Here's hoping it truly is a step towards stability in Pakistan.

President Pervez Musharraf resigned his military post as Chief of Army Staff today, handing over the command stick to his successor in a ceremony at army headquarters and ending his eight years of military rule. He remains president and will be sworn in to a new five-year term in the capital on Thursday, but as a civilian president his power will be diminished.

Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, 55, the vice chief of army staff, becomes the Chief of Army Staff, replacing Mr. Musharraf. General Kayani — the former head of the InterServices Intelligence and a graduate of the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas — has played a prominent role in cooperating with the United States in the fight against terrorism in Pakistan and is expected to continue that policy.

Mr. Musharraf had come under growing pressure internationally and from his own disenchanted public to relinquish his military post, and his grip on political power will be significantly loosened without the uniform. While the military remains loyal to him, General Kayani is understood to want to remove the army from the forefront of politics and concentrate on military concerns.

This last point is particularly important. Since its birth, Pakistan has had a military intimately involved in politics. This has contributed to serious instability in its democratic processes. That we are seeing what appears to be a peaceful transition to civilian rule is a hopeful sign, and the selection of a general to lead the Army who seeks political disengagement could go a long way towards relieving concerns about future coups. If the January elections produce results which are accepted as legitimate by the Pakistani people, the upheaval of the last few weeks may have been, in some greater sense, "worth it" in terms of achieving stable civilian rule.

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 319 words, total size 2 kb.

Nawaz Sharif has returned to Pakistan. As you may recall, he was rushed back into exile weeks ago when he attempted to return. That was before Musharraf imposed his state of emergency.

Now Sharif is back.

Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif returned to Pakistan late Sunday, greeted by crowds of frenzied supporters after seven years in exile. His arrival injects a new element of complexity into the country's chaotic political scene and presents a powerful challenge to the military president who deposed him.

Sharif had attempted to return in September but was forced to leave the country without stepping off his plane. This time, his homecoming received the reluctant acquiescence of President Pervez Musharraf.

Police sealed off the airport in Lahore, Sharif's political stronghold, early Sunday following rumors that he would be arrested or whisked away to his suburban home under guard. But hundreds of supporters surged through the police lines and barricades, chanting his name nonstop as they waited for his plane from Saudi Arabia to land.

Sharif finally emerged about 7:30 p.m. and attempted to speak, but his words were inaudible in the roar of cheers. He was then carried aloft by the crowd to a black bulletproof Mercedes-Benz. His motorcade inched through the city all evening, along streets lined with tens of thousands of supporters.

News agencies reported that Sharif called on Musharraf to lift the emergency rule he declared Nov. 3 and to restore the suspended constitution. Sharif said that the emergency conditions were "not conducive to free and fair elections" and that he had "come back to save my country."

There is already talk of an electoral coalition between Sharif and Benazir Bhutto. What this means in regards to her previous discussions with Musharraf is an interesting question. Could it be that Musharraf's two biggest rivals will unite with him to help bring order to the country? Or will they instead unite against him -- and will such a move bring stability to Pakistan?

Given Sharif's long-standing opposition to Musharraf and his adamant rejection of any deals with the man who overthrew his government eight years ago, I suspect we will see the formation of a Sharif-Bhutto coalition to oppose Musharraf. However, I doubt that they will have either the strength or the will to remove the General from power in the short term, meaning that they will have to work out some sort of power-sharing arrangement following the elections in January.

Posted by: Greg at 11:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 415 words, total size 3 kb.

At one time is was "you are with us or with the terrorists."

Now one of the nations often considered a part of the Axis of Evil, a known state sponsor of terrorism, will be permitted to attend the Annapolis Peace Conference as an equal -- with no renunciation of terrorism as a weapon against Israel.

Syria announced Sunday that it would attend the Middle East peace meeting beginning here Monday night, joining Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab League participants in a turnabout that represented a victory for the Bush administration.

Syria, a supporter of groups opposed to a Palestinian peace with Israel, said it would send a deputy foreign minister to the meeting, which will continue on Tuesday in Annapolis, Md. In return, Syria was promised that IsraelÂ’s occupation of the Golan Heights, taken from Syria in the 1967 war, would be on the agenda.

The Annapolis meeting, a major initiative pressed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, will begin negotiations on a peace treaty to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict while simultaneously committing Israel and the Palestinians to carry out long-postponed obligations contained in the first stage of the 2003 peace plan known as the road map.

