Musharraf rules out stepping down.

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Musharraf reaches out to rivals

The opposition PPP is celebrating the election result

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has called for reconciliation after his opponents won parliamentary elections, but he has ruled out stepping down.
A foreign ministry statement quoted Mr Musharraf as saying the polls had strengthened moderate forces.
It came as negotiati

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7255065.stm
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Pakistan's Musharraf says he won't step down

Wow.... like I didn't see this happening. What a Tit-Twit.



http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...0220/musharraf_stay_080220/20080220?hub=World

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf intends to serve out his five-year term as head of state and will not step down, his spokesman said, despite a sweeping election victory by his opponents -- some of whom want to drive him from power.

Final results from this week's parliamentary poll were expected Wednesday but with the count nearly complete, two opposition parties have won enough seats to form a new government, though they will likely fall short of the two-thirds needed to impeach the president.

So far, they have garnered 154 of the 268 contested seats, the Election Commission said.
But Musharraf's spokesman Rashid Quereshi said Tuesday the president intends to work with the new government and will serve out his term that expires in 2012.

"The people on Monday didn't vote to elect a new president,'' he said.

"In fact, they participated in the elections to elect the new Parliament.''

OOooooo Ok.... well never mind then. :angry3: what a back stabbing, two-faced.... well the rest of my words chosen shouldn't be posted I suppose.

The new government, expected to be installed by mid-March, will determine how to tackle the country's formidable challenges, including rising prices and the threat from Islamic extremism.

How about the problem of a nut job as president who killed his only competition in the election, still lost, and still will not step down?

Pakistan's new leaders must also decide how to deal with Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup and went on to become a key ally in the U.S. war on terror, an unpopular decision in the Muslim country of 160 million.

Exactly! How the living fok can this idiot claim some loophole of him not stepping down, and plans on not leaving until 2012, when he himself took over power in an illegal act to begin with? Hypocracy if I ever saw any and making the rules as he pleases.

His decisions to suspend the constitution, purge the judiciary and round up political opponents sent his approval ratings plummeting and the sound defeat suffered by the pro-Musharraf party was widely seen as a repudiation of the president.

Speaking Tuesday in Lahore, Nawaz Sharif, a former prime minister and leader of the opposition Pakistan Muslim League-N, recalled statements by Musharraf last year that he would step down if he lost the support of the Pakistani people.

There you have it... he's a friggin hypocrite who's fixated on his own mental delusions that he is the only "Savior" for Pakistan, and will say anything he possibly can to buy him more time as he keeps control in his hands. He's done it countless times in the past with the US and telling them what they want to hear, he's done it countless times in the past to his own people, and he's still doing it FFS!

"He has closed his eyes,'' Sharif said in Lahore.

"He has said before that he would go when the people want him to do so and now the people have given their verdict.''

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal newspaper posted Tuesday on the newspaper's website, Musharraf confirmed he intends to remain in office and work with the new government.

"We have to move forward in a way that we bring about a stable democratic government to Pakistan,'' he said.

Which will happen once he's thrown out of power.

He agreed the election outcome was a reflection of Pakistanis' dissatisfaction with his government, citing economic problems and his attempt to rein in judges, as well as sympathy for the opposition after the assassination of their charismatic leader, Benazir Bhutto.

"All these things had a negative impact,'' Musharraf said.

Bhutto's husband, Asif Ali Zardari, said Tuesday he would meet soon with Sharif and other opposition leaders "to form a government of national unity.''

Zardari made clear he would not include politicians who had been allied with Musharraf.
"We will seek support from democratic forces to form the government but we are not interested in any of those people who are part and parcel of the previous government,'' said Zardari, though he carefully avoided an unequivocal statement about whether Musharraf should remain in power.

U.S. Senator John Kerry, who met Tuesday with Musharraf along with other U.S. legislators, said the president expressed his willingness to work with the new government.
But the former general is so unpopular among the Pakistani public opposition parties are likely to find little reason to work with him -- particularly since he no longer controls the powerful army.

At best, Musharraf faces the prospect of remaining in power with sharply diminished powers, even if the opposition fails to muster the two-thirds support in Parliament to impeach him.

If not, then just do what he does and assasinate him and then blame it on extremists.

