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. Amanda

    If you watched the actual interview Michelle Bachman was asked how she would keep peace bettween the NATO forces and the pakistani government but she continually beat around the bush. She did not even know about what had happened. So instead of answering the question she just changed the subject.

    November 29, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
  2. Jeff--Tacoma

    Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    November 29, 2011 at 10:36 am |
  3. Syed F Hussain

    The Strategic Objectives of US and Pakistan have not been harmonized, hence seeds of distrust. The US Objectives are more in line with the ruling minority in Afghanistan and enemies of Pakistan. Afghanistan is a neighbour of Pakistan – and will be in the future. US will depart sooner or later and does not have to live with consequences.
    The consequences for Pakistan pose Clear and Immiediate danger – 10 to 100 times what US 'might" theoretically face.

    November 29, 2011 at 3:55 am |
  4. kliberty

    Michele Bachmann will make a great President! She has a consistent conservative record & has been a champion in improving education in MN & a friend of the taxpayer for her career in elected office. She is more concerned about what is right for "We the People" & knows how to bring long term success to America again.

    November 29, 2011 at 12:48 am |
    • Thomas

      That's awesome. You really have a knack for comedy. What made that especially funny is that you wrote that straight.

      Well done.

      November 29, 2011 at 2:41 pm |
  5. Leslie

    Also Bachmann said they are a source of information... don't really want to completely cut off that source. They already have a nuke, VERY different from trying to. Choices are try to at least be diplomatically friendly at least or what... take it out? Not going to do that unless necessary so why cut off our info/access to them? Now I wouldn't ship tons of money over there either, but depending on their reliability and the type of info those are good reasons to keep them 'close'.

    November 29, 2011 at 12:47 am |
  6. truthman

    It's all in how you phrase it, Wolf Blitzer... relations deteriorated after NATO strike, or how about this... relations hit all time low when Pakistan military bases instigate attack on Afghan and US troops.

    November 28, 2011 at 11:41 pm |
    • Ashley

      A consumer is a pphsoer who is sore about something. Nowadays shopping has become a trend and people buy different products and give it to their loved ones on different occasions.

      April 4, 2012 at 7:35 am |
  7. KMR

    Wolf, this line of thinking about Pakistan falls apart. You and others are saying that we must do whatever it takes to keep friendly relations with them because they have nuclear weapons. Well, what happens when Iran has them? (You know that it is likely that they will.) Do we then, all of a sudden, try to become friendly with Iran? Does that make sense? If not, then what's different between Pakistan and Iran? It's only a matter of DEGREE of trust and respect, that's all.

    So I don't think that we should let Pakistan do whatever it wants while we try to "kiss-up" to them. It can't work. It's like kissing up to the kid with the bag of money (sound familiar?). We need to regain Pakistan's respect so they can regain our trust, or we need to consider alternatives if we conclude that we need to secure Pakistan, or its nukes, in any case.

    November 28, 2011 at 10:52 pm |
  8. Mo

    Pakistan is playing this black mailing tactics for a long time. Creating terrorists. making a safe heaven for them and when get exposed playing this nuclear game! How long USA is going to pay for these acts? Sad thing is some congress men/women like Michelle Bachmann have been paid higly for supporting them in this game. I can't tell them patriots. Sorry!

    November 28, 2011 at 10:50 pm |
  9. Derek Wain

    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 defeatist Team Obama media and blogosphere believe in "cutting American down to size." Bachmann sees through Barack Hussein Obama's policy of accommodation, apology, and appeasement to the radical Islamists.

    November 28, 2011 at 10:45 pm |
  10. tonyl

    Why is it that there is never any honest accountability of the American drones and air power killing innocent people on the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan including the Pak soldiers? We are fooling ourselves hoping to solve the problem by dropping bombs without regard to who we are killing to satisfy the American public but in all honesty creating more security threats for US. We always complain that there is an element in the Pak army which is helping the terrorists. Well with these kind of actions of killing Pak soldiers do you understand their justification to support the terrorists to hurt us for our actions against them?

