Good point! The reason is they are then indebted to the US for their power and will give as many BJs as necessary to keep their new position.


JUST how much President Bush’s goals abroad are now at the mercy of some of the world’s weakest leaders was clear last week in how the White House reacted to events in Pakistan.

Quietly, the administration cheered on an alliance of convenience between a once-unchallenged strongman, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, and an exiled former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, whose turns in office in the 1980s and 90s were widely viewed as a mixture of incompetence, powerlessness and suspected corruption.

The administration was betting that a Musharraf-Bhutto combination, however fragile, would be the best bet for keeping a nuclear-armed state from descending into violence that could end Mr. Bush’s last hopes of wiping out Osama bin Laden’s sanctuary.


LINKI

The administration was betting that a Musharraf-Bhutto combination, however fragile, would be the best bet for keeping a nuclear-armed state from descending into violence that could end Mr. Bush’s last hopes of wiping out Osama bin Laden’s sanctuary.

Every time they pick a leader to back it turns into a nightmare. They would do well to stay out of affairs we have no control over. Our influence just makes matters worse.

They choose those to support that will help corporations, the local people are not considered and there is your prob. The ppl feel f*cked and they react and usually it is violent.

A senior official said last week that in recent meetings, “Every once in a while you heard a debate about whether it’s time to cut one of these guys free — particularly Musharraf and Maliki. Then someone in the back of the room would ask, ‘Then what?’ ”

They are about to find out because Musharraf isn't going quietly into the night.

None of the players in that theater will go quietly. The can of worms will soon be open and the real probs will begin.