Does anybody know where Rumsfeld and Tenant are hiding? Maybe in a bunker somewhere. Everyone should read "Three Cups of Tea" by Greg Mortenson. It might explain why we're losing the war in Central Asia called Afghanistan.

Here are a couple nice surprises---

"Blessed Unrest" by Paul Hawken, and
www.lakotafreedom.com

Enjoy.

Helix:

The neocons are not morons. I agree, with one notable exception. Dubya is a lazy intellect, ignorant, arrogant, alcohol and drug abusing, socially promoted, propped up MORON!

vaudree / deepa: Ouch! I didn't mean to imply all Moslems are Islamists or backwards tribesmen. It only takes a few radicals to cause a lot of damage.

I agree that Americans can be just as backwards and parochial as anyone, anywhere. The fundamentalist American Christians calling for the bombing of Iran have perverted their religion at least as much as the most radical Islamist.

I don't know why we haven't had a woman president when India, Pakistan Israel and England have (or PMs). Its probably simple bias.

Your posts and their anger read as if you feel a deep loss. Please accept my sincere sympathy and best wishes for the people of Pakistan.

bbr-001 says: Bhutto could have been killed by an Islamist simply because she was a woman, and by definition, out of her place.

The REALITY is she was elected by the people of Pakistan (majority of them Muslims) as the Prime Minister for two terms. Comparatively, in the 200+ years of the US history, there has NEVER BEEN A WOMAN PRESIDENT. Reason?????
Only last year for the first time a woman has become the speaker of the House of Representatives. Only in September 2006 a woman (ofcourse, an European American) has been appointed as an anchor (by CBS)of the 6.30 p.m. International News.

So it is better to look at the REALITY with open eyes and mind, than continue to promote American myths as Realities. It is not in Pakistan, but in the US that a woman is out of place. The 200+ US history proves that.

Oh I forgot to remind us that the money to 9/11 Atta was sent down here in Florida and a friend of mine told the FBI that he was tryin to by a used car from her ... so they told a lie about him bein in Europe talkin with the Iran but he was gettin paid by Pakistan agents down her in Florida... Dah Floridah

That is the hidden truth about 9/11

The demolition theory just is a smokescreen for da big stuff...

But if ya want a new investigation...You are gonna get more than ya think....

terraplaneblue stated "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…

It always bothers me when people start talking about what morons these guys are. These people are not morons. They're sharks. They're not intoxicated from inhaling their own intellectual poop because it's not poop. It's propaganda. And the fact that anyone even takes comments about the "end of history" seriously indicates that the propaganda is working.

I think the "moron" view gains credence because most people are basically decent. Despite all evidence to the contrary, we simply cannot grasp that any normal person, especially the "leaders" of the country that we love and would die to protect, could possibly be as vicious, callous, and brutal as the events of the least 7 years would indicate. Therefore, what we're seeing here must be stupidity.

I don't buy it. Actions speak louder than words, and those actions indicate contemp for the law, for the environment, and for the lot of ordinary people. Despite platitudes about spreading democracy, their actions include mass murder, torture, and wanton and remorseless destruction of entire cities. The deaths of hundreds of thousands and the destruction of the lives of millions is met with a smirk from the conniver-in-chief. Despite touting the virtues of "free trade", their actions result in destitution of entire countries, the virtual enslavement of societies, and the wanton destruction of the environments that ordinary people depend on, while at the same time enriching themselves and their cronies beyond reckoning. Wealth that they then use to further their catastrophic manipulations. Lying, cheating, fraud, corruption, cronyism, manipulation, social upheval, torture, death... The list is endless.

Make no mistake. These people are not morons. They're monsters.

Consider yourselves dog food.

Thanks folks for all the new info I was not aware of... like BB's statement that Omar Sheikh killed Osama (almost said Obama) and Mushy sayin that Omar was originally a British agent and that he did not kill Daniel Perl ...Found more here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Omar_Saeed_Sheikh

A Cool Prez would just have taken Osama up on his truce offer a few yeears back and just see what happens and maybe find out if he is dead or alive and if it didn't work out ..Hell we have ended truces before right?

But that would mean less profit for the War Machine so not knowing is big profits.. or knowing and hiding it....

What a crazy world...

I think any self respecting terrorist would love to end this Bull Shit if we just gave them the chance to negotiate an ending ...I don't think they want to keep blowin themselves up forever and I think Little George just wants to get the hell out of the white House now after the mess he has made and be safe somewhere....

Like Kem says, Well See...

While it is true that Bhutto was no saint (well behaved women never make headlines !!), it is also true that in the current context, a woman diving head first into Pakistani politics is like jumping into the fire after soaking yourself with gasoline.

The jihadists (Al Qaeda, Taliban, Lashkar, Hizbul, and a host of other asswipes) wanted her dead as she was waaay to modernist for them. She was outspoken in her contempt for the extremists. Yes, she did play politics and helped create the Taliban when they were a ragtag bunch of religious students but she also came out strongly against them repeatedly as they unfolded their vision for Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Its her love for her country that prompted her to consider this suicidal proposal to begin with. You cannot convince me she did it for even more money or more power. Everyone loved her including the Indians (who are currently holding candlelight vigils for her).

Yes she would have been involved with the U.S. and Musharraf but ANY politician in Pakistan needs the Pakistani military and the U.S. The only way to get rid of this dependence is pure unfettered democracy and she was able to recognize this and was determined to bring this about even if she had to sleep with Mush and the friggin Americans.

Yeah she was corrupt. Corruption in South Asian politics is the direct equivalent of Campaign Finance in the U.S. We legitimized it and gave it a nice ring to the name. Campaign Finance is Baksheesh !! When you dont even have a democracy to begin with how do you regulate campaign finance or corruption in government.

The problem with Pakistan has always been military dictatorships supported by the Americans. For 60 years this same format has played itself out and the Army and their cohorts and the sliver of elite in Pakistan have been making out like bandits. The military dictators have all along supported and created these extremists to further their strategic objectives in Afghanistan and India (Kashmir).

We (the U.S.) have never really supported true democracy in Pakistan as we know democracies (like in India) are a pain to deal with and have a mind of their own.

bbr-001 says: Bhutto could have been killled by an Islamist simply because she was a woman, and by definition, out of her place.

Not all Muslims think like that. If they did, Bhutto would have never been elected.

Sadly, some do.

"Defense stocks must of shot up today eh?"

As a matter of fact, upon news of Bhutto's death Oil Gold & Defense stocks surged (despite the dow dropped hundreds of points.) Nasdaq & S/P also fell substantially.

Bhutto could have been killled by an Islamist simply because she was a woman, and by definition, out of her place. Pakistan had a long way to go, and its going backwards.

Conspiracy and criminality theories and facts aside, both Bhutto and Musharraf had a balancing act between Pakistan becoming a modern secular nation and the extremists who want the Indians out of Kashmir and don't understand why the Taliban and al quada were the good guys 15 years ago, and the bad guys now. There are also those who want to make Pakistan an Islamic Sharia Law state.

Its a mess, and if things go down hill, don't be surprised if the US and India grab or destroy Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

One of the weird things is, according to Noam Chomsky, modern Islamic extremism has its roots in Saudi Arabian Wahabbi evangelism indirectly supported by western oil money and US policy that actually discouraged secular populist governments in the middle east. This goes back to the Nasser UAR days. Not to mention the ugly American days in the Shah's Iran. Goes around / comes around.

Todays revelation of the cause of death should really buttress the argument that there was US involvement. Apparently the plan was to have a bomb go off - like earlier and thereby polarize the Pakistani populance towards Ms. Bhutto.

As she was the only makor oppositon leader NOT boycotting what will oviously be a rigged campaign. The reason being very simple - she had the support of the UK and the US. The election would have given two faces to one hegemony (the miliary face of Musharaff and the supposedly 'democratic' face of Bhutto). This would then mollify the increasing criticism of backing a military dictator for decades while'promoting' democray in Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria/Iran ad nauseum.

I doubt they thought that something as BIZARRE as Butto ducking her head in a furious hurry would cause her death. It is interesting how the papers were plastered with reportsof gunshots!! Apparently the gunshots MUST have come from her or pakistanis forces security forces.

In addition- this correction of the cause of death makes it highly supicious that this was an event 'staged' by the CIA to garner her more support- and cast her as a fierce, brave, independent proponent of democracy (while she was in fact nothing more than yet another stooge in the pay of the US).

I am sure that or hope that this will not be lost on the peoples of the world. This calculated mis-direction was a key to the counter-insurgency (read nationalist) movements destroyed by the British in Africa and Midle East. It is the same oldplan - whch is highy effective - tons of disinformation and forcing people to choose between two options that are really one option (sort of like the Democrat/Republian Party). All other choices are either criminalized or marginalized.

Both Mush and the US are holding inquiries into Bhutto's death. Didn't the US also hold an inquiry into whether Iraq had WMD?

The little one takes over the computer and everyone gets busy writing! Yes, I used to enjoy watching Reboot - liked Mouse.

