Breaking: Benazir Bhutto killed in bomb attack; Update: Al Qaeda claims responsibility? Additional updates

posted at 8:48 am on December 27, 2007 by Bryan

Sky News:

Pakistan Opposition leader Benazir Bhutto has died after a suicide attack at a political rally.

She was undergoing emergency surgery at a nearby hospital for a suspected neck injury, Sky News sources say.

The explosion went off just after Ms Bhutto left the rally in Rawalpindi, minutes after her speech to thousands of people.

At least 15 people died in the attack in the heart of Pakistan’s military and parliamentary district.

More: The Sun reports that Bhutto’s assassination was carried out by a suicide bomber.

Update (AP): Fox News says she was shot twice in the neck before the bomb went off, so obviously it was a coordinated attack. The first line of this post, from the last time she was attacked, is worth considering. Bhutto herself blamed jihadis for that one but her husband accused the intelligence services of complicity. Given Musharraf’s unpopularity and antipathy to Bhutto, a lot of fingers are going to be pointing at him. God only knows how destabilizing this will prove to be.

Update (AP): Photos are coming in at Getty. Some are graphic so beware.

Update (AP): Right on cue:

“It may have been pellets packed into the suicide bomber’s vest that hit her,” Javed Cheema, an interior ministry spokesman said.

Her supporters at the hospital began chanting “Dog, Musharraf, dog,” referring to Pakistan’s President, Pervez Musharraf. Some of them smashed the glass door at the main entrance of the emergency unit, others burst into tears.

Just how ambitious was the plan here? Take note:

The latest bombing was the second outbreak of political violence in Pakistan today. Earlier, gunmen opened fire on supporters of another former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, from an office of the party that supports President Musharraf, killing four Sharif supporters, police said.

Mr Sharif was several kilometres away from the shooting and was on his way to Rawalpindi after attending a rally.

Update (AP): The Daily Mail says she was shot by the suicide bomber at close range, and then the bomb went off shortly after.

Update (AP): They tried to kill her yesterday, too: “At her homecoming reception in the port city of Karachi, suicide bombing attacks killed 140 people. Her appearances had drawn large crowds and stringent security checkpoints. At a rally in Peshawar on Wednesday, police stopped a would-be bomber with explosives around his neck. Thursday’s rally was relatively sparsely attended, according to those present, apparently because people feared additional attempts at violence.”

More: CNN has video of the immediate aftermath of the attack.

Update (AP): The Beeb says Rawalpindi is one of the most secure cities in Pakistan thanks to the military garrison there, but of late it’s been infested with jihadis: “In recent weeks, suicide bombers have repeatedly targeted security forces in Rawalpindi, a city near the capital where Musharraf stays and the Pakistan army has its headquarters.”

Update (AP): The first photo at the top here might be the last taken of her.

Update (AP): More blame for Musharraf:

Rehman Malik, Bhutto’s security advisor said: “We repeatedly informed the government to provide her proper security and appropriate equipment including jammers, but they paid no heed to our requests”.

Update (AP): Drudge has a teaser up saying Musharraf was at her bedside. I can’t find any stories to that effect, but Fox News says Nawaz Sharif was there.

Update (AP): The first inevitable warnings of civil war start to trickle in.

Update: The assassination occurred in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, which is near the capital Islamabad.

rawalpind.png

A quick Google search turns up stories that al Qaeda 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was picked up in a house in that city when he was arrested in March 2003.

Update (AP): Well, who knows. It’s not like they’re going to deny responsibility if asked.

A spokesperson for the al-Qaeda terrorist network has claimed responsibility for the death on Thursday of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

“We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahadeen,” Al-Qaeda’s commander and main spokesperson Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid told Adnkronos International (AKI) in a phone call from an unknown location, speaking in faltering English. Al-Yazid is the main al-Qaeda commander in Afghanistan…

Death squads were allegedly constituted for the mission and ultimately one cell comprising a defunct Lashkar-i-Jhangvi’s Punjabi volunteer succeeded in killing Bhutto.

Update: Mark Steyn, a former next-door-neighbor of Bhutto’s, notes the “horrible inevitability” that has occurred today.

Update: Statements from the presidential candidates are starting to come in. Rudy Giuliani’s was the first, followed by Mike Huckabee. Mitt Romney has also issued a statement and video comment.

Update: The rest of the candidates are starting to weigh in. Barack Obama has issued a statement. McCain has as well, but I haven’t found it online yet. Clinton will issue a statement shortly.

Update: USA Today’s blog has a round-up of candidate reactions.

Update:
Speaking on CNN a few minutes ago, John McCain noted that there have been 9 attempts on Pervez Musharraf’s life by Islamic militants. There had also been several attempts on Bhutto’s life just in the couple of months since she had returned from exile. It’s always tempting to blame an imperfect non-democratic ruler when there is political violence in his country, but it strikes me as unlikely that Musharraf would have had any involvement in Bhutto’s assassination. He reluctantly allowed her back into the country, both because she was a political threat to him but also because he could not guarantee her safety.

