Pakistani's Benizir Bhutto Assasinated

[McGyver]

THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF VERY BAD TIMES FOR PAKISTAN AND POSSIBLY THE US AS WELL!

December 27, 2007
Assassination Poses Dilemma for US
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 1:33 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration scrambled Thursday with the implications of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's assassination after investing significant diplomatic capital in promoting reconciliation between her and President Pervez Musharraf.

President Bush, speaking briefly to reporters at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, demanded that those responsible for the killing be brought to justice and the White House said there needs to be a thorough investigation.

''The United States strongly condemns this cowardly act by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan's democracy,'' said Bush, who looked tense and took no questions. He expressed his deepest condolences to Bhutto's family and to the families of others slain in the attack and to all the people of Pakistan.

His appearance came as U.S. officials here struggled to cope with the immense policy implications of the assassination on relations with a nuclear-armed country that has received billions of dollars in American financial assistance and is an ally in the war on terrorism. White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said Bush planned to speak with Musharraf as soon as it could be arranged Thursday.

''This is a critical moment for Pakistan, for the region, and for the community of nations as we encourage democracy and stability in Pakistan,'' said Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, leading Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee.

Bhutto was mortally wounded Thursday in a suicide attack that also killed at least 20 others at a campaign rally in Rawalpindi. She served twice as Pakistan's prime minister between 1988 and 1996. She had returned to Pakistan from an eight-year exile Oct. 18. Her homecoming parade in Karachi was also targeted by a suicide attacker, killing more than 140 people.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said it was too soon to say who was responsible.

''I'm aware that al-Qaida may have claimed responsibility,'' Stanzel said. ''I'm aware of news reports of that. But I don't have any specifics for you on that.'' He did say, ''Whoever perpetrated this attack is an enemy of democracy and has used a tactic that al-Qaida is very familiar with, and that is suicide bombing and the taking of innocent life to try to disrupt the democratic process.''

The White House expects an open review of the assassination. Stanzel said that was crucial for the long-term prospects of democracy in Pakistan. He would not get specific about what role, if any, the United States would play but stressed that the United States considers Pakistan a close ally.

''It's important to have a thorough investigation,'' Stanzel said. ''We expect that will happen ... I think we're willing to work with our allies in Pakistan to make sure that does happen.''

Stanzel said it is up to the Pakistanis to determine whether the postponement of the upcoming parliamentary elections is appropriate given Bhutto's assassination.

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.

Those concerns were compounded by the rising threat from al-Qaida and Taliban extremists, particularly in Pakistan's largely ungoverned tribal areas bordering Afghanistan despite the fact that Washington had pumped nearly $10 billion in aid into the country since Musharraf became an indispensable counterterrorism ally after Sept. 11, 2001.

Irritated by the situation, Congress last week imposed new restrictions on U.S. assistance to Pakistan, including tying $50 million in military aid to State Department assurances that the country is making ''concerted efforts'' to prevent terrorists from operating inside its borders.

In his comments in Crawford, Bush said, ''Mrs. Bhutto served her nation twice as prime minister and she knew that her return to Pakistan earlier this year put her life at risk, yet she refused to allow assassins to dictate the course of her country.''

''We stand with the people of Pakistan in their struggle against the forces of terror and extremism. We urge them to honor Benazir Bhutto's memory by continuing with the democratic process for which she so bravely gave her life,'' he said.

Other U.S. officials and presidential candidates also issued statements expressing shock at Bhutto's assassination. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden of Delaware, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, ''I am convinced Ms. Bhutto would have won free and fair elections next week. The fact that she was by far Pakistan's most popular leader underscores the fact that there is a vast, moderate majority in Pakistan that must have a clear voice in the system.''

[Erika]

It seems today's world is very much against women in government unless they are serving men food or sex.

[GUS]

I wonder why educated, intelligent women seem to scare so many terrorist types.

[crowTrobot]

She was not bad looking, but she needed a shave first, then maybe I'd think about it. I bet she could whip up a good roasted rat with stinky rice, er ah, I mean sticky rice.


Probably what she slipped on when she hit the back of her head and went down like a ton of ****.

[Drivesme]

I wonder why educated, intelligent women seem to scare so many terrorist types.

