The US is reviewing its aid to Pakistan - about $10 billion in overt funding since 2001. Yet the Bush administration may push for continuing military aid for the Pakistani Army's counterinsurgency operations, says analyst Steve Coll of the New America Foundation. President Bush is nothing but the front man for the rich to keep control. He started out as their puppet, but puppets have a funny way of getting out of hand. So something very strange is happening in the world right now! This is why so many fascist takeovers happen. This is why Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and many others came to power. The rich are clever organizers who know how to engineer a military coup as the US did in Chile, Argentina, Central America and Venezuela.
Ted Rudow III,MA

Mr. Rudow: You can say what you will about President Bush (God knows I support nearly none of his policies), however his choice to support Musharraf is not based on his need for "the rich to keep control," but rather on the consequences of democratic elections in Pakistan. If an election were held today in Pakistan, Islamists would probably win, and even if someone like Bhutto wins, her life will be in constant danger and the country will not progress. As much as I hate to say it, sometimes it takes a dictator to keep a country under control.
The reason the United States promotes democracy is that it is an American value; when people think of modern democracies, America is usually the first country to come up. In fact, America is the only country that was founded based on democracy and freedom. As soon as democracy in other countries fails to serve our interests, our 'obligation' to spread it is nullified. So for now, Musharraf gets our support over the other potentials with their unknown intentions.

So, Mr Muntaz, if Adolph Hitler were around and we know what we now know, we have no right to stop him, since the Germans elected him? Is that what you are saying? What about after the war? Did we have the right to hang Nazi war criminals, since Hitler was "duly elected?"

Islamic supremacism is the problem here. Islamic supremecists have declared forcefully that western ways and western nations are detrimental to Islam. One just has to turn on the television or open a newspaper to see many of the Islamic wars in the world today and read the scary threats from Islamic leaders. If that is who the lay people of Islamic majority countries choose to elect, especially countries with access to weapons of mass destruction, then they will have to expect that the countries who are threatened by their choice of leadership will react to protect themselves. They usually elect tough talking leaders to counter. Can one talk or negotiate with an Islamic Supremacist leadership? I understand that all agreements and ceasefires are off once there is sufficient re-arming to destroy one's enemies for the sake of Allah. Please tell me that I am wrong.