So who do you think killed Bhutto?

[TheWraith]

The obvious choices are Islamic militants, her political rival the other ex-Prime Minister, and Musharraf.

Yes, I know that "Al Qaeda" has claimed responsibility. Somebody describing themselves as "Al Qaeda" would claim responsibility if a giant astroid hit the Earth.

Personally, I'm looking at her fellow ex-PM. This lets him line up all of the anti-Musharraf support behind himself, which isn't a plus for Musharraf.

[TwilightGardener]

1. Al Qaeda or generic Islamic militants. Sometimes it is as it appears.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

48. Sometimes, it's not that simple. MOST of the time, it isn't that simple.

She had many enemies, mostly rich and powerful men.

[rox63]

2. I think it was at least a LIHOP (if not a MIHOP) on the part of Musharref n/t

[LSK]

18. my thoughts exactly

[killbotfactory]

29. yep

Don't run for election against a dictator if you value your life.

[TahitiNut]

3. People with the same ideology as those who killed Anwar Sadat.

:shrug:

[maxsolomon]

4. Musharraf/ISI using Al Queda militants

quid pro quo.

assassination in exchange for asylum, non-interference.

[Junkdrawer]

24. Yep. William Casey outsourced the region's "wet work" to the ISI...

after the Church Committee clipped the CIA's wings.

Musharraf/ISI will not be allowed to fall from power.

[pegleg]

5. Why the hell are we even involved over there?

[sandnsea]

36. O-I-L

A pipeline across Afghanistan.

[Marrah_G]

6. Al Qaeda and the Taliban

[grytpype]

7. Pakistani security services

[bdamomma]

20. under the direction of Musharraf too.

he was hellbent to keep his position.

[Alexander]

8. Sharif (the guy you are accusing) also had an attempt on him this morning.

I wish more DUers would read and think before they post bullshit.

[rucky]

14. There's alot of news floating around.

Thanks for enlightening us.

edit: I just read your response to my earlier post. sorry.

[Alexander]

22. It's cool. You seem to want the facts.

Some DUers have made up their minds already, facts be damned.

[Junkdrawer]

25. Self Delete

[TheWraith]

41. I know. And I also notice that he came through it just fine.

Whereas his biggest rival is dead.

Or don't you think that a failed assassination attempt, blamed on militants or Musharraf, could enhance his standing and reputation?

[cali]

9. I haven't a clue n/t

[Pastiche423]

46. The most honest statement you've ever made on this board

[LanternWaste]

10. If her assassination destabilizes the country

If her assassination destabilizes the country (as I think it will), I'm compelled to ask who would profit the most directly in the quickest amount of time from the resulting chaos (regardless of how minor), and my mind keeps pointing towards the Islamic fundamentalists.

[rucky]

11. Assuming there will be elections anytime soon.

Taliban, Sharif and Musharraf all stand to gain from this. I don't think Musharraf has the resources to keep control of the country, though. And I think he knows that, too. Unless Bush props him up to keep Sharif from winning an election (which would bring India back into the picture, big time).

The BEST case scenario, globally, is if Al-Queda did it, or Kashmiris did it and are exposed before elections. Then it's business as usual - no new variables to add to the equation.

Either way, the US is going to end up propping a tinpan dictator. Hope for Pakistan just got killed.

[TankLV]

12. Another crazy ISLAMIC fudie freak...

and yet this country SERIOUSLY is considering ANY of the repuke idiots...

ANYBODY who is a FUNDIE EVANGILICAL asshole is automatically OFF MY LIST to even consider...that rules out ALL repukes and a few so-called dems...

[OKNancy]

13. A nut-ball religious zealot, probably in the security detail

I don't see how it benefits Musharraf or even Bush ( shows how he has still mishandled the region )

[flyarm]

15. black opps..eom

[ChazII]

16. Al-Qaeda claims responsiblity

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=1.0.1710322437

[blondeatlast]

17. Gee, that's a first for them.

Not.

[undeterred]

19. Osama himself, without a disguise.

[Dangerman]

21. Musharraf

I'll bet my life on it.

