Musharraf assailed in Parliament

I wonder if Musharraf has the balls to go address the parliament.

Wednesday, June 04, 2008
PML-N seeks commission on Kargil; demands arrest and trial of Musharraf

By Mumtaz Alvi

ISLAMABAD: President Pervez Musharraf came under scathing criticism from the treasury lawmakers in the National Assembly for the poor law and order and economy, as the PML-N called for his arrest and trial for high treason.

Speaker Dr Fehmida Mirza expunged a very aggressive remark directed against President Musharraf by former Balochistan chief minister and PPP legislator Taj Muhammad Jamali. He had talked about bullet and shooting.

Almost all the lawmakers, who took part in the debate, referred to the startling revelations made by Lt-Gen (retd) Jamshed Gulzar Kiyani during his interview with Geo Television aired on June 2.

The speakers from the treasury squarely held the president responsible for the law and order situation, uncontrollable price hike of key kitchen items, flour crisis, load-shedding and the US and allied forces’ attacks on Bajaur and other places.

** Slogans of ‘Go Musharraf go!’ also echoed in the assembly after Jamali set the tone in his speech during the debate on the adjournment motions to discuss bombardment and missile attack in Bajaur Agency, which killed many people.**

Apparently to defuse the anti-Musharraf tempo, the speaker abruptly took up a call attention notice, leaving aside the debate. Later, it was announced that it would now be wound up on Wednesday.

From the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-Q), Amir Muqam and Marvi Memon, who is daughter of Senator Nisar A Memon, tried to defend the president and dismissed the criticism unleashed by the government benches as baseless.

Muqam charged that the government was suffering from Musharraf phobia, whereas Marvi Memon believed that the House had become Musharraf-centric and even the PPP constitutional package was personalised.

** “I make this demand on the floor of this house that Musharraf should not be allowed to flee the country for his heinous crimes against the nation, particularly the people of Balochistan and the tribal belt,” Jamali said.**

** He pointed out to the government that as long as Musharraf was around, the country would continue to suffer. PML-N MNA Tehmina Daultana challenged Musharraf to come to parliament and in the same breath remarked, “How can he do so, as he can’t come to the presidency from the Army House”.**

Musharraf, she contended, should not be allowed to go away and should be held answerable for his policies. The MNA recalled how with one stroke of pen the Supreme Court judges were sent packing.

Another PML-N MNA Sahibzada Fazl Karim proposed that all the conspiracies being hatched to weaken Pakistan would be defeated if Musharraf was held accountable for his misdeeds.

Speakers from Fata, including Munir Orakzai, Kamran Khan, Shaukatullah, Zafar Baig Bhitani, complained that parliamentarians from the tribal belt were never consulted or taken into confidence regarding the policy towards Fata.

They proposed formation of a committee to compensate victims of the recent Bajaur attack and a review of the policy in consultations with the tribal people.Orakzai called upon the Army to retaliate to any future incursion or the people of Fata should be given weapons to defend the areas they had been protecting for decades.

Shaukatullah wondered why the Pakistani forces had not reacted to the allied forces’ aggression, which was taking place frequently inside Pakistan.Kamran Khan asked the government to take notice of worsening state of affairs in the Kurrum Agency, where life has yet to return to normalcy, with people staying away from homes, all the major roads closed and shortage of commodities.

He noted that the people of Peace Jirga were now in Haripur jail. “These problems should be addressed on a priority basis, as many people have started to go to Afghanistan.”

The PML-N called for the formation of a commission to investigate the Kargil debacle and punish those responsible for it. However, the opposition parties, particularly the pro-Musharraf PML-Q, opposed it.

Surprisingly, no minister reacted to this demand made by several PML-N lawmakers, who said their party leader Nawaz Sharif’s stand that he was not on board vis-‡-vis the Kargil operation was vindicated by Lt-Gen (retd) Jamshed Gulzar Kiyani.

“It is such a huge tragedy and if not probed, such disasters could occur again,” warned Ayaz Sadiq and proposed a panel of retired judges to probe the debacle. Another senior PML-N lawmaker Sheikh Aftab, citing Gen Jamshed Kiyani’s interview, said though politicians were blamed, but actually dictators were responsible for the fall of Dhaka.

