Gen. Musharraf Unplugged

Posted on September 27, 2006
Filed Under >Adil Najam, People, Politics
59 Comments
Total Views: 89460

Share

Adil Najam

A few readers have asked us to provide links to various media appearances by Gen. Musharraf here on ATP. A very good and constantly updated colelction is available at Trekker’s blog here.

Meanwhile, we are providing video clips of some of the most talked appearances (rather, those that are available on the web for linking).

Daily ShowRelated ATP Posts on Gen. Musharraf’s new book, In the Line of Fire and his US visit here, here, here, here, and here.

First, the much talked about appearance on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show and then the apperance on 60 Minutes. Third we have updated this post to include the CNN interview by Wolf Blitzer. We have also added the most pertinent part of the White House Press Conference with President Bush and President Musharraf.

You can view his appearance on 60 Minutes here:

Here is the first half of his appearance in CNN’s Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer (cannot, yet, find the second half). FULL TRANSCRIPT of this interview can be read here:

Here is the middle part, the most pertinent and talked-about part, of the White House Press Conference with Presidents Bush and Musharraf:

Finally, here is the interview on PBS’s Charlie Rose, which has also been much discussed in the comments from our readers:

59 Comments on “Gen. Musharraf Unplugged”

  1. Rehan says:
    September 27th, 2006 1:11 pm

    I must say that the General has done me proud. I have not seen any other world leader on such a publicity blitz and, in my opinion, he is moulding the image of Pakistan in the United States. It does not get bigger than 60 Minutes and the Daily Show. He has become a prominent figure in world politics and I am proud to call him my President.

  2. Suleman says:
    September 27th, 2006 1:33 pm

    I agree with Rehan. I think he handled himself very well on the Daily Show, although I was pleasantly surprised that Jon Stewart was very courteous and respectful towards the President as well. Musharraf handled the “seat of heat” last question very well, which had everyone laughing.

  3. Captain's Log says:
    September 27th, 2006 2:21 pm

    No wonder why he was polite.

    While the Daily Show is considered by its creators to be a “fake news program”, some critics have said that current host Jon Stewart regularly has as guests the very politicians and newspeople he often lampoons, but rarely takes them to task face-to-face; instead, politicians on all sides of the spectrum use the show as a platform to reach younger demographics. Show co-creator and ex-producer Lizz Winstead said of interviews with controversial figures:

    Jon’s tremendous. I feel, though, when you are interviewing a Richard Perle or a Kissinger, if you give them a pass, then you become what you are satirizing. You have a war criminal sitting on your couchâ€

  4. Adnan Ahmad says:
    September 27th, 2006 2:55 pm

    So should Jon Stewart turn into Bill O’Reilly on Comedy Central? I don’t think it would work. Media 101. He won’t be able to get any one of those “controversial figuers” on his show if he turned into a cross-examining hard hitting host and the show will risk narrowing down its audience just to the far left. Remember, it is a “show,” and that too on Comedy Central, and it must sell to the max.

  5. Fawad says:
    September 27th, 2006 4:13 pm

    Jon Stewart’s show last night was one of Musharraf’s better performances. He had a fairly good sense of humor and I thought handled the Bin Laden / George W Bush question fairly well.

    However, many of Musharraf’s interviews (60 minutes, Today show) and the much quoted contents of his book have been self-serving and in many cases outright embarrasing. Disclosing Armitage’s bombing threat, boasting that Pakistan has won large amounts of “prize money” by capturing terrorists as if it was a “country for hire” and the claim of success for the Kargil conflict has helped him sell books but has made Pakistan look like a banana republic. This is not to mention the unethical act of publishing a memoir while in office and including material ( e.g. about the Kargil war) that is officially still classified and unavailable to independent journalists who can verify his claims. Jaswant Singh’s (Indian foreign minister at the time) recent memoir “A Call to Honor” flatly contradicts Musharraf’s claims and his facts are backed up by the Pakistani civilian government of the time. Kargil was an unmitigated disaster for Pakistan and Musharraf was its short-sighted architect.

    In addition, going on a book tour on taxpayer expense with an entourage of 90 people, for pure personal gain, is a national disgrace for someone who never fails to remind people of the venal and corrupt politicians. I am saddened that people can be proud of their leadership for superficial abilities such as the ability to communicate in english but completely overlook the substance of what he is saying and the corruption involved in conflating his personal gain with the country’s interest.

