Benazir Bhutto Is Dead
 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapc...rif/index.html

Don't really have that much to say about this right now. I'm very distraught about it at the moment.

Horrible, horrible news.

And, of course, the first question that pops into my head is: Islamists or Musharraf? Such a fucked up world we live in when one is just as likely as the other.

I just heard. My condolences go out to the people of Pakistan. This is truly shocking, despite that dark place in my mind that had feared something like this would happen.

My heart and hopes go out to Pakistan; may democracy reign despite this setback.

I, too, am currently at a loss for words. The news just hit me five minutes ago.

I heard this live on the BBC - terrible, terrible news. She knew her life was in grave danger but went back to Pakistan to fight for the principles she believed in. Was it extremists that did it? Was it Musharref? Both? We might never know.

Here's another story with some more details.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...e_id=1811&ct=5

It looks like someone took shots at another candidate today. And that Bhuto was shot as well.

Grizzly details aside, I have a hard time seeing how much good will come for any side in this. Whether or not Musharrif (or any of his people) was behind this, there will always be a cloud of suspicion over him (see: Kennedy, Pope John Paul II). If the Islamists did it, I don't see what they can possibly hope to gain from it.

It's the jihadi crazies on a suicide mission. I worry about Pakistan, a lot. Such potential, such waste..........

This is a reminder to all to give thanks to whoever you give thanks to that you live in a part of the world where a 'vicious attack' in politics involves someones sex life or flip flop on gun control.

Benazir Bhutto assassinated
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7161590.stm

Is this not vapid enough to qualify for general discussion?

What does it matter?

This was a political assassination.

And it is in the perfect spot for people to start speculating and ripping each other's heads off when the shock wears off and the inevitable political posturing begins.

I'm not sure the place you speak of exists. Wasn't JFK shot? Didn't someone fly a plane into the Pentagon? And I know you can't be talking about Canada.

Do you really think America is that safe? It can't get more vicious than sex scandals and debates on gun control?

But let's keep the focus on Pakistan. That's what this thread is about. It is true that it is more dangerous to oppose the government there, but it is oversimplistic to just pass this off as "oh, it's just that part of the world...." Remember, America wasn't always the cup of tea it is now.

Let's hope for real change in Pakistan.

um....wow.
an early assessment/speculation as to who did this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/S...232496,00.html

there's a significant gap separating the simplified political landscape in international reporting and what seems to have been unfolding on the ground in pakistan, so it's taking a while to get any sense of what this means, really.

except that it can't be good.

dunno, roachboy..... isn't the use of suicide attackers a telling detail about who was involved?

I think it was some Taliban-type extremist but Musharraf and his buddies are also complicit in that Bhutto's people have been complaining about a lack of government security for months to no affect. Musharraf never had to get his hands dirty, knowing that eventually, a suicide bomber would take her out.

I feel very sad for Pakistan - that place is a powder keg waiting to explode. Unfortunately, the only thing that might keep it in check is Musharraf himself.

A country with more terror tied to it than the middle east, more connections to mid east terror than any other country (except maybe Russia) and yet stupid Bush will probably blame so-called extremists from Iran rather than where the source of terror should have focused years ago, mainly on Pakistan and Afganistan.

some international responses (so far)......
interesting range.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/S...232499,00.html

Will probably signal a return to martial law and state of emergency.

She was, broadly, an ally of the army, so I would guess it is the Islamist extremists who killed her, but I'm sure both sides will be cooking up their conspiracy theories.

The elections probably cannot and should not go ahead now. The country needs a strongman to maintain security and peace, not more division right now.

I agree, Musharraf may not be an ideal of democracy or good governence, but I see him as the only man strong enough, or in a strong enough position, to stop the country descending into virtual civil war.

which means that it's difficult NOT to see the government as involved to one extent or another in this assassination...if it is musharaf-as-authoritarian-leader who alone is capable of staving off civil war that emerges from this---then it is musharaf who benefits from it, no?

my initial thought this morning when i read about this was of the assassination of malcolm x. but perhaps this is not relevant--i would hope it isn't.

if my speculative take on things is correct, this is a very very dangerous game.

Yes, he may have something to gain from this. But my personal opinion is that isnt the way he fights.

The key confrontation in Pakistan is between the army and the extremists... and she was a popular force against the extremists.

I understand that both sides could gain, or lose terribly, from this crime and that both sides are more than capable of murder. But when the peace of the state is threatened so gravely, the risk for the army and the existing power is huge.

Ugh, what a violent world.

