“Democracy” is less important than “alignment,” both for geopolitical reasons and for money (i.e. arms deals).

Why the hell are people so goddamn mendacious? I think it’s a sign of a declining society. We used to have a department of war, ya know. Now it’s just a bunch of lies.

People will start to believe that Musharraf is a friend of democracy, since Bush said so. It’s just so much easier than admitting something needs to be done. That’s why we allow ourselves to stew in all these ridiculous lies.

IMO, Bush makes a mistake by continuing to talk about democracy.when talking about Mushraff. At the moment, it’s about security andabout extremism, not democracy. While elections would serve to let off steam, they would not solve the underlying problems.

Mushraff’s motivation and maneuvering are certainly questionable, but concerning terrorism, who is there in Pakistan that would do better? Bhutto promsies the sun and the moon, but I haven’t seen an explanation of how she would deal with t better.

The dilemma is that when Mushraff does move decisively against the terrorists, there are casualtes, and the public recoils (the same public that would be voting in elections). They demand action but can not accept the consequences.

Elections would only be symbolic, at best. What is more important is Mushraff’s assault on the jusiciary.
It is possible to govern under the rule of law, fairly and justly applied, without having elections. It is not possible to govern well with elected officials who don’t respect the law and with a citizenry who are not treated with justice under the law.

As the US is slowly learning, injustice in detention and detainee treatment can fuel terrorism more directly than the lack of elctions. That’s the kind of thing in Mushraff’s regime that discredits him, not his stand on electons.

What is the US to do, then? It can’t forcibly remove Musharaff, and even if it could, who would it insatll in his place? I don’t know if Bhutto is sincere or coldly canculating to regain raw power of her own.
To be a not-Mushraff is not enough to reassure, however. Whete is her alternate plan? I’ve only heard her say she would deal with terrorism, but I’ve never heard her explain how she would go about it. The US would be foolish to back such a question mark of a person.

It’s a waste of time to expect the US to solve the ineternal problems of every country on earth. It can also be a ghastly mistake for the US to try.

I really, really dislike the language Bush uses when he talks about these difficult situations. It makes twhatever the US does or doesn’t do appear to be duplicitious. I think it’s time the public in the US, Pakistan and the world were spoken to as if they were adults capable of understanding and accepting the not-so=nice choices that have to be made.

A little straight talk would at least clarify what we’re talking about.

I think you underestimate the level of discussion and disagreement over policy and government here. Approval levels of both Congress and the White House are very low – i.e. a *lot* of people are dissatisfied about a *lot* of things, and if the most recent election is any indication, they are voting because of it.

To be sure there are very different views on the subject and no consenus, but there is discussion.