PDA

View Full Version : Pakistan's Bhutto assassinated


BigRedChief
12-27-2007, 06:55 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-12-27-bhutto-pakistan_N.htm

Pakistan's Bhutto assassinatedRAWALPINDI, Pakistan (AP) — Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto died Thursday from injuries sustained in a suicide attack, a party aide said.
"At 6:16 p.m. she expired," said Wasif Ali Khan, a member of Bhutto's party who was at Rawalpindi General Hospital.


ON DEADLINE: More on the suicide attack (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/12/breaking-news-s.html)
A senior military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment, confirmed that Bhutto had died.

Her supporters at the hospital began chanting "Dog, Musharraf, dog," referring to Pakistan's president.

Some of them smashed the glass door at the main entrance of the emergency unit, others burst into tears. One man with a flag of Pakistan People's Party tied around his head was beating his chest.
Sen. Babar Awan, Bhutto's lawyer, said, "The surgeons confirmed that she has been martyred."

At least 20 others were killed in the blast that took place as Bhutto left a political rally where she addressed thousands of supporters to canvas votes for Jan. 8 parliamentary elections.

Bhutto served twice as Pakistan's prime minister between 1988 and 1996. She had returned to Pakistan from an eight-year exile on Oct. 18.

Her homecoming parade in Karachi was also targeted by a suicide attacker, killing more than 140 people. On that occasion she narrowly escaped injury.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Hog Farmer
12-27-2007, 07:05 AM
Pakistan is one ****ed up place, she was the only hope for a lot of the population there.

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 07:24 AM
No need to worry. Musharaff is on our side. Fighting AQ, remember? :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

BucEyedPea
12-27-2007, 07:42 AM
RIP Bhutto, very sad.
Pakistan scares the bjeeezus outta me.
Send pat in. He'll fix it.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-27-2007, 07:58 AM
RIP Bhutto, very sad.
Pakistan scares the bjeeezus outta me.
Send pat in. He'll fix it.

It should be ok since the CIA controls Pakistan, don't forget the Police state is a good thing.

StcChief
12-27-2007, 08:07 AM
Who didn't see this coming

banyon
12-27-2007, 08:15 AM
No need to worry. Musharaff is on our side. Fighting AQ, remember? :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Are you sure you don't want to blame her again (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=172615&highlight=bhutto) for putting herself in harm's way?


Yes, if the AUTHORITIES had advised and requested that she choose a different method of transportation in order to protect both HER and the general public and she ignored their requests then yes, she is to be blamed for not taking the threat and the advice seriously. She put HER needs above that of her country's. How does that separate her from the currrent leader? Not exactly the change Pakistan needs.

I had high hopes that her return would be a big step in the right direction for Pakistan. She's already showing otherwise

BigRedChief
12-27-2007, 08:29 AM
A country this unstable with the bomb. Great. Just frinking great.

Ultra Peanut
12-27-2007, 08:31 AM
Fantastic.

Cochise
12-27-2007, 08:33 AM
No need to worry. Musharaff is on our side. Fighting AQ, remember? :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Who would have guessed, Chiefsplanet's angel of death shows up to turn it into political poker chips for her side...

I bet Bush is behind it... this was an inside job...

Sure-Oz
12-27-2007, 08:40 AM
Really sad ordeal, i am just glad my family lives in a "safer" area.

Adept Havelock
12-27-2007, 09:00 AM
Well, this certainly covers my "Oh F***!" quota for the morning.

RIP Bhutto. Damn Barbarians.

Donger
12-27-2007, 09:04 AM
That's a shame. Although one didn't really need to have a crystal ball to see it coming.

Mr. Laz
12-27-2007, 09:07 AM
we just need to get the F*** out the middle east and let them kill each other.

military ... military bases ... embassies, all of it.


take all the money we are wasting over there and use it to get us off oil.

no oil money = middle east is a 3rd world shit hole

Donger
12-27-2007, 09:15 AM
we just need to get the F*** out the middle east and let them kill each other.

military ... military bases ... embassies, all of it.


take all the money we are wasting over there and use it to get us off oil.

no oil money = middle east is a 3rd world shit hole

You are aware that Pakistan is not in the Middle East?

Mr. Laz
12-27-2007, 09:28 AM
You are aware that Pakistan is not in the Middle East?
:rolleyes:

does it border Afghanistan?

does it border Iran?



still more concerned with being a d!ck than anything else, i see.

Donger
12-27-2007, 09:38 AM
:rolleyes:

does it border Afghanistan?

does it border Iran?



still more concerned with being a d!ck than anything else, i see.

Yes, it does. And, in fact, some do consider it to be part of the ME, but traditionally not. I wasn't trying to be a d!ck, just pointing out a fact.

Mr. Laz
12-27-2007, 09:55 AM
Yes, it does. And, in fact, some do consider it to be part of the ME, but traditionally not. I wasn't trying to be a d!ck, just pointing out a fact.
i guess we just don't understand it each other then

because your "tone" was definitely "smartass prick" to me :shrug:



technically i guess pakistan is considered "far east" but Middle East is just a term and doesn't really have any established parameters.

IMO current Pakistan has far more in common with traditional middle eastern countries than it does with India,China,Thailand etc.

Donger
12-27-2007, 10:01 AM
i guess we just don't understand it each other then

because your "tone" was definitely "smartass prick" to me :shrug:



technically i guess pakistan is considered "far east" but Middle East is just a term and doesn't really have any established parameters.

IMO current Pakistan has far more in common with traditional middle eastern countries than it does with India,China,Thailand etc.

Personally, I think that Muslim countries should have their own moniker.

In other news, it looks like crude is going to spike above $100 today.

chagrin
12-27-2007, 10:09 AM
Oh no, this is sad news. She was a brave person; she had to see it coming but she stayed out there anyway. I admired her spirit, too bad.

Mr. Laz
12-27-2007, 10:12 AM
Personally, I think that Muslim countries should have their own moniker.

In other news, it looks like crude is going to spike above $100 today.

see ... ya bastige ROFL

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 10:15 AM
Are you sure you don't want to blame her again (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=172615&highlight=bhutto) for putting herself in harm's way?

Yes, afterall she said she knew the risks and was CHOOSING to proceed anyway. IMO, she made a calculated decision that her influence after her death would be as great, or greater, than it would be if she were to live cautiously and avoid such risks.

I guess we'll see if her gamble and her influence will transcend her death.

It's unfortunate that a martyr complex likely clouded her political judgment. I don't think it's surprising though. It's so ingrained in the religion that even for someone as 'progressive' as BB it's nearly impossible to separate from the political.

BigRedChief
12-27-2007, 10:28 AM
It's unfortunate that a martyr complex likely clouded her political judgment. I don't think it's surprising though. It's so ingrained in the religion that even for someone as 'progressive' as BB it's nearly impossible to separate from the political.
I disagree. If I thought my country was being taken away from the people and run by military juantas I would risk my own life to overthrown the military and restore power to the people.

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 10:30 AM
I disagree. If I thought my country was being taken away from the people and run by military juantas I would risk my own life to overthrown the military and restore power to the people.

I'm not disagreeing with that comment. I think that is what she was doing and should be admired for trying. What I can't figure out is why she insisted on doing these open air large rallies that are nearly impossible to secure under normal conditions let alone where the leader of the country (and your leading opponent) is one of the people wanting your death the most... :hmmm:

That reeks of martyr complex and/or a trust in Musharraff that should never have transpired. Either of those two, if not both, killed her.

http://media.npr.org/news/images/2007/dec/28/rally400.jpgFormer Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto addresses supporters at a campaign rally minutes before being assassinated Thursday in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

Donger
12-27-2007, 10:41 AM
She was standing in the vehicle, through the sunroof opening, when she was killed?

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 10:51 AM
She was standing in the vehicle, through the sunroof opening, when she was killed?

That is one of the reports but I don't think anyone is sure yet. It's unclear if she was shot or died from something from the bomb.

Cochise
12-27-2007, 10:53 AM
She was standing in the vehicle, through the sunroof opening, when she was killed?

That seems ill-advised.

dirk digler
12-27-2007, 10:55 AM
SHOCKING1!!11!11

In other news who really cares?

Taco John
12-27-2007, 10:57 AM
They were going to get her sooner or later whether she was standing in the car or not.

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 11:05 AM
SHOCKING1!!11!11

In other news who really cares?

Well, Pakistan has a nuke. It's also heavily infiltrated by AQ and Musharraff is a thug. Most of the world should care.

Ultra Peanut
12-27-2007, 11:06 AM
Some reports indicate that she was sitting in the car and killed by one of the people in her security detail.

dirk digler
12-27-2007, 11:12 AM
Well, Pakistan has a nuke. It's also heavily infiltrated by AQ and Musharraff is a thug. Most of the world should care.

No SHIT? Tell me something I don't know.

This administration has catered to Musharraf and has got zero to show for it. IMO it is time to take the kids gloves off when dealing with Pakistan.

Donger
12-27-2007, 11:16 AM
No SHIT? Tell me something I don't know.

This administration has catered to Musharraf and has got zero to show for it. IMO it is time to take the kids gloves off when dealing with Pakistan.

You think Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a zero?

Taco John
12-27-2007, 11:21 AM
SHOCKING1!!11!11

In other news who really cares?



