Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
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.

Benazir Bhutto: An Age of Hope Is Over

By Barbara Crossette, The Nation. Posted December 28, 2007.


Our preoccupation with Muslim terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan often blocks out the bigger picture: South Asia is a region drenched in blood.
bhutto1story

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

More stories by Barbara Crossette

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Nineteen years ago at the end of December, Benazir Bhutto, fresh from her first, exhilarating election victory and newly sworn in as Prime Minister of Pakistan, met Rajiv Gandhi, the youthful prime minister of India, for talks in Islamabad. She was 35, he was 44. There was obvious good will, almost intimacy, between them. The air was full of promise and hope that these two modernizing scions of dominant political families would turn decades of war and hostility between their nations into a new era of peace.

Three and a half years later, Gandhi was assassinated. There had been no breakthrough with Pakistan to bolster his legacy. Now Bhutto is dead, at another moment of renewed anticipation. An age of hope is over.

There is a terrible symmetry in the lives and deaths of these two political leaders. Both were the children of powerful people: Indira Gandhi as India's prime minister and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto her counterpart in Pakistan. Together, in 1972, they had negotiated an agreement over Kashmir, but their heirs were never able to build on it. Their respective children, Rajiv and Benazir, had seen those parents suffer politically motivated deaths: Indira murdered in 1984 by bodyguards revenging her attacks on Sikhs, and Zulfikar hanged under the regime of General Mohammed Zia ul Haq in what many Pakistanis consider a thinly disguised judicial execution.

Young Gandhi and Bhutto, both killed by suicide bombers, ultimately became the victims of inherited policies. Rajiv Gandhi had tried to put an end to Indian meddling in Sri Lanka and its support for a vicious Tamil Tiger rebellion. He was killed by a Sri Lankan Tamil suicide bomber, a woman who moved toward him to touch his feet in an age-old gesture, then triggered an explosion that blew them both apart. While it is too early to know who killed Benazir, Pakistan's policies on Afghanistan are the backdrop to this tense and dangerous moment. Her father and his successors had supported Afghan rebels in order to become a player in Afghanistan and counter Indian influence in Kabul lately aligning riskily with American policies. Rajiv's mother, whose intelligence agencies roamed the region causing havoc, had set out to weaken Sri Lanka, South Asia's most developed nation.

Benazir Bhutto and Rajiv Gandhi were both campaigning to return to power when they died. Both had been elected, then vilified. She lost support among middle-class Pakistanis for her feudal ways and unwillingness to take on social issues -- child labor or the mistreatment of women -- or chip away at the power of the military, and was driven from office twice on charges of corruption, much of it attributed to her husband. In India, Rajiv was the perennial butt of attacks from unreconstructed leftists and traditionalists who scoffed at his Westernized style, Italian wife and fresh ideas that rattled the khadi crowd. On the night he died, a policeman told me they had identified his remains by his expensive imported running shoes. Suspicions linger that Gandhi or those close to him may have been involved in illegal payments for arms contracts.

Tragically, political violence has been the bane of modern South Asia, from Afghanistan and Pakistan east to Bangladesh. Militants and fanatics of all stripes and dogmas and grievances have assassinated leaders since much of the region gained independence from Britain in the mid 1940s. It has been a formidable hindrance to development of political institutions.

In New Delhi, Mohandas K. Gandhi was killed in 1948 by an outraged Hindu. Pakistan's first prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, was assassinated in 1951 -- in the same Rawalpindi park where Benazir Bhutto died -- and General Zia ul Haq perished in a still mysterious plane crash in 1988. In Sri Lanka in 1959, Prime Minister S.W.R.D Bandaranaike fell victim to a fanatic Buddhist monk, the first of two generations of more than a half-dozen leading politicians to die in shootings and bombings. (Tamil Tiger rebels would later try but fail to kill Bandaranaike's daughter, Chandrika Kumaratunga, when she was president.) Sheikh Mujibir Rahman, founder and first Prime Minister of independent Bangladesh, was murdered in 1975; in 1981 Bangladeshi President Ziaur Rahman, was shot in an army coup. Nepal's entire royal family was wiped out in one evening in Kathmandu in 2001, apparently by a disaffected crown prince.

Hindus and Muslims killed one another by the hundreds of thousands after the partition of British India in 1947 into Pakistan and modern India. And compared with Pakistan since then, India has experienced much more large-scale sectarian and political violence, with thousands of Sikhs butchered in the streets of Delhi and elsewhere in North India after Indira Gandhi's assassination in 1984, and up to 2,000 Muslims slaughtered by Hindu nationalists in Gujarat -- Mahatma Gandhi's birthplace -- in 2002. In both cases, political parties have been deeply implicated yet no political leader has been punished -- in a democracy.

