Musharraf: The
Tolstoy of the Zulus
by Ann
Coulter
Posted: 11/14/2007
If Republicans end up
with a divided convention between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, I say
we pick Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
Musharraf has declared emergency rule in Pakistan, shut down the media
and sent Supreme Court justices home. What's not to like about a guy
who orders policemen to beat up lawyers? I bet he has a good plan on
illegal immigration, too.
The entire history of Pakistan is this: There are lots of crazy people
living there, they have nuclear weapons, and any Pakistani leader who
prevents the crazies from getting the nukes is George Washington,
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison all rolled into one.
We didn't hear much
about Musharraf -- save for B. Hussein Obama's threat to bomb Pakistan
without informing Musharraf -- until the last few weeks.
Musharraf has been a crucial ally of ours since Sept. 12, 2001. His
loyal friendship to the United States while governing a country that
is loyal to al-Qaida might prove dispiriting to the terrorists. So,
until recently, the media mostly confined stories about Musharraf to
page A-18.
Now, with the surge in Iraq working, Democrats are completely
demoralized. Al-Qaida was counting on them. (We know the surge in Iraq
is working because it is no longer front page news.)
In a tape released in early September, Osama bin Laden bitterly
complained, "You elected the Democratic Party for this
purpose" -- of ending the war in Iraq -- "but the Democrats
haven't made a move worth mentioning."
It isn't enough for the media to drop all mentions of the surge or to
subsidize ads denouncing Gen. David Petraeus as "General Betray
Us." (He IS betraying liberals by winning the war for America,
the enemy of liberals.) They need to stir up trouble for the U.S.
someplace else in the world.
On Sept. 20, Osama bin Laden cued liberals by issuing another tape
demanding Musharraf's ouster. The Democrats and the media quickly
followed suit.
Weeks later, The New York Times editorial page called on
"masses of Pakistanis" to participate in "peaceful
demonstrations" against Musharraf, which would be like calling on
masses of Pakistanis to engage in daily bathing (The New York Times
editorial page being the most effective way to communicate with the
Pakistani masses). Most of the editorial was a mash note to that
troublesome woman Benazir Bhutto for demanding democracy in the land
of the deranged.
Media darling Bhutto returned to Pakistan after fleeing the country
following her conviction for corruption as prime minister. Her
conviction was later overturned by the corrupt Pakistani Supreme
Court, leaving me to ponder, which is worse: being convicted of
corruption in a Pakistani court or being exonerated of corruption in a
Pakistani court? She was again convicted in a Swiss court of money
laundering.
The media adore Bhutto because she went to Harvard and Oxford, which I
consider two more strikes against her. A degree from Harvard is prima
facie evidence that she's on the side of the terrorists. I note that
Bhutto demonstrates her own deep commitment to democracy by giving
herself the title "chairperson for life" of the Pakistan
Peoples Party.
Liberals hysterically opposed our imposing a democracy on Iraq and
despise Nouri al-Maliki, the democratically elected leader of Iraq.
Say, has Maliki ever been convicted in a Swiss court of money
laundering?
Compared to Pakistan, imposing democracy in Iraq is like imposing
democracy in Darien, Conn. But in Iraq, liberals prefer an
anti-American dictator, like Saddam Hussein. Only in Pakistan do
liberals yearn for pure democracy.
You wouldn't know it to read the headlines, but Musharraf has not
staged a military coup. In fact, he was re-elected easily just
weeks ago under Pakistan's own parliamentary system.
But the Pakistani Supreme Court, like our own Supreme Court, believes
it is above the president and refused to acknowledge Musharraf's
election on the grounds that he is disqualified because he is still
wearing a military uniform. That's when Musharraf sent them home.
Musharraf's election was certainly more legitimate than that of Syrian
president Bashar Assad (with whom every leading Democrat has had a
photo-op) or Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (adjunct professor
at Columbia University) or Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez (loon).
Where were the headlines like this week's Economist's ("Time's
up, Mr. Musharraf") about those lovable rogues? They hate
America, so they can stay.
The last time liberals were this enthusiastic about popular rule in
some Third World country was in 1979, when they were gushing about
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in Iran. Professor Richard Falk of
Princeton University assured liberals in a 1979 New York Times
op-ed that the "depiction of Khomeini as fanatical, reactionary,
and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily
false."
I'm no clock-watcher, but it's been 28 years; I don't think Falk is
going to be issuing an apology.
Falk cheerfully concluded that the fanatical Muslim leaders in Iran
"may yet provide us with a desperately needed model of humane
government for a Third World country."
And just look at all the wonderful things Khomeini did for Iran!
How might popular rule turn out in Pakistan? As Saul Bellow
rhetorically said of multiculturalism, "Who is the Tolstoy of the
Zulus?"
Pakistan is a country where local Islamic courts order women to be
raped as punishment for the crimes of their male relatives. Among the
Islamists' bill of particulars against Musharraf is the fact that he
has promoted the Women's Protection Bill, which would punish rape,
rather than using it as a device for social control.
Pakistan doesn't need Adlai Stevenson right now. It needs Mustafa
Kemal Ataturk to impose military rule and drag a country of Islamic
savages into the 19th century, as Ataturk did in Turkey. Pakistan's
Ataturk is Gen. Musharraf.
To try to force democracy on the differing "I hate America"
factions in Pakistan at this stage would be worse than Jimmy Carter's
abandonment of the Shah in 1979. It would result in what former
assistant secretary of state Edward Djerejian called: "one man,
one vote, one time."
Ann
Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author
of "High
Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander,"
""How
to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," "Godless,"
and most recently, "If
Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans."
