Comments (27)

bob wrote on August 8, 2007 7:03 PM:

Obama? Might not Bush's recent remarks about taking out al Qaeda in Pakistan without necessarily getting Musharraf's okay be more significant?

Keith wrote on August 8, 2007 7:15 PM:

Seems to me Musharraf's taking advantage of Obama's comments and the new restrictions Congress placed on future aid to justify clamping down on the country. Plus, I think this all needs to be viewed against the backdrop of his attempts to extend his tenure as President.

regular lurker wrote on August 8, 2007 7:17 PM:

Bush had to go in to Iraq. He just had to go and invade the country-that-had-nothing-to-do-with-9-11. He just couldn't be bothered to follow through in Afghanistan. Well, no wonder Karzai was just here. The sh*t is hitting the fan next door.

Pakistan has nukes, an unstable government, and numerous followers of Saudi Arabia's radical Islam not to mention the mother of world wide nuclear proliferation and international money laundering. But noooooo......

Bush had to go and invade Iraq. All for some stupid f*cking oil.

starwheel wrote on August 8, 2007 7:36 PM:

Of course. Bush's favorite puppet dictator is blaming the Democrats for his troubles.

This has Rove written all over it.

Bob Johnson wrote on August 8, 2007 7:44 PM:

Musharraf will remain the leader of Pakistan, regardless title, until he dies, naturally or otherwise. That death could be imminent or his presence could remain preeminant for two or more of our own presidencies.

(I now prefer using office to person for our own polity to counteract our monarchical press and because Pax Americana reaks of empire and we know what happens to those jingoistic narcissists.)

I know what we citizens are missing: In-depth coverage of the major, upcoming, positioned, or behind-the-scenes actors in Pakistan; the near war between the nuclear powers of Pakistan and her neighbor India; the real issues of dissident factions in Kashmir, Wazeristan, and other geopolitical areas in this region. In a global world, we citizens need constant education, even if it comes through sixth-grade-level comic books and "tubes." The end of future seems so close.

Orwell's Intuition wrote on August 8, 2007 8:12 PM:

That's right, blame Obama. This morning I stubbed my toe and it's all my neighbor's fault for mowing their lawn yesterday.

Is there no accountability anywhere?

Michael Lafferty wrote on August 8, 2007 8:27 PM:

…ooh, 'blame Obama?' My, aren't we touchy, now!

Nowhere in the article does it blame Senator Obama for this development, nor allude to his not particularly well thought out initial comment regarding striking at Al Qaeda inside the lawless outer regions of Pakistan as a driver in this matter. His insistence upon ruling out the use of nuclear weapons at least brought him into far better light than the claims of Senator Clinton. Reserving Presidential perogative? That might be the most foolish comment to come out of Washington since—oh, I don't know—the last White House press briefing, where Tony Snow regularly issues similar illogical and even idiotic missives. But, I digress…

Both candidates were—to some degree—clearly out of bounds regarding a strike agains the leader that President Bush seldom seems to think about any more, but neither likely had any meaningful impact upon the underlying issues surrounding Musharraf. He has quite conveniently painted himself into a corner, with precious little assistance from us.

What is it about we Americans that we seem to think we're are that powerful?

Publicus wrote on August 8, 2007 9:26 PM:

"Musharraf is incensed that U.S. intelligence officials and the Democratic presidential candidates have accused him of insufficient action against terrorism."

Well, you know what they say about slander. The truth is a positive defense. All Perv has to do is prove to us what he *has* done to fight terrorism. As far as I can tell all he's done is a) take billions of dollars from the US with absolutely no accountability for how it is used, and b) told the tribal leaders in Waziristan that he won't bother them. I must have missed the action *against* terrorism.