As the world mourns the loss of Benazir Bhutto, it would be myopic to focus only on Islamic-inspired violence and on Pakistan. This is a region with a turbulent post-independence political history. Our (Islamophobic?) preoccupation with Muslim terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan often blocks out a bigger picture. From end to end, South Asia is a region drenched in blood.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: pakistan, bhotto

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


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:
hmmm
Posted by: ericthefool on Dec 28, 2007 12:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No word of her past corruption or the 4 other party members assassinated hours earlier.

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

» RE: hmmm Posted by: willymack
» RE: hmmm,yes Posted by: donl51
» RE: hmmm, no Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: hmmm, no Posted by: carbon-based
» The tragic loss of Posted by: meetmeineleusis
Ehh...
Posted by: DigitalAztec on Dec 28, 2007 12:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A Pakistani friend of mine once told me she stole 9 billion dollars from the people of Pakistan.

I thought that was kind of high. But anyway, here is an article about the so called "corruption diva."

Google "corruption diva" for more.

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

» RE: hh... Posted by: donl51
Who organized the assassination?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Dec 28, 2007 12:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Best site on this latest bloody atrocity? Maybe Juan Cole's Informed Comment.

See also: Frost over the World - Benazir Bhutto - 02 Nov 07

Here, David Frost is asking about the October attack in Pakistan on Bhutto:

Frost: “Does anyone know yet who was responsible for this assassination attempt? There was one report that you had arranged to send President Musharraf a letter, to be sent in the event of your death by assassination, urging him to investigate certain individuals in his government. Is that true?”

Bhutto: “Yes, it is true that I wrote to General Musharraf. I received information from General Musharraf that a friendly country had passed on to them. The information that I could be attacked by a gang from the Afghan warlord Baitullah Mehsud, or by Hamza bin Laden, the son of Usama bin Laden, or by the Pakistani Taliban in Islamabad, or by a group in Karachi. So, I sent back a letter saying that while these groups may be used, I thought it was more important to go after the people who supported them, who organized them, who could possibly be the financers, or the organizers of the finance, for those groups, and I named three individuals who I thought were the sympathizers.

Now I understand that I could be wrong, and my suspicions could be misplaced, but these are the people that I suspect want to stop the restoration of democracy, they want to stop my return, because they know in 1993, when Pakistan was on the brink of being declared a terrorist state, I stopped the rise of terrorism, and they know that I can do it again. So I feel that these are the forces that want to stop, not just me, but the democratic process and the will of the people from triumphing.

Frost: “And in terms of these three people that you mentioned, were they members of or associated with the government?”

Bhutto: “Yes, well one of them is a very key figure in security. He is a former military officer. He is someone who has had dealings with the Jesha Muhammad, one of the banned groups, with Maulana Azhar, who was in an Indian jail for decapitating three British tourists, and three American tourists, and he also had dealings with Omar Sheikh, the man who murdered [Daniel Pearl].

Now I know that having dealings with people does not necessarily mean direct evidence, but I also know that internal security has totally collapsed in Pakistan, and that internal security cannot collapse without there being some blind eye, if not collusion, being turned to the rise of the militants and militancy. . .


Some ten days after that interview, Bhutto was placed under house arrest by Musharraf's government. That was quickly lifted.

The AP is reporting that suspicion has fallen on Musharraf and Pakistani ISI-linked militant groups. In particular, questions are being raised about lax security and the failure of the Pakistan government to provide cell-phone jammers.

So, currently it looks like the top suspects are those nameless individuals in Bhutto's letter. They appear to occupy high-ranking positions in the Musharraf government.

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

» THIS IS NOT A COMPLETE QUOTE! Posted by: TarryFaster
Bhutto made the mistake of telling the truth about Bin Laden and believing the CIA
Posted by: xbj on Dec 28, 2007 12:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bhutto was lured back into Pakistan with promises of replacing Mushareff PRECISELY so she could be killed as a pretext to putting American troops in Pakistan to "stabilize" the country; i.e., prop up "our" bad boy fascist dictator-of-the-month Mushareff.

Here she is on David Frost, without a big deal or any fanfare whatsoever six minutes in, telling the truth that Bin Laden was killed by his second in command. Now, there would only be one reason for Bin Laden's second in command to kill him, and that would be that he found out that Bin Laden had been working for the Bushes and as Poppy Bush CIA asset ALL ALONG. And that leads us to the real perps of 9-11 who set up the patsies in the first place. Al Qaeda: the CIA "database" of patsy terrorists. "The toilet".

THAT is why Bhutto was killed; to prevent the American People and the rest of the planet to figure that particular bit of truth out. And of course, secondarily, to keep "Emmanuel Goldstein" alive in perpetuity and get troops in Pakistan to get control of those nukes.

