Narae Bhutto...

It isn’t just that the U.S. can’t keep its mouth shut on the issue of Pakistan. It’s that every time any American with any influence opens his or her mouth, the memory of Benazir Bhutto is disgraced further, the Pakistan people insulted and infantilized by the views of so-called “leaders”.
Consider President Bush’s official statement on the murder:
"The United States strongly condemns this cowardly act by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan's democracy."
Only the Bush administration would consider a regime that jails opposition leaders, justices opposed to the Musharraf regime and smothers the press under draconian restrictions as constituting “democracy”. Perhaps Bush eyes Musharraf with jealous eyes, wishing he had the power to do the same. The administration's tepid response to Musharraf's tyranny was a clear signal to the rogue dictator that they would regard the mere posturing and pretense of democracy that he was offering as a true representation of a legitimate democratic process -- as long as their dictator prevailed. The presidential candidates aren’t covering themselves in glory either.
What’s the response? If only those out of control Muslims appreciated what they had, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
Mitt Romey (R-Forget My Religion Has Been Vilified by My Fellow Americans): I think what's happened in Pakistan has made more clear in the mind of the American public and perhaps some of our Democratic colleagues as well that what we're dealing with in the global war on terror, this war against violent Jihadism, is not just an effort in Iraq or even extended to Afghanistan, but this is a worldwide effort on the part of violent Jihadists who have as the their intent the collapse of all nations, Islamic as well as Western."
Rudy Giuliani (R-I Was the Mayor of New York During 9/11): Her death is a reminder that terrorism anywhere — whether in New York, London, Tel-Aviv or Rawalpindi — is an enemy of freedom. We must redouble our efforts to win the Terrorists’ War on Us. Showing great sensitivity to the suffering of bleeding Pakistan, batshit insane Mike Huckabee, (R-Christian Fundamentalists): ..We have more Pakistani illegals coming across our border than all other nationalities except those immediately south of the border, and in light of what is happening in Pakistan it ought to give us pause as to why are so many illegals coming across these borders.” He later corrected his statement,but only after a flood of negative press.
The Democrats haven’t covering themselves in glory. Hillary Clinton (D-Enabler): “I'm not calling for him (Musharraf) to step down.”
John Edwards (D-Did You Know I Met with Benazir Bhutto in Abu Dhabi?): “I spoke to President Musharraf…and urged him to continue the democratization process.” Barack Obama (D-Let’s Bomb The Fuck Out of Them): Musharraf’s first order of business should be to extend his sympathy to the Bhutto family.
And yes, the Dems support the idea of “outside investigators” coming in to figure out what happened, like the new sheriff striding into town in High Noon. What bullshit. What an unrealistic solution. How safe. How cowardly.
Meanwhile, there’s a conscious effort to avoid the third rail of this horrible tragedy: That the murder of Benazir Bhutto was an inside job.
With friends like these, do the Pakistani people need enemies?

Jiye Bhutto

Its so fucking hard to believe what has happened to us. Need to get over this situation first and then will post something. It is a great loss. Its not just Benazir, it was the idea, the thought, the movement, the liberalism, the real thing. and its gone, and its over. 

- more later. or i will try to post something later. by the way, the international reaction and especially the American one has been so fucking disgusting. 

BB assassinated

Another great loss: Benazir, 54, expired at 6:16 p.m. She was shot in the neck and chest.

Charlie Wilson's war

Oscar stars werent ashamed enabling the canonization of Wilson, neither were the critics.
Fact is that, Charlie Wilson was a drunken, drug-using whoremonger who used his office to stir the pot in Afghanistan, falling back on the hackneyed premise that communism was somehow worse than putting weapons into the hands of fanatics.
Not surprisingly, Washington Post too portrayed Wilson as a lovable rogue who did the right thing for the wrong reasons. Or the wrong thing for the right reasons. Or something.
Let’s cut to the chase: This man’s intrigues and self-styled Lawrence of Arabia-style buffoonery led directly to the Taliban seizing control of Afghanistan and the rise of Osama bin Laden, so you could say that his actions led to not only 9/11 but the “Talibanization” of Pakistan as well.
Even the US press continues to fawn and cluck over Charlie’s lovable bad boy antics while ignoring the geopolitical havoc he wreaked.
And you’d think that Charlie of Kabul might feel a sense of responsibility for the hell he unleashed by poking his nose in where it never belonged, or at least a sense of shame. But you’d be oh so wrong.

police ka hai kam...

madad Q league ki.

pop quiz everyone:

Which country’s history is being described in the following paragraph?

Democratic governments were more often than not interrupted by military. The last military dictatorship…justified its actions (illegal detentions, forced disappearances, torture and summary executions) as necessary for the suppression of terrorism.
Pakistan? No. Argentina, 1976 – 1983. The sixth and last military dictatorship in that country’s history in the 20th century. The period during which the “Dirty War” (a polite way of describing a government butchering its own citizens) took place.
The period when all rights were repealed, when the judiciary rolled over to have its tummy scratched by the generals, when so-called “subversives” were arrested without warrant, tortured, thrown alive out of airplanes, or if they were among the fortunate were mercifully shot in the head and dumped in a mass grave.
Thanks to these guardians of the Republic, between 9,000 – 30,000 men, women and children disappeared, depending on whose numbers you believe.
So what happened to end this horror? The ruling generals screwed utterly in their attempt to turn the public’s attention away from these grotesque injustices and economic problems by picking a fight with England over a shitty group of islands called the Falklands, where the sheep outnumbered the human population.
Argentina’s loss proved conclusively that the army, while excelling at killing unarmed civilians, was not too great at waging “war”. Within a year the generals were gone, with the newly elected democratic government establishing a national commission to investigate the mass disappearances.
Forensic researchers, aided by students, dug up mass graves, sometimes only with spoons, to identify remains. Trials were convened to hold the killers responsible.
Happy days.
So what about Pakistan?



Unlike their Argentine counterparts, segments of Pakistani society are saying “fuck you” to the generals’ faces.
Argentina’s lawyers never took to the streets to protest the suspension of rule of law.
There was no need to arrest anyone in the judiciary. None of the judges complained.
But in order to re-establish the rule of law, what was true in Argentina holds for Pakistan: The generals must go.
It’s time for Pakistan to say what Argentines finally said after six military governments:
Basta. Enough.

with many withouts

After shedding his military uniform that he notoriously claimed to be his skin, Pervaz Musarraf took the oath of office as the thirteenth president of Pakistan, pledging to "preserve and defend" the Constitution. But which constitution is he referring to? If his oath is to "preserve and defend" the Constitution of Pakistan that he himself has suspended, then doesn't such pledge bring this hypocrisy into the open?
Theres another paradox: Here is a President without a parliament. Doesn't his "election" by the expiring parliament raise a plethora of legal and constitutional questions about its legitimacy? By violating the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and by savagely sacking the higher judiciary, he got himself elected by an outgoing parliament, which has no power to elect a new president.
Then the so- called chief justice, who administered Musharraf's oath, did not himself take the oath of office under the Constitution of Pakistan; rather he took oath under the PCO. Isn't his elevation to this position the product of Musharraf's flagrantly illegal and unconstitutional dismissal of the higher judiciary?