Publius Pundit

« Previous · Home · Next »

Benazir Bhutto, Freedom Fighter, RIP

Filed under: Pakistan


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.

They got her! The world must bow its head in shame for not protecting her! Those who disparaged her during her life must crawl away into the dark shadows from which they came. She gave her life for her country. We here highly resolve that she shall not have died in vain! Just look how the malignant forces of dictatorship fear the power of democracy. Their only -- puny, pathetic -- response is violence and murder. They know they cannot win any other way. But their craven actions only redouble and intensify the fervor for freedom, and seal their fate to follow all the other failures from the annals of dictatorship into the dustbin of history.

Slate has a photo essay on her courageous life as well as a diary she wrote for them back a decade ago when she was struggling to find a new path for her country. Michelle Malkin has a rundown on all the news related to the killing, including the furious hatred of some in Pakistan for Bhutto and for democracy and for the United States. She writes: "They tried and failed when she returned to Pakistan in October. They tried and failed with a baby suicide bomber. Yesterday, they stopped a 15-year-old with a bomb packed full of nails trying to kill her. Today, they succeeded. Dammit, dammit, dammit."

Social Bookmarking: this | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit


Ryan says:

A horribly corrupt leader is gone. Even the best security staff couldn't have protected a woman who wanted to be as showy as possible in public. When you have parade after parade for yourself and have been the target of numerous assassination attempts before (the likes of which have killed hundreds of people), you have to expect that eventually, the assassins will get you. Hopefully, she is more effective in the fight for democracy in death than in life. At least she can't be bought off in death. Might sound harsh, but I'm tired of hearing the huge praise without negatives regarding her.

La Russophobe says:


The malignant filth from the KKK said exactly the same thing about Martin Luther King when he was killed. Think about it. If you're capable of thinking.

You give no evidence whatsoever to support your defamatory statements, and you've never even met the woman. How dare you! What have YOU risked for your country lately, big talker?

I'm embarrassed to have your drive-by comment on this blog.

Artfldgr says:

Lets see, anyone care to guess who was behind it? or if those who were behind it had connections to connections to which country? They went after the pope, and it was a forgone conclusion that if the bad press on her (a la useful idiots above), and the public wasnt convinced against her, and there was absolutely no other way to 'conveniently' beat her, then there was and is only one solution for them.

it was stalin that said death fixes all problems, no man, no problem.

i would dare say that the maxim was not a gender specific one, and that to kgb/gru who ARE now publicly sanctioned and recently rewarded historically (by the leaders),it matters not, man or woman, no woman, no problem.

I said that all these countries would be in play, and in play to the EXTREME since 20 bln in open revenue (and unknown in secret revenue that would stop and is huge) would come to a grinding halt. AND the inflated prices for natural resources (instability increases commodity prices unaturally without having ot control all the resources), would also grind to a halt.

this would mean a serious decrease in monies coming in to the main people who have all this under their thumbs.

whats the worst of this? this guarantees the next outcome, which HAD to be guaranteed if they are to do EVERYTHING possible to keepint IRAN open as a doorway to their needs.

the leader that will be in place is GUARANTEED not to be who she was. her assasination also guarantees that she was the real deal and not on their side at all (nor willing to dialogue to consensus. she realized that a compromise was always a give in their direction and never a take in hers).

Again i say take a look at a map. there are reasons why we talk alot about these countries, and never talk about places like greenland. not because the people are white, but because greenland is strategically null on the map.

the cold war never ended because the russian side never stopped following the maxim of lennin. who said they need to be willing to literally do ANYTHING.

The Evil That Two Men Did,9171,975240,00.html

"There was something inhumanly dark and cold in both leaders that made them willing to do literally anything to fulfill what they felt was their mission."

and if that werent enough, remember their 'training'.

Bullock writes, "the process by which these convictions took possession of their minds remains a mystery." He generally avoids psychohistory, but observes matter-of-factly that both Hitler and Stalin were paranoid and insensitive to humanity -- that is, unable to accept that other people were as real as they. Both were, in fact, incapable of normal relationships. One word Bullock does not use is "monster," because he sees horror in the fact that they were human.