People who are concerned about whether or not we're going to have to send troops into Pakistan in order to quell our latest CIA puppet there before he goes out of control with his nuclear weapon might have something to say about it. But other than that, nobody.

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 11:25 AM
No SHIT? Tell me something I don't know.

This administration has catered to Musharraf and has got zero to show for it. IMO it is time to take the kids gloves off when dealing with Pakistan.

The funny thing about that is they 'catered' to Musharraf while simultaneously 'convincing' him to allow Bhutto to return thereby setting up their latest foreign policy disaster.

Musharraf's involvement is all over this killing and the Administration will never admit it lest their foolish trust of him be even more exposed for the delusion that it is.

dirk digler
12-27-2007, 11:26 AM
You think Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a zero?

You're talking about 1 guy and IMO maybe Pakistan threw us a bone to keep the money flowing.

The Taliban and AQ is free to go about their business in Pakistan without hardly any resistance.

I think it is time for Pakistan to either put up or shut up.

Donger
12-27-2007, 11:31 AM
You're talking about 1 guy and IMO maybe Pakistan threw us a bone to keep the money flowing.

The Taliban and AQ is free to go about their business in Pakistan without hardly any resistance.

I think it is time for Pakistan to either put up or shut up.

One guy? Sure, but if you look at what he allegedly planned, he was a nice grab.

Donger
12-27-2007, 11:31 AM
Musharraf's involvement is all over this killing and the Administration will never admit it lest their foolish trust of him be even more exposed for the delusion that it is.

Wow. You should work for Scotland Yard.

KC Dan
12-27-2007, 11:34 AM
The funny thing about that is they 'catered' to Musharraf while simultaneously 'convincing' him to allow Bhutto to return thereby setting up their latest foreign policy disaster.

Musharraf's involvement is all over this killing and the Administration will never admit it lest their foolish trust of him be even more exposed for the delusion that it is.
OK, Miss Prime Minister, what would you do? This situation is a lose-lose until the Military gov't in Pakistan decides to rid itself of their own insurgency. I guess in your mind that everything bad that happens in the world is due to the US administration. You're a freaking joke.

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 11:35 AM
Wow. You should work for Scotland Yard.

Just watch.

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 11:36 AM
OK, Miss Prime Minister, what would you do? This situation is a lose-lose until the Military gov't in Pakistan decides to rid itself of their own insurgency. I guess in your mind that everything bad that happens in the world is due to the US administration. You're a freaking joke.

The US was INSTRUMENTAL in getting Bhutto back to Pakistan. They pressured Musharraf's cooperation. He 'agreed' but just like his 'agreements' with everything else the US has brokered with him he didn't really live up to his word.

KC Dan
12-27-2007, 11:38 AM
The US was INSTRUMENTAL in getting Bhutto back to Pakistan. They pressured Musharraf's cooperation. He 'agreed' but just like his 'agreements' with everything else the US has brokered with him he didn't really live up to his word.
Instead of your "bush is the devil" mantra, how about some potential solutions? Don't have any? Don't feel bad, no one else does either....

Donger
12-27-2007, 11:38 AM
Just watch.

Watch what? You've already completed the circle. You've implicated Musharraf AND thrown in a dig at the Bush administration, before her body is even cold.

Cochise
12-27-2007, 11:39 AM
OK, Miss Prime Minister, what would you do? This situation is a lose-lose until the Military gov't in Pakistan decides to rid itself of their own insurgency. I guess in your mind that everything bad that happens in the world is due to the US administration. You're a freaking joke.

Here it comes... Bush's fault... either they organized it or let it happen on purpose, or they were incompetent. Rest assured, like everything else... she will fix blame within hours of a tragedy where it 'belongs' as always.

Cochise
12-27-2007, 11:39 AM
Haha. She was doing it before I could even finish typing the post predicting she would do it.

KC Dan
12-27-2007, 11:40 AM
Haha. She was doing it before I could even finish typing the post predicting she would do it.
and the sun will rise again in the east. That is, unless Bush wants it to rise in the west.....

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 11:45 AM
Watch what? You've already completed the circle. You've implicated Musharraf AND thrown in a dig at the Bush administration, before her body is even cold.

Well, the writing was on the wall for weeks if not months...

No one paying attention to this situation is remotely shocked events transpired as they have. Truly those in the State Department and the WH are probably the only ones who are surprised.

Donger
12-27-2007, 11:47 AM
Well, the writing was on the wall for weeks if not months...

No one paying attention to this situation is remotely shocked events transpired as they have. Truly those in the State Department and the WH are probably the only ones who are surprised.

So, you blame her assassination on the Bush administration?

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 11:49 AM
Well, there is a photo that shows her standing in a sunroof taken just before the explosions.


:banghead:

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 11:50 AM
So, you blame her assassination on the Bush administration?

Not directly. Via their pressure on Musharraf and believing his word then, yes, in part. But then it appears Bhutto herself believed him as well. Which, if she received assurances from the US that he was cooperating then she likely let down her guard some. Which is the only thing I could think of that would allow her to trust him because she really didn't.

I think this will be 'found' to be 'done' by AQ which will 'benefit' everyone all around. The US saves face, Musharraf saves his azz, and AQ lives another day. Musharraf is involved though.

Donger
12-27-2007, 11:52 AM
Well, there is a photo that shows her standing in a sunroof taken just before the explosions.


:banghead:

Error 404 - Image Not Found (removed by CIA and George Bush)

dirk digler
12-27-2007, 11:52 AM
I was just watching Fox News and former Ambassador Bolton said it was a bad idea to bring Bhutto back and try to broker any kind of peace.

KC Dan
12-27-2007, 11:53 AM
Not directly. Via their pressure on Musharraf and believing his word then, yes, in part. But then it appears Bhutto herself believed him as well. Which, if she received assurances from the US that he was cooperating then she likely let down her guard some. Which is the only thing I could think of that would allow her to trust him because she really didn't.
OMG!!!! You stupid blind *&$%!!! I can say no more as you only add hate to this board, nothing more. BTW, it is snowing here - I blame Bush....

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 11:53 AM
I was just watching Fox News and former Ambassador Bolton said it was a bad idea to bring Bhutto back and try to broker any kind of peace.


Bad idea by whom??? :hmmm:

Did he mention who brought back Bhutto and was brokering peace? Just want to get it clarified for the reality impaired.

dirk digler
12-27-2007, 11:56 AM
Bad idea by whom??? :hmmm:

Did he mention who brought back Bhutto and was brokering peace? Just want to get it clarified for the reality impaired.

Only caught part of it but I took it as whoever brokered her into coming back.

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 11:57 AM
Only caught part of it but I took it as whoever brokered her into coming back.

I doubt he would mention the Administration by name but it would be interesting to see how he danced around it.

Donger
12-27-2007, 12:03 PM
Not directly. Via their pressure on Musharraf and believing his word then, yes, in part. But then it appears Bhutto herself believed him as well. Which, if she received assurances from the US that he was cooperating then she likely let down her guard some. Which is the only thing I could think of that would allow her to trust him because she really didn't.

I think this will be 'found' to be 'done' by AQ which will 'benefit' everyone all around. The US saves face, Musharraf saves his azz, and AQ lives another day. Musharraf is involved though.

Could you provide some evidence that supports your assertion that the Bush administration pressured Musharraf to accept Bhutto's return from exile please?

Easy 6
12-27-2007, 12:03 PM
Who didn't see this coming

No doubt, she was constantly putting herself smack in the middle of hoards of people...its like she had a death wish.

They got to Ahmed Shah Massoud in his personal compound, she didnt think they could get to her in the middle of a crowded street???

Nonetheless, what a loss for that country & the rest of the world.

StcChief
12-27-2007, 12:06 PM
No doubt, she was constantly putting herself smack in the middle of hoards of people...its like she had a death wish.

They got to Ahmed Shah Massoud in his personal compound, she didnt think they could get to her in the middle of a crowded street???

Nonetheless, what a loss for that country & the rest of the world.
yeah. I'm afraid Pakistan could be a powder keg and they have Nukes already. Extremist get those and sell it to Imanutjob.
Isreal/Iran go at it, we will be there to pickup the pieces in radiation suits.

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 12:11 PM
Could you provide some evidence that supports your assertion that the Bush administration pressured Musharraf to accept Bhutto's return from exile please?



Don't mind me. Perhaps Robert Novak's (established RWNJ) opinion might enlighten you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/02/AR2007120201637.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

That's why the U.S. government pressed Musharraf to permit Bhutto to return from exile and share power as a more dependable foe of the Islamists. Musharraf's response was to impose martial law, which amounted to a second military coup to keep him in power.

Donger
12-27-2007, 12:15 PM
Don't mind me. Perhaps Robert Novak's (established RWNJ) opinion might enlighten you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/02/AR2007120201637.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Thanks. I wasn't making an accusation, mind you. I just hadn't read anything that suggested we pressured Musharraf to allow her return.

I wonder who Novak's sources are?

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 12:15 PM
No doubt, she was constantly putting herself smack in the middle of hoards of people...its like she had a death wish.

They got to Ahmed Shah Massoud in his personal compound, she didnt think they could get to her in the middle of a crowded street???

Nonetheless, what a loss for that country & the rest of the world.

