What does Bhutto’s Assassination Portend?
Today, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in Pakistan. She had returned to participate in power transition from Gen. Musharraf. There is, as usual, a debate about who might have been behind the attack. Was it Musharraf? Al Qeada? Who knows, and given the state of “democracy” in Pakistan, we may never know.
Bhutto wasn’t exactly a beacon of hope. Her Presidency was marred by scandal and corruption and she lived in exile for 8 years to avoid corruption charges. Nevertheless, she was one of the only opposition voices in Pakistan and her death has almost assured that Musharraf and his cronies will retain power in elections in a few weeks.
I wonder how long it will be before Pakistan implodes? When it does, will their main export be nuclear weapons and the technology to make them? Will our wishy-washiness about Musharraf’s anti-democratic regime come back to bite us?
Here is the one historic fact that I have to come back to when I think of Pakistan; They were the only country that actually recognized the Taliban as the rightful government of Afghanistan.
Tags: Politics
We give them 8 billion to fight the terror. Not much of a return for the money, huh.
Bush and co (and all of congress stands culpable) have done more damage with their neo-con fopo than is concievable.
Watching Charlie Wilson’s War, you get the feeling that our path today should easily have been tempored by that recent history. If only.
Joe Scarborough decided to use this horrorific act to plug Rudy Giuliani….unreal.
Perhaps instead, this assassination will bouy Biden’s chances since the centrist DLCs = same old status quo.
Sure Nancy, it must be Bush’s fault, not the Islamic extremists.
Actual analysis: Bhutto was Pakistan’s only, albeit slim chance to move forwards. Her party was built around her, and will immediately collapse without a candidate. The other opposition candidate, Nawaz Sharif, is an Islamist who supported the Taliban through the Paki intelligence services when he was PM (and they still do, despite Musharraf’s best efforts) and also the militants who want to annex the Kashmir. The Paki army won’t support an Islamist, so we’re back to Musharraf again, who will probably use this as an excuse to crack down on the Islamists and their allies in the judiciary. Nothing changes.
Oh, and Hillary has already tried to cash in on the fact that she met with Bhutto, more of that statesmanship experience by osmosis.
Bush stickin with Musharraf….Biden and the democrats would have pushed for Bhutto! Bidens request to get her more security was quite telling! Bush has given billions to Pakistan to thwart the “war on terrorism”, Musharraf has used that money to build up his arms and hold the country hostage. The guy is Bushlite…a military strongman who cannot have ANY opposition. Chances are good Bhutto would have won the election. Yes Bush has a huge part to play in this macabre situation! Why would any sane person deliver billions of american tax dollars to a military banana republic. Musharraf was building up his arms to take on India…yes Bush made the situation worse. But of course everywhere Bush has had a hand in foreign affairs the situation is dire
Hilary didn’t have the closeness with Bhutto that Sen. Biden did. It was Biden she contacted (her close friend) not hill and bill!
Couple of things. First, Benazir Bhutto was never President; she was twice elected Prime Minister, and both times was deposed by the president for corruption. Second, Miss Bhutto wasn’t the only opposition voice, and, had she not been killed and had been elected Prime Minister again, would probably have come to some sort of power-sharing agreement with President Musharraf. She was actually regarded as the biggest supporter of democracy in Pakistan.
Good catch on the PM v President issue. I wish I had a good excuse, but I’ll settle for lazy-bloggeritis as my defense.
However, her democracy was usually compromised by graft and corruption. I would agree that Pakistan was better off with her. Also, the power sharing was the likely outcome.
I heard several knowledgeable people discuss that she would have absolutely no pull with the military. In many of these countries (Turkey, Pakistan) the military seems to have a loose structure regarding who runs them. Kind of like, “We listen to the President, unless what he says is bad, then we overthrow.”
I remain unconvinced, G. The administration’s foreign policy, embraced by most of the beltway, has only increased destabilization of volitale nations. We have ignored Pakistan’s ready nukes to fiddle with Iraq and Iran. WTF?
