Guess Who's Back Writing Op-Eds In The Western Press?
That would be one Ms. Bhutto. It's hard to argue with the following:
Maybe I'm seeing things that aren't there, but read this paragraph and tell me BB is not trying to absolve Musharraf of the blame for the imposition of emergency.
Read that again: General Musharraf's ruling party and their allies within the intelligence services. Why would she mention them unless she wanted to draw a distinction between them and Musharraf himself? Am I crazy, or is BB still trying to cut a deal? To further muddy the waters, she issued a call for street protests, the much talked about red line that many said she would not cross if she was still interested in a settlement with Musharraf. As always, BB has left me immensely confused.
The United States can promote democracy — which is the only way to truly contain extremism and terrorism — by telling General Musharraf that it does not accept martial law, and that it expects him to conduct free, fair, impartial and internationally monitored elections within 60 days under a reconstituted election commission. He should be given that choice: democracy or dictatorship with isolation.
Maybe I'm seeing things that aren't there, but read this paragraph and tell me BB is not trying to absolve Musharraf of the blame for the imposition of emergency.
In my view, General Musharraf’s ruling party understood that it would be trounced in any free elections and, together with its allies within the intelligence services, contrived to have the Constitution suspended and elections indefinitely postponed. Very conveniently, the assassination attempt against me last month that resulted in the deaths of at least 140 people is being used as the rationale to stop the democratic process by which my party would most likely have swept parliamentary elections. Maybe this explains why the government refuses to allow the F.B.I. and Scotland Yard to assist in a forensic investigation of the bombings.
Read that again: General Musharraf's ruling party and their allies within the intelligence services. Why would she mention them unless she wanted to draw a distinction between them and Musharraf himself? Am I crazy, or is BB still trying to cut a deal? To further muddy the waters, she issued a call for street protests, the much talked about red line that many said she would not cross if she was still interested in a settlement with Musharraf. As always, BB has left me immensely confused.
Labels:
Pakistan
1 comment:
She has me confused as well. Her aimless rhetoric is maddening.
I love the intro lines: "lets be clear: Pakistan is a military dictatorship." Seriously, was there any doubt?
Furthermore, she goes on to criticize Musharraf and the $10 billion he's gotten in US aid, claiming that she has no idea how, when and where the money was spent. Granted transparency is not Mush's thing, but it wasn't very clear what she did with all the US aid her two governments received. Also, she is a convicted felon-convicted of money laundering no less! She has cases against her in Switzerland and Spain. There is evidence that her and Zardari received $2m in Swiss bank accounts belonging to companies registered in the Virgin Islands and Panama. And that's just a tiny piece of evidence-there's piles of proof that the Swiss judicial authorities are aching to use.
It's sad that our choices are a dictator and a money launderer. Add Nawaz bhai and we've dug ourselves any even bigger hole.
Post a Comment