Bhutto also told MANY people that if she was killed, look to Mushareff as the perp, and thank God for PBS News to at least have let that bit of truth come out.

This is a bit of filthy business that hopefully will backfire on the perps just as surely as every bit of filthy business they've ever done and ever attempted has always backfired on them. You'd think by now they would have figured out that they only get an an ever-decreasing bit of mileage out of every crime, every atrocity, and that everything they do only digs them in deeper and deeper.

But that would be too obvious. You'd have to have half a brain to realize something like that, and when you're insane, you're not running at full mental capacity. That's when conscience and a moral compass is supposed to take over and save your ass; but this crew has neither, most unfortunately for them, for us, and the world.

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

She was good as useless for pakistan
Posted by: fonn on Dec 28, 2007 1:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
During her two terms in office she proved herself to be corrupt and totally incompetent, doing practically nothing for the country, least of all for her downtrodden sisters in Pakistan. She was also very stupid, coming back to the country and making pro-american statements when she should have known that Bush is hated everywhere in the muslim world. The same can be said of Nawas Sheriff who will likely be the next victim followed by Musharaf himself. Good riddance to all these criminals.

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

Curiouser and curiouser.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Dec 28, 2007 1:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it really that the Bush team has been pushing for Musharrif all along, and though that Bhutto would be a good figurehead?

1) The "expectations of a power-sharing agreement between Bhutto and Musharrif" were trumpeted in the U.S. press. However, it appeared that Bhutto wanted real democracy - she didn't want to be the "icing on a rotten cake."

2) Astonishingly, the U.S. is calling for elections to be carried out on January 8th, regardless of the assassination - meaning there would be only one candidate, Musharrif, since Sharif is boycotting the election now, as is Bhutto's PKK party, which as declared a 40-day minimum period of waiting.

By the way, the hateful comments about Bhutto's corruption charges (which Musharref happily dismissed as part of the so-called 'powersharing' arrangement) right after her assassination are really kind of disgusting.

(P.S. Bhutto's comment about Omar Sheikh killing UBL was certainly a mis-spoken word - Omar Sheikh is widely known as the murderer of Daniel Pearl, which is what she must have meant to say.)

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

» RE: Curiouser and curiouser. Posted by: itsthemedication
samothrellim
Posted by: milltom on Dec 28, 2007 2:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Benazir may have been assassinated by conservative Muslims, but the kiss of death was administered by the United States through its obvious maneuvering to get her back into power.

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

peoplepower
Posted by: celeborn on Dec 28, 2007 2:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The hand of sinister evil seems quite visible again here... no one who espouses democracy and rights of the common people is going to escape the machinations of the CIA and Pentagon which are against the interests of their trillion-dollar business in arms and fomenting war.
Hope is crushed? Yes, just like hope was crushed by the assassinations of Jack and Robert Kenny, Dr. King, and several other world leaders who tried to lead their countries out of the bondage of American control. I pray that millions and millions of Pakistans will rise up in an overwhelming, peaceful, people-power revolution such as the example of the Philippines who ousted the American government's "Marcos -- Our Man in Manila" after 20 years of his repressive dictatorship.

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

» RE: peoplepower Posted by: bran
» Unfortunately? Posted by: RedAaron
peoplepower
Posted by: celeborn on Dec 28, 2007 3:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Further to my last post, you all might find this video very enlightening... it makes clear the sinister hand of the war hawks and Bush and Co. who sit back and watch their orchestrations played out.
Click on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ
or even better:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/242.html

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

The DEVILS curse!
Posted by: williameon on Dec 28, 2007 3:59 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Day Special Orifices show up
The Sh-t hits the fan.
The Wolves circle the flock.
And
The sheep get slaughtered.
She took her place
In the line of fire.
Only the Good Die Young!
Another black spot on Humanity.
The Convenience of circumstance.
BU__! SH__! sins again!
Where would we be if the best and brightest amongst us were still here leading us now?
Instead of this:
ZIO-NAZI SWINE!
My they all rot in a hell of their own making.
Especially,
The Monkey Blasphemer
The Anti-Christ
who invokes
The Name of God.

We have to evolve as a species.
We must renounce the violence,
That permeates our culture.
The Crass Media is corrupt.
It is a conditioning tool,
To keep us terrorized and afraid.
Afraid of what?
They sit and wonder when we will rise up and dispose of them,
While tightening the noose.
Everyone is hiding in their Mc Mansions instead of protesting on the streets.
Shut it down!
Turn it off!
!!!!!!!!REBOOT!!!!!!!!!
Your afraid of what?
Carly Rove and The Chimp?
A sadist freak and a nerd?
I’ll tell you what I am afraid of!
Living in a world where the people blame all their problems on each other instead of solving them or doing something about it.
Yes maybe someday a giant hand will come out of the sky and smite you on the head!
Then maybe you will see the Light?
Better yet, maybe we will all turn on the Love Light in our own Hearts and illuminate the World.
The shadows where these scoundrels hide will cease to exist.
The mercenaries will free themselves from the NEO-CONS evil grip.
A real world where we can live in Peace, Harmony, Cooperation and Brotherhood with our neighbors.
Is that too much to ask?
I’ll tell you what the real problem is!
Selfishness and Greed.
It’s Evil.
A blight on our society!
The DEVILS curse!

