that Pakistan is "different" ideologically from India. This downward spiral will keep going down till there is an inflow of money and remember when things go south they always have the But to say that USA has similar problems is a euphemism, there is the military industrial complex which needs wars to go on. There is a corporate lobby which want to reduce taxes for your millionaires and increase them for the middle class. There is a media-lobbist nexus which demagogues everything that your president does , "He is not American" , "He is not Harvard educated" or something ignorant like he is a "Socialistic Nazi" whats that, isnt it the socialists which fought with the Nazis , you have the Koch brothers which need less government so that those with money could screw those who dont . There are right wing militias which are funded by these people to topple the government , there is privatization of military like "Black water" so that the rich could hire "services" from these people and use them against "unions" or Americans. The day people care more about money and power instead of the people around them , the rot starts.

      November 29, 2011 at 12:55 am |
  38. jeana

    Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while

    November 28, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
    • Reilleyfam

      Bad analogy – try this one:

      "Even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day."

      November 28, 2011 at 6:05 pm |
    • David, CA

      Amen to that- it's like saying the sky is blue and expecting praise. Still doesn't make her qualified. She's still a dangerous nut case and lying hypocrite.

      November 28, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
  39. Andrew Zerfass

    Did we fall asleep and just forget the cold war ever happened? We were dealing with a much larger and much more imminent nuclear threat then. Episodes like the recent Nato airstrike and our need to ensure hypothetical events like Iran getting a nuclear weapon don't happen is exactly what allows the "Islamic extremists who hate America" to take power in these countries.

    November 28, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
    • Stopthemadness

      Hey simpleton, Yes you Andrew. It only takes one nuclear weapons to end a continent. You seem to think it is who ever has the most nukes wins (BUZZER SOUND HERE) wrong it is who ever launches the first one killed the planet. So get your head out of your hind quarters and quit trying to sound like you know about anything.

      November 28, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
    • rodwick

      The USSR was a different kinda threat all together Andrew. They are more like us when it comes to getting down being nasty and weapons control is centralized. The same exist in N Korea as much as we like to hate on them. When we are talking about the Middle East and I guess we have to stretch this into the near east, India and Israel are the only ones who have effective control with a centralized strong goverment. Anyone who would consider Pakistain a strong centralized goverment with effective control needs to pass me the hash pipe so I can also enjoy the conversation.

      November 28, 2011 at 8:06 pm |
    • SarahTonin

      Andrew .. here's news . we are heading back into that same cold war. It's not far off!

      November 28, 2011 at 8:37 pm |
  40. Rich

    Dealing with Pakistan is like walking on eggshells for the United States. Pakistan was harboring Bin Laden who was living just outside of a military training fort for years when America swooped in and killed him. Meanwhile America has been poring United States dollars borrowed from China into Pakistan attempting to buy loyalty. In the end it might all have been for naught.

    Pakistan is worthless to America in it's war on terror. America can not buy its way to compliance and security. Many countries besides Pakistan have nuclear capability yet Bachman says nothing about them. We do not know Iran's current capability and we just simply guess at the status of their nuclear program. Bachman has no clue on that one although she would have you believe that she does.

    I remember an old saying that goes something like this. Never worry about a man who tells you what he thinks he is capable of. He has already told you what he thinks he can do. You worry about the man that is saying nothing, because you don't know what he is capable of.

    Nuclear material can be obtained from all over. Pakistan is one of many that have it but is certainly not exclusive. If someone got control of what Pakistan has there are ways to eliminate any harm that might come from them. Unfortunately for Pakistan that would mean total destruction. You can bet that Pakistan knows this as well.

    November 28, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
    • mike

      right now pakistan's destruction is not of much importance. right now america's destruction due to overspending bigger concern. what bin-laden could not do, americans have done without even making an effort...spend itself into debt it can never get out of. now the military is going to get cut, 400 billion dollars plus another 600 billion dollars and there isn't going to be much of any military strength left in this country to fight wars overseas or defend ourselves on our own land.

