[The weekly political rant] Compare and contrast

[mrph]

October 1999: The USA said it would "oppose any attempt by political and military officials to overthrow the Pakistani government through extra-constitutional means". The UK made similar statements.

December 2004: Pervez Musharraf, who promptly seized power through exactly those means, is now hailed as a "key ally in the war on terror" and is an honoured guest in London and Washington.

Hmm. Draw your own conclusions...

Comments

[kneeshooter]

Are you trying to imply that he's a polticial convinience?

[kneeshooter]

I can't think where the similarities would end...

[ruth-lawrence.livejournal.com]

One supposes he could be a convenient enemy later, like Idi Amin or Saddam Hussein.

[jorune.livejournal.com]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/05/musharraf.cnn/index.html

Musharraf speaks to CNN, his key phrase:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was a mistake that has made the world a more dangerous place, but a swift withdrawal would make matters worse, Pakistan's president said this weekend.

"I think it's less safe," Gen. Pervez Musharraf said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer." Asked whether he considered the invasion a mistake, the Pakistani leader said, "With hindsight, yes. We have landed ourselves in more trouble, yes."

[jambon-gris.livejournal.com]

Of xcourse they have to be nice to Pervez Musharraf. If he withdrew support for the US war on Terror then how would the US support their war in Afghanistan? Through Russia maybe but the political cost would be high. Not through Iran thats for sure.