    November 28, 2011 at 10:43 pm |
  11. TRH

    Hey, no problem. When one of the Neocons running for president takes over AND has a majority in the house and senate, they'll take care of Pakistan's nuke sites and Iran's also. Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman not included as they are unelectable.

    November 28, 2011 at 10:42 pm |
  12. Dana in Alaska

    Blitzer is WRONG. They are not to big to fail they are just to big for their britches. They are holding us hostage, nothing more or nothing less. We should be holding them Accountable for the status of the area.

    November 28, 2011 at 10:28 pm |
  13. InformedAmerican

    The magazine Scientific American published an article that predicted nuclear winter if there were a nuclear war of almost any size, and in particular, if there was an exchange of weapons between Pakistan and India, two countries with long standing enmity since 1947. A single nuclear weapon delivered on a large city will result in a cloud obscuring the sun as millions of people and animals are incinerated as aerosol particulate pollution rising on the heat of the explosion, to remain in the upper atmosphere for a long time.

    November 28, 2011 at 10:24 pm |
  14. K Parks of Denver, CO

    While I can understand that Pakistan with nuclear weapons can and does pose a significant threat I wonder how much US taxpayer money can be thrown that way only to have the same result. It would seem that no one can bully a country with nuclear power, especially one that is full of radical religious (whether it be a christian, Islamic or any other) government climate. It would seem that the United States need to find a new way of combating the threats of this new world.

    November 28, 2011 at 10:24 pm |
  15. Bullseye

    No, what we need to do is bring our soldiers home from all over the world. Close down all foreign bases. We need to maintain a ready military in the fashion of Switzerland, awesome in power and everyone serves so no more non-vets acting like patriots because only veterans are patriots. And we need to mind our own business. If Pakistan is such a big threat then let China and India take care of it.

    November 28, 2011 at 10:10 pm |
    • Faraz Rizvi

      Now someone is making sense. I don't get it why US needs to police the whole world and have bases all around? There is need to strategic positions but not the way US does it.

      Life loss is the worst tragedy in the world and if we look at the numbers, US policies have caused the most in the current world setup.

      I am extremly against militants holding weapon and forcing their way on people. But I am equally against US bullying others into what is deemed by it.

      Diplomacy resolves issues not killing others and supression. May it be militants or nations doing so!

      November 30, 2011 at 3:31 am |
  16. Billish

    If what Bachman said about Pakistani nuclear sites is false, then she's lying about a major issue and is unfit to be President. If what she says is true, then it almost certainly was supposed to be classified (given that it's never been uttered in public before), in which case she's leaked highly-classified information and is unfit to be President.

    Of course, the fact that she's an absolute loon with a fake degree from a religious "college" with unclear accreditation and completely in competent as a Congresswoman already made her demonstrably unfit to be President. Her record of accomplishment in Congress is zero. No laws passed by her hand or introduced by her.

    November 28, 2011 at 10:05 pm |
    • WakeUpAmerica

      Well said, too many people can't see the truth.

      November 29, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
  17. Christian Faith

    Michelle Bachmann is right on Pakistan. But, most people believe the same thing: that Pakistan would be a dangerous foe if occupied by Muslim Extremists. Surely India knows this. Lets not forget that Michelle Bachmann, although she may be a Christian, has said a lot of things that are either wrong or plainly false. Give her credit where credit is due, but don't give her a blank check stamped with an unlimited account of credibility, because she does not have a right to such a credit rating. Being a Christian means more than just talking about it: you have to be credible: frequently. And if she might care more about the poor and underemployed, under-insured, ect, instead of just catering to the wealthy, it might look a little more Christian, too. Jesus is not a Republican or a Democrat, I assure you.

    November 28, 2011 at 10:05 pm |
  18. david

    Nuclear war...what would we lose at the worst? Two or three cities. What would they lose? Everything. So why would they attack us again? What is the fear factor here?

    November 28, 2011 at 9:37 pm |
  19. asada

    Pakistan is tired of being used and abused by US and nato.Just watch in a few months when Pakistan choose there new leader , who will not take any aid or threat from USA. India dosnt have courage to face Pakistan so stop dreaming that India can takecare of Pakistan. Its time for US to get out of Afghanistan asap. Without Pakistan help US cant do nothening in Afghanistan.