Bush’s problem is not specific to this situation but rather fundemental. He thinks he can engineer democracy in nations he knows little to nothing about. Plus he invested the $8-10 billion in Pakistani Pervez with no return. (His business sense hasn’t changed since his failed oil ventures!)
Specific acts of terrorism and violence aren’t Bush’s fault, clearly. But his foreign policy is a utter failure. Success in Afganistan is tenuous, Iraq is still unstable nearly 5 years on, Turkey is forced to deal with PKK terrorists in N. Iraq because we don’t dare (the Kurds are are alllies apparently – just like the wonderful Saudis), and now Pakistan is in chaos. Where’s OBL, by the way?
One thing this Admin did do is force Pervez to accept the re-emergence of Bhutto within the Pakistani political process, and way too soon for that matter. The militants, and not just AQ, considered Bhutto an American proxy, with the full backing of Bu$hCo.
Musharraf by no means wanted Bhutto dead, for the chaos that will ensue will be just as damaging to him than to anyone else.
“(Bush) invested the $8-10 billion in Pakistani Pervez with no return.”
Um, the greater part of that money goes to securing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal of 50-some warheads. These warheads are not sitting on the rockets in silos waiting for the push of a button, but rather are kept in separate locations, to ensure against their use by Islamist factions in the army which could launch a mutiny. Another big chunk of the money goes for the Pakis to buy fighter planes and other advanced weapon systems from us, much as we do with other countries around the world. It’s an indirect subsidy of the aerospace industry, but that’s the way we’ve been doing it for decades.
Oh, and as for the corruption and incompetence charges against Benazir Bhutto, those came from the military in their calls for her dismissal by Parliament. There was no actual Watergate or Whitewater or whatever, only slander and innuendo, but it worked. Twice.
Funny, I don’t remember anything coming from the Clinton’s involvement in Whitewater. That was a ‘wished-it-was-so’ non-event, whereas the only scandal was the monies spent by the Congress and that farce, Ken Starr.
Hell, the Clintons lost money with that venture – just like the scores of workers and small investors who dedicated time and cash into Bush’s many defunct business efforts. Like those poor suckers, the Clintons didn’t walk away with boat-loads of cash, unlike Bush, when the investment went tits-up!
Please, only reference actual scandals from now on. 🙂
So, let me get this straight…The acting Pakistani Interior Minister declares that Al Qaeda was behind the attack. A couple of hours later, the acting Pakistani Interior Minister (presumably the same one unless these guys work shifts) declares that Ms. Bhutto was not killed by either shrapnel or bullet, but by bumping her head on the sun roof of the convertible in which she was riding.
So, if both accounts are to be believed, those devious Al Qaeda masterminds deliberately raised a ruckus secure in the knowledge that Ms. Bhutto would be so terrified that she inevitably would inflict a mortal wound upon herself, thus throwing her country into a turmoil redoundinbg to Al Qaeda’s advantage.
Me, I’m gonna wait for the autopsy results. What’s that? There WAS no autopsy?? Was Alberto Gonzales named Ambassador to Pakistan while I wasn’t looking? Oh, and can anybody account for Bernie Kerik’s whereabouts during the time in question?
If I wanted a nuclear weapon, the way to get it, would be to assassinate Bhutto.
In the ensuing melee caused by no governmental authority, I should be able to manage smuggling one out rather easily…with enough money at my disposal…..
Right now Al Qaeda, if still alive, would be the primary benefactor of this heinous act….The modus operandi is similar to the one taking out Massoud.
More than ever we need the wisdom of Biden in the Oval Office….
India should, if it hasn’t already, stand up its readiness.
Just one more question. If Bhutto was Bush/Condi’s last best hope for a secular moderate Pakistani state, then couldn’t they have imported some of those Blackwater goons to provide Bhutto the personal security that Musharraf couldn’t and/or refused to provide?
