Dec 29 2007

Denying al-Qaeda’s Role In Bhutto Assassination Is To Deny Reality, And Bhutto Herself

Published by at 7:56 am under All General Discussions,Pakistan

I was not a a Benazir Bhutto supporter. I did not know much about her except she had enough dirt against her she was forced into exile. And under her rule the Taliban rose and were nurtured. Good intentions do not equate to good acts. She could have just been overtaken by events, which meant she was not up to the job. We have had Presidents who could not face terror when it came at them. Bill Clinton comes to mind, and he is fairly popular too. Most people would rather not face evil – especially historically bloody evil. It is a natural response to overwhelming intimidation.

The response takes many forms, but through out all of it there is core of denial. I heard Glen Beck babble on the radio yesterday he doesn’t believe a thing al-Qaeda says, so he doesn’t believe their claims to have killed Bhutto. This is how Clinton gave us 9-11 – he did not believe they were serious when they declared Jihad against us. He was so deep into denying their claims he refused to see their hand behind the first WTC and alert the American people their was a deadly force growing in the world.

We have many sources of information now, and as they point towards al-Qaeda people deny them more and more. First we have the report Bhutto wasn’t shot. Seems people from all over America know more than those in the hospital who tended to her. Why would it matter if she was shot or not? We supposedly have intercepts of al-Qaeda cheering the three men who carried out the attack (the second on Bhutto in as many months). From a man who threatened her with suicide bomb attacks months ago (I guess that story was just a convenient plant paving the way for the two attacks?)

But what we really have is Bhutto’s words themselves:

Who killed Benazir Bhutto? Despite formal admission of responsibility by al-Qaeda, we may never know for sure. In one recent conversation she told me that she had “solemn warnings” from a dozen groups who saw her as the main obstacle to their dream of transforming Pakistan into an “Islamic state”, whatever that means.

Whatever that means? For someone who seems to care about her the author is damn dismissive. It means Bhutto was not playing the proper role of a woman who is simply property in the view of extremist Islamists. It means she was a threat to their hopes and plans because she denounced them and asked Pakistan to denounce terrorism too.

Those supporters of hers who deny the role of al-Qaeda and flame their hate of Musharraf on flimsy or non-existent evidence are actually doing al-Qaeda’s bidding. Assuming if this is an al-Qaeda act, what they want is to destabilize Pakistan, turn the people and military against Musharraf, so they can take over the country and its nuclear weapons. Playing to al-Qaeda’s dreams in this is to deny Bhutto’s spoken wishes.

She had two enemies: Musharraf was a political enemy, but al-Qaeda was supposedly a much deeper enemy – one that threatened her country and threatened her. Too many are deciding for themselves that she would have picked Musharraf’s defeat over al-Qaeda’s when they deny the evidence al-Qaeda took her life. They are choosing to depose Musharraf has vengeance for her death, not to get those who threatened her, attacked and likely killed her. They are letting al-Qaeda win through their denial.

Why? Probably because facing Musharraf is less intimidating than facing a blood thirsty al-Qaeda. But for whatever reason, if they truly honored Bhutto they would remember she had two enemies and not rush to pick one over the other without firm evidence. If people need more than evidence and claims then look at who benefits most – it ain’t Musharraf, but al-Qaeda is grinning widely today. So are the Iranians, who are also out there defending al-Qaeda.

Update: Now the story form her husband is that there were shots but they missed, then the guy blew himself up.

Benazir Bhutto’s husband had thus denied statements from officials of the Pakistani Interior Ministry. The officials said that a suicide terrorist fired his gun at Bhutto three times but missed. He blew himself up afterwards. Doctors of the hospital where Bhutto was hospitalized did not find any gunshot wounds on her body either.

OK, how does this make the government statement she did not die from bullet wounds an evil lie? Did the government ever once claim there were no shots fired? How does this make the assassination a government act? I understand the pain of loss, but emotion is a terrible thing to rely on when faced with a complex and sophisticated challenge.

8 responses so far

8 Responses to “Denying al-Qaeda’s Role In Bhutto Assassination Is To Deny Reality, And Bhutto Herself”

  1. S says:

    Why the holier than though attitude toward the benevolent gov’t. Now we have her aide who aparentlybathed her saying there were clear gunshot wounds to the head and the gov’t account is “bizzare.” Why put yourself on a limb on the side of the government? The don;t have a track record that warrants such trust. On the other hand if you are trying to bolster the last best thing America has going over there then it is underdstandable, realistically speaking.