Does anyone know anything about Nawaz Sharif and how he would be different than Mush or Bhutto? Never hear much about Bhutto's husband other than Bhutto's family picked him out for her and she intentionally got herself stung by a bee so they could have alone time.

bottle - about GWB not giving personal details about knowing Bhutto in his speech - it is because you heard that speech before and Bhutto's name was just inserted into it. And GWB can't do avenge and sympathy at the same time.

Mike Corbeil - re woman of the people - both points are important - that Bhutto presented herself as a woman of the people and in doing so probably made her own assassination more likely - and that the presentation was not - er - completely accurate.

re taliban - you only mentioned insisting upon women's rights, I just added things to the "insist upon" list. Did not mean to infer that you did not want the other things as well. Just wanted to add to the list.

Mike Corbeil says: I DO NOT think the Taliban should 'unhold' the rule of law, but uphold it, sure; yet it depends on who's law we refer to, for the Taliban were applying rule of law alright. They only needed to make some modifications to their rules of law, in order to make them just. / I do NOT appreciate the phraseology of "rule of law" when it's used in terms implying that "rule of law" is universally important and as if the laws were always right; or when they are, then that they're always justly applied or enforced.

I mean "the rule of law" rather than being a law unto themselves or seeing the rules of nations as not applying to them. Honouring agreements between nations, the International Criminal Courts, Geneva convention, conventions on Human rights.

Susan Bonner captures what I mean by the rule of law - not in the legitimacy of NAFTA, but the opposite idea that rules are something you make everyone else adhere to but which you do not need to follow oneself.

SUSAN BONNER ASKING RICE: Fair enough. But may I ask you, on the issue of negotiating, has not Canada and the United States -- they have negotiated. They negotiated the free trade agreement. Included in that is a dispute settlement mechanism demanded by the United States. Why won't the U.S. follow the rule of law?

SECRETARY RICE: We are following the rule of law. And again, I think apocalyptic language that impugns the integrity of one side or another is not helpful,

Technically, Canada could have walked away from NAFTA because the US broke the agreement with softwood lumber, but we didn't because Paul Martin enjoyed rimming Bush.

The Taliban are all about rules for everyone else to follow but do have a tendency to flout them themselves. I thought the difference between acting in good faith and paying lip service was the important comment and you did not touch that.

re - veto / not-withstanding clause - Your are probably referring to the ability of permanent members to veto any action that does not suit their interests, but I tend to think more of the American President vetoing congress when I hear that term. There are tabous against using the not-withstanding-clause in certain cases (ie to take away a human right because it creates a precedence that it can be used to take away other unrelated human rights - which is why it was not used to overturn gay marriage). There is no such tabous limiting the use of the veto by either the President or permanent members of NATO.

I think that there need to be rules as to when to intervene to prevent genocide or mass slaughter and the limits of such intervention so that the rescuers do not take advantage. The idea that one will not intervene unless one has vested interests is all backwards - if one has vested interests then one shouldn't be intervening! There were rules in place which made invading Iraq illegal - but it did not serve Cheney's interest to follow the rule of law so he didn't. Flaunting the rule of law was "effective" in that Bush got to do what he wanted - or, at least, what Cheney wanted.

Mike Corbeil says: War is NOT the path to peace, so TALKS MUST BE.

Agree with you there. I think that we need to move away from combat missions to peacekeeping and disaster relief - the idea that we should be involved with anything else!

re torture - Under torture, I would probably proclaim my undying love and physical attraction towards Dick Cheney. :vomit As far as useful information, it doesn't really work. As far as creating widespread fear and backlash, it does do that. The Geneva convention prohibits torture to prevent both sides from trying to outdo the other in this regard.

re security - Americans over do it to the point of trampling all over the Queen's rose bushes (they were unique and named for members of the royal family).

re Pakistan: Clash between Musharraf and Bhutto a "farce", says Bhutto niece

This is consistent with the way Bhutto evaded her earlier statements concerning Mush during the interview with Carol Off. Off asked Bhutto over and over again how she could form a coalition with someone she said all these bad things about in the past. I've heard worst past statements against future friends - David Emerson comes to mind. Any way, that "friendship" was short lived, though Mush seemed visibly shaken by Bhutto's death.

The new information seems to be that both Mush and Bhutto seem to fear the popularity of their opponent Nawaz Sharif - which I already suspected. Strangely, Sharif seems to be the one most likely to benefit from this mess if he is careful not to appear to be exploiting Bhutto's death (which, of course, he plans to). Sharif also invited Bhutto's supporters over to his side and proclaimed that he was going to achieve the vague goals Bhutto talked about before her death. OK Bhutto wanted another shot at leading her country and may have, conceivably, been beholden to whoever helped her reach her goal. But how does that make her different than Rudy Guilliani who spent more to become Mayor of New York than the (was it Chretien or Martin or Harper?) spent becoming PM during the same time period.

Marco Liconti make a point of noting that, not only was Fatima's father Bhutto's brother, but that Fatima blames Bhutto for her beloved father's death - which is a way of insinuating bias.

re assassination - two politicians have been assassinated in Canada - Pierre LaPorte and D'Arcy McGee. Assassinations are more common where there is the greatest violence and are, therefore, a sign of increasing violence and an increasing belief that "Might is Right."

Hermes7 says: Post 911 Musharaf had no choice but to be an ally with the USA. He was told, as he revealed publically, "Comply or we'll bomb Pakistan back into the Stone Age!"

Shit! The Bush administration doesn't ask nicely, do they! This "compliance is probably something Nawaz Sharif and the religious right were both exploiting since Sharif seemed a bit more popular than Mush or Bhutto even before her death.

Hermes7 says: Mrs Bhutto had done deals with the USA to help her (and her corrupt cronies) back into power. She would do what Musharaf would not, namely: (a) allow US troops into Pakistan and (b) back away from close ties with China. The USA is frustrated with Musharaf on these tywo matters especially.

How likely was Bhutto to keep her promises to the US once she gets what she wants from them? Bhutto seems to have been a master of short-term alliances. Bhutto would need to renounce the US publicly even if she was doing their bidding privately - and I agree that Bhutto would try to portray Mush as the puppet even as the American pull her strings.

The Bush promotion of the Mush/Bhutto team does make me suspicious as to how the Americans were planning to benefit from such an arrangement. China and troops on the ground seem like a good start.

seraphicmom says: vaudree,i am glad you are so sure bhutto was a human being,because i was not…….,entirely convinced,,it is true that she bled and died like a human being

Maybe she did not bleed and die - seems that she died, not from the gun shots, not from the bomb per see, but because she hit her head. My standards are pretty low concerning what constitutes a human being - Harper is one.

phaedrus says: On the US Spreading Democracy 1. Don't make me laugh!!

It makes me laugh every time I hear that. Your general theme is that Mush was doing Ok but that American pressure (which he does his best not to give into as much as possible but with which he has been tarred with politically) has dragged down his popularity. Ok, maybe not the stuff in brackets so much. My guess is that if elections are not rescheduled for March with every possible safeguard in place to insure a fair vote, the American media will start portraying Mush as Saddam.

Got a few links to look at.

I agree w/ Deepa

Condaleeza orchestrated Bhutto's return and our government has an unwavering support for Musharref.

The Christianist element of our government needs an unstable Pakistan to further it's armageddon agenda

item;advance notice on jihad web.."osama binladen to make new announcements about iraq" what a load of crap.bush already covering ass...bhutto already spilled beans about osama....anyone need further proof that geo. bush has some kinda hotline to terrorist...obvious working in tandem..

Chorus Angelorum te suscipiant, et cum Lazaro quondam paupere aeternam habeas requiem.

Auspiciousbunny yes something Ron Paul said back in 2001:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst110501.htm

Cyboman ditto that about world leadership.

If what dcbeltway says is true, she sounds like a pal of the U.S. government. Weren't we, once upon a time, in bed with the Taliban too? How soon we forget.

Deepa said
one must look at the possibility Bhutto's assasination being staged by the U.S. government in connection with Musharraf.

It is definitely suspicious given the U.S. pushed for her return to Pakistan. Today I heard Bush has been urging the country to go ahead and hold elections right away even though one of the main candidates was just asssasinated! The press from Pakistan have said they don't know where the hell Bush is coming from. It certainly looks like there has been U.S. behind the scenes scheming on behalf of Musharraf. If the U.S. "needs" Musharraf, then we can imagine how Bush and his pals could arrange to allow her untimely martyrdom to "happen". (It certainly has happened before where the U.S. government has assasinated someone for their strategic purpose.)

And then there's the whole potential for Bush to blame terrorists and thus make more of a case for his wars indirectly.

I don't profess to understand Pakistani politics though, I mean how credible is it that terrorists murdered her? Maybe that is credible, but I have to hesitate to believe anything about terrorists at this point. "Terrorism" has become an immediate trigger of my complete skepticism no matter how plausible it is.

It seems like things are pretty corrupt in that country and a part of that corruption is being funded by the United States, courtesy of our voters' tax money.