[bicentennial_baby]

23. ISI

[Lint Head]

26. The facist Re-Pubic-Rats are loving this.

Al Qaeda just handed the right wing nut jobs the old 'Hey, terrorists are coming here next' routine.
If you think politics is not influenced by terror and killing just look at the hostage release in Iran immediately after Ray Gun took office. Or, the way we were lied to about 9/11. The criminals in the White House need to be investigated and prosecuted for treason. The cowards in Congress are not willing to do that and they will go along with what ever these criminals say about the Bhutto assasination. Because there was also a 'failed' assination attempt on Musharraf that makes him, somehow, innocent? Things in this world are not always that simple. The facts will come out and be buried by right wing extremists is my prediction. The simple minded will continue to believe the lies that the Bush criminals feed us daily. :dem:

[Zynx]

27. Same answer as those who killed Sadat.

Radical crazies. Just like most assassinations.

[Alexander]

28. Remember Al-Qaeda was a CIA creation. It's possible they did it.

It's also possible Musharraf LIHOP.

[benld74]

30. I don't know BUT, 20-25 years from now,,,

Someone will write a book that has all the loose ends in it, making references, innuendos, possibilities, coincidences, etc that points the finger at someone or some kinda organization. I will be 70+, and read it, shaking my head, blood pressure rising etc. But nobody will read it, there will be no HARD evidence. People will go on with their lives, as I hope my family does, BUT the world will have definitely changed, for the worse, if thats possible. I will pray.

[TygrBright]

31. The forces of hate.

It doesn't matter what you call them. Regardless of ideology, they all belong to the same 'party,' a party that believes in the zero-sum, winner-take-all philosophy and that anyone who is not with them is against them and that all who do not bow to them are their enemies and must be killed. Not just killed, but killed in a horrible way that will serve as a warning to others who do not belong to the party of hate.

They killed Ghandi. They killed Sadat. They killed Martin Luther King. They killed Bobby Kennedy. They killed Matt Shepard. They have killed, in my lifetime, billions of human beings in horrible, brutal ways. There is no particle of difference between them, no matter what color their skin is, no matter what language they speak, no matter what 'god' they name as an excuse for their vile acts. Their followers are all one in a vast unity of hatred, whether they hate in the name of 'Jesus' or in the name of 'Allah' or in the name of 'Order and decency' or in the name of 'economic prosperity.' All alike, all part of the same vileness.

Those who have not yet killed, not yet maimed another in service to their party, may yet be redeemed, and above all, we MUST NOT JOIN THEM. For then they win another victory.

May the Light comfort all who grieve, enlighten all who hate, and illuminate all who seek love and peace between human beings separated by trivial differences of race and nation and creed.

sadly,
Bright

[ronnykmarshall]

32. Hillary Clinton

go to GD-P, I'm sure someone will say it before the end of the day.

[Sir Jeffrey]

33. I think Musharraf let someone get close to her...

and that "someone" is probably aligned with radical Islamic terrorism (call it "Al Qaeda" or whatever).

Musharraf was probably steaming over Washington's insistence at a power-sharing agreement with Bhutto. Men with power want more power.

This assassination happened just before the election. There were reports of Musharraf attempting to rig the election in order to share power, which Bhutto resisted... probably because she did not trust that Musharraf would rig the election as agreed (giving himself a massive vote total and stabbing her in the back) and would then claim an overwhleming mandate unable to be challenged by either Bhutto (because of complicity) or the West (because of their previous support for Musharraf and their bullshit about Democracy).

Then there were statements made by Robert Gates just last week IIRC that stated we were going to be sending troops into Pakistan. I remember that because I made a joke to my wife that we would probably just end up declaring war on them after some sort of "terrible" event. Whoa prescience.

Anyway, I just watched Bush's "statement" and he looked pissed off...like he knew that he just got played by someone much smarter than him and his administration. People like Bush wear their emotions on their sleeves. He wasn't sad or shaken. A sad and shaken man would not have squinted like he did or storm off the stage at the end. He was pissed off.

IN his life, whenever he was losing/lost at anything, he would either cheat his way to victory or his daddy would bail him out. He now has finally realized that he has been played by Musharraf for years....that even with him cheating he lost...and that Musharraf was never really in his court or under his control...and that Musharraf has probably told him to fuck off.

Now, he has staffed his administration with incompetent fuck-ups and/or insanely delusional neo-conservatives that are literally incapable of thinking beyond their own propaganda or the fatness of their wallets. So what kind of advice is he getting now? Bomb Iran from the neocons, bomb Pakistan from the fuckups, and a few probably spouting some "stay the course" bullshit about the MidEast Democracy project.

