Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Did Bush Risk Bhutto To Save Musharraf?

Posted by Scarecrow , Firedoglake at 2:19 PM on December 28, 2007.


The Bush Administration did not kill Benazir Bhutto, but they want us to believe that only Al Qaeda is responsible and they're not.
bhuttosupporters.thumbnail
mourners

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

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.

Digg!

Tagged as: bush, terrorism, bush administration, pakistan, musharraf, bhutto

Scarecrow is a regular blogger for FireDogLake


Report: Obama Prepared to Talk to Hamas
Barack Obama is reportedly planning to ditch President Bush's strategy of isolating Hamas, and will instead move to open contacts with the group.
Post by Faiz Shakir. January 8, 2009.
Obama Can Learn from Bush: 'We Tried' Ain't Enough
We will need to remind Obama again and again that for those voters concerned about immigration, 'almost' just ain't gonna cut it come 2012.
Post by Paco Fabian. January 8, 2009.
Rachel Maddow on 'Daily Show': 'Insulted,' 'Embarrassed' By Bush
Jon Stewart and Maddow talk Bush, Obama, Bill Clinton, MSNBC and the Munsters.
Post by Danny Shea. January 8, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
koolwoman
Posted by: koolwoman on Dec 28, 2007 8:25 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How much more deceit must we endure from this administration? It's time to elect a woman to clean up this mess.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Like Hillary? Posted by: nherkowitz
» RE: Like Hillary? Posted by: nherkowitz
» RE: koolwoman Posted by: Ian MacLeod
» RE: koolwoman Posted by: Lauren
Bush is a Machiavellian manipulator, and an idiot, as is Cheney
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Dec 28, 2007 10:50 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The NYT had very good coverage of this at Bhutto Assassination Ignites Disarray

"There were differing accounts of the attack. Zamrud Khan, a member of her party, said Ms. Bhutto was shot in the head from gunfire that originated from behind her car in a building nearby. Seconds later a suicide bomber detonated his bomb, damaging one of the cars in her motorcade and killing some 15 people on the ground, Mr. Khan said.

The Interior Ministry spokesman quoted by the state news agency, The Associated Press of Pakistan, said that the suicide bomber first fired on Ms. Bhutto and then blew himself up."


Those two stories don't match up. The facts appear to be that the rally went off safely, but then Bhutto left. Her vehicle convoy was apparently halted by some crowd after leaving the rally - that's when she lifted her head out to wave to the crowd. Personally, I'd believe the first over the second. Shot from a distant building by a sniper seems just a bit more probable than "hitting her head on the sunroof as she ducked." Of course, the sniper would have had to have been in position - and how in hell was a crowd allowed to halt her convoy on the way out of the rally? Look at the NYT photos, fer crying out loud.

Imagine GW Bush leaving a political event, and then his limo is stopped by a crowd of people. That would never be allowed in the U.S. under any circumstances whatsoever. Never.

Clearly, it's a total failure of the security protection - and gee does it look deliberate. That's what just about everyone in Pakistan seems to think, at least. Bhutto accused the government intelligence services of being involved in the first attack on her, and it seems she was correct.

Bush's agenda is definitely not "encouraging democracy in the Middle East." Look at his Saudi buddies - a pack of corrupt dictators who rule their country with medieval savagery - religious police, public beheadings, and the like. That's the model that Bush wants to encourage across the Middle East, but the press continues to repeat the same nonsense: "Bush's quest to bring democracy to the Middle East." The only quest Bush is on is the one dictated by his corporate handlers, and that's the quest for control of global oil supplies.

They tried to bring Bhutto in to boost Musharrif's popularity and to create a sham democracy (a Bush signature if there ever was one). However, Bhutto allied herself with Sharif, and even said that "I am not going to be the icing on a corrupt cake". Watch it on youtube.

Bet Bush and Rice weren't too happy about that interview, were they? Clearly Bhutto wasn't playing along with the program.

Any idiot would tell you that if you wanted to assassinate Bhutto without getting your own hands dirty, you'd use the Pakistani intel contacts with Taliban extremists - all you'd have to do is feed them the information and put them in position along the route. There's been no autopsy - just a bunch of BS put out by the Pakistani government.

More bleakly, people are dying by the dozens in Pakistan right now. The bloodthirsty Bush legacy continues to be built. And that's the bottom line - the Bush clan and their psychotic neocon and Saudi allies are responsible for more death and suffering than all the serial killers in U.S. history combined.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yeah but... Posted by: realist
Sick
Posted by: masterjc on Dec 29, 2007 10:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is there anything too low for this administration!?!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sick Posted by: gbreez
You must be a man
Posted by: jube21bo on Dec 29, 2007 11:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Enough said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Opportunities and Billions of Dollars Wasted
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Dec 29, 2007 5:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Musharraf has been playing Bush, Cheney and Rice for fools for years. We now know that most of the billions of dollars lavished on his dictatorial regime, ostensibly to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda, has actually gone to arm against and cause problems for the world's largest democracy, India. Despite this massive swindle, Bush and Congress keep pouring on the funds. Most Pakistanis suspect that the powerful Interservices Intelligence Service was behind the murder; at the very least, the government failed to provide proper security when they knew her life was in grave danger. The hosing down of the crime scene, lack of an autopsy and statements of a doctor and the women who washed her body that she was shot certainly raise suspicions.

The US has gotten only more instability for its lavish subventions and hypocritical support of this foul regime. The Indians know a lot about Pakistan and obviously desire a stable, secular neighbor--as do most Pakistanis. But nobody seems to be paying attention to either of them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]