    November 28, 2011 at 9:25 pm |
    • Faraz Rizvi

      I am Pakistani. What you are talking about here is not the point.

      Pakisan need to limit the relationship with US to the "normal" lebel it has with other countries.

      Pakistan need to start building up with India. There is so much in common and so much that can be achieved.

      We as Pakistanis need to start thinking about loving others then always thinking about hating someone.

      I hope the new government you are hoping to get elected is not as naive as the past ones (inc. military). And start looking for better ties with all neighbours, especially India. This will take decades but that is only way for our Country to get our act together, save money on mind blowing defense expenses (which is justified in the current situation but we should be spending that amount on education of people) and build a socially responsible society.

      I find the comments as offensive as I find people commenting to attack Pakistan.

      November 30, 2011 at 3:40 am |
  20. Thomas


    Asif Ali Zardari has long been one of Pakistan's most controversial political figures ... He spent several years in jail on charges of corruption.

    Do you think Musharraf or Zardari is to blame for Bhutto's assassination ?

    November 28, 2011 at 9:18 pm |
  21. jasschus

    Let's not forget that our interests in nuclear Pakistan are tied with nuclear India and those two countries' dispute of Kashmir province. We seem to forget this in our pursuit of the Taliban. Indeed, where is our conversation with India on keeping a stable Pakistan?

    November 28, 2011 at 9:13 pm |
  22. jim

    the republicans have dragged us into too many wars for too many wrong reasons. if bachmann wants us to rattle our sword, I suggest she start first with some FACTUAL information. given her truthfulness ratings on politifact, I suspect she'll be able to support her views with ANY facts.

    November 28, 2011 at 9:07 pm |
    • WakeUpAmerica

      Oh so true. They are so good at twisting the facts and outright lying.

      November 29, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
  23. Assad

    The congresswoman is wrong. Pakistan has never had an attack on ANY of its nuclear sites. She is patently wrong and the media, and Mr. Blitz too, have taken her comments as though it is divine revelation which it is not.

    Pakistan is a mess because we have only catered to our interests in the region not realizing that by undermining the interests of Pakistan, which is a neighbor of Afghanistan, we cannot have peace in that region. We have tried to bribe them and we have tried to scare them, and on both counts, our policy has failed. When we tried to bribe them, they said we do not want aid, rather trade. We said no to them because we know we would lose leverage over them. We we tried to scare them militarily and through sanctions, they told us that they have lived through such times during the 90s when they were the most sanctioned of the sanctioned and can manage.

    Pakistan is a resilient country and will get through the mess. I am not so sure of the interests of the United States surviving intact in that region after 2014. We need a cooperative strategy for Pakistan. Pushing them into the corner is not yielding anything worthwhile for us and after having killed 24 of their troops in ill-conceived operations, we are only making things tougher for ourselves during the draw down phase.

    November 28, 2011 at 9:06 pm |
    • ladilesper

      Here is just one story confirming that Pakistan nuclear sites have been attacked:
      She's not a liar, nor is she unfit to be president simply because she mentioned that the nuclear sites were attacked. Clearly it had already been reported in the press. I can't believe how incapable most of you are when it comes to persuasive argument. You don't check facts and you resort to ad hominem attacks (name-calling). You all called her a "whack job," "delusional," "idiot," "absolute loon," and "clueless zealot." Can't you think a little more and condescend a little less?

      November 30, 2011 at 12:29 am |
  24. Thomas


    India will , and it wont be pretty!
    Who will Afghanistan side with ?

    November 28, 2011 at 9:04 pm |
  25. Annie

    Bachmann is right (and Rick Santorum too) – and it was good of Wolf Blitzer to acknowledge this. It is a shame to see others' attempt to marginalize a very intelligent and well informed candidate. It is in our national interest to ensure our relationship with Pakistan improves and remains. Until we all agree on world peace I'm afraid we cannot ignore situations like these and hope they will all turn out all right on their own.

    November 28, 2011 at 8:54 pm |
  26. marinedad05

    Both Bachman & Blitzer are totally wrong on this.