That’s not to say that the ISI is absolved. It’s known to be corrupted by elements that support jihad. But the most obvious beneficiary of Bhutto’s death is al Qaeda and its various allies who create chaos and revel in death in the name of their twisted ambitions. A Pakistan in turmoil is a Pakistan that is weakened as an enemy of jihad.

Update (AP): “I am not afraid. I am ready to die for my country.”

Update (AP): Further to Steyn’s post scoffing at the folly of American diplomats trying to force a shotgun wedding between Musharraf and Bhutto in an increasingly unstable Pakistan, the State Department wonders “what now?”

Update: Bill Richardson reacts to Bhutto’s assassination by insisting that Musharraf must resign. Which would, at least in the short term, add a whole lot of instability to a chaotic situation. Who would replace Musharraf? Richardson doesn’t speculate on that.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I don’t have an argument with Debbie on this fact. But the assertion that a leader with strong popular support in a nuclear armed nation with a lot of political turmoil and crazy assed jihadis all over the place being wacked is a good thing, I ain’t buying that!

conservnut on December 27, 2007 at 2:01 PM

No sale here either!

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 2:04 PM

quoting Peter Watson: The inconvenient truth is that the West should be exporting secularism around the world before it exports democracy.

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 1:15 PM

Democracy is tough enough to export around the Middle East…but selling secularism to Islamic countries seems quite impossible to me. Like it or not, Islam IS the state in those countries. Unlike the democratized West. So secularism is out of the question.

Democracy is a brand new thing to most of those people…and it will take some time to adjust to it. But it’s the best defense we have.

JetBoy on December 27, 2007 at 2:05 PM

Ron Paul chimed in yet?

BallisticBob on December 27, 2007 at 2:09 PM

So secularism is out of the question.

JetBoy on December 27, 2007 at 2:05 PM

Not really.

Difficult yes, but Turkey has a certain amount of secularism, even Iran does, particularly among the young. Not all are Saudi Arabias.

But in any case, without it democracy is a “cure” that only seems to aggravate the disease of Islam.”

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 2:17 PM

Didn’t Muslims invent Democracy?

/

BL@KBIRD on December 27, 2007 at 2:27 PM

My four year old daughter wonders why someone killed the president of Pat Catan’s. (Craft Centers)

Buck Turgidson on December 27, 2007 at 2:31 PM

…but Turkey has a certain amount of secularism

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 2:17 PM

Ahh, but Turkey has the distinctions of being the only real democracy in the Muslim world. They’ve known democracy for quite some time.

And doesn’t democracy, over time, lead to that certain amount of secularism?

Like I said…Democracy in the Muslim world is not meant to be a “quick fix”. It will take time. But they would be much better able to adapt to the West’s modern way of thinking through democracy, rather than by reversing everything they know and love in Islam by trying to make them secular.

JetBoy on December 27, 2007 at 2:36 PM

Democracy doesn’t alway go the way we’d all like it to go. But in the long term, it always works. And it’s always better than the alternatives.

Democracies have trouble when they don’t have a constitution strong enough to withstand a powerful leader who can suppress opposition. Germany’s Weimar Republic gave way through elections and legal measures to the Nazis. In the long run that didn’t turn out well for Germany or the rest of the world.

It isn’t enough to deploy election booths and trust that democracy is a messy process that will always work out well in the end. The real value of the US Constitution is that it recognizes rights that elected officials can’t take away.

Much of the time elections are garbage in & garbage out. The real value of a democracy is the quality of its constitution.

dedalus on December 27, 2007 at 2:48 PM

The real value of a democracy is the quality of its constitution.

dedalus on December 27, 2007 at 2:48 PM

And Iraq’s constitution enshrines Islamic law, so looks like we’re in really peachy keen good shape there then.

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 2:57 PM

There is sentiment floating about the blogosphere that very few in Pak will blame Mushariff for this assassination. He warned her not to come back and pleaded with her to accept more security, which she refused to accept. In fact, there is credible evidence that with renewed US support aimed at avoiding a sudden power vacume, Mush will see this as a moment to commit large numbers of troops to the North to exterminate AlQ, the Taliban and their tribal supporters.

All will take is lots and lots of money…er, make that US dollar, to keep the Paki generals calm.

DrW on December 27, 2007 at 3:02 PM

How well does anyone think that democracy or even whatever they have as a form of constitution now will work out in say France in 100 years if/when Islam becomes the majority religion there?

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 3:04 PM

And Iraq’s constitution enshrines Islamic law, so looks like we’re in really peachy keen good shape there then.

I’m not planning on buying any real estate in the Baghdad area this year. If David Petraeus is reassigned to Karachi, that won’t be helpful for the Iraqis.

dedalus on December 27, 2007 at 3:10 PM

People

Remember that it was under Bhutto that the Taliban came to power in Afghanistan, and that the decision to make them Pakistan’s leading puppet in the region was hers, and her intelligence chief Nasiruddin Babur. Please don’t kid yourselves that she was a moderate.

She was the ultimate taquiyya artist – Arafat and Khatami weren’t so believable.

infidelpride on December 27, 2007 at 3:13 PM

I think his legacy in keeping us safe since 9/11 speaks for itself.