The presence of major Arab countries, now including Syria, is meant to provide Arab sanction and support for the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to make the concessions required for peace. The Arabs promise Israel that a comprehensive peace will mean their recognition of the Jewish state. But a comprehensive peace must also include a resolution on the Golan Heights.

Until the Arabs recognize Israel and promise to end the campaign of Jew-killing, there should be no peace talks. And there should certainly be no talks that include terrorists and their sponsors. It appears that this administration is headed down the same road as the Clinton Administration did in 2000 -- seeking a legacy at all costs, even at the expense of America's closest ally in the Middle East. What a shameful betrayal of both principle and friendship.

More At Michelle Malkin, Tel-Chai Nation

Posted by: Greg at 10:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 3 kb.

Now they are accusing her of having an affair -- based upon the claims of the rapists.

Under fire for its treatment of a rape victim, the Saudi Arabian government on Saturday said that the woman had an "illegitimate relationship" with a man who was not her husband, and that both "exposed themselves to this heinous crime."

In a statement, the kingdom's Ministry of Justice said it was "forced ... to clarify the role of the woman and the man who was accompanying her in this case and its circumstances" because of what it claimed were false media reports.

The 19-year-old woman was initially sentenced to 90 lashes for meeting with the man -- described by her attorney as a former friend from whom she was retrieving a photograph.

The seven attackers, who abducted the pair and raped her, received sentences ranging from 10 months to five years in jail.

When the woman appealed her sentence, a Saudi court more than doubled it. The Qatif General Court also increased the sentence for the rapists, to two to nine years in prison.

The case has drawn international attention, provoked outrage in the West and cast light on the treatment of women under Saudi Arabia's strict Islamic law.

Now the Saudis initially said that the sentence was increased because the woman dared to complain about being punished for being raped. now they are claiming something else entirely.

The government statement said that according to the woman's signed confession, she called a man on her cell phone and "asked to be with him alone, illegally." The two met at a marketplace, then rode in the man's car to "a dark area of the beach, and stayed there for some time," the ministry said.

The group of attackers "saw her in a compromising situation, her clothes on the ground," the statement said. "The men at this point assaulted her and the man with her."

Now this could be as little as having removed her abaya, that degrading head-to-toe covering that Saudi law uses to dehumanize women. You know, since Saudi law presumes that men are so incapable of controlling themselves in a civilized manner that an exposed wrist -- much less an exposed face -- can drive them into a rape-inducing frenzy. And in such cases, the rape is clearly the fault of the woman, who victimized the men by daring to be uncovered.

I've got a great idea. Since Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal will be in Annapolis this week, maybe it is time for outraged Americans to seize him and administer to him the same 200 lashes the barbaric government he represents intends to mete out to a rape victim. You know, just to send the jumped-up desert bandits who rule the kingdom a message about how strongly the civilized world objects to such sharia-based despotism.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Stix Blog, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Phastidio.net, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Chuck Adkins, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, , Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, Walls of the City, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Stageleft, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 03:42 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 574 words, total size 6 kb.

As long as no one makes them touch a Jew.

Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations grudgingly agreed Friday to attend next week's U.S.-sponsored Mideast peace conference, despite failing to get any guarantee of Israeli concessions.

In a sign of the skepticism, even among close U.S. allies, the Saudi foreign minister cautioned that there would be no public handshakes with Israeli officials at the gathering Tuesday in Annapolis, Md.

And it is clear from this that those Arabs attending the summit are not interested in any sort of negotiations, making the entire event a sham.

Arab leaders made clear they were on board in part to ensure that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas does not make any damaging concessions to Israel in any negotiations on a final peace deal. Israel has dangled the possibility of an accord as early as the end of 2008.

Asked if Abbas has a free rein to negotiate a deal, Arab League chief Amr Moussa underlined that Arab countries would not back an agreement deal that did not meet an Arab peace plan calling for a return of all lands Israel seized in the 1967 war.

"I repeat again and again that we are governed by the Arab initiative in all behaviors and ... and in our agreement to end the Arab-Israeli conflict," he told reporters after the foreign ministers of the league's member states decided to go to Annapolis.

In other words, no agreements unless Israel gives in to the Arabs on every point. As such, the Annapolis meeting is a fraud designed to make Israel appear to be the stumbling block to Middle East peace, rather than the victim of a the anti-Semitic faith that unites the Arab world.