    Pakistan is already a rogue country, and there are far too many factions and groups within Pakistan that will make it impossible for that country to transition to some semblance of statehood.

    As far as being friends, all one has to do is to read the tea leaves. More than 90 % of the Pakistanis hate us, the government wants our $$, a major portion of which is siphoned off to individuals. Pakistan is probably more dangerous to us than Afghanistan, and the chaos, misery, sheer lawlessness, and a 4th world economy does little to help us in any way.

    The US should cut all aid, try to get rid of their nukes with some surgical strikes, and let the Pakistanis wallow in their own muck.
    But there ought to be no overtures from the US to try & cozy up to these ingrates.
    Enough is enough!

    November 28, 2011 at 8:54 pm |
    • Faraz Rizvi

      People like you are the reasons why US is involved in almost every conflict in the world. Killing and supressing people doesn't win wars (US or militants) rather compassion to do something good.

      A war that started after 9-11 has resulted in death and suffering of far more people than on the day. It started against a tesrrorist group is carrying on as attacks on almost 70% of Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan, alienating 70% of non-Tajik population.

      Let us stop this tragedy and work for world peace using deplomacy rather than barging into other lands.

      November 30, 2011 at 3:47 am |
  27. Jimmer

    If they are "too nuclear to fail" then maybe we should stop provoking them and leave.....or is that too logical to comprehend............

    November 28, 2011 at 8:47 pm |
  28. Media has no idea what they are talking about

    Why should Pakistan keep the US's best interest in mind. The US definitely does not have Pakistan's best interest in mind. Why would any country put another's needs in front of theirs? We have had nothing but sorrows from your "war on terror" so please just leave that general area of the world. Every single penny of that "aid" ends up in bureacrats bank accounts. The citizens dont see your "aid" they dont want your aid and they dont want your war or involvement. We have lost the most lives in your "war on terror" and we have had enough. On top of that you kill our military men. So please take your billions of dollars and leave

    November 28, 2011 at 8:43 pm |
  29. clwyd

    So why have we been apologizing for killing kids in school, wives in their homes, farmers in their field, wedding parties and now soldiers. It has been hundreds of times and now this! We aren't playing around with just another country folks. Pakistan has nukes for all those right wind nuts who have talked her about blowing them up! Sicko righties! will get us all killed!

    November 28, 2011 at 8:42 pm |
  30. Pete/Ark

    There's an old southern cliche that says "even a blind hog finds some acorns"...maybe your point is that if SHE can see the problem we may really have one ?

    November 28, 2011 at 8:41 pm |
  31. Harv

    Outstanding! Bachmann got one thing correct.
    Even a blind squirrel.....

    November 28, 2011 at 8:35 pm |
  32. Griff

    "Trouble is: What state is your pen in? You need ink to make a link! I guess that's most of the trouble these day's: How? when you have so many; you choose the one with least comaback?"

    November 28, 2011 at 8:23 pm |
  33. Lindsey

    Michelle Bachmann is a patriot who cares about this country unlike many of the people on this blog. "Blitz" is only giving credit where credit is due. Bachmann is actually a very knowledgeable candidate who can blow away most of the people on the stage with her depth of knowledge about foreign and domestic issues. She can also blow away 99% of the people on this site!!!!!!

    November 28, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
    • albert

      This woman is a pathological liar not a patriot.

      November 28, 2011 at 8:39 pm |
      • Loy Ann

        Michelle Bachman can spell only one word and that word is H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E!! She is queen of are the rest of these GOP candidates! She says she is against big government but yet her and her family has profited nicely from big farm subsidies. Hmmmm, I wonder how much taxpayer money she has received from supporting over 20 foster children? Oh wait, her husband and her have also got money for his "pray the gay away" mental health clinic....please, give me a break!!

        November 29, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
    • Pete

      She is wrong most of the time and often so wrong it is hard to believe she can get dressed each day. In this case of pointing out the obvious, she is correct.

      November 28, 2011 at 8:56 pm |
    • jim

      michele bachmann has shown time and time and time again, that she's a liar. her ratings on the non-partisan politifact web site are disgraceful for any person of even minor power. she's a disgrace to americans everywhere.