You mean scare republicans?;)

[Notus Lotus]

I'm really ticked at the changing stories surrounding her death. She received gunshot wounds to the head and neck. No, she died of shrapnel from the bomb. No, she killed herself by bonking her head against the sunroof.

The only reason I can think of is that they don't want her to be a martyr, so now they're calling it a mortal self-inflicted injury.

I am so tired of politics and its twisting of the truth to suit a purpose. And now she's buried so I suppose we'll never know the real story.

[crowTrobot]

I wonder why educated, intelligent women seem to scare so many terrorist types.


Only when their administration's are corrupt (as her's was) and loot the poor and salt it away in some foreign country.

[Drivesme]

Only when their administration's are corrupt (as her's was) and loot the poor and salt it away in some foreign country.

Like the bush administration?

[crowTrobot]

...speaking of people who slipped and hit the back of their head. :D

[Notus Lotus]

...speaking of people who slipped and hit the back of their head. :D

Now is that any way to speak about your President?

Why yes.
Yes it is.

[Drivesme]

...speaking of people who slipped and hit the back of their head. :D

He sure did, but it was the booze a coke that caused it.

[Notus Lotus]

Doing a bit more research on the family Bhutto...the convictions for money laundering are troubling to me. It seems a lot of smoke followed them wherever they went, but unlike Bush et al, they were actually investigated and it seems there may have been a few fires in there causing that smoke.
It troubles me also that her son will now assume her place. This doesn't seem to be about democracy, but rather dynasty.

The whole thing is screwy to me. The assassinations and mysterious deaths, the swiss bank accounts...it's all like some cheesy Ludlum novel or something.

Yet they were beloved by many Pakistani people.

What gives?

[Bruce McAuley]

Tribes and dynasties are important to those people.
Likely more important than the nation is.
It's not who you are or what you are or who you know so much as what tribe or family you are from.
She had to know she was a dead woman walking when she hit the ground in Pakistan...:eek:
She lived in Dubai.
Her husband lives in New York.
I dunno where the son lived.:confused:
We'll see how long the rioting lasts, and if Musharaf survives.

Bruce

[Notus Lotus]

Tribes and dynasties are important to those people.
Likely more important than the nation is.
It's not who you are or what you are or who you know so much as what tribe or family you are from.
She had to know she was a dead woman walking when she hit the ground in Pakistan...:eek:
She lived in Dubai.
Her husband lives in New York.
I dunno where the son lived.:confused:
We'll see how long the rioting lasts, and if Musharaf survives.

Bruce

That makes sense.
What a mess, eh?

[Bruce McAuley]

They keep changing the people responsible and the method of death, although everybody says it's them Damn Terraists.
I'll stick with the likely suspect Musharaf whether he made it happen or let it happen.:eek:

Bruce

[lenny]

Yeah Bruce, anytime there's a political assassination I'm going to be leaning towards the intelligence agency being the ones caring out the actual killing, in this case the ISI, probably at the behest of Musharraf.

This (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Vq-DwHXx4oI) isn't the only video I've seen today -- there's one from a completely different angle, but it's, well, got to be irrefutable evidence that she was shot before the bomb went off. Anyone think that wasn't three gunshots right before the bomb exploded?

[Drivesme]

It's clear that she was shot, no question about that.

[Knowle of 4U]

I was surprised at how careless she was. And have since learned that corruption wasn't the only issue when she was previously in power. She also didn't do squat to change the status of women and the abuse and lack of rights they had. I'm sure I'll be flamed, but I'm not sure that her seeming to choose to allow herself to be shot was such a bad thing. The more I read the less impressed I am with her as a potential leader.

[Bruce McAuley]

Anybody ever see the Link TV series called Karachi Kops?
I'll bet you can find it on YouTube somewhere.
It's very revealing about police techniques in Pakistan.:eek:

Bruce

[crowTrobot]

I was surprised at how careless she was. And have since learned that corruption wasn't the only issue when she was previously in power. She also didn't do squat to change the status of women and the abuse and lack of rights they had. I'm sure I'll be flamed, but I'm not sure that her seeming to choose to allow herself to be shot was such a bad thing. The more I read the less impressed I am with her as a potential leader.


+1


..................

