August 18th, 2008
05:49 PM ET

What does Musharraf’s resignation mean for U.S.?


FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President Perez Musharraf resigned today after nine years in power. It had come down to "quit or be kicked out."

His popularity had been in decline since March of last year, when his opponents say he misused his constitutional powers by suspending Pakistan's Chief Justice in a bid to run for another five-year term.

He was re-elected president in October. But in February, voters handed an overwhelming victory to his political foes and Musharraf was facing impeachment if he didn't resign. It was a victory for democracy in Pakistan but a potential setback for the war on terror.

President Musharraf has been one of the United States' most important allies in the campaign against al Qaeda in Afghanistan since the 9-11 attacks. For his support, Pakistan was paid more than ten billion dollars. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice thanked Musharraf again today, calling him "one of the world's most committed partners in the war against terrorism and extremism."

But officials in Afghanistan expressed relief, saying Musharraf had been an ally of the United States "in words only, not by actions," and blaming him for Pakistan's failure to crackdown on the growing Taliban insurgency in the tribal border areas.

Even the U.S. has been losing patience with Musharraf of late, recently confronting the new coalition government with CIA evidence that the Pakistani intelligence service helped plan a terror attack against the Indian Embassy in Kabul last month.

But with Musharraf out of the picture, now what?

Here’s my question to you: What does the resignation of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf mean for the U.S. and the war on terror?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Abdul from Bahrain writes:
It simply means that Bush's foreign policy towards Pakistan has failed. You can force a dictator to pretend he is on your side against terrorism but you can not force an entire nation to be oppressed by the same dictator. We need partnership with presidents who are friends with their people not with those who are hated by the people.

Dan from Maryland writes:
Can you say trouble? The people of Pakistan and their government are upset with Musharraf, in part, for his work with the US. Do you really think they'll put someone new in power who will be more willing to help?

Sophia from Louisville, Kentucky writes:
Now there can be no question about the military effort we must put forth in Afghanistan. It is time to put up or shut up. We either put enough troops in there or get out completely. This situation was brought about by our failure to commit enough military in Afghanistan immediately following 9/11 because Bush,McCain et.al wanted to go into Iraq in spite of the fact that the available intelligence at the time proved their premise for invading Iraq was wrong .

Spike writes:
Musharraf's resignation doesn't mean anything to Uncle Sam. Musharraf received billions of dollars from Uncle Sam but he didn't deliver as promised. Lets wait and see if the next president will deliver.

Will from San Jose, California writes:
It shows us how pathetic our Congress is. The Pakistani government had a ruler the people no longer accepted and successfully removed him through the direct threat of impeachment. We have a ruler the people no longer accept and our Congress goes on vacation. It's a sad day when Pakistan can teach us lessons about how to run a democracy.

soundoff (151 Responses)
  1. Kerry Diehl

    It means the very least we can and should all do is go back to church and pray for strong leadership in Pakistan that will NOT put the nuclear weapons in the wrong hands.

    August 18, 2008 at 2:21 pm |
  2. Jim in British Columbia

    Musharraf was an antagonist and a very strange friend for Bush to have. But then, Bush seems to cultivate odd bedfellows like Putin and the Saudis and ignores real US allies.

    August 18, 2008 at 2:22 pm |
  3. Esther Malka cuyahoga falls ohio

    another one bites the dust. we have helped to many coup detates in the last 35 years maybe this will be the year the patriots come out again for all their countries around the world

    August 18, 2008 at 2:25 pm |
  4. Rex in Portland, Ore.

    There is probably only one countrty in the world that has been governed more poorly than the USA over the last 25 or 30 years – Pakistan. The resignation of "Pervez" can only be met with relief and a sense that the only way to go is "up". As long as bush and Musharraf are pulling any strings there is no chance for any success in the war on "terr", nor for any successes in any area at all for that matter.

    August 18, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
  5. Marie Ontario

    That's easy to answer the U.S. once again is guilty of kissing the wrong rear ends just like they were with the Shaw of Iran and supporting Saddam Hussien against Iran so just look where that has got you today.

    The truth is there is just too much hate for the U.S. world wide and until you get someone elected to restore some credibility for your country I just can't see that much will improve on the terrorist front.

    Now you have John McCain trying to bully Russian and wants support to kick them out of the G-8. Jack it's time for a reality check and hopefully the electorate will provide it to your leadership.

    August 18, 2008 at 2:27 pm |
  6. sarah, indiana

    can you say nuclear weapons in the hands of extremists who want world dominence jack?

    August 18, 2008 at 2:27 pm |
  7. Jackie in Dallas

    That another Bush friend has been shown to be double-dealing by saying he favors democracy but in reality showing he was just a military muscle man that paid lip service to it. I still think he had something to do with Bhutto's death, no matter what the US government "investigators" and Musharref had to say about it. Now we need to see him really LEAVE.

    I fear the same about Bush...I'm wondering if whoever wins will need to call out the FBI and National Guard to get him out of the White House!

    August 18, 2008 at 2:30 pm |
  8. douglas gengler

    it means we didnt buy him, we just rented him at the cost of billions.