In the "fight" against al-Qaeda, I have not read of any "set backs" in the process of the consolidation of power of the leadership in Pakistan, or in the US, since 9/11. Is it just a splendid coincidence that randomly favors these leaders?

It is as if the US and Pakistani regimes and "al-Qaeda" are working together, as they all grow stronger at the same time....strange, isn't it?

By comparison, at this time and for pretty much the last 100+ years, yes.

Lone nut jobs are always a possibility. Thats a bit different than this situation.

Yes, Ustwo, you are right to a great degree; it is just that your comment seemed a bit too sentimental in light of the situation. If we were to carry this further, we'd end up comparing the current safety of Pakistani neighbourhoods to our own. I don't see the point in comparing at any level.

Though you are right that we should be grateful that we don't have to go through what Pakistan is currently going through. I just don't see your reason for drawing a comparison of Western "politics" to this event. Maybe you'd care to elaborate.

Because while we have make up conspiracies and several seem to see 'Evil Bushco' behind every event, there are places where such deadly conspiracies are real.

Very few of us can really comment on this beyond a 'that sucks' level. We are so far removed from the daily politics of the area that all we can do is parrot what others say that happens to fit our view. While I personally think it was just Islamic nutjobs, it maybe have been a state organized hit with state agents convincing the nutjobs to do it undercover, or it may have been something completely different. Its a culture removed from mine, points of view alien to mine, and not something I could feel any confidence in talking about.

Still it wouldn't be hard to imagine such levels of violence happening here under the right set of circumstances, but when complaining about our government, its good to keep a sense of prospective.

This is complete and total bullshit. That whole country should be ashamed. Why is it that only good people seem to be assassinated?

I wouldn't count "Evil Bushco" out of this one...
from a link on the MSNBC homepage...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22406555/?gt1=10645

"Unlikely ally
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf turned Pakistan from pariah to partner after the 9/11 attacks. A look at the leader that won U.S. trust against many odds."

:shakehead:

Ustwo, just when I'm about to write you off as someone unwilling to actually say anything that matters in Tilted Politics beyond the occassional drive-by post, you come up with something profound.

Please take this as the compliment I intend it to be. This is probably the most insiteful post in Politics this week, not that there haven't been others. I wish we would see more of this from you.

As this information has processed in my thick skull today, I've realized that we'll never know the truth here. This is only news in the US now because of our continued involvement there with the War on Terror/Afganistan/pursuit of bin Laden. If this were to have happened in 1998, for instance, it probably would not have cracked the front page of any major newspaper. As it is, it will be above the fold, if not the lead story. That's neither right nor wrong, just an observation of what is and isn't deemed newsworthy.

Pakistan is a subduction zone, both geologically and politically. The waves of the West crash against the Islamist rocks there, and India threatens constantly.

Because she committed the same crime they are committing here:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/

"Speaking truth to power."

The_Jazz is right, and this is along the lines of what I had hoped to see underneath your a-little-too-pithy statement above in #6.

But perhaps to tie this all in, it would be interesting to discuss what we can expect (or hope) our respective governments to do in response to this event.

What i would expect? Nothing, lip service maybe. The "Evil Bushco" (if Ustwo hasn't copyrighted that) has their ally in power without opposition now.

It's a terrible blow for democracy but who seems to care about that any more? :no:

Isn't it clear?
Of course the Dumbest Evil Genius in the History of Fascism did it! Along with his dastardly sidekick Darth Cheney.

i would be really surprised if the bush people had anything to do with this assassination, personally, simply because it ruined their approach to pakistan entirely.
boom-----gone. nothing left of it.
what to do now? uh....

o yeah: pakistan has nukes.

Wow. Okay.

Benazir Bhutto is not, and was not, a democrat in any true sense of the word. Let's get that out of the way. She is the head of a dynastic party whose sole purpose has been to empower and enrich the members of a single Pakistani family. Do not allow any gullible journalist to tell you otherwise. She is well-educated and well-spoken, but nothing should endear her to you that is not also true of Musharraf. The general, it can at least be said, is not a kleptocrat. That should not read as an endorsement of him, only an exclamation point on the sorry, sorry state of Pakistani affairs.

As for responsibility, here are my thoughts.

Musharraf and his closest inner circle (particularly Gen. Kiani) were not involved. Nothing in Musharraf's past indicates that he would stoop to killing off a rival. It is also completely unclear that he will gain from this turn of events, and it would have been ludicrous of him to think so.