Not a death wish but a martyr complex which made her dying for the cause seem almost a foregone conclusion. Afterall, her father had done the same thing. She was merely repeating his outcome.

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 12:16 PM
Thanks. I wasn't making an accusation, mind you. I just hadn't read anything that suggested we pressured Musharraf to allow her return.

I wonder who Novak's sources are?


I found this rather accusatory but I understand your reluctance to admit the Bush Administration might have some culpability here.

Watch what? You've already completed the circle. You've implicated Musharraf AND thrown in a dig at the Bush administration, before her body is even cold.

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 12:19 PM
The United States had been at the forefront of foreign powers trying to arrange reconciliation between Bhutto and Musharraf, who under heavy U.S. pressure resigned as army chief and earlier this month lifted a state of emergency, in the hope it would put Pakistan back on the road to democracy. Bhutto's return to the country after years in exile and the ability of her party to contest free and fair elections had been a cornerstone of Bush's policy in Pakistan, where U.S. officials had watched Musharraf's growing authoritarianism with increasing unease.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h1aBshjF1CnfJ4noaEXA_Vb8dm-gD8TPTQN80

Donger
12-27-2007, 12:21 PM
I found this rather accusatory but I understand your reluctance to admit the Bush Administration might have some culpability here.

I'm not reluctant at all. I just like to base my opinions on facts. You don't know if Musharraf was behind this, yet you've already determined that he was behind it.

That's just not how rational people think. Sorry.

Musharraf has been targeted, what, three times over the last few years?

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 12:30 PM
I'm not reluctant at all. I just like to base my opinions on facts. You don't know if Musharraf was behind this, yet you've already determined that he was behind it.

That's just not how rational people think. Sorry.

Musharraf has been targeted, what, three times over the last few years?

If he had been concerned about who or what was trying to kill her then he would have seriously investigated the last attempt a few weeks ago. To date, no serious formal inquiry was done.

Now, it seems to me that if he had nothing to hide then he would score some serious points for outing those who were behind the attempts especially if it were not him or those affiliated with him. However, if it was AQ and they are operating under his nose without him stopping them (as we all know it is) then that also implicates him. Hence, do nothing.

Donger
12-27-2007, 12:34 PM
If he had been concerned about who or what was trying to kill her then he would have seriously investigated the last attempt a few weeks ago. To date, no serious formal inquiry was done.

Now, it seems to me that if he had nothing to hide then he would score some serious points for outing those who were behind the attempts especially if it were not him or those affiliated with him. However, if it was AQ and they are operating under his nose without him stopping them then that also implicates him. Hence, do nothing.

I see. You blame all that goes on in Pakistan on Musharraf just as you blame all that goes on in the US on Bush.

At least you're consistent.

Who do you think was behind the attempts on Musharraf's life?

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 12:38 PM
I see. You blame all that goes on in Pakistan on Musharraf just as you blame all that goes on in the US on Bush.

At least you're consistent.

Who do you think was behind the attempts on Musharraf's life?

Killing political leaders in Pakistan is a sport...

no doubt one or more of his enemies tried to do the deed.

Donger
12-27-2007, 12:39 PM
Killing political leaders in Pakistan is a sport...

no doubt one or more of his enemies tried to do the deed.

So, according to your 'logic' above, that's Musharraf's fault too.

KC Dan
12-27-2007, 12:41 PM
However, if it was AQ and they are operating under his nose without him stopping them (as we all know it is) then that also implicates him. Hence, do nothing.
Finally, some actual good points without throwing our administration under the bus. Is Musharraf doing nothing to prevent terrorism in his own country? Most likely but since I am not there, I can't say for sure. However, he has a lot more to worry about considering the political environment in his country and the fact that 48% of his population support Bin Laden, AQ and the Taliban. I would think that if a group is basically threatening your countrys' sovereignty that you would do whatever you can to eradicate it. But, if your population supports them, what do you do? There is a whole lot more to Pakistans' current environment to consider than just a simple Musharraf let them or helped them kill off Bhutto. Not to even mention their issue of Kashmir.

My question would be - how should Musharraf deal with the insurgency in his country while not alienating his populace?

Taco John
12-27-2007, 12:41 PM
More proof that interventionism doesn't work.

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 12:43 PM
So, according to your 'logic' above, that's Musharraf's fault too.

Burning both ends of the candle...

you are bound to get scorched.

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 12:48 PM
Finally, some actual good points without throwing our administration under the bus. Is Musharraf doing nothing to prevent terrorism in his own country? Most likely but since I am not there, I can't say for sure. However, he has a lot more to worry about considering the political environment in his country and the fact that 48% of his population support Bin Laden, AQ and the Taliban. I would think that if a group is basically threatening your countrys' sovereignty that you would do whatever you can to eradicate it. But, if your population supports them, what do you do? There is a whole lot more to Pakistans' current environment to consider than just a simple Musharraf let them or helped them kill off Bhutto. Not to even mention their issue of Kashmir.

My question would be - how should Musharraf deal with the insurgency in his country while not alienating his populace?

Musharraf can't. He's proven (to the Pakistani people) to be too corrupt, too much of a sell out to the US, too undemocratic, too much a repeat of Pakistani history. But he holds all the power and he's not going anywhere anytime soon. At least while still breathing...

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 12:53 PM
Here is an excellent article about the Bush meddling in Pakistan with Bhutto in particular.

http://www.slate.com/id/2177249


The Freedom Agenda FizzlesHow George Bush and Condoleezza Rice made a mess of Pakistan.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Monday, Nov. 5, 2007, at 7:18 PM ET


Now we've really got problems.

The state of emergency in Pakistan signals yet another low point in President George W. Bush's foreign policy—a stark demonstration of his paltry influence and his bankrupt principles. More than that, the crackdown locks us in a crisis—a potentially dangerous dynamic—from which there appears to be no escape route.

For much of last week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other top U.S. officials had been urging Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, not to declare martial law. He not only ignored these pleas; he defied them.

Last month, Rice persuaded Musharraf to let exiled former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto back in the country—and persuaded Bhutto to go back—as part of a power-sharing deal. The idea was that Musharraf, who doubles as army chief of staff, would retain control of the military in the fight against terrorism, while Bhutto would attract the loyalty of Pakistan's increasingly discontented democrats. That ploy, too, turned out to be illusory: Bhutto was attacked the moment she got back; Musharraf showed no interest in sharing power.

Musharraf is portraying his suspension of the constitution as a necessary step to stabilize Pakistan and fend off Islamist terrorists. Yet the timing suggests it was, for the most part, a power grab. Pakistan's Supreme Court was about to rule that Musharraf's reign as both president and army chief of staff was unconstitutional. That meant the coming elections (which may or may not now be called off) would have ended his reign. And so he dissolved the court. He also arrested many democratic activists and shut down the nation's independent media.

It should now be clear, if it wasn't already, that Musharraf has been diddling Bush & Co. the past three years or longer.

In exchange for his promises to root out Taliban terrorists on the Afghan border and within Pakistan's own intelligence service, Bush has supplied Musharraf with at least $10 billion in aid. Yet while Musharraf has rendered considerable assistance in the war on terrorism, the Taliban—and possibly Osama Bin Laden himself—retain their sanctuary in Pakistan's northwest territories.

In exchange for Musharraf's promises to be a good democrat someday, Bush has declared Pakistan to be a "major non-NATO ally." Yet, with his strategically timed state of emergency, Musharraf has revealed he's not at all interested in democratic transitions.

But what can Bush—or his successor—do about it? The problem is that there's some truth to Musharraf's official reason for his crackdown. He has been going after al-Qaida jihadists, especially those inside his own country, though not so much Taliban fighters on the border of Afghanistan. And he is in a genuinely tight spot. On the one hand, he fears what some Western officials call the "Talibanization of Pakistan." On the other hand, he can't go after them too avidly, for fear of sparking a backlash from some of his own officers who have Islamist sympathies and who don't want to be seen as fighting America's war.

As Daniel Markey, a former State Department specialist on south Asia, wrote last summer in Foreign Affairs magazine, the army is "Pakistan's strongest government institution and the only one that can possibly deal with immediate threats of violent militancy and terrorism."

If the United States were to respond to this power grab by cutting off aid to the Pakistani army, the army would turn elsewhere—and the Islamist factions would be strengthened. If the United States were to cut its links to Musharraf … well, Musharraf is the face of the Pakistani army. If he goes, probably some other strongman would take his place, but the tenuous coalition he has assembled could fall apart in the process, with unpredictable—but almost certainly unpleasant—results.

And let's not forget the ultimate unpleasant fact: Pakistan has a test-proven nuclear arsenal.

Someone was speculating this morning on the BBC that the Bush administration might have a secret ally, an agent of sorts, within the Pakistani military command, poised to step in and serve U.S. interests if Musharraf fell. This is very doubtful. First, there are the obvious reasons (Bush's intense commitment to Musharraf and the military's relative impenetrability). Second, if Bush did have some fallback leader, it's unlikely Rice would have put so much effort—however fruitless the gesture now seems—to getting Bhutto back in the country for a power-sharing gambit. Nor, by the way, are there any civilian politicians in whom the United States could put its hopes; as Daniel Markey indicates in his article (and he is far from alone in this view), there are no civilian politicians, parties, or other entities that could exercise power without the military's nod.

