Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


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
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

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.


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

Oooop’s.

An election was held in October.

BallisticBob on December 27, 2007 at 11:33 AM

The scheduled Jan election was a parlimentary one, wasn’t it?

Limerick on December 27, 2007 at 11:35 AM

THE PRESIDENT: Laura and I extend our deepest condolences to the family of Benazir Bhutto, to her friends, to her supporters. We send our condolences to the families of the others who were killed in today’s violence. And we send our condolences to all the people of Pakistan on this tragic occasion.

The United States strongly condemns this cowardly act by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan’s democracy. Those who committed this crime must be brought to justice. Mrs. Bhutto served her nation twice as Prime Minister and she knew that her return to Pakistan earlier this year put her life at risk. Yet she refused to allow assassins to dictate the course of her country.

We stand with the people of Pakistan in their struggle against the forces of terror and extremism. We urge them to honor Benazir Bhutto’s memory by continuing with the democratic process for which she so bravely gave her life.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071227.html

bnelson44 on December 27, 2007 at 11:38 AM

We are facing and enemy like never seen before. I am so sick of those “endless war” bumper stickers.

Get over it, and get used to it unless you want to see your favorite candidates getting blown up along with dozens of innocents bystanders. It’s sickening that at a time of war and the threat of nuclear terrorism, all of the presidential candidates are trying to come across as tame. I want guarantees that we will continue to take the fight to these savages.

Hening on December 27, 2007 at 11:39 AM

I don’t think Musharraf was directly involved in this, but I think protecting Bhutto, like destroying the Islamists, was not his top priority.

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
- Edmund Burke (possibly)

BohicaTwentyTwo on December 27, 2007 at 11:39 AM

Good stuff came from Fox’s James Rosen just now.

When she returned to Pakistan, Bush told Musharaff he held him personally responsible for Bhutto’s saftey.

Rosen said what is scary for the Bush Adm. (our Country) would be if Musharraf had a hand in the assassination. What would be scarier is if he DIDN’T have a hand in it but was powerless to stop it (the assassination).

SouthernPride on December 27, 2007 at 11:40 AM

We are facing and enemy like never seen before. I am so sick of those “endless war” bumper stickers.

Hening on December 27, 2007 at 11:39 AM

Actually we have fought this same enemy a number of times now. Talk to a Marine.

bnelson44 on December 27, 2007 at 11:41 AM

What’s the word from Ron Paul?

“No problem. Pakistan doesn’t really have nukes. Bring ALL our troops home, now!”

SouthernPride on December 27, 2007 at 11:42 AM

JetBoy on December 27, 2007 at 11:06 AM

I would be surprised if the ISI wasn’t involved to some extent, but that doesn’t equate to Mushy’s participation. One of the biggest problems in Pakistan for a long time has been the infiltration of the ISI by rogue supporters of the Taliban.
If I may search for a silver lining here, democratic elections were going to be heavily influenced by the radical Islamic element. Our clueless State Dept, doesn’t seem to recognize that. If Mushy does call off elections, and come down hard on the Taliban, as he will almost be forced to do, her death may serve for some good. Bush has a child like faith that democratic elections are the answer to everything, when in some cases they just legitimize a radical takeover. Look at Algiers.

a capella on December 27, 2007 at 11:42 AM

What would be scarier is if he DIDN’T have a hand in it but was powerless to stop it (the assassination).

SouthernPride on December 27, 2007 at 11:40 AM

The Pakistani intellegence agencies are full of jihadists.

bnelson44 on December 27, 2007 at 11:43 AM

What’s the word from Ron Paul?

SouthernPride on December 27, 2007 at 11:42 AM

Paul: ‘We’re getting ready to bomb Iran’

bnelson44 on December 27, 2007 at 11:45 AM

bnelson44 on December 27, 2007 at 11:49 AM

Smart as a rock. Let’s leave PAK headless and see what happens.

Limerick on December 27, 2007 at 11:50 AM

Yes there was an election in October but there was another scheduled for January 8th where many observers believed Bhutto’s party would grow in power.

I read this attack as a strike at Bhutto and her party. I see it as voting by bomb instead of by ballot.

Are you guys saying you don’t think this had anything to do with the January 8th elections?

12thman on December 27, 2007 at 11:53 AM

Smart as a rock. Let’s leave PAK headless and see what happens.

