What do the neoCons have to gain from the assassination of Bhutto? I'm NOT defending them, but

[blondeatlast]

I just don't see how on earth this really plays well into their agenda. I've seen the theory several times today but as a someone with a somewhat keen interest in the region, I only see this as being viewed as a colossal failure of statesmanship on the admins part. Even I could see the area as a powderkeg, yet nary a word from W and Co.

So, if you hold this theory (or even if you don't), can someone explain how this fits into the neoCon agenda? How does it benefit W and Co; wholly owned subsidiaries of Halliburton?

[rox63]

1. It incites instability in the Islamic world

The neo-cons thrive on that sort of thing. It supports their philosophy of never-ending war.

[bdamomma]

11. never ending wars, and making millions off it.

on the expense of others and killing and death means nothing to these thugs (our thugs) who are trashing this world with their sick ideology.

[Enrique]

13. once in a while they admit that's their philosophy

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=michael_ledeen

Michael Ledeen: “Stability is an unworthy American mission, and a misleading concept to boot. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia; we want things to change. The real issue is not whether, but how to destabilize.”

[LakeSamish706]

2. Well it seems to me that Cheney would like to start WW111 someplace..

So this would be one way to seriously destabilize the ME even more.

[mmonk]

3. Disorder that requires remedy.

[Junkdrawer]

4. They outsourced the region's "wet work" to the ISI back in the late 70s...

after the Church Committee clipped the CIA's wings.

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

[Clovis Sangrail]

5. because Perez is their guy?

I'm not proposing that they *are responsible, but it seems it would fit good enough for them to have some hand in things.

They like Perez and Bhutto *could be seen as a threat to Pak cooperation on the "war on terror".


You gotta remember, they're *not particularly "wise" decision makers.

[Bucky]

6. Responses so far in this thread seem to be saying "Murder = Evil = Neocons"

You're right, this assasination works against the neocon agenda. The Bush admin was pushing Musharraf to cut deals with Bhutto because they felt they could do business with both of them.

[Marrah_G]

7. They don't gain anything

This makes their agenda even more difficult. I think you have many people here reacting on reflex. The situation there is bad for the whole world. If the religious zealots get control humanity could be in trouble.

[Whisp]

19. I still haven't read much on this so forgive me for perhaps

being really ignorant about what's happening over there and the consequences.

1. Mushariff came to power with a coup - he was not elected - he is supported by Bush's america as so many dictators are.

2. the pakistanis are not too comfortable with bush being so close to Mush - asking all those favors of him since the Iraq occupation.

3. bottom line Mush is their man, the neocons pretty well own him.

4. Was Bhutto also as ownable as Mush? did she in any way threaten the hold that the Americans have over much of Pakistan's policies? It appeas she was to be a real threat to Mush in the upcoming elections.

It's very easy for me to jump to conclusions that there is some nasty dirty work here and that the CIA/Bush/Neos are involved. How many things like this have we read about over the years - but at the time of event the notions always gets poo pooed.

[Marrah_G]

22. The problem is that Pakistan could implode

Musharraf was just barely holding on. If he is ousted from power right now he won't be replaced by elections, it will be yet another coup, and it is doubtful that the new leader would be of any help to Bush. We need things to stabalize enough for elections to go forward. If the country is allowed to disintegrate into civil war the problem is that there ARE nukes in play. Not fake WMD, but real Nukes. The world will lose if one of those goes off.

[Junkdrawer]

23. Nope. The ISI wants riots...lots and lots of riots...

...

ADRIAN LEVY: Absolutely. I think there is a false configuration coming out of the Pentagon which is that if Musharraf falls, the Islamists will take over and have their fingers on a nuclear trigger. This is a false argument put out in order to continue the client status of the Pakistan military with the U.S. military. In fact, if you analyze Musharraf’s military record and look of his deeds rather than at the dogma, what you discover is the Pakistan military and Musharraf in particular, have been manipulating the Islamist faction. I mean the military as a whole had done that since 1988 when Benazir Bhutto first came to power, setting up an Islamist coalition to attack her viciously. They repeated the same in 1990 with the slush fund of $16 million. And Musharraf himself by 1995 reignited the Kashmir war by taking 10,000 Sunni extremists who then set fire to the divided state of Kashmir in order to make India bleed. That element of Islamists would join forces very much with Al Qaeda factions, with the Taliban by 2006, 2007. The national intelligence estimates for this and the published intelligence for this shows both in the UK And Europe that these factions – these Sunni militia gave new life blood to the Al Qaeda remnants and to the Taliban in the Waziristan area. The meddling would continue. There were 17 banned Sunni organizations which the U.S. State Department proscribed as did the Pakistan president. They were all resurging under new names post 2005. He said he would de-radicalize society, he would help control religious schools which tend to prey on the poor and impoverished in the tribal areas. You know, they increased to 13,000. I mean what we’ve seen is Musharraf and the military very much backing their own agenda. The agenda is to destabilize Afghanistan, to create a government there which is favorable to Islamabad. These are goals which are actually contrary to the goals – very largely contrary to the goals of the West. Yet, this is slowly moving car crash of the U.S. pumping billions of untraceable cash into the Pakistan military has continued since 2001 and we’re left with the position where Pakistan is to devoid of democracy, democracy is weakened and feeble, and we have just increased instability, quite honestly.

...