      November 28, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
    • Karl

      Nuclear tech is widespread as all know. Putting that on a warhead is some of the most guarded tech that mankind has ever invented. If a teaspoon of a needed element is sold anywhere in the world, top G8 intel would know about it and swoop down hard on any nation(yes nation, no individual or group can accumulate said knowledge without transparency) that tries to take that step.

      November 28, 2011 at 6:41 pm |
    • Paul

      They don't just have "nuclear materials", they have nuclear bombs.

      November 28, 2011 at 7:57 pm |
    • nila

      i completely agrees with you Pakistan will never going to be out friend, they will continue taking money from united state but they will never going to be friend nor will get rid of those so called islamis extemist.

      November 28, 2011 at 8:05 pm |
  41. humtake

    WRONG. If we let the threat of nukes be our cause for positive diplomacy, then we've already lost the fight. Pakistan has been a thorn in our side for a while and has done everything it can to unilaterally protect the terrorists in its borders.

    Well, now is their chance to unilaterally prove they can maintain their nuclear responsibilities even when relations with another nuclear superpower are strained. Just because they don't want to play nice with America doesn't mean they can't be a nuclear power. They have not been a target of nuclear criticism because they have proven they are responsible with their nukes and they allow for inspections as outlined by the IAEA and the UN.

    All you are trying to do now is start up the same kind of fear of Pakistan as we have of Iran, yet Pakistan has done nothing to draw that kind of attention...especially nothing like Iran has.

    November 28, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
    • Bill Schroeder

      Can't agree more. What further can the US do that it has not already done to build a positive environment in Af-Pak?
      Pakistan has gained expertise in negotiating with the US using black mail, domestic propaganda and more recently over threats of jumping ship.

      Stephen Cohen once said, "Pakistan is the only country that negotiates with a gun to it's temple".

      November 28, 2011 at 7:16 pm |
      • Faraz Rizvi

        What US can do is to end war there so these countries get time to sort themselves out. There is big movement in Pakistan against teh corrupt rulers (a small rich subset of pupulation inclusive of military). Support the revolution rather than staying stuck into wars while moderate voices keep getting ignored.

        November 30, 2011 at 4:40 am |
  42. 4sanity

    "Bachmann sits on the House Intelligence Committee, and is privy to top-secret information....and "at the debate, the congresswoman said that Pakistan has 15 nuclear sites spread out around the country and that six attempts “have already been made on nuclear sites.”

    So Bachmann is releasing classified top-secret information. What part of top-secret doesn't she get ?!

    November 28, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
    • John

      Also, from CNN's very own Fact Checker story about her assertions: The verdict: Misleading. Yes, six attacks occurred, but they do not appear to have been attempts to seize the country's nuclear weapons. In addition, Bachmann offered no evidence to back up her assertion that the weapons could be spirited to New York City or Washington.

      November 28, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
    • Adam1974

      Same problem JFK had when he stated that the US had a missile gap against the Soviet Union in the 1960 debates when the classified intel he was receiving verified overwhelming American superiority.

      November 28, 2011 at 7:18 pm |
  43. karen

    well if these people was so tramatized by what happened why did they wait till he was going run for president to come out with it if it happened then they should of said something so umm dont ya think they might of been in the wrong also it aint all his fault if a man gives me that choice i will set him in his place if i DIDNT WANT TO DO IT

    November 28, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  44. Confused

    This appeasing approach to Pakistan is the reason why all rogue countries are going for nuclear option. Once they have it, they get automatic US aid, no matter what they do. So Iran's and N Korea's actions make sense then.

    November 28, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
    • hdhjd

      Have you looked into Pakistani media, the public don't want US aid. The aid is for the corrupt puppet govt of Pakistan, they steal all the public money and then use the US aid money to do some pet projects to get more votes. If there is no aid money, they need to collect proper taxes and properly run the country.

      November 28, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  45. Confused

    The foreign policy confuses the heck of me. Pakistan is a rogue country which is the birth of most of the extremists in the world and yet we need to appease it.
    So it is rewarding to be a bad guy. How about India started doing the same thing as Pakistan does? India being a responsible country in all respects is often ignored. This is akin to a nice guy at high school being ignored while a bully is pampered to be a nice kid.

