It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush taken aback by reported us threat

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Here's an excerpt and a link to the full story.

Regarding Armitage's supposed threat to Pakistan "to be sent back to the Stone Age".

FULL ARTICLEwww.mytelus.com...


EXCERPT:

Friday, Sep 22, 2006
Bush 'taken aback' by reported U.S. threat to bomb Pakistan after Sept. 11

WASHINGTON (AP) - President George W. Bush said Friday if a U.S. official tried to strong-arm Pakistan into fighting the war on terror after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, he didn't know about it.

Standing beside Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, Bush brushed off any idea of disagreement, praising Musharraf for pursuing terrorists, including Osama bin Laden.

"We're on the hunt together," Bush said after a meeting with the general who is leader of the world's second-largest Islamic country.

Musharraf has contended after the Sept. 11 attacks, former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage told Pakistan's intelligence director the United States would bomb the country if it didn't become a partner in the war against terrorism.


"The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said: "Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age,"' Musharraf told CBS's "60 Minutes" in a report to air Sunday.

The president said he first learned of the purported conversation from news reports.

"I just don't know about it," he said.


Hmmm...what do yah know Dubya?

I'm getting a bad feeling about Pakistani and US relations...tense just doesn't cover it. The implications for all Allies over there if Pakistan and US relations break down (further) is scaryat best.

It comes to a matter of "hear say"...given the US's attitude (with us or with terrorists) this statement that Armitage supposedly made would not be out of character for him, nor out of character for the administration in general. Whether the comment was "permitted" or not.

I can think of many reasons why either side would lie about it.

See also this thread just up:

[edit on 9/22/2006 by justgeneric]www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 9/22/2006 by justgeneric]




posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Richard Clarke, the retired White House coordinator on anti-terrorism matters, has previously described Richard Armitage as "a former U.S. Navy SEAL". I don't know how much diplomatic training Armitage actually has, but it was also just recently announced that Valerie Plame is suing him for "outing" her employment as a classified CIA analyst. Maybe putting Armitage in a senior position in the U.S. Department of State was not a good fit.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   
yah think?

Armitage is...to put it nicely...blunt. An off the cuff remark such as his now infamous "supposed" Stone age comment, is a great demonstration of why PR is so important. Goodness knows Bush has had his knuckles rapped a million or so times for his "speech impediment". Add Armitage to the list of Admin, who as public speakers, need to be a bit more reserved in their zeal to "bomb" anyone...



new topics
 
0

log in

join