    August 18, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  9. Richard McKinney, Texas

    Musharraf dominated Pakistan for years after seizing power in a 1999 military coup. He always said he supported the war on Terror but has never proven it. Musharraf has made the entire country unstable with his meddling. Since his talk of resignation the stock market in Pakistan has skyrocketed. That tells me that the people that know Musharraf the best now see a brighter future for their country. The United States investments in Musharraf and his assistance in the war on terror was a total waste of time money and lives on all sides. I say good riddance.
    Maybe now a real war on terror can commence.

    August 18, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  10. Michael A. Zarate Sr.

    Unfortunately, to get to Osama Bin Laden we had to support an unelected military strongman who could barely contain the radical Islamic factions within his own country. The world saw what happened when a popular democratic alternative, Benezir Bhutto, returned to assume power. This has to be the most unstable government in the world which possesses nuclear weapons. I wonder how long India will allow this instability?

    August 18, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  11. Larry from Georgetown, Texas

    Maybe it means that his buddy Bush should consider following his lead and resign; as a matter of fact the entire Congress should resign and be replaced with people that have a heart first as well as a brain, not fill it with egocentrics that fill their pockets with our tax dollars.

    August 18, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
  12. I told ya so...

    Too bad She [Buto] isnt here to replace him..:(

    Lets hope the new leadership will actually attempt to rid the country of terrorists and not just give the appearance of kinda-sorta trying...

    August 18, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
  13. dennis hunter

    we will have to wait to see who replaces him as president and pray that they are pro west. if they are not pro west then we have to worry about their nukes falling into the wrong hands. this will prove that our leadership laid our eggs in the wrong nest as we have done in the pass such as Iran in the 50/60 and in other countries which we backed the wrong parties which came back to haunt us.

    August 18, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
  14. circy in New Mexico

    It may mean that the people of Pakistan are tired of their leaders acting like puppets for the Bush administration. Pakistan is a Muslim country and the Muslim world doesn't trust George Bush. And, why should they, after all that's happened (three invasions of Muslim countries)?

    August 18, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  15. kathleen thompson gonzalez, san juan

    When Benazir Bhutto was killed, back during the primaries, I remember the candidates falling all over each other trying to use the tragedy to establish their foreign policy bona fides. Musharraf called John Edwards! Hillary called Musharraf! The TV talking heads used the tragedy to point out that Barack Obama just didnt have the experience of the other candidates.

    And just what DID Barack have to say at that time? He said there was a pretty good chance Musharraf wouldnt be around too much longer, so he wasnt all that interested in what he had to say. I seem to recall a baleful glance and some remarks about releasing the justices from prison.

    August 18, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  16. Shirley -AK OHIO

    That someone in his family is taking over.

    August 18, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
  17. Pablo in Arlington Texas

    it won't mean much. Once Musharraf is gone the coalition will fight amongst themselves, then the army will probably stage another coup, and whoever rules after that won't be any more interested in going after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda than Musharraf was.
    Somebody should have told Bush; "lie down with dogs, get up with fleas". Never mind, the little dummy would not have listened anyhow.

    Pablo in Arlinton, Texas

    August 18, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
  18. Brian - Trinidad

    Another failed policy from Bush/Cheney.Failed not because it was not a good idea to give Pakistan a key role in the war against the Taliban,but failed because we didn't hold Pakistan accountable,i.e. make sure they did what we wanted them to do.And the root of all this is the enormous amounts of money that changes hands every day,from the US Gov't to Pakistan back to US companies back to sleazy congressional politicians.

    August 18, 2008 at 2:47 pm |
  19. C. Farrell, Houston, Tx

    Musharraf's resignation means "the gates of hell" are now open to those who choose to enter.

    August 18, 2008 at 2:47 pm |
  20. John, Fort Collins, CO

    The United States must now find a new way to funnel billions of dollars into Pakistan in exchange for no help with the war on terror. But, since greed and corruption are universal qualities we should be able to pull this off and maintain the status quo.

    August 18, 2008 at 2:55 pm |

    No matter who runs Pakistan you will not see any improvments...We should not invest in any of these people.

    August 18, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  22. Howard M. Bolingbrook IL

    One thing the Musharraf resignation will mean, if we continue to funnel monies to that government, will be the incredible enrichment of Bhutto's husband Ali Zadari and his immediate family. He is the new god father head of that Pakistani government and walking corruption on two feet.

    I don't foresee this move helping with the terrorist that makes Pakistan their home. Remember the Taliban supports Al qaeda and the Pakistan government invented the Taliban.

    August 18, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  23. Barbara Barton Cherry Hill,NJ Area

    I thought he was to weak to me the President, and Pakistan is still a mess.

    August 18, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  24. Larry, Ohio

    Jack,with what is going on in Georgia with the Russians,it means it's getting ughly out there!!!!!

    August 18, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  25. Duane in Missouri

    Perhaps the Pakistani people will be able to move forward and recieve the leadership THEY want. Not what Mr. Bush et al chooses for them.

    August 18, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  26. Marie, Canada


    Better hurry to get Russia back onside. A war with Iran is a war with Pakistan and the Taliban out of Afganistan.

    Of course we could always use John McCain's map and use his short cut to surge, surge, surge across the Iraqi border into Afghanistan.

    August 18, 2008 at 2:59 pm |
  27. Dave of Oregon

    The White House cannot control Pakistan's internal problems. Now that Musharraf is out, more loss of control in Pakistani matters is to be expected.

