Category Archives: Musharraf
In true Nixsonian style Musharraf resigns. Per the NYT:
Facing the threat of impeachment, President Pervez Musharraf announced that he would resign, saying the charges against him were false but that he would step down for the sake of his nation.
Why in the blue hell won’t our congress critters do this? Jesus Christ it isn’t rocket science folks. This bag o shit has been in office for nine friggin years. Here is Musharraf’s money quote:
“Unfortunately, there are some people who have self-interest, and they are putting their interests above those of the country,” he said. “Some people are trying to blame, me and they are making false accusations against me.”
Isn’t that rich? If there isn’t any evidence, why in the blue hell is this fuckwit resigning? Ah, but wait…..it gets better:
At the core of the talks has been Mr. Musharraf’s demand that he be immune from prosecution if he resigns before the impeachment proceedings begin.
The negotiations were bogged down over the legal technicalities of when immunity would be granted, according to a senior coalition official. The coalition was reluctant to grant immunity before Mr. Musharraf left office, because of fears that once he had won immunity he would not depart, said the official, who declined to be identified because of the delicacy of the talks.
Technical difficulties? Like when a tv channel goes out? Sigh…if only it was happening right here, right now m’dear reader….if only.
Pakistan’s Punjab Provincial Assembly on Monday voted to ask President Pervez Musharraf to resign or face possible impeachment by the country’s parliament. Of the body’s 371 members, 321 voted for the motion, including the majority of Musharraf’s own Pakistan Muslim League-Q party. In response to the vote and impeachment plans led by the country’s coalition government, Musharraf stated he will fight the allegations of wrongdoing and asserted that the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) simply wants to impose their rule over his own. For the potential impeachment to succeed, it would require the endorsement of two-thirds of legislators in a joint session of parliament. The lower house of parliament was scheduled to meet later on Monday to consider the move. BBC News has more.
Why can’t our Congress do this? It is a rhetorical question…
For all the millions we have sent to Pakistan, and specifically to Musharaf, we aren’t getting much of a return on our investment these days. With the new regime there being sworn in, the anti-american sentiment is running pretty high. Who can blame them for hating us? Being in the middle between Bush’s War on Terror and the tribal leaders who support the Al-Qaeda types can’t be a good place to be. From the TNR writeup:
To make matters worse, Pakistanis increasingly believe that they are paying the price for our war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Pakistanis are interpreting the increasing terror attacks in the country as a direct response to the recent uptick in our bombing of Al Qaeda targets in the border areas. All of this means that a negative reaction to the arrival of senior U.S. envoys should not have been unexpected. Pakistanis believe that they are carrying out a democratic coup, sweeping away the illegitimate underpinnings of the Musharraf presidency, and are not about to take kindly to American efforts to shore up Musharraf or preserve his policies.
They want change–not just with Musharraf himself, but also with his policies for dealing with terror. The question for the U.S. is whether we can live with the change, and at the same time, manage it so that Al Qaeda and the Taliban not only don’t benefit, but also lose their sanctuary in Pakistan.
Change..its a good thing sometimes, but we really don’t know how Pakistan, a nuclear-laden country, will deal with America and the Terrorists yet. But the message is getting clearer as this part of the writeup notes:
One more irony: The big winner in the elections in the tribal areas was the Awami National Party (A.N.P.), which has long accused Musharraf and the Pakistani intelligence services of duplicity in its dealings with Islamist groups. The A.N.P. opposes talks with Al Qaeda and foreign militants because, as Afrasiab Khattak, the secretary general of the A.N.P., has said, “We don’t have a common language with them.” But the party does favor an approach that emphasizes dialogue with the local tribes, economic development and assistance to the area, and the use of the police rather than the military (except in limited circumstances) to bring peace to the provinces. If anything, Nawaz Sharif has been more outspoken about how to deal with terror, calling for talking rather than the use of force.
Talking to terrorists? What a novel approach! We, the universal we, will have to stay up to date with this situation as Bush’s war in Afghanistan depends on how Pakistan deals with the Al-Qaeda strongholds in Waziristan.
Crossposted at Sirens Chronicles
Fidel isn’t going to rule Cuba any longer. Wow wee, I knew this day would come..but it’s not something you are ready for. He’s sick and he now admits it. From the MSNBC writeup:
“I will not aspire nor accept — I repeat I will not aspire or accept — the post of President of the Council of State and Commander in Chief,” read the letter signed by Castro and published quietly overnight without advance warning in the online edition of the Communist Party daily Granma.
Our second leader that might be noticing the writing on the wall is Musharraf of Pakistan. Can I get an amen on the election results? Lets hope no funny business takes place before the election is certified. From the NYT writeup:
Almost all the leading figures in the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, the party that has governed for the last five years under Mr. Musharraf, lost their seats, including the leader of the party, the former speaker of Parliament and six ministers.
Bush of course had something to say on both counts..however it’s so worthless I won’t be printing it here. Bush is our new Mr. Irrelevant you know.
Al-Qaeda did it. Its all Al-Qaeda’s fault. Every nasty, horrific thing that has transpired in the last 6 years is the fault of Al-Qaeda. This includes of course the killing of Benazir Bhutto.
So why is it then that Robert Fisk draws many parallels today in his piece for the Independent that go directly to Musharraf? From Fisk’s article:
Question: Who forced Benazir Bhutto to stay in London and tried to prevent her return to Pakistan? Answer: General Musharraf.
Question: Who ordered the arrest of thousands of Benazir’s supporters this month? Answer: General Musharraf.
Question: Who placed Benazir under temporary house arrest this month? Answer: General Musharraf.
Question: Who declared martial law this month? Answer General Musharraf.
Question: who killed Benazir Bhutto?
Er. Yes. Well quite.
Tomorrows Independent has a good read up as well on this subject. Like, why didn’t Bhutto’s husband want an autopsy? In fact, according to the current Prime Minister of Pakistan..her husband insisted that there not be an autopsy. From Sunday’s edition:
Suspicions over the complicity of Pervez Musharraf’s government in the killing were fueled by its failure to order a postmortem, regardless of Mr Zardari’s wishes, and the fact that the scene of the bombing was washed down with a high-pressure hose within an hour, removing potential forensic evidence. Under the criminal law of Pakistan, an autopsy should have been mandatory, according to a leading lawyer, Athar Minallah.
“It is absurd because without autopsy it is not possible to investigate,” he said. “Is the state not interested in reaching the perpetrators of this heinous crime, or was there a cover-up?”
Christ, what a mess, what a coverup..what a freaking bunch of hooey.