Washington Stirs a Witch's Brew in Pakistan

by Eric Margolis

Plans by President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to attack Iran have been at least temporarily derailed by the mounting crisis in Pakistan. Not only is this important South Asia nation a key US ally in its conflict with anti-western Muslim groups (aka "the war of terror"), the US also planned to use three Pakistani air bases it now controls to launch air attacks against Iran.

I’ve been in regular contact with former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. She calls the situation "grim." On Friday, she was temporarily put under house arrest, preventing her from leading a mass demonstration in Islamabad. On Tuesday, she plans to lead a mass protest march from Lahore, to which she flew over the weekend, to Islamabad, mobilizing her party faithful and challenging the Musharraf regime.

Another important Pakistani party, Jamiat Islami, is also threatening mass demonstrations. Bhutto and other opposition leaders are calling on Musharraf to resign as military chief and run in fair, internationally supervised elections.

Bhutto tells me she may face another attempt to kill her. She accuses allies of President-General Pervez Musharraf of trying to assassinate her in the October 18th bombing in Karachi that that killed or wounded hundreds.

Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party commands broad popular support, particularly among the poor and illiterate. But her attempt to unleash mass demonstrations has so far been thwarted by violent police repression against her supporters and the arrest of her political allies.

Musharraf’s imposition of martial law, arrest of Supreme Court justices who were going to rule illegal his continued role as commander-in-chief and president, arrest of other opposition figures and muzzling the formerly feisty media have proven most embarrassing to the Bush Administration which claims to be an apostle of democracy. Bush, who claims to have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in order to bring them the light of democracy, must continue supporting Pakistan’s military dictator or see his war in Afghanistan collapse.

So, under heavy pressure from Washington, Musharraf agreed to hold elections on 15 January and release some jailed opponents. Washington hailed Musharraf. In reality, however, it was another cynical ploy. Every election Musharraf has held since seizing power in 1999 has been rigged. Does anyone really believe there will be fair elections in Pakistan under martial law or with the media gagged?

Musharraf, who commands less than 8% popular support, and is widely hated as an American stooge, knows he would lose any honest election. What he plans are the same kind of farcical "democratic elections" held by the US-backed military dictatorships of Egypt and Algeria.

My Pakistani sources report growing unrest in the 619,000-man armed forces. Senior commanders, recently promoted by Musharraf after pre-approval by Washington, still support him. But they are increasingly dismayed by the threat of a clash with civilians. Many senior officers fear their continued support of Musharraf is turning the public against the armed forces and injuring its good name.

Rest of Article Here

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Don't get your thread title. Who hates us? And why? What is your point. Does everything that happens in the world go back to a hate for us???

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

The article starts with a huge assumption. What evidence is there that the administration intended to attack Iran and that it has been derailed? I guess it is okay to just wildly make your facts up.

Nobody hates me. I'm @#$%ing adorable. <--- Rules infraction

Now, I personally agree that Bush wants to attack Iran, and that this business in Pakistan is probably throwing a little tiny monkeywrench into those works, but I don't think it'll actually stop Bush from doing whatever madness he's up to. He doesn't seem to mind overextending himself -- 'cause it's not really him he's overextending.

lol daybreaker, i was going to write the same thing as u.......no one hates me either

["Truth-Bringer";p="412869"]

#1. Allies of Bush's. ok.
#2. Stopped from protesting, OK
#3.Masses of people want him to resign, ok


#4.Accused of being behind killings, ok


#5.Opposition is made up of the poor class, and they are prevented from protesting by police and barriers, ok


#6. Supreme Court involved in elections, OK

#7.Accused of running "rigged" elections to get into office, OK

#8.Part of a small minority of voters, yet wins elections, OK


#9.Civil unrest during elections, breaking into polling places, rigging the votes, throwing away ballots, using the Supreme Court to get seated, OK


I don't doubt Bush & Musharraf are good buddies, they have so much in common, OK?? LMAO!

__________________
One Tin Soldier Walked Away....................

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p...laryTeam08.jpg

Well yes, JP, that's kinda the way things have been, for the last six years or so.

Haven't you noticed?

__________________
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
-Dr Seuss
You should have heard what i meant to say (apologies to Thelonious Monk)
"The police are not here to cause disorder....
...The police are here to preserve disorder."
Hon. Richard J. Daley
Chicago, 1968

No, the invasion and occupation of Iraq started with a huge assumption:


The Imperial Presidency

"Vice President Dick Cheney is trying to persuade Dick Armey, the Republican House majority leader, who was skeptical about a war on Iraq, in a private meeting in September 2002: 'We have great information. They’re going to welcome us. It’ll be like the American Army going through the streets of Paris. They’re sitting there ready to form a new government. The people will be so happy with their freedoms that we’ll probably back ourselves out of there within a month or two.'"

A month or two??? That assumption didn't work out too well, did it? Now the assumption is we need to stay there 30, 40 or 50 years...

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

What do statements made about Iraq have to do with the fictional beginning to this article? This writer apparently just makes things up.