Johnsnottoodistracted wrote on August 8, 2007 9:31 PM:

Glad someone has added real issues to this story.
Most u.s. people think the whole pak area is an aq haven and breeding ground.
In reality the constant conflict with india has always generated the instability.
Check-out just a little history of this area.It's an easy one when you understand why pak was sectioned off from india to begin with.
Of course the media propagators play along and name any activity aq.
The conflict in that region has continued for generations.
Of course it's handy to stamp the aq brand on it.
As upset as the world is with u.s.gov now that area has other long term issues.
They are not going to include u.s. in their problems until u.s. takes sides.And even then this is not an aq deal.This is and always has been an india/pak issue.
Maybe the biggest boogyman of all is somewhere around,or not?These two regions go at each other no matter.

litigatormom wrote on August 8, 2007 9:31 PM:

Hmm, Perv may be declaring a state of emergency in order to extend his tenure. Worried about the result of parliamentary elections and Supreme Court decsions.

Could this be an out-of-town try-out for the Unitary Executive's decision, which only it can review for legality, to extend the Unitary Executive's term in office due to the increasing threat of terrorism despite the enormous progress being made in Iraq?

tr wrote on August 8, 2007 9:53 PM:

bushco will just hire bhutto to run the place, so this doesn't matter.

Squeeky wrote on August 8, 2007 9:56 PM:

So for how many generations will we through in with the tough guy dictators only to find out they are not so popular with the folks on the street? It is time the entire Georgetown Faculty had to stand in the street during a coup.

FMarouet wrote on August 8, 2007 10:16 PM:

Musharraf is as transparent as the Bushies themselves.

Musharraf will continue do whatever he can to preserve his own personal power and to crush his political opponents, constitution or no constitution. Why should anyone expect any other behavior from him?

And of course Musharraf will blame everyone else for his actions: Bhutto, his own Supreme Court, opposition parties, Taliban sympathizers, and even U.S. Senator Obama, an underdog candidate for an election to be conducted 16 months from now.

Musharraf will paint himself as the only barrier to chaos in Pakistan, even though fundamentalist Islamists can garner no more than 10 percent of the vote in a fair election and even though Pakistan has a vigorous parliamentary tradition and a modern, enlightened middle class.

Where have Bush and Musharraf learned the same bogeyman chant?

Sara wrote on August 8, 2007 10:17 PM:

Not a whole lot about it in the US Press, but apparently Bhutto and Musharraf have cut a deal whereby her party, the PPP supports the re-election of Musharraf in Uniform, he thereupon sponsers changes in the constitution to allow Bhutto a third term as Prime Minister, and then he goes Civilian. In effect, what this means is that Musharraf exchanges support from the perhaps 5-11% of the electorate that votes for the religious parties, for the PPP's roughly 40% of the block vote, (in a fair election) which BB controls. This is the deal they inked when Musharraf visited her in Dubai. I suspect much of what you see in the streets right now is the reaction of the Religious Parties to being sold up the river by Musharraf. Apparently the Muslim League, (a secular party actually) has split, with one faction coming to the support of the Religious Parties.

What's got Bush on edge is Musharraf's agreement with India and Iran to build a natural gas pipeline across Pakistan to India, capable of delivering Iranian gas to both Pakistan and India. This deal comes with major league Russian and Chinese financing and participation. Put mildly, the whole idea is driving Bush and Cheney nuts. Early this week they announced all the details had been worked out, and they were ready to sign the agreements. Pay attention to this as much as the mess Musharraf is in with his Mullahs.

FMarouet wrote on August 8, 2007 10:25 PM:

Sara--

Excellent point about the pipeline and its relevance to Iran, Russia, China and the Bush/Cheney agenda. You've likely hit the key issue.

I'm skeptical that the meeting in Dubai resulted in a solid agreement between Bhutto and Musharraf. Based on ample past experience, Bhutto should know better than to trust him. But we'll soon enough see whether you are right.

Julia wrote on August 8, 2007 10:28 PM:

So, our puppet Musharraf might declare a state of emergency, partly in response to what Obama said? How convenient. Now Bush is strong arming our "allys" into influence our elections? Great. Imagine the possibilities!

