Now about Pervez Musharraf (and his ISI handlers)…
A longtime adviser and close friend of assassinated Pakistani ex-prime minister Benazir Bhutto places blame for Bhutto’s death squarely on the shoulders of U.S.-supported dictator Pervez Musharraf.
TPM has the latest:
“A longtime adviser and close friend of assassinated Pakistani ex-prime minister Benazir Bhutto places blame for Bhutto’s death squarely on the shoulders of U.S.-supported dictator Pervez Musharraf.
After an October attack on Bhutto’s life in Karachi, the ex-prime minister warned “certain individuals in the security establishment [about the threat]–>
Haqqani notes that Bhutto died of a gunshot wound to the neck. “It’s like a hit, not a regular suicide bombing,” he says. “It’s quite clear that someone who considers himself Pakistan’s Godfather has a very different attitude toward human life than you and I do.”
She died from gun shot wounds, not the explosion it seems. Al Qaeda does not do the basic military type assassination. Al Qaeda does the maximum collateral damage hit. I am starting to wonder if the actual bombing was not a distraction from the assassination via gun-shot.? So, as I have already said over and over, this is an ISI hit that may or may not have been directly ordered by Musharraf (I think it may have been… but I am speculating).
In the meantime, I have now seen a bunch of people claiming that this was an al Qaeda hit, but I have not heard that from anyone with whom I have spoken. So let’s just say there is a great deal of speculation, but there is no hard proof, save for the MO, which is not consistent with AQ ops (IMHO).
US Primaries
I have also seen news outlets speculating as to what this will mean for the American primaries.? I think it in bad taste for any political party to use this as an opportunity to showcase their “strong stance against terrorism,” but for the Republican party, I think this would be especially idiotic as a talking point.
The reality is, that following the 9/11 attacks and knowing what this administration knew of the Pakistani ties (as well as Saudi ties) to the attacks, they instead opted to go into Iraq and proclaim that Pakistan was now a friend in the war on terror.
This was Bush/Cheney policy, so when Republican candidates begin to claim to be the candidate in reference to Pakistan, they might want to reconsider, because this talking point will backfire on them. pro-war on terror
I have long said that had we gone into Saudi Arabia and/or Pakistan right after the attacks - targeting the military mechanism - I would have fully supported that type of operation. Instead, we went into Iraq, diverting resources from any real effort toward destroying terrorist cells. Now we do not have the human resources, the financial resources, or the world support to undertake such an operation, which would have been a delicate one under any circumstances given the nuclear capabilities of Pakistan.
In addition, because we went into Iraq, we have created much more support for the actual terrorists who are being given a save-haven in Pakistan.? People and nations who would have stood with us before and actually did stand with us initially (including Iran and others in the region) now hate us to the point of sympathy towards extremism.?
Had we taken out some of the ISI mechanism right after 9/11, I think this administration could have honestly seen success and found much support both domestically and internationally. They have no one to blame but themselves and they will - like it or not - be held directly responsible by the citizens of Pakistan. US support for Musharraf will have blowback for years to come and I don’t know how we will be able to handle this now that we are so over-extended.
In other words, now is not the best time to claim to be strong on national security using the failure of the current administration in Pakistan as a resume builder.?
Now is also not the time for the glue-sniffers to be pointing fingers at the left for examining the factual foreign policy failures of this administration, which indeed deserve much criticism.?
Or in simpleton terms: I am not saying Bush/Cheney are directly responsible for the assassination. I am saying that they will be seen as responsible for empowering Musharraf, whom the Pakistanis are already calling out as the person behind the hit (I tend to support this view in the general, that Musharraf’s handlers were likely involved, if not Musharraf himself directly).
In any case, Musharraf must resign, but I don’t think he will go unless his ISI handlers abandon him. Even then, we will be left with the same military junta, minus their front-man.