    November 28, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
  46. Larry Schwartz

    I hope the U.S. military has a game plan
    to destroy those sites etc. if the Pakistan government looks to
    be falling in to the wrong hands. Enough with the niceties!

    November 28, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
    • Jagermeister

      Okay so from NATO killing sleeping Pakistani soldiers in their territory, the discussion has become about terrorists taking over Pakistani nukes? Talk about obfuscation. You keep on infringing their sovereignty and senselessly kill their men – ofcourse the terrorists are gonna go to town. The US needs to get out of this 'HARD/MILTARISTIC' approach and start understanding why Pakistanis are getting agitated by US...the US-Pak relationship is complex in many ways but in many ways it is simple. Stop wreckless activities.

      November 28, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
      • NofanofBachmann

        OK no argument about stopping wreckless activities. But that cuts both ways. The Pakistanis have pledged to help the US and NATO in their efforts to minimize the influence of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I consider it wreckless for the Pakistani government to obfuscate and deceive. The Pakistanis promised to deal with the lawless 'tribal areas' in the northwestern, along the Afghan frontier. Have they done so? Hardly.

        The best thing that could happen for the Afghanistan-Pakistan region is for the rest of the world to butt out, give India the green light to solve their problems with Pakistan, and let Pakistan find out the hard way what the value of friendship with NATO and the US really is. I think they will continue to treat that relationship as relatively worthless until they are pushed to the brink of destruction and are compelled to deal with their internal problems as part of their strategy for national survival.

        November 28, 2011 at 6:51 pm |
    • MaoBinHitler

      Yeah, Im pretty sure the US just MIGHT have a backup plan for the only nuclear capable islamofascist country on the face of the earth. JUUUUUSST MAYBE

      November 28, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
      • sam

        Nofan, are you implying Nato is there to safeguard Pakistan from Indian bullying...hmmm... I think you got the first part wrong, but I am glad you know how the real bully in the region is.

        November 28, 2011 at 9:20 pm |
  47. bccream

    As an Indian living in the US, I am highly concerned about this nuclear issue and although may not agree with Mrs. Bachman on every other issue. She is dam$ right about this one, you cannot suddenly drop Pakistan overnight. US, India and China together must make every efforts to work with people like Imran Khan and Mr. Gilani and bring a responsible democracy in Pakistan Whether you like it or not it. It is an extremely challenging perhaps nearly impossible thing to do due to the , but you have got no alternatives. You cannot unnuke Pakistan.

    November 28, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
  48. Phil in KC

    It has to be one of the few times that Bachmann was right. I guess even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I'm not saying I disagree. But it is one of the very few issues where I agree with her.

    November 28, 2011 at 5:04 pm |
  49. harold, Phoenix,AZ.

    I agree , every effort must be taken to ensure that the nukes are kept out of the hands of Terrorist. Just a thought, I find it odd that the only Nation to use a nuclear weapon are furious about other nations having them.

    November 28, 2011 at 5:04 pm |
    • humtake

      Learning from past mistakes is what makes people great. Unfortunately, most of the people in the Middle East haven't learned from mistakes made in the past 2000 years. We learned from our mistake within 50 years.

      November 28, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
      • grumpygus

        If you are referring to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I don't think you should call that a mistake. It was an American success. And probably the least evil thing that could be done. Yes, dropping the atomic bombs on Japan killed about 250,000 Japanese. But note that Operation Olympic (the planned invasion of Japan that was averted by Japan's surrender) was projected to cost about half a million Allied lives and millions of Japanese lives. Note also that the Japanese did not surrender after the Potsdam Declaration. In addition, the US had been firebombing Japanese cities for six months prior to dropping the atomic bombs, and Japan had still not surrendered. Also note that it took two bombs, plus the Soviet Union's declaration of war against Japan, for the emperor to finally surrender. It was no mistake. War is hell.