[Notus Lotus]

I was surprised at how careless she was. And have since learned that corruption wasn't the only issue when she was previously in power. She also didn't do squat to change the status of women and the abuse and lack of rights they had. I'm sure I'll be flamed, but I'm not sure that her seeming to choose to allow herself to be shot was such a bad thing. The more I read the less impressed I am with her as a potential leader.

Listening to the son talking about how his mother expected to get assassinated, how grampa got assassinated, how Uncle died mysterious death, etc. etc...how far removed from suicide bombers are they? I mean aside from actually strapping themselves up with bombs, it seemed pretty clear they're proud of their contributions to the death toll. Was Mama a sacrificial martyr?

I have to say,though, as the first female leader of a Muslim country, she certainly did something to advance women's rights, if only by example. She attempted to work on civil rights and social issues, but was constrained by the failure of her party to win an outright parliamentary majority. She had to be careful to avoid antagonizing religious fundamentalists who didn't think a woman should be in power, had limited funds to make changes, as well as a military she dared not antagonize because they were keeping the democratic system. (Yep, been doing a little studying up the last few days)...
Sounds like Benazir was damned if she did, damned if she didn't. But the people certainly adored her. I'm sure she serves as a shining example to women throughout Pakistan that a woman can be strong, brave and a leader. She can also get dead doing it.

Damn I'm sick of politics.

[oceanlvr]

As a woman leader in a male dominated society, Bhutto had my admiration. Considering the region where she lived, I wonder how much of the corruption charges were trumped by others in an attempt to make her less appealing in the eyes of the people and how much was actually truth. I always looked up to Benazir Bhutto for her courage in breaking into a man's world where women were not welcome nor wanted, I was always impressed by her poise and beauty. May she rest in peace.

[freewolf46]

There are some things to take into consideration when trying to understand who may be responsible in this matter. I believe we will never know all the players or participants and to what degree they played a part. Most people or groups use other people and groups and layer themselves in protection so deep that one can not penetrate to the top with proof positive. At most some players may be found out, but even then a good deal of speculation has to fill in the details. The how's, the why's, the techniques, pressures, manipulations. Still never reaching through all the layers and players.

One of the first things I must take into consideration is who benefits from this action. Lets start at the top. Does Musharraf benefit from her death? Some would argue that he does. That he can stay in power if he eliminates or helps to eliminate (alone, or in concert with others who might hope to benefit) the opposition. But does he really secure his hold on the country with the turmoil in the country? Does he not risk greater chances of losing control by the civil unrest that he must forcibly subdue? Does his use of necessary force to control the unrest make him more secure? I don't think so, and I would bet that he would rather have a great show of support for himself with a nice rigged election. He's not opposed to violence and suppression, to be sure, but I believe it would be his second choice.

Who else might benefit? Al Qaeda? I have seen no evidence yet of Al Qaeda having a political agenda or desire to rule or control any country. They themselves are terrorist and fight for the sake of fighting their enemies. The infidel. They lend support and force to other groups who would like to run a country. Al Qaeda may have an interest in obtaining some of the weapons Pakistan has, to use in their struggles around the world, but I really don't see evidence of Al Qaeda wanting to take control of Pakistan for themselves. They are more interested in others establishing government that fall in line with their beliefs. Still, Al Qaeda does benefit to some degree by the unrest caused by this. They are working in the remote countryside for control of areas, but I believe the purpose is more for safe operating zones than political control of the whole country. They also stand to benefit, by enticing their enemies to open a new front against them in another area to further stretch the resources of those enemies, as well as to further legitimize claims of aggression by those enemies.

Additionally, as they are meeting a little more effective resistance in Iraq, it would be desirable to just move some part of their war to another new battlefield, since we are going to chase them wherever we have to.

Neither of these seem all that compelling to me. Especially in view of the fact that there is another player with much more to gain, and just as importantly, much more to lose.

We are having an election here this year. The sentiment of the country for some time has been to get ourselves uninvolved in these areas of the world. End the war. Bring our troops home. And very legitimately, a large segment of society questions the so called "moral superiority" of The United States, that demands we instill and force our way of life, our values, and principles, on the rest of the world, by manipulation, embargos, restrictions, subversive activities, and war if need be. For our good, and for their own good. There is only one way to overcome this public sentiment that has grown in opposition to these outrageous policies. Scare the voters into thinking the most important issue we face today in this country is killing radical Muslims, securing the weapons of the world under our superior moral righteousness, and forcing our way of life on the world for their good, (as well as control of their resources, which also is for their own good) (but unspoken and denied with vigor).