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 1:34 PM

Then, I guess you’d say that Bill Clinton has the same legacy, since there were no attacks on us after the ’93 WTC bombings for the rest of his Presidency? There will be more attacks. They are biding our time. We are not safer under Bush. We are less safe and getting more so.

I for one will remember you said that in the days and weeks to come. We will see how your foreign policy looking glass works out. And during the chaos, bloodletting and destabilization that ensues . . . .

conservnut on December 27, 2007 at 1:45 PM

Um, the chaos has already started, because Bush forced Musharraf to take her back. Have you not noticed the riots over the last few months, that she instigated. I never said the country wasn’t unstable already. It was. She made it worse. And she and her husband are convicted criminals who committed money-laundering against the Pakistani people (convicted in Switzerland). Puh-leeze. The gushing over this woman is incredible. The Empress Wears No Clothing. I do happen to know a little something about the Middle East, which I have studied for decades, despite your attempts to denigrate what I’m saying above all the ill-informed, ignorant gushing.

a leader with strong popular support

conservnut on December 27, 2007 at 2:01 PM

Where did you get that she had strong popular support? Her party–in the last election–was soundly defeated (Oct. 2002). The only place she is popular in Pakistan is in the Sindh Region.

Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 3:15 PM

May she rest in peace.

As to her other qualities they can be debated another time.

It is doubtful she was a saint, but then few of us are.

MarkB on December 27, 2007 at 3:26 PM

Benazir’s death is a huge setback to hopes of stability in Pakistan, a nuclear power, and neighboring Afghanistan. As an ally against al Qaeda and Muslim radicals, Washington had pressed Musharraf to allow her return from exile, pinning hopes on her strong presence in the post-election Islamabad government for a more determined assault on al Qaeda and the Taliban than Musharraf’s flagging effort.

The Bush administration failed to take into account the number of Benazir’s enemies at home, ranging from al Qaeda and other radical groups to the Pakistan army and SIS intelligence. Her demise is a grave blow to Washington’s plans for a stable de-radicalized Pakistan and a coup for al Qaeda and its fellow extremists.
- DEBKA

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 3:27 PM

but then few of us are.

MarkB on December 27, 2007 at 3:26 PM

Amen. Surgery is often required to extract my foot from my mouth (or elsewhere).

Limerick on December 27, 2007 at 3:29 PM

Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 3:15 PM

I don’t accept that analogy. First, I don’t believe that Bill Clinton could not have been relied upon in that regard. He couldn’t even take military action against Iraq without having a town meeting. His response to the ’93 bombing was to treat it as a criminal investigation, build a wall between the CIA and FBI, and so forth.

Secondly, The Patriot Act and other measures that Bush has taken (and the Left have strenuously objected to) have prevented attacks. He deserves credit for that.

I don’t disagree with you that it was a very bad idea to encourage Musharraf to take her back and Bush was misguided to force that.

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 3:31 PM

Yikes, make that – I don’t believe that Bill Clinton could have been relied upon in that regard.

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 3:32 PM

Then, I guess you’d say that Bill Clinton has the same legacy, since there were no attacks on us after the ‘93 WTC bombings for the rest of his Presidency?

Actually, subsequent to that attack, there were four during the Clinton Administration. Just a reminder.

baldilocks on December 27, 2007 at 3:36 PM

I do happen to know a little something about the Middle East, which I have studied for decades, despite your attempts to denigrate what I’m saying above all the ill-informed, ignorant gushing.

Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 3:15 PM

Fine, Miz Deb. You know something about the Middle East. Guess what? Whoop-t-doo-doo! Right or wrong, your constant bashing & badgering of readers on this board doesn’t teach anybody anything. Try writing like we are equals instead writing to us like we are “beneath you”.

Like I said, I’ll continue to read Michelle Malkin and put more stock into what she has to say on the subject. She at least, has respect for her readers.

May she rest in peace.

As to her other qualities they can be debated another time.

It is doubtful she was a saint, but then few of us are.

MarkB on December 27, 2007 at 3:26 PM

Good point.

SouthernPride on December 27, 2007 at 3:39 PM

Debbie Schlussel,

I neglected to mention what else occurred during the Clinton years in addition to the ’93 World Trade Center attacks, which undermines your assertion that “there were no more attacks”. Did they occur on American soil? No. Were they direct attacks against Americans? Yes. -

1996 Khobar Towers, 1998 African Embassy Bombings, 2000 USS Cole.

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 3:46 PM

baldilocks on December 27, 2007 at 3:36 PM

I forgot about Oklahoma City.

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 3:49 PM

First, I don’t believe that Bill Clinton could not have been relied upon in that regard. He couldn’t even take military action against Iraq without having a town meeting.

Actually, Clinton’s Operation Desert Fox was successful in degrading Saddam’s weapons capability. Our military gathered more evidence about the December 1998 attack after the fall of Saddam in 2003, and it is clear that ODF made Saddam much less of a threat to the region or to the United States.

dedalus on December 27, 2007 at 3:51 PM

Ahh, but Turkey has the distinctions of being the only real democracy in the Muslim world. They’ve known democracy for quite some time.

And doesn’t democracy, over time, lead to that certain amount of secularism?