      November 28, 2011 at 9:04 pm |
    • Say What?

      Are we talking about the same Bachmann, because the one Wolf is referring too is an idiot.

      November 28, 2011 at 9:21 pm |
    • TomNPitt

      It worries me that this person with so much confidential information from being on the House Intelligence Comittee feels no security concerns about telling the world about the attacks on the nuclear sites, nor on disclosing the number of sites that exist. All she has to do now is tell us is in what regions these sites are located! The lady is not mentally competent enough to have her hand on our defense button. I don't want her blowing me or my country away trying to show how much she knows about things she knows nothing about. In the time she's been running for office, I doubt she's made more than one of the meetings of the House Intelligence Comittee. And eben then, I doubt anyone told her anything secret, because they know she just can't keep a secret!! She has to show everyone she's privy to some secrets!!

      November 28, 2011 at 9:27 pm |
    • tickytickytimbo

      You don't make friends by dropping bombs on them! How is that so hard for people to understand? You don't see Pakistan or Iran burning Japanese flags (no muslims there 80% Buddhist or Shinto) or the flag of The Bahamas (over 95% evangelical Christian). Why is that I wonder?

      November 28, 2011 at 9:29 pm |
    • Come On Man!

      You are kidding right???

      November 28, 2011 at 9:31 pm |
    • Craig

      I don't understand why we have to give Bachmann credit for this opinion. Yeah, she's right to be nervous about Pakistan's nukes, but anyone with half a brain – nevermind access to classified information – should understand the danger. Its just too bad that we didn't nip nuclear proliferation in the bud way back when.

      November 28, 2011 at 9:53 pm |
    • Drew

      I wish that 1% would step and run for President instead of her...

      November 28, 2011 at 9:57 pm |
    • rukiddinme


      I agree that Bachmann is bright, I've met her and she's very witty and articulate. But she's a provocateur. She's a living, breathing version of "what's wrong in Washington" if you subscribe to that ideology. Or rather, she will make statements that she either knows are false or does not do the diligence to determine whether her facts are straight beforehand. She's populist with the far right, and populism with any far anything is very dangerous, politically or holistically as a country.

      November 28, 2011 at 10:02 pm |
    • Jim

      Her statement in this case was correct. We cannot afford to let Pakistans nuclear weapons fall in the hands of the wrong people. Her positions on other topics are too far over the top. Her economic policy, like the rest of the republicans, flies in the face logic. Some of her remarks are so far out she seems like someone overreaching trying to impress.

      Here are two examples:

      1. Stating that Obama has given over interrogation of terrorists to the ACLU. That's just nuts. Obama has demonstrated exactly the correct approach to dealing with terrorists and allies and foes alike.

      2. She said that corporate tax rates are too high (35%). Well corporations don't pay anywhere near 35%. 30 of the largest US multinational corporations pay $0.

      If you are middle class, thinking the policies of the current version of the republican party are in your best interest, then I guess she is smarter than you.

      November 28, 2011 at 10:26 pm |
    • dave, houston, texas

      You are right – she can be very sensible when forced to. Unfortunately at other times, she can also blow away 99% of the people on any site with her stupidity!

      November 28, 2011 at 10:39 pm |
    • Larry L

      I've noticed the fact-checkers for each of the debates find Michelle Bachman (or lying) nearly every time. She is a right-wing extremist who creates her own reality. She actually served on a committee where she learned about Pakistan and actually takes a rationa;l and moderate position on this issue. On this issue she sounds like a Democrat.

      November 28, 2011 at 10:50 pm |
    • LNB

      She is an idiot who had a moment. Anyone can put two and two together about countries with could have been said about Israel or any other nuclear power.....including ourselves....

      November 29, 2011 at 12:01 am |
    • Sadie Boyd

      You are as delusional as she he found one accurate thing out of fifty doesn't make her a rocket scientist or an informed politician...she is a zealot and she cannot govern...

      November 29, 2011 at 8:31 am |
    • DeadZone

      She is a whack job and a clueless zealot.