He pointed out that the retired military officer had also made a categorical statement that the Kargil operation had nothing to do with Mian Nawaz Sharif. The legislator called for holding an investigation into 1971 war and the Kargil disaster, saying it was the need of the hour that parliamentarians should play their role in this connection.

On this, Speaker Dr Fehmida Mirza said the matter should be first debated in the house standing committee on defence and then it could be brought to the house. PML-N Information Secretary Ahsan Iqbal, taking the floor, noted that the facts presented before the nation by Gen Kiyani had proved that Musharraf had lied about the Kargil episode and what Nawaz Sharif said thereon was correct.

He claimed that the results of February 18 elections had shown that the nation wanted to get rid of Musharraf, saying the person who played havoc with the state institutions and violated the Constitution twice should be subjected to trial. The nation, he continued, wanted to hold President Musharraf accountable for his policies and actions.

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=15109

Re: Musharraf assailed in Parliament

They should be lucky they are allowed to shout such slogans. Under Baitullah Mehsud's laws, they would all have their tongues cut if they said anything against Mehsud.

Re: Musharraf assailed in Parliament

^ So is Baitullah Mehsud the new benchmark for governance, these days?

Lets not reduce the discussion to the lowest possible denominator.

He will be very soon if things go the way they are. It's not like Pakistan has tens of options in leaders to choose from, and once the politicians start fighting among themselves and the army is sidelined/disarmed, guess who will come in to save the day. Not Mehsud personally maybe, but people much like him.

Some of you may not realize how much power Taliban and other militia groups has gained.

Re: Musharraf assailed in Parliament

^ Your jehado-phoebia doesnt work anymore, its getting old and boring, you should come up with a new excuse to somehow vindicate Musharrafs life long imposition as leader. We all know things got alot better after the new govt came, and they'll be MUCH better if he goes away, no one likes him. And if your point has any substance to it, it was because of Musharraf that extremists gained power, one such example being his bowing down to the MMA in the 2002 elections.

Re: Musharraf assailed in Parliament

**
Please don’t shoot the president, Mr Jamali!**

Press Gallery

        Wednesday, June 04, 2008
        By Mohammad Malick

Any observer of Pakistan’s political history will tell you that despite a million other differences in their character, mannerism, style of governance, personal kinks etc., all Pakistani military dictators have one thing in common: none of them knew when to quit gracefully.

The beauty of a dictatorship is that either the power is absolute, or none at all. Of course, the misleading semblance of power lasts a bit longer than real power itself but this fine nuance is unfailingly ignored by the soon to become a has-been master of his world.

But when the once-upon-a-time dictator is openly abused and challenged in public fora, then its time for him to realize that he must either beat the bad, or beat a retreat. Despite the wishes of a weakened despot, there is no middle ground in the world of autocracy.

Just as President Musharraf must be realizing and ruing the day he handed over the COAS’s baton to Gen. Kayani. A poignant reminder to this effect came in the wake of an onslaught of extremely hostile and at times, near derogatory outbursts in the House.

It seemed as if one speaker after another wanted to ensure that the president knew exactly where he stood in the eyes of the people’s parliament, just in case he had missed out on the message delivered to him on February 18th.

The Jamalis qualify as a warrior tribe but even then the outburst of the normally docile and sleepy eyed PPP MNA Taj Jamali took everyone by surprise. As he stood up to speak, he stood a man transformed. If one were to go by his own words, he wanted to be the first man to shoot President Musharraf for what Jamali described as president’s heinous crimes.

His remarks were promptly expunged by Speaker Dr. Fehmida Mirza for reasons best known to her. Because, what Jamali had stated was clearly not any intent to literally assassinate the president but simply a use of colloquial phrase to emphasise his extreme sense of annoyance with the president’s conduct.

Dr. Mirza’s party clearly has no stomach to go for impeaching a president who has thrown out the constitution not once but twice so perhaps the least she can do is to allow members to vent their fury, so what if a few end up indulging in some exaggerated verbosity.

And if the argument of the member saying something about a person who is not present in the house is to be used then may be its time for the president to pay a visit to the House and himself face his critics.

Just in case we forget, the president has not even addressed the joint sitting for the parliament since the days when his own PML-Q had been in power. Not that the president was without his supporters to defend his good name.