This is why the Bush administration's response to the clampdown has been, as they say, "muted." The fact is, the United States needs Musharraf more than Musharraf needs the United States. And the fact that he's rubbing our noses in it doesn't make it any less true.Last month, Rice persuaded Musharraf to let exiled former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto back in the country—and persuaded Bhutto to go back—as part of a power-sharing deal. The idea was that Musharraf, who doubles as army chief of staff, would retain control of the military in the fight against terrorism, while Bhutto would attract the loyalty of Pakistan's increasingly discontented democrats. That ploy, too, turned out to be illusory: Bhutto was attacked the moment she got back; Musharraf showed no interest in sharing power.

We can't do much about this now, but we might have been able to do something about it two years ago or six months ago. The fact that we didn't is a grave indictment of Bush's foreign policy, both its practices and its principles.

For instance, nearly all of the $10 billion in U.S. military aid to Pakistan has gone to its military. Bush could have at least tried to funnel a larger portion of the aid to democratic institutions.

This crisis was triggered last March when Musharraf fired the chief justice of the Supreme Court for criticizing his rule. That set off the unprecedented street rallies by the nation's lawyers. That emboldened the Supreme Court, which started to take its duties seriously. That gave rise to the near-certainty that the court would rule Musharraf's reign illegal. That tipped Musharraf to suspend the constitution—and, with it, the courts.

Since Bush officials stay in touch with Musharraf quite frequently, and since they are known to pay at least lip service to democracy, someone could have at least advised Musharraf to get off this track. No one could have expected him to turn democrat, but he could have taken palliative measures—or cynical ones: for instance, paying off the justices—to ward off a crisis.

The Bush foreign policy was neither shrewd enough to play self-interested power politics nor truly principled enough to enforce its ideals.

One consequence of this crisis is that Bush's "freedom agenda" is finally bankrupt. He will never again be able to invoke it, even as a rhetorical ploy, without evoking winces or laughter.

In his second inaugural address, where Bush first declared that the main aim of his foreign policy would be to spread democracy and topple tyranny all around the world, he warned dictators that good relations with America "would require the decent treatment of their own people."

Musharraf's proclamation is the definitive proof that no dictator takes—or ever will again take—that warning seriously.

In the same address, Bush spun an appealing but specious syllogism: Tyranny breeds discontent; discontent breeds hatred and terrorism; terrorism threatens U.S. security; therefore, promoting democracy enhances U.S. security. Or, as he put it, "America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one."

Musharraf's proclamation, and Bush's muted response to it, proves that interests and ideals, alas, still sometimes clash.

But the most dismaying contradiction appears in the 2006 edition of the official document titled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America." In his introduction, Bush wrote, "We seek to shape the world, not merely be shaped by it; to influence events for the better instead of being at their mercy."

Musharraf's proclamation reveals that we are not the "sole superpower" that Bush and his associates thought we were; that sometimes the combination of vital interests and mediocre diplomacy put us all too desperately at the mercy of events.

KC Dan
12-27-2007, 12:54 PM
Musharraf can't. He's proven (to the Pakistani people) to be too corrupt, too much of a sell out to the US, too undemocratic, too much a repeat of Pakistani history. But he holds all the power and he's not going anywhere anytime soon. At least while still breathing...
I would agree and venture to add that the real power is held in the tribal area leaders hands. Otherwise he and his military would have solved this insurgency issue by now. Even without Musharraf, I don't believe that anything will change for the better. I almost understand the US supporting, prompting, conniving (whatever you want to call it) to get Bhutto back there. They were banking on a democratic uprising that would force the gov'ts hand in dealing with the insurgency but obviously the terrorists hold more power than the govt.

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 12:57 PM
I almost understand the US supporting, prompting, conniving (whatever you want to call it) to get Bhutto back there. They were banking on a democratic uprising that would force the gov'ts hand in dealing with the insurgency but obviously the terrorists hold more power than the govt.

Well at least you are admitting they were involved. Whether or not you find altruistic reasons is, I guess, a matter of preference. But there should be no denying that they facilitated a series of events that has left Benazir Bhutto dead.

BigRedChief
12-27-2007, 12:59 PM
cnn video right before the attack and after:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2007/12/27/vo.bhutto.last.pictures.geotv

BigRedChief
12-27-2007, 01:17 PM
The presidential candidates are shocked at the assination. What rock have they been hiding under? JEEEZZZ you could see this coming with blinders on.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/27/candidates.reaction/index.html

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 01:21 PM
The presidential candidates are shocked at the assination. What rock have they been hiding under? JEEEZZZ you could see this coming with blinders on.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/27/candidates.reaction/index.html

Good question.

I suppose it is shocking when a world leader or potential world leader is killed but in this case it was not a matter of if but when.

Donger
12-27-2007, 01:23 PM
The presidential candidates are shocked at the assination. What rock have they been hiding under? JEEEZZZ you could see this coming with blinders on.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/27/candidates.reaction/index.html

Who is shocked?

Edit - Heh, only Obama and Dodd.

KC Dan
12-27-2007, 01:31 PM
Well at least you are admitting they were involved. Whether or not you find altruistic reasons is, I guess, a matter of preference. But there should be no denying that they facilitated a series of events that has left Benazir Bhutto dead.
No, of course as always you fail to misrepresent what I said (or meant) by my statement. I am NOT admitting that the US is involved with her murder. They are not in any way, shape or form guilty of "facilitating" her death. The US were assisting her to gain access to her own country to spur democratic advances not accelerate her trip to her maker.

I laugh at your posts because you fail to address the REAL issues in that country. You just jump right on the Bush is at fault wagon and add nothing to the conversation regarding a country that is in serious trouble. At least the US was trying to assist them to find their way out of this hotbed. But, you have no real solutions or discussions of the issues in Pakistan, only finger pointing.

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 01:41 PM
No, of course as always you fail to misrepresent what I said (or meant) by my statement. I am NOT admitting that the US is involved with her murder. They are not in any way, shape or form guilty of "facilitating" her death. The US were assisting her to gain access to her own country to spur democratic advances not accelerate her trip to her maker.

I laugh at your posts because you fail to address the REAL issues in that country. You just jump right on the Bush is at fault wagon and add nothing to the conversation regarding a country that is in serious trouble. At least the US was trying to assist them to find their way out of this hotbed. But, you have no real solutions or discussions of the issues in Pakistan, only finger pointing.


I didn't say they were involved in her murder. I am saying they were involved in facilitating events that have led to her death. Would she have been assassinated if she were still living in Dubai and not on the ground campaigning for power and leadership in the country? Doubtful. Her reemergence IN Pakistan was a threat to their status quo by those who viewed her and, possibly, her cooperation with the US as a threat.

FTR, one of Bhutto's advisors is on CNN saying the US government 'let her down' once she was there by continuing to pressure HER to give concessions to Musharraf and not taking threats against her seriously...

OUCH.

Brace yourself. It will not only be DUHbya hatahs in the US who will find culpability here...

how are you going to react when it's RWNJs like Novak or Buchanan who are saying the same thing I am???? :hmmm: Not to mention the unimportant and irrelevent world opinion.

KC Dan
12-27-2007, 01:47 PM
I didn't say they were involved in her murder. I am saying they were involved in facilitating events that have led to her death. Would she have been assassinated if she were still living in Dubai? Doubtful. Her reemergence IN Pakistan was a threat to their status quo.

FTR, one of Bhutto's advisors is on CNN saying the US government 'let her down' once she was there by continuing to pressure HER to give concessions to Musharraf and not taking threats against her seriously...

OUCH.

Brace yourself. It will not only be DUHbya hatahs in the US who will find culpability here...

how are you going to react when it's RWNJs like Novak or Buchanan who are saying the same thing I am???? :hmmm: Not to mention the unimportant and irrelevent world opinion.
As I am not a rwnj, I really don't care what they say. I can think for myself without listening to the 24hr cable channels to formulate my own talking points. Try thinking for yourself instead of letting Air America and the 24hr cable news shows do it for you.

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 01:50 PM
As I am not a rwnj, I really don't care what they say. I can think for myself without listening to the 24hr cable channels to formulate my own talking points. Try thinking for yourself instead of letting Air America and the 24hr cable news shows do it for you.

Oh, I formulate my own opinions, thank you. 24 Hour cable news is good only for events like this when you want to see what is happening AFTER THE FACT...

like I said before, some of this saw us coming a mile away. Why? Because we'd been paying attention before this or the last attempt. And we weren't watching CNN, FOX, or MSNBC to provide us with the information or commentary because they were busy focusing on other things.

Donger
12-27-2007, 01:58 PM
Oh, I formulate my own opinions, thank you. 24 Hour cable news is good only for events like this when you want to see what is happening AFTER THE FACT...

like I said before, some of this saw us coming a mile away. Why? Because we'd been paying attention before this or the last attempt. And we weren't watching CNN, FOX, or MSNBC to provide us with the information or commentary because they were busy focusing on other things.

Yes. You are a genius for not being shocked that she was finally successfully assassinated.

Good lord, get over yourself.

go bowe
12-27-2007, 01:58 PM
Who would have guessed, Chiefsplanet's angel of death shows up to turn it into political poker chips for her side...

I bet Bush is behind it... this was an inside job...bush is da debbil...