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

Curious timing
Posted by: xi_people on Dec 28, 2007 4:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I join with other posters who noted that not a word of her rampant corruption, or the fact that she was very likely responsible for the deaths of many others -- including her own brother -- appears in this puff piece.

Writing like this does a great disservice to AlterNet's credibility.

I also find it most curious that Bhutto's killing happened just as the US is cementing plans to insert troops into Pakistan. We'll never know who was behind the person who pulled the trigger, but what entity most profits from being able to point to the "chaos" inside of the country as an excuse for another invasion/occupation?

This does significantly raise the temperature of the entire region. I'm sensing that we're getting close to some sort of "end-game" in the middle east. Its starting to get real interesting.

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

» Diverse views ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Diverse views ... Posted by: xi_people
» RE: Diverse views ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
Bhutto and The Chimps @ The Nation
Posted by: AGB100 on Dec 28, 2007 5:02 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FOR the next several days, you're going to read and hear a great deal of pious nonsense in the wake of the assassination of Pakistan's former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto.

Her country's better off without her. She may serve Pakistan better after her death than she did in life.

We need have no sympathy with her Islamist assassin and the extremists behind him to recognize that Bhutto was corrupt, divisive, dishonest and utterly devoid of genuine concern for her country.

She was a splendid con, persuading otherwise cynical Western politicians and "hardheaded" journalists that she was not only a brave woman crusading in the Islamic wilderness, but also a thoroughbred democrat.

In fact, Bhutto was a frivolously wealthy feudal landlord amid bleak poverty. The scion of a thieving political dynasty, she was always more concerned with power than with the wellbeing of the average Pakistani. Her program remained one of old-school patronage, not increased productivity or social decency.

Educated in expensive Western schools, she permitted Pakistan's feeble education system to rot - opening the door to Islamists and their religious schools.

During her years as prime minister, Pakistan went backward, not forward. Her husband looted shamelessly and ended up fleeing the country, pursued by the courts. The Islamist threat - which she artfully played both ways - spread like cancer.

But she always knew how to work Westerners - unlike the hapless Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who sought the best for his tormented country but never knew how to package himself.

Military regimes are never appealing to Western sensibilities. Yet, there are desperate hours when they provide the only, slim hope for a country nearing collapse. Democracy is certainly preferable - but, unfortunately, it's not always immediately possible. Like spoiled children, we have to have it now - and damn the consequences.

In Pakistan, the military has its own forms of graft; nonetheless, it remains the least corrupt institution in the country and the only force holding an unnatural state together. In Pakistan back in the '90s, the only people I met who cared a whit about the common man were military officers.

Americans don't like to hear that. But it's the truth.

Bhutto embodied the flaws in Pakistan's political system, not its potential salvation. Both she and her principal rival, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, failed to offer a practical vision for the future - their political feuds were simply about who would divvy up the spoils.

From its founding, Pakistan has been plagued by cults of personality, by personal, feudal loyalties that stymied the development of healthy government institutions (provoking coups by a disgusted military). When she held the reins of government, Bhutto did nothing to steer in a new direction - she merely sought to enhance her personal power.

Now she's dead. And she may finally render her country a genuine service (if cynical party hacks don't try to blame Musharraf for their own benefit). After the inevitable rioting subsides and the spectacular conspiracy theories cool a bit, her murder may galvanize Pakistanis against the Islamist extremists who've never gained great support among voters, but who nonetheless threaten the state's ability to govern.

-- Ralph Peters, New York Post

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

Age of Hope????
Posted by: xvictor on Dec 28, 2007 5:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is this "age of hope" this article refers to? With all due respect to Ms. Bhutto, she ran a pretty corrupt government while she was in power. Her husband was known as "Mr. 10%" because he illegal or unethically pocketed millions of dollars from many government transactions, among other examples. It's highly likely it would have been "business as usual" if she had returned to power, this time with U.S. backing.

It wasn't enough that she was shot twice, the assassin blew himself up killing twenty more folks. A lot of BANG for the buck, as they say. This successful assassination will only provide more inspiration for dozens, if not hundreds, of other spectacular assassinations there and the world over, in particular Iraq and Afghanistan.