Marvi Memon stood up and did so. And she had to be doing it out of her own good conscience and not because her father was twice made a federal minister by the president, and she herself was first given a job in ISPR and then a reserved national assembly seat, could hardly have influenced her views. Right Ms Memon? She slighted treasury members as being Musharraf-centric and overtly obsessed with the president. But then wasn’t that what the last general elections all about with even the president himself saying that the defeat of his PML-Q would be tantamount to his own rejection by the people.

So Ms. Memon, your solitary courage notwithstanding, the complexion of the present parliament owes itself exactly to the phenomenon of Musharraf-phobia. To borrow Bush’s words: you are either with Musharraf or against him.

Those who were with him lost. It was as simple as that and the sooner those who lost out at the hustling realized that the better it would be for themselves personally, and for the country at large.

and they will gain more power if our military might and ISI don't start to think about Pakistan first.

Oh I think you are very much out of touch friendo, if you think there is a random meaningly jihado phobia going around. The danish embassy or whatever would still be intact if it wasn't for your friends.

But then again, your supergenius logic may be right. Fundos don't exist and the ones that do, appeared out of thin air and only because of musharraf.

The blast happened in the Danish Assembly, not lalukhet, so dont worry.

I think you missed General Gulzar Kiyani's interview...your favourite illegal President was much obssessed with these Jihadis in 1999....went out to conquer Kashmir on his own in February 1999 when he attacked Kargil without informing the Government of the day, and without coordinating with air force or Navy....

Later in order to hide his incompetence imposed martial law in the country in October 1999 fearing he will be court martialled due to his jihadi adventurism....history is showing that he was the most incompetent army man in our history....who for the last about a decade has made the country suffer to hide his incompetence...played havoc with constitution/institutions...first in the name of jihad....and later by trying to create a fear against jihad....this person is a hypocrite/opportunist of highest order our country has ever seen!!!!

There should be probe: Nawaz says that he was not on board about Kargil operation. But … but … the general Nawaz bought to give interview on GEO says that Nawaz was on board (though this general was lying left, right and centre and was contradicting his own statements many times, still he spilled the beans). Here is what he said about Thug Nawaz and his devious crooked character.

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=15086

Just look at what Gulzar said that shows he was paid to give that interview: At one place he says:
**

**

Now if Nawaz did not knew anything than how Gulzar can also claim at other place that Nawaz was briefed? [Even if one accepts … not thoroughly … something his statements contradict … still, if he was told than he knew something].

So, Nawaz was briefed everything relevant by Gulzar Kiyani himself, still this duffer is claiming that Nawaz was not briefed. How can Gulzar claim that Nawaz was not briefed anything and then claim that Nawaz was briefed. Both cannot be true. His claim is ridiculous, isn’t it?

Above statement is very revealing but quite contradictory and funny, It tells the character of Nawaz. Let see:

So, according to Gulzar Kiyani: Nawaz did gave green signal for the operation (when? On May 17, 1999).

As according to character of Nawaz, this thug gave conditional support (as Nawaz does to all who follow him … even to his party PML-N members. What is Nawaz conditional support?

True to his devious and untrustworthy character, Nawaz only supports if thing are going good and later deny that support if thing starts going bad. Nawaz is good in lying and going back on his words. He is habitual liar.

Nawaz did same regarding Kargil operation that he supported Kargil operation but when he lost everything on table in USA he started lying and denying that he gave green signal and was supporting the operation, ditching all what he should have supported … including his own green signal … but that is character of this Thug. Nawaz did same after Oct 1999 military coup. He did not stood with his party but instead of staying and supporting them, he saved his life, made a deal, ran away to Saudia, and ditched them in Pakistan. He did same after agreement that he would stay outside Pakistan for 10 years. He denied and started lying until guarantors came on surface. Lying is habit of this thug and most of his party members. They are characterless liars.

Now coming to what Nawaz went to USA for?: Gulzar Kiyani after getting paid by Thug Nawaz again lied: Here is what Gulzar said:

But is this general (Gulzar Kiyani) telling truth? We go to what happened in USA. There were three people in the meeting … Nawaz, Clinton and Talbot. Talbot wrote a book and spilled the bean regarding what happened there:

Now read what former US deputy secretary of State Strobe Talbot writes in his book**: ‘Engaging India - Diplomacy, Democracy and the Bomb’. **[If you want detail, you should find the book and read it too]

[Obviously, Musharraf could not have forced Talbot to write what he wrote … something that also gives bad image of Clinton that how he got red in anger on Pakistani Prime Minister and how Nawaz started ****ting in his Shalwar … such that Nawaz agreed everything whatever Clinton asked him, including surrendering Pakistani land to India …

We should remember that Nawaz was not giving up Indian land but was agreeing to withdraw from Pakistani land as Kargil belongs to Pakistan just like all of Kashmir (on the other hand, Kargil was with Pakistan since 1948 until Z A Bhutto gave it to India after Shimla Agreement)].