    August 18, 2008 at 2:59 pm |
  28. Don (Ottawa)

    It means, this is what you get when you play Russian Roulet.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  29. Don (Ottawa)

    It means one more mistake to add to the list of Bush failures.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  30. bob from traverse city michigan

    We put Musharraf in power and supported him all these years and now we can watch history repeat itself. In all the recent discussions about Iran these last few years I have yet to hear anything about the Shah of Iran. Jack maybe someday you could explain who that was and how that turned out for the U.S. to your younger viewers and how it compares to this situation inPakistan.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  31. Marilyn from Louisiana

    I hope whom ever is elected they are pro west. If not, we will have a very serious problem. Hang on America..we can be facing something we do not like.....................

    August 18, 2008 at 3:05 pm |
  32. wally Ruehmann las Vegas nv

    the bushies are slowly doing an exit stage left. the wheels are falling off, in this country our celebration will be jan 09.....

    August 18, 2008 at 3:06 pm |
  33. Teri in North FL

    I hope it means the Bush admin will stop giving him millions of our tax dollars for nothing.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:06 pm |
  34. Jay in Texas

    Hopefully, the threat of impeachment of Masharraf that forced him to resign is just a hint of things to come regarding George Bush. Congressman Kucinich has vowed to press forward with the Articles of Impeachment against President Bush as soon as Congress goes back to work.
    Brownwood, Texas

    August 18, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
  35. Mike in Colorado

    Gee, we picked the wrong horse again – who says history doesn't repeat itself.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  36. Jan/AR

    It's not a good day for the world. Hopefully, they will elect someone who can contain the extremist and find Osama Bin Laden, so he can be brought to justice in the United States.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  37. Ryan- Champaign, IL

    Pakistan has recognized that its leader is corrupt, inefficient and pandering to the worst aspects of society. Their getting rid of him through impeachment or otherwise is a great example of how we should handle our corrupt and ineffecient failure of a leader.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:14 pm |
  38. Annie, Atlanta

    Billions in America's pockets, for now, until we try to buy the next guy who takes his place.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  39. Mike, Syracuse, NY

    Jack, there's been very little in the press about what's next. There's going to be a power vacuum and the outcome can be very different if moderates win control or extremists win control. If the latter, we can expect one or more US cities to be nuked in the near future, followed by Pakistan ceasing to exist.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  40. Sultan Stanley Njonwo, Houston TX

    This resignation means life will be tough on the US because we do not know who the next president will be and Musharaf being a US ally who was against terrorism, it will take another US president to build such a relationship with the next Pakistani President and hope that he will join the US in the fight against terrorism.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:21 pm |
  41. Michael "C" in Lorton, Virginia

    Jack: His resignation will allow the civilian government focus more on terrorism and the country's economic woes, though Musharraf's exit could also trigger a serious struggle to replace him.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  42. Beverley, Fredricksburg Va


    It means the American government has betted on the wrong guy again! They gave Maliki and Musharraf billions of dollars and got very little return. Now we need to pay off, I mean suck up, no I mean dialogue with the new Pakistani Government. Get your wallets out folks!

    August 18, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  43. Dan, Maryland

    Can you say trouble? The people of Pakistan and their government are upset with Musharraf, in part, for his work with the US. Do you really think they'll put someone new in power who will be more willing to help? Can't put all your eggs in one basket Jack, someone should have told our President that a long time ago.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:28 pm |
  44. Jes (State College, PA)

    Well Jack, if the new president isn't pro-america we'll have to invade the country. Oh wait, we can only invade countries that have dictators. Oh wait, never mind.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:32 pm |
  45. Stacy from Sunny Loudoun, VA

    Jack, it means that if a pro-western government is established, we can finally interview A.Q. Khan and ask him about his network of nuclear arms dealings. If an anti-western regime is in place, we had better inspect everything at our ports.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
  46. Shannon Wadding, St. Paul, MN

    It means that we can add another failed foreign policy to George W. Bush's legacy and we again have to start from scratch in diplomacy while terrorists plan their next attack in the comfort of Pakistan.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  47. Leah, Vancouver, BC

    It means that yet again the American gov't has armed a nation to suck up to its leader or to build American influence. They did the same thing in both Iraq and Iran and look where it got us. Now the not so popular Georgian president is dictating foreign policy and the antiAmerican sentiment among the people in Pakistan is putting the whole region and perhaps the world at risk.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  48. Jayne

    It means Musharaff has put enough money from American taxpayers into private accounts that he can retire in a grand style and live out his days. The rest of us, on the other hand, will be wondering who gets to the nukes first.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  49. Maggie Muggins From Selwyn

    It doesn't mean as much as your country's penchant for interfering in the business of other nations and trying to make everyone conform to U.S. standards.

    Until the U.S. quits trying to dictate how other countries should conduct themselves your image and your enemies won't likely improve much over where they are right now.

    Right now McCain is advocating bullying Russia by suggesting they should be expelled from the G-8. This senseless and insane type of rhetoric is exactly how you got to where you are right now!

    To be honest I think whatever goes on in Pakistan might be the least of your worries.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  50. Stacy from Fairfax, VA

    It is too soon to tell, but I have to ask: Can the Middle East possibly get more screwed up then it already is? What a mess!