Like I said…Democracy in the Muslim world is not meant to be a “quick fix”. It will take time. But they would be much better able to adapt to the West’s modern way of thinking through democracy, rather than by reversing everything they know and love in Islam by trying to make them secular.

JetBoy on December 27, 2007 at 2:36 PM

Turkey retains some semblance of secular democracy because it is forced by the watchful eye of the Turkish military who step in when the Islamists start to get the upper hand. Without a Turkish military committed to secular principles, espoused by Atarak, Turkey would have degenerated long ago. I hope you notice who is in power over there right now, even though they are treading rather softly. Democracy in Islamic countries will always revert without a gatekeeper because it is a political movement and has the numbers.

a capella on December 27, 2007 at 3:52 PM

1996 Khobar Towers, 1998 African Embassy Bombings, 2000 USS Cole.

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 3:46 PM

If you want to play that “game”, bringing in attacks not on U.S. soil, there have been literally thousands of AQI attacks on Americans since 9/11/01.

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 3:54 PM

If you want to play that “game”, bringing in attacks not on U.S. soil, there have been literally thousands of AQI attacks on Americans since 9/11/01.

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 3:54 PM

Attacks on individuals are one matter. However the attacks on the US in the nineties to which we are referring were constrained to American entities: the military and embassies.

baldilocks on December 27, 2007 at 3:57 PM

Ok, baldi, I’ll make it easy on you.

Just list one thousand Islamist terrorist attacks on Americans since Sept 11, 2001.

corona on December 27, 2007 at 4:03 PM

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 3:54 PM

Attacks on our embassies and our Navy is effectively a direct attack on us. If you can name “literally thousands” of similar attacks by AQ, be my guest.

dedalus on December 27, 2007 at 3:51 PM

Okay, I’ll give you Desert Fox. The fact remains that the Clinton Administration used Town Meetings to push it’s policy initiatives. I don’t think that meeting with a bunch of college students and giving them a platform to rage about racist wars is the wisest way to conduct foreign policy.

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 4:05 PM

Ok, baldi, I’ll make it easy on you.

Just list one thousand Islamist terrorist attacks on Americans since Sept 11, 2001.

corona on December 27, 2007 at 4:03 PM

Why?

baldilocks on December 27, 2007 at 4:18 PM

Attacks on our embassies and our Navy is effectively a direct attack on us. If you can name “literally thousands” of similar attacks by AQ AQI, be my guest.

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 4:05 PM

So IED and sniper and RPG and mortar attacks on our Soldiers and Marines don’t count?

Just wait till I tell them! They will be so pleased.

Only on State Department types and Sailors then? I will have to make a note.

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 4:26 PM

There’s a fine line between courage and recklessness, and I don’t know what Bhutto expected to accomplish. This result was inevitable and I don’t see anything positive coming out of it, or how it helps the cause of Democracy in Pakistan…

It’s all part of the Long War with Islamists.

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 10:04 AM

BD, this was my first thought this morning, on topic. Btw, even when we disagree (on other topics), I like to read your comments because you put much thought into them, and you’re courageous to fight for whatever you believe in.

The West better wake up – the spiral is steepening and speeding up. I agree that this ‘democracy’ thing is not working, though I don’t know what the alternative is. Sharia must be stopped at all costs, even with the most drastic measures. It’s hard to blame Bush, or not to blame him. Those who claim definitively to know, from both camps, are wrong. We will be bedeviled for possibly 50-100 years and the means of fighting/not fighting the wild ones, both physical and ideaological, will either kill or preserve us. Political correctness will rob us of our freedoms, more than anything else.

On Debbie Schluessel – substance loses out to style.

Entelechy on December 27, 2007 at 4:27 PM

So IED and sniper and RPG and mortar attacks on our Soldiers and Marines don’t count?

As terror attacks? I’d say no.

baldilocks on December 27, 2007 at 4:28 PM

We’re at war with them. We weren’t at Khobar and in Nairobi, etc.

baldilocks on December 27, 2007 at 4:29 PM

Benazir Bhutto said this about Hillary Clinton in an interview in September …

Q: “Why do you think that the U.S. seems to have a harder time with women at the highest level of power than other countries?”

A: “In a country like Pakistan or India, when a charismatic leader dies, people are not sure that the traditions he symbolized will continue—there’s a lot of illiteracy and there isn’t the same access to information. So they tend to transfer allegiance from a male leader to a female descendant, in the hope that his policies will be continued. But in Westernized societies, it’s a little different, because people have greater education and greater access to information—they don’t have the same need to be sure of the message of the leader.”…

http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/38043/

Oh ok.

sonnyspats1 on December 27, 2007 at 4:32 PM

I hope this turns out to be a massive misstep by AQ; in Iraq they pushed people and were brutal, which meant that even some recalcitrant Iraqis became friendlier towards US troops.

What is alarming are the comments on the Blotter site linked to by Drudge:

Note the fear this will be used as an excuse to go in to Pakistan and that there should be no more war, ergo, no more suffering. So bombs by AQ, attempted assassinations that kill innocents, militant Islamists who kill unbelievers and murder those who try to shut AQ down… that’s not suffering? War challenges oppressive political systems and ideologies… but apparently living under one of them is preferable to fighting for freedom.

