With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies?

On Sunday, McBride asked an inane question wondering if it was OK for Pakistan to be put under dictatorial control as opposed to having the opposite, like freedom. No one responded. (Where is John when you need him?)

Now she has a posting in which she offers a rebuttal to an editorial in the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal. Her post is classical McBride, with her unique view of reality through her special Neoconovision glasses, and her usual xenophobic rantings.

The part that particularly stands out is this:

I don't feel good about it, but Pakistan is a nuclear country. I'd rather have the country under the control of a pro-American, anti-terrorist Musharraf dictatorship than have our government pressure him into removing the iron fist that is preventing his government from falling, and see the country fall into the hands of extremist elements that align with terrorists instead.

It makes me recall two other leaders that were befriended by the ultimate Republican icon, Ronald Bonzo Reagan. One would be Osama bin Laden, who was fighting those mean old Russians in Afghanistan. He was doing what America supposedly wanted, and then blew up the Twin Towers. Now we are the ones fighting bin Laden in Afghanistan, when we aren't being distracted by having wars in oil-rich countries.

The other would be Saddam Hussein, who Reagan sold chemical weapons to, because he was making war on Iran. Unfortunately, Hussein was given enough chemicals, the he had enough left over that he could use on the Kurds. Of course, we know the rest of the story to that story.

So, if McBride, a conservative, says that she would rather have Musharraf run a dictatorship and keep the nuclear weapons, rather than allow terrorists, like judges and lawyers and citizens do radical things like have a constitution and free elections, I think we can all tell what the obvious choice would be. Let'em vote!