Limerick on December 27, 2007 at 11:50 AM

Bill, the former MLB pitching recruit:))Richardson has always considered himself an expert in foreign affairs since his triumphant negotiations with North Korea.

a capella on December 27, 2007 at 11:55 AM

God bless you zane, and God bless the USA!

Brass Pair on December 27, 2007 at 11:04 AM

Good lord, man! Taunting the trolls? Don’t you know that could cause them to escape, only to hurt others?

Simba! Quick! Hand me the tranquilizer gun!

Timothy S. Carlson on December 27, 2007 at 11:56 AM

Fuck! Won’t these people ever learn!

Its Tommy on December 27, 2007 at 12:02 PM

Are you guys saying you don’t think this had anything to do with the January 8th elections?

12thman on December 27, 2007 at 11:53 AM

Of course it did, much as the Terror groups crank up the attacks on Israel whenever any progress toward a peace settlement is likely. However, I’m not sure who has the most to gain by having the elections cancelled. It could be the extremists, because it forces Mushy to become a dictator again, which in turn causes more resentment against him, or Mushy gains short term but loses long term. Chess game played by madmen.

a capella on December 27, 2007 at 12:03 PM

“….Concluded Paul, “That is the absurdity of the whole mess we have in there…stay out of entangling alliances, stay out of nation building. We ought to just get out of that place.”

“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…

Hmmmm….who’s scarier?

SouthernPride on December 27, 2007 at 12:04 PM

May the beautiful lady rest in peace.
Limerick on December 27, 2007 at 9:39 AM
Reminds me of the assassination preceding911(the Afgan leader),turned out it was the start of their sick evil plan. Except here the multiple failed assassin attempts on the lovely lady make the timing seem random, rather than a trigger for a terror wave(God forbid). But who knows with these death loving, civilian camoflauged, brainwashed tickers.

christophercube on December 27, 2007 at 12:05 PM

good lord, I followed the Getty link and there were more photos of Hillary Clinton than there were of President Bush.

What does Hillary have to do with this anyway?

pabarge on December 27, 2007 at 12:07 PM

Hmmmm….who’s scarier?

SouthernPride on December 27, 2007 at 12:04 PM

Check the headers on those press releases. They may have come from the same place.

Timothy S. Carlson on December 27, 2007 at 12:08 PM

Except here the multiple failed assassin attempts on the lovely lady make the timing seem random, rather than a trigger for a terror wave(God forbid)

I’m not really sure of the randomness. They also tried to whack Sharif today, too.

BallisticBob on December 27, 2007 at 12:08 PM

Is Mitt for the GWOT now? What are his lawyers telling him? I remember him trying to back out of it by questioning whether the surge was working. Didn’t McCain smack him down about that?

tommylotto on December 27, 2007 at 11:26 AM

Baloney. What Romney said was that it appeared that the surge was working. Petraeus had not testified yet to Congress about the situation on the ground, so his response was appropriate.

Would you prefer a candidate who makes premature judgements that rely on rumor and don’t have all the facts at hand?

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 12:09 PM

The first word that comes to mind is “barbarians”.
Was she brave to ride around waving or just plain stupid to do that? She certainly shouldn’t have stuck up through the sun roof. gawd sakes. What was she thinking?

Well, interesting times indeed. 2008 will be something.

johnnyU on December 27, 2007 at 12:09 PM

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Obama want to invade Pakistan? And if this is a true recollection, is there anyone that thinks he’ll repeat this statement prior to the Iowa caucus?

swami on December 27, 2007 at 12:13 PM

I wish we had more women like her in this country…not the Medea Benjeman types

LtE126 on December 27, 2007 at 12:16 PM

The following is from The Blotter (Brian Ross).
Is the Bhutto assassination only the beginning for more bloodshed in the coming days/weeks?

Jihadist Web Site Beats the War Drum
December 17, 2007 3:47 PM

Rehab El-Buri Reports:

A jihadist Web site posted a banner Monday announcing a new al Qaeda video calling for battle.

The video is titled “Al Nafeer,” an Arabic word referring to the horn that is blown before war.

One terrorism expert said the video will likely contain an address from al Qaeda’s leadership.

This new banner comes just a day after jihadist Web sites released an almost two-hour video featuring al Qaeda’s No. 2 man, Ayman al Zawahri.

