Re: Sherry Rehman appointed Pak Ambassador to US
If this is the best defense you have, then my above conclusion is so true…
Re: Sherry Rehman appointed Pak Ambassador to US
aap to such much he ghussa kar gaiay 
Re: Sherry Rehman appointed Pak Ambassador to US
Thankyou for your wonderful input in this thread and in PA
Re: Sherry Rehman appointed Pak Ambassador to US
u always welcome for your unbiased input 
Re: Sherry Rehman appointed Pak Ambassador to US
I don't get it, why people are posting her personal life? wasn't that banned on this forum or if the standards and rules have changed? and to those people, don't you have any thing else to post about her career and failures or achievements? i can bet most of the posters who are posting this stuff would be heart burn if Anwar Pasha or any one else posted the colorful life history of someone...
What is wrong in discussing and posting personal life of politicians (or any government figure)?
If someone wants to represent me (as citizen of Pakistan), I have duty (not right but duty) to know what he is like in his personal life and also duty to let other fellow citizens get aware of prospective representative candidate’s personal life, as being ignorant about personal life of prospective representative candidate means leaving ourselves and fellow citizens exposed to getting con by conmen (who are plenty in Pakistan).
she will only be considered graceful and clean if she joins PTI, otherwise she is what they are posting about her... and thats all PTIans can do and are doing...
She is probably scared of joining PTI due to reputation of Imran Khan as gambler and womaniser. She fears that few years after joining PTI, who knows, she might become Pakistani ‘Sita White’ with an illegitimate child of Imran Khan to look after.
On the other hand, being with PPP would not make her rich with an illegitimate child what she could prospectively get in PTI, but rich in bank balance. So, she is smart woman. :)
Re: Sherry Rehman appointed Pak Ambassador to US
[mod]Please avoid discussing personal lives here.. we must maintain a certain quality in these forums.. we can not allow these forums to throw dirt on people.. I'll appreciate the cooperation of forum members. these are your own forums and we should not let them become gossip columns to throw dirt on people.. [/mod]
Re: Sherry Rehman appointed Pak Ambassador to US
Re: Sherry Rehman appointed Pak Ambassador to US
She resigned from N A.
now
Sherry’s appointment challenged in LHC
Re: Sherry Rehman appointed Pak Ambassador to US
*What is wrong in discussing and posting personal life of politicians (or any government figure)? *
“Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.” -Eleanor Roosevelt
I think the above quote says it all!
Re: Sherry Rehman appointed Pak Ambassador to US
“Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.” -Eleanor Roosevelt
I think the above quote says it all!
Nice quote: Great minds discuss ideas ... Average minds discuss events ... Small minds discuss people ... But your applying the quote is wrong. :).
Something you forgot is that: ‘Every person is great, average or small ... depending on situations and circumstances’. A person can be great in one field and at the same time small in another. When it comes to politics:
Party leaders are supposed to be great and should discuss ideas (but they are only great if they have no loose character and values).
Party workers are average and should discuss events (occasionally could discuss ideas with their superiors).
Supporters and voters are small ... their affiliation with party is dependent and they should discuss people (who they vote and support) and later idea of those people.
For prospective supporters (and voters) it is important to know the people they intend to support and vote, so they discuss people (character and values of prospective leader). If people (leaders) they discuss have good characters and values than they look at their ideas. If their ideas are also attractive then they support and trust the leader, else a leader with bad values and character is most likely to con their voters and supporters.
Re: Sherry Rehman appointed Pak Ambassador to US
An excellent article by Babar once again… Babar you continue to expose the ghairat brigade..
Selective accountability
Babar Sattar - The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Appointing Sherry Rehman as Pakistan’s ambassador to the US might be one of the most sensible decisions taken by the Zardari-Gilani duo in a while. Notwithstanding possible differences of opinion on policy matters, Sherry has demonstrated her intelligence, integrity and courage while in opposition as well as in power.
Other than Raza Rabbani, she is the only one to shun power and a ministerial position on a matter of principle. She has stood up for minority rights and reform of our malfunctioning and ill-conceived blasphemy law. And she has done so at the peril of her life at a time when our menacing bigoted brigades have terrorised into silence ringleaders of our ideologically liberal ruling party. It also bodes well for the future of Pakistan-US relations that the khakis do not loathe her as much as Husain Haqqani.
Pakistan-US relationship will continue its roller coaster ride over the next few years, while the endgame in Afghanistan unfolds. Pakistan and the US have genuine differences over the future of Afghanistan and continuing US presence in this region. In order to fully protect and defend Pakistan’s interest in these difficult times, with an insurgency raging within our house and a US-led war in our backyard and in view of the reality of Pakistan where the khakis remain the lords and masters of our national security policy and strategy, our point person in Washington should be someone that our civil as well as military leadership is willing to trust. The fact that Sherry Rehman is one such person (who is trustworthy while not being a pushover), adds to her credentials to take up this challenging appointment.