It is still unclear whether Syria will attend the event, even though the US is prepared to make all sorts of concessions to the terrorist supporting rogue state.

The distance between the sides appeared small: Syria wanted the item expressly put on the agenda, and the United States was willing to allow discussion of the Golan Heights, without putting it on the agenda, officials here said.

Mr. Moallem, in reference to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said, “She promised a positive response and we are waiting to receive the agenda.”

Bush administration officials said Friday that Syrian officials were free to bring up any issues they wanted during the conference, but that the United States would not specifically put the Golan Heights on the agenda. “We will not turn off anyone’s microphone,” a senior administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

I doubt that is the case. I'm sure that the Israeli microphones will be silenced any time there is an attempt to bring up the ongoing Terrorstinian campaign of Jew-killing. I'm certain the Bush Administration will be afraid to allow the Israelis to bring up a point recently made by my good friend over at Joshuapundit.

The central issue of Middle East peace isn't `occupation', or a second Arab Palestinian state. It's the inability of the Arabs to live next to Jews in peace and equality. As Israel has proven, the reverse is certainly not the case.

Until the Arabs are willing to concede the legitimacy of Israel and its undeniable right to exist within secure borders, there is absolutely nothing to talk about. Indeed, the Israelis should not be attending Annapolis without a firm, explicit agreement to those points from every other participant. Frankly, I am ashamed of my President and his Secretary of State for not insisting upon those as the minimum standard for any Arab state to be allowed to attend the Annapolis summit -- or for any government official of those countries to be allowed to set foot upon American soil (and yes, I do include embassy staff and UN representatives in that statement). For six decades the Arabs have tried to make the Middle East "Judenrein", seeking to impose in the Land of Israel the same solution that Hitler sought for Germany seven decades ago.

Seven years ago, a failed president named Bill Clinton desperately sought to create a legacy by negotiating a "peace in our time" agreement on the Middle East at the expense of Israel. I fear that George W. Bush did not learn the lesson of that failure -- concessions by Israel, granted under pressure from the United States, only serve to embolden the Terrorstinians and their Arab supporters.

H/T Michelle Malkin, Tel-Chai Nation

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Right Truth, Stix Blog, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Phastidio.net, Chuck Adkins, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Faultline USA, Woman Honor Thyself, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 830 words, total size 8 kb.

When will there be a similar push for concessions by the Terrorstinians?

The U.S. is pressuring Israel to meet a long-standing obligation to freeze all West Bank settlement construction ahead of a high-profile Mideast conference, rejecting Israel's stance that it be allowed to continue building in existing communities, Israeli officials said Sunday.

The officials said that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's Cabinet would discuss the settlement issue on Monday, though it remained unclear whether the ministers would endorse any changes in policy.

The U.S. has been urging Israel to make a series of gestures to the Palestinians ahead of the Mideast peace conference, which is expected to take place next week in Annapolis, Md.

The Terrorstinians have never made good on their promises to stop the violence directed against Israel. Indeed, only military action by Israel --promptly condemned by the international community in each case -- has slowed the pace of terrorist and paramilitary attacks over the years. The Terrorstinians still teach Jew-hatred as a part of the educational curriculum, and cannot even stop fighting among their one factions long enough to honor the founding terrorist of their terrorist-run country.

Why should Israel budge an inch? Indeed, why should Israel not abrogate every prior agreement and begin a policy of removing the terrorists from their midst?

Posted by: Greg at 11:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.

The situation is volatile in Pakistan right now, given Musharraf's state of emergency, but it appears that the United States is not just sticking with the Pakistani president in an effort to stop al-Qaeda. There is now a move to duplicate a strategy that has contributed to success in Iraq.

A new and classified American military proposal outlines an intensified effort to enlist tribal leaders in the frontier areas of Pakistan in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, as part of a broader effort to bolster Pakistani forces against an expanding militancy, American military officials said.

If adopted, the proposal would join elements of a shift in strategy that would also be likely to expand the presence of American military trainers in Pakistan, directly finance a separate tribal paramilitary force that until now has proved largely ineffective and pay militias that agree to fight Al Qaeda and foreign extremists, officials said. The United States now has only about 50 troops in Pakistan, a Pentagon spokesman said, a force that could grow by dozens under the new approach.

The new proposal is modeled in part on a similar effort by American forces in Anbar Province in Iraq that has been hailed as a great success in fighting foreign insurgents there. But it raises the question of whether such partnerships can be forged without a significant American military presence on the ground in Pakistan. And it is unclear whether enough support can be found among the tribes.

