Comments (64)

Yellow Dog wrote on December 27, 2007 4:38 PM:

In the Washington Post, Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani reporter, (and long-time Musharraf critic) seriously doubts Musharraf's involvement, pointing out that the government is in utter despair over the assasination - presumably because Bhutto was their last chance to stave off disaster.

Spencer Ackerman wrote on December 27, 2007 4:44 PM:

Awesome -- I hadn't seen that. Rashid knows more about Pakistani extremism than any other reporter. Jihad is a classic. Anything he says I'd take extremely seriously.

Gramma Millie wrote on December 27, 2007 4:45 PM:

Do not rule out a possible covert assist from Team Chaos (Bush/Cheney).

AngryAmerican wrote on December 27, 2007 4:45 PM:

My speculation is that shrub and vader are behind it. Tell me you would be surprised to find that out.

Why you ask? Can you think of a better way, short of another "attack" on U.S. soil, to stir things up and play the fear card with the 30 percenters? I didn't think so.

Spencer Ackerman wrote on December 27, 2007 4:47 PM:

Yeah, I'm going to go out on a limb and say I don't think Bush and Cheney murdered Bhutto.

Praedor Atrebates wrote on December 27, 2007 4:48 PM:

It could simply be a matter of several groups seeking/desiring to kill Bhutto (or any other secular leader or potential leader) and it was just a roll of the dice that led to one of the prime candidates actually pulling it off. With several groups interested in sowing chaos in the region, eventually, with the repeated attempts to pull off a Bhutto kill, it was inevitable that one would succeed. The particular group responsible in this case simply won the lottery. It is almost beside the point whether it was Al Qaeda, a Taliban group, or some other home-grown nutbag group.

Scairp wrote on December 27, 2007 4:49 PM:

As an outsider on the world of intelligence analysis, I would tend to agree that Musharraf probably is not responsible nor would want to have a hand in Bhutto's assassination. The country is descending into chaos as we speak, and he surely would not want to be responsible for causing that.

springbored wrote on December 27, 2007 4:51 PM:

Yeah, but how much control does Musharraf have over certain, internally-focused, radically destabalized elements of his own government. Pakistan's ISI--and resident Ouroboros--is certainly capable of going off the reservation.

Gramma Millie wrote on December 27, 2007 4:52 PM:

AngryAmerican,

Not to mention it's got the added bonus of decapitating Condi and her plans for Pakistan.

MB wrote on December 27, 2007 4:52 PM:

This strikes me as much more plausible than that rather suspect Haqqani stuff being peddled earlier. There's no shortage of internal opposition to Bhutto, and as your source says, this "checks the boxes" more than any other theory.

And with regard to Musharraf, I think it's worth noting that she may have been his only viable retirement plan. She was (previously, anyway) willing to work with him, and a shift from him to her was much more palatable than, say, to Nawaz Sharif. Which brings us to the next worry - this makes Nawaz the only other major candidate in the upcoming elections. Which isn't a good thing at all. As much a crook as Bhutto was, I think she's definitely preferable to Sharif.

P. Robertson wrote on December 27, 2007 5:07 PM:

I still say it's pretty well confirmed that Hugo Chavez is responsible, and that we need to take him out post haste.

Fractal wrote on December 27, 2007 5:10 PM:

As the Romans used to say, Cui Bono? Who benefits? [Thanks to Wikipedia for correcting my Latin.]

Anyone who wants the job/role Bhutto was campaigning for would presumably benefit from her death. On the other hand, any person/country that wishes to see Pakistan implode would also benefit: e.g., India, China, Afghanistan. So, this inquiry should not be restricted to internal Pakistani actors.

On the other hand, I agree with comments elsewhere that this event does "decapitate" Condi's strategy to rescue some tiny diplomatic success out of the global chaos resulting from Shrub's complete military and diplomatic incompetence over the last seven years.

LondonYank wrote on December 27, 2007 5:16 PM:

Didn't the yellowcake from Niger story come through Italy as well? I don't trust anything that comes from the New York Times via Italian press reports. Look up Operation Gladio if you want a history lesson on CIA control of right wing terrorists and the Italian media.

Fractal wrote on December 27, 2007 5:20 PM:

Apologies to Grannie, who offered the insight that Bhutto's assassination decapitates Condi's strategy for the Middle East.