Again, I am very sorry for her tragic death but do not elevate this woman to the same catagory as John Lennon or MLK Dave Rabbit. She and her family were incredibly corrupt and had a hand in supporting people like Hekmatyr and the Taliban. She also helped to create the Frankenstein monster.

http://www.samsloan.com/benazir.htm

To quote wikipedia here:

"Policy on Taliban
The Taliban took power in Kabul in September 1996. It was during Bhutto's rule that the Taliban gained prominence in Afghanistan. She viewed the Taliban as a group that could stabilize Afghanistan and enable trade access to the Central Asian republics, according to author Stephen Coll.[12] He claims that her government provided military and financial support for the Taliban, even sending a small unit of the Pakistani army into Afghanistan.
More recently, she took an anti-Taliban stance, and condemned terrorist acts committed by the Taliban and their supporters." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto

Who I feel for in all this are the Pakistani people the very people who are desperate for democracy and want their country to be free. Right now there are horrendous riots in the streets of Pakistan. Who benefits from this horrible chaos? Certainly not the Pakistani people and its equally frighterning for India and Afghanistan right now. My thoughts and prayers are with the innocent Pakistani people caught up in all this.

The Good Cop - Bad Cop thing with the 2 puppets of the USA Bhutto and Musharraf has failed. They killed the good cop.
Benazir Bhutto was no hero. She was a corrupt lap hound of the bush adminstration. The media did a good job at hyping her up so people would think she was the 'grand liberator' for Pakistan. Musharraf played the bad cop well, pushing the country into marshal law and dictatorship so that the Bhutto hype would go down better. That's right, Musharraf, Bhutto, and bush are all in cahoots. If Bhutto had regained power, she would have thrown the whole country to America like a bone.
Since the people of Pakistan killed her, bush will have to come up with another plan to take over that country. Remember, we need Pakistan to serve as a staging area for our nuclear weapons (while calling them the Pakistani's nuclear weapons) My guess is that "for the security of all mankind" we will have to attack there to keep the nuclear weapons out of the hands of the "dangerous Islamic militant terrorists". This is worse than a B rated movie. Remember that Musharraf takes his orders from bush so it will be interesting to see what transpires.

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.!

al-Qaeda? It appears CIA created this whole mess with operation "Cyclone" in the fight against the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The story I heard is that we promised to install our "freedom fighters" in the gov after Russia was defeated. Then, after the Soviets retreated, we instead pulled the support plug leaving our ragheads to fend for themselves in a bloody civil war...... they never forgave us. This is why they hate us. This is what started Al -Qaeda (trans: "the base")

Operation Cyclone
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[show]
v • d • e
Civil war in Afghanistan
Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency program to arm Islamic mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979 to 1989. The Program relied heavily on using the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) as an intermediary for funds distribution. Along with funding from similar programs from Britain's MI6 and SAS, Saudi Arabia and the People's Republic of China, the ISI armed and trained over 100,000 insurgents between 1978 and 1992. Somewhere between $3–$20 billion in US funds were funneled into the country to train and equip troops with weapons, including Stinger surface-to-air missiles.
On July 3, 1979, U.S. President Carter signed a presidential finding authorizing funding for anticommunist guerrillas in Afghanistan.[1] Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and installation of a more pro-Soviet president, Hafizullah Amin, Carter announced "The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is the greatest threat to peace since the Second World War".[2] American funding started with 20-30 million dollars per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million a year in 1987.[3]
The US government has been criticized for allowing Pakistan to channel a disproportionate amount of its funding to controversial Afghan resistance leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar,[4] who Pakistani officials believed was "their man".[5] Hekmatyar has been criticized for killing other mujahideen and attacking civilian populations, including shelling Kabul with American-supplied weapons, causing 2,000 casualties. Hekmatyar was said to be friendly with Osama bin Laden, founder of al-Qaeda, who was running an operation for assisting "Afghan Arab" volunteers fighting in Afghanistan, called Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK). Alarmed by his behavior Pakistan leader General Zia warned Hekmatyar that "It was Pakistan that made him an Afghan leader and it is Pakistan who can equally destroy him if he continues to misbehave".[6] According to a Newsweek article, in the late 1980s, Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, concerned of the growing strength of the Islamist movement, told President George H. W. Bush, "You are creating a Frankenstein". Author Gilles Kepel reports that American funding of Hekmatyar and his Hizb-i Islami party was cut off immediately following the withdrawal of the Soviets.[7]
The U.S. says all of its funds went to native Afghan rebels and denies that any of its funds were used to supply Osama bin Laden or foreign Arab mujahideen. It is estimated that 35,000 foreign Muslims from 43 Islamic countries participated in the war.[8][9][10][11]

Click here for more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Quaida

from Bob Marley, how long shall we keep killing our prophets..

JFK, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, John Lennon, Benazir Bhutto...

& we are left with scum......

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;
None but ourselves can free our minds.
Have no fear for atomic energy,
'Cause none of them can stop the time.
How long shall they kill our prophets,
While we stand aside and look? Ooh!
Some say it's just a part of it:
We've got to fullfil the book.

… we have the best assassins that money can buy …

correction,

somebody else made the comment about hedging bets. My bad. But it makes sense. Get everybody's hopes up that an election will solve the country's problems (like the Democans did in 2004) and then bango! Crush all hope and spin the place into eternal instability and war. Defense stocks must of shot up today eh?

Skull and Bones structure started the CIA apparently, which Bush I was director of under Nixon if I remember correctly. I wonder if our spooks had something to do with this???????

the chit that goes on in this world right under our noses......

deepa said:

"One has to look into the role of the US in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto? Is it the result of collusion between Musharaf and Negroponte (Negroponte met Musharaf recently)?????? US needs Musharaf to be incharge of Pakistan, so that the latter not only continues to provide safe haven to Al-Qaeda and Taliban, but also be a reliable conduit to these terrorists, whom the US can continue to use to occupy and plunder other sovereign countries.

The other recent assassination that has not been given wide coverage by the US media is the murder of an Army General in Lebanon, who was a potential candidate for the office of president of Lebanon.

So, those who do not collude with the US' terrorist plans and acts will suffer the fate of Benazir Bhutto and the Lebanese Army General." - end of deepas quote.

DEEPA,

EXACTLY. The oil crime syndicate was hedging their bets: that's why they encouraged her to risk her neck and make a run at the office again. this so-called "election" was between a crook and a crook. A puppet and a puppet. Just like the one we had in the U.S. in 2000.

What were my choices in 2000? Let's see... I remember now: A Skull and Bones member or a Skull and Bones member. Now just how the helll did that happen?

(both John Kerry and the chimp were members of this ominous group of organized crime.) Known as the Brotherhood of Death. Looks like they're really emphizing the "death" part lately.

That's what I think.

Click here if you dare.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones

Bhutto took too many chances and paid for it. Musharraf refused to provide her with adequate security but she went out anyway. Now the election is meaningless and the Musharraf government has no legitimacy.

Pakistan is corrupt and there are Islamists everywhere. They are a small minority, but they were a minority in Afghanistan. If things start falling apart and it looks like al qaeda might get access to nuclear weapons, don't be surprised if India invades and occupies the entire country, and imposes harsh martial law indefinitely. Especially if terrorist attacks inside India continue or increase.

It will be bloody and the Indians could use US assistance, but the US has been busy occupying a country where al qaeda isn't (or wasn't, anyway).

Commentary on this forum is seriously ill-informed. Here are a few facts. (1). Prior to 911 Musharaf was no great ally of the USA. (2) Post 911 Musharaf had no choice but to be an ally with the USA. He was told, as he revealed publically, "Comply or we'll bomb Pakistan back into the Stone Age!" (3) Even as an ally Musharaf is no compliant Patsy to the USA. Indeed, the USA wants to find more compliant allies in Pakistan than Musharaf. (4) Mrs Bhutto was one of those the USA was promoting as a more compliant ally.
Mrs Bhutto had done deals with the USA to help her (and her corrupt cronies) back into power. She would do what Musharaf would not, namely: (a) allow US troops into Pakistan and (b) back away from close ties with China. The USA is frustrated with Musharaf on these tywo matters especially. As an army man he is resolutely opposed to US troops moving into Pakistani territory from Afghanistan. And as a reluctant ally of the USA he has been cuddling up with China in a big way, far more than Washington would like. Of recent times the US has been promoting a Musharaf/Bhutto team. This is to move Pakistan's politics more towards the position the US would like, and Mrs Bhutto - the Gangster Queen - was more than willing to give the US what they wanted in return for power.
Predictably though the Western media give us all this "Queen of democracy" crap and will promote her as a martyr to liberalism. And just as predctably the liberal left - living in their monochrome world of good guys and bad guys - will go on demonizing Musharaf as "Bush's puppet". Not so. Mrs Bhutto was no saint of enlightened liberal ways and nor is Mr Musharaf Washington's stooge. The facts are more complex than that and it is time people on this forum wised up a bit about poilitics in Pakistan. Moreover, contrary to Western media presentations, Mrs Bhutto was not heading for a "landslide" victory in the coming elections. In recent months her position has slipped considerably. Realistic estimates give the PPP something like 60 seats in parliament, whereas they would need 130+ to form a government. In any case, elections in these circumstances are madness. The whole purpose of the US pushing Musharaf into elections was to usher in Mrs Bhutto, who in turn would welcome US troops onto Pakistani soil and reposition the country vis-a-vis China. Musharaf was absolutely right to call a state of emergency (against US wishes) and let's hope for Pakistan's sake he does it again.

power players have done what they've wished for,
a ruthless act of terror,a dirty game plan.. the govt. of pakistan have already started its silencing tactics..is'nt it strange that a leader of such calibre assasinated,police itself registers investigation report by not even any cnsultation with the party leaders..and strangest of all no postmortem done.
it is by itself a huge question mark..