And that last point is rather important. We don't know how deep al-Qaeda support runs, or how easily we can sway the tribal groups of Pakistan's frontier region. The question is, given Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, if we can afford not to court these groups. After all, if the alternative is a nuclear al-Qaeda, isn't this policy preferable?

Posted by: Greg at 10:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.

Historical revisionist. International imperialist. Socialist dictator.

All three apply to Venezuela's Hugo Chavez based upon news in the last 24 hours.

Let's start with the first, most amusing, piece of news.

History books record that Simón Bolívar, the liberator of South America, died of tuberculosis in 1830: a banal end to a magnificent life. Now Bolívar is depicted as the victim of a perfect murder, a crime so deft that for almost two centuries nobody suspected a thing.

In the absence of any evidence to support the allegation, the amateur sleuth who made it would normally command little attention. But Hugo Chávez is difficult to ignore.

Venezuela's president elicited gasps when he told a press conference in Caracas that Bolívar did not succumb to disease. "He was assassinated - they wanted him dead."

The socialist leader said he had conducted his own investigation and concluded there was a conspiracy and cover-up. He asked scientists and historians to open an inquiry and promised "to move heaven and earth" to confirm the conclusion.

Chavez, of course, fails to actually disclose any of the evidence he used to reach this conclusion, one which contradicts every contemporary source and which conveniently leaves out the little detail of who "they" were. Indeed, the argument amounts to the claim that since many people wanted him dead, he must have been murdered. That there is no evidence to support the theory is evidence of just how perfect and successful the crime was. He ranks right up there with 9/11 Truthers and JFK conspiracy theorists in his disregard logic and the historical record.

And then there is his attack on a peaceful neighbor -- an act of war that the world seems intent upon ignoring.

Venezuela has denied destroying two gold-mining dredges on Guyanese territory following a strong protest from Guyana's government.

Guyana says 36 Venezuelan soldiers used helicopters and Compostion-4 (C-4), a type of plastic explosive, to blow up the two dredges on Thursday.

It has summoned Venezuela's ambassador to explain the incident.

Venezuela denies using force and said the army was removing illegal miners inside its own territory.

Given the history of lying and misrepresenting the truth engaged in by the Venezuelan leader, I'll accept the Guyanese version of the events. Somehow, though, I suspect that the cinema socialist set will rush to the support of their hero Hugo if there ever is an uproar over the violation of Guyanese sovereignty.

But what the heck -- Chavez has already shut down much of the opposition media, and is preparing to set himself up as, effectively, President-for-Life in a move denounced even by former allies.

In two weeks, Venezuela seems likely to start an extraordinary experiment in centralized, oil-fueled socialism. By law, the workday would be cut to six hours. Street vendors, homemakers and maids would have state-mandated pensions. And President Hugo Chávez would have significantly enhanced powers and be eligible for re-election for the rest of his life.

A sweeping revision of the Constitution, expected to be approved by referendum on Dec. 2, is both bolstering Mr. Chávez’s popularity here among people who would benefit and stirring contempt from economists who declare it demagogy. Signaling new instability here, dissent is also emerging among his former lieutenants, one of whom says the president is carrying out a populist coup.

“There is a perverse subversion of our existing Constitution under way,” said Gen. Raúl Isaías Baduel, a retired defense minister and former confidant of Mr. Chávez who broke with him in a stunning defection this month to the political opposition. “This is not a reform,” General Baduel said in an interview here this week. “I categorize it as a coup d’état.”

Chávez loyalists already control the National Assembly, the Supreme Court, almost every state government, the entire federal bureaucracy and newly nationalized companies in the telephone, electricity and oil industries. Soon they could control even more.

For my entire life, I have watched as the people of Cuba have suffered under the yoke of oppression in a "workers paradise". I fear that I may spend the rest of my life watching just such oppression crush the people of Venezuela as well. And if the imperialistic policy demonstrated by his attack on Guyana is any indication, Venezuela's neighbors need to be fearful of what is yet to come, and prepare themselves to fight off future attempts by Chavez to expand his power by expanding the borders of his country.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Stix Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, Shadowscope, The Pet Haven Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Church and State, A Blog For All, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Grizzly Groundswell, Big Dog's Weblog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Conservative Cat, Nuke's, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Wolf Pangloss, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 08:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 845 words, total size 9 kb.