    August 18, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  51. JW Georgia

    It means there are possibly larger and darker war-clouds on the horizon.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  52. Frederick Ferguson

    Well Jack, I guess Musharraf can join Australia's conservative Prime Minister John Howard, Britain's Tony Blair and José María Aznar López of Spain as the last standing member of Dubya's "Coalition of the Willing" kicked to the curb by their own people. And with any hope the US itself will be freed from the Republican scourge of greed, incompetence, fear, debt and war in about 4 months time.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:41 pm |
  53. Mike from Naples, FL

    Jack, Do you remember when George bush ordered Musharaf to take off his military uniform back in Nov 6 2007? Well, now that he is out, let's wait and see George bush's new Puppet in Pakistan.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
  54. George

    It will take a while for us to really know how the new government will treat the U.S., and/or if they will be good allies, or not so good.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:46 pm |
  55. Nuwan Sam

    I think it is good for United States. But not good for the US administration. This is a result of peoples fight for democracy in Pakistan. People won and I believe US as a promoter of democracy should embrasse it. However we may not, because we are not a nation which try to spread democracy but which merely tries to protect self-interests in the name of spreading democracy. So this may be interpreted as bad news for US.

    – Nuwan from Houston, TX

    August 18, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  56. Diane, Barneveld, NY

    Pakistan will probably get the real terrorists out of their country.....the USA.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  57. Greg, Hamilton Ontario

    Ask yourself this Jack , what got done with him in power or helping. Nothing... is what got done. He took all your money , baught a few guns and paid you nothing but lip service.
    But have no fear I'm sure the next guy will be just as good at mooching off the American tax payer and doing nothing with it.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  58. Ted from Beaverton, OR

    It means the job of President of Pakistan is open. McCain likes war and confllict and hates al Qaeda and terrorists. Maybe he could be their president for about 100 years and straighten things out for them and for the US. He might even be able to go to the Gates of Hell there in Pakistan and grab Osama at the same time.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:52 pm |
  59. Carol Oregon

    It means the American people had better get out a map and find out where Pakistan is because our loved ones may be going there sooner than later. Since we will probable not take any advice from the rest of the world leaders. I hope we have a military leader in the White house and not a dreamer of unproven theorem or theory.

    carol in Oregon

    August 18, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
  60. Paul, Columbia, SC

    ZERO. Peace is not profitable.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:55 pm |
  61. David Richards

    Nothing in Pakistan changes. I've heard interviews with the new political leaders in Pakistan. They're as certain Osama bin Laden isn't in Pakistan as Musharraf has been. The only way we're going to get bin Laden and the rest of al Qaeda is to go into Pakistan ourselves and get them.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:56 pm |
  62. Mike - Hot Springs, Ar.

    So far not much. He has been of little use in any war on terror. Nothing much will happen until we have our own regime change and then dependant on who wins nothing much may happen.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:56 pm |
  63. Joey

    It means we should have given Bush the boot before Musharraf.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:58 pm |
  64. Robert, Greensboro, NC

    It means the US is frantically seeking a new leader to which they can tie the puppet strings. The show must go on!

    August 18, 2008 at 3:58 pm |
  65. Terry in Hanover County

    It means W has lost his point man; Musharraf can take his kickbacks and retire happily; and Bin Laden will have to find another place to "hide" until the GOP finally decides it can no longer win elections by just "promising" to go after him.

    August 18, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
  66. Barbara - 65 yr old white female in NC

    Since this has to have been the most unstable government (except Bush/Cheney/McCain temperament) in the world which possesses nuclear weapons, Im wondering that same thing myself.

    August 18, 2008 at 4:00 pm |
  67. Harry

    This guy has ignored the constitution, tampered with the judicial system, infringed on personal liberties and by his reliance on military measures only, has by some sources, made the war on terror more difficult.

    Who were we talking about, again?


    August 18, 2008 at 4:00 pm |
  68. Kim, Dodge City, Kansas

    It means that Musharraf will be eligible to be a lobbyist in the American Industrial / Miltary machine. These guys never go away, they just come here and perpetuate the insanity of political corruption, thanks to Bush and Company.

    August 18, 2008 at 4:01 pm |
  69. Greg from Mechanicsburg PA

    If the Bush administration and Congress follow true to course, it doesn't mean a thing. I have not seen anything relevant to reality come out of Washington in decades.

    August 18, 2008 at 4:01 pm |
  70. Len in Clarkston, WA

    It means that this administrations "Circle of Allies" is crumbling like a deck of cards. It's all been a sham bought and paid for by borrowed money from China. All this will turn our grandchildren into paupers and we have the arrogance of George Bush, Dick Cheney and the rest of the White House Bandits to thank for it.

    August 18, 2008 at 4:03 pm |
  71. Jan Davis, Knoxville, TN

    I think it is generally a minus for the United States. From what limited knowledge I have about the situation, it seems that the General was very helpful in helping us win the War on Terror. He risked his political career to side with America. Please explain why they were going to impeach him! I do hope he gets out of Pakistan safely.

    August 18, 2008 at 4:04 pm |
  72. David NH

    Since he was Bush's consumate hero and we got nothing from him, perhaps now we'll get a bum in office that our administration hates. That way we can attack and burn off the Opium and maybe the Taliban will be hiding in the same fields.

    August 18, 2008 at 4:05 pm |
  73. Pat in Hampstead , MD


    It means that the power struggle within Pakistan will now begin. If the Muslims takeover than it is a victory for IRAN. If not, than I hope that it was the USA who brokered the deal. I hate to think that the 10 billion in aid we gave to the Pakistani Army would end up being used against our troops in IRAQ. If so, then Bush and Cheney should be held accountable.

