A democratically elected leader in Pakistan gives the Neocons and the Zionists less control, not more.
That would depend on who the "democratically elected" leader is, wouldn't it? And just how "democratically" they were elected.
Take Israel for example. Ehud Olmert was democratically elected. Contrast to Ismael Haniyeh, the "democratically elected" leader of Palestine. Hamid Karzai, the "democratically elected" leader of Afghanistan. Nuri al Maliki . . .
As Pastor ag pointed out on the RT today, Bhutto was the State Department's candidate of choice in Pakistan, and Sec. Rice had gone to great lengths to insure an orderly transition from Musharraf to Bhutto. Here my opinion differs from ag's however: he equates the State Dept. with the entire Bush Administration. I contend that there is a great schism between the "hawks" (Cheney and Co.) and the "realists" (Gates, Rice, et al). Not that any of them have particularly exemplary records, or intelligence, or proposals. But they are radically different, IMHO. Cheney's team was dead set against a recociliation between Bhutto and Musharraf, and would favor reimposing military rule - martial law - and indefinite postponement of elections in favor of keeping Musharraf in power.
So in the "who wins who loses" equation, I see Rice and Gates as losers, and Cheney and the neo-cons as winners among the Bush Administration (the figurehead-in-chief, of course, as clueless). What we are seeing in Pakistan is indefinite postponement of elections as the other principle candidate has already announced he is withdrawing, and the likelihood of reimposing martial law increases with the mass protests and violence spilling out on the streets of major cities.