By noting that free Taiwan is ostracized from world affairs while Red China gets honors and the 2008 Olympics.

Neither independent nor subjugated, commanding one of the world's largest economies but officially recognized by few nations, the island democracy of Taiwan endures a tenuous existence in a world that requires global access. If that weren't bad enough, it is menaced by a hostile neighbor that claims ownership.

Other than the disadvantages of the status quo, Taiwan has few options. It can't risk declaring full independence and angering the giant that no longer sleeps, but has awakened in a cranky mood. And allowing itself to be governed from Beijing would be intolerable. Taiwan is not offered the same deal as Hong Kong, a former British colony, of having a free market in both goods and expression.

Taiwan's dilemma offers a similar set of difficulties for the United States.

Taiwan's de facto U.S. ambassador, Joseph Wu, outlined for members of the Houston World Affairs Council the several bitter ironies of the situation. The United States must maintain workable relations with China and can't recognize Taiwan, even though:

• China menaces Taiwan with missiles and threats, while Taiwan poses a danger to no one.

• Taiwan is a major U.S. trading partner, importing many tons of agricultural products, including Texas beef, and exporting electronic equipment that meets high standards of quality and safety. China sends us tainted food and toxic toys.

• Taiwan has curbed its air and water pollution, but China's regime fears environmental activists more than environmental degradation.

Chinese leader Hu Jintao recently called for talks with Taipei officials to maintain peace in the region. China and Taiwan should "resume talks on an equal footing as soon as possible," Hu said before his recent summit with President Bush in Washington.

A sudden collapse of authoritarianism in China is not impossible, but swift transition to democracy and freedom seems unlikely. Meanwhile, talks between China and Taiwan should be aimed at nourishing peaceful coexistence rather than extending Beijing's control to Taipei.

As for the United States, the least it can do is grant Taiwan the same generous trading terms it recently gave South Korea, one of Taiwan's chief competitors. Washington should also champion Taiwan's desire to work with vital international institutions such as the United Nations' World Health Organization. To deny Taiwan access is to punish a peaceful, democratic ally while rewarding an oppressive competitor.

The abandonment of Taiwan in favor of the Communist regime by President Jimmy Carter is one of the many shameful policies adopted during the administration of the worst president of the twentieth century (if not all of US history). It is time for the United States to correct that error -- a move that President Bush should take as a part of his freedom agenda set in the 2005 inaugural address.

The US must take the lead by treating Taiwan as equal to Red China -- and the IOC should issue an invitation to Taiwan to participate in the Olympics. If the Red Chinese refuse to allow Taiwan to participate, the 2008 Olympics should be canceled in the name of freedom and human rights.

Posted by: Greg at 11:41 PM | Comments (335) | Add Comment
Post contains 536 words, total size 3 kb.

A request for polite behavior has prompted VenezuelaÂ’s dictator to compare himself to the Son of God.

Likening himself to Jesus Christ, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says that if he stops talking -- as suggested at the weekend by an irate Spanish monarch -- "the stones of Latin America will cry out."

Chavez was speaking on his return from an Ibero-American summit in Chile, which took a sour turn when the outspoken Venezuelan leader repeatedly called conservative former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar a "fascist," prompting Spain's King Juan Carlos to tell Chavez to "shut up."

"When the king explodes because of the statements of an Indian, it is the explosion of 500 years of imperial arrogance, 500 years of royalism, of outrages, 500 years of feelings of superiority," Chavez said, in reference to Spain's colonial legacy in Latin America.

"If I stopped talking, the stones of Latin America would cry out, because the people are willing to be free of any kind of colonialism after 500 years," he added.

In case the allusion to Jesus was missed, the office of the presidency issued a statement giving the biblical reference (Luke 19:38-40).

This thug seems to view himself as Christ-like. IÂ’ll half agree. After all, he is on my personal list of candidates for the anti-Christ.

Posted by: Greg at 12:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.

Seems to me that the Pakistani leader is out to delegitimize himself even further. He has again ordered the most popular opposition leader placed under house arrest to prevent her from leading public demonstrations in opposition to his suspension of the Constitution.

Hundreds of riot policemen today blocked the opposition leader Benazir Bhutto and her supporters from making a planned long march from this eastern city 160 miles through Punjab Province to the capital, Islamabad.

