Quote of the day

posted at 10:15 pm on December 27, 2007 by Bryan

Bhutto’s own family dismisses her little-girl-lost script. “Her father’s death was enormously convenient for her politically,” her American-educated niece, Fatima Bhutto, tells me. “She has no legacy of her own except for corruption and violence, so she rests on her father’s laurels.” Fatima blames her aunt for her own father’s assassination in 1996.

Reflecting on the lessons of her two terms as prime minister, Bhutto tells me, “It’s only now that America has awakened to what we were already fighting—Islamic jihadis.” Fortunately for her, the West’s urgent fear of Pakistan as a breeding ground for terrorists has given Bhutto the chance to redefine herself. During most of her exile, she was considered irrelevant by Washington. Then she hired Hillary Clinton’s image-maker, Mark Penn, and began playing up to Musharraf.

Despite the corrosion of her reputation by corruption and compromise, Bhutto appears to be America’s strongest anchor in the effort to turn back the extremist Islamic tide threatening to engulf Pakistan. What would you like to tell President Bush? I ask this riddle of a woman.

She would tell him, she replies, that propping up Musharraf’s government, which is infested with radical Islamists, is only hastening disaster. “I would say, ‘Your policy of supporting dictatorship is breaking up my country.’ I now think al-Qaeda can be marching on Islamabad in two to four years.”


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

Clean wrists – check

Sharp razor – check

all faith lost in islam being compatible with the west – check

broker1 on December 27, 2007 at 10:27 PM

blowback.

muyoso on December 27, 2007 at 10:28 PM

blowback.

muyoso on December 27, 2007 at 10:28 PM

And Ron Paul says it’s not our problem.

bnelson44 on December 27, 2007 at 10:44 PM

Possibly the dawn of a real man-made global warming, then a very long winter.

infidel on December 27, 2007 at 10:46 PM

@ bnelson44 on December 27, 2007 at 10:44 PM

Its not our problem at this moment. It may SERIOUSLY become our problem in the future if those nuts get nuclear weapons. RP argues that we should try and stop doing things like this which come back to bite us. No one is arguing to let the crazy savages get nukes.

muyoso on December 27, 2007 at 10:50 PM

Ron Paul doesn’t even think Iran has an army, muyoso.

Bryan on December 27, 2007 at 10:52 PM

No one is arguing to let the crazy savages get nukes.

muyoso on December 27, 2007 at 10:50 PM

And just how does Ron Paul propose stopping them?

bnelson44 on December 27, 2007 at 10:58 PM

Thank God that Hillary will be in office to deal with this.

HarryBalzac on December 27, 2007 at 10:59 PM

It is an established fact of history that the Clinton administration — despite its supposed feminist sympathies — did nothing while the Taliban set up shop in Afghanistan in the mid-1990s. Why? Well, among other things, Bhutto was pro-Taliban, since the Taliban was supported by Pakistan’s ISI.

And, of course, the Clintons were pro-Bhutto. When Obama’s guy today blamed Hillary for the mess in Pakistan, he was in some sense closer to the target than he knew.

Ali-Bubba on December 27, 2007 at 11:02 PM

Chose from the following:
1) Preemptive strike?
2) Send in the UN and Mustache Man?
3) Convert to Islam?

Kini on December 27, 2007 at 11:04 PM

And just how does Ron Paul propose stopping them?

bnelson44 on December 27, 2007 at 10:58 PM

Suicide blimps

William Amos on December 27, 2007 at 11:06 PM

It may SERIOUSLY become our problem in the future if those nuts get nuclear weapons. RP argues that we should try and stop doing things like this which come back to bite us. No one is arguing to let the crazy savages get nukes.

muyoso on December 27, 2007 at 10:50 PM

Good idea. Let’s wait until the nutjobs get a hold on the nukes before we try to get involved. I’m sure they won’t try to use them until we’re able to implement and execute some kind of plan to take back control of them.

