In July 1990 I accompanied Senate Majority Leader Alan Cranston to India and Pakistan in a show of bi-partisan support for confidence building measures offered by Deputy National Security Advisor Robert Gates and meant to avert the possibility of a war between the de-facto nuclear powers ignited by common claims of territory in Indian-held Kashmir.

Bhutto was playing a dangerous double game of inflaming popular passions over Kashmir while trying to portray herself to the world, and to us over lunch, as a voice of moderation. Christopher's recollection--"How prettily she lied to me, I remember, and with such a level gaze from those topaz eyes, about how exclusively peaceful and civilian Pakistan's nuclear program was"--rings true. (I remember how Peter Galbraith, a Bhutto intimate, gamely tried to interpret for Cranston one of Benazir's more inflamatory speeches urging direct action against India as merely a rhetorical flourish--a defense neither Cranston nor I bought at the time.)

Yet, even as Bhutto imitated her "charming and unscrupulous" father, it was also true that today in Pakistan only Benazir possessed "anything approaching a mass appeal to set against the siren calls of the fundamentalists" in the nation possessing the "Islamic" bomb.

And therein lies the real tragedy of today's outrage.

Valuable insights. Your notes seem not have been dusted off and put on Rice's desk, however. Depth of experience/knowledge seems quite short in your State Department today.

Hitchens got back on track this week wirting frankly about something he knew about.

It would be of interest to better understand Gates' position then, in October and today on Pakistan. This portfolio seems to have been handed over to Rice, but that would be most unlikely.

It is time to also confront the candidates with tough questions derived from the Pakistan situation. These may include:

-- What role would they expect to take in reviewing Pakistan's nuclear activities? Following from that, what vision would they develop for managing the IAEA mandate? What countries would be allowed to remain exempt from compliance with non-proliferation rules?

-- What IS their understanding of Pakistan's relationship with India, particularly over Kashmir?

-- How would they co-ordinate the divergent policy mandates of State and Defense?

-- What reviews and audits would they expect to see vis-à-vis Defense contracts/contractors? What changes in expectations for transparency would they demand?

With some, one may start by asking what coutnries border Pakistan?

MEA--While eatling my late lunch, I thought I should add a response to your comment about Benazir's gift of lying. It would seem that you may have been inadequately briefed on Sindhis. They are historically a cleaver merchant class, comprising Hindus and Muslims. You were likely expected to understand what was behind the smile. It seems you did, but were not prepared to accept the context of the discussion.

I agree, sort of. I think she should be recognized in context. Perhaps few would disagree that someone more principled and honest could never rise to a position of leadership in Pakistan. Perhaps few would strongly debate this contention:

Benazir Bhutto was the best leader Pakistan ever had and perhaps the bravest. I prefer that context to remember her in death.

"...principled and honest..."

Should one look to the US for such models?

Self-righteousness as a national trait; the US is far outstripping the most arrogant Europeans. Even the Scandinavians.

Bhutto's actual leadership record in Pakistan is not highly regarded by anyone knowledgeable with the country or region.

You miss the point Monsieur Suisse. You can call people names and label them all you like but the words mean nothing out of context.

You denigrate Bhutto as Pakistan's leader? Fine, who was better than her? That is the germaine question. Trying to compare her to Micheline Calmy-Rey or something? What sense does that make? Transplant Switzerland to central Asia, convert the population to 98% Muslim and we'll see how pure and democratic your council stays.

Let the Pakistanis decide. It was and is not Washington's decision. You do not see Berne making proposals--above or under the table today.

Washington may not value mandarins, but it certainly puts a badge on any fool and sends them elsewhere to play sheriffs with others' children.

Confidence in your country is very low where it counts: among bankers.

No argument at all with that sentiment: Let the Pakistanis decide!