U.S. to Send Special Envoy to Confront Musharraf

Its about time. Mushrraf would’ve never declared martial unless unless he thought he would get with it. Maybe not so fast. Seems like uncle is not too happy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/washington/13policy.html

U.S. to Send Special Envoy to Confront Musharraf

Article Tools Sponsored By
By HELENE COOPER
Published: November 13, 2007

WASHINGTON, Nov. 12 — The Bush administration is dispatching a high-level envoy to Pakistan to tell the Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, face to face that the United States will not be satisfied with his plan to hold elections unless he first lifts emergency law, administration officials said Monday.

While welcoming the news that General Musharraf would hold elections in January rather than delay them, they questioned whether elections could be legitimate if held when the country remains effectively under martial law, with opposition parties in lockdown and unable to campaign or assemble freely.

“The president thinks we need to lift the emergency rule in order to have free and fair elections,” said Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman. A senior administration official said that it remained an open question whether free elections could be held that reflected the true wishes of the Pakistani people if General Musharraf continued to jail or otherwise detain the opposition.

The comments reflected increased frustration within the administration over General Musharraf’s power grab, as well as mounting uneasiness about how much longer Pakistan can continue in the present chaos before descending into further instability. The plan to send an envoy to Pakistan was described by administration officials who declined to elaborate further about the mission.

Publicly, Bush administration officials say that they continue to support General Musharraf, who is still viewed by the Pentagon as America’s best option for tackling operatives of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s frontier provinces. “Nobody is ready to cut him off at the knees yet,” one official said.

But the official, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the issue, said that many people within the administration were worried that General Musharraf’s missteps would soon so erode his base at home that he could be forced to give up power.

To prepare for that possibility, the Bush administration has been taking care in recent days to try to distinguish between its support for Pakistan and its support for the general.

When Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, for example, told the ABC News program “This Week” that “we’ve been in close contact, as you might imagine, through our embassy, through our ambassador there, with all parties in Pakistan,” she was signaling that the United States was hedging its bets in Pakistan by reaching out to civilian institutions and nongovernmental organizations, administration officials said. “This is not a personal matter about President Musharraf,” Ms. Rice said. “This is about the Pakistani people. And the United States has been dedicated to helping the Pakistani people come to a more democratic path.”

Further complicating the issue for the Bush administration so far has been the continuing political tug of war between General Musharraf and the opposition leader Benazir Bhutto: Ms. Bhutto keeps announcing rallies to oppose the general’s emergency rule, and he keeps putting her under house arrest for what he says is her own safety.

The Pakistani authorities issued a seven-day detention order against Ms. Bhutto on Monday in a bid to stop her from leading another planned protest march this week from the eastern city of Lahore to the capital, Islamabad.

General Musharraf’s deputies said they had received intelligence suggesting that Ms. Bhutto could be a target for militants. While American officials say they, too, have been worried about Ms. Bhutto’s safety, one official said the detention order fits neatly with the general’s emergency powers decree.

“He wasn’t exactly running to put her under house arrest when she first arrived,” the official said, alluding to the suicide attack on Ms. Bhutto’s convoy after her arrival in Karachi last month.

Re: U.S. to Send Special Envoy to Confront Musharraf

Yaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ,

aus envoy kay plane ko rOcket laag jayah.

Re: U.S. to Send Special Envoy to Confront Musharraf

If US is against it, Mush must be doing something right.

Re: U.S. to Send Special Envoy to Confront Musharraf

Some ISI plans that you are privy to?

Re: U.S. to Send Special Envoy to Confront Musharraf

U.S. to Send Special Envoy to Confront Musharraf

chalo jee … time for some chitrol for the dictator … as usual :smilestar:

Re: U.S. to Send Special Envoy to Confront Musharraf

[QUOTE]
Its about time. Mushrraf would've never declared martial unless unless he thought he would get with it. Maybe not so fast. Seems like uncle is not too happy

[/QUOTE]

he probably kept his cell phone off this time and next day told Condi that his cell phone battery had died thats why he couldn't take her call :CareBear:

Re: U.S. to Send Special Envoy to Confront Musharraf

Dunno, but here is more. If Lobbying firms start dumping you…you know you’re in trouble.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/12/AR2007111201660_pf.html

Musharraf Makeover Proves Too Much for One Lobby Firm

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Tuesday, November 13, 2007; A17

Lobbying can be an unsavory business. Just ask former senator John Edwards of North Carolina. He hopes to ride that fact to the Democratic nomination for president.

Then again, lobbyists love it when companies and countries get into trouble. The bigger the problem, the larger their fees.

So it was noteworthy last week that Cassidy & Associates, one of D.C.'s biggest lobbying firms, resigned from its just-signed $1.2 million-a-year lobbying contract with the government of Pakistan.

