With the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the general consensus seems to be that the Bush Administration’s policies in Pakistan and central Asia are in a shambles, but that has not stopped the Administration’s least credible agency from leaking stories blaming the murder on al Qaeda. Even if that’s true, responsibility is a broader concept.
Dropped right in the middle of the New York Times lead story on yesterday’s tragic killings is this:
On Thursday evening, officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security issued a bulletin to local law enforcement agencies informing them about posts on some Islamic Web sites saying that Al Qaeda was claiming responsibility for the attack, and that the plot was orchestrated by Ayman al-Zawahri, the group’s second-ranking official.
One counterterrorism official in Washington said that the bulletin neither confirmed nor discredited these claims. The official said that American intelligence agencies had yet to come to any firm judgments about who was responsible for Ms. Bhutto’s death.
The likelihood that extremists associated with al Qaeda could be responsible seems accepted by several sources — see e.g., Tariq Ali, writing for the Guardian. But no official investigation has occurred and no one has explained the security breakdown despite repeated warnings. Apparently no autopsy was performed to confirm whether the gun reportedly found near the suicide bomber was the murder weapon. [CNN reporting this a.m. Bhutto was killed by shrapnel.]
In the face of suspicions about possible complicity by the Musharraf regime, and without knowing what happened, our FBI and DHS are giving unverified reports to US media in which al Qaeda takes responsibility. It may be true or false, but we have been conditioned to believe it, so it may be enough to divert attention from reports like this Times article:
The assassination of Benazir Bhutto on Thursday left in ruins the delicate diplomatic effort the Bush administration had pursued in the past year to reconcile Pakistan’s deeply divided political factions. Now it is scrambling to sort through ever more limited options, as American influence on Pakistan’s internal affairs continues to decline. . . .
The assassination highlighted, in spectacular fashion, the failure of two of President Bush’s main objectives in the region: his quest to bring democracy to the Muslim world, and his drive to force out the Islamist militants who have hung on tenaciously in Pakistan, the nuclear-armed state considered ground zero in President Bush’s fight against terrorism, despite the administration’s long-running effort to root out Al Qaeda from the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
The WaPo’s Robin Wright and Glenn Kessler report on the steps the Administration took to convince Bhutto to return to Pakistan, with the design of rescuing General Musharraf’s discredited military regime by cloaking it with the quasi-legitimacy of a partnership with Benazir Bhutto.
For Benazir Bhutto, the decision to return to Pakistan was sealed during a telephone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just a week before Bhutto flew home in October. The call culminated more than a year of secret diplomacy — and came only when it became clear that the heir to Pakistan’s most powerful political dynasty was the only one who could bail out Washington’s key ally in the battle against terrorism. . . .
As President Pervez Musharraf’s political future began to unravel this year, Bhutto became the only politician who might help keep him in power.
"The U.S. came to understand that Bhutto was not a threat to stability but was instead the only possible way that we could guarantee stability and keep the presidency of Musharraf intact," said Mark Siegel, who lobbied for Bhutto in Washington and witnessed much of the behind-the-scenes diplomacy. . . .
"U.S. policy is in tatters. The administration was relying on Benazir Bhutto’s participation in elections to legitimate Musharraf’s continued power as president," said Barnett R. Rubin of New York University. "Now Musharraf is finished."
The Bush Administration did not kill Benazir Bhutto; someone else did that. But it appears the Administration convinced her to go back to Pakistan to save a risky policy foolishly built on a despised, repressive military dictator to fight the US "war on terror." Now a courageous woman is dead, another nation is in chaos, the US is further discredited, it can’t account for billions in military aid, and we still have an administration that remains a menace to everyone’s security as long as they remain in office. But the Administration wants us to believe that only al Qaeda is responsible.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Morning pups. Too much information, too little coffee. Too much dust to settle before we can see through this haze. Why does all this seem like the Thirty Years War?
Mornin’ Crow
Had Bhutto returned, it appears she would have been tougher on Al Qaeda than Musharraf has been. So, both Al Qaeda and Musharraf, who have been working together, stand to gain from Bhutto’s death. I see nothing in it for the usual suspects in Washington.
ONce again another excellent post from Scarecrow.
It is convenient for the american and pakastani dictatorships to claim “terrorists” and “terrorism” as the bad guys so that they may hide their own crimes.