        November 28, 2011 at 7:46 pm |
  50. 1CalNative

    I totally disagree that we need to continue to work with Pakistan, on anything. We have for years dumped money into Pakistan to no good end for us. They keep protecting Al-Queda in their border lands while taking millions of dollars from us. I don't say we must do something to offend them but just don't give them any more money, It does us no good, and won't change a thing, They already hate us.

    November 28, 2011 at 5:03 pm |
    • Jagermeister

      The missing link in your concoction is that the Billions the US has given to Pakistan has gone into the pockets of the corrupt elite – the ordinary Pakistani has not gained anything from the US aid and could care less about it. Cutting aid to Pakistan will be a good thing for Pakistani interests as it will get rid of the pro-US corrupt leaders. If you study the country, that is why people like Imran Khan and his party is gaining so much ground and I will bet will be the new govt in Islamabad. They are going to say NO to US aid – and as much as you guys think it will be good for us – it won't because we won't have leverage. That aid is the only leverage we have over its politics or corrupt leaders.

      November 28, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
    • sam

      Agree with Jager. People have to realize that the government which is feasting of US borrowed China borrowed money is the one who is fooling the US as well, yet US is adamant in keeping the same tyrants over the helpless Pakistani public.

      November 28, 2011 at 9:23 pm |
  51. jmrytown

    Gee, Wolfe, tell us somthing we didn't already know.

    November 28, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
  52. LEtsDoThis

    The only real solution is absolute destruction of all their capability to produce nuclear weapons. These middle east governments will say they are our friends, but in the end, they are just saying it to stall us. They don't like America. They are just biding their time until they can destroy us. Take it to them, there needs to be a combined, unilateral strike on all Iranina, Pakistani, North Korean, and any other hostile nations nuclear capabilities. We have the ability to strike anywhere in the world in short notice. We just need to conduct the strike on all the sites simultaniously with cruise missles.

    November 28, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
    • Brad76

      -Or- get out of the Middle East, Asia, and Europe, then begin negotiating lasting peace deals before this spirals out of control.

      Peace > War

      November 28, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
  53. Ali

    I'm honestly surprised. Blitzer should well enough know Bachmann was twisting and stomping on the truth when she made those claims of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal's being in jeapordy. CNN itself called her out on it!

    November 28, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
  54. Brad76

    Nukes are not a joke, time to stop playing around. One mistake could lead to thousands of people losing their lives.

    November 28, 2011 at 4:56 pm |
  55. ComSenseWiz

    Keeping Pakistan nukes safe is noble but at what cost and who is going to pay? The USA can not continue to subsidize Pakistan and concurrently run up the national debt by over 2 BILLION per day. Currently, our national economic security trumps our security interests with Pakistan's "loose nukes".

    November 28, 2011 at 4:56 pm |
  56. Jason K

    Wolf Blitzer, you are a journalist. You're not supposed to be taking sides in a political race. Your jobs is to report facts, not make a headline saying if they are right or wrong. That is for your readers to decide. Stop encouraging the dumbing down of America through the use of the media. Stop telling people what to think. Oh, I'm sorry, but then you'd be out of a job.

    November 28, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
    • bccream

      LOL. Neither he nor CNN is endorsing her, what do you mean taking sides? He has every right express his agree/disagreement just like you and I have.

      November 28, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
    • 2 reasons


      You are absolutely 100% wrong my friend. It is a journalist's responsibility to report facts, and the truth. If a political candidate was lying to you, it would be journalists who find out and publish that info. They do the same when political candidates tell the truth every once in a while too.

      November 28, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
      • sam

        Which they most often don't. It's obvious what journalists have been selling us for years!

        November 28, 2011 at 9:25 pm |
  57. Rajiv Shaw

    For all the times she has been wrong, this time she gets it right. Pakistan is a rogue state, controlled by the ISI. The ISI is behind all the troubles that the ordinary Pakistani faces. I would also include Indians and Afghans as their victims. Until the ISI is controlled by honorable men, this will continue.

    November 28, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
  58. QS

    Come on Wolf, how hard is it for a conservative who thrives on xenophobia and isolationism to conjure up the terrifying "threat" of yet another country in that region having nuclear power? She could have said that about any other country too, it just happens that the question was about Pakistan and she stumbled into being was bound to happen at some point!