Would the man who doesn’t think Iran has an army actually have a plan to take them back before they can use them?

amerpundit on December 27, 2007 at 11:06 PM

I wonder what will blow up first,
the tinder box in the middle east or
the out of control brush fire in Pakistan!

canopfor on December 27, 2007 at 11:14 PM

You’ve heard of the domino theory? Welcome to whack-a-mole!

sonnyspats1 on December 27, 2007 at 11:21 PM

Suicide blimps

William Amos on December 27, 2007 at 11:06 PM

The ultimate rEVOLution. I like it!

bnelson44 on December 27, 2007 at 11:23 PM

Bryan, have you ever seen this? Quite fascinating. Bhutto is being interviewed and she straight up says that “Omar Sheikh murdered Osama Bin Laden.” This was Nov. 2nd of this year. What do you make of this?

Its at about the 6 minute mark

broker1 on December 27, 2007 at 11:28 PM

@ amerpundit on December 27, 2007 at 11:06 PM

I love people to argue against RP, they are so similar in every respect, ALL of them taking the extremes and running with them as fact.

No, we don’t wait to see if the jihadis get nukes, but maybe could we wait to see if there is a civil war or an election or something before we send in troops to “liberate” their nukes?? Maybe, oh MAYBE, the poor Pakistan will be able to handle its own business without America getting involved further, you know, it IS possible.

muyoso on December 27, 2007 at 11:36 PM

Yes, Benazir Bhutto was far from pure as the driven snow.
Just don’t forget to take into account the tribal, intolerant, male dominant environment she operated in.
We marvel when a Republican is elected in a liberal state, imagine a Woman elected PM in Sharia strict Pakistan.
If she wasn’t willing to play tough among some of the most oppressive violent bad guys in the world she wasn’t going to get elected much less achieve anything.
She might not have been George Washington (even George wasn’t surrounded by enemies every minute) but she was a step a big forward and that includes a step forward from Musharraf too.

Speakup on December 27, 2007 at 11:36 PM

Ron Paul – it’s America’s fault these people act like savages.

Lol…more soft racism from a simple-minded buffoon.

Asher on December 27, 2007 at 11:42 PM

Bryan: are you the original writer of the 1st paragraph?

If not, do you have the source? Who is the “me” that the woman told the quote to?

VinceP1974 on December 27, 2007 at 11:47 PM

link at the bottom its from a parade interview that was coming out in the 1/8/2008 edition

lorien1973 on December 28, 2007 at 12:01 AM

VinceP1974, the entire post was a quote. Click on the link at the bottom.

jic on December 28, 2007 at 12:01 AM

Bhutto was pro-Taliban, since the Taliban was supported by Pakistan’s ISI.

Was she? I doubt it. The leader of Pakistan does not control all of Pakistan, and merely being unable to stop something does not mean supporting it.

Bryan: are you the original writer of the 1st paragraph?

All paragraphs are on the linked web page.

calbear on December 28, 2007 at 12:04 AM

If it’s not our problem it’s certainly India’s problem. I can’t imagine they will let a bunch of 3rd century goons control Pakistan without a fight at least.

SouthernGent on December 28, 2007 at 12:14 AM

broker1 on December 27, 2007 at 11:28 PM

.
Freaky man, thanks, its really spooky. What did that woman know?

AZCON on December 28, 2007 at 12:26 AM

No, we don’t wait to see if the jihadis get nukes, but maybe could we wait to see if there is a civil war or an election or something before we send in troops to “liberate” their nukes?? Maybe, oh MAYBE, the poor Pakistan will be able to handle its own business without America getting involved further, you know, it IS possible.

muyoso on December 27, 2007 at 11:36 PM

I didn’t suggest “send(ing) in troops”. There are ways to get involved without invading. You know much of America’s position before WWII? “Let’s not get involved”. Yeah, something happened on December 7, 1941 that changed that. Turns out “not getting involved” doesn’t always work.

And, again, the guy who doesn’t even know Iran has an army, has a detailed plan for this, right?

amerpundit on December 28, 2007 at 1:19 AM

The reason Muslims hate pigs is because they live in political pigstys. Man does not ‘revert’ to Islam. Muslims revert to animals.

pat on December 28, 2007 at 1:27 AM

Helping Pakistan with it’s nuclear program sure was a good move!

