Remember that a world leader with nukes does not have to kowtow to American interests.  It is clear that Pervez was not exactly towing the line for the Cheney folks.  I'm sure if I google Bhutto's recent comments there is a free-market angle to be found.  She certainly did not represent the poor and destitute of Pakistan, that is for sure.

I also think that Bhutto's presence has generated a huge amount of instability and she was taken care of to REDUCE that.  Ultimately the opposition needed her to rally around, to give it some kind of legitimacy and a tie to the "old days of Democracy" in Pakistan.

From what I've seen and recall from his takeover, Musharaf is really not some Hussein-esque dictator.  He took over a corrupt country from a corrupt leader and the nukes probably had a lot to do with it.  During his term Pakistan has largely avoided major war and skirmishes with India and other neighbors.  

If you can look past the "democracy" red-herring it would appear that he's their most competent leader in a long time.  I certainly had no hope that Bhutto's faction would do any better.

I found this 1996 news story to make rather surreal reading in light of the current situation....

Opposition leader Nawaz Sharif, in a speech in parliament, accused the government of "state terrorism" against its political opponents. Leaders of the Lahore High Court Bar Association in Punjab were quoted as describing Murtaza Bhutto's killing as a murder.

Murtaza's killing "is part of a conspiracy to make Pakistan a police state and crush democratic freedom," said Qazi Hussain Ahmad, Pakistan's fundamentalist party leader.