Ahmed Rashid blames Al Qaeda [click Fractal]:

"Yesterday, her party's stalwarts were on the streets, accusing Musharraf and the military of perpetrating the latest murder of a Bhutto. That is extremely unlikely, not least because last night the government itself was in despair.

"The classic use of a sniper to cut her down as at least one suicide bomber blew up her vehicle bore the hallmarks of a Pakistani suicide squad expertly trained by the al-Qaeda terrorists who are ensconced in northwest Pakistan."

I defer to Spencer and Yellow Dog that Rashid really knows what he's talking about.

Also, I recall that much of the combat reporting from Iraq about snipers attacking U.S. troops has quoted U.S. military and special forces troops as believing that snipers are specially trained by Al Qaeda. Is my memory right?

piotr wrote on December 27, 2007 5:24 PM:

As springbored noted, ISI has a history as the sponsor of Islamic militants where were waging a war by proxy in Kashmir. I think that in the process there was a double penetration: ISI agents in the militant organizations, and sympathizers of the militants in ISI -- after all, they had the same mission.

Both Musharraf and ISI gain as follows: political leaders of the opposition are being intimidated to pull their punches in the campaign, and would they win, they are intimidated to leave the military and the intelligence as independent states within the state (gobbling their shared of the budget, of course).

Musharraf is tainted by the assassination, and more assassinations to come, but he has a lot of deniability, as he was a target of unsuccesful attempts in the past.

Whatever is happening, it is a folly to think that we can influence in a substantial way ISI and Pakistani military into doing what we want. They have their own, different priorities and a mastery in the art of duplicity.

Dennis wrote on December 27, 2007 5:25 PM:

Who is to say what to do?

Our usual "diplomatic efforts" are to chose a side, supply them with weapons, information and technology enough to beat out all others - all the meantime calling for peace - and then set the head of the winning side as the new head honcho in the country.

I don't think this will be any different.

"It works the same in every country."

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

AJB wrote on December 27, 2007 5:26 PM:

Yellow Dog wrote:

"In the Washington Post, Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani reporter, (and long-time Musharraf critic) seriously doubts Musharraf's involvement, pointing out that the government is in utter despair over the assasination - presumably because Bhutto was their last chance to stave off disaster."

If that was *really* the case, then Musharraf would have, and could have provided Bhutto with something resembling personal security, instead of the bare-bones SUV that was obviously an easy target for the assassin.

And dispair? What exactly did Musharraf government have to gain by allowing the popular Bhutto to run in the upcoming elections, other then a strong chance of their own electoral defeat?

A.J.

Ba'al wrote on December 27, 2007 5:33 PM:

How about this worst case possiblity; extremist elements of one stripe or another who have infiltrated the Musharraf security apparatus and facilitated this assassination.

Bernard HP Gilroy wrote on December 27, 2007 5:40 PM:

No, no, no. Haven't you been paying attention? This was clearly the work of Saddam Hussein...

Buzz Windrip wrote on December 27, 2007 5:46 PM:

We would also be well advised to remember the role Italian intelligence played in the run-up to the Iraq invasion.

kozmik wrote on December 27, 2007 5:47 PM:

"According to a former intelligence official with deep experience on Pakistan, there's a third, and perhaps more likely culprit: internally-focused Pakistani Islamist militants without significant links to al-Qaeda."

Gotta say a big "no duh" to that one.

The mountainous region is filled with Taliban-like fundamentalist groups. Musharraf cut a deal with them to leave them alone if they left him alone, which is operational intermittently. However, while the majority of them are focused domestically in Pakistan, they're also aligned with the Taliban of Afghanistan and AQ who they're harboring. There's probably also an exchange of expertise.

(Doesn't everybody know this by now?)

Fractal wrote on December 27, 2007 5:48 PM:

This response by Edwards is note-perfect [click Fractal]. He is "being" Presidential, not just "wanting to be" Presidential.

He talked to Musharraf directly, after contacting the Pakistani ambassador and telling the ambassador to please tell Musharraf to phone him. Exactly correct protocol, exactly the right message. Wonder what Condi and Shrub were doing?

Oh, and P.S., I'm sure that Hillary will now condemn Edwards for speaking directly to a dictator.

kozmik wrote on December 27, 2007 5:58 PM:

"If that was *really* the case, then Musharraf would have, and could have provided Bhutto with something resembling personal security, instead of the bare-bones SUV that was obviously an easy target for the assassin. ... What exactly did Musharraf government have to gain "

There are other factors too.