It is my increasing belief that Al Qaeda - by which I mean that group of people we used to refer to as Al Qaeda prime, the remnants of the organization that was largely pulverized in Afghanistan, and not the sordid and sorry franchises it has spawned the world round - played a direct role in the attack. I don't take much stock in the one report that AQ has already confessed to a local journalist - it is uncorroborated, and the confession remains fiercely contested amongst the radical community, which ordinarily takes pride in these things. However, AQ explicitly declared war on the Pakistani state earlier this summer (a fact that, astonishingly, seems have received scant attention in mainstream news coverage). They have poured increasing resources into propaganda in this area, translating more of their material into Urdu and releasing more videos directly attacking the pillars and institutions of the state itself. I read this as their attempt to take what they know is a state that is both weak and somewhat sympathetic to their aims, and to tear it apart at the seams in order to make room for a new Afghanistan - a safe haven.

I don't believe they will succeed in toppling the state - Pakistan has a tendency to remain hyper-stable even in times of great stress, partially because there are truly so few meaningful political players, all of whom know one another and trade off through the revolving doors of power. AQ does not need to topple the state - so long as whatever new leadership configuration emerges is convinced that it is better off leaving the Islamists well enough alone in the NWFP and tribal areas, they will have scored a major coup.

It is entirely possible that AQ-connected elements pulled this off alone, but I find it a little improbable. It is more likely that some element of the Pakistani establishment was involved. This could be someone in government - particularly in ISI, and perhaps even the army, from within whose ranks assassination attempts have come before. It could also be an outside force not represented by the current opposition configuration - Shaan Akbar of the Insider Brief suggested that he had inside information that the Chaudhry family of Gujarat was involved. I have no access to Mr. Akbar's contacts, so I have no idea. But Mr. Akbar was on Fox News earlier today describing ZA Bhutto as 'the JFK of Pakistan', so he seems to be a dolt (hint: JFK's country did not hang him.)

It's been a long freaking day.

Pakistan has gotten spotty news coverage in the US for the better part of a year while this situation has been evolving. Which is puzzling to me, being that a radical Pakistan is a much more viable threat to US security than a 'nuclear Iran.'

And, in fact, I would bet good money that a radical Pakistan would result in us finding an ally in Iran. It's too ridiculous not to be true.

nice post, hg.
thanks very much.

what do you make of this take on the situation (pre-assassination) from le monde diplomatique?

http://mondediplo.com/2007/12/01pakistan

i;m still putting information together to try to make sense of this...which is perhaps a Project rather than a project....and i can kind of line up ramonet's viewpoint with that of the guardian writer i pasted abov (no. 10)--any help you can give would be appreciated.

Thank you hiredgun, think I learned more there than I would have in a week of following the normal media here.

As far as the US goes, there are two main policy objectives: the first and most important one is to keep the Islamic Bomb out of Islamist hands. This is followed closely by maintaining Pakistani support in the GWOT, which is indispensable both in Afghanistan (where we are now losing) and as leverage against Iran (dear god, let's hope we don't start down that road).

Democracy in Pakistan no longer seems to me a policy objective, if it ever was. To the extent that it factors into our calculus, it is no longer about underlying realities and is more about maintaining a coherent stance that bridges the explicit goals of 'democracy promotion' and the 'war on terror'.

Ramonet implies that the US has some sort of plan for Pakistan. Unfortunately, he ignores the possibility that our policy is simply confused. It's not entirely our fault - we have strikingly contradictory interests in the country, and to balance them is not easy. It's quite likely that policymakers are looking to Kiani as a saving grace. He will not diverge significantly from Musharraf's policies, but he has a fresh face that is not tarnished by years of semi-competent rule and postponed electoral promises. But I think the American hope was that if Musharraf and the civilians could not learn to play nice, Musharraf could quietly step out of the picture, leaving the civilians in nominal control of a state that would still be run with the consent of a strong army. This is actually a pretty good characterization of what previous periods of civilian rule looked like, including in the 90's when Sharif and Bhutto took turns as PM.

By the by, I think Ramonet is a little unfair to Musharraf, or at least incomplete. For example, Musharraf opened up avenues for privately-held and free media that were completely unknown in Pakistan before him. That he became so frustrated with the opposition that he clamped down on the media and the judiciary is deeply regrettable and a major mistake. The tide has not turned back in his favor since the declaration of emergency.