Police officers surrounded the house where Ms. Bhutto was staying here and arrested party workers who tried to cross police lines to reach her. Riot policemen using barbed wire and dump trucks loaded with sand blocked off the neighborhood.

“We will definitely try to come out,” said Farzana Raja, a party spokesman, referring to street protests. “She will definitely try to come out.”

Minutes later, the police arrested Ms. Raja and several dozen other party workers. With the police deployed across the city, it appeared that Ms. BhuttoÂ’s supporters would again be blocked from demonstrating.

The question is, will Bhutto and others again seek to take to the streets? Will they be stopped? And how much force is Musharraf prepared to use in the process? Given the recent example in Burma, I don't see how he believes that he can avoid international condemnation and ostracism if he continues down this path.

Has the time come for the US to send a plane to take him out of the country into a well-deserved exile? Or should Pervez Musharraf be left behind, to suffer the fate of Mussolini?

Posted by: Greg at 11:05 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

Sometimes diplomacy is an over-rated virtue. Directness has its place, too, even in foreign affairs.

King Juan Carlos of Spain showed that in a confrontation with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.

Spain's King Juan Carlos told Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to ``shut up'' minutes after Chavez referred to former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar Lopez as a ``fascist.''

The king spoke in Santiago during the closing of the Ibero- American summit.

Posted by: Greg at 07:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

Charles Krauthammer sees the situation much like I do.

[W]we need to make clear our choices. The best among the awful ones Musharraf has presented to us is to try to broker a truce between the two forces before the blood starts to flow, keep Musharraf to his promise of holding early parliamentary elections -- which Bhutto will win -- and then guarantee him a dignified and gradual exit that ensures his protection while Bhutto and her allies claim legitimate authority and try to reach an accommodation with Musharraf's successor as military chief.

It's a long downfield pass. But Musharraf never consulted us on the choice of plays.

Indeed, given that this recent declaration of emergency went strongly against US urgings. We have been trying quite hard to heal the Musharraf/Bhutto breach and aid in restoring democracy in Pakistan. Ultimately, Musharraf decided to ignore US appeals, and even his decision to leave the army and hold elections seem to be on his terms. Unless Condi Rice and George Bush can prevail upon Musharraf to release the political prisoners currently under arrest (including Bhutto herself), the currently scheduled elections are a farce and the outcome as ham. I'm beginning to get the answers I need to make a conclusion on this point from last weekend.

So for me, a key question will be how long these opposition leaders are held, and how long elections are delayed. Indeed, I'd argue the legitimacy of the entire Pakistani political system -- and the government of a nation with nuclear arms -- depends upon those very issues.

I think the latest course of actions in Pakistan are clearly undermining the legitimacy of the whole enterprise -- and that Musharraf has only a limited time in which to turn loose his opponents before being permanently relegated to international pariah status.

Posted by: Greg at 12:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

If this is true, it strikes me that General Musharraf may have gone one step too far for the international community to tolerate.

The opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was placed under house arrest this morning, her political party said. Streets were filled with police officers carrying batons and shields, and trucks blocked roads, trying to prevent access to a protest rally that Ms. Bhutto had helped organize in Rawalpindi, the garrison city adjacent to the capital of Islamabad.

Gen. Pervez Musharraf said Thursday, a day after President Bush called, that PakistanÂ’s parliamentary elections would be held before Feb. 15. But his security forces continued to widen their crackdown and jailed thousands of opposition party members before the rally, which is scheduled to start in the early afternoon today.

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no positive spin that can be put on this story. While the rescheduled elections had appeared to be a positive development yesterday, the arrest of the key opposition figure that the General had been courting is a key misstep. My suspicion is that this move, along with the arrests of thousands of Bhutto's followers to stop protests against the Musharraf regime, will result in a withdrawal of support from the Musharraf regime, and demands for strong sanctions against Pakistan until Musharraf is removed from power. As a result, I see the US losing a key Muslim ally in the war on Islamist terror groups like the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

H/T Malkin, Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 07:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

One more example of how the regime of Mahmoud the Mad represses basic human rights.

Nearly a year ago, French-Iranian filmmaker Mehrnoushe Solouki arrived in Tehran to shoot a documentary about the burial rites of Iran's religious minorities. But when she stumbled upon a mass grave of regime opponents summarily executed in 1988, Solouki was suddenly thrown into Tehran's notorious Evin prison.