Musharraf is himself compromised and weakened by so many competing groups, you never know what's going on with him.

His government is continually on a decline, as the moderates and fundies all hate him, and his military support is dwindling. So he does need to step down or cut a deal with the moderates like Bhutto. Bhutto's death hurts him considerably, but then again dictators do stupid things. So, it's hard to say.

It's even possible he was sincere in putting Bhutto under house arrest for her protection, and couldn't resist doing it heavy handedly for his own advantage. It's also possible that she would refuse security for that reason.

Hard to say, but the whole thing is FUBARED ultimately becasue Musharraf's government is compromised, distrusted, and too weak to sustain rational policies. That will continue until the moderates get into office and restore some stability and rule of law.

kozmik wrote on December 27, 2007 6:13 PM:

Edwards calling Musharraf is Presidential? No, it's Edwards calling Musharraf as a thord place Presidential candidate and Senator with little influence on the issues. Sounds like grandstanding to me.

Musharraf isn't going to refuse his call, but he's not going to listen either.

Also, whenever people gush about Edwards, they should remember he voted to authorize the Iraq War, which he and Kerry also defended throughout his 2004 campaign, even after it was known there were no WMD, which was his main rationale to justify the vote. He also voted for Patriot Act.

Fractal wrote on December 27, 2007 6:27 PM:

Kozmik, you got it reversed: Musharraf called EDWARDS, after Edwards first made the correct diplomatic approach through the Pakistan ambassador to the U.S.

Tell me which candidates running for President that were in the Senate in 2002 did NOT vote to allow Bush to invade Iraq. Same question for the Patriot Act vote, which I think was in 2004 before Obama got to the Senate: what other candidate voted against the Patriot Act in the Senate? (Obviously, Kucinich's votes were correct on all counts.)

Fractal wrote on December 27, 2007 6:29 PM:

Incidentally, John Edwards accepts contributions through PayPal. [Click Fractal.]

slb wrote on December 27, 2007 6:33 PM:

No, I don't think Bhutto had refused additional security measures. Robert Siegel was just interviewing someone on NPR (a reporter, I think, who is also a second cousin of Bhutto's, and with whom she was apparently working on a book) who said that she had e-mailed him very shortly after the last assassination attempt in October with a message that was to be released in the event of her death. In it, she said that she and her husband had requested additional security measures of Musharraf which her cousin said had never been provided.

The message also said that she held Musharraf's security forces, and ultimately Musharraf himself, responsible for whatever happened to her, but of course this was two months ago, and she was making a projection. In any event, she said that she had received threats from some of Musharraf's security people.

That said, I don't think that necessarily means that Musharraf ordered her assassination today. It's certainly plausible that someone else would take the opportunity to make a double strike, going after Bhutto and knowing that the fallout would weaken Musharraf as well.

buck wrote on December 27, 2007 6:38 PM:

C'mon! Other than an unconfirmed citation in the Italian press (where have we heard that before?!), Lake is no more convinced of al-Qaeda involvement than you are. The claim that it "looks like al-Qaeda" because of the attack's "sophistication" is absurd--al-Qaeda may have branches all over the world, but it is no more sophisticated than any other terrorist outfit. They had one huge success that made them the number one target in the world, but even they admitted that the scope of 9.11 devastation was not what they were expecting.
Al-Qaeda is more myth than reality. It's one of many jihadist outfits in the Middle East--and one of many in Pakistan. Blaming everything on al-Qaeda is just as simple minded as United States waiting for Indian mangoes. It provides a nice bite to make it memorable for the swamp, but, in the end, most Islamic terrorist groups are not associated with al-Qaeda.
Even if one of their number claims responsibility, that's a far cry from evidence--terrorist organization love to take credit for successful acts even if they had nothing to do with it. Confusion is their weapon.
So, please, stop doing Cheney's job easier and stop blaming everything on al-Qaeda. Trust your friends who appear to know better.

buck wrote on December 27, 2007 6:47 PM:

One more thing--I am with Fractal on this one. Edwards's behavior today was much more presidential than a bunch of toadies that comprise the rest of the field. Not only did he conduct himself properly to get a call from Musharraf, but he was also the only candidate who did not say how Bhutto's assassination makes him more qualified to be president in the corresponding press release. Ironic, isn't it?