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

and yet...
Posted by: montims on Dec 28, 2007 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
she has been murdered. Does nobody have any compassion for a woman's untimely death? And the hopes (however naive or futile you might believe them) of many people were killed with her. Is America now going to invade to bring "democracy"?

In the midst of all this cynical political commentary, can anyone spare a moment of sorrow for this woman's murder?

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

» Compassion? Posted by: RedAaron
Covert Action Again
Posted by: deaconjones on Dec 28, 2007 5:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is obvious that Al CIAda is responsible for
this assassination. Corporate Washington has
time and time again opted for dictatorship over
democracy–even the pro-Washington “democratic”
pluralism offered by Bhutto. Only recently
Bush announced that Pakistan’s nukes had been
irreversibly “secured”. How secure could this
be when the long-time State Department’s sponsored dictator Mushareff is almost universally hated.

Bush’s neo-con morons not only believe that
history is a liberal construct which really doesn’t exist apart from ivory tower ruminations…they resolutely refuse to learn
anything from it. Like their ideological mentor
Goebbles they have become intoxicated from inhaling their own intellectual poop…

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

» RE: Covert Action Again Posted by: donl51
» RE: Covert Action Again Posted by: bran
» RE: Covert Action Again Posted by: Livemike
Covert Action Again
Posted by: deaconjones on Dec 28, 2007 5:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is obvious that Al CIAda is responsible for
this assassination. Corporate Washington has
time and time again opted for dictatorship over
democracy–even the pro-Washington “democratic”
pluralism offered by Bhutto. Only recently
Bush announced that Pakistan’s nukes had been
irreversibly “secured”. How secure could this
be when the long-time State Department’s sponsored dictator Mushareff is almost universally hated.

Bush’s neo-con morons not only believe that
history is a liberal construct which really doesn’t exist apart from ivory tower ruminations…they resolutely refuse to learn
anything from it. Like their ideological mentor
Goebbles they have become intoxicated from inhaling their own intellectual poop…

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

1 more to note: she was a CIA "asset"
Posted by: scott.gregory on Dec 28, 2007 6:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read the blurb on the Asia Times website
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IL29Df01.html
...she was a CIA asset. I don't know if she was a patriot with good intentions for her country or not. But she connected with the worst people (i.e., Busah et.al.) and she got IT. It's the oldest trick in the books, kill your friend and blame it on your enemies. AT says Al-Qaida "claimed" responsibility; but Al-Qaida is a Bush family special op unit..nothing new here.

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

Hope is not Dead!
Posted by: drricklippin on Dec 28, 2007 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for the broad perspective.

I believe the election of a progressive US president will provide hope to these nations.

Among the candidates that could do this are Clinton,Edwards or Obama.

Also in regard to the very tragic Bhutto assasination, don't underestimate the gender identification with Hillary- our own nation's possible first female head of state.

Dr. Rick Lipin
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

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

» Huh? Posted by: DCBeltway
» RE: Huh? Posted by: Livemike
Counselor1
Posted by: Counselor1 on Dec 28, 2007 8:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Avoiding Endless PanMiddle East War 1

The speed and ease of Bhutto's assassination is further evidence that we are trapped in a panMiddle East quagmire. Americans patience and confidence in our bipartisan political system is at all-time low owing to gridlock myopically considered to be just over Iraq. There is a compromising middle ground “way forward” that could break that gridlock. “Satisficing” is an economists word. I'll use it loosely to mean finding a set of measures, regarded under uncertainty, but likely to maximize (or minimize) some quantity(ies). The quantities here will be casualties and expense in Iraq and in the developing much wider and longer panMiddle East War. The measures below deal only with Iraq, not Afghanistan or the Israeli government - Palestinian parts of the problem. No interest group is going to get everything it wants out of our Middle East disaster. So let's consider a realistic satisficing set of measures to limit further harm.
A wider war or a Euro-Korean length occupation (50 -60 years) are likely consequences of our present course. Big primitive countries like Iran and Pakistan simply don't have full control over armed groups in them. Bush or the Israeli's government could still attack Iran by air. Iranians would retaliate in part by infiltration into Iraq and attacking our troops. Worse yet: Bush could order an attack that would almost certainly leave American hostages in Iran, trapping the next U.S. president in a nightmare hostage crisis. That would happen before summer 2008, while our troops are still at surge strength. In Iraq, Turks attacking Kurds across the border, the Brits pulling out of the south and the bombing destabilization of Pakistan are harbingers of a wider war. And our military is not quite broken: Bush could transfer troops from the over 60,000 in Germany and 45,000 in Japan.
Soft partition should mean that U.S. troops, while withdrawing from Iraq's cities, would escort only willing Iraqis to resettle to zones of others of the same sect. Under soft partition Iraqis unwilling to move would assume the risk of fighting or making peace. Mixed marriage Iraqis should be helped to emigrate. Assumption of risk is a principle of freedom. Door-kickin'-in forcible occupation is a principle of domination. Baghdad can be partitioned along the Tigris. The Green Zone can be given to Sunni's moving from east to west Baghdad. Turn Bush's embassy into a hospital, rehabilitation center and orphanage for Iraqis. The Kurds have their own government. The Sunnis are out of Maliki's government. So we should offer Maliki's government the choice to stay in Baghdad alone or move to a self-defensible base in Shia territory. Set up a modest U.S. embassy there. Let local Iraqis defend themselves as necessary against Al Qaeda. A dozen countries have moved their capitals, largely under pressure of war.
It's fantasy to think the Military – Energy – Israel Lobby complex is going to let our troops out of oil-rich Iraq. So U.S. troops should be redeployed to new bases in relatively underpopulated areas and re-missioned basically to guard Iraq's oil for an adjustment period not to exceed 8 years (2 presidential terms.) They could also engage in quick reaction against Al Qaeda. Enough room should be left between U.S. forces and the borders for insertion of a U.N. border guarding force. This is the only measure that will induce oil companies to invest the $billions necessary to increase Iraq's oil production and adjust to hiring mercenaries to guard its infrastructure. Even then, the U.S. government will need to provide “incentives” to the oil companies and do heavy jawboning to get them to invest. But it would mean all U.S. troops out in 8 years! An enhanced SIGIR might be trusted for that time to distribute profits equitably to all Iraqis.