Is anyone watching Morning Joe? Good ol Joe is trying to school Shuster. Not going too well I might add.
The look on Shusters face is priceless!!!
Email MSNBC. Shuster needs to have his own show. Tell em this is MUST SEE TV!!!
I’m wondering why we’ve heard nothing yet from Condi…
and so little from Bush
Will we hear from Cheney?
i don’t see the evidence that the bush administration convinced bhutto to do anything she didn’t want to do. from your link (my bold):
al Qaeda
The Administration’s favorite pronoun.
Read: Them. Those Guys.
I have seen several reports of Police security abandoning their posts prior to the assassination, as well as a report (via Juan Cole) that the bomber was dressed in a Police uniform.
Once again Democracy Now is actually reporting on the Bhutto assassination. Live and streaming at http://www.democracynow.org/live-stream
Good morning everyone.
Richardson on CNN, calling for caretaker government in Pakistan.
We could use one of those here.
Any murder is a form of terrorism.
There is no threat to the USA from anything that happens in Pakistan except in the odd case that some madman decides to instigate some sort of doomsday attack for “ego” or some other irrational reason. And even is said madman or madmen did want to send a nuke our way, it is unlikely that they could and it would hardly end our country as the two nukes WE dropped on Japan did little to destroy that culture.
The horrible event of dropping nukes should not be allowed to happen and the way to achieve this is to get rid of all nukes and large bombs which are always dropped on civilians in any case.
We need disarmament and that will make us safe.
Hell, I wouldn’t mind a benevolent coup.
There are 12 months left for these yutzes to do more damage.
Of course, no one is going to ask about the Clintons about their absolutely dismal interface with Pakistan during their eight years.
I like Richardson, but that sounds very naive. He has run, partially on his experience as a diplomat, but how would a caretaker government be imposed, given the various factions involved in Pakistani politics?
Selise — Her motives I accept; she wanted Musharraf gone. I think the Bushies wanted to save Musharraf for their own reasons, so the partnership notion came from them — probably some hybrid between the Cheneyites and Rice. There had been reports of the US pushing the idea for months, and especially after the Musharraf crackdown in November. Later reports were that neither she nor the general thought this could work, and it looks like both gave up on the partnership. Her leaving messages with Blitzer et al suggest she never bought into this idea, and her suspicions were confirmed as soon as she entered the country and there was insufficient security.
democracy now! is great.
very good analysis – that i have not heard from anywhere else.
Impeachment/conviction is a lawful “benevolent coup”
As if.
And to think that these fools (read Bush, Rice, et al) will leave office and become high profile, highly paid minions in the corporate world, where fantasy and reality morph into a nightmare scenario for the real world. And William “The Grin” Kristol will be their guru.
I like the way you phrased that. If Hillary wants to claim “foreign policy experience” for her service as first lady, then she has to take partial credit/blame for that policy.
Our present one appears to be more of an undertaker government.
Morning…….
“Impeachment Required!”
i think her complaints about security were sincere. but i know of no evidence that she was staying against her will or that she was being pressured in any way. just because bushco wanted her to do what she was doing, does not imply that she was not a willing partner – or even the lead partner in this enterprise of maintaining musharaf (as i have thought for sometime)
and to add another complicating factor… i do think it was appearing that bhutto had, after her return to pakistan, gone back on some of her agreement with bushco (wrt to power sharing with musharaf).
layers within layers…
Scarecrow and pups, mornin’
I’m wondering why there wasn’t any kind of crime scene evaluation or autopsy — at least it seems that way. I’m not coming up with any good reason except maybe panic and confusion but that doesn’t really cut it, does it?
Good morning Scarecrow.
Succinct as usual.
typo patrol:
or that we don’t hear about. i am taking these reports with big truckloads of salt. so many people have a vested interest in spinning events for their own purposes.
Morning Deb. Thanks.
Yep, Richardson has sounded completely bone headed in Pak.
panic and confusion as an excuse for cover-up seems more like it. As long as no one is to blame, everyone is to blame and the violence will continue.
How sad.
Guardian reporting that police are being told to shoot rioters on sight at the funeral.
I saw a report last night that there was no autopsy; then her casket is taken to here home town for burial today. But this a.m., I caught the end of a CNN report that claimed she died from the bomb shrapnel.