No anti-war candidate will do. No one who puts our own peoples needs up to Americans to fulfill, rather than look elsewhere, is acceptable No candidate that does not buy into a larger role for The United States in the world will do. It is essential to show that the world is so unstable that we must, absolutely must, not let our guard down. Just around every corner is an Al Qaeda group that can strike anyone they want, anywhere they want. I mean just look at Pakistan now. It's in danger of losing it's nuclear weapons to Al Qaeda and we may just have to establish ourselves in northern Pakistan to prevent that from happening, That was the first and most proclaimed concern on the TV right from the start and the issue will be talked about right through the election.

Oh no one has mentioned going in there. Not loudly, but as time passes and the topic will become entwined in every foreign policy conversation. It will eventually get mentioned, and then talked about more, and then talked about loudly.

The supporters of the war, the money makers, the power players, the special interests have much to lose by less war. They have much to gain by more war. Their puppets in office need them as much as they need the puppets. One hand washes the other. And they both need your support, vote, and money. They also need unrest in the world to make their case to you. Out of all the people to benefit, they stand to gain the most.

I absolutely and completely reject any argument that powers in government and business would not act in this way. Human nature has not changed since the beginning of time. I completely reject any argument that they couldn't pull it off. Any one with a brain knows that any power can do anything they want at any time and accomplish any manipulation they so desire and layer themselves so deep that no one could ever get through all the layers for true accountability.

Now what happened over there? I don't know. I believe any story you may end up being given is not likely to resemble reality very much. I know we help put a piece of crap in power and keep him there because we thought he could serve our interests, and we also encouraged the opposition to oppose him, knowing full well the conflict it would start that would eventually end the way it did. An equally corrupt counterpart that would be sacrificed to the wild tendencies of terrorists intent on getting weapons that only we have the moral authority and the (self appointed) military authority, to take control of.

Nope, I don't know what happened there, but I got to say, when trying to understand it, I have to ask myself all these questions about who is to gain the most.

You might very well be inclined to look deeper than the obvious offender offered up so quickly as well.

[Bruce McAuley]

Thanks for the review, I agree 100%.
Condi Rice was the one who talked Bhutto into returning...
Layers upon layers, but it reminds me of the ploy Ambassador April Glasbie played on Saddam in 1990.
A family trait, or do I detect the Hand of Kissinger here...?
But I'm a notorious tin foil hatter:rolleyes:

Bruce

[lenny]

I agree with most all of it. It seems like if Musharraf were behind the assassination that it could in many ways be an act of desperation, and probably a high-risk scenario that they'd rather not have set into motion in the first place; yet felt that it was the best option available. I'm inclined to believe that in any scenario with regards to a group or cabal trying to maintain and maximize their power and control, unnecessary risk is probably something that doesn't happen as often as we might think (ego-driven irrational decisions made by some power-hungry megalomaniac). In this case, it would be a calculated decision put into play only because it was believed to be the best option available in regards to the ultimate goal of maintaining power and control.

But you do bring up a great point also in regards to the need to employ caution when wanting to jump on the "Musharraf did it" bandwagon. The fact that it seems so obvious could be a red flag, and there's no good reason to assume there wouldn't be someone or more accurately some group further behind the scenes pulling Musharraf's strings. I also recall reading in the past somewhere about the ISI having a long history of heavy involvement with other intelligence agencies -- most notably ours.

Anyway, you covered a lot of ground in your post there -- far too much for someone who BROKE THE DAMN COFFEE POT this morning to respond to. ...I'm not even sure if my current ramblings are making any sense...although they could probably be summed up as agreeing with the "we will never know all the players or participants and to what degree they played a part" aspect of your post.

[Drivesme]

I haven't had a chance to really look at this mess in any real detail yet, but reading your post freewolf I can't find much to disagree with.

[GUS]

Rice may well be responsible!


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shaw/reading-the-pictures-_b_81030.html