The deepest problem with Musharraf's rule hasn't been bad intentions - unlike many de facto despots, I think his intentions were actually good, for the most part, and his ideas about eventual democracy sincere. It is that he failed to devolve any power to real Pakistani institutions. When institutions that grew powerful under his watch (the courts) threatened to oppose him, he lashed out and shut them down rather than trust them to shepherd Pakistan safely into the future. I think it is transparent to all by now that the emergency was expressly and solely declared because Musharraf was afraid to death that the courts would rule his election to the Presidency invalid (the technical cause being that, according to the SCoP, a presidential candidate cannot run while in uniform; Musharraf only doffed the uniform after safely elected). Musharraf sees himself as the savior of Pakistan, the only one who can keep the country's various interests (bearded religious fools, venal politicians, self-interested capitalists) from tearing the country apart. But the result of his autocratic rule has been that now that the very top of the establishment is threatened, no one is quite sure what can take its place if it falls. No strong institutions exist, only powerful individuals and powerful and conflicting interests.

The only real institution is the army, and that is not likely to change. That is why I do not worry that Pakistan will crumble. I do worry about what Faustian compromise might be struck with those responsible for Bhutto's death, and I worry still more about what kind of reactions that festering Islamism might eventually provoke from an outside power.

FWIW, the Pak government is finally going with this line:

Notwithstanding my own belief that AQ was involved, one would expect the Pak state to offer this explanation of events anyway, as this is the interpretation whose logical conclusion is the rallying of the population around its leadership and the abandonment or curtailment (for the time being) of oppositional politics.

True or not, I don't think the explanation will be wholly bought, and so for the moment Pakistan will lurch on, a half-crippled body waiting off-balance for the next crisis to knock it off its feet.

Well, let's just hope there is a body in Pakistan who can waylay such an event. I fear it would bode very badly for temperance in the region...and elsewhere.

And thank you for your posts on this thread.

such horrid event. i heard this news as it was breaking yesterday afternoon.

and though this operation (the use of the word operation is intended) looks like the doing of islamists, i cannot fathom that other parties were not involved. if not intricately, im sure many would have wanted to see a threat go. musharraf included. maybe he didnt have a hand in it directly. but if the islamists were going to take her out, i dont think he would have tried to stop it. why would he? it would work into his hands.

i can only see pakistan going in one direction if the west does notget involved.. a dizzie-ing spiral into oblivion. its either back to military and emergency rule.. or total chaos and anarchy from the void that the lack of government would leave..

take a choice

Yes. Thank you, hiredgun. I feel as though I just got an education. Excellent insight.

Regardless of what she really stood for the best thing for Pakistan to do is use this assassination for the betterment of the country. If they turn her into a martyr for democracy then there is a good chance that much of Pakistan will reform because the people of Pakistan will be behind the reforms. My hope is that Musharaff will use this to the advantage of the people and not to his own.

It is not going to go smoothly, I fear.

does Islam prohibit autopsies? That would be the easiest way to get a clear answer, but if the body is already in the ground and can't be taken out, we won't have that answer.

As far as I recall, bodies must be interred without delay and should be as whole as possible. I think some X-Rays were taken and shown to the media and/or family and government officials.

what if we think about this ritual of moving around/redefining the fatal wound as a political action?
what could be at stake in it?
if bhutto is understood as having been killed by fracturing her skull while trying to get out of the way of an assailant's gunfire and/or bomb, what changes situationally?
what does it mean politically if she is understood as having been assissinated directly?
does the skull fracture hypothesis mean that there was no assassination?
or is it a theory designed to save face for the government, a slight displacement of the center of gravity from the actions of the assailant to accident (caused by the actions of the assailant, but not identical with them)?

i dont know, am just thinking about what i've read this morning....

I dont know enough detail to have a firm opinion of the corruption accusations against Bhutto and her husband.

She has always claimed that they were politically motivated, but is the informed opinion that they were not groundless?

Well, it would be extremely difficult to kill yourself while ducking into your car of your own power. My impression was that the skull fracture came from the blast wave of the explosion knocking her head back onto the sunroof. In fact, assuming the bomb went off while she was still exposed from the top of the car (and this much I've heard repeatedly on independent Pakistani television starting only a few hours after the incident), it isn't possible for her to have escaped the blast wave at that range.

So from a technical perspective, the skull fracture story adds up. It is also confirmed by numerous eyewitnesses that shots were fired before the explosion. Whether or not Benazir was hit by these shots remains an open question (from what I read, the attacker was up to 50m away, and the suspected gun [shown on Pak television] is a handgun, so I would actually be surprised if he managed to hit her).