DB wrote on August 8, 2007 10:54 PM:

why don't we begin work on a Gonzales/Musharraf swap? they physically resemble each other, and then at least the Attorney General's testimony before Congress would be inscrutable because it was in a foreign language, and not because it was arrogant mealy mouthed dissembling.

code: spring -- how very unlike today's weather!

party-of-one wrote on August 9, 2007 7:23 AM:

Oh, I see that Muscharraf took Karl Rove's call. Is this state of emergency similar the "Code Orange" Bush-Rove used so successfully when they needed to distract?

dee illuminati wrote on August 9, 2007 11:14 AM:

I guess he didn't want to leave and be disallowed to return, that is the Pakistan way. I guess there is a precedent to declaring somebody non-grata at the airport upon their return flight. Better to blow off meeting than be exiled.

markg8 wrote on August 9, 2007 12:49 PM:

The jihadis in the NW territories make up all of 4% of the country. They are not the threat Pakistan's dictator fears, it's the rest of the country, the voters. They want their democracy back and if they get it, it'll be sans Musharraf. He knows it, Cheney knows it, and Obama knows it too. Sadly Hillary, Dodd, and Biden don't or they're cynically following the Bush/Cheney's lead that allows Musharraf to take $12 billion a year in our cash to essentially protect Al Qaeda.

If you like Democrats who are still mouthing Cheney fantasies whether they believe them or not vote for one of them. If you want a president who is honest with you about foreign policy and war vote for Obama.

dee illuminati wrote on August 9, 2007 2:17 PM:

The Deal with the Musharraf Government
Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf held an ostensibly secret "successful meeting" with Benazir Bhutto on July 27, 2007 in Abu Dhabi, according to Pakistani Minister for Railways Sheikh Rashid Ahmed. Both Musharraf and Bhutto initially denied this report. [38] After the alleged meeting was over, the some sources confirmed that that the Pakistani Government had restored some previously frozen bank accounts of Bhutto's 15 days prior to the July 27 meeting to demonstrate the Pakistani Government's seriousness in its discussions with her. Sources have suggested that further release of other banks accounts belonging to Bhutto will follow a final deal between Musharraf and Bhutto. [39]

In an August 8, 2007, interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Bhutto demurred as to rumours that the July 27, 2007 meeting between Musharraf and herself centred on her desire to return to Pakistan for the 2008 elections, and the idea of Musharraf retaining the Presidency with Bhutto becoming Prime Minister. Her emphasis in the CBC interview, demonstrating her appeal to the West, was on her self-proclaimed capacity to route out Moslem extremism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto

No doubt this is Bollywood/Islamo fascism drama unfoding.. and is going to be interesting...

Priscilla wrote on August 9, 2007 3:29 PM:

Gee - I thought that was the Rove -Cheney plan for Oh say about October of 2008 !! Guess Paervez stole from 'em.

Priscilla wrote on August 9, 2007 3:43 PM:

Gee - I thought that was the Rove -Cheney plan for Oh say about October of 2008 !! Guess Paervez stole from 'em.

dee illuminati wrote on August 9, 2007 4:22 PM:

FMarouet, Sara...

If there is to be a coalition government in the Arab world, it had better be Pakistan...

Your point about Bhutto and trust is interesting, but in fact both of them have 'everything' at stake by not making an agreement.

Power sharing makes strange bed fellows and the Pakistan political arena is as much 'bolywood' as any real agenda or platform.

And in closing the 250K 'tribals' in Warzistan are not friend of anyone or fealty to any but their own.. not really a political base of either of the two whom could effect a coallition if Musharef will opt that gambit over martial law.

jeffgee wrote on November 3, 2007 11:02 AM:

Musharraf snubs the U.S.
Time to bomb Iran to punish him.

Robin wrote on November 3, 2007 4:18 PM:

I don't think this is a snub to the US. While it might tick off Condi Rice, it is unlikely that Musharraf would have moved ahead with this "emergency rule" if he wasn't personally secure that he had the support of Bush (despite the rhetoric that will follow from the White House).

Bush needs Musharraf and Musharraf needs Bush.

Syed akhter ali wrote on November 4, 2007 7:20 AM:

I f the step has taken for the solridarity of the pakistan the it is bit too late.Wish you all best.