Yabby,

My issue with your analogy of a girl being threatened with rape is that you equate Pakistan with an innocent girl (Pakistan is far from innocent in a terrorist context) and equate a rightly enraged US with a threatening rapist (a highly prejudicial characterisation).

Obviously, such crass language as "We're gonna bomb you into the stone age" sounds thugish today, but you have to judge Bush's comments in the context of the immediate post 9/11 world. The US was enraged and the public demanding strong action and in that context, his words simply reflected extreme anger and loss of patience with Pakistan.

In short the US did not expect cooperation from Pakistan, which had been unhelpful for many years on this issue, and impressing them was never Bush's purpose. Pakistan and its government clearly had strong links to terrorist activities, and given the militant islamic schools which it hosts and its long standing links to the Taliban, was almost certainly viewed as a likely accomplice in (or at least tacitly supportive of) the 9/11 attacks.

I agree Bush's blunt approach was precipitous but I do not think Clinton, diplomatically more skillful though he is, could have dealt with things much differently. If Clinton had been president and had simply asked whether Pakistan was willing to cooperate fully to assist in the capture of Al Queda suspects, only a moron would not have heard the unstated threat which would have accompanied the 'request.' Today instead of having Pakistan's leader saying "America threatened to bomb us into the stone age" we would simply be hearing him say "it was plain to us that if we didn't cooperate, America would have attacked us." Either way, Mushareef (or whatever his name is) is probably just publishing the circumstances of his cooperation so as to sooth the domestic anger at his cooperation with the US.

So I ask you again, what do you think Clinton would/ought to have done if his hypothetical polite request for cooperation had been rebuffed?

Kalin, you have to be careful what you label "terrorists". Its not
as black and white as you think. Pakistan, like many countries, has
people who go from the secular to the fanatical. The US has their
own version of the "Christian Taleban" so to speak.

Yes Madrasses have existed for a long time, as schools teaching
religion. Saudi oil money is really the problem. It meant that
Wahabi Islam was taught, which is a fundamentalist Saudi version,
alot more militant then the Sunni or Shia schools.

Bin Laden, Al Zawahiri and their band, were actually only a small number,
follow the Sayd Qutb school, which is an offshoot from the Egyptian
Muslim brotherhood. Thats the one that wants to overthrow the
world etc. The Taleban are religious extremists, that does not
mean that they can be called terrorists. 9/11 was nearly all
Saudis.

What Bush's reaction to 911 has done, is in fact give many young
zealots good reasons to become terrorists, as we see in Iraq.

As to your hypothetical, I don't think it would ever have happened,
as Musharef himself had assasination attempts on him, he also respects Clinton.
What I think under your hypothetical, if it
still happened? Do exactly what Clinton did with Bin Laden, when he
nearly got him. The CIA is a bit of a lame duck these days, but
get that into gear, to deal with the Arab world, exactly pinpoint
the house where your target is, take it out. No need to overrun
countries and cause the deaths of so many civilians, if you are
only after a handful of people. The same applies in Iraq.