WHERE IS BUSH'S OUTRAGE OVER MUSHARRAF'S KICKING OUT PAKISTAN'S SUPREME COURT?

The New York Times runs an article today written by Jane Perlez on the mess in Pakistan.

Talking about Musharraf's illegal and unjustified firing of the Chief Justice of the Pakistan Supreme Court because the court would not go along with Musharraf's bid to remain in power in violation of the Pakistan Constitution, Perlez writes:

"Three other leading lawyers remain under house arrest, including Aitzaz Ahsan, the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association.
"Sixty of about 100 judges who served on the Supreme Court and four provincial high courts have been ordered to remain in their homes because they have refused to take the new oath of office under emergency rule, according to Wajihuddin Ahmed, a former Supreme Court judge.
"The chief justice and his court were the centerpiece of Mr. Musharraf’s emergency decree. The president accused the court, and Mr. Chaudhry in particular, of being ready to block his re-election, and dismissed the entire bench."

Chief Justice Chaudhry let it be known that the court would not agree with Musharraf's power grab, and that the court would rule against him. So Musharraf kicked out the members of the court and replaced them with his own people.

Yet Bush and Rice and the government of the United States has remained oddly quiet about this destruction of the rule of law in Pakistan. I thought Bush was the great proponent of "freedom" and "democracy"? Here when it comes to a supposed "ally," Bush says not one word of protest.

Writes Perlez:

"The United States and other Western governments have stopped short of calling for the restoration of the Supreme Court, even as they have pressed Mr. Musharraf to lift emergency rule in time for the elections.
"The Western governments have been reluctant to insist on the return of the old Supreme Court because, like Mr. Musharraf, they say Mr. Chaudhry was interfering in the executive branch, a Western diplomat said."

Wait! Where is Perlez getting her information? She writes that western governments have not insisted on Chaudhry's re-instatement because "they say Mr. Chaudhry was interfering in the executive branch . . ."

There is absolutely no credible evidence presented so far to show that Chief Justice Chaudhry was "interfering in the executive branch." Furthermore, who is this western diplomat who Ms. Perlez uses as a source for this statement? And how come Perlez does not offer any challenge to this charge?