Just to be clear--I am not in the business of endorsing candidates and, unlike Fractal, don't want to turn this message into a fundraising effort. My political choices are private, but this should not preclude me from expressing an opinion on candidates' behavior. And most of them flunked badly today. With one exception. This does not mean I will vote for Edwards--it is only one of many issues to consider.

Jack wrote on December 27, 2007 7:02 PM:

When I heard the news, I was immediately reminded of when Massoud, the leader of the northern alliance in Afganistan, was assassinated 2 days before 9/11. Like Massoud, Bhutto was a fighter against the radicals.

Disputo wrote on December 27, 2007 7:05 PM:

The assassination was carried out by an Islamic Militant patsy, orchestrated by the Secret Police, on orders from Mush, and with the approval of the Cheney faction of the GWB admin.

Brendan McDaid wrote on December 27, 2007 7:10 PM:

Fractal wrote on December 27, 2007 5:10 PM:
As the Romans used to say, Cui Bono? Who benefits? [Thanks to Wikipedia for correcting my Latin.]

With all due respect for Wikipedia, including the Spanish version, it is 'cui bonum,'(to whom is the good) not 'cui bono.' Google it.

Otherwise completely in agreement with your comment.

Doh wrote on December 27, 2007 7:17 PM:

Wow, leave it to a real super reporter to remind us not to jump to wild comclusions without taking baseless speculation into account.

How do I get the stupid off of me after reading this?

Dee Illuminati wrote on December 27, 2007 7:42 PM:

IPSO FACTO, Cui Bono?

I think that the majority of this analysis is looking in the mirror to see what is behind, and not focused on what might lie ahead.

IPSO FACTO she is dead.

Cui Bono?

Well that is the question irrespective of whom was behind the assasination.

All of the preceeding narrative, alliances, speculation, agreements, and assumptions that were in play before the assasination are now fluid and subject to new situational realities.

What is being speculated is this: That the individual or group behind the assasination had some contact with ISI elements, local police elements, or personal security elements, or the military and that that facilitated the proximity to target?

Or.. as Karachi is an open arms market, is this a circumstance where a 'loan wolf' in an open society manuevered a vehicle close to the target operating and motivated by zealot intent?

The question of how she was killed is academic to the question of what will be the result of this?

I think it is reasonable to assume that the response will cause civil unrest and disruptions to the electoral process, resulting in a requiring of martial law or state of emergency.. a reasonable assumption after the assasination.

Cui Bono?

That is to be seen... to much situational fluidity... to many assumptions (propositions masquerading as fact) to be sorted out to see a mass movement occuring out of the event.

Eric Hoffer in his book:

The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements ISBN 0-06-050591-5 discusses the psychological causes of fanaticism.

A critical element is that: events such as these cannot be planned for beyond the initial event... and that the further one speculates out into the future, the more uncertain the outcome is.

The response to assasination by a zealot of a secular leader might evoke a blowback, but laughing..... much to often it evokes a need for greater security spending and policing....

Cui Bono?

That is to be seen....

IPSO FACTO she is dead... how it happened is academic, the smart move is to sway the response to ones favor.

Like a noun, verb, and 911 it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

pseudonymous in nc wrote on December 27, 2007 8:01 PM:

When Benazir returned to Pakistan in October, she was told that there were four separate, independent threats to her life from four different groups. She chose not to postpone the return, because the ones making the threats would just reschedule. And, of course, the people gathered to greet her were victims of a double suicide bomb attack.

The Bhuttos were not without their enemies. And that's putting it mildly.

(Ironically, Benazir played a large role in allowing the Pashtun mujahedin to regain strength in the mid-90s and re-emerge as the Taliban and head back north.)

broadsword wrote on December 27, 2007 8:09 PM:

I guess it hasn't yet occurred to anyone here that she was trying to get martyred.

Our secret service would never allow Bush to pop his head up through the sunroof of his limousine/tank, especially if he's wanting to try something like anywhere East of Istanbul.

Guess why.

kozmik wrote on December 27, 2007 8:17 PM:

"Kozmik, you got it reversed: Musharraf called EDWARDS, after Edwards first made the correct diplomatic approach through the Pakistan ambassador to the U.S."

lol. nice spin. No, Edwards called and asked that Musharraf call him back. But again, that's just Mu being polite and hedging bets, and Edwards trying to get a little free press. And of course they both knew that, so the conversation was really just political theater.