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/19/deception_british_reporter_andrew_levy_on

[Whisp]

24. let's not forget that Bush loves chaos and destruction

a tinderbox Pakistan is something he would exploit and it's only normal human beings that fear nukes, not the Murderer in Chief - he gets all animated and perky when talking about them.

[Frosty1]

28. I wonder if their election would be any more honest than ours was

:shrug:

[Marrah_G]

29. who knows......

Maybe, maybe not...but at least there would be a chance.

[killbotfactory]

8. They like Perez, and they value stability over democracy

Powell was friends with him when he was still shilling for criminals in the White House.

[sandnsea]

9. Yep

Corporates prefer stable dictatorships over democracies. Sociology101.

[EFerrari]

27. They value CONTROL over democracy, which is a little different. n/t

[Cha]

10. Two words for you.

War Machine.

[L. Coyote]

12. Don't expect crude to drop this week. This is a victory for violence and fundamentalism.

The NeoCons are not the Peace and Justice crowd, they are the assassination crowd.

Do not confuse the issue of who did this one assassination with the task of
understanding who are the assassins and who are the lovers of peace and security.

The NeoCons are a force for instability, and their role in the region is part of the answer.
They profit from the instability with high crude oil prices.

[2hip]

14. They're taking notes

I mean, managing an "Event", declaring martial law an cancelling elections takes a bit of effort and planning.


          Edwards '08 tees!

[dropkickpa]

15. I'm no woo

But oil could be the cause.

http://www.energybulletin.net/3291.html

In 1995 it was thought that the former Pakistani president Benazir Bhutto, Pakistani politician Nasrullah Babar, the Taliban regime, and the Turkmen president Safar Murad Niazov, were on one side of the argument trying give the project to the Argentinean company Bridas.

On the other side were Saudi Arabia's Delta Oil, Robin Rafael, a senior official in the U.S. State Department, Prince Turki al-Faisal, the then-Saudi intelligence chief, Zalmai Khalilzad, South Asia advisor to the State Department, and moderate Taliban officials, supporting UNOCAL.

Correspondents say Pakistan, then under Bhutto, was under pressure from the United States to sign the pipeline construction agreement.

[tom_paine]

16. Wow. That's an easy one. Let's see, shall I count the ways?

1) Bhutto was a Liberal.

2) Bhutto was a unifying opposition leaders, like JFK, RFK and MLK.

3) Bhutto was in the process of standing up against Busharraf's Election Fraud.

4) Musharraf is a known quantity, a dictator who has the Bushie Art of Plausible Deniability.

5) The Bushies have kicked billions of dollars to Busharraf, he is theirs, bought and paid for.

6) Bhutto might actually have gone after Bin Laden, who is resting comfortably with the help of his Bushie Pals in the Pakistani ISI (their CIA).

7) Bhutto might have reigned in and gone after the corrupt elements of the ISI, just as Kennedy threatened to do with the CIA, before he, too, was killed by a "lone assassin".

8) This squirts "fear and terrorism" juices into the mind of every unaware Imperial Subjects of Amerika, which is to say 97-99.9% of us, bypassing the conscious mind and clouding reason.

9) In a stunning three-for-one Bushie Victory, they not only got rid of the Pakistani JFK (the first woman ever to lead a Muslim Nation, maybe even more remarkable than JFK in that regard) AND the Liberal Coalition, but like the murdered Pat Tillman, they get to wave her bloody corpse around to futher their aims, which are the opposite of Bhutto's.

That enough motive for you?

[Zodiak]

26. To that I might add:

10. It employs the best results of the shock doctrine. U.S. troops coincidentally were added to the country recently to help Musharraf weather the storm, but the "storm" justifies more spending in Pakistan and some juicy contracts to keep his dictator ass alive. Perhaps some training contracts, the need for an American base, some equipment sold to the Pakistanis, etc.

11. If Musharraf and Bhutto were both desirable ends, then offing Bhutto would be even more desirable because of the destabilizing effect of the assassination, which makes Musharraf FAR more dependent on the U.S. and therefore MORE amenable to being controlled. After all, he has gone off the reservation a time or two.

I can see a LOT of benefit for the U.S. Neocons

[madrchsod]

17. they have nothing to gain.

they could have worked with her just as they have with the other bunch in power

[Fire Walk With Me]

18. Remember, these are the people who sold weapons to both Iran and Iraq to get them to fight

each other, to soften up the region so that they could walk in and take the oil.

They want something; they create causes and conditions in which to be able to take it. Sometimes it's unconstitutional power at home, sometimes it's resources abroad...

They also like causing destruction for its own sake. They like torture. They like chaos. They aren't like us, and don't think like we do. They WANT negativity and suffering. They want to profit from it financially, as well as the dark thrill of having caused damage.

They're sadists. Truly. They'll bring the whole thing down for fun, if nothing is done to counter their actions. Yes Timmy, they DO want world domination.

I have no idea if they/CIA are responsible for the assassination, but watch to see if they profit from it in any way whatsoever.

Do whatever you can, to increase the positive and to decrease suffering. An increase in light, especially during the worst darkness, is an effective tool.

[Annces]

21. I agree

You said what I was thinking about.

[Annces]

20. I don't know if the administration

is behind the assassination. However I think Cheney wants to feed the destructive forces and making people more fearful of Al Queda is a way to do this. So I would not want to be Musharraf because he is in the cross-hairs.

[IsItJustMe]

25. Are they responsible? I don't honestly know. Are they capable of it? you're damn right they are,

and that my friend, is all I need to know.