Nonfactor on December 28, 2007 at 1:36 AM

If this is true then she is shillerys twin.

allrsn on December 28, 2007 at 1:53 AM

pat on December 28, 2007 at 1:27 AM

good point

allrsn on December 28, 2007 at 1:54 AM

Helping Pakistan with it’s nuclear program sure was a good move!

Nonfactor on December 28, 2007 at 1:36 AM

Not banning your trolling ass sure was a good move!

hillbillyjim on December 28, 2007 at 3:29 AM

India plays an interesting role in all of this. Their nukes are all facing Pakistan, and they are not taking any chances. There is no love lost there.

Hening on December 28, 2007 at 9:08 AM

It’s hard to tell if Bhutto was really a martyr or a politician seeking to make a comeback. Certainly, she was all over the American press making the case for her return but, frankly, why wouldn’t she when so much American aid is being sent into Pakistan (with the Democrat Party manuevering to shut off that aid since their palls in Al Qaeda were being hurt by the democracy initiatives). Were I contemplating taking power in Pakistan, I’d make sure US public opinion was on my side too.

That being said, I tend to agree with the pundits that place this story as critical in sorting out the presidential wannabes. Some observations:

Hillary launched a “I knew her well” speech that made it sound as if they were both pioneering women who were BFF’s. Well Mrs. Clinton, friends don’t use the still warm body of their friends for political stump speeches.

Obama: Enough said. This man is so out of his element when it comes to foreign affairs that he doesn’t even know how incredibly stupid he is when not reading from the script.

John McCain: Most reasoned and articulate discussion of how such events should be dealt with by the President.

Mitt and Rudy: Used the death to serve up the warmed-over GWOT rhetoric. This is a complex issue and it’s sad to see that the two real frontrunners in the GOP are unable to show one iota of leadership. I have serious doubts about either ones ability to lead in crisis should they be the one at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. (P.S. Spare me the Rudy did it during the 9/11/01 propoganda. This type of crisis isn’t the same as the atrocities on that date. This is long-term crisis management dealing with other nations not organizing resources to pull a city back together).

Ron Paul: Only candidate out there that makes Obama look like Cordell Hull or Adalai Stevenson.

highhopes on December 28, 2007 at 9:10 AM

It is our problem in the same way that Cambodia was our problem during the Vietnam war. Pretending that al Quada and the Taliban aren’t using Pakistan as a safe basing area against our troops, and at the same time attempting to spread the jihad within both countries, won’t make the situation any better for the NATO troops in Afghanistan, nor the Pakistanis who must live with the increasing violence.

Defense Guy on December 28, 2007 at 9:11 AM

No, we don’t wait to see if the jihadis get nukes, but maybe could we wait to see if there is a civil war or an election or something before we send in troops to “liberate” their nukes?? Maybe, oh MAYBE, the poor Pakistan will be able to handle its own business without America getting involved further, you know, it IS possible.

muyoso on December 27, 2007 at 11:36 PM

Except Ron Paul doesn’t seem to be making exceptions for involving US troops even AFTER crazies get nukes.

He’s been asked what he’d do if these worst case scenarios happen and repeatedly speaks of doing nothing unless congress forces him into war.

Esthier on December 28, 2007 at 9:31 AM

He’s been asked what he’d do if these worst case scenarios happen and repeatedly speaks of doing nothing unless congress forces him into war.

Esthier on December 28, 2007 at 9:31 AM

.

And he wants to be CIC? No friggin way.

KelliD on December 28, 2007 at 12:56 PM

An excellent example of a disconnected person who insist on blaming those they do not agree with for their own or others misfortune.

Projection and Paranoia is a terrible thing to watch-and the shadows are all around as long as the light of truth is shining.

The truth is not available in sound bites, you must hear the entire statement and check the facts before declaring something is true. Therefore it is incumbent on each one of us to seek the truth for ourselves; not just blindly follow others who only wish to control us.

MSGTAS on December 29, 2007 at 9:10 AM