  6. Imran Nasrullah says:
    September 27th, 2006 5:26 pm

    I think the General did a fine job, and Jon Steward did a nice job interviewing him as well. I say this because for most Americans, Musharraf is relatively unknown despite his significant role in Bush’s War on Terror. It is more useful to be respectful, in this case, because Stewart can elicit more information from him.

    I recall Stewart interviewing Richard Perle and showing him due respect despite Stewart’s obvious contrarian political views.

    Perhaps it shows that comedians are professional too.

  7. Trekker says:
    September 27th, 2006 6:30 pm

    President Musharraf’s interview on NPR Morning Edition

  8. Mast Qalandar says:
    September 27th, 2006 6:36 pm

    Frankly, other than he had a crush over a girl in the neighborhood when he was a teenager and a love affair later with a Bengali woman, Musharraf has not really said anything new in his book. Has he?

  9. Maleeha says:
    September 27th, 2006 6:37 pm

    I also enjoyed the Daily Show interview, but must agree with Fawad. It is very strange for a sitting head-of-state to go on a talk-show circuit and disclose sensitive information to promote an auto-biography. The prestige that goes with that office diminishes. That said, I think he answered Stewart’s last question well.

  10. TURAB says:
    September 27th, 2006 6:53 pm

    THE BOOK IS the biggest PR attempt to the WEST in a poisitve way…. lets just call it our side of story….. Big Ups to President Musharraf for awesome interviews and response.

  11. Farzana says:
    September 27th, 2006 7:26 pm

    Not sure why I should be happy about this. Note how both these interviews start. 60 mins makes a reference that most leaders would wait till retirement to write memoirs and Jon S. strats by noting that he is not sure WHY Mush is there. And most people are not! Most people wonder what this is about.

  12. alvipervaiz says:
    September 27th, 2006 7:26 pm

    Fawad
    Sep 27th, 2006 at 4:13 pm Quote
    Jon Stewart’s show last night was one of Musharraf’s better performances. He had a fairly good sense of humor and I thought handled the Bin Laden / George W Bush question fairly well.

    However, many of Musharraf’s interviews (60 minutes, Today show) and the much quoted contents of his book have been self-serving and in many cases outright embarrassing. Disclosing Armitage’s bombing threat, boasting that Pakistan has won large amounts of “prize moneyâ€

  13. BD says:
    September 27th, 2006 7:43 pm

    Musharraf is looking so exhausted in the video. He’s already gotten tired of the whole tour thingy it seems.

  14. Hamza says:
    September 27th, 2006 7:52 pm

    I was also quite impressed with the Jon Stewart interview. While i dont agree with Musharraf’s blatant promotion of his book in his current US tour, he does handle the media very well. Jon Stewart is not an easy show to be on, and Musharraf came off as smart and articulate.

  15. DrPak says:
    September 27th, 2006 8:16 pm

    I don’t believe the media circus Musharraf has created this last week is the result of inadvertant slips of the tongue. He’s a very smart guy and he knows what he’s doing. My theory is that he’s made the startling revelations that he has to get the book sales up so that people in the West will get to see Pakistan’s side of the whole post-9/11 world. Right now Pakistan fares very poorly in the PR arena. We’re immediately associated with extremism and terrorism. Musharraf went there to promote his book, and also promote Pakistan – a softer, more realistic image of Pakistan. The Jon Stewart show is a prime example of that. How many world leaders can hold their own against Jon Stewart while coming off as charming, and totally self-confident? I think Musharraf showed the US public that he’s not some tinpot dictator whose running a country of full of extremists. He sold himself and his country well. Well done, I say.

  16. ayesha says:
    September 27th, 2006 11:12 pm

    Yes, I also felt that the interview went pretty well. I must admit I have had a lot of reservations about the way Musharraf has been promoting his book – but DrPak does make a valid point. Musharraf is also promoting Pakistan. And doing a good job of it.

    I just wish there weren’t so many slip-of-tongues by his. He just dents (further) his own credibility – now he also seems to have backtracked on the claim that CIA paid Pak government. The man claimed so in his book and now he wants it edited! Bleh!