It’s enough to make your head spin, it’s so crazy.

linlithgow on December 27, 2007 at 4:35 PM

CNN has guest after guest saying it is our falt for not giving her security. My blood preasure can only stand that network for 5 min at a time

KBird on December 27, 2007 at 4:35 PM

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 4:26 PM

You can’t be serious. Not only are they not terror attacks according to any reasonable definition, our presence in Iraq serves a purpose in that it prevents terrorists from gaining more territory, oil, and other tools with which to build their Caliphate dreams.

By the way, I am not interested in revisiting the Iraq War and arguing why we should or should not be there. It’s just one battlefield in the long war.

Entelechy on December 27, 2007 at 4:27 PM

Sometimes I think Ann Coulter had a point when she said we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. :-)

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 4:42 PM

And she and her husband are convicted criminals who committed money-laundering against the Pakistani people (convicted in Switzerland).
Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 3:15 PM

I would be a little more skeptical of that little factoid Debbie. The conviction in Pakistan was overturned by the Supreme Court after they proved that the original Judge was pressured for political reasons to convict. That conviction lead to the conviction in Switzerland which is on appeal for the same reasons and was due to be heard in early 2008. Unfortunately she will never get that court date and folks like you will continue to use it as fodder to slam her.

I do happen to know a little something about the Middle East, which I have studied for decades
Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 3:15 PM

Perhaps you should study a bit more.

conservnut on December 27, 2007 at 4:45 PM

Instead of promoting secularism around the globe we should promote capitalism as a first step towards democracy.

Why blow someone up when you can make money off of them?

linlithgow on December 27, 2007 at 4:55 PM

Right or wrong, your constant bashing & badgering of readers on this board doesn’t teach anybody anything. Try writing like we are equals instead writing to us like we are “beneath you”.

SouthernPride on December 27, 2007 at 3:39 PM

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 3:46 PM

Before you waste your time using facts and logic to argue with our own version of Fred Phelps and Deb Frisch and Chuck Adkins all rolled into one, you ought to learn a little about her history in the right wing blogosphere.

I apologize for engaging her above. I’ve seen enough of her to know better.

Here’s a few links to get you started. Misha covers it particularly well, and provides plenty of additional links. You’ll especially enjoy the bit about the “Mexican” eagle – it’s a hoot. At the very least, Miss Debbie is entertaining.

And she at least serves the purpose of reminding us all of how lucky we are to have folks like Michelle and Bryan and AP.

http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/?p=478
http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/?p=312
http://bamapachyderm.com/archives/2006/04/02/debbie-schlussel-strikes-again/
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/166305.php
http://decision08.net/2006/04/02/my-apology-to-debbie-schlussel/
http://ronbeas2.blogspot.com/2006/04/dreadful-debbie-schlussel.html
http://www.thedonovan.com/beth/archives/005381.html

Perhaps you should study a bit more.

conservnut on December 27, 2007 at 4:45 PM

On Debbie Schluessel – substance loses out to style.

Entelechy on December 27, 2007 at 4:27 PM

Indeed.

Professor Blather on December 27, 2007 at 4:55 PM

And NOBODY is talking about the prick David Schuster and his comments this morning on MSNBC. Maybe nobody is watching but I fear that America is dumbed down to believe this tripe! Why is this moron and idiot on the air…only because NBC is a militant left wing news org.

sabbott on December 27, 2007 at 5:10 PM

My God…Chris Mathews is now saying that Hillary Clinton is going to benefit from this! And the Lamestream Media will let them get by with this!!!

sabbott on December 27, 2007 at 5:11 PM

Professor Blather on December 27, 2007 at 4:55 PM

Man, those links provide some harsh reading. I didn’t know the lady till today. Apparently she wasn’t just having an off day here.

a capella on December 27, 2007 at 5:11 PM

Thanks Prof.

I shall refrain from feeding that troll in the future.

conservnut on December 27, 2007 at 5:13 PM

Very much ON topic are these photos from the crime scene. The site is a little unbridled so caution is advised if you are in a bipartisan environment.

sonnyspats1 on December 27, 2007 at 5:13 PM

Rule 1. Do not feed the Troll!
Rule 2. If you feel you must feed the Troll, Refer to Rule #1

Guest1.1 on December 27, 2007 at 5:21 PM

My God…Chris Mathews is now saying that Hillary Clinton is going to benefit from this!
sabbott on December 27, 2007 at 5:11 PM

She probably will benefit, at least as far as securing the nomination. She will paint herself as a valiant leader, separated at birth from Bhutto, appeal to the sisterhood, and so on. The MSM will only see the positive things about Bhutto, ignoring the foolishness, recklessness, and lies.

I don’t know if you read this Hitchens story on her from the Headlines but I see quite a bit of Hillary in Bhutto, and that’s not a good thing.

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 5:27 PM

The Main news page on Yahoo has the following:

Washington faces charges it didn’t do enough to protect the slain Pakistani leader

You can read the article on the page and see whom is saying this, but I am pretty sure we don’t provide security to foreign nationals unless we happen to be in a war zone there.

