Pakistani Supreme Court To Decide On Musharraf Victory

The New York Times:

Gen. Pervez Musharraf easily won the presidential election on Saturday, but an opposition boycott and pending hearings in the Supreme Court, which still has to decide on his eligibility to run for election in uniform, left him with an incomplete victory.

The vote, by national and provincial assemblies, ended up as a one-man race after other candidates withdrew. All opposition parties refused to take part, and only legislators from the ruling coalition, plus a few independents, voted.

Read the whole story: The New York Times

Comments

[loki]

08:22 PM on 10/06/2007

Funny how we complain and fight against religious crazies in other parts of the world, while we are allowing the religious crazies to to take over our own country. Might say the US is hypocritical. or just a loony bin , which seems more likely

[HumeSkeptic]

03:49 PM on 10/06/2007

Pakistani Supreme Court To Decide On Musharraf Victory

--------


Bwahahahahahaha!

Some election they had.

[nefertiti]

02:34 PM on 10/06/2007

reasonismyreligion

Pakistan is NOT in the Middle East . you meant Pakistan being Muslim right ? i dont think Musharaf can be described as muslim , judging by the war crimes he is committing right now in waziristan and Baluchistan in the name of ALLY in the war on terror .

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

08:58 PM on 10/06/2007

I was loosely including the broader region, yes.

As to Musharraf, he fits cleanly in the strongman category.

[StillAmused]

02:21 PM on 10/06/2007

Nice to see the Paks getting the hang of it... the people vote, then the Supreme Court makes the ultimate decision.

Freedom's on the march.

[HumeSkeptic]

08:45 PM on 10/06/2007

But people didn't.

[TimN]

12:32 PM on 10/06/2007

Regardless of the boycott it does appear that Musharraf still won half or more of the total votes. Hopefully the Pakistani Supreme court will do the right thing and step out of it.

A return to civilian rule would be a good thing. It would be very disappointing if Musharraf did not honor his promise.

[HumeSkeptic]

08:47 PM on 10/06/2007

Hopefully the Pakistani Supreme court will do the right thing and step out of it-TimN

--------

Timmy the clueless strikes again.

Then who would decide the legality of Musharraf's candidacy, Genius? You?

Bwahahahahhahaha!

[TimN]

11:48 PM on 10/06/2007

Obviously the article was updated with that information in the eight hours since I commented.

Get a job yet?

[nefertiti]

12:15 PM on 10/06/2007

BUT the people did not vote , how does that work ??

[LorettaSingbiel]

11:14 AM on 10/06/2007

"We will not accept him as president. He flouted the constitution, and he is a person who has hardly any respect for the rule of law."

Same could be said about BUSH!

"All politicians are the same. They are the enemy of poor people."

Same could be said about REPUBLICANS!

"Pakistan's Gen. Pervez Musharraf swept Saturday's presidential election."

Whew! THAT'S a relief! Our fearless leaders can continue their support of Pakistan, HOST (not hostile) country to Osama Bin Laden AND his new & improved Al-Qaeda Recruitment Training Camp. And of course we wouldn't want to stir up trouble in Saudi Arabia, HOME to most of the 911 terrorists. THEY are our "friends"? FOR HOW LONG? For how long will our fearless leaders be comfortable SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY?

And by all means, General BETRAYUS..."stay the course" of America's OCCUPATION (not liberation) of Iraq, as our soldiers & private "security" contractors support SADDAM'S LOYALISTS in their ETHNIC CLEANSING. I wonder WHY we bothered to have Saddam hung? Saddam will seem like a SAINT, compared to his successor (of our choosing, or theirs?).

And next, we're off to "shock & awe" Iran with OUR Weapons Of Mass Destruction!

In the words of Craig's arresting officer: "Embarrassing, embarrassing. No wonder why we're going down the tubes!"

Stay safe, healthy and happy,
Love, Loretta

[rwe]

12:12 PM on 10/06/2007

OH Lore, The big difference is president Bush in his two election victories receieved more votes from all the people including the libs (we cound not have done it ourselves) than even Bubbas two victories. Even though the FLA supremes tried to steal the Election ,more people have voted for President Bush than for any other. No legit news source has said other wise (and hillary's media matters and moveon don't count.) And now that the surge is working and success is coming out of Iraq you can't come up with anything but your blind rabid hatred for anything that would say good things about America.Good mental health to you and yours

[rwe]

12:15 PM on 10/06/2007

And if you want to compare our military heroes (smearing 4 star generals, dick turbin durbin calling them Nazis, Murtha the baby blue marine, Macbeth) we feel sorry for you. And it does seem that it is the libdumb nation of democrats that want to bomb Iran

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

10:51 AM on 10/06/2007

Didn't Stalin used to get something like 110% of votes cast?

[Destin]

11:40 AM on 10/06/2007

How much was Tony Blair getting? ;)

[loki]

08:08 PM on 10/06/2007

Yup, just like Saddam got more votes than anyone else in IRaq. Just like Bush did here. If its fixed, like jamming phone lines, blockading people and yelling at them on their way into the polls, making fake votes, Deibold fudging the votes for you. Sure, you could say Bush got more votes. But you cant prove those were legitimate votes.

[Kalima]

11:57 PM on 10/06/2007

Saddam got the most votes because he
was the only candidate to vote for.
He made it so simple.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

10:50 AM on 10/06/2007

Proving yet again, that politics in the ME comes down to secular strongmen vs. religious whakos, who are usually anti-West.

Easy, but ugly, call.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

10:44 AM on 10/06/2007

Good news: Bush won't have to practice pernunicating another head-of-state's name.

Whew.

Close call.

[ZingoBonMot]

11:00 AM on 10/06/2007

Comedians across America weep.

[Witchitalineman]

09:32 AM on 10/06/2007

This is a sham of an "election". Another dictatorship supported by the military.

[Kalima]

10:11 AM on 10/06/2007

Maybe.Then again, better Musharraf than the
"unknowns" who would side with the Taliban's
idealogy.I don't know.Still the thought of their
WMD's falling into the wrong hands,is pretty
scarey.
Maybe sometimes it's better to go with the
lesser of two evils.

[PollM]

10:26 AM on 10/06/2007

Again foreign policies that are short sighted. The long term is ugly. We support tyrants.
.