    November 28, 2011 at 4:53 pm |
    • The all potent one

      conservative who thrives on xenophobia and isolationism to conjure up the terrifying "threat" – the hypocracy of this statement is astounding,

      are you not conjuring up the terrifying threat of conservatives via xenophobia and isolationism?

      November 28, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
    • QS

      A threat is something that is thought to have the potential to happen – conservatives being xenophobic and isolationist is already very well known and true.

      November 28, 2011 at 8:29 pm |
  59. Pro Bono Publico

    Contrary to former AIPAC employee Blitzer's claim, no one in Pakistan hates America. Pakistanis only resent US foreign policy actions.
    Do you know the heartbeat of Pakistan, the cricket team, wears Pepsi colors? Has anyone ever objected to that? No. Never. If Pakistanis were hating America, they would be booing the team for the huge Pepsi sign on its uniform. Even devotedly religions cricket players never objected to wearing the Pepsi jersey.

    November 28, 2011 at 4:53 pm |
    • sam

      They don't but they are getting there I guess

      November 28, 2011 at 9:28 pm |
  60. JD in Moraga, CA

    Even the Devil can quote Scripture.

    November 28, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
  61. Ron

    I agree we live in dangerous times and this is no place for politics a threat like this deserves our undivided attention!

    November 28, 2011 at 4:50 pm |
  62. M

    Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

    November 28, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
  63. Woody Greenberg

    On today's Situation Room, in responding to your question, Herman Cain says he thinks immigration law enforcement should be left to the states. The very next question you asked was about Gov. Perry's idea to allow in-state tuition in Texas for children of immigrants. Cain says 'no.' Why not ask him to explain the apparent contradiction?

    November 28, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
  64. jon

    We have about 2000 nuclear weapons already pointed at every piece of the globe. If any country (Pakistan, Iran, Russia, etc, etc.) would ever fire one at us, we would WIPE THEM OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH. Do not forget that.
    That is exactly why that so-called threat from Saddam Hussein was so stupid. Why would he endanger his billions of dollars, 14 gold palaces, etc, to try to kill a couple thousand Americans and then get obliterated? He was not a religious fanatic like bin Laden, in fact he was nothing more than a secular thug dictator in his country. The thought that he was ever any kind of a threat to the United States (for so many reasons) was really STUPID. Thanks Georgie – for nothing.

    November 28, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
  65. gorddicnn

    What's the problem? If any group nukes us the country they are from will become a grease spot soon after. Are they that stupid to start a war with nukes knowing that?

    November 28, 2011 at 4:44 pm |
    • pacchardon

      The danger is not Pakistan attacking the US. It is the possibilty that one or more of their nukes might end in the hands of terrorists.

      November 28, 2011 at 7:24 pm |
  66. pacchardon

    This might be the first time Bachmann has said anything I agree with

    November 28, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
  67. WobblyOne

    Bachmann couldn't give you the correct time of day, much less a lucid assessment of the danger Iran's nuclear program presents to the US.

    November 28, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
  68. james - Twin Cities, MN

    Even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day. It was inevitable that eventually Michele Bachmann would be correct about something. Unfortunately, this does not offset the fact that she is wrong about nearly every other topic she addresses.

    November 28, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
  69. Greg

    The US should go in and destroy Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and then build permanent bases in India's Kashmir region.

    November 28, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
  70. Patrick

    I think Bachmann being right on anything should be front-page news. But it isn't worthy of CNN.

    November 28, 2011 at 4:36 pm |
  71. Julie Diane

    "In short, the United States must work closely with the Pakistani government to find strong bonds of cooperation despite all the serious differences."

    That sounds like something Ron Paul would say!! Maybe we DO need to listen to him about foreign policy! Now what was he saying about Iran again? My God, I think he's right!