    August 18, 2008 at 4:06 pm |
  74. Harold from Anchorage, AK

    It means there is still hope for democracy in Pakistan;remember we are pro-dmocracy, right?
    Now if we could just carry off thesame thing here....

    August 18, 2008 at 4:08 pm |
  75. Frank from Peterborough

    Absolutely nothing Jack. If anyone thinks for one minute Bush was waging a war on terror in Afghanistan they are morons. All the U.S. has accomplished so far is to put the country in turmoil without much hope for favourable change.

    The whole invasion of Afghanistan was just smoke and mirrors for political expediency with the real quest for oil being in Iraq. It was likely Bush who told McCain that Agshanistan bordered onto Iraq and McCain just repeated his rhetoric like he has for justifying the invasion of Iraq.

    August 18, 2008 at 4:11 pm |
  76. William in Sanford, N.C.

    It means we threw away millions of dollars trying to manipulate the politics of a foreign country...again.

    August 18, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  77. Jerry--- Roselle, Illinois

    It means the Cowboy, George W. Bush can look in the
    Pakistani want ads in January for a new war to start. Oh
    take John McCain with as he may need a job too. He's good
    on surges.

    August 18, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  78. Jerry from Jacksonville

    Hopefully it means that we won't be handing out millions of dollars to corrupt politicians in Pakistan as we have in the past.

    August 18, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  79. Kirk (Apple Valley, MN)

    Maybe it means that now we'll finally get to go after Osama bin Laden and al Queda that's been hiding in Pakistan. I wonder if Musharraf and Bush will be neighbors in Argentina when they both run from the courts that will be trying them for crimes against humanity?

    August 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  80. Sandra fromTexas

    It means this entire house of cards that George Bush and Co. have tried to hold together is coming down. One by one. If the United States had a Congress that was worth anything, Bush would have been forced to do the same thing years ago.

    August 18, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  81. RENEA

    We can start spending that terror money a little better.

    August 18, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  82. Bev, Los Angeles

    Another one bites the dust. Why is it the Bush/McCain company always seem to pick the wrong guys to ally with. Gee, can we please hurry up and get rid of these people. Let's look forward to Obama, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Richardson, Sibelius, etc... New leadership and new policy!

    August 18, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  83. Greg, Los Angeles

    He is just the latest casulty for supporting the Bush administration. There is so much hate for these distrust in our country and the leadership. Most of the world will celebrate when this nightmare administration finally heads back to Crawford, Texas.

    August 18, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  84. Hope in Madisonville, KY

    It means Bush backed the wrong guy once again. Now we'll have to see if his replacement is someone we can work with to hunt down
    the terrorists or if his replacement will be a terrorist. I'm starting to
    believe the end times are here, Jack.

    August 18, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  85. Les Young Oklahoma

    It means that we backed the wrong Dictator one more time, kind of like in Iran, Iraq and several other countries makes you wonder what in the crap our State Department is doing. Seems by dumb luck we could get it right ever once in a while. Its kind of like we give Saddam some chemical weapons to fight Iran with after they had kick us out of Iran, then ten years later we go to war in Iraq trying to find these Chemical weapons. We have put another puppet in Iraq which is going to haunt us later by opening the door to Iran sooner than later. Tell me this is smart.

    August 18, 2008 at 4:32 pm |
  86. Dan, Chantilly VA

    Rinse and repeat. Whomever takes control will be just as corrupt, but in the other direction.

    August 18, 2008 at 4:34 pm |
  87. Gigi in Alabama

    I can't see that Musharraf was much of an ally to start with. Osama bin Laden's terrorists have moved back and forth on the border with Afganistan with impunity. Musharraf has done nothing to stop that.

    August 18, 2008 at 4:34 pm |
  88. Mac in Truro Nova Scotia

    Jack: A god replacement for Musharaff would be John McCain. He can have a couple of nice little wars that he seems to relish. He can probably start a war with Checkloslovakia and redifine the Iraq- Pakistani border.

    August 18, 2008 at 4:34 pm |
  89. Scott - Wichita, Kansas

    Can't answer that question until I see who replaces him, Jack.

    August 18, 2008 at 4:42 pm |
  90. Thomas, Yo.town, OH

    With Musharraf out of the picture, and Bush out in early of '09, the U.S. may be able to balance the budget as well as bringing Bin Laden to justice.

    August 18, 2008 at 4:42 pm |
  91. Matt Callaway in Omaha, NE

    It means we have a golden opportunity to show that we're committed to a nation, to democratic institutions, and not just 'our guy.' We had such an opportunity with Iran pre-Islamic-Revolution, and from what I've heard so far we may actually be applying what should have been learned from that incident.

    August 18, 2008 at 4:43 pm |
  92. Dori in AZ


    President Musharraf and President Bush have a lot in common. They both lead countries that would like them to quit or to be kicked out.

    We need to pick our allies with a little more discernment, don't you think? And, treat our true allies with due respect! After all, every life on the planet hangs in the balance!

    August 18, 2008 at 4:43 pm |
  93. Chicago Bob from Illinois

    Since Musharraf has been marginalized since the election, his leaving office changes nothing. If he keeps some control of the military though, he may be back. Pakistan is not a stable democracy.