But whether in a democracy the khakis ought to appropriate to themselves the role of defining national interest and pursue their own convoluted conception of national security is a separate matter altogether. Pakistan’s civil-military imbalance continues to hurt democracy, rule of law, across-the-board accountability, and citizen security.** The gravity and relevance of this problem that has bedevilled us since this country’s inception cannot be ignored or downplayed in present day Pakistan merely because we have a civilian government that is corrupt and incompetent or because Husain Haqqani chose impermissible means to seek its redresses.**
For them to be relevant and functional we need ambassadors in the US, India and Afghanistan that are acceptable to the khakis. This is the reality of today. But that we need to change this reality and place the khakis under effective civilian control, in accordance with dictates of democracy and provisions of our Constitution, is uncontestable.** Civilian control of the military will however not come about overnight by firing a conceited army chief, as Nawaz Sharif tried in 1999, or by seeking US help, as allegedly attempted by Husain Haqqani through the infamous memo. Such foolhardiness doesn’t help reclaim the political space and state power annexed by the khakis, but provides them further opportunities to drum up jingoism in the name of national security, solidarity and honour, paint civilian officials as a security threat and further entrench the civil-military imbalance.**
The stunt that Haqqani allegedly attempted to pull was thus wrong in principle as well as a matter of strategy. We must remember that irrespective of how close an envoy is to the US administration, a personal relationship can never trump state interest. Over the last sixty years the US has cultivated a direct relationship with the Pakistan army, even at the expense of democratic rule in this country. The US is not going to abandon this relationship merely because doing so would strengthen democracy and constitutionalism in Pakistan. It did get a little carried away while promulgating the Kerry-Lugar law. But given the belligerent response of the khakis and their ability to stonewall and demonise the initiative, the Americans quickly realised that despite all the euphoria about the return of democracy in Pakistan they would be unable to get anything done around here if they alienate the military.
Since then, despite all suspicions and difference of opinion, the Americans understand that speaking with the military and trying to influence it directly – and not through the agency of a feeble civilian government – is the way to go so long as Pakistan is to be ‘formally’ treated as a partner in Afghanistan. The US and all other international actors will continue to adjust their relationship with Pakistan in view of our internal power dynamics. And the onus of changing such power dynamic rests with civilian institutions, political parties, civil society, media and the society in general.
Seeking help from foreign actors will only taint the otherwise legitimate objects of this enterprise as evidenced by Memogate. But this episode has again highlighted the stranglehold of the khakis on our national discourse as well as the hypocrisy of the media and civil society in seeking accountability.
Assuming the memo was indeed dictated by Haqqani, did it promise anything more than what Musharraf as president and army chief delivered to the Americans? Does the memo not propose continuing the nuclear oversight policies introduced during the Musharraf regime? Does it not propose allowing the US to hunt terrorists on Pakistani soil without worrying about the due process of law – an entitlement that Musharraf first afforded while providing the US military bases in Pakistan? What law allows the president or an army chief to award military or air bases to a foreign state within Pakistan? What law allows the president or army chief to hand over to the US terrorists caught in Pakistan without presenting them before a court and following our extradition law? Under what law can the US be allowed to carry out drone attacks and execute Pakistanis and foreigners alike at will?
Why is it that we remember Mir Jaffars and Mir Sadiqs only when a civilian is labelled disloyal to the state and not when the khakis usurp constitutional rule and sell away interests of Pakistan and its citizens for a song? This is not an argument to throw under the rug, the questionable actions or alleged abuse of authority by Husain Haqqani merely because such impropriety has been widely practiced in the past by the self-appointed guardians of our national interest and security. But to state that there is need to enlarge the scope of the inquiry being presently proposed to decipher the truth behind Memogate so that it covers Pakistan-US security relationship under Musharraf’s watch and determines whether any aspects of it undermined the law and our national interest.
If a civilian who conspires to drag the US into Pakistan’s internal affairs in return for promoting US security interests is a traitor, what does that make an army chief who enabled the US to establish its footprint on Pakistani territory, allow drone attacks, and admittedly transforms security agencies into bounty hunters for the US? Why is it that the guardians themselves gave a guard of honour to a president, and erstwhile army chief, who molested the Constitution twice? If we are so incensed about Haqqani’s proposal to engage with the US in a manner that would amount to contravening several provisions of the Constitution, why are we nonchalant about actual and established breach of the Constitution?
Is doctoring the electoral process and distributing state funds to manipulate election results in breach of the Constitution not treasonous? Is making citizens disappear in breach of their fundamental right to life and security not treasonous? Has the Supreme Court not already ruled that Musharraf is a usurper who subverted the Constitution? Is that not what treason is fundamentally about?** Maybe the PML-N should have taken Musharraf’s open-and-shut case to the apex court along with the curious case of Haqqani. Selective accountability after all is not a form of accountability. It is a witch-hunt. And all of us seem complicit in burning witches with relish.**
Email: [email protected]
Re: Sherry Rehman appointed Pak Ambassador to US
Nice quote: Great minds discuss ideas ... Average minds discuss events ... Small minds discuss people ... But your applying the quote is wrong. :).
Something you forgot is that: ‘Every person is great, average or small ... depending on situations and circumstances’. A person can be great in one field and at the same time small in another. When it comes to politics:
Party leaders are supposed to be great and should discuss ideas (but they are only great if they have no loose character and values). Party workers are average and should discuss events (occasionally could discuss ideas with their superiors). Supporters and voters are small ... their affiliation with party is dependent and they should discuss people (who they vote and support) and later idea of those people.
For prospective supporters (and voters) it is important to know the people they intend to support and vote, so they discuss people (character and values of prospective leader). If people (leaders) they discuss have good characters and values than they look at their ideas. If their ideas are also attractive then they support and trust the leader, else a leader with bad values and character is most likely to con their voters and supporters.
Not that i dispute what you wrote above but your that post has nothing in it which is commendable, Sherry Rehman might have not joined PTI for many other reasons but the one you have stated in your post is imply below the belt and all moral values