She was released after about a month, but authorities confiscated her French passport, barring her exit from the Islamic Republic. Frightened, she briefly sought refuge in the French Embassy. "Every moment, I feel like I'm in a state of limbo between life and death," Solouki told RFE/RL's Radio Farda in a telephone interview on November 6.

Now, Solouki is due to go before an Iranian court on November 17. She apparently faces charges of intending to make antiestablishment propaganda, which she denies. But the proceedings will take place behind closed doors, their outcome far from certain. And fearing the worst, Solouki is urging the international community to shine a light on her case, with a particular appeal to French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Now we are only talking about a grave containing the bodies of nearly 3 thousand political dissidents murdered in contravention of international law. The Iranians donÂ’t like having that little atrocity discussed, and so they have acted to silence a filmmaker who might share details of it with the world. The world must not allow the Islamist dictatorship to suppress the truth.

Posted by: Greg at 11:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

It appears that PakistanÂ’s elections will be delayed a month.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has decided that parliamentary elections will be held by Feb. 15 and reiterated plans to step down as head of the Army, partial concessions to the pressure building on him from Washington and inside Pakistan since he declared a state of emergency over the weekend.

However the embattled president still seemed headed for direct confrontation with former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, who said Thursday's announcements would not dissuade her from a mass rally planned for Friday in Rawalpindi. Authorities rounded up hundreds of members of Bhutto's Pakistan Peoples Party in overnight raids -- the first time that party activists have been targeted since the emergency was declared.

And that last part of the report raises an important issue – will these be free elections, or will they be a show that does not have the actual substance of democracy. The reality was that Musharraf was on a path towards legitimizing his rule a week ago, but has now done a great deal to destroy the credibility of any outcome in which he remains in power. And in light of the question I asked this morning, I find myself wondering if we will see the Pakistani leader leaving the country bound for some foreign refuge, just as Ferdinand Marcos was forced to do in the Philippines. I'm curious -- how many pairs of shoes does Mrs. Musharraf own?

Posted by: Greg at 11:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

Is Benazir Bhutto the new Corazon Aquino?

Following four days of relatively tepid statements, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto on Wednesday issued a rousing call to action against President Pervez Musharraf's declaration of emergency rule, setting up a possible direct confrontation between two titans of Pakistani power.

Bhutto, whose legions of rank-and-file supporters have been conspicuously absent from anti-Musharraf demonstrations this week, urged her backers to attend a major rally Friday in Rawalpindi, the headquarters of the army, which Musharraf heads. After that, she said, opponents of emergency rule would begin "a long march" from the eastern city of Lahore to the capital, Islamabad. The 250-mile journey will take them through the heart of Punjab, Pakistan's largest and most politically influential province.

For reasons that are not always clear, Bhutto is often seen as the great symbol of Pakistani democracy, despite her somewhat checkered history. Ity may be that her call for people to march peaceful for a change will be very effective. And any effort to break up her rally will be seen quite negatively in the West, and will make even tepid support of Musharraf from the West completely untenable.

Looks to me like any outcome will be bad for Musharraf, unless he can cut a deal with the opposition along the lines of what President Bush indicated must happen -- resignation from the army, free elections on schedule, and an end to the state of emergency. But has the situation already gone beyond the point where that can happen?

Posted by: Greg at 11:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

It is hard to know where to begin with this one. it is hard to know whether this is a positive step in the War on Terror or a negative one on the Road to Democracy. Regardless, the situation in Pakistan is troubling.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf on Saturday declared emergency rule, suspended the constitution and fired the country's chief justice, extraordinary steps that gave him almost absolute power in a country that he described as spinning out of control.

The government deployed hundreds of army rangers on the streets of Islamabad, arrested some opposition figures and blacked out private television news stations across the country.

For Musharraf, who has become deeply unpopular in recent months, the moves represented a drastic gamble and came despite intense appeals from the United States and other Western allies to stay within the bounds of the Pakistani constitution.

In an emergency order, Musharraf cited rising extremism and a judiciary "at cross purposes" with the rest of the government as reasons for the moves. But the timing suggested he was also attempting to extend his rule as both president and army chief. The Supreme Court had been reviewing a challenge to his candidacy for another presidential term, and was expected to rule as early as next week.

The court made a defiant but ultimately unsuccessful attempt Saturday to block Musharraf's implementation of emergency rule; in response, seven dissident justices were immediately removed from the bench. Musharraf said the Parliament, where he holds a commanding majority, would remain intact.