    August 18, 2008 at 4:47 pm |
  94. Darr/Cleveland/Ohio

    Probably nothing considering the US will probably or already has plied the new PM of Pakistan with so many incentives to cooperate with America's efforts to find and capture or kill Bin Laden. On the other hand, it could spell disaster if we sent Scotch instead of Gin.

    August 18, 2008 at 4:50 pm |
  95. Velle

    It means the US will have to buy yet another "friend" in the Middle East. I'm so sick of our government buying the aliegence of foreign governments. That policy has proven HISTORICALLY to be a dismal failure. Money is no substitute for statesmanship but we seem incapable of electing leaders capable of understanding this. We pay out money, get screwed and after a devastating scandal, start all over again! Who's running this country? The CIA!

    August 18, 2008 at 4:50 pm |
  96. Conor in Chicago

    It means that Pakistan will now be able to actually help us in our "War on Terror". With Mus in power their primary obejective was overthrowing the dictatorship and restoring democracy. They didn't really care abuot what we wanted-they wanted their country back. Now that they have it back they might be more willing to help us. Plus, since this war on terror has really turned into nothing more than a war against the Pashtun maybe a free and democratic Pakistan will be able to help us be more effective in our military campaigns instead of just slaughtering Pashtuns indiscriminately-which is just making everything worse.

    August 18, 2008 at 4:52 pm |
  97. JD

    It means that the next few months politics with the Middle East and India will be even more delicate as Pakistan establishes its new administration.

    August 18, 2008 at 4:53 pm |
  98. Chris, Thousand Oaks Ca

    Just another piece of bad judgment by Bush and Co coming to light.

    August 18, 2008 at 4:53 pm |
  99. Ken in NC

    It means we (USA) have made a lot of bad decisions and they are all coming back to haunt us. My concern is whose finger now rest on the atomic button. Maybe we could send McCain to them so he can play his war games with them all. I’m tired of hearing him speaking about his war stories over and over. If he calls us “MY FRIENDS” one more time I think I will go look for an enemy.

    August 18, 2008 at 5:00 pm |
  100. brett mullins Phoenix,Az

    Wish Bush would call it quits too. He has done enough damage that can't be fixed.

    August 18, 2008 at 5:00 pm |
  101. Richard

    Quadra Island, B. C. Canada

    Pervez Musharaff has made millions of dollars as a Bush ally without doing anything to help the U.S.

    Stepping down is his chance to retire in luxury before a new American President pressures him to get our money's worth.

    August 18, 2008 at 5:01 pm |
  102. Diane Glasser

    What does the resignation of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf mean for the U.S. and the war on terror?
    The words "war on terror" are slowly being revealed as a sly conniving definition for deception of the populous. At least most Americans now truly understand its meaning and resent it being used by the Bush administration for every little crisis. Those in Pakistan were far ahead of our Congress on impeachment hearings. I think Bush should start packing now.

    August 18, 2008 at 5:01 pm |
  103. stephanie/houston/tx

    It might mean a chance to have someone who is representing Pakistans' interest and not the Bush administrations. Maybe than the Pakistani people can reclaim their goverment and throw those responsible for the War on Terror out.

    August 18, 2008 at 5:02 pm |
  104. Carole S.C.

    He will not be impeached. I am waiting to see what happens next.........

    August 18, 2008 at 5:02 pm |
  105. Terra from Houston, Texas

    This should be a good thing according to our current Administration. We want democracy in the middle east, and Pakistan is complying by electing a leader they want. I don't understand why we are only pro-democracy around the world only when it seems to serve our interests.

    August 18, 2008 at 5:07 pm |
  106. Mike Keam

    It simply means that they have their country to themselves without the American influence. Kind af a neet thing when you can have your own mind. Now they can make relations on their own without worrying about what GW has to say.

    I agree with the personwho says send John McCain there where he can decide to start a war with the Checkloslovakians and have either the Sunnis or Shiites fight for him. He can also send in his Buffalo Chip girls led by Cindy for the USO to keep the troops happy.

    August 18, 2008 at 5:07 pm |
  107. johnt

    unfortunately not much. when he first came in to power he seemed to be on our side and it was in our best interest to back him. however like so many people in those countries, you can't trust them but you at the same time can't afford not to. hopefully the next president of Pakistan will be anti terrorist and pro American however there is no guaranty

    August 18, 2008 at 5:07 pm |
  108. Phil from Sutton, MA

    Maybe they'll get a constitutionally-approved president-general

    August 18, 2008 at 5:08 pm |
  109. Chad , Los Angeles

    Well, since most the world believes Bin Laden is either in Pakistan or Afghanistan, it creates a big opportunity for the world to get a leader who really has the guts to take down terrorists in that region.

    I am optimistic that this could bring about a huge crackdown on the worldwide terrorism network. Now just to get the Saudis to stop funding the terrorists.

    August 18, 2008 at 5:09 pm |
  110. Monty Squier

    It might mean that bin Laden won't any longer have the safe haven that Musharraf was providing.
    It means that 15,000,000,000 disappeared into a black hole (again).
    I wonder how much Musharraf personally received.
    Like everything else in the KingDumb of Bush, the alignment with Pakistan was pretty worthless

    El Paso, Texas

    August 18, 2008 at 5:09 pm |
  111. Nancy, Tennessee

    President Perez Musharraf 's resignation means he's ready to take a vacation and spend some of that money the U.S. so carelessly deposited for him. Maybe the next leader will have a little more integrity and won't be on the American payroll. We could use some allies that we don't have to buy. Everyone knows you can't buy friendship; it has to be earned.

