U.S. Brokered Bhutto's Return to Pakistan

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Source: Washington Post

For Benazir Bhutto, the decision to return to Pakistan was sealed during a telephone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just a week before Bhutto flew home in October. The call culminated more than a year of secret diplomacy -- and came only when it became clear that the heir to Pakistan's most powerful political dynasty was the only one who could bail out Washington's key ally in the battle against terrorism.

It was a stunning turnaround for Bhutto, a former prime minister who was forced from power in 1996 amid corruption charges. She was suddenly visiting with top State Department officials, dining with U.N. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and conferring with members of the National Security Council. As President Pervez Musharraf's political future began to unravel this year, Bhutto became the only politician who might help keep him in power.

"The U.S. came to understand that Bhutto was not a threat to stability, but was instead the only possible way that we could guarantee stability and keep the presidency of Musharraf intact," said Mark Siegel, who lobbied for Bhutto in Washington and witnessed much of the behind-the-scenes diplomacy.

But the diplomacy that ended abruptly with Bhutto's assassination yesterday was always an enormous gamble, according to current and former U.S. policymakers, intelligence officials and outside analysts. By entering into the legendary "Great Game" of South Asia, the United States also made its goals and allies more vulnerable -- in a country in which more than 70 percent of the population already looked unfavorably upon Washington.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122701481_pf.html

[demnan]

1. But did we even fly anyone over for the funeral?

If Rice had a shred of decency she would have been at that funeral, mourning publicly.

[zabet]

2. No wonder

Kindasleazey has not
been heard from on this
matter.

[ixion]

3. nice bit of brokering there, Condi... way to make sure security was adequate

NOT!

[tom_paine]

5. And the Bushies wonder why we suspect them of malfeasance, not just incompetence.

"If a person's paycheck depends on the making a mistake, then they will make that same mistake every day."

Please. One or two "incompetencies" might a statistical anomaly, but dozen, hundreds of them?

Am I supposed to believe nothing is wrong with a coin that flips heads a hundred or a thousand times in a row?

From where I am sitting, the Bushies lured her over there and then did nothing to help her get the protection she needed, protection denied to her by their bought and paid for Bushie Musharraf.

You're telling me that, after we bought Musharraf for all that cash, we can't even twist his arm enough to get him to protect the woman we lured over there?

Puh-leeze! This was known for MONTHS. Plenty of time for the Bushies to let Musharraf know what he needed to do to make "Plan Rice" to work.

Of course, I suspect "Plan Rice" was about getting Bhutto killed, thereby shattering the liberal coalition the way the death of the Kennedies and King did, and making sure Bhutto couldn;t return to power in a situation the Bushies couldn't control.

A situation which may have lead Bhutto to actually make good on her promise of rooting out the Bushfriends in the ISI/al-Qaeda power structure.

I continue to believe that Bhutto's biggest mistake was in trusting the Bushie Mafia, who did to her what the regular Mafia often does, lure their "friends" to their deaths because the Mafia needs that to happen.

And I will continue to suspect te Bushies of malfeasance because no coin flips heads a thousand time in a row without their being some reason for it.

[ixion]

9. well said, tom. I agree

:applause:

Even incompetent people get things right once in a while. This was a no-brainer. And again, we have the BushCo tell-tale clues: police leaving their posts just prior, etc.

It stinks, I tell ya. :grr:

[PATRICK]

12. Nice try WAPO

They always cover for US policy. Musharraf was unstable because Bhutto was alive in the wings. That has happened before to many other dictatorships. His biggest threat in a rigged autocracy warring against democracy was rival beyond reach. Well she came and he conquered. The same mess is still there but in the hands of someone who will do Bush's bidding.

That it is a mess for the vaunted US policy, pretensions or otherwise, has nothing to do with Bush and Musharraf, only the prestigious servitude of WAPO to a US system thoroughly hijacked and subverted by Bush. What WAPO insists on presenting simply does not exist except as a propaganda cartoon that has lost its reason and whose real effect is insanely boosting the regime. Journalism in this sense is a massive fool in motley clinging to the mutterings of sane policycrats confidently rolling insanely loaded dice and mildly irritated that they aren't winning lately.

[mopinko]

4. how did i know this?

i get more and more cynical the older i get, but it is never enough to keep up. jesus. we need to learn to myob.

[EFerrari]

6. Tariq Ali pointed out this morning that Karzai has a Marine guard

and yet we essentially sent Bhutto in there with nada.

Geniuses.

[formercia]

7. It just shows you how well loved * Gang is.

anyone who does business with them is getting the kiss of death.

[cascadiance]

8. You know the timing of this event, THEIR elections, OUR primaries starting seems curious!

I was about to start another thread on this, but doesn't it seems suspicious to any of you a bit?

That the Bush administration in effect convinced her to go to Pakistan to run in this election, and also I wonder how they arrived at January 8th as the timing of their election, VERY close to that of the date of the Iowa caucuses.

I wonder, if this event was "planned" in any fashion, and that the timing of it and the elections were ALSO planned, if this was to ensure that the issues at the top of the news right prior to the first primaries/caucuses will refocus the public's attention on the "global war on terror" by doing so instead of on other domestic issues.

Anyone else wonder about this?

Tariq Ali on Democracy Now was very frustrated that Benazir Bhutto followed Bush's wishes to go to Pakistan to campaign their and participate in this election instead of boycotting it.

Others have said that "noone wins", like the gentleman that James Zogby interviewed on his Viewpoint show yesterday, but I wonder if "noone wins" in this case or not. In a way it provides Musharraf to push off the election or at least control it if it goes on and blame it on terrorists.

Many point to Pakistan being very suspiciously involved in events leading up to 9/11. I wonder if there are favors being paid/returned here...

[killbotfactory]

10. led her to her death is more like it

Since Bush's buddy Perez didn't bother to have competent security around her.

[hisownpetard]

11. Why didn't we send Blackwater to guard her?