Bush: Musharraf truly believes in democracy

#1
Highly esteemed, learned mr.Bush with his charming idiotism has made a new invention in politology. In Orwellian style he highly praises Pakistanian 'beacon of democracy' gen.Musharraf and no doubt that approaching elections would be recognised by Washington as an example of true democracy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/20/AR2007112002304.html?hpid=topnews

President Bush yesterday offered his strongest support of embattled Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying the general "hasn't crossed the line" and "truly is somebody who believes in democracy."

Bush spoke nearly three weeks after Musharraf declared emergency rule, sacked members of the Supreme Court and began a roundup of journalists, lawyers and human rights activists. Musharraf's government yesterday released about 3,000 political prisoners, although 2,000 remain in custody, according to the Interior Ministry.
Maybe mr.Bush believes himself in words he sounded but not his aides. It appears that our American friends try to 'change horses' in Pakistan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/20/AR2007112001905.html?hpid=topnews

When Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte visited Pakistan last weekend, he met once with President Pervez Musharraf, for two hours. But before he left town, he held three meetings with a lesser-known figure: Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, the deputy army chief.

The two shared a Saturday night dinner.

The attention paid to Kiyani has affirmed reports here that he will soon be anointed Musharraf's successor as head of the army -- and, as such, will be a vital ally for the Bush administration during a time of crisis.

"Use your influence. You can help save Pakistan," Negroponte told Kiyani during the visit, according to a Western diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Apparenly mr.Negroponte doesn't believe that democratically elected leader would be able to 'save Pakistan'.
 
#2
Can anyone?
 
#4
US can only change the world one country at a time Sergey.. you know that. Pakistan wasn't on the list yet :p

Sometimes you need to deal with guys you wouldn't want to meet your mum.

But of course russians know this already:


 

Alsacien

LE
Moderator
#5
ghost_us said:
US can only change the world one country at a time Sergey.. you know that. Pakistan wasn't on the list yet :p

Sometimes you need to deal with guys you wouldn't want to meet your mum.

But of course russians know this already:


Its outrageous!

My mum would not even invite him to a state banquet, I mean, he is not even wearing a tie!
 
#6
Ghost, and what is wrong with this picture? Pres.Putin met with elected president. The majority of voters in Iran supported him.
 
#7
KGB_resident said:
Ghost, and what is wrong with this picture? Pres.Putin met with elected president. The majority of voters in Iran supported him.
Who votes for the Ayatollah? Yanno, that guys boss?
 
#9
ghost_us said:
KGB_resident said:
Ghost, and what is wrong with this picture? Pres.Putin met with elected president. The majority of voters in Iran supported him.
Who votes for the Ayatollah? Yanno, that guys boss?
And who voted for the king of Saudi Arabia or the king of Jordan (who are welcomed in Washington)? Btw, American presidents use to meet with Her Majesty who has not been (from fromal point of view) elected.

As for pres.Ahmadinedjad then he was elected by the majority of Iranians.
 
#10
Well it's often simpler to get 'elected' when you take the leading opposition's family member's hostage, and then bombard every state controlled media chanel with single party politics.... but yes, he was 'elected'.
 
#11
#12
ghost_us said:
KGB_resident said:
Ghost, and what is wrong with this picture? Pres.Putin met with elected president. The majority of voters in Iran supported him.
Who votes for the Ayatollah? Yanno, that guys boss?
Mandate and status Supreme Leader of Iran
The Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts, which is also in charge of overseeing the Supreme Leader, and has the power to dismiss and replace him at any time. As the name indicates, the Supreme Leader is considered as the ultimate head of the Iranian political and governmental establishment, above that of Iran's president. According to the constitution, he has the last say in internal and foreign policies, control of the army Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and control of state broadcast and others (see below).
...
Mushie on the other hand seized power in a coup d'état on the back of the Kargil war with four other generals, no government backing. This lead to Lahore dropping heavy hints it would go nuclear if thwarted and Mushie moving his nuke arsenal up to the border. It has been described as "a disaster bigger than the East Pakistan tragedy" and unfairly given the awful record of the Pak General Staff as "Pakistan's greatest blunder". The Pakistanis admit to losing more troops in three months than the US has in nearly half a decade in Iraq.

Mushie's coup was ratified by the Pakistani Supreme Court, as is traditional. He did hold a well rigged referendum a couple of years back. As a leader he's got precious little claim to democratic legitimacy.

If you look into his background before 1999 we might well be kecking ourselves if he was on the cusp of seizing power now. Being described as the leader of "irrational religious elements in the Pakistan army" does not sound good. Even the ISI seem to have thought him rather too forward leaning when it came to spreading the glorious jihad. The pleasure of dictatorship seems to have soften him into a relatively safe pair of hands.
 
#13
Musharraf TBH does not seem to be as bad as he is painted by many sourses. OK, he is a millitary dictator but in some ways he doesn't sound as bad as certain "democratic" politicians.

It would apear that Musharaff has his countries interests at heart. Now I could well be wrong here and feel free to post evidence to the contrary. From what I see, Pakistan has become a better place under his rule than it was before he came to power for the majority of citizens.

Some countries under "democratic" leaders (Mugabe/Zimbabwe) seem to be doing much worse than Pakistan when it comes to improvements for citizens.
 
#14
Perturbed said:
Musharraf TBH does not seem to be as bad as he is painted by many sourses. OK, he is a millitary dictator but in some ways he doesn't sound as bad as certain "democratic" politicians.

It would apear that Musharaff has his countries interests at heart. Now I could well be wrong here and feel free to post evidence to the contrary. From what I see, Pakistan has become a better place under his rule than it was before he came to power for the majority of citizens.

Some countries under "democratic" leaders (Mugabe/Zimbabwe) seem to be doing much worse than Pakistan when it comes to improvements for citizens.
Mushie like Bhutto represents very narrow and deeply corrupt sectional interests in Pakistan: an elite ultimately prepared for wealthy flight to luxurious sanctuary abroad.

Bhutto is plainly a base opportunistic creature. The General is perhaps at bottom a Zealot with all that breeds merits and flaw. Pakistan has had far worse leaders. I'm reminded of what Algerians despairingly call La Pouvoir while looking on in horror at the rise of violent Salafi "purity'.

You'd have to consider though that Mushie has a record of failure in internal security coupled with militant nuke waving aggression towards Pakistan's neighbors including the regular use of barely covert terrorist means. His nation also harbors the sacred heart of the Salafi Jihad.

This cannot be said of Mugabe, who in his long fall from rebel grace now falls plainly matches the pattern of an incompetent Toad King; not all of which have been of native African stock. Unlike Pakistan Mugabe's nation is not likely to face nuclear annihilation as result of his actions. I think the bulk of Pakistanis understand this but they are not masters of their own fate.
 
#15
Perturbed said:
Musharraf TBH does not seem to be as bad as he is painted by many sourses. OK, he is a millitary dictator but in some ways he doesn't sound as bad as certain "democratic" politicians.

It would apear that Musharaff has his countries interests at heart. Now I could well be wrong here and feel free to post evidence to the contrary. From what I see, Pakistan has become a better place under his rule than it was before he came to power for the majority of citizens.

Some countries under "democratic" leaders (Mugabe/Zimbabwe) seem to be doing much worse than Pakistan when it comes to improvements for citizens.
Having read Musharaff's book (In the line of fire) I tend to agree that he has done much better than any of the previous civillian encumbants, however sooner or later he must hand power back to the politicians even if they are corrupt.

As the saying goes, In a democracy the public get the government they deserve.
 

Similar threads

Top