Good morning, everyone. Any idea why, recognizing that her government-provided security was inadequate, she just didn’t use her own hired protection? (Heck, I’m sure that State could’ve easily arranged a nice contract with Blackwater for it.) There’s an aspect of this that seems almost martyr-ish about her willingness to die.
we havent heard a PEEP from Pelosi or Reid………impeach the rotting
fetid fish head and his master
What I simply don’t understand is why her car was surrounded with people at the time of the assassination — the complete lack of “crowd control” along the route her car was taking was a recipe for disaster,
Our glorious leader would explain peace is only possible through violence and murder. I’ve noticed a courser more violent society and world since these clowns seized power some 7 years ago.
this post opened my sleepy eyes, yet raised so many questions. I hope you pups digg it too
Oh God!
just the thought of that…
It does not matter what we think about who did it, it only matters what the Pakistanis think. If they think Bhutto was murdered by Musharraf then we have to worry about a civil war.
People like the our Press and Bush can argue that the General is innocent and Al Quieda did it. But every Pakistani knows the military did hang her father and may have killed her brothers given all that baggage Musharraf’s denials are not likely to be believed by the average Pakistani.
After all nobody in the military has ever been tried for the crimes against her family.
Bush and the MSM can spin this as Al Quieda but by doing so they blind themselves with a nicehappy view of Pakistan.
My fear is that we will soon hear Condi say again that nobody could have forseen that Al Quieda would take over Pakistan/attack us on 9/11.
they revel in it
I think there may be some religious issues with autopsies, e.g., that the body has to be buried with 24 hours or something to that effect.
There were statements:
e.g., from Reid:
Las Vegas, NV – U.S. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada released the following statement on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan.
“I am deeply saddened to learn of the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. She was an important leader in Pakistan and this is a serious loss for the Pakistani people.
“I hope those who committed these acts of terrorism will be brought to justice.
“It is important, when faced with the violence and loss of innocent life over the last few days, that political leaders show a commitment to resolve but also restraint. Extremists must be brought to justice, but extremism must not undermine commitment to the rule of law, to human rights, and to democracy.
I hope the United States can be helpful to Pakistan’s government and its people in the coming days and weeks in ensuring peace, security, and democracy.”
Angry Black Bitch had some eloquent thoughts yesterday on Bhutto and the risks of her return to Pakistan:
Bush may or may not have encouraged her to return, and Musharraf may or may not have offered appropriate security protection. The decision to return was ultimately hers, I and think ABB nailed her motives 100%.
Freedom requires dissent. There’s a theme I’d love to here more often from American politicians running for high office.
BLOWBACK- Chalmers Johnson!
Also, she stood up exposing her upper body outside the bulletproof car at the exact moment they approached the assassin. Who or what got her to stand up exactly then.
oh that’s right
may i suggest this very interesting article by tariq ali in the london review of books, on the assassination of bhutto’s bother, murtaza – no way she comes off as a naive person easily convinced to do what she does not want to do.
Elliot
ygm.
reid is such a joke. wish that he would follow his own advice:
i don’t get why bhutto is seen as having such pure motives.
I know that there will likely be comments about the “death by shrapnel” statement when the original reports were that she was hit by gunfire. They aren’t necessarily contradictory. If she had been injured initially by the bullets and fell across the roof of the vehicle, the bomb may have actually wounded her with the fatal shrapnel.
I saw her vehicle and wonder why there was no bullet-proofed plexiglass around the sunroof. It would have been simple to place something like that on the vehicle. She was really totally exposed.
And Bhutto herself accused Musharraf of assigning the Islamist Brig. General Ejaz Shah, who has held various ISI security posts within the Musharraf regime, and is supposedly the former handler of both bin Laden and Mullar Omar. He was supposedly the government frontman in organizing and funding the Parties that supported the Taliban and Al Qaida. Shah made personal contact with the Uncle of Omar Sheik , one of the accused kidnappers of Daniel Pearl, and asked his old friend (a former judge) to get his nephew to surrender directly to him. This was while the FBI and Pakistani police were clearly within hours of making their own arrest. Thus Sheik was rescued from rendition, and placed in Shah’s personal custody.
He’s held postings as the top Counter-Narcotics officer, in which he was accused of corruption, and consequently removed judges from their positions if they made rulings that broke up his own networks.
