1953-2007
An unfathomable loss.
Background:
Barnett Rubin's interview with the Veracifier (03-Oct-07),
thanks to BrassCheckTV:
Open Thread November 25 2024
-
Yesterday, I got my internet back, but only on one computer, not the one I
usually use for this. It had ben down since Friday, and so were my
phones. SO...
3 hours ago
Cui bono?
ReplyDeleteIt is not sufficient to ask merely 'who benefits?'.
ReplyDeleteIn America, the warparty benefits. But Bhutto was unmistakably a pro-American, anti-mujahedeen agent of change for Pakistan. This assassination is a strike against the civilized world, and may be tantamount to Pakistan's 9-11. As such, it is against Musharref's interests as well as Bush's. She was also a feminist and a Shi'ite vulnerable to, and resented by, the Pakistani Sunnis. Too many strikes against her.
It is well known that Pakistan's Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence [ISI] is ridden with compromised double agents friendly to Taliban or al Qaeda.
Of course, I have to add that this can all be laid at the feet of Osama bin Laden not being taken when his trail was hot. That goes to the original sin of Busheney. They are the unforgiven.
You are right about my "consipiracy" thoughts. I am a great admirer of Bhutto and saddened beyond words. Her leadership was an inspiration to both women and men. She was brilliant, progressive, and strong.
ReplyDeleteHer death already caused tremendous violence in Pakistan:
As Ms Bhutto was buried in her ancestral home in Sindh province, more than 30 people died in incidents across the country as trains, banks and other buildings were set alight and troops were deployed to help restore order. With smoke billowing from countless fires in the southern port city of Karachi, troops there and elsewhere were given orders to shoot violent protesters on sight. A mob of 2,000 people set alight a police station and in Hyderabad at least 25 banks and 100 vehicles were aflame.
As far as bin-Laden, that problem started with the Bush I administration during the initial WTC attack. There were plans to assassinate bin-Laden during the Clinton administration, which were stopped, ostensibly due to the precepts of the Geneva Accord. What we did was betray the Afghani's who wanted democracy and an end to the Taliban and al-Queda.
I don't believe any of these presidents ever intended to capture bin-Laden given his family's close relationship with the Bush dynasty.
And that leads me to the point you made, Vigilante. All of this violence leads to fanatic misogynists who murdered a great leader in cold blood. That action definitely leads to the "original sin" of the Busheney Bastards.
It's fascinating to me that we Americans feel we are entitled to dictate "correct" actions to the independent country of Pakistan. See too todays NYT front page article "A Serious Blow to U.S. Reconciliation Efforts" discussing what we "want". We may not like who we climbed into bed with, but we nourished the current Pakistani government. Time for Americans to buck up, face the consequences of bad policy choices, and stop exhibiting the Condi Ricesque feeling of entitlement to tell others what's good for them. It is time for a wholly new, and more sophisticated, approach to foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteStella, here's a month old poll by Terror Free Tomorrow of D3 Systems of Vienna, Virginia., and the Pakistan Institute for Public Opinion. Interviews were conducted August 18-29, face-to-face with 1,044 Pakistanis across 105 urban and rural sampling points in all four provinces across the nation. Households were randomly selected.
ReplyDelete= Osama bin Laden has a 46 percent approval rating.
= Musharraf's support is 38 percent.
= U.S. President George W. Bush's approval: 9 percent.
= Benazir Bhutto: 63 percent approval rating.
Not sure I believe this:
ReplyDelete"And America is not backing me as an individual - they're supporting democracy, which is the right thing to do."
I don't think we concern ourselves too much with supporting democracy. We support any form of stability that will allow our interests to flourish.