Members of Pakistan's fragmented political opposition condemned Musharraf for moves they said effectively put the country under martial law, and they vowed to take to the streets in protest. Former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, a longtime political rival of Musharraf's, immediately flew back to the country from a trip to the United Arab Emirates.

It is hard to know what to make of this situation. Obviously, I do not support any move that suppresses a free press. Neither do I support any move that subverts the judiciary -- in particular at a time when that judiciary is about to rule Musharraf ineligible to run for President.

But at the same time, the political crisis that the country has been facing for some time is a great one. The courts have undermined the nation's efforts to fight terrorists in Pakistan itself. The Supreme Court itself is tinged with the same sort of Islamist ideology that gives rise to groups like the Taliban and al-Qaeda. And that judiciary has seemed intent upon frustrating any action taken by Mussharraf -- operating almost as an opposition party rather than a neutral arbiter of the law.

I find the fact that Benazir Bhutto happened to be out of the country when this move took place to be rather intriguing. She had left suddenly last week to visit her ailing mother -- and rushed back to make a condemnation of the decree as soon as it was issued. Is the timing coincidental? Or is it part of the political dance that she and the general have been engaged in for some time -- especially since Musharraf's move prevents a ruling that she must stand trial on official corruption charges.

The emergency comes shortly before a series of petitions were to be heard by the Pakistani supreme court. These petitions would have questioned: Musharraf's standing to run for president in the forthcoming elections while staying in uniform; the waiving of the corruption charges against former prime minister Benazir Bhutto; and the legality of Musharraf's re-exiling of former conservative prime minister Nawaz Sharif. The date for argument was set for Friday, November 3, but was recently moved to the November 5 and 6. Obviously, in this Machiavellian stroke, Musharraf has pre-empted the hearing.

Musarraf indicates that he will not allow his nation to commit suicide, and went so far as to equate himself with Lincoln in his willingness to overlook elements of the nation's constitution in order to preserve the nation. I don't know that I'm comfortable with that analogy, but The Guardian's Ali Eteraz does note that he does appear committed to moving towards democracy.

For the time being, though, it appears that Musharraf is committed to the forthcoming parliamentary elections. In his just-concluded speech to the country he outlined his three-step programme for democracy. Stage 1 was from 1999 to 2001 when he ran the government directly. During stage 2, from 2001 to 2007, everyone was elected except for the president, and, in fact, it was the first time that the national, provincial and local bodies were all composed of elected officials. Stage 3 is ongoing now, with the assemblies finishing their tenure on November 15, followed by presidential elections (in which he will run) and then general assembly elections (which are expected to anoint Benazir Bhutto as prime minister).

But I don't know how that analysis an be squared with this development.

Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said the extraordinary measures would remain in place "as long as it is necessary." He also said parliamentary elections could be postponed up to a year, but no such decision had been made.

Aziz also said that up to 500 opposition activists had been arrested in the last 24 hours.

Among those detained were Javed Hashmi, the acting president of the party of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif; cricket star-turned politician, Imran Khan; Asma Jehangir, chairman of the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan; and Hamid Gul, former chief of the main intelligence agency and a staunch critic of Musharraf's support for the U.S.-led war on terror.

So for me, a key question will be how long these opposition leaders are held, and how long elections are delayed. Indeed, I'd argue the legitimacy of the entire Pakistani political system -- and the government of a nation with nuclear arms -- depends upon those very issues.

And so I will watch -- and pray.

An incredible round-up can be found at The Agonist.

H/T Malkin, Captain's Quarters, Counterterrorism Blog, Hot Air

OTHERS COMMENTING Bloodthirsty Liberal » Lahore of Babylon, STATE OF EMERGENCY IN PAKISTAN : The American Pundit, Musharraf Declares Emergency Rule in Pakistan « The Van Der Galiën Gazette, Stop The ACLU » Blog Archive » Musharraf declares emergency in Pakistan, I’m A Pundit Too | Jihad Central 11-03-2007, Ace of Spades HQ, State of Emergency in Pakistan « Blogs 4 Brownback, Blog-o-Fascists, Back Home Again, Right Voices, Wizbang, A Blog For All

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, The Midnight Sun, , , Right Truth, The Populist, Shadowscope, Wake Up America, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Stageleft, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Grizzly Groundswell, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, Big Dog's Weblog, Conservative Cat, Nuke's, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Wolf Pangloss, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 04:04 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1200 words, total size 13 kb.