The more they deny, the more supsicous theyn become.

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

that was interesting, but also wierd. who were those reporters and what station are they working for. there was a very obvious lack of identification with regards to lower thirds with a icon (say BBC, or CBC, or AL JAZEERA)...
i've got a feeling the CIA was involved in the killing. We know they want musharrif gone, but that's not to mean they want a leader of a 'democratic' movement in power.
look to how they handled getting rid of sadaam. first they allowed him to kill his foes (telling militias to rise up in 92, and then instead of protecting them, the CIA/state department/pentagon allowed sadam to use his tank and helicopters to kill them), then they took him out calling him a dictator (which of course they facilitated). I got a feeling it was the same with bhutto...
allow bhutto to become the center of a democracy movement, then kill her, or allow musharrif to kill her (as in what they did with sadaam), and then blame musharrif after he is re-elected, best way to topple him and any hopes of a stable transfer of power, no doubt...
IF the US was concerned enough to want to protect bhutto, but was refused the option by musharrif, then why is the US pushing for an election right after the leader of the oppositiion was killed? why wouldn't the us want a un investigation into the killing BEFORE an election if they were concerened that one of the candidates killed tyhe other?
hmmnnn....

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

This is a very important and horrible story. Bhutto was far from perfect, but she was the best chance for bringing this nuclear-armed nation closer to peace with India, whom Bush has been (illegally, according to Article 6 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty) helping to increase its nuclear arsenal.

Robert Fisk is an excellent British journalist... he is fluent in Arabic, has lived in Lebanon for decades, and has even gained access to Osama bin Laden for an interview.

Tariq Ali is a Pakistani now living in Britain.

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

but why no banners. bbc usually smothers their lower thirds with icon, ticker tape etc...

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

For example:
Bhutto Calls on Musharraf to Resign, Nov 13 2007

Bhutto blocked from visiting chief justice, Nov 10

What has Musharraf done so far to seize and maintain power? First there was the military coup, followed by his recent shutdown of the independent press and dismissal of pro-democracy justices.

Police suppress lawyers' protests, shut down press, as reports suggest over 1,500 opposition activists have been detained, Nov 6

Pakistan's Ousted Top Judge Urges Revolt, Nov 7 2007

So - let's see here. Bush and Rice plan to bring Bhutto in as figurehead, so that their good friend the dictator can stay in power. Bush loves dictators, and wishes he could be one (he's off to Saudi Arabia now to visit his good friends there). However, Bhutto (perhaps upset about the previous assassination attempt) gets the bit in her teeth and starts trying to get Musharraf to resign, end the crackdown, and reinstate the chief justice.

Despite all that, Rice was still pushing for a "Bhutto-Musharraf alliance" as late as Nov 23. See US still wants Musharraf-Bhutto deal: Rice.

Look: the Bush Administration has zero interest in promoting democracy in the Middle East (look at their Saudi relationship, please!). They have a great deal of interest in promoting dictatorships friendly to the U.S., because that means that they can pay those dictators off, keep them in control, prevent them from signing energy deals with Russia or China or India, and so on. Still, the U.S. press still babbles on about "Bush's quest to bring democracy to the Middle East."

It's complete nonsense - democracy is the last thing Bush wants, at home or abroad.

Think: despite all the post-assassination condemnation of Bhutto's corruption charges, did she ever do anything similar to what Musharraf has done?

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

just like bushwa would love to pull a musharraf on the American people.

We'll see which one succeeds to a greater degree.

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

If one assumes that Bhutto was murdered at the behest of the bushies, chances are better than even that the assumption would be right. We can't put ANYTHING past this evil regime.

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

Unless the shooter and the bomber were working for different people, what difference does it make? Or was the purpose of the bomb to kill the shooter?

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

A shocking crime occurs in full public view. The leaders promptly issue an unsubstantiated cover story. Timely impartial investigation is blocked. Subsequent evidence raises questions about the government narrative.

Makes me wonder how events in the U.S. look to people in other countries.

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

Just as it was important for US Attorney Phil Specter, now on the Senate Judiciary Committee,
to provide the Warren Commission with sufficient information like the "magic bullet theory" to provide the Commission to find that Lee Harvey Oswald was the "lone nut" gunman, thereby eliminating the possiblilty of a conspiracy (two or more people planning to carry out a crime) to preclude any further investigation into the murder of JFK, the Pakistani lack of autopsy and claim that Bhutto died from hitting her head on the window handle, this finding would remove any causal effect between the death of Bhutto and a conspiracy to kill her by none other than the Pakistani Government assets, who missed the first time.

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

No one, anywhere in this world, believes their government's pronouncements. This is IdiotBush's legacy!

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

Did anyone here actually believe the Musharraf regime's line of bullshit?

plur

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

It isn't BBC, and nobody is trying to hide the source of the clip. If you watched overseas newscasts you'd know about Channel 4, an independent broadcaster inside the United Kingdom. I think it's obvious that Mushariff had her killed, who else benefits from her death?

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