Amir Taheri notes that the Pakistanis basically voted against terrorism in their elections.
SOME of the world’s deadliest terrorists vowed to prevent it; powerful military figures plotted to rig its outcome. Yet Pakistan’s election went off with minimum violence, producing results whose legitimacy no one can contest.
The biggest winner is the Pakistani people – who, given the chance, manifested their attachment to pluralism and the rule of law. By turning up in millions to vote, they confounded both the terrorists and the shadowy security agencies.
Yet somehow for the NYTimes, that translated into
Here’s the deal. We were not going to do any regime changing in Pakistan no matter what Musharref said about using his country to do whatever. It wasn’t going to happen. Yet Al-Qaeda ran and hid there. Now what? Do you come up with a “Pakistan Policy” that deals with the known? Or do you do something else?
Right. You come up with the policy.
Does that then make it “shattered” when it needs to change due to what is widely known as “democracy” rearing it’s head?
I don’t think so.
Even Robert J. Samuelson notes that people have uncertainties about change.
As a journalist, I harbor serious doubt about each of the most likely nominees. But with Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain, I feel that I’m dealing with known quantities.
That doesn’t mean you don’t roll with it. But before it happens you get a little edgy about it.
Give it a rest. Bush is the President of these United States. I suspect he can deal with yet another real democracy in the Middle East!