Yet this is the man that Musharraf appointed to establish security around Bhutto. Bhutto pointed out that placing such a man
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ar….._b_isi.htm
Shades of the Kennedy assassination when security didn’t protect. Most likely questions raised will never be answered to anyone’s satisfaction. While I have never been to Pakistan, it seems reasonable to conclude the vast majority of the people do not support U.S. policy and want Musharraf out. We cannot continue as we are in Iraq and expect Muslims to support us. The sooner we get out the better, but our exodus may be too late to keep the fat from the fire.
there’s a simple place he can start—like in the Senate over which he has some control.
Something about practicing what one preaches, I think . . .
I’ve never liked Richardson, especially when he was Secretary of Energy.
Great Post SC. Has anyone pointed out that the FBI leaked that Islamic militants had claimed responsibility shortly after the Oklahoma City bombings? Interesting that the Al Qaeda terrorists are responsible is the only message the MSM is spewing. Watching PBS Newshour last night, the correspondent on the ground said the vast majority of Pakistani’s blamed Musharaff for the assassination.
The confluence of Bhutto’s own reasons and the Bushco need for help
seemed a fit in Washington… Extreme high risk bandaid for collapsed
policy in the area with predictable results. Musharraf welched on the deal
or he would be gone by similar means. Short answer is YES.
So neo-con Robin Wright and the Government Controlled Washington Post are spinning more Bushie disinformation. Why would Bhutto want to keep the dictator Busharaff in power? The fact that Busharaff has failed to investigate this act of terrorism, strongly suggests, the assassination of Bhutto is an “inside job”.
The Bushies are possibly supporting “Al Qaeda” Pakistan Branch, to attack Iran. Sy Hersh has reported that there is another “Iran-Contra”, with respect to illegally and secretly funding Sunni (Al Qaeda) terrorists.
It is well known that Pakistan and the ISI provided funding for the 9-11 attacks. The head of ISI, Ahmad, was meeting with Condosleeza on 9-11.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A…..eed_Sheikh
Maybe Snarlin’ Arlen can come up with a single bullet theory here too.
Margarete Warner was obviously trying ot guide the narrative in an interview on the assasination last night, apparently with an earpiece connected to her boss. She interrupted one person trying to answer a question only to change course in asking the next question about what and to whom. And what in hell do unproven charges of corruption a decade ago have to do with an assasination?
I think she had a death wish. She didn’t take simple precautions like you point out even though she knew she was in the bull’s eye. Did she think she would do her country good by being a martyr? Or more complex personal reasons?
That said, she would have been assassinated anyhow. All the enemy needed to do was send assassins to every public appearance. There would have been a high probability that an opportunity would open up even with the best security.
Other targets like Karzai I think do not appear in public as much, but as Bhutto was running for office, she didn’t have a choice.
Looseheadprop might be able to give you a better answer to that. From her post yesterday, with her firsthand recollections of Bhutto as a freshman in college:
I don’t know about the “pure motives” of anyone who runs for the highest office in their nation — but some who run surely have better reasons than others. Standing up for the freedom to dissent ranks pretty highly in my book.
Who can take over if Musharraf gets blamed for Bhutto’s death? We can have (a)another military coup hoping that Pakistan has at least one popular general, (b) we could try and pretend that nothing happened hold elections and hope that people vote.
(b) (1) We could hope that the voters don’t care the vote is rigged. (c) Or we could insist that the Army let the people rule before the army ignites a civil war.
I’m guessing Condi goes with (b) and (b) (1). In other words we have no fallback plan no options if things go wrong.
If the Bushies and the MSM continue to insist that Al Queda killed Bhutto, a staunch western and American ally, then the logical conclusion is that George Bush is losing the war on terror. Why haven’t they made that connection?
They would lose their job instantly.
Toward the end of the democracynow webcast this morning a guest pointed out that the U.S. has been pulling strings in Pakistan since 1951. That has resulted in a string of charismatic leaders, who the U.S. thought they would be “safe” with, in direct interference with the hard work of building democratic institutions and minority rights in that extremely diverse country. The implication is that the U.S. will keep doing more of the same, the “charismatic leader” (of whom the supply seems to be zero right now) will have less & less legitimacy & internal disorder will increase.
no it does not!