I haven't yet seen any evidence that the information about her cause of death is politically motivated.

As for an autopsy, it is not forbidden in Islam, although it might be looked upon kind of strangely. The larger point is that I don't think her supporters would allow her body to be 'desecrated' in that way, and last I heard the body had already arrived at the family mausoleum to be buried, so that's probably the end of that.

I have to say and agree with hiredgun, that while I dont pretend to believe that Musharraf is incapable of ordering violent action, I dont think that this kind of crime is his style, or in his interests.

He may be no democrat, and he may have repressed some freedoms - but I do believe he has acted on a genuine belief that tough action was required to maintain security and peace. I am also not certain that this belief if in any way shown to be incorrect.

I also agree that it is not so much that he'd never do such a thing as it is just not a smart thing to do for him, not to mention not his style. Afterall, if he wanted to be hard line, he could just arrest her again or something else to make it hard for her to campaign, and he can always postpone the election a bit longer if he really wanted it that badly. Even not being guilty, many are going to believe he is, and many more are going to hold him accountable even if not the one who was behind the attack. Afterall, it is the incumbant government's responsibility to provide for the election and that includes security for the candidates. There were a lot of complaints prior to the attack, in the wake of the first one when she got into the country, that the government was not doing enough to secure her safety as she campaigned. The election may now be a non-starter, and he may have a little longer in office, but the damage far outweighs the gain, I would think.

Some new information.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071228/...re_as/pakistan

I'll come back in a bit with comments.

how does Cheema know that Bhutto died from a skull fracture, with no autopsy performed?

And how exactly is it proposed that Israeli security forces are to protect a Pakistani politican in Pakistan?

Anyway... lets hope than Usama Bin Laden finds that openly declaring war on Musharaff is a different matter to hiding in the mountains and calling on people to fly planes into civilian buildings. He cant run to Afghanistan anymore, or the British or Americans will kill him, if he really wants to confrornt the Army in Pakistan hopefully he will be killed soon.

you know, if there were nukes in the equation, which escalates the problems that accompany political instability, this would be kinda interesting political theater. since there was no autopsy, the cause of death can be moved around. if it is being moved around by spokesmodels at the hospital to which bhutto was brought, then that defines one set of possibilities as to meanings; if this is coming from the state, there's another.

i'm just curious about this, why it's happening.
maybe it's perfectly banal and the medical folk on site don't really know.
but it is a strange situation, for now.

i know a little about autopsies in islam.. but if anyone needs more info, i know a few people that are well versed in islamic law that could answer some questions...

as far as autopsies go.. westerners may find it strange, but it actually quite common to bury someone the same day that they died. so i wouldnt consider it a conspiracy as such just because someone was buried rather hurridly.

my grandmother died a few years back in the morning. by noon she was buried. granted, the doctors knew what she died of, so there was no autopsy performed.

Bhutto died in the late afternoon/ early evening, so it would have been too late to bury her that day. she would have been prepared for burial the next day. but as a general rule, the sun shouldnt set twice on the deceased before they are buried.

autopsies are not forbidden in islam, though if it is not necesary, then it is regarded as desecration of the sacred. deceased are considered sacred, as they are 'returning back to God'. theres an islamic saying "ina lillah wa ina ilayhi raji'oon" which basically translates into "we are from god, and to god we shall return" hence the sacredness of the dead body.

as for the autopsies itself.. they arent forbidden, and would even be encouraged under certain situations.

for example: under islamic law, inheritance is is already prescribed, so you dont get the squabbling over who gets what later. however, if say someone killed their parents, then the child isnt entitled to recieve any inheritance.

so if there is doubt as to whether someone was murdered for example, and there was suspicion that the son did it, then an autopsy wouldnt be out of the ordinary in order to pinpoint the cause of death. this would also be the same with leadership and so forth.

in Bhuttos case, if it was obvisous that she had died from bullet wounds then an autopsy wouldnt be performed.

no conspiracy here. though it would work to musharrafs advantage that her burial be dealt with quickly if he wanted something hidden up.

hiredgun, thank you so much for providing your insight on this.

ps: It's good to see you again.

What Benazir Bhutto said :
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UnychOXj9Tg&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UnychOXj9Tg&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Minute 2:10 : "..he also had dealings with Omar Sheikh the man who murdered Osama Bin Laden

The reporter does not care, he does not ask her anything about Bin Laden's death . Why ?