Why do people kill their prophets?

i have to reserve some skeptical instinct and consider that there is a possibility,bhutto was fed that information and told to let it slip...the 'ruling elite' are slippery tricksters and osama could be alive and well in mecca...we dont want any more surprise 'resurrections'hope nobody has heard from saddam lately,either.still if it pans out into the actual and present truth,it is for certain that bush/cheney knew about it even before it happened.

"I don't think the assassination really makes much real difference for Pakistan or humanity, for the ruling elites certainly would not allow real democracy to form there."

Wow !! Delusion seems to be a really common American disease !

fanfukingtastic,cant get over it..sorry benazir, will take back nearly all bad i have said about you..in the end,you unwittingly and accidently ended up doing the right thing....guess you found out too late,that sheik omar was not a household word and a national hero in america.so what if it was an accident.the unmistakable ring of "TRUTH"came thru loud and clear in your november interview with david frost..i hope you gain redemption and reconcilliation.loose-lips = sink ships.......,now if only you could see this thru-to the impeachment of bush/cheney.

wow,brianct.somebody made a huge oversight in the debriefing of.poor isolated benazir,before her return to the world stage...someone forgot to tell her that george bush,commander-in-chief of the american people was still actively leading the hunt for osama binladen,on behalf of the american people...everyone in america needs to go to the link posted by brianct @youtube...., the aroma of fresh juicy ripe peaches- smells like impeachment......!

Bhutto's great example in returning to Pakistan--despite putting her life at risk--was to demonstrate that individual safety and survival is not the goal, here. That mentality is what keeps people quiet, obedient, ruled.

At this point, we need to take a lesson from the fish who school, and the birds who flock together: greater safety in numbers.

We need progressive mobilized numbers if we're to stand a chance of overcoming the global tyranny that is well upon us all (in its various permutations, often not recognizable when closest at hand). Do something, and demand as much from those you know.

http://whatsinthatkoolaid.blogspot.com/

Asymmetrical Warfare against an Asymmetrical Boggyman.

The predictable reaction to this most recent probable terrorist attack in the global war on terror (GWOT) will most certainly be severe in terms of both escalating fear here and driving vast military retribution there.

Bush will likely use this as a justification for 'rougher measures' in his GWOT ---- "Spare the rod and spoil the terrorist".

It is almost unbelievable that a poorly financed, militarily weak, and small band of terrorists, who must remain hidden in remote areas of the world, can threaten the massive, wealthy, and technically amazing military power of the allied global corporatist empire aligned behind the unitive façade of 'Vichy America'.

Why, one is reminded of the saying decades ago that, "if the American military industrial complex was not facing the threat of the Soviet Empire, they would have had to invent it."

But of course today, it is quite fortuitous that the Islamofascist jihad waging this so-called GWOT has been developed at a much lower cost than, and with less real danger than all the actual military and nuclear power of the Soviet Empire.

What luck for the evolving global corporatist empire to have discovered such a convenient (weak but terrorizing) enemy just as the Soviet Union was collapsing into crony capitalism?

Yes, what extreme, or rather extremist luck?

To all of you struggling to see the larger picture---the significance of such things as this, I say, hold onto the Light---especially St John whose post inspired me once again.

The drama of the human condition/evoultion continues. If we can see it thus, we will learn something important. Expand beyond reaction to know real peace, and real power. It is such a simple soultion to so much that ails us. We are living in the midst of utter madness----to acknowledge this is the first step in lessening it's power over us. Seek a better way, look away from the circus that only distracts and confounds. Stop being against anything and stand FOR what you want to happen---especially PEACE and JUSTICE.

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...

We're knee deep in the war among religion. One fool says he knows God better than the other fool. The whole world notices for a moment then moves on to the next crisis expecting some deity to make it good in the end. Ship of fools on a downward spiral reaching for a helping hand from out of the blue. If any of these religions ever gave God a chance to prove His point the'd be out of a job faster than you can say Ford layoffs...

And God sent a Great Flood...

Lovers of peace and freedom mourn the loss of one who worked for peace and democracy.

Islamic radicals and those who worship hate dance in the streets, singing praise to Allah.

O Roe..Please don't leave me alone............

QUOTE: "vaudree December 27th, 2007 4:47 pm

...

Mike Corbeil says: Note, however, that I, so far anyway, don't care that she sided with the Taliban, not per se anyway. ...

I think that it would also be important that the Taliban agree to unhold the rule of law (ie adhear to the Geneva Convention) and agree to uphold human rights. In other words, agree, in good faith, to not do bad things any more rather than give the lip service Harper and the American administration tends to give to these issues."

I DO NOT think the Taliban should 'unhold' the rule of law, but uphold it, sure; yet it depends on who's law we refer to, for the Taliban were applying rule of law alright. They only needed to make some modifications to their rules of law, in order to make them just. And dumping theocracy is one thing that should be done, for theocratic rule of law is UNACCEPTABLE.

It's a complicated issue though, for the UN or UNSC, well, actually many UNGA member states are no better than the Taliban were. However, what I had in mind is the UNSC, which hellishly abides by rule of law every time it authorises totally criminal U.S. vetos against necessary resolutions drafted by the other UNSC member states and for the purpose of trying to get the Israeli govt to cease its hellbent crimes against Palestinians. The UNSC therein and definitely does abide by its so-called rule of law, and in extremely criminal, hellish ways.

I do NOT appreciate the phraseology of "rule of law" when it's used in terms implying that "rule of law" is universally important and as if the laws were always right; or when they are, then that they're always justly applied or enforced.

We don't live in utopia, ya know. This is not dream but real world.

The Taliban were making progress, just that they still had more to accomplish. Still did far better than what can be truthfully said of the U.S. and its NATO allies though. The latter definitely don't care about the oppression of women's rights, and whenever the opposite appearance is provided, then it's never due to sincere intentions; it's always for the sake of the ruling elites' agendas, so to try to deceive.

Getting the Taliban to cease their oppression of women's rights and their brutal punishment of criminals might if not would be the most difficult hurdles to achieve with them, but I'd place my hopes on HONEST talks and providing incentives constructive for them and everyone else.

War is NOT the path to peace, so TALKS MUST BE.

vaudree quotes balakirev:

"balakirev says: If political assassination, terrorism, torture, black-listing and other political techniques were not so effective, their regular use would have died out long ago."

EFFECTIVE? Sure, but not for GOOD. The U.S. has been effective at committing those acts, but NEVER FOR good, never for righteous reasons, and never with any good and constructive outcomes.

Murderers and rapists are effective, and criminally so.

Torture has never or extremely rarely has been effective in any constructive way. We've been reading this over and over for several years now; about the fact that there really is no precedent for believing that torture is effective in any constructive ways. The tortured are effectively tortured though.

vaudree quotes me and comments on what I said:

"Mike Corbeil says: IF SHE was truly "a woman of the people", then she would not be allied with the U.S. .... ...

... Presenting oneself as a "woman of the people" or a "man of the people" is a very effected political ploy though. You heard of the Cretien .... ..."

I HAD MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU MEANT.

vaudree and me, again:

"Mike Corbeil says: the PM usually does not venture around in public without security.

Maybe not (and neither did Bhutto) - but Presidents are a category unto themselves. I remember when Clinton came to Winnipeg to speak - there were articles upon articles devoted to the spectical of this ex-President's security - which the media found quite excessive. Queen Elizabeth .... ..."

AH, BUT she is not of U.S. govt, and is not the real ruler of England, either. Clinton also wasn't the real ruler of the U.S. govt, but he was more directly working for the agenda of the real ruling elites; and, additionally, Canada's biggest trading "partner" country is the U.S., which is also the then superpower of the world.

It's not the title or role of president that is at play in this above matter; the really underlying reality is starkly different from what was meeting the mere human eyes and ears. Clinton, and more than really enough, was and still is a ruling elites' puppet.

And YES, Bhutto's niece's articles are online. I believe to have read one by her, and another citing from her words; and think both of these articles were posted at www.globalresearch.ca . The easiest way to find them there is to go to the subindex of GR and on Pakistan or that region of the world.

Just checked and it's the 'South & East Asia' subindex, in which there are several articles about Pakistan; all easily found by doing a Webpage search on 'Pakistan'. There may possibly be others for which the titles in that subindex do not contain the word 'Pakistan', but GR has a search engine; while if that does not work well, then GR can be searched via Google, too.

Following is one of the articles I read about what Bhutto's niece said.

"Pakistan: Clash between Musharraf and Bhutto a "farce", says Bhutto niece

by Marco Liconti

Global Research, November 28, 2007
Adnkronos International - 2007-11-16"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7461

I know to have read at least another article and thought one was by her, but maybe not at GR after all.