Last night, Joe Biden seemed to express the hope that the election would continue and some unknown moderate democratic leader would supplant Bhutto. Otherwise, he said there is no hope. I’m not sure what he meant, but it seemed like a pretty faint hope to me.
If there is extensive public upheaval, it appears most likely to me that Musharraf would impose increasingly severe martial law, or that he is overthrown by another military leader who does that. Ultimately, the U.S. would almost have to support whoever has control of nuclear weapons. In the long run, that would tend to chase moderates into alliance with Islamic berzerkers in a never ending effort to overthrow the dictatorship.
ok, whoever said we don’t really know was right BUT there’s this to consider:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg
wherein Ms. Bhutto insists bin laden is dead, curious, why wouldl she say that?? actually there are lots of interesting bhutto vids on you tube, speeches, etc, interviews.
This i also find curious: It is the army and noto the pres in pakistan that has control of the nuclear arsenal. So when Bush tells Mush to take of his uniform (and few teehees irresistible here) is Bush in effect lessening controls on the arsenal there?? Or is he just plain dumb?
It may sound naive, but what if bin laden is actually dead? does that mean anything, and if so , what?
i have more thoughts on thisi but have not had coffee yet.
To Rev Deb@ 59
Next time you contact him,Snarling Arlen,ask him if he supports a nuclear free middle east. I have asked him this several times and have yet to receive an answer. And don’t ask in a nasty way because Arlen is very civilized and won’t respond to untoward questions. Did you know his house is picketed the third Sunday of every month from 1 to 3?
Selise, eCahnomics — who were the worthwhile guests on democracynow?
thanks didnt see that,but it was just empty rhetoric
when will a dem say
Failed policies caused the rise in Extremism?
Yeah, Biden also sounds bone headed on Pak. As for other leaders, there aren’t any in sight, so why hold an illegitimate election? Does anyone think that would help internal problems? See me at 66 for the Pak forecast that makes most sense to me.
One was Tariq Ali. I didn’t catch the other’s name & don’t see it on the website. I’ll dig around a little more.
B I N G O
AND why does little boots get a pass on 9/11?
BIN LADDEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN AMERICA
No I didn’t know about the pickets. Have yet to talk to him, not that he or they’d let me near enough.
On Thursday evening, officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security issued a bulletin to local law enforcement agencies informing them about posts on some Islamic Web sites saying that Al Qaeda was claiming responsibility for the attack, and that the plot was orchestrated by Ayman al-Zawahri, the group’s second-ranking official.
Even if Al Queda is “claiming responsibility” for the assassination, that doesn’t mean they were responsible. I’m sure Al Queda has happily claimed responsibility for everything from Hurricane Katrina to the cancellation of “Veronica Mars”.
wtf…………
Al Qaeda is responsible for the dumpster truck that woke me up at 4 am this morning!
David Ignatius has a column today, similar to LHP’s from yesterday, that opens with his personal recollections of Bhutto as a college student:
There’s an understatement.
Later on, Ignatius says this about America’s attempts to tinker with Pakistani politics:
i’m not trying to make her out to be selfish on the order of bushco – but the idealism of anyone when they are a freshman in college does not preclude more complicated motives down the road… and her life (especially wrt her brother’s assassination) seems to indicate that was the case.
words are one thing, but how did she govern? i don’t think she was a mandela or a gandhi.
CNN IN reporting that the assassin has been ID’d and is a member of an AQ group. There it is.
Military allowed to shoot protester now in Pakistan
I would posit that Bhutto has received assurances from Washington that she would be safe and they would provide “hidden security” … since they couldn’t very well do it openly.
But of course, they either lied about it or were inept r both and so she was hit. She knew she was a target, that was clear from the first attempt. She only went forward because Washington assured her she would be safe.
So either they were behind it, or they were incompetent, or they simply lied or a combination of the three.
Unless you travel in a bullet proof shell and you appear in public you are a likely target… impossible to prevent really. Just look at all the assassinations.
Juan Cole’s post about the rioting is pretty scarey this morning. Seems like Mush has taken a page from Rummy’s book, as looting seems completely unopposed by police or military in many areas. That’s really worrisome to me, as it was when I saw the looting in Iraq that I knew the U.S. had lost the war. Cole ends is column:
I’m completely confident that is so. And they’ve got the thumb screws to prove it.