SouthernPride on December 27, 2007 at 12:19 PM

What puzzles me is I figured it was in AQ’s best interest for Bhutto to prevail in the election, then they would assassinate/overthrow her. This may, or may not, play out in AQ’s best interest either. Hard to say.

Buck Turgidson on December 27, 2007 at 12:20 PM

christophercube on December 27, 2007 at 12:05 PM

I have the very same sick, nervous feeling. Does that mean they win?

wcrego on December 27, 2007 at 12:21 PM

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Obama want to invade Pakistan? And if this is a true recollection, is there anyone that thinks he’ll repeat this statement prior to the Iowa caucus?

swami on December 27, 2007 at 12:13 PM

You are correct. And the dope slap he took for that boneheaded comment shut him up.

pistolero on December 27, 2007 at 12:23 PM

May the beautiful lady rest in peace.
Limerick on December 27, 2007 at 9:39 AM
Reminds me of the assassination preceding911(the Afgan leader),turned out it was the start of their sick evil plan.

The assassination of Ahmad Shah Mas’ud (The “Lion of Panjshir”) was the “go sign” to begin the 9/11 operation.

bloviator on December 27, 2007 at 12:27 PM

Good lord, man! Taunting the trolls? Don’t you know that could cause them to escape, only to hurt others?

Simba! Quick! Hand me the tranquilizer gun!

Timothy S. Carlson on December 27, 2007 at 11:56 AM

SHHH! It’s part of my strategery. Draw them out into the open and then slay them with the truth. Don’t spoil it for me.

Brass Pair on December 27, 2007 at 12:27 PM

You are correct. And the dope slap he took for that boneheaded comment shut him up.

His critics’ contention that intervening in Pakistan was a mistake because we should leave Musharraf to handle AQ on his own doesn’t seem supported by the Bhutto killing.

dedalus on December 27, 2007 at 12:27 PM

What puzzles me is I figured it was in AQ’s best interest for Bhutto to prevail in the election, then they would assassinate/overthrow her. This may, or may not, play out in AQ’s best interest either. Hard to say.

Buck Turgidson on December 27, 2007 at 12:20 PM

Interesting question, but I think they benefit far more from Mushareff Derangement Syndrome.

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 12:29 PM

To all of you who ignorantly lionize and beatify this woman, Benazir Bhutto supported Islamic terrorism. She defended Palestinian homicide bombers. This is your “reasonable” woman, whom you want more of in America? Hello . . . . Get a clue. You clearly don’t know much about this woman, who only brought more instability to Pakistan than it had already. Learn about Benazir Bhutto before making her into the saint that she most certainly is not. If you like Iran, you’d have loved the second post-Bhutto Pakistan. Bush and his re-insertion of this woman into Pakistan and calls for democracy would have made this another Gaza. The woman would have surely been overthrown.

Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 12:30 PM

As of 1230pm EST, the man haters at NOW have yet to respond to her murder on their website. What a bunch of pu*****!

Her death will hopefully be the terrorits shark-jumping moment. She was a brave woman. RIP.

SouthernGent on December 27, 2007 at 12:32 PM

You clearly don’t know much about this woman, who only brought more instability to Pakistan than it had already.

She brought “more instability” to the region? Right out of the American Left playbook….and I see you (suprise!) blame Bush for this as well…unreal. No, Bhutto was no “saint” as you put it, but she was a driving force behind moderates in a region where that is sorely needed.

PS: Nice to see ya ’round here again Debbie!

JetBoy on December 27, 2007 at 12:36 PM

In the GOP race this probably hurts Huck the most and helps Rudy the most to the extent that it increases the priority on the GWOT with voters.

Also, the importance of Pakistan as an ongoing story might decrease the media’s attention on Iowa, lessening the bump that Huck would be looking for.

dedalus on December 27, 2007 at 12:40 PM

Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 12:30 PM

I’m guessing we are too ignorant to disagree with you. No one on this board has “beatified” Bhutto. In interviews I saw with Bhutto, she wanted democracy to prevail in Pakistan and to bring an end to Al Queda in her Country.

This ignorant person (me) sorta kinda believed her.

That being said, who can actually be trusted in that area of the world? I’ve supported our President in his decisions regarding these Middle Eastern crazies. He knows more than we do about the subject and I prefer to keep it that way.