  17. PatExpat says:
    September 28th, 2006 3:08 am

    Just in case people are interested in reading a different point of view than as expressed on this blog countless number of times.

    http://chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00007248&channel=civic center

  18. jyoti says:
    September 28th, 2006 4:21 am

    Wonder why this topic is not getting as many comments and participation as death of Bugati did?

  19. A.F.Khan says:
    September 28th, 2006 10:51 am

    Jyoti, I am not sure what to make of this comment, or your earlier ones. Why should it have as many responses, these are two very different events. Maybe if you add all the comments on the different posts on this trip it is equal. BUt I am stumped really by what the PURPOSE of your comment is. Is this what is called flaming? Just throwing in particular comments to flame others into a response. But so what? What is the point?

  20. PatExpat says:
    September 28th, 2006 7:47 am

    We are so hungry for some positive PR for Pakistan, we have all forgotten that unless PR translates into results it does not change anything.

    And the fact of the matter is, except coming across as a guest who can stand his ground, his book and tv appearances are not going to solve anything. It might make Mush loyalist and Pakistani diaspora feel good about themselves but thats it.

    I don’t think so many people except for Pakistanis will remember his tv presence a few months down the line and as rapidly has his book gone up in the bestseller list, it will come crashing down once the euphoria around it dies and people realize the inconsistencies in it.

    He criticized AQKhan that he was egoistic and wanted to take all credit for the bomb. It was a team effort. AQKhan in all his interviews credited ZA Bhutto and Zia ulHaq for their support clearly mentioning that despite his not subscribing to their politics, the bomb would not have been possible without them. Isn’t Musharraf taking all the credit himself for taking 180 degree turn. I am sure a democratic government of Benazir or Nawaz Sharif would not have crumbled anymore before US threats. But atleast we could them later ask where did the money go for capturing Alqaeda. Who has the will to ask Musharraf because we are taking his word despite his changing his claims.

    People who have read his book will realize that there is a lot of things written in it that will come to haunt Musharraf in times to come. He kept the naval chief and airforce chief ignorant about Kargil adventure, how can we believe that he would have taken Nawaz into confidence.

    But hey, he is generating positive PR so lets forget other depressing hard facts for the time being.

  21. alvipervaiz says:
    September 28th, 2006 9:03 am

    On the balance Musharraf has done a good job. I wish our politicians were as good as he is. Lets keep eye on the ball and help our leaders make Pakistan an exemplary state. Lets educate our otherwise illiterate masses as fast as we can. Lets help our homeland as much as we can. Good luck to Musharraf and all those who may follow him one day. Pakistan Paindabad.

  22. Adnan Ahmad says:
    September 28th, 2006 9:57 am

    PatExpat,
    Read Cowasjee’s articles on AQ Khan long before his network got busted. The man was hungry for lime light and made concerted efforts for that purpose. The other thing people used to talk about was the amount of expensive real estate he had bought in Pakistan within a decade. Now we know how he did that.

    Of course you can ask.. but have you gotten any answers from Benezir yet on her Swiss Bank accounts? Or from Nawaz Sharif on his deals with Daewoo.

    Pakistani Americans are just happy to hear good buzz (any thing not bad is good these days) about their native country but you can always find something to criticize. How can you presuppose that no good will come out of it. I am not being devil’s advocate and I do not have an agenda here for if anyone better than Musharraf comes tomorrow I will pick him but for now he is good. At present he is the lesser of three evils and as someone said well that also reflects well on the state of Pakistan.

  23. jyoti says:
    September 28th, 2006 12:00 pm

    @ AF Khan saheb, no, I was just wondering aloud what kind of issues touch people more than some other issues. Bugati’s death was supposed to have a “negative” impact on Pakistan’s future whereas President Musharraf’s US visit is supposed to have “positive” impact on Pakistan’s image. Then why this event is not generating as much readers’ involvement as that event did?…

  24. DrPak says:
    September 28th, 2006 12:02 pm

    @PakExpat: Musharraf isn’t “taking credit” for the 180 degree turn, he was simply explaining how he came to that decision. It is understood that any government would have made the exact same decision.