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

» RE: Counselor1 Posted by: DCBeltway
Counselor1
Posted by: Counselor1 on Dec 28, 2007 8:27 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Avoiding Endless PanMiddle East War 2
A large U.N border force is the only thing that could keep Iraq one federated country, let unarmed refugees return and keep us and the Iranians apart. The U.N. performed poorly for Iraqis under sanctions, partly because the U.S. and U.K. blocked shipment of any dual use exports to Iraq and because Iraq's oil was irresistible to corrupt oil dealers. But it's the only game in town where you can rent developing country soldiers, through peace keeping – peace enforcement programs, for about $1,000 per month. That's about what it costs for a U.S. soldier with combat support for one day! And of course, Blackwater mercenaries are paid 4 to 6 times what U.S. soldiers are paid. The U.S. should pay for this force to keep Iraq “one” country. In the long run it will be cheaper than combat and paying mercenaries endlessly. We could allow U.S. air support for attacked U.N. And U.S. troops so long as its ordinance only falls within the borders of Iraq. The Israeli government gets out of this an 8-year peace making, breathing space friendly force U.S. occupation in nearby Iraq. In that time, it needs to deal justly with the Palestinians and evacuate or warn and withdraw military protection from the quarter million Jewish settlers on the West Bank. The Iraqis get offers they can't refuse: we stop killing so many of them, our support for keeping “one” regionalized country, and equitable, if insufficient distribution of profits from their oil. The contractors get to build new bases and the mercenaries get extended, but not endless guard jobs. Bush – Cheney neocons get the rebuke of redeployment and the giveaway of their precious Baghdad embassy.
It's also fantasy to think the U.S. can democratize Islamic countries by force and then they will automatically be favorable to U.S. - Israeli government interests. It's a worse fantasy to think even that we can eliminate all armed groups in Middle East countries that attack us now and then. If Bush or the Israeli government gets us into war with Iranians or in Pakistan as well, our military and economy will be severely stressed. War deficit spending will erode the dollar to the point where it will lose status as the world's reserve currency. Americans and our economy may tolerate a limited occupation, but not tolerate a two-generation war for “democracy.” Antisemitism and isolationism would damage our historic bond with Israel beyond repair. So all Americans and especially true friends of Israel, better step up and vocally and officially support the measures listed above and require Congress to refuse further war funding unless the President makes the redeployment and re-missioning of our troops described here the “way forward.”
I don't claim that this set of measures is at all just, merely that if adopted, it is likely to produce less casualties and expense than the endless occupation of all Iraq, and not worsen the Palestinian part of the crisis. Everything Republican candidates (except Ron Paul) says, and every vote Democrat Senator Clinton makes suggests to me they are all enablers of endless occupation. So if Congress won't refuse further funding until these measures are adopted by Bush, rank and file Republicans and Democrats must force them on the parties and candidates. Super Tuesday, February 5, 2008 should produce few clear winners and many losing candidates who will, nevertheless, have name recognition, campaign organizations and maybe some money left. Large numbers of voters could de-register from their parties to show their disapproval with current office holders and unwillingness to vote for money-anointed probable party nominees. Hopefully one of the “losing” candidates who accepts such a compromise, or a Green Party candidate, or Bloomberg, or some other non-oil interest candidate will emerge to run a campaign including a real commitment to pull in our horns in the Middle East.

