I suspect that she knew she was going to die. She was a truly brave person. I think she could have made a difference. We’ll never get the chance to find out.
This was done by a suicide bomber. At least, there was a suicide bomber; also a shooter, who may or may not have been the same person but, if not, almost certainly worked for the same organization. It is highly unlikely Bhutto, even with as many enemies as she had, would be targeted by two assassins of different organizations with different motives on the same day and hour. (An entertaining premise in Illuminatus, where JFK in Dealy Plaza is targeted by five different assassins, mostly unaware of each other.) We know there are Islamic extremists willing to embrace certain death for their cause. Would anybody do that for Musharraf? For the same reason, probably not a CIA operation. Unless Musharraf or the CIA somehow manipulated the Islamists into acting when they did.
Obama and Edwards just amplified quite eloquently on my prior points (I suggest you read the transcript of the show on their website, or else catch the reply a bit later tonight), while Giuliani, as expected, kept on harping about continuing the current theme of interventionism and contunied meddling in other countries affairs – more of the same claptrap and simplistic claptrap I’ve come to expect from Bush apologists and wanna be absolute Rulers of The World . Which is simply the misguided – and frankly, failed – US foreign policy in the region that has only played right into the radicals as Anti-Americanism has only increased throughout the region. And more specifically the billions of rather unconditional military aid that been sent Musharraf’s way with little conditions attached to it, Grealy that hasn’t worked.
OTOH, both Obama and Edwards were quite vocal in their criticism of Bush’s greatly misguided foreign policy as it has only inflamed radicalism and extremism in the whole region Both of them also expressed the immediate need for a radical change of course throughout the region and yes, made clear points as to what has to change in order to get the US back on course. Obama also mentioned a summit between allies and enemies of the US in the region and the immediate need to shut-down Gitmo, phase out of the mess in Iraq, the return of habeas corpus and hard work to try an change the hideous image of the US in the region.
So yes, very much so, if not directly by setting all these unpredictable actions in movement and their continued alliance and propping to Musharraf, the US, under Bush, has once again worsened the conditions in the area.
Sure The Bumbler in chief didn’t pull the trigger that took the life of Bhotto, but he (inadvertently one can only hope or lie to oneself) is certainly ultimately responsible for this, increasingly graver, world-menacing situation if only for his continued pouring of gas into the fire.
Bush Lite is clearly over his head in this deadly game of political chess being played-out in the ME…and quickly expanding like wildfire.
The conditions, people, the conditions. That’s what the Bushies are directly responsible for.
Pakistan? Women’s rights? Representative democracy? I recognize these feel good concepts on their own but, when mixed together, it becomes gibberish. And if lonely liberal activist lawyers in Pakistan were pinning their hopes on Bhutto then they’re even more screwed than I thought compared to the usual hopeless post-colonial military kleptocracy.
As for the effects of this particular dramatic made for TV event, I predict basically nothing happening. It seems to be the safe bet for most events. There will be lots of hand wringing and lots of Americans asking what the U.S. should do from here on out (since we own everything and we’re pissing our pants over “Islamic nukes”) but nothing of worldwide significance. As for the future of the American-Pakistan relationship, I think things could get pretty interesting down the road. We’ve been allied with an iron fisted dictator and supporting him in both word and deed for years now. This means, obviously, that within 10-15 years we will invade and conquer Pakistan and depose Musharraf while citing the reasons for which we originally supported him. Well, OK, Pakistan is a special case compared to our previous efforts but still, this stuff moves in cycles. Maybe he’ll just be public enemy #1 and shown on CNN for the two minute hate.
RedFury: Citing Democratic arguments against Bush without apparent irony harms your anti-imperial critique.
Pfft, typical American ego-stroking where everything is about them. Pakistan has been fucked up for decades regardless of any particular president or administration.
I agree with Agnostic Pagan. Bhutto had her fair share of political short comings. The Pakistan People Party may have had periods of corruption and ineptitude, but Bhutto represented hope for democracy in Pakistan and a moderate, secular government. At least she tried to gain power through a democratic vote, not an iron fist. She was a strong woman.
Musharraf’s political survival depends on concessions with religious and tribal leaders. He has an open relationship with Jamiat Ulema-e-Islame (JUI), a pro-Taliban, religious party. The tribal region is a haven for a number of militant groups, including Al Qaeda and a strong Taliban, but Al Qaeda seems to be the number one suspect at the moment.
Musharraf is a weak leader in a rough neighborhood. He undermines his own power by degrading the democratic process. The secular opposition parties could also be Musharraf’s allies instead of his condemners. It seems poverty and Islamic extremists will determine Pakistan’s future.
Another, Al Qaeda is the number one suspect, article
No. This is, or has the potential to be, a defining moment in middle-east politics.
Wouldn’t AQ have taken gleeful credit for this by now if it were them? I thought that was their MO.
Oh, certainly (though Pakistan is only borderline “Middle East”), but blaming (or for that matter applauding) an American president for it is ridiculous.
I honestly don’t know if Al Qaeda takes credit for all of the terrorist acts it carries out successfully. Wiki, for what it’s worth, claims it does not.
I am not asserting Al Qaeda had anything to do with Bhutto’s death, only emphasizing the press coverage. I think it is safe to believe that some Islamic extremist group is responsible.
The press coverage in the US is very weird. The notion that AQ must be responsible comes from a briefing from DHS. The DHS’s source is a single article from an Italian Presss agency, which was based on a single telephone call.
Apparently only one extremist web site has repeated this claim and that one is apparently very unreliable.
Others might characterize it as throwing gas on a fire.
Well, it seems like it may be Al Queda linked forces (or at least an Islamist extremist group) after all.
As to whose fault it was … to some extent Bhutto herself was culpable. She wasn’t exactly helping those whose onus was to protect her by being in a large rally full of people standing up in the middle of a slowly moving open car. Polticking is one thing, but doing that after you’ve already had one suicide bomb attack on you that killed more than a hundred people was irresponsible.
I’m just glad we won’t have to worry about mass rioting should somethng similar happen in the US (God forbid, of course).
Oh, source for how she was killed.
Irresponsible only if your prime interest is avoiding being killed. Bhutto obviously had other priorities. In many interviews over the past couple of years, she has acknowledged that she was in great danger of assassination, but on principle was not limiting her activities because of it.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/28/bhutto.dhs.alqaeda/index.html There are new claims for Al Qeada.Could be more propaganda.
I’m still torn on whether or not to believe it’s Musharraf or some Al Qaeda thing. Has anyone stepped up and taken credit for it yet?
Both parties would have some reason/motivation to do it.
Or avoiding having others killed as they try to kill you. Making herself an easy target in a crowd got twenty other people offed too. And looking at those pictures it could easily have been many more.
They were not unaware of the risks when they joined her motorcade. Same with those who were with Nawaz Sharif when he was attacked. Security is not always the prime consideration and it’s weird to call someone who knowingly takes that risk for the sake of a democratic electoral campaign to be labeled as “irresponsible.”
That doesn’t really make sense. The bomber was almost certainly going to blow himself up even if she wasn’t standing up through the sun roof at that moment. She made a surprisingly bad decision and died as a result, but I don’t think any of the rest of it is on her head.
Anyway. I’m very interested to hear more about Bhutto, who was evidently not quite as good as the press over here tended to make out - with the exception of the NY Post, who wrote that “Her country is better off without her” - but who might have been an improvement anyway. I know I think very little of Musharraf. Here’s hoping the unrest dies down.