    Also, raising a country’s profile in a positive manner is not something that is done overnight. The media blitz accompanying the book is a good step in the right direction. For too long has Pakistan been unfairly blamed for every terrorist plot taking place on Earth. It’s time the government took steps to convince the world that Pakistan isn’t being run by a group that’s secretly in collusion with the Taliban and al-Qaeda. I think the autobiography will go a long way in convincing people that for all his faults, Musharraf the man is not running a rogue state that fosters terrorism.

  25. September 28th, 2006 12:56 pm

    Folks, we will add the most important interviews as they become available. Meanwhile, Trekker’s collection is a very comprehensive source.

    We have just added the video of the CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer, which many readers have been discussing here.

  26. Samdani says:
    September 28th, 2006 1:12 pm

    Dr Najam, thank you for adding these two new videos they are important ones. I hope you can also find the Charlie Rose interview because I think that was the most interesting one. Not because Musharraf was good or bad in it, but because the cconversation was detailed and both questions and answers were substantive.

  27. Samdani says:
    September 28th, 2006 1:16 pm

    By the way, would be nice also to see second half of CNN interview (I thought that last question was unfair and purposely trying to create a Pak-Afghan rift). But overall, I think this half at least is probably Musharraf’s best performance … Earlier comments here had made me think it was not good. But I thought he was in control, did not let Blitzer badger him and kept focus on his own message (whether you like it or not). But, have not seen second half so maybe it changed.

  28. Fawad says:
    September 28th, 2006 1:24 pm

    Reading many of the comments I get the feeling that many in the Pakistani diaspora care more about cheerleading and public relations capabilities of our leaders than judging substantively what they do.

    When “alvipervaiz” writes that “Lets keep eye on the ball and help our leaders make Pakistan an exemplary state”, he and I have a very different view of how that is done. True patriotism is not “my country right or wrong” or applauding any slick leader who presents well and makes us feel a little better here in the west (btw, benazir bhutto presented very well in the west as an articulate woman prime minister of a Muslim country but her rule was disatrous). Patriotism is to have the courage to oppose leaders who undermine the constitution, rule of law and the institutions of state whether they are military rulers like Musharraf or civilian ones from the 90′s. If they have not earned our support with their actions (by strengthening the rule of law, not themselves) then they don’t deserve our support. They need prodding to do the right thing not cheerleading. As is, they have plenty of lackeys around them informing them of their indispensability.

    I would rather reserve my enthusiasm for true patriots who work hard for the betterment of the people of Pakistan selflessly. My heroes are people like Abdul Sattar Edhi, Ansar Burney, Asma Jahangir, Mukhtaran Mai (who was put under house arrest by Mush to “protect” Pakistan’s image), Lt. Gen (r) Sabeeh Qamar-u-Zaman of TCF, Imran Khan with his hospital etc. than another tinpot dictator who can communicate with Jon Stewart to the satisfaction of some Pakistanis in the west but will leave Pakistan’s democratic institutions in even worse shape than when he took over.

  29. Tariq says:
    September 28th, 2006 1:30 pm

    Anybody watched his interview with canadian News (CNC), He seems like tired of blaming of him for everything especially Afghanistan then he was mad at Kirzai too. I like his boldness………

  30. Samdani says:
    September 28th, 2006 1:33 pm

    Sorry for these many responses. I do agree with Fawad that the reaction of us Pakistanis in USA is more about FINALLY getting some (semi-) positive coverage and liking his boldness, than about his performance (by the way, Dr. Najam, when do we get your analysis of the results of the Poll?). The reaction IN Pakistan is different, and not as enthusiastic. Great story in BBC where they survey the reaction of the Urdu press. Worth seeing. It also focussed on the issues in the book, including Kashmir, AQ Khan, and other things.

  31. Alam says:
    September 28th, 2006 2:25 pm

    I am not sure how pak or pakistais r getting ve image, when their leader is saying he bowed to threats. He is actually saying, Pak’s or Pak army’s fight against OBL and Talibans and terrorism, is not based on principles but on threats.

    So what would happen in future, if there is anythign that USA wants from Pak, and Pak is refusing? 1 cent for guessing it correctly.