I have known many people like this, and I have some insight to offer in what we can expect next. When people like this are losing/have lost the game, and they cannot cheat their way back to respectability, they either lash out terribly or quit and go home. Quitting is not really an option for Bush. I suppose he could just retreat to the ranch and stay there clearing brush until next January...but I suspect he is more of the lashing out type.

Expect the US to hit someone hard either in Pakistan or Iran. My intuition tells me that there is not much of a desire to go after Iran after the NIE leaked. We'll probably go hard into Pakistan to dredge up Bin Laden's crippled ass. You could probably get a strong consensus in Washington to do that, as opposed to a misadventure in Iran.

You can almost hear the war selling itself:

"A nuclear armed Pakistan headed by Islamic extremists..."

"Cannot allow India and Israel to face this existential threat..."

"Growing international consensus to secure all Pakistani ICBM's..."

"Russia and China offer tacit support for limited operations into Pakistan under UN authorization..."

"Musharraf's failure to eliminate the threat of radial Islamic terrorism..."

"If Musharraf won't combat Bin Laden, we will..."

"We offer our support to the President because we're spineless and opposing Bush at this time might hurt our chances to win in 2008..." (or something to that effect)

Ugh. It's not even dinner time and I need a drink.

[blondeatlast]

34. Islamic militants, alQaeda, the Taleban, tribal factions, Musharif,

etc...

There are dozens of possibilities worth looking into; to settle on one now demonstrates some Condoleezza Rice-like ignorance of the unrest in that region.

[JVS]

35. Freemasons

[Midlodemocrat]

37. It was Colonel Mustard with the revolver.

Which makes as much sense as our guessing.

[slackmaster]

38. Damn, you beat me to it!

In the kitchen.

[jakem]

40. that was what I was going to post!

but Bush put him up to it...

[Fleshdancer]

39. I don't know, but I do know that Musharraf will need to greatly increase his security

If I recall correctly, he has already had a few close calls in the past when it comes to assassination attempts. My guess is that he'll want to lay low for a while.

[Vinca]

42. Musharref. He's a dictator with no desire to give up or share power. nt

[bemildred]

43. Emmanuel Goldstein and his gang of criminal accomplices. nt

[mtnester]

44. This is a returned favor

oh yes indeed

[Poiuyt]

45. Ex-Intel Official: Don't Be So Quick to Blame al-Qaeda, Musharraf for Bhutto Killing

Here I take my lumps like everyone else. Throughout the day I've either said that the most likely culprit for the Bhutto assassination is "the Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaeda," or I've reported the j'accuse issued by others that Pervez Musharraf is in some way culpable. But what if that's all wrong? According to a former intelligence official with deep experience on Pakistan, there's a third, and perhaps more likely culprit: internally-focused Pakistani Islamist militants without significant links to al-Qaeda.

The ex-intel official doesn't have any ground truth. But, s/he says, the organizations with the most to gain and the least to lose by assassinating Bhutto are the groups "like Lashkar e-Toiba, or the Jaish e-Mohammed." Those groups' ties to al-Qaeda are much, much less than that of the Pakistani Taliban, and their focus is entirely domestic. "There are numerous groups that fit in the militant category whose focus began with Kashmir, but they oppose all U.S.-Pakistani relations and all secular politics," the official says. "They strongly disapprove of the role of Benazir, on every ground, and they have every reason to let Musharraf take the blame. They check every box."

Again, it's pure speculation. But the ex-intel official doesn't believe Musharraf has much to gain by killing Bhutto once the cost of international and domestic outrage are factored in. As to why al-Qaeda wouldn't kill Bhutto, the ex-official wasn't as definitive: "It's very possible al-Qaeda had a hand in it, but I'd look carefully at the domestic component." Ideology wouldn't be what divides al-Qaeda or the Pakistani Taliban from the groups this official considers plausible suspects in the killing: "They all oppose the war on terror and would like to see an Islamist Pakistan, something very much like the Taliban in Afghanistan in Pakistan. There are a huge range of groups that I think are candidates. And no one’s talking about them."

more -

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004990.php

[stranger81]

47. Musharraf & the ISI [n/t]