“So either they were behind it, or they were incompetent, or they simply lied or a combination of the three.”
Sounds just like 911?
Bhutto and her hubby grabbed over a billion while she was in office. Politics is lucrative, even if you have the best of motives at the outset.
Bhutto was not without her dark side.
bull ffffing shiite! like they had a video of Atta etal 1dAY AFTER 9/11!
AQ is simply the name of terrorists who do nasty deeds unless they publish their agenda under the name of some special interest group… such as the CIA or Blackwater.
Others will have better answers to that than I do. For instance, from Ignatius:
I’m trying to imagine how threatening that kind of voice would have been in Pakistan in the last 20 years, especially when it is a female voice.
CNN IN reporting that the assassin has been ID’d and is a member of an AQ group.
Well, that’s good enough for me!
(Harrumph.)
tariq ali was the second person, i didn’t catch the name of the first. it will be posted later here.
democracy now! is being repeating on wbai right now. live stream here.
recommended.
GOLDSTEIN,GOLDSTEIN GOLDSTEIN
yup were controlled!
On democracynow this morning Tariq Ali pointed out that it was probably Bhutto’s husband who was behind the police assassination of Bhutto’s brother.
we report. you decide . . . .
plus ca change
Also, she stood up exposing her upper body outside the bulletproof car at the exact moment they approached the assassin. Who or what got her to stand up exactly then.
yes this was my question last night.
i don’t see how that could be the case… especially after the assassination attempt when she first arrived back in pakistan.
ive got a headache
Here is an idea how about we spend money putting people to work building roads, Dams etc. How about we change our image in Pakistan from supporter of stupid dictators, to high wage employer moving to town looking to hire people.
This whole US giving billions so the General can make his Swiss bankers happy plan is not winning us friends or producing any results in the war on terror.
Fat paychecks though can loosen tongues and get us the info on Ossama we need.
Bush’s statement was enough to arouse suspicion: there was no question it was radical extremists; he allowed for no other possibility before anything was ascertained. It may well have been, but it is a safe bet to presume anything he says is a lie.
I have a general question: What is the neocon “plan” for Pakistan, or fond wish if you prefer? Many never seem to question the generous presumption we’re after Al Quaeda there, or are out to get the Taliban because they are “terrorists”. The only aim I can see, and it doesn’t seem a particularly compelling one, is enforcing a stable dictatorship in Pakistan to allow us to continue our involvement in Afghanistan, the aim of which itself is only to keep an invasion front against Iran for now or the future. We need a Pakistan dictatorship because our Afghanistan plans are directly the opposite of Pakistan’s national interest in “strategic depth” there.
That ghoulishly fanciful map most of us are all familiar with by now ( http://www.oilempire.us/new-map.html) suggests partition in the aim of producing weak, pliant, oil-conduit states, but that’s an extreme speculation. Does anyone have real ideas.
that’s just my point – do you really think that’s the kind of person bushco would be supporting as a way to control events in pakistan? i don’t think so…
not saying it’s not true – just that i see no evidence (but lots of propaganda typical here for leaders our elite support) of her actions indicating that she is what the hero we’re being told.
i reserve judgment until i learn more about how she actually governed.
who bought Goebbels playbook on ebay? boy these guys are slick
IRAN borders Pakistan…..Darth REALLY wants Iraqnian oil for xmas…yea hell wait till new years
I’m sorry, but Richardson has been sounding like an interventionist loon for the last two days.
The US should tell another country how to time its own elections? What gall.
Now he thinks WE should dictate that they set up an interim regime? Who the F*** are we to tell another sovereign country when they can have elections or what kind of government they are permitted?
Richardson has drunk the EMPIRE koolaide.
oops Iranian oil
I think BushCo supported her, because he believed that when she spoke out — and hopefully acted — against al Qaeda, he could coopt her voice to say “look, the Pakistanis are with us.”
It’s not the Bush wanted to manipulate her (though perhaps he did), but that Bush thought he could use her to further his own idiocy in Iraq and (God forbid) Iran.
Another good point that Juan Cole makes is that most Pakistanis *are* moderates, but the rightwing nutjobs are slamming the entire country as a bunch of extemists. Plays to the rethug big daddy protection racket nicely, without ANY examinatin of how we helped to create this blowback monster in the first place.
he worked for henry the K(Kissenger)i think
amen.
