The consequences of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy continue to spill over from Iraq, as predicted by critics.
Paskistan’s President Pervez Musharraf is experiencing a backlash over suspending the chief justice of the Supreme Court, because he put the law before government policy. This is taking place while George Bush is facing a similar scandal over the firing of US government attorneys for investigating Republican corruption while not going after Democrat leaders with sufficient enthusiasm.
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan–Thousands of lawyers and political activists in cities across Pakistan staged peaceful rallies yesterday as they continued their nearly two-week-old campaign against President Pervez Musharraf’s decision to suspend the nation’s chief justice.
In the capital, Islamabad, demonstrators converged on the Supreme Court building, chanting “Go, Musharraf, go!” and calling the president “Bush’s dog.”
If Tony Blair is Bush’s poodle, what breed does that make Musharraf?
In the rapidly unfolding crisis in Pakistan, no matter what happens to President Pervez Musharraf — whether he survives politically or not — he is a lame duck. He is unable to rein in Talibanization in Pakistan or guide the country toward a more democratic future.
Who didn’t see this one coming? Not only has Bush style corruption rubbed off on Musharraf, but the lame duck status is also catching on.
We watch with fascination to see how Washington reacts to this crisis if it deepens. With the focus directed at drumming up fear in the public mind about Iran possibly becoming an antagonistic Islamic nuclear power, Pakistan is posed to spoil their plans and become a much greater and more tangible threat.
Their obsession with Iran was exposed for its hypocrisy when they tried to trivialize the fact that North Korea had conducted a successful nuclear test in 2006. This could be a huge source of frustration for Dick Cheney, having only just managed to get another potential threat out of the headlines.
UPDATE: More fallout from the Bush Administration’s Middle East policy.
The US is scrambling to head off a “disastrous” Turkish military intervention in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq that threatens to derail the Baghdad security surge and open up a third front in the battle to save Iraq from disintegration.
Is this is what Bush meant when he described the Iraq adventure as a catastrohpic success?