White House press secretary Dana Perino, travelling with President George W. Bush in Africa, said it is too soon to know whether the election has weakened Musharraf's power.

:-?

"I think what President Musharraf has shown is an ability to provide for the country a chance to be confident in their government,'' she said.

Pakistani analysts said the results pointed to broad support for centrist, democratic parties at the expense of patronage politicians and Islamist movements.

The pro-Taliban Jamiat-e-Ulema, or JUI, party won only three seats in the national Parliament. And a coalition of Islamist religious parties was expected to lose control of the regional administration in the North West Frontier Province, which it won in the 2002 elections.

Unofficial returns showed the secular Awami National party had won 31 of the 96 contested seats in the provincial assembly, with the religious United Action Forum taking only nine seats.

At least Castro had some sense and told it how it was and how it's going to be..... This ass-clown is two facing and backstabbing everybody for his own personal power trip. He said so himself he would leave if the country didn't want him there.... they don't, and now he's saying he'll stay in power regardless?

How the hell can the US continue support for this guy?

How the hell can this continue to go on as it is?

How much more tripe will everybody swallow before they take this weaseley-looking freak bag out?

It's crazy people like this who can not realize they are defeated whom are to fear. Esspecially when they're close to the nukes. Sure he's not in control of the nukes, or the military which controls them, but that means very little based on the overall situation at hand.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
I think there is much more to the picture of Musharraf.

We look at this man through a simple prism, and conclude adroitly he fails our test of a good democratic person.

I'll bet if we were more informed and did more research to really know more of the story than reacting to the current headlines a whole other picture of this guy will emerge.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
I think there is much more to the picture of Musharraf.

We look at this man through a simple prism, and conclude adroitly he fails our test of a good democratic person.

I'll bet if we were more informed and did more research to really know more of the story than reacting to the current headlines a whole other picture of this guy will emerge.

I don't need to look any further into him or his personality then what I already have. He has back peddled, lied, two faced his own nation and his allies, contradicted the things even he himself said.....

He is clearly not a man of his word, and therefore shouldn't qualify as leader of any nation in my books, because he can not be trusted, regardless of whatever seceret democratic goals he has cooking in his noggin.

He said he would leave if the people wanted him to leave. Apparently they want him and his party to leave, and now he's saying he's going to stay around for his full term. He's already screwed up with the lawyer situation, the martial laws, the slack ass action towards the Taliban, the skeptical assasination of his biggest opponent in the elections, the delays in the election, the reports of people being violently turned away at the polls in certain areas of Pakistan during the election..... he and his party lost democratically..... his party is no longer in power..... yet he still tries to remain as president?

He fails as a good democratic person alright. Then again, look at those he has to look up to for examples of "Democracy."

Exactly how many chances and years have gone by already that have been given to him, from what I can determine, based on nothing but the benifit of the doubt? He hasn't proven anything towards democracy, he hasn't improved Pakistan generally, let alone it's security. He hasn't proven anything except his desire for total control and power to be kept in his hands. Hell, the idiot didn't even gain power over Pakistan democratically.

Not to mention, I am pretty sure the people of Pakistan know more about what's going on in their country then most of us here in these forums..... if they don't want him in power anymore, and they voted his party out of power, then I would hold value over their democratic decision to remove him, then to hold blind faith and more years in some schmuck who had plenty of time to make a difference and improve his country and hasn't yet. (Almost as bad as "Stay the Course")

He had his chance to prove his democractic good guy position and he screwed it all up.
 
Last edited:

dancing-loon

House Member
Oct 8, 2007
2,739
36
48
Is there now any doubt this guy is a dictator?
Could it be he has some kind of backing from...??? who knows?

Could it be he is just very concerned about the safe-keeping of the nuclear bombs??? I read at an earlier time that the safe-keeping of the most dangerous weapons is a major worry of the West!! During a regime change such issues are of great concern. Musharraf has done alright so far. Sometimes it is good if a strong leader has a solid grip on security in a volatile country! That whole area in and around Pakistan is like a powder keg.... you just can't take your eyes off the danger spots.

I could be wrong, of course.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Could it be he has some kind of backing from...??? who knows?