I think Musharaff is Bush's friend even if Bush tries to hide it- so to not cause more hate against Musharaff from those who hate USA. Bush wants him in power to keep the nuclear weapons secured. CIA killed Bhutto, they would not want her to expose more about Bin Laden. The islamic militants are against Musharaff, they would not kill his opponent.

IMO, Bhutto misspoke...she meant to say Omar murdered Daniel Pearl, or that Omar murdered "for" Osama Bin Laden.

Omar Sheik had been in Pakistani custody since 2002, and two months ago, Bhutto made these totally contradictory statements to what she says on the video:

Regarding the cause of death, it is sort of an odd little controversy.

There is now a brief and blurry video out there that shows the shooter (sorry, I saw it elsewhere and don't have the link on this comp) at nearly point-blank range, so now the official story - that all three bullets missed - seems slightly unlikely. But I don't really see it. What would the government gain from telling other than the truth about this matter? Whether or not the shooter was able to shoot her is really irrelevant to how you interpret the effectiveness of the army in protecting Bhutto - that is, whether or not the state was negligent has nothing to do with whether or not the shots that were fired hit their target, especially because the end result was the same.

Perhaps the PPP is sensitive to the symbolism of her death and maintains the shooting story because it somehow seems to have more glory in it than blunt force trauma (and is therefore more conducive to the concept of martyrdom). Or perhaps they are willing to seize on any issue that helps them portray the government as deceptive and conspiratorial. Most likely, it just seems to me to be a technical misunderstanding exacerbated by distrust and distress.

hiredgun, this may be the video that you are referring to: http://youtube.com/watch?v=eGOI2ztguww&feature=related
What I find odd about this is that the "shooter" is much closer than reported previously and better able to fire and hit his target. The "backup" suicide detonation is not something that I have seen reported before in any other "radical" killing. The changes in the official cause of death are equally perplexing.

I would like to persue who had the most to gain from the assassination of Bhutto.

Ho ho ho, now this is interesting.

Benazir's son Bilawal (19) takes over leadership of PPP along with her husband Asif Ali Zardari. (http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt...29995920071230)

Sigh. They're going for the name thing. To be honest, as much as I dislike the PPP, they had a half dozen other candidates who might really have been useful people to have on the political stage in Pakistan. Aitzaz Ahsan comes to mind - he was a key figure in the judiciary revolt earlier this year, and is at least motivated by a keen understanding of checks on executive power.


Elphaba:
What I find confusing about this line of thinking is that I don't see how oddities in the tactics used in an assassination are connected to oddities of motive or guilt. Why does a small degree of confusion over the cause of death imply a conspiracy? I don't see that an assassination sponsored by the government, army, a rival, or any other political player would somehow be more likely to result in novel tactics or an ambiguous cause of death.

My take on the matter is this: initial changes in the cause of death, and in reported tactics (how far away the shooter was, etc) are simply a product of the honest confusion that immediately follows an incident such as this one, in which scattered and conflicting reporting creates a distorted picture of the event, which is eventually corrected and narrowed down as the facts come in. The politicization is something being added on after the fact by a number of parties desperate to ensure that Pakistan moves in a certain direction from this key juncture.

Who had the most to gain?
* Not anyone in the party. Her husband knows he is a political dead fish with or without her (corruption and graft have earned him the nickname Mr 10 Percent), and in any case he has been quite obviously distraught in television appearances over the last few days. No one in the party has emerged boldly to take her leadership position - it seems that instead, the party has urged 19-year-old Bilawal to step forward, and I think it vanishingly unlikely that he was involved.

* Not Musharraf. This is important: while painful, Bhutto's presence actually held the key to legitimating the current regime. Remember, she was not running directly against him - she was aiming for the premiership, while he had already safely been elected to the Presidency, a position that he himself had (extra-?)constitutionally strengthened. An eventual power-sharing agreement would have been difficult but would have greatly stabilized the power configuration by expanding the ruling coalition and giving it a much larger popular base. His real battle was with the judiciary, and it's not at all clear that Bhutto would have sided in the end with irreconcilably anti-Musharraf forces; I think the opposite is more likely the case.

Nawaz? I guess it's a theoretical possibility. By eliminating Bhutto, he now forces Musharraf to deal directly with him - and while the general dislikes Bhutto, he loathes Nawaz Sharif (and the feeling is quite mutual, I'm sure). But I don't see Nawaz doing any of the posturing that would allow him to actually gain from the event. All he has done is announce an ineffectual boycott of the upcoming elections, throwing a wrench into the government's plans but doing little else to help himself.