Musharraf doesn't care much what Edwards thinks as opposed to any other senators, and probably a lot less than some.

And I think Edwards' grandstanding actually hurts him over time on issues of credibility and showmanship. But he likes being in the spotlight and can't help it.

ozzinny wrote on December 27, 2007 8:19 PM:

The list of people/groups who were not keen to see the return of Bhutto to power in Pakistan is considerably longer than those who supported her. The Islamists despised her gender and her tilt toward secularism. The militarists could not respect her pluralist rhetoric and her disengaged grasp when in office, not to speak of her perceived weakness of will. The good government types and the meritocracy remember the sleaziness of her previous stints in power. Her power base was not with the elites and the depth of her popular support has long been overstated. Despite her lofty rhetoric, she never really accomplished much in office other than to reach the the top job. Borne to privilege, provided with a top-drawer western education (she could be seen around Harvard getting stoned with her entourage in those days) and condemned to carry her father's ghost until she now joins him. She had become a tragic figure in so many ways. Her importance in the tortured history of Pakistan is being overstated today, and one suspects that history will agree. BTW, after the attempt on her life upon her recent return to Pakistani soil, who among you did not see this coming?

kozmik wrote on December 27, 2007 8:23 PM:

slb-

Right. It's really hard to know what's going on without evidence. It seems everybody has a motive to kill each other and conflicted interests. It's captain peacock in the laboratory with the candlestick.

Tim Kane wrote on December 27, 2007 8:31 PM:

In 1949 the Democrats permanently lost foreign policy as a strong suite in our politics to the Republicans. They pranced around saying "Who lost China?" and "I have an envelope here in my pocket with the names of known communist in the government".

You know its about time we start using this gambit on them. Who lost Pakistan? Who's losing Afghanistan? Who's losing two wars in third world countries? Why are we giving Pakistan billions of dollars while they harber Bin Laden, and Co.? There are known Islamic Terrorist sympathizers in the highest reaches of the Government - I have an envelope here in my pocket with names of high placed government officials who have close relationships with terrorists, terrorist sympathizers or with financiers of terrorists. I choose not to name names right now, but, I can tell you the list is printed on Carlyle Group stationary.

Okay - that's a little primitive. But then I am not a professional politician. It's high time that some competant democrat politician go on the offence for all the debacles that have taken place since Bush became president. And they can start off with his refusal to do reasonable dilegence about the threat of terrorism before 9/11, to his taking the heat of Bin Laden to wage an illegal war in Iraq and so on...

Bush is so concerned with this nations security that he was perfectly willing to sell the ports of this country to a middle eastern sheik.

Who gets the "heck of a job..." for Pakistan? Condi? "Heck of job, Condi."

Franklin wrote on December 27, 2007 8:47 PM:

Clearly it's still too early to tell exactly who is involved. However, regardless of whether Musharraf's passive acquiescence or active participation resulted in Bhutto's assassination, it's clear that he needs to resign. His rule has been an absolute disaster for Pakistan. It hasn't been much better as far as the U.S.'s strategic interests in the region are concerned. Those financial carrots need to be held back for the time being.

Nillion wrote on December 27, 2007 9:05 PM:

I was informed by one of my Pakistani acquaintances that the writer, Syed Saleem Shahzad, of the Italian news agency's article is a member of Pakistani intelligence. The wikipedia article on him states he is a journalist so take it for what it's worth.

Sally wrote on December 27, 2007 9:06 PM:

Why didn't the U.S. provide Bhutto protection, secretly, if necessary?

yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 9:12 PM:

how come my posts, where i cite another musharraf rival was targeted for assassination, aren't allowed through?

Kefa wrote on December 27, 2007 9:39 PM:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ

David frost interview very good viewing.

Andrew wrote on December 27, 2007 9:59 PM:

Why would it be beyond ones comprehension that this wasn't another head fake with a human life/lives ala 9/11? This could well have been another way to keep the war machinery in place in an attempt to keep the largest economy in the world from heading over a cliff.
While it may be too early to read the tea leaves, lives and other false flag events in past history were used as an excuse to maintain some presence in a part of the world we have no business being in. We have entered soverign countries under false pretense before and I wouldn't put anything past as corrupt a government as ours when it comes to foreign policy.
Wars and strife are grievences that are money making opportunities for those who make a living on death and destruction. Why should the events of today be any different other than using religious extreamism as another excuse to continue a money making opportunity?

getalife wrote on December 27, 2007 10:08 PM:

The military dictator likes that 5 billion w gave him and has no competition for the election next month.