Could it be he is just very concerned about the safe-keeping of the nuclear bombs??? I read at an earlier time that the safe-keeping of the most dangerous weapons is a major worry of the West!! During a regime change such issues are of great concern. Musharraf has done alright so far. Sometimes it is good if a strong leader has a solid grip on security in a volatile country! That whole area in and around Pakistan is like a powder keg.... you just can't take your eyes off the danger spots.

I could be wrong, of course.

Yeah but...
The nuclear weapons have been there for a few years now and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Musharrif said he would step aside if he lost the election. Your first "statement" about backing is probably right. Very likely those "backers" don't want him to step aside for exactly the reasons you gave.
 

Chriskander

New Member
Feb 3, 2008
27
0
1
Alberta
www.christopherhoare.ca
The US is feverishly active in Pakistan trying to keep control over their 'war on terror', according to Asia Times Online bureau chief Sayed Saleem Shahzad. The newly elected DEMOCRATICALLY elected politicians are going to get the same short-shrift as did Hamas when they won fair and democratic elections in Palestine if the Bush/Cheney criminals get their way. The US promote democracy? What a sick joke.

Nawaz Sherif, who vowed to reinstate the Supreme Court justices that Musharraf fired, has likely been sidelined in a bid to keep him from any chance of doing that. Deposing Musharraf does not require impeachment but a reinstatement of the rightful Supreme Court that wants to rule Musharraf's assumption of the presidency while still a commander of the army unconstitutional and therefore null and void.

The PPP will likely be the centre of the next Pakistani government with a coalition either of smaller parties -- or with Musharraf's political backers. Which it turns out to be, will be an indication of the degree of US interference in Pakistan's political process. The US will want to have the party that gained less seats and had many of the members of its previous administration lose their seats keep a hold on power in post-election Pakistan.

One has to cheer for the Pakistanis and decry the US for one more crime against freedom and democracy. Hypocrisy, anyone?
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Just a few weeks ago the right wingers on this forum were all up in arms about Chavez in Venezuela. They were accusing him of holding phony elections, of undermining democracy, and were even trying to ''justify'' some kind of Bush invasion!


So where are these radical pundits today?

Why aren't they demanding an invasion of Pakistan and a forced removal of fascist dictator Musharraf??

Will the hypocrisy of this forum's radical Bushies ever stop???
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Just a few weeks ago the right wingers on this forum were all up in arms about Chavez in Venezuela. They were accusing him of holding phony elections, of undermining democracy, and were even trying to ''justify'' some kind of Bush invasion!


So where are these radical pundits today?

Why aren't they demanding an invasion of Pakistan and a forced removal of fascist dictator Musharraf??

Will the hypocrisy of this forum's radical Bushies ever stop???

Well, he obviously didn't hold a "phony election", his supporters got their ass kicked..........

But yes, he promised to step aside when he lost the support of the people.....obviously that is lost, he should step aside, Bush should disown him.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Just a few weeks ago the right wingers on this forum were all up in arms about Chavez in Venezuela. They were accusing him of holding phony elections, of undermining democracy, and were even trying to ''justify'' some kind of Bush invasion!

So where are these radical pundits today?

Why aren't they demanding an invasion of Pakistan and a forced removal of fascist dictator Musharraf??

Will the hypocrisy of this forum's radical Bushies ever stop???

Wasn't me.... I kinda like Chavez and his mouth. He held the vote there about him getting unlimited terms or something along those lines, the people opposed it, voted against it, and he accepted their decision..... what more could one ask for?

But this moron in Pakistan isn't anything like Chavez. Both seem to have a level of power hunger, but the difference is, one knows when to not push something and to stick by his word..... the other is a two-faced, back stabbing liar who's clearly expressed a desire for total control..... Oh... and he has nukes.

Hmmmm.... I see a difference. But I don't remember reading anything in regards to Chavez bashing in these forums laitly. The most I see in here, are members basically giving Chavez cudos for his threats on cutting the US oil supply.

Oh, and I'm not about to promote any kind of invasion of Pakistan. Not because of the obvious factor of nukes, but for the simple fact that it is not our place to jump into a country and make it how we see fit without the request of assistance from the citizens of said country.

Granted that's not the case for Afghanistan, and that was a screwed up situation to begin with, but there's no need to keep the same mentality that it's alright to invade other countries to suit our own goals.