Jilly
12-27-2007, 02:01 PM
It's sad. I mourn for Pakistan and their loss of a great leader. I only pray that someone will follow suit, take the reigns and lead them to a nation of nonviolence. They need a Ghandi.

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 02:02 PM
Yes. You are a genius for not being shocked that she was finally successfully assassinated.

Good lord, get over yourself.

No, it's not that she was finally done in. But that the series of events led it to happen sooner rather than later.

Once she agreed to 'powersharing' with Musharraf she signed her death certificate...IMO.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/28/bhutto.musharraf/index.html


Musharraf, Bhutto reportedly discuss power-sharing deal
Pakistan's Musharraf has had talks with ex PM Benazir Bhutto, sources say

updated 6:14 p.m. EDT, Sat July 28, 2007


From CNN's Syed Mohsin Naqvi

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Pakistan's embattled president sat down with a major exiled opposition leader in Abu Dhabi, an encounter designed to shore up his power, sources tell CNN.


Exiled opposition leader Benazir Bhutto has met with President Pervez Musharraf, sources tell CNN.

President Pervez Musharraf huddled with former prime minister Benazir Bhutto in Abu Dhabi on Friday evening, according to a senior government official and a senior associate of Bhutto's powerful Pakistan People's Party.

It was the first meeting between two political rivals since Musharraf took power in a bloodless coup in 1999, even though representatives of both camps have been speaking for months.

Musharraf and Bhutto talked about a power-sharing deal, The Associated Press reported citing local media, but the meeting apparently hit a snag when Bhutto pressed Musharraf to leave the military.

"Our stand is that, and I stick to my stand, that we do not accept President Musharraf in uniform," Bhutto said Saturday, according to The Associated Press.

Musharraf is not only the president, but is also the chief of the army -- a position he has refused to give up.

At least one analyst says that may change as Musharraf's five-year-term as president comes to an end. New parliamentary elections are expected at the end of the year.

"Musharraf would have to cede some power, probably by resigning his powerful post as head of the army, but could remain president while Bhutto becomes prime minister. He could then afford to hold free elections, since an alliance with Bhutto would give him real support in parliament," according to Peter Beinart, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Analysts say that Musharraf is contacting opposition leaders to buttress support for his power because he has been getting weaker politically. The stakes are high for Musharraf and the United States, which is relying on its ally to promote a moderate agenda and fight radical Islamism.

Beinart wrote in the latest edition of Time magazine that if Musharraf "rigs or cancels" such elections, "Pakistan could explode, and he'll have to use brute force to hang on. That could further strengthen the Islamists, who feed on chaos, or prompt another coup, which could put a more anti-American general in charge."

Beinart writes that a deal between Musharraf and Bhutto -- who has been in self-imposed exile since her last term in office ended in corruption allegations in 1996 -- would be a "better option" for the United States.

He said the alliance would make the "government more accountable" and strengthening "the secular parties that are Pakistan's best long-term bulwark against Islamist rule."

Musharraf stopped by Abu Dhabi for a few hours on his way to Saudi Arabia, sources said. Abu Dhabi is part of the United Arab Emirates.

Musharraf's spokesman denied reports of the meeting, but said the government is open for talks with anyone. Bhutto's party also denied reports of such a meeting.

Pakistan has been rocked by discord along the Afghan-Pakistani border, where Pakistani troops are facing off with militants and in Islamabad during the crisis surrounding Islamabad's Red Mosque.

The mosque, which is owned by the Pakistani government, was the site of a bloody stand-off earlier this month between military forces and Islamic extremists. It ended when security forces stormed the Red Mosque complex to flush out the militants inside, who wanted to impose a Taliban-style rule across the capital.

Nearly 100 people died -- most were radical students holed up inside, but some were women and children as well.

On Friday, the Pakistani government closed the mosque for an indefinite period after a nearby bomb explosion and massive protest, which had broken out following the mosque's re-opening for Friday prayers, the interior ministry said.

At least 13 people were killed and 61 others were wounded in a restaurant bombing targeting police.

The controversy over the status of the country's chief judge, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, hurt Musharraf's standing.

Musharraf suspended Chaudhry in March, an act that sparked protests and a major political face-off. The top court reinstated the judge earlier this month in what was a blow to Musharraf

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 02:03 PM
Wow, CNN is reporting that Bhutto herself believed it will be Musharraf who is responsible if she is killed. She emailed a letter to a friend with instructions to send it to Wolf Blitzer IF she is killed. He received it back in October 26, 2007.

She cited the lack of investigation by Musharraf as well as warnings and lack of security detail provided by his government. Her requests for jammers, bomb proof cars, etc. for security was denied BY MUSHARRAF.

go bowe
12-27-2007, 02:14 PM
The funny thing about that is they 'catered' to Musharraf while simultaneously 'convincing' him to allow Bhutto to return thereby setting up their latest foreign policy disaster.

Musharraf's involvement is all over this killing and the Administration will never admit it lest their foolish trust of him be even more exposed for the delusion that it is.i dunno...

i find it hard to believe that anybody working for mushysheriff would ever be a suicide bomber...

otoh, the taliban and aq have used suicide bombers as their primary weapon...

i suspect mushysheriff didn't have anything to do with the assassination even though he may (temporarily) benefit from it...

in the long run, bhutto's death may help to bring mushysheriff down...

i just hope packystan will become a genuine democracy before some nut case starts lobbing nuclear bombs at israel, india, and other points to be determined later...

r.i.p. ms. bhutto...

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 02:17 PM
i dunno...

i find it hard to believe that anybody working for sheriff would ever be a suicide bomber...

otoh, the taliban and aq have used suicide bombers as their primary weapon...

i suspect mushysheriff didn't have anything to do with the assassination even though he may (temporarily) benefit from it...

in the long run, bhutto's death may help to bring mushysheriff down...

i just hope packystan will become a genuine democracy before some nutcake starts lobbing nuclear bombs at israel, india, and other points to be determined later...

r.i.p. to the lady...

To each their own. Apparently Bhutto herself is blaming him which I find particularly damning.

patteeu
12-27-2007, 02:18 PM
Musharraf's involvement is all over this killing and the Administration will never admit it lest their foolish trust of him be even more exposed for the delusion that it is.

:spock: Link?

Donger
12-27-2007, 02:20 PM
To each their own. Apparently Bhutto herself is blaming him which I find particularly damning.

Amazing. She wrote it after the assassination?

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 02:22 PM
:spock: Link?

There are links all over this thread. Click on them.

memyselfI
12-27-2007, 02:23 PM
Amazing. She wrote it after the assassination?

In October 2007, she sent a letter to a friend after the last attempt outlining why she believes it would be him if she ended up being killed. The letter was sent to Wolf Blitzer (who interviewed her in Sept.) with instructions NOT to report her suspicions unless she is killed.

This information just broke about 20 minutes ago.

go bowe
12-27-2007, 02:25 PM
we just need to get the F*** out the middle east and let them kill each other.

military ... military bases ... embassies, all of it.


take all the money we are wasting over there and use it to get us off oil.

no oil money = middle east is a 3rd world shit holeanything that reduces our dependence on foreign oil sources is a good thing...

but the me will not become a shithole if we stop buying their oil...

it is already a shithole...

and they won't lose much, if any, of their oil wealth because developing countries like china and india will continue to throw their money at the me for the foreseeable future...

KC Dan
12-27-2007, 02:28 PM
RIP Benazir Bhutto. I hope that the country that you gave your life for will stand up against the insurgents and the corrupt people in your gov't.

go bowe
12-27-2007, 02:34 PM
Instead of your "bush is the devil" mantra, how about some potential solutions? Don't have any? Don't feel bad, no one else does either....hey, you've got it all wrong...

it's "bush is da debbil"...

try to keep up, okay?

go bowe
12-27-2007, 02:58 PM
Thanks. I wasn't making an accusation, mind you. I just hadn't read anything that suggested we pressured Musharraf to allow her return.

I wonder who Novak's sources are?well, that's easy...

the sources were scooter and dick...

scooter snuck a note out of his prison cell...

and dick sent a note out from the undisclosed location he's been enjoying for the past 6 or 7 years...

and then valerie plame confirmed the story for novak...

what other sources do you need?

Mr. Laz
12-27-2007, 03:11 PM
anything that reduces our dependence on foreign oil sources is a good thing...

but the me will not become a shithole if we stop buying their oil...

it is already a shithole...

and they won't lose much, if any, of their oil wealth because developing countries like china and india will continue to throw their money at the me for the foreseeable future...
true ..... but if we stop buying that cuts their market for oil in half.


and if we set and example for mass alternative usage then China and other countries will follow.

soon the ME won't be able to afford the flight over to the U.S. to blow anything up.

go bowe
12-27-2007, 03:17 PM
* * *
Who do you think was behind the attempts on Musharraf's life?well, let's see...

there's that fun-loving bunch formerly of afghanistan, the taliban...

and their fun-loving pals in aq...

and some fun-loving home grown islamofacist pakistanis to round out the candidates...

Iowanian
12-27-2007, 08:01 PM
It wasn't hard to predict, with those psycho Muslim assholes.

