Ummm can someone explain the logic in this statement from the above article?
Quote:
|
An account of her death that did not involve a gunshot wound was the optimal explanation for the government, said Bruce Riedel, an expert on Pakistan at the Brookings Institution in Washington, and a former member of the National Security Council in the Clinton administration. "If there is a gunshot wound, the security was abysmal," Mr. Riedel said. The government did not want to be exposed on its careless approach to security, he said.
|
Ok now I could see someone having a gun would be 'bad security' but of course it was an open unsearched crowd, but how would covering up a gunshot wound make the security look better? There was a BOMB that went off, I would think that if a gun = poor security, than someone dressed as a human bomb = really poor security.
So please, obviously I am unqualified to figure it out, being this was said by a former member of the National Security Council under Clinton, so what am I missing here.
Bomb = ok security
Bomb + gun = careless security?
Quote:
|
On Sunday, Ms. Bhutto's husband, Mr. Zardari, said he received a call from the Punjab home secretary on Thursday evening with a request for his permission for a post-mortem examination. He said he refused because he did not trust the government investigation to prove the cause of her death.
|
It looks like if anyone wants to maintain the confusion its not the government but the Bhutto's. They seem to want to claim it was all Musharraf's doing, and any sort of wacky conspiracy will give them something to claim wasn't kosher (if you can excuse the use of the term).