"America's CIA Versus Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf"
http://www.daily.pk/politics/37-politicalnews/6298-americas-cia-versus-pakistans-president-pervez-musharraf.html

"Musharraf: CIA has paid Pakistan millions"
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/09/musharraf_cia_h.html

This is great! Aside from Fox News using damning questions toward Ron Paul's campaign (the whole electability thing came with quite the audience uproar), the importance of this video is RP's question poised as a comment which would probably stump any candidate on the left or right. Here's what he said: "Let me see if I get this right. We need to borrow 10 billion dollars from China. And then we give it to Musharraf, who's a military dictator, who overthrew an elected government, and then we go to war, we lose all these lives promoting democracy in Iraq."

It's simple truths like that which keep us on the right path. I feel we lose sight too quickly with smaller details of elections, such as it being a personality contest instead of an earnest election of ideas.

I guess Musharraf doesn't like to share. MGR, do you think you could hit him from where you are right now?

"Also, unlike Iran, whenever we have asked something of Pakistan, be it the old regime, or the new one, they have almost always complied... they funneled money and arms to the mujahidin for us in our proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and later, in 2001, when we needed their airspace and access to bases on the ground to support operations in Afghanistan, Musharraf rolled over and complied, becoming a surprise ally in the Bush Administration's 'War on Terror'... clearly, Pakistan is a much more cooperative state than Iran."

Was hardly "totally ignores the fact that Pakistan is a key ally of the US"

Aside from that, what "strategic triangle that exists between Russia, China and India" are you referring to. Genuine question.

Raven's post is a bit simplistic and totally ignores the fact that Pakistan is a key ally of the US - which in the last six years has sent over 10 Billion in aid to prop up the Musharraf regime - and while the US and India continue to court one another diplomatically, it's a serious error to overlook the strategic triangle that exists between Russia, China and India, which affords the latter a certain amount of leverage when it comes to the United States. Also, it cannot be ignored that the Musharraf regime was one of only three states to recognize the legitimacy of the Talibans in Afghanistan to whom he offered major support during his first two years in power.

@MINK, the reason the United States has no problem with Pakistan having nukes is that it does not share in any of the motivations or history of Iran, which, as I outlined above, keep the US from even considering their development of a domestic power program...

Namely, Pakistan, has never really posed a threat to Israel, either by denying its existence, or by funding Palestinian terrorist organizations in Lebanon... so therefore, the NeoCons and the Israel lobby are pretty much unconcerned with their activities. Also, as we've already been over in regards to Iran, the history of our relationship with Pakistan has been much less volatile and on the whole, we have been much less involved with Pakistan: never had a puppet regime in place there, nor had it overthrown, nor have the Pakistanis ever taken any of our diplomatic staff hostage or called us "The Great Satan"... and really, Pakistan is almost entirely removed from Middle Eastern ideological/historical conflict by virtue of its location, national identity and history... in fact, I believe the CIA has it grouped within its South Asian bureau. Also, unlike Iran, whenever we have asked something of Pakistan, be it the old regime, or the new one, they have almost always complied... they funneled money and arms to the mujahidin for us in our proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and later, in 2001, when we needed their airspace and access to bases on the ground to support operations in Afghanistan, Musharraf rolled over and complied, becoming a surprise ally in the Bush Administration's 'War on Terror'... clearly, Pakistan is a much more cooperative state than Iran.

Also, everyone knows that if the Pakistanis are going to nuke anyone, its going to be India, but, even though India is also our ally, they are no where near as dependent upon our support for mere existence as is Israel. Also, its pretty apparent that even though both India and Pakistan are now nuclear, its highly unlikely that they are going to start a war with one another because a) India is so much bigger and wealthier, and in a conventional war Pakistan would pretty much be screwed... and b) the minute a Pakistani nuke was launched (which, they have yet to prove they can actually do- they have detonated them, but as for firing one at something, that is left to be proven), India would launch five right back, and arguably, Pakistan would be less likely to recover from such an incident as it lacks the economical fortitude, population, infrastructure and resources of India. In the meantime, international pressures from most of the industrialized first world nations (ie, America and the EU) on which India depends for much of its commerce, keep it in check from attacking Pakistan on a whim. So, it would appear that, in this case, the possession of nuclear weapons has successfully kept these two rivals at sort of a standoff, and the region on the whole has been more peaceful.

There is, however, considerable apprehension right now in the States about the current situation in Pakistan, as no one likes to hear the words 'nuclear' and 'unstable government' in the same sentence. I do think though, that seeing as how all major parties involved in the power struggle in Pakistan: Musharraf, Bhutto, and Sharif, are in close contact and by all appearances, past and present, friendly to US and EU concerns for overall stability in the region, whomever it is that gains control will likely continue to the toe the line in regards to nuclear discretion.

That, in short, is why no one cares that Pakistan has nukes and there is such a furor over Iran possible getting them.

btw - I was at London Central Mosque today for the Jumu'ah Khutbah (Friday sermon). In the past the khutbah used to be only in Arabic. The majority of the congregation - particularly the younger members - cannot speak Arabic and so they could not understand what was being said. Many of the younger members of the congregation were originally attracted to extremist imams because they delivered their khutbah's in English or Urdu. Thankfully this has changed and the khutbah at London Central Mosque is now given in English and Arabic. Today's Khutbah was on the importance of Peace (as-Salaam) and justice (al-'Adl).

However, while the extremists elements have been removed from the mosque they are still there. When we left the mosque there was a small group of Hizb ut-Tahrir supporters with a microphone handing out leaflets and screaming about British oppression, General Musharraf, and the need to establish a global Islamic caliphate. Thankfully, they were largely ignored or ridiculed by the majority of the congregation.

The man talking in Urdu is saying:

This is an illegal unconstitutional act, a one man show in that "I [referring to Musharraf] have all the power and might, that I am in uniform, and what status do you have in front of me?" As a result, this situation has been downplayed.

This two-part interview series is amazing - how many other major media outlets in the West have spoken with Musharraf?