“Natural Selection Corporate T(r)eason and Executive Oil”
The goal to mainitain the present energy delivery system “OIL”
Keep America Addicted to Oil / Look at the Enery Bill
35 mpg 35 year to late / 15 % Renewable Resourse Requirement “Killed”
Reminds me of the tobacco institute, lies to maintain a “cash cow.”
The current cash cow for “Executive Oil,” our gas tanks, home heating, (I’m burning wood *uck them.) instead of moving forward with tech and selling it. This is the East India Tea Corporation all over again!!!!
okay
http://home.earthlink.net/~cov…..singer.jpg
but why do you think that? is there any evidence – evidence that is actions not word?
If we were responsible for Bhutto’s return to Pakistan, regardless of our motives, then we had an obligation to do everything possible to ensure her safety.
OT
BTW it seems the opposition has won the election in Kenya. Can’t have that. Time for a U.S. backed coup.
so many GOOD jobs could come from this
jobs right here in Merikkkkkka
Oil prices going up! Who does that benefit……. the middle men aka Executive Oil!!!!
After 7 years of Bush, the “blame Clinton” mem is a tad weak.
Surely you jest. W acknowledging an obligation?
Corporate Treason!
they have us by the short hairs im afraid
i burn wood also….gas 3.00$ 1500 hundred buckaroos
Just as the King of England and his corporate cohorts in colonial crime had the colonist by the balls until they told the King and his corporate cohorts……… *uck you!!!
DING!
Jane has a new post ready. I think she’s angling to be Huckabee’s press secretary.
Indeed. And the fact that Mooshy refused Bhutto’s security requests at *every* turn (including an independant Scotland Yard/FBI forensics investigation of the first assasination attempt), and you get the picture.
The Fourthbranch Executive benefits for sure!
Bhutto and her hubby grabbed over a billion while she was in office. Politics is lucrative, even if you have the best of motives at the outset.
do you have info on this??
My take on this comes not as much from looking at Bhutto as much as it comes from looking at Bush — with whom I am MUCH more familiar.
Bush’s likely best outcome in Pakistan is to have a stable government, committed to voicing the kind of anti-taliban, anti-al Qaeda rhetoric he likes, and committed to taking on the extremists there. Joby Warrick and Tom Ricks have a piece in the WaPo this morning, running down the likely suspects in Bhutto’s killing:
(emphasis added)
Whatever you and I may think about Bhutto, lots of folks in and around Pakistan thought of her as a “moderating influence” (to use Warrick and Ricks’ phrase) — so much so that someone had her killed.
Whatever she was, I’d have a really hard time believing she was a puppet of George Bush — willing or otherise.
“Our glorious leader would explain peace is only possible through violence and murder. I’ve noticed a courser more violent society and world since these clowns seized power some 7 years ago.”
Cindy Sheehan quoting “dear-leader” http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0215-29.htm
Response to Scarecrow at 12:
Please sign petitions to Pelosi & Conyers at:
http://impeachmenthearingsnow.blogspot.com/
AXIOM: if something is “bad”, bush is involved.
.
What does “moderating” mean in this context. Musharraf is certainly no radical extremist. At worst, he’s a despot who is overly tolerant (possibly supportive) of Muslim extremists. Is a crackdown on muslim extremists called “moderation” in Pakistan? That is what the experts seem to think she would have done.
Smgumby @10 – it doesn’t matter about these details. The deed’s done. There will not be any credible investigation. Funny that Bush wants to see justice done when he’s so hellbent on perverting the notion of justice itself in his own country.
Scarecrow @ 12 – its irrelevant how the Presidential candidates try to spin this bc the fact of the matter is that there is no entity to form a caretaker govt acceptable to Busharaff. Remember, he has recently amnded the Constitution yet again to undermine elected Parliamentarians and has esconced himself as the President with arguably more control on the levers of power than any Prime Minister in the Parliament.
I agree with selise that there are layers upon layers. Benazir was no saint and was power hungry but she did not deserve this. There is a reason why her party, the PPP, has no structural organisation to have another leader right now. The Bhutto family used the party as their personal political power base. Vigorous internal policy debates involving activists from their support base would have challenged that power base for the family and drawn the attention of the military intelligence establishment elite. This certainly happened after Benazir’s father, Zulfiqar, was hanged by General Zia when hundreds of activists were rounded up, imprisoned without charges, executed and many disappeared.
