It was infelicitous phrasing on the part of Bush, but he was referring to General Musharraf being the Chief of Staff of the Pakistani Army. Being the military head of the army is completely different from being the civilian commander-in-chief, and there's nothing hypocritical or wrong with a civilian commander-in-chief saying the military head of the army cannot be president. So, no, it's not precisely what Bush himself is, and he's not wrong for saying it.

As CIC, Bush outranks everyone else and can take over militarily, although it doesn't happen often. He IS the military head of the army, if he wants to be. Considering how he has taken advantage of his war powers so far, I wouldn't be surprised if he did, except that I don't think he actually wants to personally fight in a war. So, yes, Triode, that's what he is.

No, it's completely different, and for all his faults, it's a perfectly reasonable thing for Bush to say.

USA: democratically-elected civilian President has control of army, and the Chiefs of Staff follow his orders. Politicians control soldiers: this is how it should be.

Pakistan: unelected Chief of Staff comes to power in a coup d'etat and seizes the presidency. Soldiers control politics: this is not how it should be.

USA: constitution defines that the President is civilian commander-in-chief.

Pakistan: constitution specifically outlaws army officials from holding an army office while President (I think, correct me if I'm wrong).

I see the distinction that you're drawing, matthewr, and in the abstract, I agree with you. However, based on shrub's past performance, I can't help but agree with amro.

My complaint is that the pressure has been on Musharraf to "take off the uniform", to renounce his military status and become a civilian leader; this is allowing the leopard to change his spots, IMO.

Sure, a newly-civilian Musharraf can hold a rigged election and call it democratic, but at this point, the only thing he can do non-fraudulently is to drop the "president" facade, and instead proclaim that he stole the leadership fair & square. Since the US cannot openly support such anti-democratic behavior, we instead pressure the guy to come all the way over into the democratic camp - via deeply non-democratic means. It's a sham.

If Musharraf won a fair non-rigged democratic election standing as a civilian, having renounced his military position, he'd have as much right to become President as anyone else. In the circumstances, persuading Musharraf to hold elections and become a civilian democratic leader seems like the best strategy. Of course Musharraf isn't the ideal President, but I'm not sure what other strategies the US could have, especially considering the serious risk of someone far worse gaining power in such an important country.

I'm just thankful somebunnies are pondering the same things I've been pondering since I heard the report on NPR yesterday.