If Nawaz was in USA to save prestige of Pak Army than instead of asking something for withdrawal, obvious is that Nawaz should be pledging Clinton to stop India attacking Pakistan army so that he can ask Pakistan army to run for their life. But obviously Pakistan army was well in command of those land and Nawaz did not went to save prestige of Pak Army but when demand from USA (and world) came to withdraw, Nawaz went to USA to tell USA that Pakistan would only ask forces to withdraw if India agree to solve Kashmir issue.

That is confirmed from what Talbot wrote. According to Talbot, Talbot wrote that: Nawaz talk with Clinton was not for face saving but Nawaz wanted something from Kargil victory (something he could only have done if he did not go to USA to save prestige of Pakistan but with Pakistan military upper hand on Kargil, that he wanted to use and should have used, to get something for for that)**but when Clinton gave Nawaz a good lecture, Nawaz started **ting in his shalwar and agreed to everything. … Worse is that, after agreeing whatever Clinton asked, Nawaz got scared to face anyone in Pakistan and wanted something to show to Pakistanis.

Other reports (that I am not including here … though if anyone wants, I can dig for reference of that too)tells that Nawaz was so scared that before leaving for Pakistan, Nawaz took pledge from Clinton that USA would protect Nawaz in Pakistan** … **[and if you would start reading the press of that time, USA start warning Pakistan army that they would not tolerate any non-constitutional step in Pakistan. Please read and I am sure that if you would read, you will feel ashamed of this pathetic person called Nawaz].

http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/archives/arch...r20040711c.html](http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/archives/archives2004/kashmir20040711c.html)

Clinton snubbed Sharif for linking Kargil war with Kashmir issue
11 July 2004
The Hindustan Times
Press Trust of India

**Washington: At the height of the Kargil conflict, former Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif told then US President Bill Clinton that he was prepared to help resolve the crisis if India committed to settle the ‘larger issue’ of Kashmir in a specific time-frame, but the American leader snubbed him saying it would amount to a ‘nuclear blackmail.’ When Sharif visited Washington in 1999 to discuss Kargil with Clinton, he insisted, ‘I am prepared to help resolve the current crisis in Kargil but India must commit to resolve the larger issue in a specific time-frame,’ former US deputy secretary of State Strobe Talbott writes in his new book Engaging India - Diplomacy, Democracy and the Bomb. ‘Clinton came as close as I had ever seen to blowing up in a meeting with a foreign leader,’ and told Sharif, ‘If I were the Indian Prime Minister, I would never do that. I would be crazy to do it. It would be nuclear blackmail. If you proceed with this line, I will have no leverage with them. If I tell you what you think you want me to say, I will be stripped of all influence with the Indians.’ ‘I am not - and the Indians are not - going to let you get away with blackmail, and I will not permit any characterisation of this meeting that suggests I am giving in to blackmail,’ Talbott writes, adding, Clinton also refuted Sharif’s accusation that the Indians were the instigators of the crisis and intransigents in the ongoing standoff. When Sharif insisted he had to have something to show for his trip to the US beyond unconditional surrender over Kargil, Clinton pointed to the dangers of nuclear war if Pakistan did not return to its previous positions. Seeing they were getting nowhere, Clinton told Sharif he had a statement ready to release to press that would lay all the blame for the crisis on Pakistan. ‘Sharif was ashen.’ ‘Clinton had worked himself back into real anger - his face flushed, eyes narrowed, lips pursed, cheek muscles pulsing, fists clenched. He said it was crazy enough for ****Sharif to have **let **his military violate the Line of Control, start a border war with India, and now prepare nuclear forces (US had received intelligence Pakistan was preparing nuclear forces for attack against India) for action,’ Talbott says in his book. ‘Sharif seemed beaten, physically and emotionally’ and denied he had given any order with regard to nuclear weaponry. Taking a break, Clinton spoke to then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee over phone and told him what had happened till then. ‘What do you want me to say?’ Vajpayee asked. ‘Nothing,’ Clinton replied, he just wanted to show he was holding firm.