    August 18, 2008 at 5:09 pm |
  112. Carol, Coulterville, CA

    Hopefully, it will mean there will be someone else we can negotiate with to stop terrorism. However, I have my doubts. I just hope we don't give them anymore money!

    August 18, 2008 at 5:11 pm |
  113. Karen - Missouri

    I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens. All I can say we MUST get out of Iraq SOON and free up our troops. Bush and McCain are just a bunch of hot air.

    August 18, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  114. Bernie Guettler

    Jack, I just heard that Pres. Bush is going to fly down to Atlanta to find out what is going on in Georgia.

    August 18, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  115. BeeVee

    The US may have lost its footing to go against the terrorists in that region without Mushariff.

    August 18, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
  116. Eugene -- Myers Flat, California

    Jack, as long as the new leadership cooperates with us, on the Global War On Terror and allows us, to go into Northern Pakistan and kill Osama bin Laden, I don't care who it they are.

    August 18, 2008 at 5:27 pm |
  117. Don Montgomery (in Dallas)

    Russia is going to take control of that oil pipeline in Georgia, by hook or by crook. Putin knows that the U.S. armed forces are already over-extended and not about to try any military action. George Bush, and John McCain by proxy, are the big joke around Russia with their so-called tough talk.

    August 18, 2008 at 5:29 pm |
  118. Karl in CA

    It's another Bush failure. After seven years and over ten billion dollars, and no Bin Laden,what has he done to earn it? Did we get a money back guarantee? He might be a friend of Bush, but he was no friend of America and obviously not an ally in the war on terrorism.

    August 18, 2008 at 5:33 pm |
  119. joseph oravits

    jack , i was a member of the us constabulary in the fortys and fiftys and we patrolled the east german bordes and you could not trust the russians then and i don't know what makes them think you can trust the russians now. We put our selfs in a big hole by getting in to a war we did not belong in in irock, now our hands are tied. joe.

    August 18, 2008 at 5:34 pm |
  120. James

    James from Cleveland.
    Perhaps it will mean we can stop spending billions of dollars a year for Musharraf to not bring Bin Laden to justice.

    Perhaps we will realize that Pakistan is a Muslim nation that ideologically hates America, but is still willing to take our money to fund and protect terrorists.

    Perhaps we'll have to find another leader of a small nation to manipulate for our selfish political aims; remember Manuel Noreiga and Saddam Hussein were lauded asgreat US allays at one time.

    Perhas it will not make much difference at all.

    August 18, 2008 at 5:43 pm |
  121. Benny Holdren,Eaton Indiana

    Another George Bush foreign policy failure.

    August 18, 2008 at 5:44 pm |
  122. spike

    Musharraf's resignation doesn't mean anything to Uncle Sam. Musharraf received billions of dollars from Uncle Sam but he didn't deliver as promised.Lets wait and see if the next president will deliver...

    August 18, 2008 at 5:52 pm |
  123. Charles, Fremont, IN

    It means he resigned.

    August 18, 2008 at 5:56 pm |
  124. Marc, Toronto

    Let's give this new govenrnment a chance. It can't do any worse than the Musharraf government who had his hand out to take U.S. taxpayer money but did little to earn it.

    I like the sound of this new Pakistani Ambassador to the U.S. He sounds intelligent and seems more supportive and determined to help rid the world of terrorists that use their country as a safe haven.

    August 18, 2008 at 5:58 pm |
  125. Matt in Las Vegas, NV

    Anyone else notice that everyone who ties themselves to the Bush Iraq invasion in some way, loses their political Career? Let's see we have Tony Blair(2007), Musharraf (2008), Spain’s President (2004), Germany's President(2005).

    Now if only John McCain can lose his career, we will all be in good shape!

    August 18, 2008 at 5:59 pm |
  126. LaVerne E Brison from Los Angeles, Ca.

    Jack: It means we have lost another ally in our war on terrorism . What were we doing supporting and propping up a person who came to power in a military coup. I thought we only supported Democratically elected governments. Talk about hypocrisy. Another one of George Bush's misguided policies. He should have been trying to get the Country to have elections and let their people elect another President. Isn't that what we have been preaching in Iraq. Remember the elections there? Now we have another potentially unstable government with nuclear weapons. George Bush needs to go back to the ranch and never leave. He did succeed in getting that other guy to give up his WMDs.

    August 18, 2008 at 6:00 pm |
  127. Ed in RI

    For starters; "It means that the Bush administration wasted tax-payer money on the wrong political enity, which shouldn't be surprising."
    Secondly, it's nerve-racking that Pakistan has nukes. And finally, the only "bright-spot", is that "The war on terror" possibly took a hit. Remember, This War on Terror, is nothing more than an excuse to spend our money on defense, make defense contractors and their shareholders money, and continue the assault on our civil liberties, by bending laws and appointing "like-thinking" supreme court justices.


    August 18, 2008 at 6:01 pm |
  128. Betsy in MO

    Unfortunately nothing Jack! It is not like he has been that much help in finding Osama.

    August 18, 2008 at 6:02 pm |
  129. Gene Detroyer

    It means Bush (or McBush) will have to engineer overthrow of a democratically elected government to have someone they can talk the same language with.