Bullock writes, "the key to understanding both Stalin and Hitler is . . . that they were entirely serious about their historic roles." In private they were boring and boorish. The mistake their political enemies and would-be partners repeatedly made was to underestimate the men and the extremes to which they would go.

whats the major difference between the two nations as history played out? Well, the Nazi's name was expunged (but not so much their policies), and russia, russia became a country that produced hitlers of sorts one after another!!!

and if one pays close attention, from lenin, his saying as to any means, lead to stalin, using any means, but indiscriminately.

after him, each one was still cut from the same mold, but each was more refined in how they would apply the maxim ANYTHING, as each level was more and more couched in terms of pragmatic outcome (morals having NOTHING to do with it - from lenin on, this has been a clear maxim, only the inconvenience of others has limited them in pragmatic choices).

why are they gearing up? because 9/11 caused a change in situation. not that the US was hit, but that the US was hit in a way that it woke up and went out into the world actively again. and that activity was in opposition to the PRAGMATIC situations they have had many years of freedom to operate.

now they cant just sit still, if they did, we would be in iran already. the movement of the US has knocked dominoes over, since it was supposed to sit still, and let the others garner power. with it going after insurgencies in "any borders", the time of the mullahs and such and the power base is limited.

tactically it would force them to the table to deal honestly. no more cash from weapons, no inflated prices from destabilization, and no more knocking blocks over as a means of competition.

it would force much more transparency as there would be no place to sell the weapons and sucha nd therefore they would need more outer cooperation and integration to create economic viability based on second order economics, rather than first order natural resources.

they would be forced to realize increased profits for their natural materials thru leveraging the power of the lumpen proletariat to put the materials together and sell them as useful products.

in this situation the ability of someone of their ilk to make billions is not too great. they cant win playing by they rules, no matter what the rules. they have ALWAYS one by pushing the limits to the extreme past the point were people set their own limits and impose their own rules to stop themselves. in this way they break the rules that they never negotiate.

killing the pope is a good example of it. assasinating bhutto could be seen as another good example of it.

is there still any doubt that they are still playing the "new great game"?

The New Great Game is a current competition between the United States, Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, India, and Pakistan to secure reliable long-term sources of petroleum and natural gas through the construction of oil pipelines in the post-Soviet nations of Central Asia[1]. The term was coined by Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid in reference to the original Great Game between the British Empire and the Russian Empire for strategic supremacy in Central Asia in the 19th and early 20th century.[2]


The new great game has gone through three phases. The first phase began at the end of World War II and lasted until the end of the Cold War with the fall of the Soviet Union. The second phase began with the independence of the Central Asian nations until the color revolutions of the early 2000s opened Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan to democratization and foreign investment. The third and current phase began in May 2005 when the Central Asian governments first openly questioned whether they could trust the British and American governments and three distinct foreign policies emerged among the Central Asian states. Islamist terrorists in Uzbekistan attempted to overthrow the government, but were violently put down by the Karimov administration.

I will be bold enough to say that we have entered a fourth or fifth phase depending on how you want to break down current events.

Just so others dont think that i am the only person seeing things in different ways than the msm.

The "Great Game" Enters the Mediterranean: Gas, Oil, War, and Geo-Politics

Artfldgr says:

Russia and Iran are also the nations with the largest natural gas reserves in the world. This is in addition to the following facts; Iran also exerts influence over the Straits of Hormuz; both Russia and Iran control the export of Central Asian energy to global markets; and Syria is the lynchpin for an Eastern Mediterranean energy corridor. Iran, Russia, and Syria will now exercise a great deal of control and influence over these energy corridors and by extension the nations that are dependent on them in the European continent. This is another reason why Russia has built military facilities on the Mediterranean shores of Syria. The Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline will also further strengthen this position globally.

India is communist, Iran is communist, there is a pipeline going through all this and iran/syria are the lynchpins.

[just so i am not challenged on the india thing. "Fear stalks villagers in India's communist state" Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:13am EST /
When the communist government of West Bengal state backed down on seizing their land for an industrial complex, it was seen as a victory for poor farmers opposing the unstoppable juggernaut that the Asian giant's economy appears to be.

But now, the usually bustling mud roads running through dozens of villages in Nandigram in eastern India are deserted and the area dotted with red communist flags, emblems of a government that had wanted this fertile land for a chemicals complex.

Close to 2,000 displaced villagers, many of them minority Muslims, are living in unhealthy conditions in refugee camps, saying they are too afraid to return home.