  32. September 28th, 2006 2:43 pm

    Speaking of writing books, it seems its a new fashion now. Jawed Hashmi wrote his book,Umpire Hair wrote his bio too. Lets see when Adil Najam bhai comes up with his own bio :D

  33. September 28th, 2006 2:46 pm

    Mush is in London to answer this

  34. Cy says:
    September 28th, 2006 2:56 pm

    Hey, not sure if the authors know, but you guys got some nice publicity today:

    http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2006/09/28/musharrafs_pr_war.html

  35. Babar says:
    September 28th, 2006 4:34 pm

    The interview with NPR .. I thought it was a bit harsh … but thats the way NPR is.
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6151289

  36. TURAB says:
    September 28th, 2006 5:46 pm

    [quote comment="3420"]I am not sure how pak or pakistais r getting ve image, when their leader is saying he bowed to threats. He is actually saying, Pak’s or Pak army’s fight against OBL and Talibans and terrorism, is not based on principles but on threats.

    So what would happen in future, if there is anythign that USA wants from Pak, and Pak is refusing? 1 cent for guessing it correctly.[/quote]

    Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and so on ….. all of these countries seem to be doing just fine while having a positive relationship with US. What is wrong if Pakistan has one too?

  37. Altamash Mir says:
    September 28th, 2006 11:13 pm

    Turab sahab, After 9/11 the Americans had already made up their mind to attack Afghanistan. If Pakistan had denied help to the US, Afghanistan would have been attacked from other countries, for example India. This situation would have been really uncomfortable and Pakistan would have lost its strategic partnership status for the last fifty years. India could have definitely used this situation to gain ground at multiple levels.
    On another note getting rid of the Taliban Regime was in benefit of Pakistan and Pakistanis. The spillover of extremism from Afghanistan was not healthy for the moderate majority of Pakistan.

  38. TURAB says:
    September 29th, 2006 2:22 am

    [quote comment="3437"]Turab sahab, After 9/11 the Americans had already made up their mind to attack Afghanistan. If Pakistan had denied help to the US, Afghanistan would have been attacked from other countries, for example India. This situation would have been really uncomfortable and Pakistan would have lost its strategic partnership status for the last fifty years. India could have definitely used this situation to gain ground at multiple levels.
    On another note getting rid of the Taliban Regime was in benefit of Pakistan and Pakistanis. The spillover of extremism from Afghanistan was not healthy for the moderate majority of Pakistan.[/quote]

    Altamash Bhai you got me wrong, i was quoting alam or someone, and giving the similar logical explanation that you just gave. don’t worry i m on your side….

  39. Daktar says:
    September 29th, 2006 2:22 am

    His toughest interview is yet to come. On Meet the Press this Sunday. The host on that is the best prepared interviewer in America and has a habit of bringing up things that the guest has said earlier. Should be great fun!

  40. Eidee Man says:
    September 29th, 2006 3:36 am

    Hi, if someone would upload or point towards Musharraf’s interview with Charlie Rose, that would be great. Charlie Rose is a great interviewer mainly because he lets guests explain their point of view in detail and he does not at all go for the wow factor or for sound-bites.

  41. PatExpat says:
    September 29th, 2006 5:59 am

    I hope our American Pakistanis enjoyed the positive press when Mush was there. And as predicted, it will die down as soon as he leaves US soil.

    For the Pakistanis not living in US, the press is not limited to Jon Stewart, Charlie Rose or Wolf Blitzer.

    As reported by Amnesty International today.

    [quote post="329"]“Enforced disappearances were almost unheard of in Pakistan before the start of the U.S-led war on terror — now they are a growing phenomenon, spreading beyond terror suspects,” Amnesty researcher Angelika Pathak said.[/quote]

    And this is how the British leg of his tour started

    [quote post="329"]A leaked report from a group associated with Britain’s Defense Ministry alleged earlier in the week that Pakistan’s intelligence service ISI was indirectly supporting the Taliban rebels in Afghanistan and said Musharraf should resign.[/quote]

    Thirdly, Transparency International is stating the present government is more corrupt than the previous two democratic ones.

    And the local press as well as population is not too happy about it either. But do we really care because we assume that if we (the moderate majority – yeah right!) want to go for the lesser of the three evils, the rest of 160 million of the population will also want to go for him. Its Benazir hands down any day.