In terms of exploiting existing political cleavages and bringing wrenching instability to the country, I still think that extreme anti-government forces - rather than establishment forces - are the most likely culprits. Al Qaeda and/or Pakistani Taliban sympathizers seem to me the prime candidates here.

Looks like Bhutto is on her way to being canonized.

To my mind the only good that come of this is if leads to a real backlash at grassroots level against the Taleban

I don't have anything to add other than that as always, the insight from posts in this thread has been awesome.

I don't place any confidence in the following article because the US mainstream media is not my preferred choice of information. And, the US media is something to observe and contemplate. The exact cause of death continues to be an issue.

NYTimes ***


*** Oh my gawd! Another hosted article from http://www.truthout.org !

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.

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?

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).

that is strange enough a statement that i will try to sort it out too.

maybe security trains for people with guns but not for people who strap bombs to themselves because, well, best i can figure it that there's some chance of intervention regarding someone who has a gun but not a whole lot relative to someone with a bomb strapped to themselves.

so gun=security failure (covered)
bomb=act of god (not covered).
gun+bomb=


um.


i'm not sure.

a bad thing certainly, something that happened without question, a terrible idea definitely, a tragedy arguably, generating of heightened political tensions without a doubt, but a security failure.....

maybe security failure would imply something like the assassination of malcolm x kinda thing.

it's hard to say---i was playing around with the question of why the govt kept moving the fatal wound around earlier---i still dont understand anything, but the theater of the moving fatal wound keeps getting curiouser and curiouser.

Why do the xrays show a bullet deep in head pointing downward , if she was sticking out of the top of the car how was she shot from above? There is a YouTube video showing somebody shooting upwards from behind the car.

This deal is like another JFK.

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:

host don't be a jerk. Apparently this guy worked for both Bush and Clinton, I never heard of him and was only quoting the article.

I figure you just posted your one liner to be confrontational for no reason like you somehow 'got me'. I wonder how many of these gems I've miss buried between quoted stories of yours.

Interesting that guy thinks it is the work of Al-Qaeda and the NYT didn't bother to mention that part. It still doesn't answer why a gun would make it worse security.

Ustwo, I took your <i>"Obviously I'm unqualified to figure it out, being this was said by a former member of the National Security Council under Clinton..."</i> comment, as an unsupported disparaging "take" on "all things Clinton". I think that you can understand how I could interpret your tone in that way. Considering your reaction, I now concede that it is quite possible that you meant nothing more by it than "hey, can anyone translate "Clinton speak", or "I don't think this way, since I was'nt in the "Clinton camp", can anyone who was, decipher this for me"?

Anyway....I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and I hope you have a clearer understanding of why I reacted to your Clinton reference, the way that I did.

I recalled that I read this a few days ago. It doesn't directly explain Riedel's link to shooting with poor security, but Robinson was also a Clinton era Pakistan observer:

(It matters, immensely how Bhutto died. If the official machinations are an indicator....the government intentionally, after announcing several variations, settled on a version of events which puts Bhutto in the least "martyred" light;
"ducking" from a bomb blast, fatally injuring her own head, vs. killed by assassin's bullets.)
....and, if I'm not prying too much, did you and roachboy follow up on the idea, discussed a while back, of enjoying a beer, or two, together?

No and its my fault, but after much internal debate I've decided to keep my anonymity. It allows me to post freer.

But back to the topic, so on the one hand, if she died by a gun its more of a martyr thing, but on the other hand if they had a gun its horrible security over a bomb. So either it was governments fault if their WAS a gun and the government doesn't want there to be a gun? Still doesn't explain the statement of why a gun would be such bad security, even when everyone KNOWS there was a bomb.

And still the family doesn't want a formal autopsy.

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.

Yes thats my thoughts as well.

Now this is really fascinating stuff. It turns out Bhutto was due to hand over some information to the US later on during the day on which she was assassinated.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapc...ing/index.html

Now if I may engage in utterly wild conjecture, a new kind of motive emerges. Earlier I was thinking about the incident primarily as one in which Al-Qaeda elements would enlist the aid of domestic actors to kill Bhutto, with the goal of causing instability and activating anti-government sentiment. To indulge in a moment of Oliver Stone-like conspiracy theory, it seems superficially plausible that whoever was implicated in Bhutto's report for the Americans may have wanted to kill her in order to prevent that information from reaching US officials. This jives with some of her earlier statements, where she had only restrained hostility for Musharraf, but seemed extremely eager to sound the alarm on particular figures in Pakistani intelligence (this was after the first explosion several weeks back).

