Gettin crazy all over the place now. After these actions by Musharraf, he was probably the one behind the Bhutto bombing. - N
Nope, the court is due to give its decision on whether he can wear two hats, he's prempting them by declaring emergency until he is can be sure of what they will say.
What was with this part? "Police blocked entry to the Supreme Court building and later took the deposed chief justice and other judges away in a convoy, witnesses said." Did Musharraf arrest them or was it police not under his control that decided to protect them? The news doesn't have anything on this. I heard a brief mention about it on CNN, but that was it. Nothing else on the other channels so far. - N
Haven't read the details, but he is both the President and the General of the armed forces. Effectively makes him dictator. The courts trying to kick him off one post. He made a deal with Benazir that he would offer her the Prime Minister's post if she supported him as President for another five years. She is popular, he is not. But if the courts rule against him, he'll have to step down or admit he is a dictator. I'm assuming he is trying some gentle persuasion, hence the media lockdown.
Musharraf is stuck between Bhutto, who is a liberal and represents the majority of Pakistanis who want to have a normal democracy, and between the minority extremists who will surely take over once one of the assassination attempts on his life (about 4-5 per year!) succeed, which is a very scary possibility since they will then control a nuclear arsenal and will likely share it with AQ. so it is understandable why he had to do what he did.
He might want to have this war. Imagine if the 2008 presidential cycle came down to the question of, "How will you adjust the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to invade Pakistan, or are you intending to ask Congress to reinstitute the draft?" If the conventional wisdom is that we need Pakistan, does the U.S. have the organizational capacity and diplomatic clout to muster a coalition to go fight for a dictator? Do we risk taking on Pakistan as a puppet state? Musharraf, should he live through next year, might become the man of the year for having shaped the 2008 U.S. presidential election and altered the entire equation of the Iraqi Bush War and whatever it is we're supposed to be calling the GWoT these days.
A truly reasoned person would know why a draft is as likely as a visit by Martians. The rest of your opining is equally suspect. (psst: If you were drafted, no volunteer soldier would trust you as far as you'd be able to walk through a mine field known only to the volunteers. They'd thank you for your limited service, nevertheless.)
Let's see now: A corrupt leader of a Muslim country But relatively pro-Western and prominently secular His regime was supported financially and militarily by the U.S. as long as we thought we were fighting the same enemies Now he is persecuting his own people He has suspended elections He possesses weapons of mass destruction And he's harboring anti-American terrorists in his country's remote regions. The last time this happened--the last time our bumbling leaders even thought this happened and they were wrong on the last two key points--we deposed the leader, had him executed, and occupied his country. Is King George II going to be consistent here? Should Musharraf be kissing his tushie goodbye?
I doubt any of this is about fighting the militants, it's about keeping himself in power. It's Musharaf against the law (judges and lawyers).
At least others don't find Barrack Obama's stance of invading Pakistan for Al Qaeda odd. I've never feared Al Qaeda, made a big deal about Iran, Iraq, or wherever else. People say Iran is our biggest threat, psssh, I've always felt it was Pakistan, especially since they're one who gave Iran numerous nuclear parts and also have their rogue nuclear scientist. Why worry about Iran developing a nuke when they can simply get it from their extremist cousins over in Pakistan. - N
