That’s a bit like saying “President Bush was a force for peace and moderation in Iraq (at least officially)”.

Denying support of the Taliban “at least officially” is exactly the same as providing support to the Taliban (or Taliban-friendly tribal warlords) covertly, which is exactly what Musharraf did.

Something Desi has already alluded to in #6.

Musharraf made the correct decision to side with the US after 9/11 and drop the support (at least officially) given to the Taliban in neighbouring Afghanistan and to assist the US thereafter. It is debatable whether a civilian regime could have made these drastic changes without the country breaking apart.

All I said was that you have made your point. I made no other suggestions.

Oh, it’s about Sunny likening me to Michelle Malkin, and then asking me if I prefer to be compared to Ann Coulter.

Rumbold:

“You have made your point with your username.”

I’d like to keep my handle as it is for the moment. Please do not interfere with my freedom of speech. Thank you.

And now that you’ve suggested my removing half of my handle, I determined to keep it.

You have made your point with your username.

Not sure that opinion would stand up in court. The charges being brought against him include corruption and murder. Sure, he’s not as corrupt as Zardari who comes across as someone who would sell his mother for the commission, but Musharraf is being pinned with this.

“And he is secular.”

I totally disagree that he was secular. He may have not been as obvious as Huq when it came to keeping religion in the state of affair, but he 1) definitely catered to Islamists, particularly when it came to women’s rights; 2) propped up Islamists in the Balochistan region in order to discredit the secular Balochi movement and paint it as an Islamist movement; and 3) he still can’t get Allah out of the affairs of Pakistan. When someone like Musharraf talks about “Islamic democracy,” you know they ain’t talking about secularism.

Sage words, for this bit of news came out:

“Sharif threatens to pull out of pakistan coalition”:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/world/asia/20pstan.html?hp

Musharraf has not made money for himself or his cronies — and he did save Pakistan from being a failed state. And he is secular.

When Nawaz sharif was last PM, remmebr the scenes where PML goons went and hit the supreme court justices.

platinum786 has got it spot on.

btw, where did you get the info with evidence that Musharraf is corrupt.

We also don’t have representative democracy we have feudal democracy, in a society where people have to wait for the land owner to return and give permission before they can bury their dead, do you think the same people are free to vote as they choose?

In Pakistan you have a choice, you either back the corrupt politicians who will loot the country and hope that they remember you when they get to the top, or you back the military man who will stop the plundering, but will do nothing to fix the causes of it.

We have the option that takes us backwards (politicians), or the one that refuses to take us forwards (military).