This was obviously an overt operation by the Bush-Cheney led planners of the 9-11 attack, because they were slow due to the holidays[/dens/tacoh]

If Pakistan gets too out of whack, Bush should just tell India that the Pakistanis said Cattle were bad a sex. India will eventually take care of them anyway, I think.

FAX
12-27-2007, 08:23 PM
Very sad, this.

What a nightmare world.

FAX

BucEyedPea
12-27-2007, 09:38 PM
I just saw this by Bhutto from last January. The writer has a link to Parade but it doesn't work for me.

The gist is that Bhutto said Mushie's govt is infested with radical Islamacists and: "I would say, 'Your policy of supporting dictatorship is breaking up my country.' I now think al-Qaeda can be marching on Islamabad in two to four years." -- Bhutto

Wow! She agrees with Paul. ( I couldn't resist this.)



http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018049.html

StcChief
12-27-2007, 09:42 PM
Pakistan is on the brink....they are the powder keg with Nukes. India near by and moderate Islam in Iran/Iraq.

Will be interesting in 2008

doomy3
12-27-2007, 10:18 PM
This is terrible.

R.I.P. Bhutto

SBK
12-27-2007, 10:23 PM
Not surprising is that she was killed. We all knew it would happen, she did too. She was either brave/stupid to go back to Pakistan, I suppose that's for history to decide.

What did surprise me that Bush wasn't blamed for this until page 3. I figured the first or second post would place blame to the proper person/debbil.

Cochise
12-27-2007, 10:34 PM
A some what incendiary comment from Andrew McCarthy of NRO


A recent CNN poll showed that 46 percent of Pakistanis approve of Osama bin Laden. Aspirants to the American presidency should hope to score so highly in the United States. In Pakistan, though, the al-Qaeda emir easily beat out that country’s current president, Pervez Musharraf, who polled at 38 percent.

President George Bush, the face of a campaign to bring democracy — or, at least, some form of sharia-lite that might pass for democracy — to the Islamic world, registered nine percent. Nine!

If you want to know what to make of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto’s murder today in Pakistan, ponder that.

There is the Pakistan of our fantasy. The burgeoning democracy in whose vanguard are judges and lawyers and human rights activists using the “rule of law” as a cudgel to bring down a military junta. In the fantasy, Bhutto, an attractive, American-educated socialist whose prominent family made common cause with Soviets and whose tenures were rife with corruption, was somehow the second coming of James Madison.

Then there is the real Pakistan: an enemy of the United States and the West.


And, from an earlier attempt on her life:


MARDAN, Pakistan — Benazir Bhutto said she would have been killed by the bomb blasts that ripped apart her homecoming processional this October if she had followed her instincts and taken a baby from a bystander.
#

Photos: On the road with Benazir Bhutto

A man had gotten close to her armored truck, the former prime minister said, and had been trying to hand across a small child as her motorcade inched through the thronged streets of Karachi. She remembers gesturing for the man to come closer.

"It was about one or two years old, and I think it was a girl," Mrs. Bhutto recalled. "We feel it was a baby, kidnapped, and its clothes were rigged with explosives. He kept trying to hand it to people to hand to me. I'm a mother, I love babies, but the [street lights] had already gone out, and I was worried about the baby getting dropped or hurt." She would have been dead, she said, if she had not just dipped back inside her vehicle to loosen the shoes on her swollen feet.

"The baby, the bomb, it went off only feet from me; there was nothing between us but the wall of the truck," she said in an interview with The Washington Times on Tuesday. "We were rocking from side to side, this huge truck. We saw the bodies, the blood everywhere; we saw the carnage. Some bodies were naked, with their clothes burned off," she said, shutting her Kohl-rimmed eyes against the vision.

More than 170 supporters were killed in coordinated blasts along the route, a horror that was carried on live television and has shaped the already tumultuous campaign season here.


And just two days ago:


POLICE in Pakistan have stopped a 15-year-old boy they say was carrying a bomb made of dynamite and nails from gettnig into a rally by opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.

The boy got past the first of four security checkpoints set up outside the rally in the northwestern city of Peshawar but was caught at the second, said police officer Rahim Shah, according to the Associated Press.

'Hamas' Jenkins
12-27-2007, 10:37 PM
Ick. Talk about a problem with no good and/or obvious solutions.

The US basically has three options:

1) funnel more $$ to pro democracy groups and let them try and sprout while simultaneously telling Musharraf "hands off" and hope that "freedom" will be on the march.

2) Go in and wipe the place out Cambodia-style (not palatable)

3) Exact a Stalin-like purge of the Islamists within the military and then instigate more harsh crackdowns on the radical islamic sympathizers.


None of those are very appetizing.

SBK
12-27-2007, 11:16 PM
Ick. Talk about a problem with no good and/or obvious solutions.

The US basically has three options:

1) funnel more $$ to pro democracy groups and let them try and sprout while simultaneously telling Musharraf "hands off" and hope that "freedom" will be on the march.

2) Go in and wipe the place out Cambodia-style (not palatable)

3) Exact a Stalin-like purge of the Islamists within the military and then instigate more harsh crackdowns on the radical islamic sympathizers.


None of those are very appetizing.

Pakistan basically sucks. In fact, in rates quite low in places I'd ever want to visit. Right at or near the bottom. Don't think I'd cry if my feet never touched it's soil.

BigMeatballDave
12-27-2007, 11:18 PM
Pakistan basically sucks. In fact, in rates quite low in places I'd ever want to visit. Right at or near the bottom. Don't think I'd cry if my feet never touched it's soil.I wouldn't lose any sleep if that entire region were wiped out by a meteor...

SBK
12-27-2007, 11:46 PM
I wouldn't lose any sleep if that entire region were wiped out by a meteor...

I've been to Israel and it's quite nice. The whole area isn't bad, but there certainly are parts of it that would be eligible for Raiders season tickets.

memyselfI
12-28-2007, 06:07 AM
Excellent article outlining the WH involvement in Buhtto's return for the deniers. Pull your head out of your azz and see this for what it is. I'm sure there is one particular passage you will hang your hats on.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22414361/

patteeu
12-28-2007, 06:36 AM
Excellent article outlining the WH involvement in Buhtto's return for the deniers. Pull your head out of your azz and see this for what it is. I'm sure there is one particular passage you will hang your hats on.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22414361/

Who is denying that the WH was "involved" in Bhutto's return? What most people object to are your idiotic choices of words, e.g. "culpability".

mlyonsd
12-28-2007, 07:04 AM
and if we set and example for mass alternative usage then China and other countries will follow.


I think that's nuts. If we reduce the demand for world oil the price will come down and I don't see a need for China to move to alternative energy for quite a while.

Unless maybe we start taxing the chit out of their products.

ct
12-28-2007, 11:57 AM
we just need to get the F*** out the middle east and let them kill each other.

military ... military bases ... embassies, all of it.


take all the money we are wasting over there and use it to get us off oil.

no oil money = middle east is a 3rd world shit hole

Sadly this is not true, as any ME "3rd world shithole" worth a shit is buying Western businesses and banking institutions in preparation for the oil market and/or supply drying out.

Baby Lee
12-28-2007, 12:14 PM
I didn't say they were involved in her murder. I am saying they were involved in facilitating events that have led to her death. Would she have been assassinated if she were still living in Dubai and not on the ground campaigning for power and leadership in the country? Doubtful. Her reemergence IN Pakistan was a threat to their status quo by those who viewed her and, possibly, her cooperation with the US as a threat.

FTR, one of Bhutto's advisors is on CNN saying the US government 'let her down' once she was there by continuing to pressure HER to give concessions to Musharraf and not taking threats against her seriously...

OUCH.

Brace yourself. It will not only be DUHbya hatahs in the US who will find culpability here...

how are you going to react when it's RWNJs like Novak or Buchanan who are saying the same thing I am???? :hmmm: Not to mention the unimportant and irrelevent world opinion.
This is some ****ed up logic.
By this logic, the Founding Fathers share culpability in MLK Jr's assassination for codifying freedom of speech.

memyselfI
12-28-2007, 01:37 PM
This is some ****ed up logic.
By this logic, the Founding Fathers share culpability in MLK Jr's assassination for codifying freedom of speech.

The founding father's didn't spend months on the phone working to ensure that MLK was in a place that could kill him like Condaloser Rice did.

memyselfI
12-28-2007, 01:39 PM
Who is denying that the WH was "involved" in Bhutto's return? What most people object to are your idiotic choices of words, e.g. "culpability".

I said they were culpable in her return to Pakistan and in negotiating her reemergence in Pakistani politics. Which they were.

You can disagree that her political re-emergence led to her death or not. But to the best of my knowledge, she did not have any assassination attempts on her life when she was being a mother in Dubai.

patteeu
12-28-2007, 02:00 PM
I said they were culpable in her return to Pakistan and in negotiating her reemergence in Pakistani politics. Which they were.

You can disagree that her political re-emergence led to her death or not. But to the best of my knowledge, she did not have any assassination attempts on her life when she was being a mother in Dubai.

Your choice of words [Dennis Green]was what I thought it was[/Dennis Green].

I wouldn't have blamed her if she'd wanted to live out her life in a luxurious exile, but she chose to return to the Pakistan political scene. Who knows, maybe she got what she really wanted. If not, it's too bad for her, but the people who deserve to be blamed are the people who plotted and executed her killing, not the people who are trying to block the rise of islamist extremism in the region.

memyselfI
12-28-2007, 02:07 PM
Your choice of words [Dennis Green]was what I thought it was[/Dennis Green].

