Skip to comments.WHY ARE WE STILL SENDING AID TO PAKISTAN? MEET THE LOBBYISTS PAID TO DEFEND THE MONEY
Posted on 05/09/2011 6:57:48 AM PDT by La Lydia
WASHINGTON (AP) Within hours of the stunning announcement that Osama bin Laden had been killed by U.S. commandos, a lobbying firm representing Pakistans government began contacting members of Congress and their staffs to counter claims Islamabad protected the al-Qaida chief for nearly six years.
The push by Locke Lord Strategies to turn the tide against criticism of Pakistan and preserve the countrys billions of dollars in U.S. aid illustrates one of Washingtons enduring realities: No matter the issue or the crisis, lobbyists are working behind the scenes to shape opinions on Capitol Hill.
At stake is the continued flow of U.S. economic aid and military support to Pakistan, Americas iffy partner in the fight against terrorism and religious extremism...
But bin Ladens nearly six-year stay at a compound in a military garrison town outside Pakistans capital has left Locke Lords lobbying team with plenty of explaining to do....
Mark Siegel, a Locke Lord partner, would not identify which congressional offices he and the other five lobbyists working the Pakistan account are calling and visiting. Records filed with Congress and the Justice Department show Locke Lord has represented Pakistan since May 2008 and has been paid just over $2.7 million. Pakistan is the firms biggest client.
Siegel is a former assistant to the president in the Carter White House and was chief of staff to Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., from 2001 to 2004. Other Locke Lord lobbyists working the Pakistan account also have congressional experience. Phil Rivers is a former chief of staff to Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., a Senate Appropriations Committee member. Brian Heindl was a top aide to Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., also a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee....
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
pakistan is our enemy, and that is all there is to it.
I agree that Pakistan is an enemy. But that does not make our approach to them any simpler. Certainly the Obama administration’s vacillation on all things Pakistani (similar to the Bush approach) is not going to work, but there is one factor that makes this even more complex.
“Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons? “ (Vic Deakins, Broken Arrow)
The Pakistani ISI developed and supported bin laden has his terrorist organization in the 1980s. They were the original source of money, supplies, training, and safe camps. After the Russians retreated from Afghanistan the ISI continued to support bin Laden because they saw him as a deniable resource in the fight with India over Kashmir.
The ISI, and hence the Pakistani government, felt that bi Laden was more important to them than American support.
Time for the loser, the ISI and the Pakistani government, to pay the penalty for losing. Once that meant you became a province or protectorate of the winner. Today it should mean total and long term loss of American support.
AS for hampering Pakistan’s ability to support us in our fight against terrorism, isn't that a null statement to begin with?
We need to start treating the bad guys like the bad guys, nukes or no nukes.
We are giving money to our enemy like idiots.
Treason pays well, eh?
It's nuclear weapons insurance. And cheaper than the alternative.
It’s time to quit paying Pakistan to pretend to be our friend. I’d rather give our lunch money to some other bully - - until a Republican with a pair can get elected.
If we keep lying in bed with snakes, guess what will happen.
What about Clintoon-flack Lanny Davis, aka: “Pakistani Lanny”? He has a history as a Pakistan lobbyist, too.
Should we give dollars to North Korea
Should we give dollars to Iran
This whole argument that we have to be nice to them because they have nukes is specious.
You are absolutely right about that. And we have been doing it for years. In fact, it might not be a stretch to suggest that we financed their nuclear program. And it is idiotic.
When we leave Afghanistan, the aid will be severely curtailed.
Should we give dollars to Iran
Different stroke for different folks. We do what's in our best interest. Right now we need to use Paki ports to bring in war supplies and we need to violate Pakistani sovereignty on a regular basis to fight our war(s). We could do both by brute force but that costs time, blood and money too. A payoff greases the skids and keeps the shouting to dull roar. As far a the NORKs go, yes we have given them food, oil and other stuff in the past when it suited us.
Well countries aren't snake and we're not lying in that bed. We are "kinetically engaged" and on the top. Make no mistake, the Pakistani's are the punks here.
Thanks for the reminder. Yes we do need Pak for our supply lines to Afghanistan.
As for NORK, I think it’s a sin for us to withhold food to starving people but I know the NORKs use the food for their military and continue to starve their civilians. sigh....
Pakistanis hate our guts, muhc like every other muslim in this world hates our guts, and I’m tired of giving money to people who hate us.
We are on top of nothing other than our own stupidity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.