Ravenlike on December 27, 2007 at 5:29 PM

My condolences to Ms Bhutto’s family and friends, the people of Pakistan and the families and friends of the others murdered today. Pray for our troops and their families because its going to get worse before it gets better.
May God give our leaders the wisdom to move forward correctly in this “War on Terror”.

Guest1.1 on December 27, 2007 at 5:31 PM

I do happen to know a little something about the Middle East, which I have studied for decades

Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 3:15 PM

Perhaps you should study a bit more.

conservnut on December 27, 2007 at 4:45 PM

Good one conservnut! My thoughts are that her studies are the culmination of sitting on crapper while taking online courses from the University of Phoenix.

Thanks for the warnings about her Prof. Blather. I didn’t realize how sadistic the cud chewin’ cow actually is.
BTW, how is Ron Paul’s blimp today?

SouthernPride on December 27, 2007 at 5:42 PM

So many fanatics. So little reason. If not today it would have been tomorrow–or the next day, or the next day, or the next day……’ad infinitum’.

MaiDee on December 27, 2007 at 5:46 PM

Professor Blather on December 27, 2007 at 4:55 PM

Wow, did you actually go dig it all up or what? You even had things I’d never seen. She’ll never escape the “Not one of ours” campaign.

SouthernDem on December 27, 2007 at 6:10 PM

I don’t think that meeting with a bunch of college students and giving them a platform to rage about racist wars is the wisest way to conduct foreign policy.

I’d agree that is a bad idea.

dedalus on December 27, 2007 at 6:17 PM

You can’t be serious.

Of course I am serious. Would I kid you?

Not only are they not terror attacks according to any reasonable definition,

So you think that Soldiers and Marines are insentient.

our presence in Iraq serves a purpose in that it prevents terrorists from gaining more territory, oil, and other tools with which to build their Caliphate dreams.

You really must disabuse yourself of this notion. AQI is Sunni. Most Iraqis are Shiite, as is Iran, they are not going to let AQI take over Iraq. Even most Sunnis don’t like AQI.

By the way, I am not interested in revisiting the Iraq War and arguing why we should or should not be there.

So even though you don’t sound like even you are sure if “we” should still be there after 5 years, you think that our Soldiers and Marines should just stay anyway.

It’s just one battlefield in the long war.

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 4:42 PM

Finally you are making some progress.

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 6:58 PM

Deaths in battle aren’t the same as deaths from terror attacks, MB4.

baldilocks on December 27, 2007 at 7:02 PM

You guys cackling about your dislike of Debbie Schlussel reminds me of the cell phone guys planning to “do stuff” to Chad from Alltel. You don’t have to agree with her, fine. You guys make it personal though, not her. You can dig up whatever crap you want that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. It doesn’t make you look any smarter. I can always tell who lost a debate by who starts calling people names.

Buck Turgidson on December 27, 2007 at 7:05 PM

On Debbie Schluessel – substance loses out to style.

Entelechy on December 27, 2007 at 4:27 PM

From this arises an argument: whether it is better to have style than substance. I reply that one should like to have both one and the other; but since it is difficult to join them together, it is much better to have substance than to have style when one of the two must be lacking.
- Debbie Machiavelli

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 7:11 PM

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 6:58 PM

You did a great job of getting everything hopelessly wrong. Time for a little Mark Twain!

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 7:13 PM

Deaths in battle aren’t the same as deaths from terror attacks, MB4.

baldilocks on December 27, 2007 at 7:02 PM

Most of the American Soldier and Marine deaths in Iraq are NOT in battle.

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 7:50 PM

You did a great job of getting everything hopelessly wrong.

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 7:13 PM

I have been broadcasting at the proper frequency.
Your receiver must be on the fritz again.

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 8:05 PM

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 8:05 PM

Nobody defines terrorist attacks on the United States as you do.

Here is a perfect example of how you distort things:

I said:

By the way, I am not interested in revisiting the Iraq War and arguing why we should or should not be there.

You respond:

So even though you don’t sound like even you are sure if “we” should still be there after 5 years, you think that our Soldiers and Marines should just stay anyway.

I think “we” need to be there as long as it takes and never implied otherwise. Who said anything about 5 years? Why do you make things up out of whole cloth?

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 9:02 PM

Nobody defines terrorist attacks on the United States as you do.

The subject was terrorist attacks on Americans. American Soldiers and American Marines are Americans.

Here is a perfect example of how you distort things:

I said:

By the way, I am not interested in revisiting the Iraq War and arguing why we should or should not be there.

You respond:

So even though you don’t sound like even you are sure if “we” should still be there after 5 years, you think that our Soldiers and Marines should just stay anyway.

I think “we” need to be there as long as it takes and never implied otherwise. Who said anything about 5 years? Why do you make things up out of whole cloth?

That’s not a perfect example of anything other than your bouncing around.

And just how long do you think that “we” should be there then? And as long as it takes to do what? As long as it takes to “win” and “win” what? How many tours should the troops do while the rest of us are out shopping or watching big screen cable TV or bloviating on the internet? Three? Four? Five? Seven? Nine?

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 9:02 PM

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 9:35 PM

Who said anything about 5 years? Why do you make things up out of whole cloth?

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 9:02 PM

Hello, that is how long “we” have been there as of now that is.