I wouldn't have blamed her if she'd wanted to live out her life in a luxurious exile, but she chose to return to the Pakistan political scene. Who knows, maybe she got what she really wanted. If not, it's too bad for her, but the people who deserve to be blamed are the people who plotted and executed her killing, not the people who are trying to block the rise of islamist extremism in the region.

LOL, for the comprehension impaired.

Whoever killed her is responsible for KILLING HER. The US is responsible for helping her get back into the political arena in Pakistan which is where she was when she was killed.

You can deny this fact all you want but Condoleeza Rice and her boss' policy ARE PART of the series of events that led to her death. They didn't pull the trigger or detonate the bomb but they assisted her in getting to the spot where that trigger or bomb was detonated.

You, I, everyone else, and history, will be the judge whether or not they have blood on their hands...

patteeu
12-28-2007, 02:15 PM
LOL, for the comprehension impaired.

Whoever killed her is responsible for KILLING HER. The US is responsible for helping her get back into the political arena in Pakistan which is where she was when she was killed.

You can deny this fact all you want but Condoleeza Rice and her boss' policy ARE PART of the series of events that led to her death. They didn't pull the trigger or detonate the bomb but they assisted her in getting to the spot where that trigger or bomb was detonated.

You, I, everyone else, and history, will be the judge whether or not they have blood on their hands...

The mother and father who conceived her "are part of the series of events" that led to her death, but they aren't "culpable" in any reasonable sense of the word.

memyselfI
12-28-2007, 02:16 PM
The mother and father who conceived her "are part of the series of events" that led to her death, but they aren't "culpable" in any reasonable sense of the word.

Did they spend months negotiating her political position and safety with someone who hates her????

Donger
12-28-2007, 02:21 PM
Did they spend months negotiating her political position and safety with someone who hates her????

You're not suggesting that Bhutto was forced to return by the US, are you?

memyselfI
12-28-2007, 02:23 PM
You're not suggesting that Bhutto was forced to return by the US, are you?

Does the word negotiating equate to force? :hmmm:

Not in any dictionary I know of... :rolleyes:

patteeu
12-28-2007, 02:32 PM
Did they spend months negotiating her political position and safety with someone who hates her????

I don't know much about their family life. Are you denying that her parents played a role in who she became as an adult? ;)

Donger
12-28-2007, 02:43 PM
Does the word negotiating equate to force? :hmmm:

Not in any dictionary I know of... :rolleyes:

So, you would agree that she was a willing participant in her return?

Donger
12-28-2007, 04:01 PM
Now saying that she died from head trauma from being thrown against a lever in the sunroof, caused by the blast of the explosion. Everyone else in the lightly-armored car was not injured.

She shouldn't have been standing.

But, Toyota is culpable in her death for putting that sunroof there in the first place, I suppose.

patteeu
12-28-2007, 04:05 PM
Now saying that she died from head trauma from being thrown against a lever in the sunroof, caused by the blast of the explosion. Everyone else in the lightly-armored car was not injured.

She shouldn't have been standing.

But, Toyota is culpable in her death for putting that sunroof there in the first place, I suppose.

There's no denying that they were involved in the series of events. Damnit Toyota! :cuss:

memyselfI
12-28-2007, 04:13 PM
So, you would agree that she was a willing participant in her return?

I don't think that was ever in question.

Donger
12-28-2007, 04:16 PM
I don't think that was ever in question.

So, who do you blame more? Bhutto or the Bush administration?

memyselfI
12-28-2007, 04:17 PM
Now saying that she died from head trauma from being thrown against a lever in the sunroof, caused by the blast of the explosion. Everyone else in the lightly-armored car was not injured.

She shouldn't have been standing.

But, Toyota is culpable in her death for putting that sunroof there in the first place, I suppose.

Yeah, that is the government's story for today. Nevermind the video of a gun man. Unless and until an independent inquiry is made than any 'official' version of the story is suspect.

Let's face it, the woman was foolish and now dead because of a number of things like trusting Condaloser Rice, believing Musharraf, and standing up in a sunroof thereby making herself an easy target...

memyselfI
12-28-2007, 04:19 PM
So, who do you blame more? Bhutto or the Bush administration?

For what?

For her death, her killers and herself for making herself an easy target. For being in Pakistan and trusting Musharraf and the 'deal' that the US brokered, I blame her AND the Bush Administration. One could not have succeeded in the effort without the other...

DUHbya couldn't bring Bhutto to Pakistan without her consent and Bhutto could not have returned to Pakistan without the help of the US.

Donger
12-28-2007, 04:20 PM
Yeah, that is the government's story for today. Nevermind the video of a gun man. Unless and until an independent inquiry is made than any 'official' version of the story is suspect.

Let's face it, the woman was foolish and now dead because of a number of things like trusting Condaloser Rice, believing Musharraf, and standing up in a sunroof thereby making herself an easy target...

I don't think anyone is saying there wasn't a gunman. From the video, it looks like her security reacted to the shots and got the car moving, then the bomber detonated.

Baby Lee
12-28-2007, 04:22 PM
I said they were culpable in her return to Pakistan and in negotiating her reemergence in Pakistani politics. Which they were.
No, they just advocated the kinds of freedoms that were sure to get some uppity negro's head blown off some day for foolishly exercising them.

Donger
12-28-2007, 04:24 PM
For what?

For her death, her killers and herself for making herself an easy target. For being in Pakistan and trusting Musharraf and the 'deal' that the US brokered, I blame her AND the Bush Administration. One could not have happened without the other...

By your own admission, you acknowledge that she went back willingly. It also seems clear that the US helped her with her wish. The question for me is, did she seek out the US help or was that reversed?

And, I still blame Toyota. If that car didn't have a sunroof, she'd be alive today.

Baby Lee
12-28-2007, 04:27 PM
By your own admission, you acknowledge that she went back willingly. It also seems clear that the US helped her with her wish. The question for me is, did she seek out the US help or was that reversed?

And, I still blame Toyota. If that car didn't have a sunroof, she'd be alive today.
Bush damn near let Ghandi starve to death!!!
The marthafocker let Lincoln go the theatre.

el borracho
12-28-2007, 04:38 PM
Sue the tobacco companies, just to be sure.

go bowe
12-28-2007, 04:50 PM
Now saying that she died from head trauma from being thrown against a lever in the sunroof, caused by the blast of the explosion. Everyone else in the lightly-armored car was not injured.

She shouldn't have been standing.

But, Toyota is culpable in her death for putting that sunroof there in the first place, I suppose.omg...

my wife has a toyota matrix with a sunroof...

i guess i'd better stop standing up through the sunroof all the time...

Baby Lee
12-28-2007, 04:54 PM
omg...

my wife has a toyota matrix with a sunroof...

i guess i'd better stop standing up through the sunroof all the time...
Wouldn't you be wearing that Matrix on your ass like a fanny pack if that were the case?

go bowe
12-28-2007, 05:06 PM
Wouldn't you be wearing that Matrix on your ass like a fanny pack if that were the case?no...

i can get my head and shoulders through the sun roof but not my fat ass, or fat belly for that matter...

and i have never worn a fanny pack in my whole life...

so there... :p :p :p

Baby Lee
12-28-2007, 05:33 PM
no...

i can get my head and shoulders through the sun roof but not my fat ass, or fat belly for that matter...

and i have never worn a fanny pack in my whole life...

so there... :p :p :p
OK, so more of a swim floatie then?

http://colombophoto.net/sitebuilder/images/toddler_girl_swim_suit_duck_floatie-279x360.jpg

alanm
12-29-2007, 09:10 AM
THE BHUTTO ASSASSINATION: NOT WHAT SHE SEEMED TO BE


By RALPH PETERS

December 28, 2007 -- FOR the next several days, you're going to read and hear a great deal of pious nonsense in the wake of the assassination of Pakistan's former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto.

Her country's better off without her. She may serve Pakistan better after her death than she did in life.

We need have no sympathy with her Islamist assassin and the extremists behind him to recognize that Bhutto was corrupt, divisive, dishonest and utterly devoid of genuine concern for her country.

She was a splendid con, persuading otherwise cynical Western politicians and "hardheaded" journalists that she was not only a brave woman crusading in the Islamic wilderness, but also a thoroughbred democrat.

In fact, Bhutto was a frivolously wealthy feudal landlord amid bleak poverty. The scion of a thieving political dynasty, she was always more concerned with power than with the wellbeing of the average Pakistani. Her program remained one of old-school patronage, not increased productivity or social decency.

Educated in expensive Western schools, she permitted Pakistan's feeble education system to rot - opening the door to Islamists and their religious schools.

During her years as prime minister, Pakistan went backward, not forward. Her husband looted shamelessly and ended up fleeing the country, pursued by the courts. The Islamist threat - which she artfully played both ways - spread like cancer.

But she always knew how to work Westerners - unlike the hapless Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who sought the best for his tormented country but never knew how to package himself.

Military regimes are never appealing to Western sensibilities. Yet, there are desperate hours when they provide the only, slim hope for a country nearing collapse. Democracy is certainly preferable - but, unfortunately, it's not always immediately possible. Like spoiled children, we have to have it now - and damn the consequences.

