Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Ummm can someone explain the logic in this statement from the above article?
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.
<h3>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</h3>, so what am I missing here.
Bomb = ok security
Bomb + gun = careless security?
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).
|
Ustwo, kindly do the research before posting one of your partisan slurs, if for no other reason than to avoid my having to point out something like this:
Quote:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/15133/
Riedel: Bhutto’s Assassination ‘Almost Certainly’ Work of Al-Qaeda
<h3>Interviewee:
Bruce O. Riedel</h3>, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution
Interviewer:
Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor
December 27, 2007
....When did you first meet Ms. Bhutto?
My first encounter with Ms. Bhutto was in 1991 <h3>when I was working at the White House for President George H.W. Bush as the director for South Asian affairs at the National Security Council....</h3>
|