Actually “only” 4 and 3/4 years, I rounded.

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 9:41 PM

The big stuff always happens when Rush Limbaugh is on vacation!! Even Rush said it himself.

StuLongIsland on December 27, 2007 at 10:23 PM

Deaths in battle aren’t the same as deaths from terror attacks, MB4.

baldilocks on December 27, 2007 at 7:02 PM

Most of the American Soldier and Marine deaths in Iraq are NOT in battle.

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 7:50 PM

You’re being intentionally obtuse. All of the deaths are under the rubric of OIF–i.e. battle. Maybe not in hand-to-hand combat, but all of those who die there (including via accidents) are only there to engage an enemy and/or support that engagement. Of course there are other objectives, but that is the main one. At any rate, none of those who died in Iraq died from terror attacks.

Therefore, one concludes that we haven’t had any terror attacks against the US by al Qaeda since 9/11 (in case you forgot the original assertion).

baldilocks on December 27, 2007 at 10:51 PM

Therefore, one concludes that we haven’t had any terror attacks against the US by al Qaeda since 9/11

Nick Berg would disagree. So would Daniel Pearl, and the rest of the hostages murdered by Al Qaeda.

Vinnie on December 28, 2007 at 12:22 AM

Attacks on individuals are one matter. However the attacks on the US in the nineties to which we are referring were constrained to American entities: the military and embassies.

The grounds that embassies sit upon are considered part of the sovereign nation they represent. No different than, say, Texas.

Therefore, an attack on an American embassy is an attack on the U.S.

Vinnie on December 28, 2007 at 12:31 AM

Nick Berg would disagree. So would Daniel Pearl, and the rest of the hostages murdered by Al Qaeda.

Vinnie on December 28, 2007 at 12:22 AM

:::sigh::: Please review the context.

baldilocks on December 28, 2007 at 12:47 AM

Therefore, an attack on an American embassy is an attack on the U.S.

Vinnie on December 28, 2007 at 12:31 AM

Yes I know! That’s what I’m arguing.

baldilocks on December 28, 2007 at 12:48 AM

Vinnie on December 28, 2007 at 12:31 AM

A certain person said that there had been no terror attacks on the US by AQ since 9/11. Someone else countered that, except for WTC 1993, none happened under Clinton. I pointed out that several subsequent AQ terror attacks had happened during the latter time period, i.e. Khobar, Nairobi, Dar-es-Salaam and the USS Cole. So I’m not sure where the idea came from that I’m saying these weren’t terror attacks. Perhaps liquids are involved.

baldilocks on December 28, 2007 at 12:56 AM

Ah, I stand corrected.

Perhaps liquids are involved.

I wish. My 10 year old is having a sleep-over.

It’s either that, or reading the comments of She Who Shall Not Be Named farther up. They tend to suck the common sense out of my brain.

Either way, my apologies for the misunderstandering on my part.

Vinnie on December 28, 2007 at 1:06 AM

That’s right, blame the short people. :-) Apology accepted.

It’s either that, or reading the comments of She Who Shall Not Be Named farther up.

Totally understood.

baldilocks on December 28, 2007 at 1:16 AM

Buck Turgidson on December 27, 2007 at 7:05 PM

Agree w/ Buck. None of the above attackers of Debbie either cared, nor could demonstrate that her contention about Benazir’s Jihadist tendencies were false. Let alone her support for terrorism in Kashmir, nobody even bothers to remember that it was she who initiated the Paki policy of backing the Taliban in its bid to take over Afghanistan – something that even Gen Zia hadn’t done. Nor could anybody refute the fact that her support is limited to Sind – and she loses out to both Musharaf and Nawaz Sharif in Panjab – the largest province.

Also, the argument about her husband’s convictions in a Swiss court is irrefutable – sure they have kangaroo courts in Pakistan (with due apologies to kangaroos), but does anyone seriously want to contend that the same is true about Switzerland?

Nobody is rejoicing at her assassination (as far as I read). But that shouldn’t make her a saint. Before proclaiming her as the panacea of all that ails Pakistan, why not look at her record? In 1989, she actively sponsored terror in Kashmir shortly after being elected Prime Minister (after she was under no compulsion to placate the more Islamic parts of her electorate), and also, she changed the policy on Afghanistan to support the Taliban.

It’s fine to condemn her assassination, but given the above record, why are so many otherwise intelligent people under the illusion that it would have been better had she been running things?

infidelpride on December 28, 2007 at 1:33 AM

Someone else countered that, except for WTC 1993, none happened under Clinton.

That would be none other than DS, who has been known on numerous occasions to get things laughably wrong.

See? All that misunderstanding because the original source wasn’t properly considered. ;-)

bamapachyderm on December 28, 2007 at 2:22 AM

But that shouldn’t make her a saint. Before proclaiming her as the panacea of all that ails Pakistan, why not look at her record?

I’ll ask you the same thing I’d ask your heroine: Who the hell said she was a saint or “the panacea,” and who beatified her?

::looks around::

Nobody here, from what I can see.

bamapachyderm on December 28, 2007 at 2:25 AM

At any rate, none of those who died in Iraq died from terror attacks.

baldilocks on December 27, 2007 at 10:51 PM

So you don’t think that an IED is a terror weapon?

