The article, given front page coverage in Saturday’s paper with the headline “Don?t preach to me about terrorists, says Zardari ? terrorists killed my wife” (online for Times subscribers), reveals that he took Cameron’s statement that Pakistan was looking both ways on terror personally.

And why shouldn’t he? In December 2007, his wife, then Chairman of the Pakistan People’s Party and likely candidate for President Benazir Bhutto, was assassinated by terrorists while out campaigning (as I covered here).

President Zardari told Bronwen Maddox: “Everybody is sensitive, as we have lost so many people, including my late wife. So to have your credentials questioned does hurt sometimes. No matter how brave you are, it hurts.”

I had the pleasure of meeting Ms Bhutto only a few months before her murder, if only for a few minutes, which followed a passionate speech at the Corn Exchange about democracy and freeing “her” people. A threat to the then incumbent government, and to terrorist organisations in the regions of Pakistan then (and, still, now) beyond the reach of the lawful authorities, she became a natural target as she insisted on meeting supporters.

David Cameron’s remarks have been called into question by many, and perhaps there is a modicum of truth to the assertion that they may have been a touch insensitive to the people of Pakistan who are trying to fight the tyranny of terrorism. But he hasn’t apologised, and nor should he.

The politics of Pakistan is a world away from the politics of the West. I tried to understand it during my time covering the bigger political stories there, but fell well short, and (admittedly) gave up.

To merely assert that they look both ways is short-sighted, and I do not believe for a second that David Cameron truly believes that that is the definitive. It was just a sound-bite, picked up by the left-leaning media and governmental opposition. It was not a command to fix their ways, but a warning that, as things stand, the way Pakistan handles the terrorist threat, and terrorists hiding in the country, will be the deciding factor in the short- and long-term futures of the war against terrorists.

I believe that David Cameron was right to make the comments he made. But I am but a humble blogger, and in international diplomacy, my opinions are nothing more than the annoying squiggly floater that occasionally appears in your eyes.

What matters is the bigger picture, and the way in which Pakistan responds to the comments. Which brings me back to the interview in The Times:

In spite of the clash, the leaders said that they had put their differences behind them. Mr Zardari described the discussion as “very good, very nice”. He added: “I think politicians can always come together and find a light in all darknesses.”

Zardari became leader of the PPP upon Bhutto’s assassination last December, and was yesterday nominated as his party’s candidate for the presidency. He announced that he had accepted the nomination today.

Zardari’s decision to stand could, according to the BBC, threaten the coalition currently running the Parliament, as his main coalition partner, Nawaz Sharif, is against him becoming president, preferring a “consensus president”.

What’s more, according to the BBC, is that if the late Benazir Bhutto’s Party, the PPP, and Nawaz Sharif’s Party, the PML-N, form a two-thirds coalition, then they could impeach President Musharraf and bring about a genuine democracy in Pakistan.

Musharraf, the former Military General who took over in a coup in 1999, has said that “the result will be the voice of the nation and whosoever wins we should accept it – that includes myself” – a great step towards democracy.

However, as PPP and PML-N supporters party in the streets, they should be wary of the beast they may be about to unleash. Musharraf may have been unpopular, but he was an important ally in fighting global Islamic extremism and mostly kept Pakistan stable.

There is no telling what might happen to the Islamic State of Pakistan, or its allies and enemies, if Musharraf is forced out of office.

Bilawal, who has been renamed Bilawal Bhutto Zardari so as to continue to Bhutto dynasty, is currently studying Law at Oxford University, and so will be head in name only until he has completed his studies. His father, Asif Ali Zardari, will run the party until his return.

The 19 year-old said: “my mother always said democracy is the best revenge”, although he is too young to stand for Parliament, as his father called on the incumbent government to ensure the elections still went ahead as planned on January 8.

I will return to British political commentary in the New Year