They blame a reign of terror by the communist government and its party cadres who have now retaken control.

"It is hell on earth, we are living like prisoners in a free country," said Sabuj Pradhan, struggling to hold back his tears.

"We have seen how cadres raped our women and said it was payback time for daring to defy the government," said Pradhan, 40, sitting in a corner of a high school that has been turned into a refugee camp on the outskirts of Nandigram ]

Pakistan is another lynchpin... as IRAN is. if the west went into IRAN, bhutto would not have been killed.

it now looks like the US will not go in, or is much less likely, and so Bhutto and pakistan become KEY to the political control through energy control.

If Bhutto would have stepped into office, she would not have been facile to russia, but would be more so with the west.

she was offered a deal she couldnt refuse and she refused all offers.

this also means if one reads carefully, that they are consolodating control of all energy resources which means they can control prices arbitrarily as opec does with oil - its fixed by their majority control, smaller companies are stuck. and believe it or not, western countries oil companies are a very small percentage of the industry

just to give one proper persepctive on this. I will let you decide who controls what (though remember opec is not west dominated, but communist dominated. so even if a country likes the west, if they are a member of opec then they have to sway with that. Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Indonesia, IR Iran, Iraq (yes they are still members, founding members. so much for the guns for oil thing), Kuwait, SP Libyan AJ, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela. if ya want to know the truth on oil prices, compared this with below. oh, and remember, natural gas follows with it for the most part.

Saudi Arabia, which holds 22 percent of the world's known reserves, produces roughly 10.5 million barrels per day (bpd); global daily consumption is 82 million bpd.

Russia. 60 billion barrels. (14 billion from the land they grabbed when? sakhalin island. "The Soviet attack on South Sakhalin started on 11 August 1945, as a part of Operation August Storm, four days before the Surrender of Japan, after the bombing of Hiroshima.") The world’s second-largest producer and exporter of oil, Russia employs less than 1 percent of its workforce in the oil and gas sector, despite the fact its energy industry comprises roughly a quarter of the country's gross domestic product (GDP).

(The official figure of 9 percent is distorted by questionable accounting practices, economists say.) Oil and gas make up roughly two-fifths of all Russian exports, leaving some investors wary of investing in such a resource-dependent market: A $1 per barrel change in the price of oil, for instance, results in a $1.4 billion change in Russian revenues. In its favor, Russia created a cushion for such changes by developing an oil-stabilization fund, worth some $44 billion, which can only be tapped to reduce its deficit or finance pension funds.

sorry, there was a lot more there too [ ]

Venezuela. A founding member of Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 1960, Venezuela has emerged as the world's fifth-largest exporter of oil

Nigeria. Nigeria produces roughly 2.5 million bpd, but because of mismanagement and corruption must buy back refined fuel from outside countries, often non-oil-producers like Spain, at a mark-up. While the country has earned an estimated $280 billion from oil exports over the past thirty years, its government has invested little in expanding or maintaining refining capacity in recent years. Another issue is poor security. Attacks on pipelines and other facilities, mostly by locals upset with their share of oil revenues from the Niger Delta, are common occurrences.

wow, so spain (communist) gets to make the money from nigeria... venezuela, russia, and opec nations make up the lion share of the oil...

The cost of crude oil has hit $80 per barrel, nearly quadruple what it was in 2002, and is predicted by some experts to go as high as $100 per barrel in the next few years. Yet, so far there has been no global recession. That, however, is small solace to the hundreds of millions around the world facing higher costs for transporting goods, commuting to work, or heating homes and offices. Globally, escalating oil demand has resulted in a large redistribution of wealth from energy importers to energy producers, whose current account surplus has soared in recent years. Saudi Arabia alone has been reported a surplus of $76 billion for 2006.