DOING A WEB search using the niece's name, alone, turns up over 3,000 hits in Google, and her name is "Fatima Bhutto". In the first page of hits appears a link to at least one article [by] her.

Other articles in the above GR subindex are among pieces I've read about Pakistan's context, and some or all struck me as ... to be read and to keep in mind. I just haven't sought more from other sources, for I'm not focusing on Pakistan; only picking up based on articles I come across, instead of doing dedicated searching for more.

It's not that i don't care about Pakistan, for I do; it's just that I'm only one person and cannot read everything published and on all topics people write about. Am not God.

Regarding vaudree's comment on my negative response with respect to this assassination being another nail in humanity's coffin, I respect what vaudree and the other person I replied to say, but it remains as I said for me, and which is 'insignificant'. This world is on a train heading for hellish wreck, and fast and hard; and in many ways.

I don't think the assassination really makes much real difference for Pakistan or humanity, for the ruling elites certainly would not allow real democracy to form there. They would, and as always, make sure that real democracy, a truly democratic and just govt, would NOT "see the light of day".

Like with Iraq, where there was never any real intention of bringing any real democracy, peace, and justice to, it's a constant theme of the ruling elites; and we can't realistically expect that they will be changing for the better anytime soon. They certainly have no plans of doing that, and we'd be awfully naive to think they would or will change for the better.

If Benazir Bhutto had been truly good, righteous, just, aiming to establish a true and just democracy, and maybe this is what she was really like, if her niece is mistaken, then she would NOT have been permitted to succeed; except for maybe long enough to take a few breaths, before being outted, overthrown, assassinated, or whatever other "trick(s)-or-treat(s)" the ruling elites would resort to in order to make sure that she definitely would not succeed.

Pakistan is instrumentally key (not the sole country to be that, but still one of them) to the ruling elites' agenda(s) and they're not going to agree to dropping these plans. Only FORCE could work with them, and such force is purely hypothetical; not something that's really feasible.

When I say that it's insignificant that more nails are being added to humanity's coffin, this is not to say that I agree with harm being done to humanity, for I'm totally against that. And it's not to say that I agree with the assassination of Mrs Bhutto, for I don't; while realising that it's now past tense and this world remains on a train hauling humanity on a hellish "ride".

What I am saying is that I don't live in a utopic frame of mind; and while I had hope several years ago, it has just kept on diminishing. Seven years has worn me down in terms of hope.

However, I still believe as I always did and which is that humans have the [potential] to do right; including the wicked, fiend ruling elites. We have the potential, but potential energy is passive, sort of dormant, not kinetic.

We can consider the anti-war movement as kinetically expressing their potential energy, but they have mostly proven to be very weak at organising. There's that, and there's that the kinetic is too little, has too much bias, like when the anti-war movement organisations, some of the main ones anyway, refuse to also be active about the Palestinian situation, f.e. There are strong, serious weaknesses and/or flaws.

One of their striking and serious weaknesses or flaws is the obstinate and childish refusal to consider, especially carefully, constructive criticism from sharp, alert people with real commonsense.

I believe it's Sharon Smith who had posted some very good articles of this latter kind at Counterpunch.org (and surely other sites) a few years ago, and Richard Oxman, whose website is easily found with a Web search using only his name and who had posted a fair number of articles at www.selvesandothers.org . He also provided fair or better, and funny, constructive criticisms. And they're only two examples of people I read on the weak and flawed anti-war movement; while I had already realised enough about this particular topic on my own.

But I still believe that humans essentially have constructive potential(s); although how people are educated, I believe particularly at home and during early years of life, may have a lot of bearing on how receptive people will individually be towards the views and constructive criticisms of others. And the U.S. does not have a culture that's seriously conducive to fostering receptiveness towards or of others.

So the potential good is clobbered very much and due to various reasons or causes; but I believe that we have the potential and just need to stop and repair the clobbering.

Good luck with that, humanity.

Otherwise, and sure, we can feel sad for Mrs Bhutto's children, but when considering the rest of reality, I won't be worrying myself about these children. If they're young, then they'll be looked after, and surely not poorly. Her supporters will likely help to make sure that those children are well cared for.

The world is on FIRE and has been for several years, and longer; there are greater issues to be concerned about. I'm only one person and can't equally care about all issues. I am not God and don't try to be.

Thank you for posting, phaedrus.

oroe,thank you for reminding..... of what is true and important..

Let the Lovefest begin.....The CD cliquers, yes, yet he said, then she said, while it said, if you would just, never, so sorry, wae are the CLIQUE de le CLIQUE of CD. This site so sucks anymore, bye WillyBill, my Patriot
RIP Benazir Bhutto, sympathies to her family and children, regardless of political beliefs, she is a mother and sister and daughter. Inshallah!

Taliban are 100% Pakistan's baby see here:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB227/index.htm

From the website documents you can download:

October 1996: Although food supplies from Pakistan to the Taliban are conducted openly through Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISID, "the munitions convoys depart Pakistan late in the evening hours and are concealed to reveal their true contents." [Doc 15]
November 1996: Pakistan's Pashtun-based "Frontier Corps elements are utilized in command and control; training; and when necessary - combat" alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan. [Doc 17]
March 1998: Al-Qaeda and Pakistan government-funded Harakat ul-Ansar (HUA) have been sharing terrorist training camps in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan for years [Link Doc 16], and HUA has increasingly been moving ideologically closer to al-Qaeda. The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad is growing increasingly concerned as Fazlur Rahman Khalil, a leader in Pakistan's Harakat ul-Ansar has signed Osama bin Laden's most recent fatwa promoting terrorist activities against U.S. interests. [Doc 26]
September 1998 [Doc 31] and March 1999 [Doc 33]: The U.S. Department of State voices concern that Pakistan is not doing all it can to pressure the Taliban to surrender Osama bin Laden. "Pakistan has not been responsive to our requests that it use its full influence on the Taliban surrender of Bin Ladin." [Doc 33]
September 2000: A cable cited in The 9/11 Commission Report notes that Pakistan's aid to the Taliban has reached "unprecedented" levels, including recent reports that Islamabad has possibly allowed the Taliban to use territory in Pakistan for military operations. Furthermore the U.S. has "seen reports that Pakistan is providing the Taliban with materiel, fuel, funding, technical assistance and military advisors." [Doc 34]

See also:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011008/rashid

And all the links that pop up here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pakistan+support+of+taliban

thank you,phaedrus....great clarification !

brianct,

Thanks for the link. Interesting indeed. That clip does cast an interesting light on this.

I read the comments posted here with great interest. The subject of Pakistan politics is close to my heart, having spent the first trimester of my life (20years) in Pakistan. I especially liked the comment that asked for us to be well informed(was it Mike?). Here is my attempt to provide some inside information on the situation in Pakistan and BB, Mush, etal.
ON BB:
1. Both her two terms as PM ended with extreme corruption,not only around her but throughout the governmental infrastructure. Her husband (Asif Zardari) was openly called Mr. 10% forthat was his shareof any large business venture, legal or not. The country was almost bankrupt. The Sindh provincial "gangs" openly committed murders of opposition leaders with no hesitancy.
2. BB had idealistic ideas about Pakistan,but was very ineffectual in carrying them out. Her husband was a major factor here.
3. Her return to Pakistan was engineered and supported by the US. (a kiss of death for anyone seeking power in Pakistan.
ON Mush
1. Mush has supported the US at a great risk to his personal safety and popularity. He was quite popular early on in his presidency, however his support for the US GWOT has landed him in hot water with his own people. The more US pushes him for further action on the border, the less popular he becomes. (The same fate will befall anyone else in his place)
2. Mush seems to want to hold on to power whatever it takes. Does not know when to walk off.
3. Mush has not been accused of any significant personal wealth gathering ala BB.
4. Pakistan has done well economically under Mush. (NO doubt due to US economic assistance)
On the Taliban
1. We need to distinguish between the Taliban and Al Quaida. The Taliban had not injured a single American until the bombs started falling on them. Al Quaida on the other hand was the "real enemy".
2. Taliban are Afghans and generally do not commit suicide type attacks.
3. Taliban and other Afghans at the border areas have traditionally moved across the borders easily. They do not like to be restricted by the the Pakistani military, the Afghani forces or the the US/Nato forces.
4. The renewed emphasis by the US to "oust" Taliban form the border areas will create more hatred and "create" more hardened attitudes. Look for an increase intensity of attacks.
On the US Spreading Democracy
1. Don't make me laugh!!

Is this why Bhutto was killed? Osama bin laden killed by Omar Sheik, she says

Very interesting! At 6min 12sec into the interview Bhutto states that Omar Sheik murdered Osama Bin Laden!

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

vaudree,i am glad you are so sure bhutto was a human being,because i was not.......,entirely convinced,,it is true that she bled and died like a human being and if indeed, she was a 'human being' may she rest in peace......just read brianct's post.......VERY INTERESTING..going to youtube,now.

