Comments (7)

Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 7, 2008 11:52 AM:

But was it a single bullet?

Where was Cheney at the time?

Dee Illuminati wrote on January 7, 2008 12:54 PM:

I saw the interview last night on 60 minutes and thought Musharraf did an OK job of pointing out that there was a security lapse that Bhutto engaged in when she did put her head outside the sun roof of the car. That much is not disputed, and two other questions: Was she wearing body armor? Well some sources state that she inquired about body armor but that there was an export control on US armor, and yet a simple web search shows that there are body armor manufacturers and sales in Karachi, and trust me that Katachi is a "black arms market." If she had wanted Body armor it is readily available in Karachi!

I found the speculation that she had been killed with a laser interesting and for my part 'tin-foil' speculation. That had a twist that I found interesting and unnecessarily spculative. I discount the narrative where a firearm was used but it created a new and unique wound. It is pure propganda to imagine that the US would directly use this technology and not instead use a more explainable and acceptable means and sources even if it was behind the assasination, which I find difficult to believe. From Occums Razor standpoint, this was disinformation and pure 'tin-foil' fantasy.

What I did find interesting was that there were security force 'protection' snipers deployed. I would like to see a google earth satelite photo of the BLDG's in the immediate vicinity and the location of the vehicle when the blast took place.

Giving Musharraf the benefit of the doubt that he expressed in the 60 minutes interview, I can see his frustration with the security dilligence that Bhutto took. There is still no definitive word, was she or was she not wearing body armor? And her decision to stick her head out of the window of that car did precipitate and invite the incident that led to her assasination.

But it would be difficult to wonder why the Pakistan government would cling to the story surrounding the assasination and have not performed a post-mortem as Pakistan law dictates, and have created the cirucmstance that there is now, if the cause of death was indeed a fractured skull?

And I feel that the reaction by Bhutto was at best fatalistic and obstinate if she insisted on campaigning if she felt that the threat assesmnents she was receiving were designed to limit her ability to campaign and interpreted the threats as 'intimidation' which she retaliated against by continuing to appear in public.

And finally, I wonder.. wonder.. if the rounds that were issued to the snipers that comprised the security force to protect Bhutto were accounted for? I wonder if a sniper kept her in sight, and then squeezed off a round as a reaction to the blast?

Without post-mortem analysis, and I think a valid question: was Bhutto wearing body armor? Can we evaluate the dilligence conditions that Bhutto sought, and the facts that contributed to her death, to get a fuller idea of what actually happened as the films seem to contradict the narrative of cause of death and ongoing speculation.

I still think that the shot was lower in the left shoulder, and/or a shot that was received from an elevated position.

And finally, what was the calibure and make of the pistol that we saw on the film? Has the shots fired been accounted for? Have these rounds been located in a BLDG?

Yep still allot of questions, and no doubt that Bhutto would be alive if she had kept her head down.

bob h wrote on January 7, 2008 1:21 PM:

If the charlatan Musharaff is so sure that jihadi X did the assassination, why hasn't a Pakistani army division been dispatched to the tribal areas to mete out some punishment? Because the assassination did him a favor, that's why.

kingweasil wrote on January 7, 2008 1:54 PM:

all this time we've thought it was a sunroofing...

Tec619 wrote on January 7, 2008 3:04 PM:

I don't understand the Musharaff government's obsession with the bitch-hit-her-head-during-a SUCCESSFUL ASSASSINATION-attack theory.

Bhutto died as a result of an Inter-Services Intelligence agency's(smirk, smirk)sponsored hit. What possible difference does it make it an assassin attempt to shoot his target and the target cracks his skull open in an attempt to evade the bullets or dies because the concussion created by a bomb throws the targets head violently against a car roof and causes some sort of hematoma?

What possible difference does it make? Bhutto is STILL dead.

Is it me? Or has my experience as an American made me culturally cloistered. (Despite significant travel overseas on military active and reserve duty.)

Tec619 wrote on January 7, 2008 3:05 PM:

I don't understand the Musharaff government's obsession with the bitch-hit-her-head-during-a SUCCESSFUL ASSASSINATION-attack theory.

Bhutto died as a result of an Inter-Services Intelligence agency's(smirk, smirk)sponsored hit. What possible difference does it make it an assassin attempt to shoot his target and the target cracks his skull open in an attempt to evade the bullets or dies because the concussion created by a bomb throws the targets head violently against a car roof and causes some sort of hematoma?

What possible difference does it make? Bhutto is STILL dead.

Is it me? Or has my experience as an American made me culturally cloistered. (Despite significant travel overseas on military active and reserve duty.)

Jon Leslie wrote on January 8, 2008 5:31 PM:

Death by assassination is a BIG deal in Pakistan. It washes away a lot of sins, and creates a martyr for citizens to follow. That's just the way it is in Pakistan.
If Musharaff could could make the official cause of death "An unfortunate bonk on the head", he denies her followers the Martyr label they want.
The bottom line is that she probably was shot. And I wouldn't rule out another big bonk on the head when she got to the hospital to make sure she was dead. The first report from the doctor treating her was that she had been shot. The second said she died of blunt force trauma. Maybe both statements were technically correct...
snark