Yes. And our government supports Musharraf, a military dictator.

It is difficult to imagine how Washington could get "spreading democracy" more fundamentally wrong than it has under Bush/Cheney. One wonders if the neoconservative prescription will not kill the patient, destroy society -- theirs and ours.

Murtaza Bhuttos murder could very well have been committed by ISI agents as they had most to gain by it at that time. The fact that it happened under Benazirs watch cannot directly implicate her. Being Prime Minister in Pakistan does not guarantee you much power. The head of the ISI is probably more powerful than the Prime Minister and of course everyone has to bow down low to the Army Chief !!

gyptian I agree it was probably the ISI. ISI is also behind the Taliban for those on the board that aren't aware of that fact by now.

Here's the link to the Ali article quoted above, http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n24/ali_01_.html

The point Fisk is making is related to the closing paragraph of Ali's essay: "The people who feel they have tried everything and failed will return to a state of semi-sleep, unless something unpredictable rouses them again. This is always possible."

Regardless of how Bhutto died, as Fisk notes, the Pakistanis' know that her death was ultimately caused by Musharraf and--since the US abets Musharraf--the USG.

Is it possible that even though the General had much to gain by Benazir Bhutto's death, that the ISI had even more to gain? My point is that perhaps Musharif is a pawn of the ISI in the same way that LBJ became a pawn to the CIA and the rest of our own gangster State "security" establishment after they covered up the Kennedy assassination (which they probablt carried out).

This "gangster state" within a state in conjunction with the Pakistani army (who are the real rulers of Pakistan) most likely made their General an "offer he couldn't refuse".

Gyptian and other Southwest Asia experts here on the forum, what implications does this event have for Pakistani-Indian relations?

While Fisk makes a good argument, equally good arguments could be made for fingering OBL.
1) Musharraf's Punjabi army has effectively been protecting the Taliban and OBL. This protection would effectively disappear if Bhutto had come to power.
2) Bhutto's assassination has the hallmark of OBL, i.e., brains. This one simple incident has just delivered a stunning defeat to the western powers. In one blow, he has wrecked the Bush administration's plans to keep strategic Pakistan under US influence and bring in Bhutto to give a democratic veneer to Musharraf's dictatorship.
3) OBL has vowed to bring down Pakistan's western-backed regime and suck the US into yet another debilitating, no-win war there.
4) Recent polls suggest Pakistan's most respected figure is OBL.

Don't pin the blame for BB's death on Mush. She got talked into a bad situation by the Americans and she paid for it. But she made in excess of a billion with a "B" when she was the PM the last time so she can afford extravagances like this.

But on a more serious note this whole experiment was destined to come to a bad ending. Mush, Bush and BB all had agendas of their own. Mush has hit a rough patch and all of a sudden he is the one to blame for all of the world's problems. Mush looked best when he didnt have American support and it might come to that again.

We shall see.

All of your guesses are as good or as bad as mine. We will never know until we see the true beneficiary of this murder.

Somebody says the Americans want Bhutto back to give Pakistan a veneer of democracy. This somebody should ask the obvious question, WHY. I and many others do not see why this veneer is needed or wanted by the US. So what is the reason for this charade with Benazir Bhutto, Sharif and the "Englishman" Imran Khan? That is the million-bullet question waiting to be answered.

If the election is held and the massive sympathy vote for Mz. Bhotto bring the pro-American favourite, PPP, back in power, then we will have a more fruitful speculation on who the murderers are and the real power behind them.

The last thing America wants is Democracy in Pakistan. If Bhutto is really dead and not just disappeared, it is because that's what we wanted. Sure enough, now there is talk of the elections being cancelled. Mission Accomplished

Why don't we want Democracy in Pakistan? Because our founding fathers and current leaders knew/know that Democracy always leads to anarchy and then tyranny, and sometimes directly to tryanny. Thats why our Founding Fathers gave us a Republic, and our current Leaders grandfathers destroyed the Republic over a 20 year period from 1913-1933. As a result of this European influence and our own bankers and industrialists, the Republic gave way to Democracy and now Tyranny. As for Pakistan, the fear is that the tyrant may be someone who can not be controlled by us. Mush for all his negatives, is a known quantity that we can control. In fact, we may even have his replacement lined up, just in case. Democracy is not part of the Plan for Pakistan, or anyhere else.

When looking to solve a crime, the first question you ask is who benefits. The fact that MSM provided extensive coverage means our leaders saw the propaganda value in being able to link the death of an attractive lady, mother of 3, representing democracy, to AQ. OBL coincidentally comes out with a taped threat against Iraq and Israel, courtesy of White House Video Productions Inc. Mush gets to reimpose martial law and suspend elections, and his opposition is eliminated or jailed.

I mean, come on.

After her assassination I didn't know what to think. But it has slowly dawned on me that most of the assaainations I'm aware of are generally governmental terrorrism. Both Kenedy's, Matrin Luther King's and other very suspicious deaths generally point to government involvment and phony cover-up investigations.
There are ties between our CIA and Pakistans ISI. Musharif was meeting with high government officials in D.C. the day of 9/11/2001. We should look at these people first for responsibility,motives,resources,access and being able to control the investigation along with control of the media to report on it.