Another one sacrificed to the unholy machinery of "democracy in the Middle East" American Style.
I think of it as shredding the fabric that binds these people together, and spitting out garments that unravel in the winds of progress.

rip Ms. Bhutto

"THE WORLD DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND US (U.S.)." wrote somebody here.

maybe not, but the US sure tries hard to make that the reality.
and not everybody in the world is willing to let that happen without a fight. so those who go along with US wishes become targets.

thanks mike corbeil for excellent analysis.

Cheney /Bush WANT World War III. Nobody who has watched their machinations during the past 7 years will believe the AP spin that the assassination of Bhutto has dealt a "severe blow to U.S. efforts to restore stability and democracy in a turbulent, nuclear-armed Islamic nation." Cheney/Bush WANT some "nuclear-armed Islamic nation" to threaten to or actually drop a nuclear bomb on Israel or Iran or Iraq — on SOMEPLACE. Then Cheney/Bush can claim that the U.S. has no choice but to DEFEND the victims, and must therefore drop nuclear bombs on that unstable nation to stabilize it — death and destruction being their ultimate stabilizers (as evidenced by U.S. treatment of Iraq and Afghanistan). But since human beings will resist injustices endlessly, Cheney/Bush may be able to goad Pakistanis into contributing to the perpetration of the endless war that they and their war-profiteering cronies want.

"I'm sorry she's been killed. Its terrible. No one deserves that. But she won't be missed at least by the Afghans." --- dcbeltway (my buddy)

Its true Benazir was intrumental in creating the Taliban ...however at that time the Taliban were no where near as horrendous as they are now. They were a ragtag bunch of madrassa students and she used them as a political ploy. Benazir is certainly no saint and played sub-continental politics to the hilt. You do have to understand that in Pakistan unlike in India, politics has always been determined by the military and politicians have always tried every ruse available to sidestep the military, including stepping on others toes.

Despite the corruption charges and all her other problems, one thing she never lacked is courage. She stood up to Zia even at that age after Zulfikar Bhutto (her dad) was hung by Zia. Youve gotta admit that in the recent past, she left everything that was dear to her (family, etc) and charged head first into a dangerous, volatile situation which I believe she did because of her love for her country.

Indira Gandhi (Benazirs role model) in India actually created and supported some of the very same Sikh extremists who later assasinated her. She supported them as a counter to some other political party in Punjab that was troubling the Congress.

If Benazir had won the elections and if Musharraf stepped down, i believe Afghanistan and India would have benefitted from it. Now its back to square one and this dangerous game these Pakistani dictators have been playing will continue unabated.

I am inclined to believe that the US is not behind this assassination. Bhutto was willing to kowtow to the US, as far as I can tell from the limited info the mass media gives out.

However, I agree that the US will use this as an excuse to further interfere with Pakistan's internal affairs.

The official US government list of hijackers did not include any Pakistanis. There were reports that the head of ISI wired Atta $100,000. That doesn't mean that 9-11 wasn't an inside job. It just means that part of it was out-sourced.

i believed the shit would hit the fan,when and if bhutto was elected.it became apparent,she was not really all that electable in pakistan..most pakistani's still have a bitter,bad taste in their mouths for bhutto...maybe that is why she got bumped-because she wasnt as electable as once thought.either way,mushareff or anyone else-the shit may still hit the fan.....nevertheless,....it will be interesting to see who they dig-up to replace bhutto,in the election.

Why the hell could not our president find a different voice than his usual hackneyed monotone and maybe offer one small personal detail from having actually known Benazir Bhutto.

bligh, thanks for your link on Kucinich's response to Bhutto's death.

Only providing exerpts and not the whole statement:

Statement by the Honourable Stéphane Dion, Leader of the Opposition, on the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

Statement by the Honourable Stéphane Dion, Leader of the Opposition, on the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

http://www.liberal.ca/story_13448_e.aspx

NDP expresses sympathies following assassination of Benazir Bhutto

Layton stated that the NDP unequivocally condemns this act of violence and is deeply concerned for the peace and stability of the region and said that returning Pakistan to a peaceful democracy must be the diplomatic priority of the Canadian government in the hours and days ahead.

http://www.ndp.ca/page/6058

THE SHIT IS GOING TO HIT THE FAN NOW!!

There is another problem coming down the pike very soon. Mrs. Bhutto may or may have been corrupt, but it seems that she would have been the next p.m. of Pakistan thanks to popular support. I don't know how much support she would have had from the world community (read USA), but several questions arise: with her death, and the possible implication of the Pakistani army and/or Musharaff, where does India stand with the minimal tolerance it has for its fellow nuclear power? Now that Musharaff is no longer head of the army, how much power does he actually wield? For how much longer? What happens to Pakistan's nuclear capability? The world becomes a more dangerous place minute by minute.

peaceistruth says: Now her supporters and many of the world's democratic leaders want to make a martyr out of her. I don't think she was as different from Musharraf as many of her supporters made her out to be.

Bhutto seemed to have found enough common ground with Musharraf to for a coalition with him - even if she later backed out of said coalition. I sometimes wonder if Bhutto was acting strategically, that the coalition gave her the greatest chance of running again but if she had always plan to back out of the coalition because backing out gave her the greatest chance of winning again. If so, that was a smart maneuvour.

Mendo says: Whatever side of the fence you find yourself, we can all agree that this is just another nail in the coffin of humanity. You just cannot keep killing off everyone that you do not agree with.

I would go further than not killing those we disagree with, and extend that to political opponents and past leaders. If the consequences of losing power is automatically jail or death, then no President is ever going to want to give up power. OK, even in Democratic societies, jail is a possibility (as it should be) but if it happens to every single leader (or, at least those who do not escape to exile) - then who ever leads the country is going to act like Schreiber facing extradition.

peaceistruth says: Looking at her history and the history of her family, Bhutto probably would have been a very pliable tool for U.S interests in Pakistan, in my opinion. It would make more sense if the Bush administration helped carry out a "removal" of Musharraf, considering that he isn't exactly very reliable.

It was the US pushing for the coalition between Musharraf and Bhutto - probably to give Bhutto some legitimacy because the laws needed to be changed for Bhutto to run again because she had already served her limit under the old rules.

If, as you say, Bhutto being in charge was the USA's preferred plan, then what is their plan "B"? Seems that it would also be, like you say, to "carry out a removal of Musharraf."

peaceistruth says: What would the U.S gain by such an assassination, by making nuclear-armed Pakistan even more chaotic?

Chaos creates the need to create "order." Who is going to bring "order" to Pakistan. Musharraf has to bring order without appearing to stomp on rights - if he can't do both, there is a possible danger of someone doing it for him.

itsjustkarma says: To point the finger would be too early, but I urge You You listen carefully to who says what.

I haven't even thought of the religious right of Pakistan yet - now that adds to it! My worry about pointing fingers early is more based on how this reminds me of Barbara Stoppel's murder - it happened just before Christmas and she was taken off life support just after Christmas. She was working at McD but Ideal donuts (across the parking lot) offered her more money per hour - but required her to work shifts alone. You should have heard those calling into CJOB (local radio) - they wanted a conviction yesterday and the police obliged! Thomas Sophanow was originally convicted of the murder but it turned out to be Terry Arnold who did it.

It is Barbara Stoppel I think of with all this talk of Bhutto being a saint/martyr - no one is as good as they are portrayed when they die - though, I personally think we will find much more nastiness surrounding Bhutto than 16 year old (would have been 42 year old) Stoppel - because the latter did not have the years of opportunity and, not all that much inclination.

Was thinking of Stoppel lately any way - with the murder of two RCMP officers in a month and changing the policy of saving money by having RCMP officers respond to calls alone. With Stoppel, there was supposed to be the end of such risky behaviour included in the job description. And Bhutto figured it was part of her job description to be out there with the people so that she could portray herself as one of them.

Mike Corbeil says: (Claudius says: "Do your information searches and readings, folks. Always work at being WELL INFORMED") True that people ought to be well-informed. But don't forget that Bhutto was a human being.

Mike, like your response to Claudius since it was kinder than what I would have said and more appropriate under the circumstances. Mine would have been that each post allows two links and that if Claudius has information to share it. The old put up or the - er - other option. Because that is where our information comes from - other posters posting links. Actually, I would expect the former because thinking the latter would be rude.

Mike Corbeil says: Note, however, that I, so far anyway, don't care that she sided with the Taliban, not per se anyway. If she approved of their oppression of Afghan women's rights, then I'd care about this, but it's about the only thing I know of having disliked about the Taliban.

I think that it would also be important that the Taliban agree to unhold the rule of law (ie adhear to the Geneva Convention) and agree to uphold human rights. In other words, agree, in good faith, to not do bad things any more rather than give the lip service Harper and the American administration tends to give to these issues.

balakirev says: It may be a sad observation to make, but sometimes assassinations of particular individuals at the right and the right historical juncture might be OK. For example, if Hitler was assassinated immediately after he was elected and selected for the his leadership position, maybe….

It would not have made much difference since Hitler was getting a good portion of his propaganda (especially considering Jews) from the United States. The aftermath of WWII served to turn people off ideas that they were, otherwise, willing to entertain. The time was ripe for a Hitler. And whose to say that an assassination would not have given us someone even worse!

balakirev says: If political assassination, terrorism, torture, black-listing and other political techniques were not so effective, their regular use would have died out long ago.

