[Khan Noonian Singh]

I understand that that is the US government's position. However:

It looks like Musharraf is involved up to his moustache in selling nuclear weapons to rogue states and to terrorists, and in covering up those sales. In what sense is this better than anyone who might replace him?

Sure, he says the right things much of the time. I'd follow the motto, "Actions speak louder than words." Especially regarding nuclear bombs.

Maybe we'd be better off with somebody who was forthright about his Islamist leanings. At least we could deal with an explicit problem.

[nuconvert]

We'd know better what we were dealing with, but we couldn't do anything about it. So, it wouldn't do much good. We'd just be stuck with someone who's Never helpful 100% of the time, rather than someone who's helpful 50% of the time, even though we know both are bad and both are dealing behind our back. If that makes any sense. It's like dealing with Putin. We know he's bad. He makes all kinds of deals with our enemies behind our back, and sometimes in our face. But sometimes, when we really need him, he's there for us.