Andrew wrote on December 27, 2007 10:15 PM:

Getalife.....The dictator and his 5 billion does have competition. It's probably any one of a number of Swiss banks that are holding those funds and buying into US banks that need a cash infusion because of bad sub-prime bets. So the bailout comes just in time.

Dan wrote on December 27, 2007 10:21 PM:

In the Bush/FoxNews world, anyone who is presumed Muslim committing an act of violence for presumed political purposes is Al Qaida -- there is no such concept as "being too quick to blame Al Qaida".

getalife wrote on December 27, 2007 10:48 PM:

Lets take a look at Pakistan tomorrow:

Lets look at tomorrow:

"Rawalpindi
December 28, 2007 - 10:44AM

Page 1 of 3 | Single page
Deadly violence has erupted across Pakistan after the assassination of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, which has plunged the nuclear-armed nation into one of the worst crises in its history.

Angry mobs have gone on the rampage in a wave of anger that has left at least 10 people dead and dozens wounded, officials said."

The Pakistani people know their military dictator killed her.

priscianus jr wrote on December 27, 2007 11:48 PM:

Brendan McDaid, at 7:10 pm,

No, it most certainly IS "cui bono." Apparently you have never heard of -- or else have utterly forgotten -- the dreaded DOUBLE DATIVE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Schoen/Double_dative

And besides, it is a very commonly used phrase.

Peter wrote on December 28, 2007 12:04 AM:

I don't know the situation in Pakistan well enough to state whether or not Bhutto could have been elected without making risky public appearances however, based on what happened on Oct. 18th, it seemed like Bhutto could have seen this coming. Wouldn't it have been wiser to stage limited, highly secure venues at this point?

Obviously democracy takes bravery and sacrifice - let’s hope that Bhutto’s, and that of her hundred-plus dead supporters, amounts to something.

phil james wrote on December 28, 2007 12:04 AM:

Lets look at the facts, shall we:
1) A previous bombing attempt was made on her life, hence there was almost certainly likely to be another attempt
2)Bhutto complained to Musharraf about the terrible security she was getting and he refused to help
3) One or more individuals (I believe the latter more likely) got close enough to her to kill her with a head and chest shot and then blow up witnesses and cause general choas immediately thereafter with a (suicide?) bomb
4) No one has pointed to any better explanation for this sequence of events than that it was done on behalf of Musharraf
5) All the wailing by the Musharraf gov't can be explained as theatre which is the basic explanation for his power base in the first place
6) If our intelligence operatives find sufficient evidence that he was behind it, he should quickly join his brother Saddam in hell

Charles wrote on December 28, 2007 12:21 AM:

Spencer, who pulled the trigger may not be as important as figuring out who removed the security shield. It's entirely possible that Musharraf-- or others in the chain of command-- reduced security knowing that groups who wanted to kill Bhutto would find a way.

There's no way that Musharraf is not morally responsible.

Mr.Murder wrote on December 28, 2007 3:01 AM:

Bhutto was Musharraf's easy out. She was ideal for conceding his stance with the West and not truly limiting his own role behind closed doors.

She was a face who could speak english well enough to shape PR, and she had ties to Western interests, and she was corrupt enough to let everyone profit off her rise to power once more.

Win-win for Musharraf.

This was a major loss for someone, unless the General had some kind of assurance he'd have our full force behind him. He's been trying to tightrope and act in that regard and distance self from the West domestically and still come into the view of internationalists. Bombing his countryside and the border along Afghanistan didn't seem to help this process...

To the extent this was retaliation for an opposition attack of recent, it looks like both are the result instead of intercine sabotage by any one of a swath of radicals who vary their fealthy to any cause or groups not their own.

To the extent this had any dealings with the Mid East Peace Conference remains to be seen. SEATO perhaps should have a greater role, but it's clear that the non-secular model of cultures within the Crescent is a major problem. Trying to develop any kind of working consensus between other states hits a roadblock. The background religious fervor seems to amplify ethnic underpinnings of discord and this carries across local borders in regional models.

