AND MUSHARRAF DOESN'T THINK WE'RE ANY SAFER EITHER-- AND HE THINKS OSAMA BIN-LADEN AND BUSH ARE ABOUT EQUALLY UNPOPULAR IN PAKISTAN

As usual, I missed Ken's QOTD Committee conference call this morning. Last night when I was drifting off to sleep, John Stewart was having a throughly delightful interview with Pervez Musharaff-- a single individual who stands between a nuclear arsenal and a pack of bin-Ladens who no doubt would like to get their murderous, martyrdom-seeking hands on it. I noted with satisfaction that for all the boldfaced lies we're hearing from Bush and Frist and that pack of scoundrels about how the National Intelligence Estimate doesn't say what is says, Musharaff was frank and unhesitating in mentioning, when Stewart asked him if invading Iraq had made America safer, that "It has led certainly to more extremism and terrorism around the world," followed, after minimal prodding, "No, we're not."

I was thinking there was plenty of stuff for Ken and the Committee in the interview. But then the payoff came. I said to myself, "Self, should I put on the light and look around for a pen and some paper and write it down? Nah... Ken'll get it. Or, if he doesn't, John Amato will." Neither seems to have. It was the Hot Seat question, or whatever Stewart calls that thing at the end of the show. He asked the president of Pakistan if his ally, George W. Bush, were to run for the mayor of Karachi against Osama bin-Laden, who would win. "They would both lose miserably," said Musharaff, candidly and amiably. Of course, what else could he say?