SouthernPride on December 27, 2007 at 12:43 PM

Is Mitt for the GWOT now? What are his lawyers telling him? I remember him trying to back out of it by questioning whether the surge was working. Didn’t McCain smack him down about that?

tommylotto on December 27, 2007 at 11:26 AM

“But in discussing the deployment of more troops, Mr. Giuliani has been alone in saying that such a strategy may not succeed, potentially providing him cover should the situation in Iraq deteriorate further.”

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 12:46 PM

She brought “more instability” to the region? Right out of the American Left playbook….and I see you (suprise!) blame Bush for this as well…unreal. No, Bhutto was no “saint” as you put it, but she was a driving force behind moderates in a region where that is sorely needed.

JetBoy on December 27, 2007 at 12:36 PM

Riiiight. Like the moderates of Iran who were sorely needed instead of the Shah? What is moderate about defending Palestinian homicide bombings? How is that more “moderate” than U.S.-allied Musharraf? No, that’s not out of the American Left playbook. It’s out of the Those Who Understand the Middle East Playbook. And the Those Who Watched The HAMAS Elections, Hezbollah Elections, Muslim Brotherhood Elections Playbook. Yes, those were all because of Bush’s “democracy” failures that brought increasing destabilization throughout the Mid-East. That’s not a left-wing view. Left-wingers are the ones who support this “democracy in the Muslim world” BS. If you think this–Bush’s mistaken re-insertion of Bhutto into Paki politics–is different than any of the “democratic elections” cited above, you haven’t been paying attention.

Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 12:48 PM

Update: Bill Richardson reacts to Bhutto’s assassination by insisting that Musharraf must resign.

Who the hell is advising Richardson? Ayman al Zawahiri?

Zorro on December 27, 2007 at 12:49 PM

Fred’s coming up on Foxnews shortly.

BallisticBob on December 27, 2007 at 12:49 PM

She brought “more instability” to the region?
JetBoy on December 27, 2007 at 12:36 PM

Is Pakistan more or less stable now than it was before she came back?

I’d have had a lot more respect for her if she hadn’t treated Musharraf as an adversary from the start.

Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 12:30 PM

Interesting stuff, thanks. We never should have encouraged this folly in the first place, but I question your assertion that we are better off with her gone. I don’t think the chaos helps us at all, although I’d love to be proven wrong.

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 12:49 PM

Y’all should really check out the updated USA TODAY LINK on the candidates reactions…Looks like the Dem’s are already using the assassination as a political tool.

JetBoy on December 27, 2007 at 12:52 PM

I’m guessing we are too ignorant to disagree with you. No one on this board has “beatified” Bhutto. In interviews I saw with Bhutto, she wanted democracy to prevail in Pakistan and to bring an end to Al Queda in her Country.

This ignorant person (me) sorta kinda believed her.

That being said, who can actually be trusted in that area of the world? I’ve supported our President in his decisions regarding these Middle Eastern crazies. He knows more than we do about the subject and I prefer to keep it that way.

SouthernPride on December 27, 2007 at 12:43 PM

How do you like the democracy Bush obtained in Gaza, Lebanon (where Hezbollah gained seats and ministerial positions), Egypt (where the Muslim Brotherhood gained seats)? He knows more than we do? Hilarious. The only thing he knows how to do is create Shi’ite and Sunni extremist revolutions at the ballot box, and force Israel to give up more of its country in exchange for nothing. He knows very little about this topic, except how to outdo Jimmy Carter in failing in the Mid-East. Even John Bolton, his own UN guy, has been saying the same as me, in his book. He says that George Bush is now pursuing the policies of the left all over the world, esp. in the Mid-East. So, if you believe he knows more than we do, you must think Jimmy Carter knew more than we do. Speak for yourself.

Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 12:53 PM

What a horrible tragedy. I think the world collectively dreads the aftermath.

Somebody keep an eye on those nukes NOW, please.

So, when does the Pakistani civil war begin in earnest? Now that Musharraf is technically not the commander of the army, this could get interesting if the idea that he had any kind of responsibility for this death (plans or lack of security provided) grows legs.

flutejpl on December 27, 2007 at 12:54 PM

Yes, those were all because of Bush’s “democracy” failures that brought increasing destabilization throughout the Mid-East.

Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 12:48 PM

But, but, but, but … … Bush’s democracy project is working so well in Iraq. They’re just moms and dads too.

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 12:54 PM

Wow, this is what I get for not turning on any news this morning.
Insanity. As so many others have said, what is wrong with these people?

Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 12:30 PM

As always, thanks for coming around to point out how stupid people are while helpfully linking to your site.

SouthernDem on December 27, 2007 at 12:57 PM

As always, thanks for coming around to point out how stupid people are while helpfully linking to your site.

SouthernDem on December 27, 2007 at 12:57 PM

Yeah. She’s one ugly piece of work.

Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 12:30 PM

Ugh. Debbie Schlussel is the only conservative that instantly makes me embarrassed of conservatism every time she opens her pie hole and starts her patented nasally screeching. And this delightful post is no exception.

At least I didn’t actually have to hear her this morning. As in “hear” her, not the Romney-esque figurative kind of “hearing.” At least my ears and eyes were spared.

Barf.

Bhutto just died this morning. This morning. And whether I agree(d) with her on every point, she was unquestionably courageous. We can admire that courage without some hideous troll mocking us for “beatifying” her.

Can’t you take your ugly trolling for traffic somewhere else, at least for today? Maybe wait until her corpse is cold before you start dancing on it? Or at least skip the links to your own site, you freakin’ vampire?

Professor Blather on December 27, 2007 at 12:58 PM

Speak for yourself.

Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 12:53 PM

I was a reader of your blogs in the past. I was just reminded why I quit reading them.

You may be correct on this issue, but don’t patronize me. I can do my own research and don’t want, nor do I need your condescending admonishments.

SouthernPride on December 27, 2007 at 1:01 PM

He knows more than we do?

Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 12:53 PM

He used to be much smarter than he is now.

Maybe I’m missing something here. I mean, we’re going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not. Our military’s meant to fight and win war. That’s what it’s meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. But I’m going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious.
- George W. Bush on October 11 2000

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 1:02 PM

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 12:46 PM

From the same NYT article

Polls suggest that Mr. Giuliani, far more than Mr. Romney, has credibility on terrorism and national security questions

tommylotto on December 27, 2007 at 1:04 PM

Like most things in a few days the wrong people will be blamed and skirts will be hidden behind…Well, I guess that is on both sides.

tomas on December 27, 2007 at 1:07 PM

Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 12:48 PM

I’m not sure why you keep blaming Bush for “re-inserting” Bhutto into Paki politics…While I’m sure it was in our best interest to have her there, there’s nothing that says the Bush Admin. was in any way responsible for putting her there. Musharraf has been forced to play two sides of the coin…to not agitate the extremist elements in his country, while bending to US pressure to eradicate that same element in the entire Middle East region.

And I’m not sure how you equate the extremist takeover (read: not democratically elected) in Iran…Iran today is a prime example of how ignoring the situation fails. Our concern these days is that Iran is pursuing nuclear ambitions…whereas Pakistan already HAS that.

Bottom line is…it gets tiring hearing that some outside element, when inserted into a region, is the thing responsible for uprisings like this. THAT element is already there…and to blame Bhutto, and worse…to blame the Bush Admin. policy of “democratizing” the region, is sheer nonsense.

By what other means can the region become stable, if not through democracy? Maybe not today…maybe not tomorrow…but in 10 or 20 years, it could make a huge difference.

JetBoy on December 27, 2007 at 1:08 PM

Polls suggest that Mr. Giuliani, far more than Mr. Romney, has credibility on terrorism and national security questions

tommylotto on December 27, 2007 at 1:04 PM

Polls?

Polls?

Polls are not going so well for the one who recommended Kerik and then Chertoff for DHS head any more now are they?

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 1:09 PM

Our forces and the NATO forces in Afghanistan are supplied through Pakistan. If Pak flies apart, they’re trapped.

Any professional Military here? Are we looking at a potential Stalingrad?

dhimwit on December 27, 2007 at 1:12 PM

But, but, but, but … … Bush’s democracy project is working so well in Iraq. They’re just moms and dads too.

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 12:54 PM

I think you’re being facetious, but just in case you aren’t . . .

Tried going to super-secret Mass in Iraq, lately? The “democratic” Islam-based Constitution isn’t working out too well for Iraqi Christians, who are almost all wiped out or gone from the country.

He knows more than we do about the subject and I prefer to keep it that way.

SouthernPride on December 27, 2007 at 12:43 PM

. . . . I can do my own research.