Re: Musharraf assailed in Parliament

^^

Dear Sa1eem,

As u may be aware of, we all ( who appose Mushy and his allies) are jahil , please can u tell me what does the Word **Brief **means?

Brief means 'to sumarise' ... that could be in the form of short report in few words or few paragraphs. Nevertheless, anyone who is got the briefing could not say that he do not know anything or that he/she was not told of something.

Obviously, Nawaz could not expect to know everything other than the briefing of the plan and that is what any Prime Minister would know. If he was interested than it was upto him to find out the details and discuss that (actually, if you will see the interview, Nawaz had hours of discussion about the plans with many and that means he did not just had briefing but was told many things in details). As for briefing, even Gulzar Kiyani gave Nawaz briefing about Kargil ... and further in interview Gulzar also said that Nawaz had long discussion about Kargil with many ... so, it was lie when Gulzar said that Nawaz did not knew anything about Kargil operation.

Re: Musharraf assailed in Parliament

^ Saleem, Kiyani said he briefed Nawaz Sharif in a matter of a few minutes, at the behest of Musharraf, and at that time Sartaj Aziz clearly got up and said 'Sir, I will not be able to defend this operation at a diplomatic level'. So what you implied, as usual, is a lie, not Kiyani.

Go and check the interview again. I am not one line man and when I listen, I listen carefully :)

According to interview, Nawaz talked about this operation with many including his cabinet and Sartaj told Nawaz that he would not be able to defend that internationally.

Though I believe that Sartaj thought he could not defend Kargil on international forum because he was incompetent. He should have known that India did the same in Siachin and that also after Shimla accord. If India can do the same and keep Siachin then Pakistan had all right to keep Kargil (Kargil was part of Pakistani Kashmir but Bhutto handed it over to India as part of shimla agreement).

Wrong, because Kiyani said that he saw Sartaj stand up and object after the briefing, so that means it was after Kiyani's briefing that Sartaj brought that point up, and since Kiyani clearly said that on the Kargil front, he only saw nawaz once, so it wasnt Nawaz's operation. It was a hogwash and dumb operation concucted by COAS Musharraf, similar to Operation Grand slam and Gibraltar, both of which failed as well. The indians arent stupid when they pin they call Musharraf the mastermind behind the Kargil operation.

Also, are you saying that leaders in the Q league that are now spilling Musharrafs beans are also doing it because they were being paid by NS, since you are implying the same about this General? Now unless you can come up with proof, we will treat this like the 175 seat prediction you made.

[quote]

Though I believe that Sartaj thought he could not defend Kargil on international forum because he was incompetent. He should have known that India did the same in Siachin and that also after Shimla accord. If India can do the same and keep Siachin then Pakistan had all right to keep Kargil (Kargil was part of Pakistani Kashmir but Bhutto handed it over to India as part of shimla agreement).
[/quote]
That is a different matter, and quite frankly you cant blame him for not defending a poorly organized and gullible tactical plan like Kargil. Its like throwing rocks and occupying your neighbors back yard and telling the city court its yours to begin with. However, that is not the point, the point is that you with your 23040 lines are trying to create an impression that Nawaz came up with the military plan, which was Musharraf's plan to begin with, and then changing Kiyani's interview, to suit your opinion. He said Nawaz was briefed about the silly operation, and you are making it sound like it was Nawaz who briefed Kiyani. B*ottom line, Kargil was a blunder to begin with, and though it was a failure on the part of the Pakistan military leadership primarily the Chief of Army Staff, it was also a failure of Nawaz Sharif, he should have made sure his renegade COAS was kept in check, and couldn't start such confrontations.*

Re: Musharraf assailed in Parliament

Also, from your comments and innuendos 'it seems like' , pretty much everyone in Pakistan, is being funded by NS, be it lawyers, journalists, politicians, army generals, politicians (even ones in PPP and ANP), civil society.

Re: Musharraf assailed in Parliament

Also from your comments "it seems like" pakistan was a beacon of peace and that special force, ninja wahabis have dropped out of thin air to defend pakistan from musharraf.

Re: Musharraf assailed in Parliament

^ NS must be one rich SOB to be paying off so many people. :eek:

Re: Musharraf assailed in Parliament

he is rich and is also an sob.