[do note that its hard to know peak oil if all these countries manipulate their quantities, and productions to facilitate inflated prices of natural materials. given it takes so few to do this work, the majority of their populations suffer in poverty. russia included]

A little-known quasi-cartel already exists. The Gas Exporting Countries' Forum (GECF), which first met in Tehran in May 2001, consists of 15 gas-producing nations. It collectively controls 73 percent of the world's natural-gas reserves and 41 percent of production. Algeria was one of the founding members of GECF, along with Iran and Russia.

its VERY clear why bhutto was killed, and everyone missed it because it was past those limits i mentioned above. that we have grown past the age of the past and into a new age. but the new age is not less of this it is more of this since its ruled by pragmatism, which dethroned morals, making this acceptable to more common thought.

bhutto would get in the way of hegemony in natural gas AND a new hegemony in oil by fouling up or controlling pipeline delivery of oil and natural gas to india and china.

the west is being painted into a corner, and their populations have been reduced and made weak. after all, better to confront a weak and cornered beast than a strong one.

ever see them 'break' horses?

blackpine says:

Whatever happened to Occam's Razor? Russia exports oil. China pays handsomely. Bhutto showed a clear propensity for being bought. Yes, yes, I'm a klansman, blah blah. I'm just telling you what fellow grand wizard Tariq Ali at the Independent along with a bunch of our fellows at the Islamabad Klan chapter have been pointing out for years. She was a feudalist. She was pro election but not pro democracy or pro European style socialism.,,2233639,00.html

Remember that her husband was nicknamed Mr. 10% and later Mr. 40% for the size of the kickbacks he got from any project funded by the government.

Is her death a disaster? Absolutely. It means that a whole lot more people will die. It means her coalition, who was more favorably disposed to foreign opinion than anybody else on the horizon, just lost a lot of power, and power abhors a vacuum.

But there were enough folks locally who wanted her dead, and she didn't have a halo.

The big questions that we have now are what will happen in the country and can we do anything at all?

La Russophobe says:

"there were enough folks locally who wanted her dead, and she didn't have a halo"

What's your point? Lots of Brits wanted George Washington dead, and he owned slaves. Nobody is perfect.

She risked her life for democracy and the future of her country. That's most than most can say, and worthy of ultimate respect. She governed, and despite all the blabbering about "corruption" few can state any specifics about how she harmed her country.

Most of all, she was America's friend and ally. Beggars can't be choosers, and if we can't support our allies in places like Pakistan, we deserve to suffer.

blackpine says:

We agree and we disagree. Let's go to the disagreements first.

1. She risked her life for democracy and the future of her country.

She risked her life for power. In an earlier response, you made a tangental comparison between her and Martin Luther King. This breaks down on one level. She got to be president, and did very little to improve Pakistan, and there's a strong argument she made it worse. For the analogy to match King would have had to have successfully run for president, and then left segregation in place while channeling funds into his foreign bank accounts, after which he is forced to leave the country. Additionally, he would have had to fight for that money in foreign courts to keep every single dime, never once returning the money to the public coffers from whence it came. Additionally, he would have had to have been supporting the Klan to go after communists, to then later be assassinated by a politically revitalized and muscular white supremacy movement.

2. Lots of Brits wanted George Washington dead, and he owned slaves. Nobody is perfect.

Good point. However, with Washington, lots of his own country men were willing to fight and die for him. The majority in fact. Conversely, with Bhutto, lots of her country men wanted her out of power. A majority in fact. In terms of slavery, the recognized evil that it is now, was not a crime at the time. Embezzlement was a crime and gross breach of the public trust during Bhutto's first term.

As for people killing her, I don't think you have to look overseas for people who wanted her dead. It's possible, but again, it's more likely the culprits came from inside the country, start to finish.

The embezzlement and cronyism under her terms wasn't remarkable (again, look at Sharif) but it still siphoned billions away from public projects and ruined her politically for a almost a decade, while crippling the credibility of civilian government in Pakistan as a whole. Same thing with Sharif. Sincerely idealistic people don't generally pursue public service careers in Pakistan as a result.

The danger that I see is that if we misidentify what Bhutto was, then we make the mistake of trying to find "Another Bhutto" when what we are looking for never existed in the first place. Sharif is trying to fill that role right now by talking about international consensus, and democratic processes and how much he is like Bhutto and how they were such great colleagues. It's disgusting, frankly, and we should not take this guy at face value for anything he says. But if he uses the right verbiage, he can seduce some. We have to be honest, BRUTALLY honest if we're going to proceed intelligently.

Here's where we agree completely.

1. Most of all, she was America's friend and ally. Beggars can't be choosers, and if we can't support our allies in places like Pakistan, we deserve to suffer.

Bullseye. Poetry. How can we be better allies? How can we help our friends?

Post a comment

(will not be published)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


TrackBack URL: