Isn't that something. All that violence and death and they still get what turnout rate? My last municipal election the turnout rate was 30%. Too wild.

For a second I thought that headline applied to US. I was like, "Finally some real news!"

I'm psychic
The US will support the elections and Musharraf another 5 years.

Gee, thanks John! I guess I will share in your optimism. :)

The party that will win will be whatever party the CIA/ISI wants to win.

ConcernedCanuck @ 2:

Isn't that something. All that violence and death and they still get what turnout rate? My last municipal election the turnout rate was 30%. Too wild.

Strong turnouts for sympathy votes. We would've done the same thing if one of our popular leaders was gunned down (or was it the sunroof lever? Gosh, I am SO confused!)

The party that will win will be whatever party the CIA/ISI wants to win.

Come on folks, the world is not that simple. John's snark aside, clearly Musharraf did not rig the elections. The elections were being held because the military realized after the incursion of the Jihadis into the Swat valley that they could not deal with the jihadi problem by themselves. (And yes I know the jihadis are in part their creation. They were ours too in part and we certainly have not been able to control them). For this they needed an alliance with the feudal classes who in Pakistan are represented by the political parties. For the feudals to settle on their representatives there had to be elections that were reasonably fair. If the army had put their thumb on the scale they would have been thwarting their own purpose. Musharraf as an individual is not important. ISI as an organization by itself is not important. It is the institution of the military that is important. And it is not represented by a single person (Musharraf) or a single component (the ISI).

empty @ 14:

The party that will win will be whatever party the CIA/ISI wants to win.

Come on folks, the world is not that simple. John's snark aside, clearly Musharraf did not rig the elections. The elections were being held because the military realized after the incursion of the Jihadis into the Swat valley that they could not deal with the jihadi problem by themselves. (And yes I know the jihadis are in part their creation. They were ours too in part and we certainly have not been able to control them). For this they needed an alliance with the feudal classes who in Pakistan are represented by the political parties. For the feudals to settle on their representatives there had to be elections that were reasonably fair. If the army had put their thumb on the scale they would have been thwarting their own purpose. Musharraf as an individual is not important. ISI as an organization by itself is not important. It is the institution of the military that is important. And it is not represented by a single person (Musharraf) or a single component (the ISI).

Musharraf wasn't given the opportunity to rig this election, not while the watchful eyes of the internation community is standing over his shoulders. All I hope is the PPP doesn't balk against Benazir Bhutto's wishes and pull back the troops from Waziristan. May her veils rest peacefully on the prime minister's chair. It was rightfully hers.

gowest272004 @ 15:

AshWilliams @ 13:

gowest272004 @ 11:

At least Bush has the decency not to suspend the Constitution... oh wait...

he didn't suspend it......he did something worse. He insulted it and wants to tear it up. he wants to make our little country his very own Saudi Arabia.

True dat. He broke it, covered it up, lied about it, while Musharraf did it blatantly.

I'm surprised they have a constitution to suspend.

It is now being reported that Musharraf has lost the election. This will probably mean that Musharraf will declare the elections to be void, as they were obviously interfered with, and will proclaim martial law to maintain order.
"President Bush" will undoubtedly agree with Musharraf and claim that the President of Pakistan did the correct thing by throwing the election out the window and declaring martial law and will commit American troops to defend his reig..,...presidency.

This is nothing more than a training exercise for bushco. Beware America, the fascist is not about to relinquish the power he has gained over the last seven years to a mere election.

Of course, these are just the thoughts of a deranged old man.

BigTobacco @ 23:

Is it just me... or is the popular support of Bhutto seem creepy and cultish.

I mean, I sure hope that the people of Pakistan will have the courage to elect someone unpopular, who can do more than deliver inspirational speeches. You can say a lot about Musharraf, but at least he is not popular. And that is not creepy.

LMAO!!!!!!!

BigTobacco @ 23:

Is it just me... or is the popular support of Bhutto seem creepy and cultish.

I mean, I sure hope that the people of Pakistan will have the courage to elect someone unpopular, who can do more than deliver inspirational speeches. You can say a lot about Musharraf, but at least he is not popular. And that is not creepy.

:)

So many good, bad and worst things happened in Pakistan during these 8 years of Musharraf and the cycle is complete and ready for the next. Every eight to 10 years a military dictator comes and supported by us and goes back to retirement home. Then comes a civilian Gov. which never completes it's term and another comes and another comes and again a military dictator officially supported by the judiciary and over whelming majority of Pakistanis and by us. Hope this time Pakistanis and us must have learnt our lesson and seriously do something to democratizing and uplifting their education and economy to save them and to save ourselves. We are equally responsible for this web.

empty @ 14:

The party that will win will be whatever party the CIA/ISI wants to win.

Come on folks, the world is not that simple. John's snark aside, clearly Musharraf did not rig the elections. The elections were being held because the military realized after the incursion of the Jihadis into the Swat valley that they could not deal with the jihadi problem by themselves. (And yes I know the jihadis are in part their creation. They were ours too in part and we certainly have not been able to control them). For this they needed an alliance with the feudal classes who in Pakistan are represented by the political parties. For the feudals to settle on their representatives there had to be elections that were reasonably fair. If the army had put their thumb on the scale they would have been thwarting their own purpose. Musharraf as an individual is not important. ISI as an organization by itself is not important. It is the institution of the military that is important. And it is not represented by a single person (Musharraf) or a single component (the ISI).

Did you get that from Faux Noise?

Musharraf is and has been a dictator for years. The problem, as the U.S. sees it, is that support among Pakistanis for Musharraf and his iron fist rule is slipping away. Musharraf, of course, enjoys multi billion dollar checks annually, courtesy of uncle Sam. The last thing he wants to do is step down. The last thing the White House wants, is for a Yes man such as Musharraf to step down.

Now, Musharraf's undemocratic rule brought about a change in the makeup of the country. The more authoritarian he became, the more power the radical Muslim groups gained. That's what happens when dissent falls on sympathetic ears. Back in the late 90s, radical Muslim groups had less than 15% popularity throughout Pakistan. Last year, they enjoyed more than 44% popularity. The "Jihadi problem" wouldn't have been there in the first place, if it weren't for all the meddling from the U.S. government.

That's where the whole "Al-Qaeda's gonna getcha" shtick is coming from about Pakistan. You see, the White House and Musharraf create a situation that is fertile breeding ground for resentment and then when the resentment is ripe, they point and say, "See.....if it weren't for us, radicals would take over the entire Middle East and Asia".

Oh and by the way, Musharraf had an approval rating of about 27% back in October 2008. Revisionist much?

Musharraf wanted Bhutto out of the way at all cost. She was going to cost him his rank, position and cash.

I've heard reported that the opposition parties plan to join in impeaching Musharraf if they, combined get the 2/3rds of the seats they need in order to impeach the President. I wonder if they have won the seats needed to impeach Musharraf.
Will Bush come to his Defence?

MSNBC (Washington Post): U.S. strikes within Pakistan — without notice

In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone's operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center.

The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan.

Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.

Officials say the incident was a model of how Washington often scores its rare victories these days in the fight against al-Qaeda inside Pakistan's national borders: It acts with assistance from well-paid sympathizers inside the country, but without getting the government's formal permission beforehand.

It is an approach that some U.S. officials say could be used more frequently this year, particularly if a power vacuum results from yesterday's election and associated political tumult. The administration also feels an increased sense of urgency about undermining al-Qaeda before President Bush leaves office, making it less hesitant, said one official familiar with the incident.

Independent actions by U.S. military forces on another country's sovereign territory are always controversial ...

It is indeed ironical that post election we are faced with two parties leading the future parliament house and both being run with two individuals with tainted reputation. One has court cases registered against him for murder of his own brother-in-law in addition of corrupt practices when his wife was in power. The other has charges against him for high-jack of a plane and forcing it to crash by not allowing it to land safely. This is in addition to charges of political corruption.
It is said the nations get leaders they deserve. USA got George Bush and now we have to live with either PMLN or PPP lead by Nawaz Sharif (not so sharif) and Asif Zardari (10% and who knows the rate may have gone up this time with inflation all around).

A minor quibble. Musharraf is not up for re-election. He won last year.

Uh... gee, I wonder what's gonna happen...duh.