Elliott @ 26 – it is a Muslim custom to bury the dead within 24 hours. Ask yourself, what would have an autopsy revealed except that she met an untimely death through foul means? There is not going to be any credible investigation bc that might finger some very important people. I don’t see these VIPs coming from the Pushtun rural ranks of the Pakistani Taliban or even Arab AQ operatives. I am inclined to bet my money on the ISI that Benazir herself accused in the wake of the bombings that greeted her return to Pakistan.
One of Benazir’s brothers was certainly assassinated by the ISI. The younger brother, Murtaza, was also killed while Benazir was in power in Pakistan. Murtaza opposed his sister’s politics and was a Member of the Parliament when he dies. His daughter had an article in Counterpunch soon after Benazir’s return to Pakistan that accused her of stymieing the investigation into her father’s death which concluded that it could not have been possible without the involvement of people very very high up.
Tariq has always been very good re Pakistan and South Asia in general. His analysis is always informed and backs up a lot of what I know about the region which is quite a lot. He has been an unmitigated progressive, in the USA it mean left, for the last four decades.
Couple of clean-up points.
The second interviewee on DN was Manan Ahmed, a blogger at Informed Comment: Global Affairs.
Tariq Ali on DN downplayed the danger of nukuler weapons falling into the hands of aQ or religious extremists. He said that neither of those groups nor the US was going to get anywhere near Pakistan’s WMDs.
It amazed me that in the knowledge of this potential tragic event (both Bhutto and the US knew of her constant death threats) Bhutto’s return was not delayed by the US until she had mapped out a list of at least three potential leaders to fill her political role, should she be assassinated. Of course they would be targets as well…
The list is long in terms of “who” would benefit from her death and the harpoon of US policy…Yet that list is in many ways moot…
There are a few non-governmental organizations that would be more than willing to help Pakistan continue to map out their elections in light of this terrible loss. There is room to move forward; however, it is ever so slight.
here’s ken silverstein at harpers:
recommend the rest…
Wow. Where to start.
I grieve for the untimely death of anyone.
Was this death planned for by The Big Dick?
Did Little Georgie make a deal with Musharraf?
Or, is the MSM reporting that US Foreign Policy in a shambles because “no one could have predicted” that Bhutto might be assassinated in the crazy country known as Pakistan?
btw… Where is Condi???
Shouldn’t our Secretary of State have something to say about what’s happened?
I think the world is safer when Condi is speechless and certainly emits less greenhouse pollutants while she stays put in the USA where she belongs.
Bhutto may have initially supported a partnership with Musharraf, if only to return to some semblance of power, but she quickly and sharply criticized him, especially after declaring martial law. Musharraf, in turn, became overtly hostile towards her. Besides, everyone knows that Musharraf has always planned to rig the elections. What presented true danger to him was that Bhutto represented was the intense desire of Pakistanis for freedom (I am not saying this brave woman was the epitome of liberty and justice, but that people’s support of her was, in fact, support for democracy).
I read that article and I agree, but I think most of the “fawning” is really about what a tremendous loss this is. No Pakistani politician is a saint–far from it, actually–but she represented the best hope for the country. To me, that’s the most relevant point.
To add: I don’t think she would’ve succeeded, it’s just that sadly she was the best chance, as anemic as that might have been.
After this, what could any of them possibly have to say that’s important, except “We’re sorry. We messed up. President Bush is resigning, so a new leader can begin the work of cleaning up our messes.”
It’s not that she was “pure”, it’s that she clearly supported participatory Democracy and was willing to sacrifice a life of comfort for that.
That’s showing the Pakistani people the importance of Democracy and that she valued her home, Pakistan, most highly. She wanted to use Democracy to improve her country and it’s people. That’s leadership.
Don’t demand perfection when you can have the good.
Nobody and no plan is perfect, so we’ve got to find some good and go with that. Bhutto probably realized a thousand times more than any American ever could the terrible imperfections of her country, yet she went home to fight for the good. I hope her countrymen realize her message and that, with this last ’speech’, she has won over some of them to that message.
One must wonder why this man hasn’t been brought in for questioning with regard to Al Qaeda and Atta and 9/11.