Steve, put down the Biden Kool-aid for a minute. Benazir Bhutto put herself at risk, despite warnings from Musharraf. You will note that the rally she attended was totally secure, and it wasn’t until she left the secured area that she became vulnerable to attack. Even then, she most likely would have survived the attack had she stayed inside the armored limo (provided by the Paki government, BTW) but she insisted on sticking her head out of the sunroof and exposing herself. No, I’m not saying it’s her own damn fault, but she knew the risks she was taking when she decided to return to Pakistan in the first place. That makes her a heroic and patriotic martyr, and Senators Biden and Clinton opportunistic hacks.
I see that G Rex thought that I was saying that Bush and congress was culpable for the assassination.
What I meant to suggest was the they are all culpable for the horrendous foreign policy. They all own it, all be a fraction.
Um, since I’m not a Biden supporter, no need for me to put down the Biden Kool-Aid.
The Bush Administration tried mightily to put the Bhutto/Musharraf marriage together despite no inclination on the part of Musharraf to go along.
Since this was the plan and fervent hope of the Bush Administration, didn’t they at least bear some responsibility to make sure she was safe? Bhutto over and over again requested adequate security, but that security was denied.
She was running for the highest office in her country, and almost certainly would’ve been elected. Somehow, I don’t think that ‘the b*tch had it coming’ qualifies as a coherent policy position. But, whatever floats your boat, Rexy.
Well Bush is sending troops to Pakistan! She was not the only candidate running, but the day of her assassination, the other candidate’s office was hit….thats why he is not supporting elections to be held now….Mushareff’s election is as fixed as the 2000 election in Amerikka was fixed. Bhutto was a billionairess, corruption reigned supreme under her leadership. She was hated as much as her entire family was hated and also assassinated. So with that knowledge why did they send her in there, without the security protection in tact first! Why did she tell David Frost on BBC, that Osama Bin Laden was killed! He never corrected her and she didnt change that statement! We don’t know what the hell is going on anywhere anymore….we are told so many lies, and there are so many distortions…but you can bet your butt on this..we have not seen the last of the 911 fiasco…the last of who took the $100,000 that ended up with Mohammed Otta, and why the 911 Omission Commission didn’t find out how the money got there….there are tapes…you can believe them or not which implicates not only repukes but demorats…more explanations and accusations surely will come out as Pakistan turns to the boiling point.
here you go: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article3291600.ece. robert fisk….Pakastani’s are not saying alciaeda did it….they say mushareff did… check out some press outside the US corporate media propaganda machine
Are we swilling grape flavor now, Liz?
A late entry on Pakistan but I have been saying for months it is the scariest country in the world for many reasons. Muslim extremism, nuclear weapons and a history of democracy interrupted by military coups. A very bad recipe indeed.
India is always on the ready vis a vis Pakistan and it is accepted India would crush Pakistan in any conventional conflict.
Ms. Bhutto left three teenage children and her safety could never be guaranteed by Pres Bush. In order to accomplish that feat we would have to provide troops or Blackwater types in a country which is very distrustful of the West. The key point is not Musharraf’s involvement which is probably none but his inability to prevent such an attack.
In the end we need a Pakistani government which is supportive of our goals and while democracy is one of our goals it is secondary to a Pakistani leader who is supporting our security concerns. If Mr. Musharraf can do that for us then we stay with him, if he can’t we need to move past him and quickly.
Steve, where exactly did I say “the bitch had it coming?” What part of heroic and patriotic martyr did you misunderstand?
As for the Biden Kool-aid remark, what I refer to is his immediate run for a camera to tell everybody once again that if they’d only listened to him all would have been sweetness and light, and that if Islamic extremists plunge Pakistan into chaos and civil war, it’s all Bush’s fault.
Thanks for the link, Liz. I actually watch BBC in the morning before switching over to Fox, and I find the Brit media is a lot better tuned into Pakistan than we are. (And Fox doesn’t cover soccer and rugby.)
Well, GRex, here’s what you wrote:
“You will note that the rally she attended was totally secure, and it wasn’t until she left the secured area that she became vulnerable to attack. Even then, she most likely would have survived the attack had she stayed inside the armored limo (provided by the Paki government, BTW) but she insisted on sticking her head out of the sunroof and exposing herself.”
