Lame Duck President Weakened by Court Firings

[Rose Siding]

Not here, silly, in an unstable nuclear country far, far away. In Pakistan. NUKULAR Pakistan, which has nukes...

In the rapidly unfolding crisis in Pakistan, no matter what happens to President Pervez Musharraf -- whether he survives politically or not -- he is a lame duck. He is unable to rein in Talibanization in Pakistan or guide the country toward a more democratic future.

Since March 9, when Musharraf suspended the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, public protests have escalated every day -- as has a violent crackdown by the police and intelligence agencies on the media and the nation's legal fraternity.

The legal convolutions about Chaudhry's dismissal boil down to one simple fact: He was not considered sufficiently reliable to deliver pleasing legal judgments in a year when Musharraf is seeking to extend his presidency by five more years, remain as army chief and hold what would undoubtedly be rigged general elections.
...
Any loss of Western support will be critical to the army, which is on an arms-buying spree and depends on annual U.S. military aid of about $300 million. Musharraf has balanced the pro- and anti-American factions in the army's officer corps, but if both sides see him as a lame duck, unable to deliver the goods or stabilize the country, their support will dwindle.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032101786.html

Their army, with a faction of officers who are anti-america, is on a "buying spree". And why not?! -$300 million every single year. (Did I mention the nukes?)

True or False?: US presidents should not throw in with militaristic dictators.

[Rydz777]

1. The next step

The next step beyond "lame duck" is "cooked goose."