      November 29, 2011 at 11:34 am |
    • fedup

      To say this woman is actually a very knowledgeable candidate who can blow away most of the people on the stage with her depth of knowledge you have to be out of your mind to even think it. this lady can't discuss politics with college kids let along people with political background. PLEASE crawl back in your hole.

      November 29, 2011 at 11:36 am |
  34. Samurai Cowboy

    Anyone with a nuke make Israel nervous. Wolf Biltzer ia an executive at AIPAC and an unregistered Operative of Israel.

    November 28, 2011 at 8:09 pm |
    • Kim M Hunter

      Mr. Samurai Cowboy, do not step on me, OK? Mr. Wolf is a very good reporter. And I do not agree with all that he says. But he is fair about Israel and the terrified situation that country is in. If I was in that country, I too would prepare for defense, and if Iran does in fact have the BIG bomb, then I would not hesitate to destroy Iran before they can destroy them. He reminds me of another would be dictator who rolled big and lost. I refer to Germany under the Nazi rule. Do you think that you would have loved to be there in the early 40's? I think so.

      November 29, 2011 at 12:51 am |
  35. Ibrahim

    Pakistani here – Don't fool yourself, America. You don't do me or the rest of this country a favor by giving billions of Dollars to our military. The money transfer is on a strict term. The money is not used to build bridges or construct highways. The money is used by Pak military to buy weapons from the American military industrial complex. It's your government's way of subsidizing your own weapons industry. It is Corporate America, who owns your government (not you), that benefits. That's why America will continuing giving Pakistan billions even if the military does or does not hide Osama. Furthermore, let me make it clear to you. We don't need you America or your money. The only "favor" you do for the average Pakistani is give money to the puppet, criminal civilian government of Mr. 10% (Asif Ali Zardari) who then transfer the little bit left over to their own Swiss bank accounts after buying weapons from your corporations.

    As far as I'm concerned, too many civilian lives have been lost in U.S./Nato drone attacks. There is absolutely zero accountability. They've blown up schools, houses, even dropped bombs on weddings. If you think Pakistani people deserve to die, that's fine with me. I just hope it is clear to America that these new generations are becoming radicalized because of your murders. The civilian deaths in Pakistan from your bombings make 9/11 look like a walk in the park. America is sealing its own fate. Do you really believe these people will let you live safely in your countries and never respond with a devastating blow?? What you're doing and justifying as correct and morale is actually no different from the terrorists you loathe so much.

    November 28, 2011 at 8:04 pm |
    • Media has no idea what they are talking about

      I know! These people do not understand that their "aid" does not help anyone! Except the failed and corrupt "leaders:

      November 28, 2011 at 8:44 pm |
    • david

      Don't blame the US. That is what your leaders are demanding of the US for cooperation in the hunt for the terrorists. The Drone strikes would have never happened if your Army was willing to go after the terrorists themselves. Instead they played their "strategic depth" card . It is you Pakistanis who are not helping yourself. What is the US supposed to do when all your Army wanted was F16 when the entire country was flooded.

      November 28, 2011 at 9:13 pm |
    • Pat

      There is one universal law- what goes around comes around. In 1980's islamic jihad was supported by US to counter Russia but now they are at the receiving end of it. Similarly pakistan was happy exporting terrorism around the world and is now at receiving end of it since those very terrorists are gunning for pakistan!!

      November 28, 2011 at 9:22 pm |
    • Greg

      Ibrahim, If Pakistan could control or wanted to control it's borders then we would not need drone attacks. Pakistan indirectly controls the Taliban and is no friend to the US. We should pull out of Afganistan, end aid to Pakistan, nuke the infrastructiure of Pakistan's nuke sites. Then greenlight India to take over all of Pakistan. This would be a fitting end to the Islamists and send a strong single to others.

      November 28, 2011 at 9:35 pm |
    • Prasad

      Indian here – cannot agree with you more.

      November 28, 2011 at 9:50 pm |
    • Christian Faith

      You make some valid points worth consideration. And hopefully you will realize that we are all pawns of the military/industrial complex: because surely you must realize that YOUR country will buy weapons from anyone that sells and subsidizes weapons to them: China, Russia,North Korea, WHEREVER, ect. So do not blame America solely for the world that exists as it does. The average American citizen has NOTHING to do with this. Get real.