But has anyone ever engaged in these practices who had the world's best interests at heart? Seems to me that, even with all the failed assassination attempts on Castro (638 in total), that many of those behind the various attempts were more motivated by greed than goodness. And they always think that they will have more control over the replacement than the original job holder.

Mike Corbeil says: IF SHE was truly "a woman of the people", then she would not be allied with the U.S. hellbent govt and ruling elites; IMO. She also would not have, along with her husband, done as her niece strongly enough makes clear of the history of her leadership in Pakistan against the people of Pakistan.

You will get on argue with me there. Presenting oneself as a "woman of the people" or a "man of the people" is a very effected political ploy though. You heard of the Cretien "the little man from Shawinigan" - it is called the common touch - and he was very good at faking it. So is Bush BTW.

Mike Corbeil says: the PM usually does not venture around in public without security.

Maybe not (and neither did Bhutto) - but Presidents are a category unto themselves. I remember when Clinton came to Winnipeg to speak - there were articles upon articles devoted to the spectical of this ex-President's security - which the media found quite excessive. Queen Elizabeth had security when she came to Winnipeg also but not so extensive - you could actually get near enough to shake her hand and hand her flowers.

Bhutto needed more security than she had, but she did have some security even this morning of her death. Though, I can't rule out the security being infiltrated. Bush, on the other hand, needs to be pied, chocolate milked and/or pelted with eggs and there is no way one can get past his security to do that because he closes off whole blocks wherever he goes.

BTW - are the niece's articles available on line?

Mike Corbeil says: I'll just let people who are interested in reading these perform the search.

I feel lazy like that sometimes too (today still in my PJs). What would be a good article to start with? The US liking her does make me suspicious. If I do a search, it is most apt to be at rabble.ca's archives.

Mendo Chuck says: Whatever side of the fence you find yourself, we can all agree that this is just another nail in the coffin of humanity. …"

Mike Corbeil says: THERE ARE SO MANY NAILS already in the coffin of humanity that more seems to be nearly insignificant, now.

I don't see a contradiction - except possibly at the "insignificant" part - when does another nail become insignificant - when we stop caring? Personally, I consider the assassination itself the nail rather than who was assassinated. The fact that Bhutto has been around for so long does make the death a bit more poignent - and the fact that she leaves behind children more sad.

odonian says: This is obviously to Musharraf's liking.

Mushy was willing to form a coalition with Bhutto and was probably not that happy that Bhutto ended it. But I think this puts Mushy's power on even more shaky ground.

odonian says: Is the concept of Martyrdom compatible with 21st century technology (i.e., nukes)?

Yes. Becoming a martyr means that one's death invigorates one's cause rather deflates it. It reflects the belief that Bhutto will accomplish more through her death than if she were to live.

st john says: Violence is not the solution / The condemnation comes from many sides, but it does not offer peace and reconciliation, but more threats of violence to those believed to be responsible for this attack. The cycle of violence does not end until it ends with a conscious decision to use others means.

I call that the coalition of the willing moving towards the implementation of plan "B." From what you told me of Kucinich's plan, he would turn the US into a nation of Peace Keepers - I doubt Haliburton and Thyssen want that since there is not money in that.

To those I did not respond to - you had good things to say to - I just did not have anything to add or comment on (or had done so already).

Wow these are all great posts here. You have all showed how complicated and dangerous Web we weave when at first we do Deceive.

Now our troops will be bogged down in Iraq, Afghanistan and now even Pakistan.... when the CIA helped bring down the Soviet Union by making their Viet Nam in Afghanistan.

The suicide terrorists are now making the Nuclear threat great now with Pakistan at the start of a violent revolutionary civil war with the nuclear bombs under Guard... (we assume).

This horrible killing shows what mass Planetary horror can grow from a problem left untreated for thousands of years being unleashed by one or two suicide bomber assassins.

The only sensible answer to this World Security problem is to get Dialog going freely from the UN and Individuals and Government leaders with all groups that the major powers consider Unfriendly, Evil Doers, Supporters of Terrorism or whatever threat.... we gotta start with Talk and then make deals and Jaw Jaw instead of Waw Waw because If we want to survive this we got to realize the military cannot beat suicide attacks that can come from anyone who decides at some point that they are fed up and ain't gonna take it anymore!

The Radicals have now got Civilization by the Balls... Bein a Radical I understand what is drivin all this...

My inspiration.. Rebel Jesus said in one of the Censored out Texts... "Talk to your Enemies before Sundown!

OK Peacemakers... lets get out the Guitar Army again.

bush swears to bring benazir bhutto's assassins to justice ! we have waited far too and long enough=first things first,george bush, bring john f. kennedy's assassins to justice !

"When in despair' I remember throughout history the way of truth and Love has always won ; there have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end they always fall." Mahatma Gandhi

Tragic. Now Pakistan is beginning to disintegrate. I felt horror and revulsion when I read of the assassination of Ms Bhutto.

Almost despite myself, since I'd known for years of corruption charges aimed at her and her husband. And evidently some charges that he had looted Pakistan, "investing" millions of stolen money out of the country, putting some of it in British real estate, for example.

Mr. Musharraf's voice was shaking when I heard it this morning on the radio. Maybe from fear as well as from grief.

Watch for Bush to announce plans to send large numbers of troops to Pakistan if Musharraf's government begins to come unstuck.

In terms of the caliber of international leadership, the world has never had it worse since September of 1939.

Celebrity, naivety concerning human nature is what gets us into and keeps us in trouble. I remember Bush being touted by the media as a "likable fellow," just another "down to earth ordinary guy..." Now look at the damage he's done at home and abroad. And the US had its hand in the legal assassination of Saddam Hussein. So, are things REALLY better in Iraq because if it?

Which brings me to the point that no "evil" means can be justified by the "good" end they're intended to bring about. Bhutto was not Pakistan's patron saint, though that is not justification for assassinating her. And before you can truly understand human nature, you must first understand yourself. It's all too easy to cast stones by saying, "I/we am/are good, while he/they is/are bad..." It all comes down to that mote and beam thing.

Mike Corbell, Excellent and thoughtful posts, very informative.

Well, George and the rest of your crew --you have again really screwed the world and its people. You really don't disappoint as you continue to come through endlessly revealing yourselves as the losers and creeps you really are. Just a bunch of idiots -- little, stupid boys (a few girls) running loose with a book of matches.

it would have been much nicer if george had been the one standing there

From SNAFU (Situation Normal All F#*ked Up to FUBR (F#*ked Up Beyond Recognition)

Bhutto ran a corrupt government.
However, the situation probably wouldn't be nearly as disasterous if Bush didn't divert resources away from going after the Taliban prior to the invasion of Iraq.

The top CIA guy on the ground in Afghanistan said we knew where Bin Laden was-not exactly but that he was among a few hundred Talban fighters fleeing through Tora Bora.

Of course if American foreign policy were based on human needs,the world would be a different place.

The peoples of Pakistan, its neighboring countries and their families abroad will bear the brunt of violence and chaos. Heck of a job, Dubya!

Is this a good time to say the third stage of NAFTA will drive many more campesinos off the land in Mexico. Also chicken ranching too.

The wicked witch had it right, "What a world, What a world!".

Let's start turning this DISASTER around.

Wage Peace!

Special forces troops to Pakistan, BB done in, for sure sounds like the penis fingers of the great USA have or are about to intercourse another country for the great whore Israel

Well she would have bridged the gap between India and Pakistan. Sometimes you do not know what you do, and sometimes you have to weigh the differences. I am not her judge as seraphicmom has said.

Besides Benazir Bhutto's interviews with Peter Mansbridge and Carol Off - are there any other interviews that Benazir Bhutto gave prior to her return to Pakistan? I am not saying that every word that Bhutto ever uttered was factual - only that it is a fact that Bhutto was asked questions about both threats on her life and her reasons for returning to Pakistan and that it is a fact that Bhutto gave something resembling answers to these questions.

Considering that there is probably going to be a call for facts soon, what about the statements given by the various world leaders (or their representatives) so that we can look at them for clues as to how the world plans to respond to this - well "unfortunate turn of events" seems callous under the circumstances, but you know what I mean.

There will be some here who will soon be calling for facts - might as well give them something.

I pray we can all take a breath and step back, remember why, if we are a peace loving group, Bhutto represented hope for us.

I have posted prayers for different religions today at http://slpeacefest.wordpress.com

May her death not be in vain, may we use nonviolent means in mourning her loss.

Peace to all,

KK

her bravery is commendable...but her regime was not.it was 'democracy'for the already priviledged few...much like bush..pakistan and its people were robbed blind and the cash and resources, found its way into the already overflowing bhutto bankroll...murder and mayhem ruled the day,people dropped dead like flies all around bhutto...and she had a reputation for being 'bloodthirsty'.elections were said to have been 'rigged' and human rights issues were largely ignored.now that bhutto is a martyr,it may have the effect of sanctifying a mudhole....but it may serve bush in his mission to own the world....meanwhile mushareff,much like saddam,is no angel and is likely another evil man.the problem is- bhutto was a greedy,thieving liar..who hid behind the word 'democracy'as she was bashing people over the head. she should have stayed in dubai,in the cozy embrace of the sheik's palace.i am not good enough,to pass judgement on any other...that would fall under the domain of 'god'... if bhutto is of god,may she rest with god......if bhutto is not of god,let her go to hell.