Who was it that attacked the Red Mosque? Not Benazir Bhutto.

This is all mind numbing. Pakistan must have the murkiest poliics on the globe. Good thing the PSU Texas A&M game is on tonight.

Sounds like the US got scared and wanted to salvage pro US leadership by forcing Bhutto on Musharraf. Once she was on his territory, he let what happened happen. The message to Washington is stop messing with Pakistan-we can make sure you're only making things worse.

As long as we're blaming Musharraf and the police for suicide bombings in Rawalpindi, maybe we should also blame them for the suicide bombing at a police check-point October 29, 2007, also in Rawalpindi, and the attempted assassination of Musharraf himself December 14, 2002 by yet another suicide bomber, also in Rawalpindi.

Thanks to Robert Fisk for helping the rest of us understand that when a suicide bomber in Rawalpindi kills the most pro-Western politician in Pakistan, it couldn't possibly be al Qaeda, unlike the attempted assassination of Deputy Prime Minister Salam al-Zubaie March 23, 2007 by still another suicide bomber, and in general in spite of the fact that Musharraf and his friends have been under constant attack by suicide bombers year after year, nevertheless, when a suicide bomber kills Benazir Bhutto in Rawalpindi, the guilty party must be Musharraf.

In next week's column, Fisk proves Musharraf started the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, because...

It obviously wasn't al Qaeda!

Google: Unocal Pakistan pipeline Bhutto

My friend and classmate, Mir Murtaza Bhutto´s assassination on Benazir´s watch does not implicate Benazir. Upon receiving a frantic call from her sister Sanam (Sunny), Benazir, who was devastated, immediately flew from Islamabad to Karachi in the wee hours of the morning to be by her younger brother who died of multiple gun shot wounds (at close range) at the Mideast Hospital in Clifton, Karachi in 1996. Later, investigations led the public to believe that Benazir´s husband Asif Ali Zardari was behind the killing, which was yet another attempt by the powers that be to discredit Benazir and remove her govt. from power.

Now just because Benazir was assassinated on Gen. Musharraf watch, does not implicate the General. In fact, Musharraf has been a target of the same Islamic fundamentalist elements in Army Intelligence (ISI) & for this very reason he was trying to discourage Benazir from campaigning so openly. While BB´s death was a great loss for Musharraf, it was a bonanza for the ISI, who I am more than certain, is involved in this perfidious and loathsome act of murdering Benazir.

And then these fanatics in the Pakistan Army Intelligence Services have the audacity to call themselves devout Muslims! Perhaps killing is acceptable in their version of the Quran.

ps. a lot of us have the highest regards for the truth and integrity Mr. Robert Fisk engages in dispensing news – like the eye of a camera! He is a certainly a man of sound character.

I have no idea who killed Bhutto. But I don't think it was Musharraf or the US.

You can tell by the corporate media coverage of the assassination. According to the msm, Bhutto was the second Jesus. I don't listen to mass media because they tell the truth. I listen to them to see what the ruling class wants us to believe.

Therefore, the US was counting on her to help put a facade of democracy in Pakistan, and did not plan her murder.

And Musharraf had agreed to a power sharing deal in order to hold onto some power, so why would he do it?

My theory is thus:
The shooter was ISI, who missed.
The bomber was al-Qaeda, whose job was to destroy the shooter and any witnesses. Shrapnel from his explosion also killed Bhutto.
Musharraf is safe for now, because the elections are effectively kaput, and he stays in power. His survival depends on his ability to balance the wishes of ISI against the wishes of the U.S.
If the U.S. stops being a stooge for Pakistan and/or gets serious about pursuing OBL and wiping out al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Musharraf will be killed, because his only value to ISI is in stringing along the U.S.

What I, and I belive Fisk too, was alluding to is that this event has reawakened civil society, further radicalized it, and provided new motivation to rid itself of Musharraf. The overall series of events/cause& effect since Musharraf arrogated power to himself has resulted in Bhutto's death. The only way Musharraf can maintain power is with USG aquiesence; thus the USG is complicit in Bhutto's death.

More than 160 Million populate Pakistan in an area a few percent smaller than British Columbia. Settled civilization has existed there for about 11,000 years--the Sarasvati Vedic civilization being first. Their traditional sociopolitical structures predate the concept of the State and are too autonomous to be subsummed in such a manner. And on top of the recent political turmoil, electrical blackouts and transport fuel shortages combined with inflation and stagnant earnings bedevil Pakistanis.

Will Pakistanis discover People Power?

As I see it Musharraf and the ISI has little to gain. This murder put both in a fix.

Musharraf has little choice but to hold election now. If he puts off the election he will be seen as the force behind the murder and the prime beneficiary of the murder. Mayhem and extreme pressure by the PPP and other paid agents of the foreign powers like the Americans' will probably continue until he does so.