    November 28, 2011 at 4:34 pm |
  72. Brock

    I disagree. Taking the point of view that any nation is too nuclear to fail only emboldens non-nuclear states to try even harder to acquire nuclear weapons because they see this as an affirmation of the bargaining power of nuclear weapons. This is entirely the incorrect position to take. No nation is too anything to fail. That is a scare tactic that is used in place of real intellectual power and actionable solutions. Moreover, just because someone is exposed to top secret information does not mean that the person correctly understands or utilizes such information. The cycle of nuclear weapon proliferation must be stopped, however, once a nation acquires a nuclear weapon it does not get a pass on failure or prosecution for violation of the law (civil or criminal). If we remove the idea that obtaining a nuclear weapon gives you greater bargaining power and more support, we will have removed one more reason for non-nuclear states to want to acquire them. If we all thought like this (The Bachmann-Blitz Principle), the world would be split into two groups; those who bully and those who get bullied. What a horrible planet we would become.

    November 28, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
    • imaguard

      We've been bullying each other for thousands of years. We've come a long way, but to deny the human capability for destruction is to invite your own destruction. We are more intelligent that we've been in the past few centuries but we're nowhere near the utopia that frees us from fearing our global neighbors. We can't uninvent the bomb, we can only manage it. And we all DO think like this. Within the last hundred years or so, the notion of world peace for a greater humanity has been repeatedly dashed by those successfully "playing" the world in a bid for conquest. I will repeat my earlier point so that it sinks in with you: To deny the human capability for destruction is to invite your own destruction. Bachman may be a fool, but she's right on this one. Imagine if Hezbollah or the Taliban got their hands on the most hated and destructive weapons in our history. Now imagine that Muslim extremists (who have hijacked a peaceful religion for their own purposes) succeed in hijacking the legitimate government of a nuclear power like Pakistan. I don't want to be alive when the logic of nuclear deterrence is shattered by the short-sighted and slanted actions of a handful of terrorists. So Pakistan MUST remain stable. Not sure how to go about it, though.

      November 28, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
  73. Thomas

    Who helped them become a nuclear power ?

    November 28, 2011 at 4:29 pm |
  74. LiberalNN

    Blitzer you keep this up and CNN will fire you. Don't you know that you're supposed to bash any notion anyone in the GOP or Tea Party comes up with, especially Bachmann? Remember who signs your paychecks!

    November 28, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
  75. ali

    seriously wolf? most of your reporting on pakistan has been so negative. No wonder it has led to anit-pakistan sentiments. Its only when things have deteriorated to this level that we start getting hold of our senses...

    November 28, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
  76. Dixie AZ

    How are we to know when she makes a factual statement? She mostly bends the truth or passes on gossip.

    November 28, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
  77. REGinAz

    And Bachmann is literally too nuclear, without credibility or conscience, too ever succeed.

    November 28, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
  78. JohnRJ08

    Ok. So, out of dozens of other issues, Bachmann gets one right because she is on the Intelligence Committee in the House. Does that really warrant a pat on the back from Wolf Blitzer?

    November 28, 2011 at 4:18 pm |
  79. Griff

    "Pakistan, is too confused to think it's a matter of who is the first to blink! JFK: Never negotiate from fear! But never fear to negotiate!"

    November 28, 2011 at 4:16 pm |
  80. Ed Chase

    I dont want to support Pakisban just because they have nukes,,, I am sick and tired of our tax money going to these anti-Americans. If they screw up then we'll take them out.. Its that simple, it worked with China, Russia.

    November 28, 2011 at 4:16 pm |
  81. sortakinda

    She also says that the sun shines on sunny days and it rains on rainy days. Like Pakistan, she is and will be in no position to do anything about it.

    November 28, 2011 at 4:15 pm |
  82. DrKnife

    Holy crap, Bachmann was RIGHT? That is headline news.

    November 28, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
  83. Perry P

    Correction.... Bachman's puppeteer was right.

    November 28, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
  84. kimberly

    She may be right, however, she only knew that from the last 8 months or so she has been on the foreign affairs commity! PLEASE do NOT accept this one time she didnt say something wrong or stupid as a beacon of hope that she may not be a complete idiot on every other subject! SHES A JOKE! I for one wish she had a chance at winning the nomination, she is what the republicans deserve! I would LOVE to see this woman tury to debate Obama! lol

    November 28, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
  85. Holden

    Pakistan is already gone, stop wasting diplomatic and financial resources on a country that openly harbors forces sworn to killing Americans.