The very obvious plot hole here is that killing her doesn't destroy the information. The article mentions that CNN has already seen a copy of the report, so it's still going to find its way to its intended audience. Still, it is an intriguing, if unlikely, possibility.

One last thing to remember is that the PPP's strategy had been to court the US heavily and convince the US that it is in our interest to pressure Musharraf to make room for civilian power-sharing. They understood that we had a strong interest in seeing democracy there, and wanted to position themselves as a democratic but still anti-Islamist force (in opposition to Musharraf, whom they wanted to portray as both autocratic and weak on terror, and Sharif, who actually is in bed with Islamists). As the party is currently reeling from the loss of its leadership and the ambiguous status of what was very recently a cozy relationship with the US, it makes sense that they would continue to curry our favor, particularly at a juncture where near-term outcomes remain incredibly uncertain. So another way to read the situation is that while the PPP is sowing confusion at home with the 'cause of death' thing, they continue to try and demonstrate to us why they are a better alternative than Musharraf (i.e. they can root out extremist elements in the ISI, while Musharraf, they claim, is powerless against these elements, or complicit with them).

But would there EVER be an election in Pakistan where people weren't claiming vote rigging etc was going on? Its bad enough in the US where people make up elaborate theories on vote conspiracies and then later when their party wins, suddenly forget about them, only to bring them back if their party loses (and I can't wait to see those claims here if a republican wins in 2008, mind you pretty much all the candidates are sub par so just about anything could happen)

And if this information was real and given to some US reps, so what? What would it matter?

Being a high profile politician odds are she would have had a meeting just about any day of the week which could have been seen as a trigger, plus if the information was already out there, again it makes no sense.

I see it as more conspiracy fodder.

there are ALOT of reprints of the reuters release about this. it's kind of amazing to see how many papers reproduce the same story in the same way from a wire service.

anyway, i searched around for a minute for the guy who wrote the report that bhutto is supposed to turn over and found the above, which is a curious news-collating page it seems:

http://www.daylife.com/words/Latif_Khosa


is this latif khosa also this one?

http://www.ifj-asia.org/page/pakistan070621.html

nothing hinges on it, just curious.
if it's the same guy, it would appear that he is not a musharraf fan.

=======
btw ustwo:
re. the beer....it's totally fine....anonymity is an interesting thing to consider: i go back and forth about it.

Everything about the murder of Bhutto matters, if an honest inquiry into her death is of interest to anyone. That would appear to be a big "if" even among members of tfp.

My thoughts lean toward elements within Pakistan's security agency. Islamic fundamentalists within the agency have the desire, and the opportunity to allow a breach of security to remove Bhutto. Security would also have the opportunity to "confuse" the form of attack and cause of death.

The Occam's razor explanation that she hit her head retreating into the car from the sun roof, causing her death, is just a little too "thin" to take seriously.

Given all of the political significance of Pakistan within the current Middle East turmoil, I think just a bit more attention is warranted. :orly:

From post #51
I never thought I would get an answer to the above question, from the Pakistani government, itself, but.....

Sounds familiar????
Maybe the next revision will be that she wasn't killed, after all:

Now, the official line is that they only know that they aren't supporting anything that they've previously communicated about how Bhutto was killed. It's amazing to watch a government addressing the press with even less crdibility than our own administration enjoys.....

"Telephonic" ??
Whenever i hear that word in regards to an assassination "Evil Bushco" isn't far off.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4wbps/id6.html

Well, that was real useful. The term you object to is common in other cultures. :rolleyes:

so it appears that the drama of the mobile fatal wound has acquired enough separate momentum that it has required a response from musharraf. this from this morning's ny times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/wo...hp&oref=slogin

a detail that i find interesting is the choice of scotland yard--presumably the americans are not understood as neutral....the responses to the khosa report are interesting as well. so we've reached a little dramatic turning point, but it's probably only a transition moment within the first act, from one scene to another....

A 60 Minute report that I watched a few months ago focused on Scotland Yard. They are producing great intel on terrorist activities, but they are dreadfully underfunded and short of critical staff. Why Musharref chose the Yard is difficult to intuit, but I suspect a UN investigation would be unacceptable to both Musharref and the US.

Sorry to revive this thread after more than a month, but I thought people might be interested in the results of the Scotland Yard inquiry, which were released today.

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/h...uttoreport.pdf

I think that with this report, we can finally put the dreadful cause-of-death argument to rest.

Thanks for posting that - I missed it. Makes sense.