His Americans would probably offer him an alternative to cancelling the election. He can postpone the election only if he shares power with the pro-American PPP and increases the military pressure on the Taliban and other muslim rebels axactly according to the American plan.

The ISI, which most people on this board agrees has links to the extremists would also be likewise in a fix. They are between the rock and the hard place. They must make a choice to be completely, unquestionably with the Americans or suffer any consequence which the Americans had planned for the Pakistan.

Remember Musharraf had disclosed earlier on that Bush had given him the ultimatum to either join the Bush "anti-terrorists" campaign after 911 or had Pakistan bombed back to the Stone Age.

The Pakistanis are either with the Americans 100% or else. The only interesting part for me would be that spelt out by the word "else".

I am afraid the Pakistanis will suffer the fate of other American co-conspirators. When it suits the Americans the Pakistanis will be hung out to dry, period.

If the pattern follows, Musharraf (and the ISI) will arrest more lawyers, judges and members of rival political parties in their hunt for the 'extremists'.

Whenever you see anyone referring to 150,000,000+ people as 'the Pakistanis' and acting like they are as one, then you should assume you are being BS'd. The same whenever you hear anyone here refer to 300,000,000 people as 'the American people' and acting like they can say what they want.

And you'd have to define 'share power' a little closer to get to any real meaning. If the 'power sharing' means that Musharraf, the military and the ISI stay in charge of 'security', and the fight is really over a few high positions (and the associated cash-flow) being shared with the PPP, then has anything really been gained besides just putting a new face on the same system. Most likely this has always been about a spreadsheet that list who gets how much from each office and how to split that up in the 'power sharing'. As always, you learn more down in the details of who gets what and if you just ignore the nonsense you here in general talk about 'power sharing'.

This Administration has to be the most pathetic excuse of leaders I have seen in years! Even Richard Nixon is looking like a gem compared to this bunch. Every day it's some new catastrophe. How they can spread Democracy in the middle-east when they are so confused about what it actually is remains a mystery?

Gee, a lady gets run over by a car and everybody gets all upset. The Government of Pakistan has explained very clearly that this was a regrettable traffic accident. Just because there's a suicide bomber present when Ms. Bhutto butts her head against the roof of her car (and remember- that car was built by kafirs) doesn't mean the guy is after her; he was probably just one of thousands making his way to Delhi or Tel Aviv when he was blown up by the press of the crowd in response to the traffic accident.

Mr Fisk clearly suggests that Benazir Bhutto was killed on orders from Musharraf. But who encouraged, inveigled, and enticed Benazir to go back to Pakistan? The answer is the West, in particular the US. Why? Because the US wanted to have its cake and eat it at the same time. The US wanted Benazir to give Pakistan an appearance of democracy while Musharraf did his dictator thing.

This is where the plot thickens: the darling of Bush is bumped off by the dictator of Bush. Are these men working against each other, or were they in cahoots? Danmifknow.

COMarc--I most certainly did NOT say the Pakistani people were acting as one. I asked the question, Will They? I know very well how fractured and tribalized their sociocultural/political relationas are.

While it would clearly benefit Musharraf to see Benazir out of the equation its unlikely he was directly involved. he was responsible for not providing enough prtection and basically allowing this to happen and not attempting to prevent it.

The most likely suspects are the extremists (al-qaeda/taliban) in concert with elements within the ISI (pakistani intelligence which is deeply infiltrated with jihadis) who planned and executed it so thoroughly. The shooter and bomber acted in concert and not independently. They have repeatedly said they will eliminate her. There is motive, as she was stridently against the extremsits and recognized the threat to the survival of Pakistan as a State. And more than anything she had the support of a large segment of Pakistani people and was poised to actually win the elections and carry out her agenda.

gyptian--
Do you think Musharraf could be killed soon, or is he safe?

I truly hate backing him, but there is nobody standing between him and chaos at this point, possibly leading to a Taliban takeover. Then you can expect a U.S.-European military involvement that we just can't do, because we're stuck in Iraq.
George Bush, you schmuck, please resign.

Musharrafs fate is actually unimportant. His successor , Kiyani, has already been groomed to take over from Musharraf. The ties between the U.S. and the Pakistani Military span 60 years. The only true solution to Pakistan is Democracy and the establishment of strong democratic institutions, but this actually runs counter to American interests as dealing with a democracy is messy and we may not be able to manipulate them the way we do the Military !

The fundamentalists in Pakistan, contrary to popular belief here in the West, do not command more than 15-20% of support. The 'chaos' theory is misguided and all the problems you see right now is due to American involvement in Pakistani affairs and NOT the other way around. The chaos would actually disappear if we keep our grubby hands off their affairs and genuinely enable democracy to flourish. But thats wishful thinking and the madness will go on uninterrupted.

I would like to have what gyptian is having.

"I would like to have what gyptian is having."

Purple Mountain Grade 1. You should try it. It even works in empty spaces.

I'll take some 'gyptian, the folks down here in Georgia could use it too!! LOL!!