How many ‘totally secure’ rallies have you seen where someone with a gun can get that close to the subject of the rally? Not only wasn’t the rally secure, it was an open invitation for an assassination. For that, the Pakistani government is responsible.
Nobody, at least not me, has argued that if we just listened to Biden, everything would be ‘sweetness and light’. And Bhutto had at best a checkered past when it comes to honest and truly democratic government. However, it was the Bush administration that put all their bets on Bhutto. They arranged for and facilitated her return from exile, tried to broker the power-sharing arrangement, and left her out there in a target-rich environment.
And that’s not even pointing out how Pakistan is part of the true ‘war on terror’, and that Bush’s obsession with Hussein has come at tremendous cost to the war we should’ve been fighting. 6 years after 9-11, we face an increasingly destabilized Afghanistan and Pakistan, a media-friendly Osama probably safely ensconced in Pakistan, and the bulk of our troops bogged down in a no-win war in Iraq.
Read my lips. Worst…president…ever.
“How many ‘totally secure’ rallies have you seen where someone with a gun can get that close to the subject of the rally?”
The attack didn’t happen until after Bhutto had left the rally, which WAS secure.
“Not only wasn’t the rally secure, it was an open invitation for an assassination. For that, the Pakistani government is responsible.”
She was advised by the Pakistani government not to hold rallies, precisely because of the danger to her. (Also arguably to keep her out of public view and suppress her turnout vs. Musharraf, but that’s just conjecture.) She went ahead and took the risk.
“And Bhutto had at best a checkered past when it comes to honest and tryly (sic) democratic government.”
Sure, if you believe her detractors, the very same Paki military who put Musharraf into power. Funny how you never hear what exactly she or her supporters were supposed to have done, only that she was forced to resign under accusations of corruption. Most likely it was nepotism, I don’t actually know.
“However, it was the Bush administration that put all their bets on Bhutto.”
And here I thought our official policy was to support a military dictator who was closing down the press and rounding up all opposition so he could steal the election? Silly me.
Either way, your whole point is to blame Bush for everything; apparently you confuse sophistry with sagacity.
According to the AP photog interviewed on CNN who was covering the rally, people were getting in around a security fence at the rally with no problem. He felt it was unsafe and moved further away from the podium because he feared precisely what eventually happened. But I guess your sources are better, GRex. Maybe, just maybe, you should actually provide a source that shows that the rally was, as you claim, ‘totally secure’. Maybe Bill Kristol was there?
The Pakistani government charged with carrying out the election refused to provide adequate security. You somehow make that out to be Bhutto’s fault, as if she should run for office while being at once removed from the voters.
I don’t need to listen to Musharraf’s military to understand that Bhutto had a mixed history. Nor would I. I am quite capable of reading a variety of articles and thinking for myself, thank you. I consider Bhutto’s attempt to challenge the undemocratic forces in her country courageous and admirable, although she was a flawed leader when she was in power. BTW, if you’re going to try to criticize my spelling, at least get it right. I actually spelled ‘truly’ correctly, not that it would matter if your arguments were actually germane.
Finally, you deliberately omit my reference after reference to Bush trying to force the marriage between Musharraf and Bhutto. Even the State Department admits this, which is why they’re in scramble mode right now. Taking something out of context is the last refuge of someone suffering from intellectual bankruptcy.
And, yes, I know sophistry when I read it. Which I do when I read your Rethug talking points, Rexy.
I’m not generally a conspiracy theorist, and take the contents of the enclosed article with a grain of salt, but it does raise even more questions about the Pakistani government’s role in the Bhutto assassination and subsequent ‘investigation’. From the McClatchy newspaper group:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/24001.html
Hum, interesting link SagySteve, a call to Spector and Kennedy are in order. One supposes that the new party leadership (Bhutto’s husband or son) had ought to be able to deliver this information in her stead.