    The way in which this story unfolded makes it self evident the truth is nowhere in sight. The fact the Sharif is calling for a cancellation of election should be evidence enought that when people speak of brink of civil war, they are not exagerating.

    Thus, why continue speculating? This is a nonstory. She is dead and not coming back. We know there were nefarious forces that killed her, we just don;t know their loyalties. The Paks have just ensured that this will stay on the front pages for a very long time, even legend now. Surelym, we will get some psychologists marched out to tell us that the aide was so distraught she didn;t know what she saw. Then we will hear about how that part of the world loves conspiracy theories/. MAybe they love them because they happen ALL THE TIME. They have good reason.

    Anyone who comes out in view of the party line is doing so I am sure “in the best interest of Pakistan.” The US Gov’t and the RoW care singly about the nukes and will now be forced to choose in the open whether to support a supression of democracy or a new mushariff, if there is one. Look for some retarded stroy from state about how it would be dangerous to proceed now and democracy will take root but the country must first recover. Predicatable as Dawn.

  2. S says:

    Ok, so now we have the NYT and HufPo reporting that the US will intervene to “investigate.” Now this is actually kind of funny and speaks to the temnplate response you would expect from State. State and CIA have no credibility whatsoever and moreover have a vested interest in seeing particular outcomes, namely clearing providing cover for the gov’t for the greater good. Don’t know that one can argue with the approach, but it is so blatently transparent.

    Perhaps we can re enlist Special Prosecuter Fitzgerald who will conduct a multi year investigation to determine that it is impossible to determine if the alleged transcript is real, but he has uncovered corraberated evidence that the governement of Pakistan all the way up to Musharrif has obstructed his investigation. This despite a body of evidence which points inconculsivily to AQ and its Taliban brethren.

    Subprime

  3. VinceP1974 says:

    >Ok, so now we have the NYT and HufPo reporting that the US will intervene to “investigate.”

    Oh wonderful. God this govt of ours is so stupid.

  4. owl says:

    Good intentions do not equate to good acts. She could have just been overtaken by events, which meant she was not up to the job. We have had Presidents who could not face terror when it came at them. Bill Clinton comes to mind, and he is fairly popular too.

    Exactly. Thanks for cutting straight to the chase.

    Yep. The Pugs better decide to get themselves another fighter and go to church when they require a pastor. They dissed as ‘stupid, crony, pork, and jose lovin’………….when they had the best of the Christian compassionate mixed with a fighter. It wasn’t good enough to stop the constant Pundit jabs. So be it.

    Bhutto death ought to bring it home about our elections. There has never been a lot of choice. We need a proven fighter that actually accomplished miracles in enemy territory. If you need a saint……..go to church. I need someone willing to waterboard.

  5. VinceP1974 says:

    What the hell is a pug?

  6. ivehadit says:

    RepuGlicans who dissed George W. Bush (the best president we have had in 100 years, btw) have BBS (Bush Betrayal Syndrome).
    :)

    I’m hoping the Pugs will see the Light. Rudy is the man.

  7. Terrye says:

    This reminds me of the stories following JFK’s death. Confusion and paranoia.

    There are too many people talking to too many media people. Sometimes people are mistaken about wounds. I came up on a car wreck once and there was so much blood, it looked like a shoot out. I have seen pressure sores that looked like gun shot wounds, even scarred like them. Open to the bone or deeper.

    So, if someone heard shots and then there was an explosion and she is dead with blood on her, it is easy to see how people could make the wrong assumption.

  8. Georgeann King says:

    Ivehadit, I couldn’t agree more. Ronald Reagan looks better now than he did at the time and he had plenty of pugs sliming him, too, although they don’t admit it now.
    I’m a devout, Southern Catholic – daily Mass attending, daily rosary saying, pro lifer who has worked in pro life – and I pray people wake up and vote for Rudy. We’re not electing a Pope. We need someone who recognizes evil and will go up against it. I’m not consoled any of the others have the vision or will that Rudy does.