Helena Montana wrote on December 28, 2007 5:06 AM:

It appears to me, from what limited information has been available, that in withholding adequate security from the campaigns of his rivals (particularly Bhutto) Musharraf was at the very least partially responsible for her death.

Manifestly he does not want to give up power, and the death of his chief political rival buys him a little time. He may not (or he may) have arranged her death, but he knew she was in grave danger and he didn't raise a finger to extend protection to her.

thepeoplechoose wrote on December 28, 2007 6:12 AM:

As for Bush / Cheney. I suspect not, but it wouldn't be the first time the U.S. has been involved in such a thing. As for the potential specifically as it relates to the administration, I think, given their record, they are absolutely capable of it. The Bush administration is very heavily invested in Musharraf and thus, in their customary style, are easily spooked by would be competitors and critics. That said, I still think (or very sincerely hope) the U.S. and the Bush administration wasn't involved. This is moot no matter what because we'll never know.

David wrote on December 28, 2007 8:21 AM:

Come on we all know it was the Jews!

Mike Kistler wrote on December 28, 2007 8:35 AM:

I just popped in from the right side blogs, quite a lot of silly speculation. I'm glad to see here that the left wing extremists are not to be out done. Both sides provide some welcome comic relief.

Claiming Bush responsible shows a serious lack of understanding. Your lot (on both sides of moderation) would fit in well with Al Qaeda had you been born over there. Why look at things logically when you can respond with anger and emotion?

Barry Halpern wrote on December 28, 2007 10:02 AM:

If we are to make the assumption that Musharraf was not involved, what does this tell us about him. 1) Given the weak security and related intel, it confirms that he was at the very least willingly complicit to let his enemies do his work for him. 2) It's another example of his scamming of Chimpy McPresident. Musharraf has taken the billions of unaccountable dollars and not only not gone after AQ in Pakistan, but not gone after other fundamentalist groups either.

It's all just another glaring example of how BushCo has screwed everything up. Ignoring the multitude of sins directly committed in Iraq, the lost opportunity of directing that money, time, and effort to other areas, first and foremost Pakistan, represents gross incompetence of the first order.

Just another reason to impeach: Cheney, then Bush, then Reid, then Pelosi. All guilty or proactively complicit in all of these disasters.

Barry Halpern wrote on December 28, 2007 10:05 AM:

Mike Kistler, Agree up to a point. But a couple of problems: Your hyperbole comparing random speculation to terrorism is just as bad if not worse than what you are criticizing in others. Also, much baseless suspicion of BushCo is their own fault due to their consistent policy of deceit and secrecy at all costs.

blaze wrote on December 28, 2007 10:19 AM:

Why would Al Queda kill the person who could defeat Musharraf in an election. Musharaff claims that he is the nemesis of Al Queda and is working to clear them out of the hills? He's a tiger against Al Queda...at least when he gets that fat check from the US.
Again.. if Musharaff is the nemesis if Al Queda why would they kill his political opponent?

anonymou wrote on December 28, 2007 10:52 AM:

Musharraf has everything to gain by killing Bhutto in a way that suggests it was done by militants/terrorists, especially al Qaeda.

What better reason to continue in his role of dictator and to delay any democratic reforms than an internal threat and what better way to placate the Bush administration's need to distract from its disastrous foreign policy in Pakistan than to manufacture a terrorist incident that spreads fear and uncertainty and let's Musharraf vocally condemn the terrorists without actually having to act against al Qaeda while giving Bush the same opportunity to spout his nonsense about demoncracy and terrorism.

An administration that stoops to torture and routinely commits human rights atrocities and which fundamentally supports assassination as a foreign policy method would hardly be adverse to conspiring with Musharraf to kill Bhutto and keep the fear of terrorism burning bright and take the focus off Musharraf's and Bush's dismal records on democracy and human rights.

Bassicdave wrote on December 29, 2007 1:15 AM:

Several commenters make reference to Bush/Cheney. That may not be getting enough airplay.

EVERYBODY profits from offing Ms. Bhutto: al Qaeda, taliban, Musharraf, every northern regional warlord, etc, and they can all profit without necessarily stepping on the toes of the others. Musharraf, in the pocket of the extremists, gets the deed done, he has one less opponent to worry about, the parochial interests in the North are sated, and Bush can throw up his hands and say "i told ya those muslims was trouble!"