    November 28, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
  86. Kevin O.

    What about the rest of us who don't care? I mean if a bomb falls and evaporates my neighborhood it was because of something a politician did. So since my politicians are going to act like fools, why should I preoccupy myself caring about something that may happen by the hands of those who are insane to begin with?

    November 28, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
  87. CalTeacherSub

    Well, I guess this simply proves the adage that even a busted clock is right twice a day.

    November 28, 2011 at 4:09 pm |
  88. Robert - FL

    Well, even blind squirrels find nuts once in a while. What does that make her, one for this century, LOL!!!

    November 28, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
  89. Amit G

    It's all good when you say "United States must work closely with the Pakistani government to find strong bonds of cooperation despite all the serious differences" but the million dollar question is on what terms? America knows that Pakistan has been playing them for funds they get from US, and that Pakistan doesnt do what they promise they how do you trust someone who is not true to anything?

    November 28, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
  90. Adam

    Easy to say "take a deep breath"... but if 24 american soldiers were killed in our territory by another country, we would not let that go lightly. Someone messed up.

    November 28, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
  91. Don_J

    Please do not encourage her!

    November 28, 2011 at 4:01 pm |
  92. Sam Khan

    Why don't you condemn the NATO attack on Pakistan's regular army within its border that killed over 24 men and officers? What if a Pakistani attack (mistakenly?) killed a few hundred NATO etc. troops? oops!!! I am sure the reaction would be very differeent.

    Pakistan needs to reasses its relationship of cooperation with NATO and other western alliances (fairly useless anyway. The alleged aid is actually payment for services to the US etc.anyway). They should rely on their own resources and develop at their own pace.

    November 28, 2011 at 4:01 pm |
    • sam

      True, Double standards everywhere unfortunately. Might is right.

      November 28, 2011 at 9:32 pm |
  93. Sue

    No matter what the U.S. does to try to mend fences, the forces of corruption are too strong and too deep to make Pakistan anything other than a fair-weather, two-faced "frenemy." Pakistan is a failed state. Its leaders are bought and paid for by narcos and religious extremists (e.g., the PKK), and to think otherwise is akin to skipping through a field of daisies - or poppies - singing "tral-la-la." It is not a matter of if, but WHEN, extremists succeed in taking power there. When they do, God help us all.

    November 28, 2011 at 3:59 pm |
  94. Marry

    Wolf, what do you mean – Bachmann was right? She should keep her mouth shut when she is “privy to top-secret information”. And even though she “got some information”, it does not make her capable to handle it – to work with it or do something constructive with it!
    I trust President Obama to work things out with Pakistan! He is not stupid! He will not be blackmailed by them – but he will work quietly for a honest and useful future and partnership. He will work it the same with Afghanistan! So, dear Ms. Bachmann, do not get a headache over topics you will never comprehend!
    2012 cannot come soon enough! Time to get the GOP/TP “pledges” out of the way!!!!

    November 28, 2011 at 3:42 pm |
  95. Griff

    As for this question, it should be more helpful to India; you being against Pakistan this time around! India relies so much on Russia for it's defence equipment!"

    November 28, 2011 at 3:41 pm |
  96. v_mag

    News Flash! Michele Bachmann was right, for once!

    Even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn. Not saying that Michele is a...oh, never mind.

    November 28, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
  97. Kris Craig

    Wow, Bauchmann actually got something right. Is there a full moon or something?

    November 28, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
  98. Wharf Rat

    She blew Perry out of the water on foreign policy and, that's scary for the governor!

    November 28, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
  99. Aldo

    what does that mean "too nuclear to fail"? What is "success" defined as?

    November 28, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
  100. Jim Thomas

    We must not trust Pakistan or any of those countries over their as they are animals and donnot care who they blow up.We have the greatest Air Force and need to use it instead of our troops. Get with it USA.Jim Thomas Phx. Az.

    November 28, 2011 at 3:06 pm |
1 2

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.