  42. September 29th, 2006 7:59 am

    To be perfectly frank, I am not quite satisfied from president’s book “IN THE LINE OF FIRE” and his visit of US. Army Leader has mentioned in his interviews that he wouldn’t allow any other country’s army to operate against terrors in Pakistan because it would be against the sovereignty of Pakistan and Pakistan is a Nuclear Atomic State. But I think it is unacceptable for Americans to accept Pakistan as a Nuclear Atomic State. So, present political scenario has made us worried and I believe that we are just going to loose our all options. I wonder how our HERO and HEROIC Atomic Energy can get us out of this horrifying situation? I want to know why the citizens of Pakistan are being immediately tortured. WE have been deprived of our peace and tranquility.

  43. alvipervaiz says:
    September 29th, 2006 3:21 pm

    Fawad: You do not like military dictators. Neither do I. In my life time I have seen Pakistan being ruled by from Ayub Khan to Musharraf and every one in between. There has never been a true democratic system of government in Pakistan. When not ruled by the military directly, the country is ruled by the oligarchy of feudal lords. If you want to call it democracy you may. Ayub, Bhutto and Musharraf even though autocratic were relatively liberal and progressive. They were not all that bad. On the other hand Yahya, Benazir and Nawaz Sharif were poor governors. Zia in my opinion was an evil and regressive man. As you see not all military rulers were bad and not all civilians were good or vice versa. Democracy is the better form of government. But in the absence of it you hope that you got a better dictator. As a dictator Musharraf is doing an OK job. You may criticise him but let him run his course. The next man may be worse.

  44. Mast Qalandar says:
    September 29th, 2006 5:57 pm

    [quote comment="3468"]“You may criticise him but let him run his course. The next man may be worse.”[/quote]

    Alvipervaiz,

    Problem is that a dictator’s course does not have an end. They usually run their ship aground.

  45. JO says:
    October 6th, 2006 9:45 pm

    I dont follow Pakistan politics but did catch your prez in the daily show… liked the way he handled himself…

  46. Eidee Man says:
    September 30th, 2006 12:58 am

    @PatExpat,
    I’m a very firm believer in the democratic process and have frankly been somewhat more inclined towards PPP pretty much all of my life. I think that Musharraf has allied with the DEVIL himself in Sindh and that has left the assemblies and local positions in the hands of violent and brutal thugs of MQM who are not only corrupt (like their PPP and PML brethren) but are also dangerous in the violent sense.

    However, that being said, I think Musharraf HIMSELF is a person who genuinely wants the betterment of Pakistan and really wants Pakistan to come onto the world stage. We’re the sixth largest country in the world and our people have tremendous potential and its about time we realized and capitalized on it.

    To me the ideal situation would be one in which PPP and PML (including old Nawaz group people) populated the national and provincial assemblies and the Prime Minister post and Musharraf kept the President post.

    As an aside, I finally located the Charlie Rose interview. It’s a great one as I expected:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3443077881361947856&q=charlie rose musharraf

  47. September 30th, 2006 1:13 am

    Thanks to reader Eidee Man for identifying a source for the interview on PBS’s Charlie Rose show. That has now been added to this post for those who may wish to view it here.

  48. Eidee Man says:
    September 30th, 2006 1:32 am

    I just found another one..hopefully I’m not being redundant:

    http://www.cornell.edu/video/viewer/video.cfm?vidname=musharraf_20060926&pover=real&qover=high

    This one is the interview at Cornell.

  49. PatExpat says:
    September 30th, 2006 7:20 am

    @Eideeman. If we recall our 59 years of history, the democratic process has been broken each time by army intervention. And each time, the intervention was for the betterment of country.

    You and I both know that for an army man to be successful, he needs to be an autocrat, a dictator. And thats what all the military rulers have been and so is Musharraf.

    True that military rulers stay longer, (though they dont allow democratic government to complete the the tenure) and hence there is stability in the government which leads to economic progress. I am sure if democratic process is allowed to run its full course, we will slowly see some progress despite corruption. You haven’t had a full democratic term for last 59 years, How can you expect the people to get it right the first time?

    Anyway, since military rulers are dictators, the civillian machinery becomes incapacitated to work independently. Its the language of boots that it understands only. It forgets that its there to serve the people and not to carry out the orders of higher command.

    Why do you think Musharraf is not taking off his uniform. Because his power does not come from people’s trust in him but from army backing.

    What do you think will happen when Musharraf takes off uniform or leaves, utter chaos. Even at present, he is not working on strengthening civillian institutions because they are an anathema to dictatorship.