Sovietologist Condi Clueless expressed shock that HAMAS won the Palestinian elections, something which I and anyone else paying attention predicted. But, yes, Bush “knows more than we do”. Time for that “research.” What was it that Jack Nicholson said in that movie about “you” and “handling the truth”?

Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 1:14 PM

48 hour rule, but the caldron’s gets thicker and hotter by the moments.

pabo on December 27, 2007 at 1:14 PM

By what other means can the region become stable, if not through democracy? Maybe not today…maybe not tomorrow…but in 10 or 20 years, it could make a huge difference.

JetBoy on December 27, 2007 at 1:08 PM

Fundamentalist religion [Islam] and Western values do not sit together. We should spend more time promoting secularism around the world and worry less about spreading democracy.

The inconvenient truth is that the West should be exporting secularism around the world before it exports democracy. Democracy implies not just one person one vote, but no less important, that the political process proceeds by rational means, by argument, by persuasion, and is based on knowledge that is as objective, as scientific, as one can make it. The objective knowledge has to come first.
- Peter Watson

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 1:15 PM

Debbie, I always thought we did not go after UBL in Pakistan to try to preserve Musharrif’s power there for the sake of the nukes. If GWB undermined him after all, why didn’t we just invade years ago?

Buck Turgidson on December 27, 2007 at 1:17 PM

Tried going to super-secret Mass in Iraq, lately?

Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 1:14 PM

No.

I am an atheist.

They probably wouldn’t give me the right password.

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 1:19 PM

I’m not sure why you keep blaming Bush for “re-inserting” Bhutto into Paki politics . . . .there’s nothing that says the Bush Admin. was in any way responsible for putting her there. . . .

And I’m not sure how you equate the extremist takeover (read: not democratically elected) in Iran…Iran today is a prime example of how ignoring the situation fails. Our concern these days is that Iran is pursuing nuclear ambitions…whereas Pakistan already HAS that.

JetBoy on December 27, 2007 at 1:08 PM

America openly pressured/forced Musharraf to allow Bhutto to return to Pakistan. That’s undisputed (except by you).

Re-Iran, do you remember a guy named “The Shah”? Do you remember how Jimmy Carter helped usher him out in favor of “democratic elections”? Did you know that they had “democratic elections,” which elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a long line of post-Shah extremists “democratically” elected to run Iran? If you can’t realize that democratic elections Bush has pushed all over the Mid-East, ie., election of HAMAS, Hezbollah gains in Lebanon, Muslim Brotherhood gains in Egypt, etc., are any different than what will happen now that Bush has pressured Musharraf into elections, then I don’t know what to tell you.

What’s happening in Iran today did not just happen in a vacuum. It is the result of the progression of things since Jimmy Carter ushered out a pro-US dictator and ushered in “democracy.” Think it’s different anywhere else in the Mid-East (except Israel)? Why not push for the Saudi Royal Family to hold elections today? Guess who’d win? Bin Laden. And he’s the most popular figure in Pakistan, too.

Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 1:22 PM

The “democratic” Islam-based Constitution isn’t working out too well for Iraqi Christians, who are almost all wiped out or gone from the country.

Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 1:14 PM

I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it is meant also for those who are absent.
Moreover, Christ commands it.
- Pope Urban II

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 1:22 PM

Rudy is that purple line that is still on top. Mitt’s the yellow line in fourth.

tommylotto on December 27, 2007 at 1:22 PM

You mean that purple line that’s listing to starboard?

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 1:25 PM

We should spend more time promoting secularism around the world and worry less about spreading democracy.

A lot of people oppose secularism, even in the United States. It will be a tough sell in Islamic countries.

I agree that democracy is folly in cultures that don’t have the prerequisites. Perhaps opening them up through trade, as with China, could help build the legal, economic, and social foundation for democracy over 50 to 100 years.

dedalus on December 27, 2007 at 1:26 PM

Debbie, I always thought we did not go after UBL in Pakistan to try to preserve Musharrif’s power there for the sake of the nukes. If GWB undermined him after all, why didn’t we just invade years ago?

Buck Turgidson on December 27, 2007 at 1:17 PM

That is a belief that has a lot of credibility. And that’s a great question, which only the Condi-Bush Admin can answer. Even John Bolton has pointed out in his book and in recent interviews, that in the last year or two, Bush has radically reversed his foreign policy to a disastrous one that imitates that of the Clinton Administration and a left-wing President. And it’s bad for America.

