Dec 29 2007
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 â€œsolemn warningsâ€ from a dozen groups who saw her as the main obstacle to their dream of transforming Pakistan into an â€œIslamic stateâ€, 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 Bhuttoâ€™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.