In Pakistan, the military has its own forms of graft; nonetheless, it remains the least corrupt institution in the country and the only force holding an unnatural state together. In Pakistan back in the '90s, the only people I met who cared a whit about the common man were military officers.

Americans don't like to hear that. But it's the truth.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12282007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_bhutto_assassination__not_what_she_s_912265.htm

banyon
12-29-2007, 09:55 AM
Ralph Peters, a late contender for "biggest douche of 2007".


I mean couldn't he at least have waited a week? What an a-hole.

patteeu
12-29-2007, 10:17 AM
I'm not sure why that column makes Peters an a-hole or a douche. If his thesis is right (that the largely positive press accounts of Bhutto's character and agenda are way off the mark), what better time to bring it up?

I understand how it's polite to refrain from speaking ill of the dead when you're in a social setting, but this has implications far larger than hurting someone's feelings or tarnishing a single person's reputation. The American people are already under too many false impressions about what's going on in the world and how the US should respond. Just read a few of Taco John or BucEyedPea's posts to see some examples of what immersion in distorted reality can do to a person. :Poke:

Of course, I'm biased here because the "brilliant" (according to Michael Scheuer) Ralph Peters is one of my favorite GWoT analysts.

banyon
12-29-2007, 10:47 AM
I'm not sure why that column makes Peters an a-hole or a douche. If his thesis is right (that the largely positive press accounts of Bhutto's character and agenda are way off the mark), what better time to bring it up?

I understand how it's polite to refrain from speaking ill of the dead when you're in a social setting, but this has implications far larger than hurting someone's feelings or tarnishing a single person's reputation. The American people are already under too many false impressions about what's going on in the world and how the US should respond. Just read a few of Taco John or BucEyedPea's posts to see some examples of what immersion in distorted reality can do to a person. :Poke:

Of course, I'm biased here because the "brilliant" (according to Michael Scheuer) Ralph Peters is one of my favorite GWoT analysts.


That didn't seem to be the sentiment when Jerry Falwell died.http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=163086&highlight=jerry+falwell

Baby Lee
12-29-2007, 10:56 AM
That didn't seem to be the sentiment when Jerry Falwell died.http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=163086&highlight=jerry+falwell
Well, to be fair, we weren't tasked with [re]assessing the disease processes that killed Falwell, like we are in [re]assessing the people and processes involved, or not, in Bhutto's assassination.

BucEyedPea
12-29-2007, 11:27 AM
Just read a few of Taco John or BucEyedPea's posts to see some examples of what immersion in distorted reality can do to a person. :Poke:

That's just your usual projection. The same claim is made of the original nc's inside the beltway who advised for the wrong program overall in the GWoT by making it worse as the case is here with Pakistan. You supported that. Afterall, did we not push the Taliban and AQ into Pakistan? Didn't we fail to get them? You know the answer is yes. The Bush administration's NC program for the GWoT is showing more than ever that it's been a failure and getting worse. No results.

I know what you're gonna say, oh well you supported Afghanistan. Yeah I did but what I did not support was a nation building shopping spree in the ME on incorrect targets, instead of leaving central Asia less focused on, except to guard a pipeline.

Further, I never said I didn't think we had no right to go after AQ or even the Taliban while it is connected to them. I do. I just don't think Pakistan is as easy to fix given the make-up of the country and that it has nukes. I am not against the idea of special ops. You, as usual, misappropriated my statements since I've always said I do support some interventions. I am just not sure these things will necessarily work inside Pakistan so long as they see a Musharef as a puppet govt of the US. This one is a tricky one.

And actually I already read that Peter's article and I don't disagree that she's not what she seems. Sounds like many of our own politicians here inside the Beltway. Still Mushareff only garners 8% of the vote in Pakistan and she has more than double that.

banyon
12-29-2007, 11:42 AM
Well, to be fair, we weren't tasked with [re]assessing the disease processes that killed Falwell, like we are in [re]assessing the people and processes involved, or not, in Bhutto's assassination.

I agree, but the guy could've done that without calling her a bunch of names. Even the first remark "Her country's better off without her" is in poor taste.

patteeu
12-29-2007, 11:58 AM
That didn't seem to be the sentiment when Jerry Falwell died.http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=163086&highlight=jerry+falwell

I don't really see much of a comparison between the two. Misunderstanding the reality of the Pakistani political situation will impact the political view of American citizens and their support or lack of support for American policy. It may also impact the policy itself given that it's hard to implement policy that the public will consider bogus. And, given the timing, it could even have a small impact on the Presidential election. Misunderstanding the reality of Jerry Falwell wasn't too likely to have any impact on anything, IMO. If he was a gay hater, for example, and people mistakenly think he was guy filled with love for all, so what? And OTOH, if he was a guy filled with love for all and people mistakenly think he was a gay hater, so what? It doesn't matter much either way. In the Falwell case, it was just personal demonization (whether justified or not). In the case of Peters' criticism of Bhutto and the glowing coverage she's received, it has policy implications, IMO.

patteeu
12-29-2007, 12:07 PM
That's just your usual projection. The same claim is made of the original nc's inside the beltway who advised for the wrong program overall in the GWoT by making it worse as the case is here with Pakistan. You supported that. Afterall, did we not push the Taliban and AQ into Pakistan? Didn't we fail to get them? You know the answer is yes. The Bush administration's NC program for the GWoT is showing more than ever that it's been a failure and getting worse. No results.

I know what you're gonna say, oh well you supported Afghanistan. Yeah I did but what I did not support was a nation building shopping spree in the ME on incorrect targets, instead of leaving central Asia less focused on, except to guard a pipeline.

Further, I never said I didn't think we had no right to go after AQ or even the Taliban while it is connected to them. I do. I just don't think Pakistan is as easy to fix given the make-up of the country and that it has nukes. I am not against the idea of special ops. You, as usual, misappropriated my statements since I've always said I do support some interventions. I am just not sure these things will necessarily work inside Pakistan so long as they see a Musharef as a puppet govt of the US. This one is a tricky one.

And actually I already read that Peter's article and I don't disagree that she's not what she seems. Sounds like many of our own politicians here inside the Beltway. Still Mushareff only garners 8% of the vote in Pakistan and she has more than double that.

I think what you call the "NC program" is progressing fairly well. It's far too early to throw up our hands because there are "no results". There are bound to be difficulties along the way. Expecting nothing but sunshine and birdsong as radical islam voluntarily recedes into the crypt of history is ludicrous and can't possibly be the test of a "program". Radical islam emerged under the old program so it makes no sense to prefer that over the current approach, IMO, and your program is even more radical, dangerous, and untested than the so-called NC version so I'd prefer to ride this one out.

go bowe
12-29-2007, 05:01 PM
OK, so more of a swim floatie then?

http://colombophoto.net/sitebuilder/images/toddler_girl_swim_suit_duck_floatie-279x360.jpg

nah, can't find one big enough...

still looking, though..

memyselfI
12-30-2007, 07:07 AM
I actually agree that she is not what she seemed. My hubby, OTOH, thought she could do no wrong. Still, she was a million times better than the status quo.

One thing that bugged me is that she made herself leader of the party for life. That doesn't sound very democratic to me. And as expected, now her husband is going to take over. Her 19 year old son to co-chair. So the corruption that existed within her party before will live on another day.

BucEyedPea
12-30-2007, 11:25 PM
I actually agree that she is not what she seemed. My hubby, OTOH, thought she could do no wrong. Still, she was a million times better than the status quo.

One thing that bugged me is that she made herself leader of the party for life. That doesn't sound very democratic to me. And as expected, now her husband is going to take over. Her 19 year old son to co-chair. So the corruption that existed within her party before will live on another day.
From what I've been reading she had a lot of nespotism in her previous reign.
I read that her, the guy Musharaff knocked off in a coup as well as Musharaff have all had corruption in their govts. Guess it's that part of the world.

What I've also been reading is that Suadi Arabia has had a lot of influence in who governs Pakistan. They guy Musharaff knocked off went there afterwards. SA intervenes quite a bit in their affairs too. Lots of Pakistanis work in SA too.
Maybe they should help clean up the problem then.

BigRedChief
01-18-2008, 09:57 AM
CIA station chief says AL-Queida assinated Bhutto.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22690096/

Cochise
01-18-2008, 10:06 AM
CIA station chief says AL-Queida assinated Bhutto.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22690096/

In before the first (next) neocon lies post.

patteeu
01-18-2008, 11:19 AM
CIA station chief says AL-Queida assinated Bhutto.

FWIW, Scotland Yard said the same thing after a 10 day investigation at the invitation of the Pakistani government. I don't have a link.

BigRedChief
01-18-2008, 11:58 AM
FWIW, Scotland Yard said the same thing after a 10 day investigation at the invitation of the Pakistani government. I don't have a link.
Why? She would crack down on them and their supporters?

patteeu
01-18-2008, 12:27 PM
Why? She would crack down on them and their supporters?

I assume you are asking why al Qaeda would assassinate her. She had made some noise about letting the Americans enter Pakistani territory to help the Pakistani army go after islamists (including al Qaeda). In general though, she was ostensibly for secular democratic reform and al qaeda is for an islamic state. The two don't mix.