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

Unsettling thoughts
Posted by: willymack on Dec 28, 2007 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As bad as the Bhutto assination was I just can't get it out of my head that the neoswine here in the US just MIGHT have something (however indirect) to do with it. If that's true, who and how many additional victims are there? Let's face it, since the bushies have taken over, lots of people have come to a bad end.

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

autopsy reveals she fractured her own skull ducking inside the car
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Dec 28, 2007 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Autopsy reveals she fractured her own skull ducking inside the car and impaling herself on a lever. Is it still an assassination? or an assassination attempt? RIP Ms. Bhutto regardless of how the death is "spun" from here on out.

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

» What autopsy? Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: What autopsy? Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: What autopsy? Posted by: Joshua Holland
Musharref
Posted by: US Citizen on Dec 28, 2007 10:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The best way to honor Benazir Bhutto is to take her words seriously, that if she were killed, Musharraf would be at least in part responsible. Look to Musharref and his friends for the perpetrators.

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

Hillary / Blackwater
Posted by: US Citizen on Dec 28, 2007 10:32 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does Hillary face the same fate with the heavily armed Blackwater *security" troopers running loose and not locked up?

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

» RE: Hillary / Blackwater Posted by: pomes
Before you believe the MSM version of this murder ...
Posted by: TarryFaster on Dec 28, 2007 10:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
pay attention to at least the first 6 minutes and 10 seconds of this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ

The assassin -- Omar Sheik, who is mentioned in the video -- was known to work for the British MI6 (their intelligence agency) and has taken responsibility for the execution of Daniel Pearl -- the Wall Street Journalist who was beheaded by him.

NOW, why haven't we been told by ANY of the MSM about the fate of Osama Bin Laden? I have my theories ... what are yours?

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

"Omar Sheikh, the man who murdered Osama bin Laden"
Posted by: jbur816 on Dec 28, 2007 11:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope that your next article regarding the assassination will contain a reference to this direct quote of Bhutto from the Nov 2, 2007 televised interview with David Frost on his Frost over the World. Leaving it out would be curious and intellectually dishonest.

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

Commenters ahead of the writer
Posted by: daw13 on Dec 28, 2007 12:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
once again on Alternet. But we can't even submit articles, can we. Sighhhhhhhh.

Yes, Bhutto was no Saint and very much a US puppet. Check out the Democracy Now inerview with Tariq Ali at http://www.democracynow.org

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

» RE: Commenters ahead of the writer Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Was Bhutto a U.S. puppet? Posted by: Democratic Socialist
» RE: Al Qaeda, my a-- Posted by: Livemike
700,000 "LOST" guns
Posted by: machaventia on Dec 28, 2007 5:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you will recall the day that the military announced belatedly that in Iraq they had somehow "lost" track of over 700,000 automatic and other field weapons from the military storehouse..three days later Mushariff shows up at the capital to confab with Bush?
Hmmmm...
Lets see if we can connect the dots in this one...
Opium is in Afghanistan..
Who mightrun it into the labs in Pakistan to be processed into heroin? Could it be "Al-Queda?
Who is "top-cop" in Pakistan? He would be the head cheeze in a tinpot dictatorship...maybe Mushariff again?
Smells like a "drugs-for-guns" deal somehow...
Let's add the capper...
"Get rid of the Democratic Irritant",what's-her-name and "OILA"!, you have an instant civil war, and a shiny new market for everybody who suddenly wants a new weapon...
Who runs that business in Pakistan?
You guessed it...
Well now...there just happens to be a great selection from over 700,000 new weapons to choose from, perhaps in Islamabad and Riad?
Civil wars breed lots of collateral business, no questions asked..
And of course, the USA gets to wet it's beak in affairs, "to protect the Nukes, oil pipelines, stabilize the area," ad nauseum, once again, up to our Hummers in a brand new, never-ending war...
Gripping both branches of the drug plants of Poppies and Oil, to whom the West is addicted like no other nation on Earth.
Business as usual.

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

CIA behind the assassination?
Posted by: Democratic Socialist on Dec 28, 2007 6:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The United States under King George II has been a VERY strong supporter of the DICTATOR Musharraf (billions in financial and military aid, etc) ever since he seized power (i.e., was installed as a U.S. puppet) in the 1999 coup (a coup which was, coincidentally, also 'strongly supported' by the U.S. government).

So strange how Bhutto (who refused to be a U.S. puppet like Musharraf) is 'assassinated' only a few weeks before the DEMOCRATIC election she would have probably won....hmmmm...so strange...

However, it is so good to know that Musarraf, according to the U.S. Dept. of State and President Bush, remains a "key ally in the War on Terror" and "vigorously opposes Islamic militants and Islamic extermists in Pakistan."