Actually I was wrong in my post. Bhutto was instrumental in brining the Taliban to power...they've always been Pakistan's puppet and they gained power, financial support and recognition under her reign. Now she claims she's against them. Here she was a female President of an Islamic state supporting a terrorist force in Afghanistan another Islamic state that didn't even allow women and girls to participate in public life. What a disgusting hypocrite!

I'm sorry she's been killed. Its terrible. No one deserves that. But she won't be missed at least by the Afghans.

Violence is not the solution
Once again, a controversial leader is assassinated, along with many others caught in the blast that followed the shooting. What does this prove about the use of force and violence to solve problems? The condemnation comes from many sides, but it does not offer peace and reconciliation, but more threats of violence to those believed to be responsible for this attack. The cycle of violence does not end until it ends with a conscious decision to use others means. Dennis Kucinich has proposed a Dept. of Peace in the U.S. to address just such situations. His proposal is global, not national, and it is one that is based on peaceful, non-violent conflict resolution. This is not a political post; I mention Kucinich because what he has to say is exactly what is needed at this time. Peace is a process, and it must be initiated if it is going to be effective. What we desire is a world that works FOR EVERYONE.

peace,

st john

The material author of the crime is not available, being occupied elsewhere in the cosmos.

The intellectual author(s) are kept in power by the US government. So they will not be named or punished.

Impunity is the word for the day.

This is obviously to Musharraf's liking. Uncle Sam's take is debatable.

What do the forces of Pakistani Islam (radical and otherwise) want to achieve here?

Is the concept of Martyrdom compatible with 21st century technology (i.e., nukes)?

QUOTE: "vaudree December 27th, 2007 1:19 pm

...

One knows why Bhutto did this - it created the impression that she wanted to create that she was a woman of the people. Bhutto can't completely seal herself off and still present herself as a woman of the people."

IF SHE was truly "a woman of the people", then she would not be allied with the U.S. hellbent govt and ruling elites; IMO. She also would not have, along with her husband, done as her niece strongly enough makes clear of the history of her leadership in Pakistan against the people of Pakistan.

I'll believe her niece before Benazir Bhutto, who it is known was very allied with the most hellbent rogue state and its rulers in the world, the U.S.

She did return to Pakistan only with the aid of the U.S., but there's also prior history of Bhutto-U.S. relationship(s).

Quoting vaudree further:

"Mike Corbeil says: You would not see U.S. presidents, if any presidents of any other country, doing that;

I note that you limited your comments to "Presidents" rather than "Prime Ministers.""

WHEN I SAY presidents like that, it should be understood as meaning state or national leaders. So, f.e., Canada has no political title of 'president', this being replaced with PM. And as far safer as Canada is, the PM usually does not venture around in public without security.

And vaudree says:

"Bhutto claims that the corruption charges were trumped up in a failed attempt to discredit her - I don't know the truth one way or another."

THAT is something I'll let her niece inform me about, and she already has through some good articles on what she has to expose about her aunt as state leadership figure in Pakistan.

It should be easy enough to find those articles with Web searches using the Bhutto's name and 'niece', say; therefore, I'll just let people who are interested in reading these perform the search. Besides, it should provide links to plenty more articles than those I've read, which are few in number. Very good, but still few.

QUOTE: " peaceistruth December 27th, 2007 1:31 pm

Too predictable, I'm surprised she lasted this long. ..."

YES, it was predictable as the moment of her return to Pakistan that attempts on her life were highly enough likely.

peaceistruth says:

"Still, this is a sad day for Pakistan and the free world."

WHAT FREE WORLD ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I know of none. Not even Canada is a truly free world; if it was, then the First Nations Peoples of this country would finally see just dues provided to them; and there are other examples of how this country is NOT a land of freedom, although it is for the predatory elites and the capitalistically [comfortable], who love that comfort regardless of the suffering of innocents that is related.

QUOTE: " Mendo Chuck December 27th, 2007 1:32 pm

Whatever side of the fence you find yourself, we can all agree that this is just another nail in the coffin of humanity. ..."

THERE ARE SO MANY NAILS already in the coffin of humanity that more seems to be nearly insignificant, now. Until we have a feasible way of removing the nails already in place, humanity remains entombed anyway. One you're in that state, more nails ain't gonna make any real difference.

QUOTE: " peaceistruth December 27th, 2007 1:43 pm

I'm not surprised by all the people claiming the Bush administration had something to do with this LOL. Personally, I doubt the U.S had anything to do with this. Considering that she was in the cross-hairs of so many Islamic radical terrorist organizations in Pakistan, .... ..."

I DON'T KNOW THAT we can really consider them 'terrorist'; we definitely can't with integrity anyway. Dishonestly, self-righteously, while living in denial of the U.S. being the most hellbent rogue, criminal, terrorist state in the world, this is not educational at all; well, except to reinforce the awareness of many people evidently loving to live in denial and/or to perpetuate the spewing out of lies.

The U.S. has strongly helped to corrupt the Pakistani govt, which is one reason why Pakistani extremists, I won't say terrorists but will say extremists, act the way they do. And the U.S. loves using such so-called terrorists when it suits the purposes of the U.S.' ruling elites' agendas; and which is a very frequent but covert reality.

It is the U.S. that really formed Al Qa'ida and formed the Taliban unity, provided them with a lot of training and other backing, used them to profit the ruling elites of the U.S., and then, as usual, wants to dispose of these formerly useful human instruments, because they're no longer deemed useful. They're no longer of "value" to the West's ruling elites.

The U.S. covertly works with the MEK in Iran against the Iranian govt. And there are plenty of other examples.

Americans commit bloody violent terrorism in the USA every day, but many Americans only want to point their fingers at the extremists fighters and religiously off-base Islamists in places like Pakistan.

peaceistruth asks:

"What would the U.S gain by such an assassination, by making nuclear-armed Pakistan even more chaotic?"

YOU HAVE PLENTY of reading to do. www.globalresearch.ca , InformationClearingHouse , probably ZNet or Zmag, ThirdWorldTraveler , Keith Harmon Snow at www.allthingspass.com , among other sites have provided relevant content for the sort of question quoted above.

That, however, is not to say that I think the U.S. is involved in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto though. The U.S. is criminally involved in making the Pakistani govt very much puppet, as well as having orchestrated coups d'etats around the world, overthrowing [good] govts to replace them with hellbent criminal puppet govts, assassinations, and more; but as for this assassination of Benazir Bhutto, I do not know, can't say one way or another.

They tried to have the president of Uzbekistan assassinated, and he didn't realise this at first, initially having thought that it might have been Russia that was responsible; but once he realised that it was really the U.S., then he gave the U.S. six months to GET OUT of the country. This happened over the past few years, maybe two.

Yet the U.S. surely knew that Bhutto returning to Pakistan was surely going to end up with a very problematic, or worse, sitaution, too.

QUOTE: "gyptian December 27th, 2007 1:55 pm

...

... Before shooting your mouth off you must try and read a little more about her life and her courageous stand (with her mother) after the hanging death of her Dad by another U.S. puppet.

..."

I find gyptian's post very fine, one I agree with; except, with respect to what I just quoted above, I urge people who seek this above information on Benzir Bhutto to NOT neglect to make sure to find out what her niece has provided over the (roughly) past month or two. She provides a very opposite telling of or on the history of Benazir Bhutto than what gyptian indicates having learned or read.

It may be a sad observation to make, but sometimes assassinations of particular individuals at the right and the right historical juncture might be OK.

For example, if Hitler was assassinated immediately after he was elected and selected for the his leadership position, maybe....

It is both difficult to ignore "successful" assassinations and the fact that they many times have contributed to great historical changes -for the good or the bad depending on your political persuasion.

If political assassination, terrorism, torture, black-listing and other political techniques were not so effective, their regular use would have died out long ago.

Whenever the world is organized into unjust hierarchies, one must expect the stick to be used at least as much as the carrot.

A Harvard/Oxford grad who supported Bush's WOT and WOD? Anyway, Pervez got his Shock Doctrine.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29584

My Gawd! What the hell is wrong with the world today?! What insanity has taken control of homo sapiens that causes such brutality and lack of respect for Life?! Benazir Bhutto was a beautiful lady inside and out and such a cowardly act is despicable! Is a peaceful path so frightening that it must be met with murder?!

Dennis, thank you for your comments. The losses around you have been piling up lately but you STILL fight for RIGHT and PEACE and TRUTH in the World and the country. If you are not elected, then I honestly believe that Americans and, possibly the World, are doomed to continue on their self-destructive paths. I mourn for the loss of intelligent voters in the U.S.

I agree with horrified, like almost every other politician, she was out as much for own self-glory as anything else. She no doubt knew the risks of what she was doing, and probably even entertained the thought of going out a martyr. That being said, assassination by legal means or otherwise is wrong.