Cassidy dropped the engagement, it said, because the military crackdown by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf had rendered its efforts to generate good will useless. “We thought it best to withdraw from the account as the dramatic changes in Pakistan impeded our effectiveness on their behalf,” said Tom Alexander, Cassidy’s spokesman.

A statement by the Pakistani Embassy, however, raises the prospect that the decision was more mutual. “The contract for one year was still at the trial phase when, during the course of the first month of association, both the Embassy of Pakistan and Cassidy & Associates came to the conclusion that the latter could not effectively implement the contract as lobbyist,” an embassy spokesman said in a statement. “As a result, Cassidy & Associates asked for withdrawal from the contract that the Embassy has accepted.”

Cassidy says it was not pushed out by Pakistan. “There was never any concern about our work expressed by the embassy,” Alexander said.

Whatever the story is, there’s no need to worry about Pakistan (not that you would). It still has a lobbyist, the same one it has had for 2 1/2 years. Van Scoyoc Associates continues to represent the government at half the price Cassidy was charging – $660,000 a year. “We work with the embassy to address legitimate concerns that have been raised in Congress and recent actions by the government of Pakistan,” said Mark Tavlarides, a vice president of the lobbying firm.

And clearly, with no regrets.
Romney’s D.C. Connections

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney was never a Washington denizen, but several of his top advisers are.

Former congressman Vin Weber (R-Minn.), who is chief executive of the lobbying shop Clark & Weinstock, is Romney’s policy chairman.

Former senator Jim Talent (R-Mo.), who chairs Romney’s domestic policy task force, is co-chairman of Fleishman-Hillard Government Relations, a lobbying firm.

A frequent shadow of Romney’s at debates and elsewhere is Ron Kaufman, chairman of the executive committee of Dutko Worldwide, also a lobbying firm.

Two lobbyists are advising Romney on economics and tax policy: Cesar Conda of DC Navigators and Brian Reardon of Venn Strategies.

Among Romney’s paid help are Washingtonians Barbara Comstock of the PR firm Comstock Corallo; Benjamin L. Ginsberg, a lawyer from Patton Boggs; and the advertising team of Alex Castellanos, Russ Schriefer and Stuart Stevens.
Religion vs. Ethics

It’s finally happened. Things have gone so far in the nation’s capital that ethics is getting in the way of religion.

Bible study groups all over the region are being threatened by the new ethics and lobbying law.

Cleta Mitchell, an ethics lawyer at the law firm Foley & Lardner, was asked by a lobbyist whether he could continue to invite lawmakers and their aides to a weekly Bible session in his office. The reasons for the question: He served beverages and pastries.

Mitchell inquired on Capitol Hill and came back with this advice: keep the orange juice and coffee; lose the pastries. That comes too close to providing a meal (which a lobbyist can no longer buy for someone who works in Congress).

Church study groups of all kinds also could be in danger. In many places of worship, study groups alternate from one participant’s home to another. So, what if it’s a lobbyist’s turn to host and provide the space and a meal. Can Senate staffers attending eat?

“The staffers should ask permission from the Senate ethics committee,” Mitchell suggests.
A Republican Speaks Out (of School)

Former House majority leader Richard K. Armey of Texas is a loyal Republican and, lately, a lobbyist. But last week he declared that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was “the most able politician in America” and would win the presidential election.

At a luncheon presentation sponsored by his employer, the law firm DLA Piper, Armey said: “I don’t think Hillary Clinton is going to make a mistake. She’s going to win that election.”

Armey also declared Clinton a “fascinating person” and extremely tough. “Don’t mess with her” was his advice to the other candidates.

His advice to his fellow Republicans was to keep their distance from James Dobson, the influential head of the social conservative group Focus on the Family. “You could probably hurt yourself electorally by making Jim Dobson happy,” Armey said.

As for his prediction about his old congressional stomping grounds, Armey was not hopeful about the prospects for Republicans. Democrats, he said, “will hold both bodies” after the 2008 elections.

Probably not good for your lobbying biz, Mr. Leader.
Hire of the Week

It’s a family affair at Nahigian Strategies, a political and legislative communications firm. Keith Nahigian, 39, started the company in 2000 after he left John McCain’s presidential campaign. His brother Ken recently joined him after working for McCain as a senior staffer on Capitol Hill.

“I was pursued by multiple law firms and corporate offices,” said Ken Nahigian, 36. “But having the opportunity to build on something and keep it in the family was a no-brainer.”

And, no, Keith “never lobbied me or the Senate Commerce Committee during my tenure on the Hill,” Ken said. “Guess he knew I wouldn’t take his meeting.”