Pakistan is given a deadline?
 

From a New Republic article:
I would experience no surprise if this proved to be accurate, as Bush's public support is slipping, and this sort of thing might just restore some of his credibility with the American public.

It's certainly worthwhile to do whatever it takes to hunt down bin Laden, but once again Bush is acting in his own best interests (hence the election-time deadline)... this time they just happen to intersect with those of the country. The article is filled with stories of veiled threats and nasty ultimatums, and I for one don't think that Team Bush should be leveraging us this way. Too often the man's personal agenda is not in the nation's best interest, and I fear what he will do if re-elected, effectively shedding the self-restraint brought on by risk of losing the election.

The creepiest quote:

Tch, typical. Each party will do what it can to steal some thunder from the other one however they can manage it. In this case, the Bush hope to take up more headline space than the DNC. The whole set up is rather childish to me, but whatever gets results, I suppose...

Sooooo ....

an anonymous quote from a Pakistani who may or not be close enough to the top to have actually heard the quote, but more likely is just circulating a rumor that moved through the office ranks a front page on the New Republic?

Ever hear the phrase “Poisoning the Well”? Is it just possible that some groundwork is being laid here by the New Republic for the eventual capture of High Value targets. They have an agenda, and moving from a news story to a process story in the event Osama’s capture certainly serves that purpose.

Didn’t we hear these same accusations about the capture of Saddam? That he would be held in secret until the election? And the administration certainly has more control over their own armed forces that over the Pakistani secret service.

Why is so much easier to assume unmitigated evil on the administrations part than to question the reliability of an extremely suspect source?

-sm

Because with slime like Karl Rove in the white house, the kind who would rat out an entire CIA operation for political revenge, it's probably true.

which cia operation was that? facts, please. the only one i am aware of the lady (a politician's wife) was an analyst with no cover.

Let me count the ways: The amazingly high number of executions when George Jr. was govener of Texas; George Jr.'s twisted messiah complex which leads him to state that he is like Moses leading the Middle Eastern people to the Promised Land; the administration's ties with Halliburten et al and the sweetheart deals this company and its subsidiaries have snapped up; the fact that George Jr. side-stepped serving his country in the Vietnam era by signing on with the National Guard but never showing up for it, etc., etc., etc.

I trust George Jr. about as far as I could throw him. The man has a history of using the end (which is always an outcome in his own best interest) to justify the means.

That has a flipside, though... it would be relatively easy for a US serviceman to step up and tell the world the truth if such a thing were to happen, and he/she would be widely believed. If a Pakistani secret service person agent told the same story, we'd probably never even hear about it here, and if we did, it would be met with skepticism. Moreover, it would be more in the interest of the Pakistani people to keep it a secret than it would a US serviceman.

Because to my knowledge, the Bush administration has lied to me more often. Trust belong to those who earn it... or at least to those who haven't betrayed it.

CNN describes the wife of Joseph Wilson as "an undercover CIA operative." link
The Justice Department took the politically motivated leaking of her name seriously enough to question the President about it. The President took it seriously enough to hire a lawyer. We are talking about treason here.

You seem to be trying to dismiss it as no big deal by claiming she was just an analyst with no cover. Perhaps I am reading more into your post than you meant, but she clearly had cover.

While you question other people on their facts, perhaps you should check your own.

huh ...

The "same story" I refer to is the theoretical future "they rigged his capture for the election" story. No doubt you're thinking that because the very story I linked to was from a Pakistani secret service agent, that their words obviously DO make it this far. That is true, but consider... how many Americans have read this news story, do you think? And of those who have read it, how many would you say believe it? Not large numbers.