Nazir Dhoki, a spokesman for Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party said the former prime minister still planned to leave on schedule for Rawalpindi, but Sen. Enver Baig said party leaders were meeting to discuss whether the rally would go ahead or not.

streaming live…

If this is true, it strikes me that General Musharraf may have gone one step too far for the international community to tolerate. The opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was placed under house arrest this morning, her political party said. Streets……

He wants the evidence so that they can then cover their tracks and find out what we know. It is absurd that people believe such a simple and moronic lie. No wonder taqiyya works.

We said we would fight any country who aided and abetted terrorism. PAKISTAN IS IT! IF Pakistan isn’t aiding and abetting, what other country on the planet does? Oh yeah, I forgot about our other ‘friend’ Saudi Arabia.

America would be better off if Musharraf wasn’t in power – nukes or not. At least then we could see the clear enemy who needs to be defeated.

Sharia has grown more under Musharraf than under ANY OTHER PAKISTANI LEADER. Despite the threat of Islamization, Pakistan is a fairly modern country of 160 million people who DO NOT WANT SHARIA.

It isn’t Musharraf who is keeping sharia away from Pakistan. Musharraf is ushering it in with things like giving up the NW province – something that a ‘pro-America’ leader WOULD NOT DO.

Please understand that the US is better off without Musharraf anywhere NEAR power. Musharraf has done NOTHING to assist us on the war on terror. He has used the WOT as an excuse to get rid of people he disagrees with on more than one occassion.

It isn’t the ‘lesser of two evils’. Musharraf IS the evil that nobody in the country wants leading them. If it wasn’t for the US, he’d be gone, and Pakistan would be better.

The longer he remains NEAR power, the worse it is for the USA.

Mike D. on November 8, 2007 at 7:14 PM

Then Global Warming will be the least of anyones worries, but Global Fallout.

Terrorists may attack the demonstrators out of their usual lust for carnage, or Musharraf may attack them out of paranoia. Hugo Chavez can order his goons to attack protesters and it barely causes a stir, but if Musharraf does that he’ll have the whole world pounding him for it.

The difference between Hugo and Mushy is Hugo’s insane and doesn’t have nukes, but Hugo has oil and can be rationally justified doing business with because somehow a communist is less threating than a dictator in the worlds eyes.

But somebody help me connect the dots: who are the protestors, and what is their issue? If I have it right, they are Bhutto supporters, who is also anti-radical Islam, like Mushy, but anti-Mushy.

So Mushy is slapping them around out of the normal kind of paranoia, not the anti-Islamo-Nazi kind? And if so, as Bryan has clearly pointed out, when does he get back to the job at hand, i.e., slaughtering Islamo-Nazi scum up in the north?