|
The other thing that doesn't really make sense is this... there _was_ a gun. The gun was shown on television only a few hours after the event. You can now see it on video. No one, to my knowledge, is denying that someone with a gun managed to get close enough to fire at Bhutto.
So at that point, how does the question of 'cause of death' say anything at all about security? Either a gun was fired and it missed Bhutto, or a gun was fired and it found its mark. This question says nothing about the quality of security, and if it says anything at all, it says a little bit about the marksmanship of the attacker.
This is separate from the fact that - wait for it - there was also a bomb so it's all really a moot point.
As far as I can tell (and I can only guess), this whole issue is an absurd red herring that is being made into some sort of political question only because whoever is making it so can get away with it and use it to create confusion, suspicion, and doubt.
|