The people of Pakistan can deal with their own country as they see fit, and if they wish to has assistence in this situation.... all one needs to do is collectively ask.
 
Last edited:

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Yes Ah...yesssss

America's efforts to export "democracy" to Pakistan...have reached fruition....

When the people of Pakistan defeat the American puppet...that's a sign that democracy is alive and well....

That the United States has backed a military regime for years isn't important!

Situational ethics and situational morality.....gotta love the hypocrisy that passes for "opinion" on this discussion board...;)
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
And see this is why the option of military intervention as some here thought would be an option... shouldn't be an option:

Pakistan opposition parties form coalition government
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/02/21/pakistan-coalition.html

The two main opposition parties in Pakistan have agreed to unite to form a new government.

The Pakistan Peoples Party, the party of assassinated former leader Benazir Bhutto, and the Pakistan Muslim League-N announced their coalition Thursday.

"We have agreed on a common agenda. We will work together to form a government together in the centre and in the provinces," said Nawaz Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-N.

The move comes after the defeat of President Pervez Musharraf's allies in elections earlier this week.

More to come

If you allow a country to take care of itself, you end up with a solution that usually doesn't require getting involved. With this new tactic, they can now gain more options to booting Mush'head out of power, or at the very least, making sure he has very little say.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
``I don't remember reading anything in regards to Chavez bashing in these forums laitly.``


There were considerable agitation by right wing pundits on this forum in December when constitutional reform had been voted upon. All of these pundits said Chavez would rig the votes and were calling for Bush to do something about it.

As you know or should know, Chavez did NOT rig the vote and he lost by a small margin.

If these pundits were consistent and had any real principle, they would have called for action on Bush's part for Musharraf's unlawful arrests of dissenters and his attempts to rig the votes as shown in BBC News. But consistency in the application of principles calls for character and integrity. This is something that the right wing pundits do not have and that is why they are always so inconsistent in their ravings.
 

dancing-loon

House Member
Oct 8, 2007
2,739
36
48
Has the violence just began or never stopped??
Saturday, February 23, 2008, Safar 15, 1429 A.H.
Top Story

Bomb kills 16 of wedding party in Swat

By Mushtaq Yusufzai & Musa Khankhel

PESHAWAR/MINGORA: Sixteen people, including six children, were killed and 12 others injured when a wedding party was targeted with a remote-controlled bomb in the militancy-hit Swat valley on Friday.

Police officials said the wedding party was heading for Dorkat village from the adjacent Ochray village in the troubled Matta sub-division when unidentified miscreants attacked it with an improvised explosive device, commonly known as IEDs.
Read full story here: http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=13133

Who are these people that don't seem to care about the innocent victims of their killing devices? Talibanis? or what are they called and what do they want???
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
The article does not indicate that this tragedy was caused by Talibani. Such a possibility is unlikely as Peshawar is in Pakistan which has been the scene of tribalist discord whereas Talibani are active in Afghanistan and the conflicts there are sectarian rather than tribalist.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
There were considerable agitation by right wing pundits on this forum in December when constitutional reform had been voted upon. All of these pundits said Chavez would rig the votes and were calling for Bush to do something about it.
No I didn't. I said, 'Isn't this how the Nazi's started'. But never demanded Bush intervene. Get you name calling correct, or your facts.
As you know or should know, Chavez did NOT rig the vote and he lost by a small margin.
That says volumes. But he's still a socialist duechebag.

If these pundits were consistent and had any real principle, they would have called for action on Bush's part for Musharraf's unlawful arrests of dissenters and his attempts to rig the votes as shown in BBC News. But consistency in the application of principles calls for character and integrity. This is something that the right wing pundits do not have and that is why they are always so inconsistent in their ravings.
Ravings, well I guess you'ld be the expert on those, but did you ever think that maybe some people didn't know we had to post our discourse with his actions to accommodate your insatiable need to be attended?
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
The thought did not occur to me that it was you who made any such demands for a Bush invasion. But in your continued paranoia you ascribe something to me that I never intended. Take your meds and see your shrink because, once again, you are imagining things.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
`` Chavez ... socialist duechebag [sic]``


Republican hero Nixon was a self admitted ''Keynesian'' socialist. Reagan and the two Bush's followed his example through deficit spending and corporate welfare.