“The results of Pakistan’s parliamentary vote are being billed as a repudiation not only of Pervez Musharraf, but also of President Bush, who has mostly supported the Pakistani strongman over the past seven years. We’re more inclined to see the elections as a vindication of both,†the Wall Street Journal wrote in an editorial today. How so? The editorial notes that Musharraf kept his word to resign as military leader and to hold free and fair elections, which these appear to have mostly been. And as far as the Bush administration, the editorial argues that “Monday’s election means that it can continue to transition from what is often described as a ‘Musharraf policy’ to a broader Pakistani one.â€
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
- dtrabert on Too many exemptions
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/23
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
14 Comments
Bush and the US will support whomever wins as long as it isn’t a Islamic hardliner
As a bribe we gave General Musharraf, billions and billions of American dollars.
The SOB was in tight with the Taliban and gave us lip service in our search for Bin Laden.
He covertly supported us, while we pretended not to be there.
Lies upon lies upon lies. He tried to burn the rope from both ends and got burnt.
I suspect he was behind the murders of political opponents.
Bush went to bed with the enemy, to get another enemy.
In the end, Pakistan’s people burn the American Flag, and sell toy Bin Laden dolls. He is a hero to them.
And away goes billions, down the drain.
Rotor Bush.
AmWay — well said. Wonder if the new Pakistan policy will include letting our forces find OBL in the mountains –
Ken, from an article I read yesterday, which was forwarded me by a client, the answer is no. The new majority in the parliament is seen by this Pakistani observer as being less rather than more cooperative with the U.S. in this and several other matters. Sorry; didn’t bookmark the link, have deleted the email forwarding same; but IIRC, he found it on realclearpolitics.com site.
Trade with all nations. Alliances with none.
Keep your johnson in your pants and you won’t get it smacked.
LMAO-
I got blocked for using the word pec_ker
I see the George WMD Bush spin machine is working overtime!
For all the nice talk, I don’t think the Administration is particularly pleased with the results. From listening to the BBC World Service early, early this morning, there seems to be a real movement among the victorious parties to seek impeachment of Musharraf. While that would likely satisfy the locals in many respects, I don’t see this as being in the interests of the U.S. The fact that this is being discussed must be making a lot of folks nervous.
An opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal that arrives at the opposite opinion, as I read it, from the editorial.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120347037589978727.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
“Bush and the US will support whomever wins as long as it isn’t a Islamic hardliner.”
Be careful what you wish for when pushing democracy – they just might elected the exact opposite of what you want, i.e., the Palestinians.
I’d vote for him if I was a Pakistani. After all, who could refuse some one who speaks like the Asian Indian dude in a New York City 7-11. :D
This is one thing I agree with Obama on- time to go in there and clean out the cesspools of terrorist and Taliban hiding over there and find Ben Laden if he is there.
Uh oh, a secular party took the majority and is about to set out some socialist reforms to combat poverty and invest in the nation’s infrastructure. Bush might find a reason to support a coup. Oh wait, not much oil there, never mind.
“It was never in America’s interests to humiliate or isolate the Pakistani leader, at least while he cooperated with the U.S. in fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban, shutting down the A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network, improving relations with India and keeping a grip on the country’s nuclear arsenal.” WSJ
The problem was that Musharraf never had the strength or willingness to cooperate in fighting either the Taliban or Al Qaida, he immediately pardoned A.Q. Kahn, and was plotting to create excuses to invade Kashmir, and nobody is really sure he has control of the nukes. But we went ahead and threw billions down that rathole anyway, just like we did with the Shah. Some history lessons just don’t stick!
When it was announced on T.V. that nitwit Bush hit Afghanistan with cruise missiles right after 9/11 I said to my wife, “He’s compromised Musharref. If he had to send those missiles, he could have gotten away with it in Kazakhstan, but not Pakistan. What was he thinking about?”
By pulling U.S. troops out of Afghanistan to open an illegal and unnecessary war in Iraq, Bush guaranteed the perpetual war.
Foreign policy has always been Bush’s weakest (of many) suit. When he was asked, in 1999 during his presidential campaign, who was the ruler in Pakistan he answered: “The new Pakistani general, he’s just been elected — not elected, this guy took over office. It appears this guy is going to bring stability to the country, and I think that’s good news for the subcontinent.”
(Whoever he is.)
The previous posters are right on about AQ Kahn, by the way. He was able to proliferate nuclear materials and equipment around the world and got a slap on the wrist, at the same time Bush wanted to invade Iran for a comparatively tiny threat.
One Trackback
[...] Pagans don’t wear sandals! by joesblog6 wrote an interesting post today on Does election vindicate Bush, Musharraf?Here’s a quick excerpt“The results of Pakistan’s parliamentary vote are being billed as a repudiation not only of Pervez Musharraf, but also of President Bush, who has… [...]