      November 28, 2011 at 10:16 pm |
      • Faraz Rizvi

        And an average Pakistani has nothing to do with the horrible reality we live with in Afghanistan and those influenced by the same mentality.

        The anti-Americanism in Pakistan is driven off attacks of sovergnity from supporting military and corrupt leaders.

        You want to win war on terror? Spend USD 2 billion a year on education system in Pakistan rather.

        I wish I had more money to assist education system there. This is the only way!

        November 30, 2011 at 3:58 am |
    • Larry L

      This is a thoughtful and insightful comment. Please answer this one question... If you were the U.S. at this point in time, what specific things would you do to create a positive relationship with Pakistan? Keep in mind we killed Osama Bin Laden virtually in the back yard of a Pakistani military facility. Can Pakistan be trusted enough to implement whatever recommendation you might suggest?

      November 28, 2011 at 10:56 pm |
      • Faraz Rizvi

        [This is my reply to the post below]

        And an average Pakistani has nothing to do with the horrible reality we live with in Afghanistan and those influenced by the same mentality.

        The anti-Americanism in Pakistan is driven off attacks of sovergnity from supporting military and corrupt leaders.

        You want to win war on terror? Spend USD 2 billion a year on education system in Pakistan rather.

        I wish I had more money to assist education system there. This is the only way!

        November 30, 2011 at 3:59 am |
    • Alkali

      How right you are, my fellow man. There will be much bloodshed in the coming years; too many injustices and bitterness between the nations of the world. Lets just hope those nukes are never used.

      November 29, 2011 at 8:29 am |
    • Abraham

      Are you saying that because America has killed civilians than American civilians deserve to be killed? I've never piloted a drone- should I be attacked?

      November 29, 2011 at 11:07 am |
      • Faraz Rizvi

        No, but like me (and educated Pakistani) youc an accept that what US has done in especially the Muslim part of the world has not made world better.

        No one should be killed. All we need is seeing the obvious and trying to influence our government.

        It is easy for people come to power based on hatred as it geenrates passion e.g. in Pakistan, it is done against India while your leadership bashes Pakistan. And everyone loves it!

        November 30, 2011 at 4:03 am |
  36. Socratino

    Pakistan is not 'too nuclear to fail' it's really just 'too nuclear to ignore'. If we get rid of the nukes (which we should have done years ago) then we have way less to worry about. By pandering to a nation that is so obviously hostile to us, we look like idiots to the rest of the world (Pakistan included) and we only encourage other parahia nations to develop nuks so they, too, can enjoy pampering and apeasement. If Pakistan is 'too nuclear to fail' what was the USSR? We opposed the USSR just fine. Why can't we do the same thing with Pakistan?

    November 28, 2011 at 8:02 pm |
    • Chae

      The nuclear standoff between the US and the USSR worked because of MAD, mutually assured destruction. It was taken as given that any nuclear act by one country would be met with overwhelming nuclear response, with nuclear strategic assets trading blows until the world slipped into ruins. If extremists take control of Pakistan, Pakistan won't declare war on the US and start lobbing nukes. In fact, outwardly, not much may change. But from that point, you cannot depend on nuclear security. Terrorists would have access to fissionable materials if not a nuke itself.

      I know it's one thing to have a nuke, and quite another to have a way of delivering the ordinance. Suitcase nuke of Hollywood movies don't exist. It would be a monumental undertaking to smuggle a nuke into the US and detonate next to a strategic target and frankly, something the terrorists wouldn't risk unless they were highly confident they could successfully bring the nuke in. We're more likely to see dirty bombs and attacks against our service members overseas and more regimes falling to instability and overthrow, and radicalization of our former allies due to shift in balance of power. Yes, nukes are that big a deal: terrorists having access to one, even if they don't use it, will shift the balance of power, and may force the US where we have to respond overwhelmingly against illusive enemies resulting in huge cost in collateral damage, something that will radicalize and destabilize more regimes.

      Again, no one expects the major cities in the US to be vaporized once Pakistan turns radical Islam. But the world will change the moment that happens.