Like every President, Bush wants his legacy. And he is now in his lame duck days, so this is his last chance to get one. I think he wants to say his legacy is democracy in the Mid-East. (And that is his legacy–HAMAS democracy, Hezbollah democracy, etc.)

Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 1:27 PM

If GWB undermined him after all, why didn’t we just invade years ago?

Buck Turgidson on December 27, 2007 at 1:17 PM

Too busy bringing democracy and Ruth Chris Steakhouses to moms and dads in Iraq?

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 1:28 PM

What does Hillary have to do with this anyway?

pabarge on December 27, 2007 at 12:07 PM

The China Connection Is the Real Scandal

” In October 1994, Clinton lifted the sanctions he had imposed on China for selling missile technology to Pakistan. In early 1995, Schwartz sent a letter to Clinton urging that responsibility for satellite-export licenses be shifted from the State Department to the Commerce Department. Meanwhile, both Schwartz and Johnny Chung made more huge donations, in excess of $100,000, to the Democratic Party.

On February 6, 1996, despite reports that China continued to export nuclear technology to Pakistan and missiles to Iran, and over the objections of our State and Defense Departments, Clinton signed waivers for four U.S. satellites to be launched by Chinese rockets. On the very same day, Wang Jun (a “Chinese arms dealer”) attended one of Clinton’s now-famous campaign coffees in the White House and spent some time in Ron Brown’s Commerce Department office. Wang Jun owns a huge stake in a Chinese enterprise that benefited from Clinton’s waivers, China International Trade and Investment Corporation. “

Connie on December 27, 2007 at 1:29 PM

Tried going to super-secret Mass in Iraq, lately? The “democratic” Islam-based Constitution isn’t working out too well for Iraqi Christians, who are almost all wiped out or gone from the country.

Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 1:14 PM

I saw reports of Christian Christmas services that were attended by Sunnis and Shia in support of their fellow countrymen.

Are you saying that we should have let the “secular” Saddam Hussein stay in power?

While I agree with you about Condi’s misguided Palestinian policy, I’m starting to lose you here.

Buy Danish on December 27, 2007 at 1:29 PM

RIP Benazir…

We should not be confused about who our allies are, whether they be governments or high-profile individuals. If they are on AQ’s hit list, they are our friend.

Bhutto was on thier list.

CliffHanger on December 27, 2007 at 1:29 PM

I agree that democracy is folly in cultures that don’t have the prerequisites.

dedalus on December 27, 2007 at 1:26 PM

Like planting seeds in toxic soil.

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 1:31 PM

Mike Huckabee weighed in. He said, “Who?”

Connie on December 27, 2007 at 1:31 PM

Like every President, Bush wants his legacy. And he is now in his lame duck days, so this is his last chance to get one.

Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 1:27 PM

Bush is getting a lot accomplished for a lame duck president. He has thwarted the Dems at every turn.

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

I do agree with Bolton that we have made regrettable diplomatic moves recently, but would Bolton say that we are better off with Bhutto dead? I rather doubt it.

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

Diana West’s views on Bush and Iraq

Scroll down a bit to – What President Bush should say to us -

MB4 on December 27, 2007 at 1:35 PM

Did someone on this thread just call Iran’s process of electing it’s leaders “democratic”?

Please do your research before commenting please.

CliffHanger on December 27, 2007 at 1:41 PM

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

Its the bold wolf cubs that are eaten by the bear, unless they are very, very careful.

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?”

If they’re bad guys you can only kill them or consider the alternative..they kill you.

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.

There’s never a shortage of fools, they’re just as dangerous as bad guys only less honest.

Speakup on December 27, 2007 at 1:44 PM

I agree with some of the earlier posts that a secular government is a first prerequisite to democracy in Muslim nations. Islam simply doesn’t allow for true religious freedom and freedom of speech. Sanity first, democracy next.

Just wait till AQ gets its hands on a nuke. This just got interesting. The Dhimmicrats will just want to negotiate after tens of thousands die from nuclear terrorism. They are cowards and will do nothing but destroy our country. Is there a Republican out there who will go to nuclear war against these monsters?

Mojave Mark on December 27, 2007 at 1:44 PM

Debbie, from your site.

But that she is now gone from Pakistani politics is a positive development in a myriad of ways.

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 will you be willing to admit that you are not the all seeing prophet that you seem to think yourself to be?

conservnut on December 27, 2007 at 1:45 PM

Time for that “research.” What was it that Jack Nicholson said in that movie about “you” and “handling the truth”?

Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 1:14 PM

Oh, I’ll research but it sure as hell won’t be on your blog.
I’ll read Michelle Malkin. At least she doesn’t treat other Conservatives as imbeciles, as you seem apt to do.

And I don’t need to quote Hollyweird as you did. Instead, I’ll see you floating up high on Professor Blather’s most awesome Ron Paul Blimp!

SouthernPride on December 27, 2007 at 1:48 PM

Bolton was just interviewed on FOX.

Debbie presented an accurate description of his views regarding Pakistan.

Buck Turgidson on December 27, 2007 at 1:49 PM

I followed Debbie’s link and while I agree with her conclusion that democratic elections in that area are likely to have unwanted outcomes, I didn’t find any documentation for this:

The “moderate” Bhutto was actually a Saudi-backed, anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian-terrorism force of instability, anarchy, and protest in Pakistan

Is it based on statements she made while doing political commentary, or actions supporting a radicalSunni based monarchy? Seems a bit odd. Aren’t

a capella on December 27, 2007 at 1:50 PM

RIP, Mrs. Bhutto.

U.S. political advantage: McCain.

aero on December 27, 2007 at 1:52 PM

Is India on alert?

saved on December 27, 2007 at 1:53 PM

I have often wondered what it would be like if Bolton were our president.

wcrego on December 27, 2007 at 1:53 PM

How do you like the democracy Bush obtained in Gaza, Lebanon (where Hezbollah gained seats and ministerial positions), Egypt (where the Muslim Brotherhood gained seats)? He knows more than we do? Hilarious. The only thing he knows how to do is create Shi’ite and Sunni extremist revolutions at the ballot box, and force Israel to give up more of its country in exchange for nothing. He knows very little about this topic, except how to outdo Jimmy Carter in failing in the Mid-East. Even John Bolton, his own UN guy, has been saying the same as me, in his book. He says that George Bush is now pursuing the policies of the left all over the world, esp. in the Mid-East. So, if you believe he knows more than we do, you must think Jimmy Carter knew more than we do. Speak for yourself.

Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Debbie is right here.

Bush’s neo-conservatism of “spreading democracy around the globe” fails to understand reality. Bush’s neo-conservatism is not conservatism at all.

It is liberalism with a different name.

ColtsFan on December 27, 2007 at 1:55 PM

If you can’t realize that democratic elections Bush has pushed all over the Mid-East, ie., election of HAMAS, Hezbollah gains in Lebanon, Muslim Brotherhood gains in Egypt, etc., are any different than what will happen now that Bush has pressured Musharraf into elections, then I don’t know what to tell you.

Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 1:22 PM

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.–Sir Winston Churchill

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.

Yes…look at the Hamas victory in Palestinian elections…but then, look at the concessions they needed to produce in order to receive continued funding, worldwide recognition, et al. And there’s far more reasons why Carter turned his back on the Shah than simply to usher in democracy in Iran. That was probably the LAST thing on his mind at the time.

What would you suggest the Bush Administration do, NOT endorse democratic elections, and democracy, in the Middle East? How can the US show it’s face on the world stage and not promote democracy in the same world?

Again, we have to think “long term” here. Don’t forget, there’s a war going on…a war brought to us courtesy of Islamic extremism. And as long as nations like the US stand in the way of a global takeover of such, we can win.

But it’s gotta be long term, and it’s gotta be through democracy.

JetBoy on December 27, 2007 at 1:58 PM

ColtsFan on December 27, 2007 at 1:55 PM

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

Is India on alert?

saved on December 27, 2007 at 1:53 PM

I would have to say yes.

BallisticBob on December 27, 2007 at 2:01 PM

Yeah, Fare well to the prettiest piece of Muslim crap from a land full of Muslim crap. She was not anyones valid hope. Least of all ours.

BL@KBIRD on December 27, 2007 at 2:02 PM

Bill Richardson ain’t got a clue.

wryteacher on December 27, 2007 at 2:02 PM

Speak for yourself.

Debbie Schlussel on December 27, 2007 at 12:53 PM

As long as you are mouthing Ms Schlussel’s words, otherwise you are ignorant. She agrees with Bolton so that proves everything she says.

Limerick on December 27, 2007 at 2:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4


You must be logged in to post a comment.