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

Bhutto's OP-ED in the New York Times on 11/7/07
Posted by: Gramma Diana on Dec 28, 2007 7:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(P.S. Bhutto's comment about Omar Sheikh killing UBL was certainly a mis-spoken word - Omar Sheikh is widely known as the murderer of Daniel Pearl, which is what she must have meant to say.)

I agree with that statemnt. In the New York Times she wrote an op-ed letter on November 7, 2207, titled "Musharraf's Martial Plan" and doesn't mention bin Laden being killed.

".....The United States alone has given the Musharraf government more than $10 billion in aid since 2001. We do not know exactly where or how this money has been spent, but it is clear that it has not brought about the defeat of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, nor succeeded in capturing Osama bin Laden, nor has it broken the opium trade. It certainly has not succeeded in improving the quality of life of the children and families of Pakistan....."

Oh, well, we will never know, because Bush said he doesn't think about bin Laden anymore. Ummm, maybe he knows something.

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

An even bigger picture
Posted by: talkville on Dec 28, 2007 10:13 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any one who might have expected so-called Western-style 'democracy' in Pakistan is participating in a strand of sheer idealism. Pakistan - singly holding nuclear capacity- is key in an even larger scheme by the US-led Globalizing West for control of this region (so-called "Shiia Crescent": Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and even Syria. This would guarantee control of the entire region NOT to the benefit of their vast populations.

The truly democratic forces working and living in those areas are invariably kept invisible and hidden beneath the Imperial Rhetorics of the so-called WOT. Bush II is yoked to Musharraf in this Grand Game they play and will do as much as possible to retain that balance of power, as always to the great detriment of all popular classes in Pakistan and those other countries. No democratic and lasting changes have ever resulted from Top Down Engineering whether domestic or foreign. "Democracy" by fiat is merely a slick way of ensuring despotism by another name. It ain't the Word that needs changing!

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

Bhutto is responsible for thoousands of Afghan deadths and destruction by supporting the taliban
Posted by: tim_s_eb@yahoo.com on Dec 29, 2007 10:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Support for Taliban Missing from Bhutto Obits
Washington Babylon
BY Ken Silverstein
PUBLISHED December 29, 2007

As the American media continues to grant Benazir Bhutto sainthood status, it’s worth looking at a few sections from Steve Coll’s Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden. Here’s a bit on Bhutto’s background:

Pakistan’s newly elected prime minister was Benazir Bhutto, at thirty-six a beautiful, charismatic, and self-absorbed politician with no government experience… She had taken office with American support, and she cultivated American connections. Raised in a gilded world of feudal aristocratic entitlements, Bhutto had attended Radcliffe College at Harvard University as an undergraduate and retained many friend in Washington.

And here’s a bit more on her support while prime minister for the Taliban, before it seized power in Afghanistan:

Benazir Bhutto, who was secretly authorizing the Taliban’s covert aid, did not let the Americans know. She visited Washington in the spring of 1995, met with President Clinton, and promoted the Taliban as a pro-Pakistan force that could help stabilize Afghanistan… During her visit and for many months afterward Bhutto and her aides repeatedly lied to American government officials and members of Congress about the extent of Pakistani military and financial aid to the Taliban… Bhutto had decided it was more important to appease the Pakistani army and intelligence service than to level with her American friends.

Kabul fell to the Taliban in 1996. Bhutto, Coll says in his book, “had capitulated…to [Pakistani intelligence’s] persistent requests for unlimited covert aid to the Islamic militia.”

Bhutto, of course, had some admirable qualities. She may have also had strong political and geopolitical reasons for backing the Taliban. Either way, it’s an important part of her biography that shouldn’t be elided from her obituary, yet it seems no one wants to write about this now.

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

Sent into harm's way?
Posted by: LLITTL on Dec 29, 2007 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hearing yet another report about this assasination, I was a little surprised to hear that non other then President George W. Bush had encouraged Ms Bhutto to return to a place where she had so many enemies.
Combine this with the statement released by at least one group alledged to have carried it out that "We are tribal people. Tribal people do not kill women"
So, whomever is ultimately named as the perpetrating organization, it might be interesting to follow the money.
It feels like her first mistake was letting herself be persuaded to return by someone who might have much to gain by a destablized Pakhistan.
Another tidbit: Her fatal injury did not come from the bullets but from the handle of the sun roof as she fell back into the vehicle. Huh? So...not *really* an assasination...just an unfortunate accident...
All this is too paranoid to be true, right?

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

Author lacks knowledge of geography
Posted by: DesertStone on Jan 2, 2008 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Someone should really tell this author that South Asia is a region which only extends as far north as Pakistan. Besides which the real problem in the region as with the real problems in most troubled regions of the world have to do with european greed and imperialsm rather than Islam or ethnic tensions.

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