      November 28, 2011 at 10:44 pm |
    • stan

      1. how do you just 'get rid of the nukes'. they wont give them up willingly. do you have a magic wand hidden somewhere that will just make the nukes disappear?
      2. we opposed the ussr just fine int he cold war, but we were never engaged in what amounted to a one sided war with them, on their turf. we regularly fly armed drones over pakistani airspace. we regularly kill militants and civilians alike with these drones, with a deathtoll in the thousands since 9-11. and now we carry out covert military actions inside of pakistan. when did we ever do these things to russia? NEVER. the worry is pakistan will say that they no longer condone. what then? do we continue to violate their sovereignty? if so what happens if they decide to make one of our bases in the middle east glow in the dark? i'm sure you will just say 'nuke um'. but a) i doubt we know where their nukes are b) pakistan already has space launch capacity via solid fueled rockets. that means they are very close to having the capacity to launch nuclear missiles that can reach CONUS, from mobile TELs that are very difficult to find and destroy. it's easy to say that we c an turn pakistan into a parking lot because we can. they cant, but they COULD destroy 50 of america's largest cities. is that an acceptable trade off to you?

      November 28, 2011 at 10:56 pm |
    • truthman

      Right on, bro!

      November 28, 2011 at 11:43 pm |
    • diana

      Very true Socratino. We must never pander to bullies and terrorists. ha
      ving said that, we also need to look at ourselves before we lecture other nations on nuclear disarmament. After all, we ourselves have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. We need to send a message that we will not encourage or tolerate future nuclear proliferation by other nations while practicing what we ourselves preach by cutting back on our own devlepment of nuclear weaponry.

      November 29, 2011 at 2:32 pm |
  37. SarahTonin

    Blitz: If you are prone to be blackmailed by anyone with nuclear weapons, Bachman and you are correct. Anyone who might use such a weapon first, under any circumstances against anyone else, assures their own total destruction. While it would be a hideous act, and quite possible, we can't bow to the pressure of any state who makes a threat to achieve their own ends.

    November 28, 2011 at 7:58 pm |
    • inam

      Will you apply the same rule to USA what they have done with this power and what about ISRAEAL?

      November 28, 2011 at 8:16 pm |
    • CJ

      In this case, the threat is an overthrow by extremists of the Pakistani government because of the government's compliance with U.S. policy. There is clearly much less regard in extremist circles for the lives of ordinary citizens, and a greater desire to enhance a fundamentalist agenda. Therefore, actions that a democratically elected government may never take would be on the table for extremists – including, perhaps, the firing of nuclear weapons.

      November 28, 2011 at 8:16 pm |
    • rob

      I don't think the world, or the US, has the will to retaliate with nuclear arms. I think the extremists don't care anyway. They're willing to blow themselves up in the name of terrorism, why would they not be willing to invite the destruction of their own country if it means wining a battle with the west. The nuclear deterrent only works with rational and logic minded folks. Not with the extremists.

      November 28, 2011 at 9:07 pm |
    • Chae

      You're only half right when you say whoever using nuke will be assured of total destruction. If we hit back with nuclear weapon in response to a nuclear attack, the situation will quickly devolve into MAD, although instead of half the world being vaporized in a blink of an eye from MIRV ICBMs, it would be a slower spiral into chaos.

      November 28, 2011 at 10:48 pm |
  38. awaker

    Here we go again, who cares if they have a bomb. We need to stay out and let the Indians take care of Pakistan.

    November 28, 2011 at 7:51 pm |
  39. cbr

    Pakistan has not been a true partner in the war on terrorism. The politicians and the military do not work well together. Each succeeding leader have worried about this/her ability to stay in office.

    Pakistani people deserve better. The Afghani people should be receiving aid from Pakistan instead of the many insurgencies that the Pakistani government and military allow over their borders.

    November 28, 2011 at 7:50 pm |
    • Sqwidman

      Indeed, the Pakistanis deserve better.

      They certainly don't deserve American bombs murdering their troops during 2 hour attacks. USA needs to get the eff out of the middle east before we get bombed at home.

      November 28, 2011 at 9:36 pm |
1 2

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.