You must have nerves of steel.

Let me just take a “wild guess” here – you have never even been in the Army have you?

MB4 on December 28, 2007 at 3:04 AM

Nobody defines terrorist attacks on the United States as you do.

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 9:02 PM

After looking through this thread, that particular comment had me howling with laughter.

While I happen to agree with you on this one – you do realize just how laugh out loud funny that comment is coming from you, right?

Aren’t you the champion of the idea that how the overwhelming number of people define the common sense meaning of word … is completely irrelevant?

If you get to define “saw” however you see fit, no matter how ludicrous, I’m not sure why you get to insist MB4′s definition of “terrorism” is inaccurate.

Priceless. Just priceless.

I guess this is where MB4 posts a page-length dictionary definition to make his point?

Well done, Buy Danish. You the man.

Professor Blather on December 28, 2007 at 8:20 AM

It was almost sickening, Hitlery, and others all jumped on the bandwagon yesterday offering their sympathies, and immediately claiming how well they had known Ms. Benazir Bhutto.

Hitlery, claims to have known Ms. Bhutto for 12 years as if she was in constant contact with her as part of ‘Wild’ Bill’s foreign policy. Other’s also tried to tie their campaingns to the death of Ms. Bhutto.

I find these actions to be dispicible. None of them knew Ms. Bhutto-they had met her but did really know knew her? To know someone you have to have a regular relationship with that person (think husband/wife brother/sister) for a period of time to fully understand what motivates them and why they do certain things.

When I find an honest politician that says they simply meet her and were impressed and concur with her politics and vision of the what is good for the people of Pakistan, that’
s a politician who is truthful enough to vote for.

MSGTAS on December 28, 2007 at 8:22 AM

Professor Blather on December 28, 2007 at 8:20 AM

Sorry, Dude, but it is indisputable that “see” can be defined literally or figuratively, depending on the context. Indeed, I see that you are not a Professor of English.

Oh, and nobody defines “eve” as occurring at 9:00 AM like you do either.

Buy Danish on December 28, 2007 at 10:47 AM

So you don’t think that an IED is a terror weapon?

You must have nerves of steel.

Let me just take a “wild guess” here – you have never even been in the Army have you?

MB4 on December 28, 2007 at 3:04 AM

Never in the Army, no, and I’m not sure what my nerves have to do with simple definitions.

Anything can be a terror weapon (as we saw on 9/11). The weapon used to carry out such attacks is irrelevant to the argument on what is terror and what isn’t. The dispute, however, was whether those under the official auspices of engaging an enemy were subject to anything that properly described by the adjective ‘terror.’

If you get to define “saw” however you see fit, no matter how ludicrous, I’m not sure why you get to insist MB4’s definition of “terrorism” is inaccurate.

Priceless. Just priceless.

I guess this is where MB4 posts a page-length dictionary definition to make his point?

Well done, Buy Danish. You the man.

Professor Blather on December 28, 2007 at 8:20 AM

Obviously, you are still fighting the Mitt Romney battle, which now seems a bit pointless in the larger sscheme off things.

I agree with Buy Danish (who is a woman, IIRC) on this subject. Maybe this next will help explain why.

IMO victims of terror–whatever the weapon used–are persons who are going about their daily lives with no reasonable expectation of being killed for ideological causes during that time period. American participants in OIF–who, of course, are all voluntary certainly don’t fall under that heading.

Counter? (I’ll be back later. Must go counter my ‘Blogger Spread.’)

baldilocks on December 28, 2007 at 11:52 AM

Further to baldilocks astute comments ;-) -

The fact that MB4 averred that I am “insentient” to the well-being of our military men and women merely because I define “terror attack” differently than he does is a tactic which does not reflect well on him.

I hereby submit the Buy Danish Dictionary® definition of Terror Attack:

An unprovoked attack on civilian or military targets that does not occur as part of ongoing military operations where we are engaged against enemy forces or enemy combatants.

Buy Danish on December 28, 2007 at 1:32 PM

I hereby submit the Buy Danish Dictionary® definition of Terror Attack:

An unprovoked attack on civilian or military targets that does not occur as part of ongoing military operations where we are engaged against enemy forces or enemy combatants.

Buy Danish on December 28, 2007 at 1:32 PM

You’re literally hurting my ribs. But in a good way.

So let me make sure I understand your latest dictionary offering: words can have multiple literal or figurative meanings – depending entirely on how you choose to interpret them and the degree to which a particular definition happens to spin objective fact towards your subjective desired reality – except that some words only have exactly one meaning, with said one meaning determined solely by you?

That must be wonderfully convenient.

You are priceless, dude hon. Come find me in a current thread. I desperately want to hear more.

Professor Blather on December 28, 2007 at 2:44 PM

Professor,

I realize that you are just tugging on Buy Danish’s chain, but that is the definition. See ya in a more lively thread.

Wonder when MB4′s going to roll out of bed?

baldilocks on December 28, 2007 at 3:14 PM

I dont know why, but I suspect she was a plant anyway.
There’s more to her getting killed then we’re going to know even if I am wrong.

johnnyU on December 29, 2007 at 7:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4