Capitol Hill Blue Forums Hot Topics & Breaking News News Benazir Bhutto killed in bomb blast

Thank you, Gentlemen, I think that pretty much clears it up for me.
Once again I will feel safe eating TOFU as others may rest assured they can eat PETA with impunity.

Great post and great links a Knight!

That's very good, Rick. Obviously the ISI would not have to commit the crime themselves, but simply encourage the mujahadeen to go after her, and prevent any local police and militia from foiling the plot or adequately protecting her.

The US/Pakistan clandestine connection has a long and productive history. It was through Pakistan that the US was able to support the mujahadeen and defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan, which led to the implosion of the USSR. Bush and VP Dick Cheney want to stay in the region. A democratically elected leader in Pakistan gives the Neocons and the Zionists less control, not more.

Did the US government know of the plans to assassinate Bhutto? They'd be stupid not to have suspected it. They certainly have long standing and deep relations with ISI and tribal leaders in Pakistan. Does the US benefit from Bhutto's death? No, Americans don't, but it may just be that Neocons, Christiban loonies, and Zionist see Bhutto's death as an objective on the way toward achieving to their twisted goals.

What America should do is get the feck out of the region, period, stop meddling in the affairs of others nations and leave these people the feck alone. That is exactly what we will not do.

That would depend on who the "democratically elected" leader is, wouldn't it? And just how "democratically" they were elected.

Take Israel for example. Ehud Olmert was democratically elected. Contrast to Ismael Haniyeh, the "democratically elected" leader of Palestine. Hamid Karzai, the "democratically elected" leader of Afghanistan. Nuri al Maliki . . .

As Pastor ag pointed out on the RT today, Bhutto was the State Department's candidate of choice in Pakistan, and Sec. Rice had gone to great lengths to insure an orderly transition from Musharraf to Bhutto. Here my opinion differs from ag's however: he equates the State Dept. with the entire Bush Administration. I contend that there is a great schism between the "hawks" (Cheney and Co.) and the "realists" (Gates, Rice, et al). Not that any of them have particularly exemplary records, or intelligence, or proposals. But they are radically different, IMHO. Cheney's team was dead set against a recociliation between Bhutto and Musharraf, and would favor reimposing military rule - martial law - and indefinite postponement of elections in favor of keeping Musharraf in power.

So in the "who wins who loses" equation, I see Rice and Gates as losers, and Cheney and the neo-cons as winners among the Bush Administration (the figurehead-in-chief, of course, as clueless). What we are seeing in Pakistan is indefinite postponement of elections as the other principle candidate has already announced he is withdrawing, and the likelihood of reimposing martial law increases with the mass protests and violence spilling out on the streets of major cities.

This is ALL that has been on the news, yesterday and today We have CNN (the most trusted name in news) running a poll asking viewers whether or not elections should be postponed in Pakistan (the results of which are certainly going to appear in various candidate solutions for Pakistan). We have almost all presidential candidates stating, for the record, that they know everybody, have all the solutions and that they have personally called the players to tell them what they should do. Its an unending reportage of how America is telling those in Pakistan how to live their lives, vote, run their business, etc. It simply stuns me. I wonder, for instance, how we would have reacted had Pakistan told us how to deal after 911 - not well I suspect. I also find it interesting that we now know that 911 occurred because of administration incompetence and bureaucratic screw up which our government reacted to with more of the same and nobody seems to give a damn.

Where in the HELL do we get off telling everybody in the world how to live their lives? No wonder people are a little pissed at us. I think, in this case, we feel this way because we gave them 10 billion dollars (which, incidentally, seems to have gone up in smoke with nary a receipt). Anyway, I think its also interesting that we are feeling free to tell them how to run their own country but couldn't be less interested in how they spent 10 billion of our tax payer dollars! (anybody else notice a pattern here?) Interesting? Perhaps something else entirely? I wonder, for instance, (given our own experience with governmental meddling, and the results thereof) what the track record really is for those countries which actually do what we tell them. One would think that, if we do such a wonderful job, that the newsies would be singing praises - haven't heard any of those lately. On the other hand there does seem to be a LOT of chaos when we do get involved.

My thought is that ANY candidate that claims to have the solution to Pakistan and ANY candidate that claims to have called Pakistan with directions as to what to do should NOT be voted for under any circumstances. We have, I think, enough problems without electing yet another nation building meddler of the third world. I think the real question is; "If the candidate lived next to you would you want him to come over, every day, and organize YOUR life?"

CNN online reports Hillary is calling for an immediate, in depth international investigation of Bhutto's death.

Oh, great! That's the kind of leadership I'm looking for. We all just love it when Bush does that sh*t and Bush does that sh*t so well. Now Hillary wants to follow suit. Hillary is more like Bush than any other Democrat.

Oh, Gawd, please let Hillary be our next president. It'll be like having Bush with a working brain or Cheney with a working heart. That's it, Hillary as president will be like having Cheney with a working heart and bigger t*ts. Oh, please, please let Hillary be our president.

You know, it would seem to me that the veracity of Pervez's claim that Islamic terrorists, especially Al Queda, committed this assassination, can easily be put to the test:

Does he now embark on all-out military operations against Al Queda and the rebel territories? If he is serious, then this is the proper course of action.

If he does not do this, than he is essentially complicit in the assassination, if not before (which I suspect is quite likely) then certainly after the fact.

I wonder how much of that "schism" is for show, and how much is real. I doubt that their differences have led to any serious changes in how US policy is brought about. I frankly cannot think of a time where we can clearly point to A) and say, this was VP Cheney, or B) this was Sec.State Condi's input.

part of the problem is that the whole WH controls the message far more than controlling their decision-making, and regardless of who won (if anyone) their message machine is there in spades.

I agree, but for an entirely different reason.

First off, our great and wonderful President has never wanted to inquire about anything or even investigate anything - not even 9/11 - look at all of the arm twisting that took.

I think Hillary is like Mr Bush in that her Administration will be full of shenanigans and cover-ups as well - like a Bush Redux - but only a Democratic one.