    August 18, 2008 at 6:06 pm |
  130. Robert From Panama

    Jack to this day the terror still goes on in Pakistan. I really belevie that Bin Ladin is in Pakistan and the political termoil now is just making it harder for the USA or any other country to catch this boom. And by the way Jack,McCain waving his arms and looking with the hard face of anger says he will catch Bin Ladin during his first two years and put him on trail. Please give the American people a break because in 7 years the USA or no one else can catch this boom.

    August 18, 2008 at 6:06 pm |
  131. Lynn, frustrated Republican, CA

    It's just more examples of the failure of the Bush Administration to get things right – I can't believe our Intelligence has not been aware, I can believe that this Administration disregards any information that does not agree with their agenda – what planet is Bush from?

    August 18, 2008 at 6:11 pm |
  132. Alan - Buxton, Maine

    It means that we may now be able to go after Osama bin Laden. Musharraf is most often referred to as an ally but has been the greatest obstacle in searching for bin Laden. Perhaps now McCain and bin Laden can finally meet at the gates of Hell..

    August 18, 2008 at 6:12 pm |
  133. Curtis from Washington DC

    Obviously, Musharraf resigned because he knows that the policies of this Republican president are nearing their end. The world is about to be overcome with hope, and people of Musharraf's character are rightly realizing this truth.

    August 18, 2008 at 6:13 pm |
  134. MJ


    August 18, 2008 at 6:13 pm |
  135. Art Brown

    It means that the 10 billion dollars would have been better spent buying every american a pair of 520 dollar shoes.( john Mc Cain)

    August 18, 2008 at 6:13 pm |
  136. Don in Johnstown, Pa

    It means that a significant chunk of the money that the US has given to Pakistan over the past 7 years to fight the Islamic Extremists has been secreted away in Mashariff's Swiss bank accounts.

    After all the pundits and politicians stop wringing their hands and crying crocodile tears the situation in Pakistan is most likely to improve dramatically – as real democracy takes hold.

    August 18, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  137. Rick

    It means that we have to learn a new name........likely little else.

    August 18, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  138. kumar

    Nothing will change as far as the war on terror is concerned. The real difference will occur when the ISI is cleaned out.

    August 18, 2008 at 6:15 pm |
  139. Clayton Gregory

    It means that more distraction from the real matter at hand... Russia.

    August 18, 2008 at 6:15 pm |
  140. john macgregor

    What does it mean ? 10billion to the next guy and a glowing introduction by rice to the next grreatest ally in the war against terrorism

    August 18, 2008 at 6:15 pm |
  141. Samuel J. - MD

    For the U.S., Musharraf's resignation will likely lead to one of two extremes. Either a new leadership that will actually do something to help fight the war on terror, or a leadership that will tell the U.S. to fight our own wars and let Pakistan alone.

    I for one hope for the first option, and hope the Pakistani people will opt for the same.

    August 18, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
  142. Cara

    Maybe some actual progress on this "war on terror" and MAYBE – just maybe – we'll actually get Osama Bin Laden. Good riddance. What a waste of money and time.

    August 18, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  143. Doug

    Hopefully this will mean a great deal as an impedament to progress and action is removed from power in a peaceful, constitutional fashion. However, his replacement will likely be no different. At the end of the day, they simply have nothing to gain from helping us, and much to gain from slowly undermining our efforts in the region. Simply put, they don't much care for us and they have no real reason to stick their necks out for us.

    August 18, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  144. Al

    I guess we have to pull out the old resumes and find someone else to fill his shoes.

    August 18, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  145. Padda in Vancouver

    It is probably good news for the war on terror. This guy harbours many people who have completed terrorist attacks in India. I was around when a bomb went off in my home province of Punjab. This guy deserves to be put on trial for the crimes of Pakistan.

    August 18, 2008 at 6:18 pm |
  146. Donald, Canton NC

    What it means, at least to me, is that the model of democracy that have been established, i.e. Iraq and Pakistan, at least they have the intestinal fortitude to hold their Presidents accountable.

    While this country, we let him commit impeachable offenses, break the law, interpret the law to his own choosing, subvert the Constitution, and lie to the American people.

    Goodos to Pakistan and shame on this bone-less Congress and American people.

    August 18, 2008 at 6:18 pm |
  147. MPA

    Mean for the US ? Whats that matter? the US will go in and still make their policies ,do what they want! Under Musharaff the region has seen some of its most violent times, and war btw, so perhaps without him theres a chance and or perhaps all those poor people in the region are doomed anyways. Guess we wait and see.

    August 18, 2008 at 6:18 pm |
  148. Owen

    God only knows Jack.

    August 18, 2008 at 6:19 pm |
  149. Rick

    It simply means there is one down and one who really needs to go(George Bush).

    August 18, 2008 at 6:19 pm |
  150. Abdul from Bahrain

    It simply means that Bush's foreign policy towards Pakistan has failed. You can force a dictator to pretend he is on your side against terrorism but you can not force an entire nation to be oprrsssed by the same dictator. We need partnership with presidents who are friends with their people not with those who are hated by the people.

    August 18, 2008 at 6:19 pm |
  151. susan strobel


    It means we got a cohort out of the Bush administration early. When will this nightmare end? I want my tax dollars I have paid for the last eight years back.

    August 18, 2008 at 6:21 pm |