    Despite his best intentions (which for me are doubtful but anyways) when he moves on, the country will move backwards because all civillian institutions will be weak.

    Thats my point of view and obviously others are allowed their own views.

  50. Samdani says:
    September 30th, 2006 11:18 am

    [quote comment="3484"]If we recall our 59 years of history, the democratic process has been broken each time by army intervention. And each time, the intervention was for the betterment of country.[/quote]

    No. It has’nt. Each time it has further shattered the institutional foundations of the country and each time they have left the country in a much worse situation.

  51. Shabir Alam says:
    October 1st, 2006 2:09 am

    First of all I don’t get the title: “Gen. Musharraf Unplugged”? I see no relevant discussion based on the title, and then all the “plugged” videos.

    By the way Adil, make sure you do not use the copyrighted material on this site – it can become trouble sooner or later even if you didn’t post it on YouTube or Google Video. Linking to copyrighted item may suffice. We want this site to survive you know :)

  52. Farrukh says:
    October 1st, 2006 3:41 am

    I have been travelling and missed my regular dose of ATP. Seemed like I missed some interesting discussions.

    On a different post (on blog ban) it was commented that (I thught this was more appropriate to pursue that point):

    “Name one Pakistani leader who can so eloquently present Pakistan’s views to the West and its biased media engine?”

    Well, I dont like her any moe than I like Musharraf but the Benazir was equally famous (both according to her jialas and according to the US media) for being eloquent and media savvy. Also, her book was also on top of all sorts of lists (I think NYT also) and she did not even have the benefit of using the state apparatus to promote it or being in office to disclose official secrets. Frankly I was not impressed by her stunts and not by his either.

  53. Shabir Alam says:
    October 1st, 2006 5:02 am

    If you are referring to “Daughter of Destiny”, I already researched its fame. Seems like a popular book in some circles at the time and was published by Simon & Schuster (March 1989) while Benazir was in power also. Didn’t make it quite as big as In the Line of Fire so quickly. Plus media is more open and accessible today then BB’s time, this includes Pakistani media too – so Musharraf definitely has an advantage.

    BB may have been media savvy but lacked the reasoning and usually played the woman and sympathy card and banked on it. Her personality is a discussion for another day.

    I wonder what secrets did Musharraf reveal? If talking about situations honestly and writing about them is considered revealing secrets then what would you call it when George Tenet the CIA director then shows Musharraf his own centrifuge plans? Let’s not get on the band wagon of “revealing the secrets” and “spending Pakistan money” half baked arguments without reasoning?

  54. October 2nd, 2006 12:13 am

    [quote post="329"]rst of all I don’t get the title: “Gen. Musharraf Unpluggedâ€

  55. October 3rd, 2006 12:59 am

    It is silly not to have been taken massive efforts after having known ground realities. Americans want to search Osama bin laden in Pakistan but I think that Osama must have been living in America, therefore America should allow Pakistani Army to search Osama in America. Army Leader’s mercurial behavior is causing our citizens of the cast some concern. Why does he insist that Osama be in Afghanistan? We don’t think so.

  56. Babar says:
    October 3rd, 2006 8:07 pm

    Farrukh/Shabir et al: If we are talking about rhetoric and eloquence then Bhutto was the grand master. I’d recommend Stanley Wolpert’s

  57. Tzu says:
    October 8th, 2006 10:02 pm

    I just spent some time watching these. He has lots of confidence. Looks like a strong leader.

  58. PatExpat says:
    October 12th, 2006 6:52 am

    Nobody asked our enlightened moderate women protection touting leader about his remarks in 2005

    [quote post="329"]“if you want to go abroad and get a visa for Canada or citizenship and be a millionaire, get yourself raped.”[/quote]

  59. KAWA1 says:
    September 3rd, 2007 12:36 am

    If America wants any credibility and clout left in Pakistan, it must act wisely without wasting a single moment. Publicly declare that Musharraf must transition power smoothly to the elected party and ensure fair and free elections without any delay. They must give up their support to “one man” over 160 million people.

    Nawaz Shareef is a reality and Sep 10th will show them. They would be wise to see that now rather than wait and see when the “sinami” hits the federal capital… by then it will be too late!!

Have Your Say (Bol, magar piyar say)