Hillary: Pakistan troops might have killed Bhutto

[Herman Munster]

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-ushill1230,0,7418497.story?coll=ny_home_rail_headlines

CLINTON, Iowa - Hillary Rodham Clinton waded into Pakistan's volatile internal political situation Saturday, raising the possibility the country's military might have assassinated Benazir Bhutto because the killing took place in the garrison city of Rawalpindi.

Clinton's remarks came as Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf's government seemed to reject a call for an independent international investigation of the murder that Clinton and John Edwards proposed on Friday.

During a question-and-answer session at an elementary school here, Clinton offered a detailed prescription for the troubled country, suggesting that the U.S divert aid away from its military to social welfare programs.

And for the second time in as many days, she cast doubt on Musharraf's contention that the suicide bombing that led to the death of the country's most popular opposition leader was masterminded by al-Qaida.

"There are those saying that al-Qaida did it. Others are saying it looked like it was an inside job -- remember Rawalpindi is a garrison city," she said.

Earlier in the day, the former first lady sat down with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos and said that, as president, it wouldn't be "appropriate" for her to include Bill Clinton in top-secret security discussions.

"I think he would play the role that spouses have always played for presidents," she told the host of "This Week" in an interview to air Sunday. "He will not have a formal official role, but just as presidents rely on wives, husbands, fathers, friends of long years, he will be my close confidante and adviser as I was with him."

[lvx35]

1. The question is, can you fully differentiate Pakistan's troops from Al Qaeda?

Or the Islamist militant movement in general? From what I hear, you can't, and Musharraf has been walking a hell of a tightrope.

[rodeodance]

3. and his military is infiltrated with Taliban people

[sandnsea]

2. And proposes diverting aid away from the military

I guess that was a good idea Obama had after all.

[The Traveler]

6. Actually, it is a good idea only if

destabilizing a country with nuclear weapons is a good idea. (Of course, one could argue successfully that the place is already quite destabilized.) We need a plan to produce reform in Pakistan ... but under the best of circumstances it is dicey to reach into another country's politics and engineer political and economic reform. (I myself wonder if we will be successful at restoring democracy in our own country ... but I digress.) It will take some time to work that out. In the meantime, it is dangerous to add gas to the fires burning in Pakistan right now.

We have to concern ourselves not only with our own fears, but with the fears of other nuclear powers active in the region ... specifically India and the Russian Federation. A sudden transition of control (a coup or popular uprising) could leave control of nuclear weapons in doubt. It is possible (hopefully not likely) that those powers would consider a preemptive strike to suppress deployment or dispersal of Pakistan's nuclear inventory.

I considered Obama's comments on the matter uncharacteristically rash of him. I think these comments of Clinton's are downright reckless at this point in time.

[sandnsea]

16. Continuing military aid to a rogue nuclear nation is rash

Not calling the nation what it is. They will use the military aid for the coup, just like these countries we aid militarily always do.

[The Traveler]

17. The Pakistani military doesn't need

our aid to pull off a coup.

Name calling is one thing. Specifically proposing policy changes that would alter the current status quo without describing how you transition to an acceptable end state is just making noise. And in this situation, just making noise is not helpful ... no matter how enjoyable it might be.

Believe me ... I am at an emotional level in great agreement with Clinton and Obama on these points. Musharaff is a bastard and in the long run must go. But when I consider the implications of throwing gas on the fire it just doesn't seem very statesmanlike to me.

Let me say again more clearly ... if this situation runs too far down hill towards chaos too quickly, then there is a risk of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan. There are other scenarios which are just about as horrible and somewhat more likely. There is significant risk of massive loss of life if there is a violent transition of power right now, or if Musharaff finds alliance with extremist elements.

This is a helluva mess, brought to fruition by years of bad policy by bad actors occupying the White House. It will not be redressed in a week. It will not be helped by inflammatory campaign rhetoric.

[sandnsea]

18. Biden supports tying military aid to change

It is not just inflammatory rhetoric, it's sound policy.

http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=287046

[The Traveler]

19. Yeah ... Biden is a good thinker

Perhaps you misunderstand the basis of my commentary. Obama basically said we needed to cut off military aid to Pakistan, and that weakens Musharaff's position. He would have to shift position to recover strength, and we probably aren't prepared for that yet. Hence, I regard it as a rash statement he probably would not make were he actually in office. Clinton aired out speculation that Musharaff's security forces actually carried out the hit (and that may well prove to be true!). That is really throwing gas on the fire at this point.

Biden, as you point out, has suggested a policy that suggests a movement to an acceptable transition, and that is a whole other matter.

[sandnsea]

21. No, he didn't "basically say" that

He "basically said" the same thing as Biden. Musharraf needs to get serious about democracy and al qaeda or risk losing military aid.

[The Traveler]

22. Perhaps I misread that

I thought he was proposing an unconditional cut in aid to Musharaff. If I read that incorrectly, I do apologize.

[Evergreen Emerald]

11. No! My God, at this point that would be disastrous

We need a hand there, still. I do notice that he changed his stance today on MTP. He said they should not have a "blank Check" hmmm where have I heard those words before? (Clinton said it the day before).

They need to use those funds as a guide. But, not like Bush who is just giving away our treasury for...?

[Hippo_Tron]

24. That is basically what Clinton and Obama are doing

When you threaten to cut of military aid you don't say "I think we should threaten to cut off military aid" you say "I think we should cut off military aid."

The first statement lays your cards on the table for Musharraf to see. The second one, could possibly motivate him to make changes.

Neither Clinton nor Obama are really interested in just cutting aid off to Musharraf and letting the region destabilize.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Yea, I was gonna say that sounds a lot like what Obama was saying

[PurityOfEssence]

4. This is sheer idiocy on her part

Brilliant. Make a damning accusation with a backhanded bit of innuendo.

Is THAT statesmanship? That's amateurish to the nth degree. Even if it's true and even if she has something to back it up, saying so at this juncture is antagonistic lunacy. The place is a powder keg with nuclear weapons and frustrations that we can hardly imagine. What would happen if Musharraf gets assassinated now? The curse of autocracies is that the elimination of the tyrant leaves a dangerous vacuum.

Why on earth speculate like this? Is she trying to prove her godlike prescience? That's absolutely ridiculous.

Broad statements made out of ignorance in the early stages of great disruption are beyond dangerous.

Sheesh.

[OKNancy]

5. That's what the Republicans are saying about this too

Don't mess with Musharraf because he is our guy and how dare she say such a thing.
She is backing up her call for an investigation because the whole thing is fishy.

[Sulawesi]

7. The whole thing might be fishy....

...but her statement was incredibly irresponsible. The place is a tinderbox with nuclear weapons and a major presidential candidate pours fuel on it?

[Evergreen Emerald]

20. BS.

She is being tough on Musaraff who later said he would agree to an international investigation.

She gets stuff done.

[PurityOfEssence]

13. They agree with me on gravity and daily sunsets, too

We seem to differ on the concept of death, though, and I prefer to think of sunsets as our regular turning away from the sun...

Just because despicable people come to the same conclusion doesn't mean I'm one of them or get marching orders from them.

This is wildly reckless; to think out loud like this shows someone who doesn't understand diplomacy or statesmanship. This serves nothing, even if it's substantiated. If she knew more than she's saying, she shouldn't have said anything about it. If she was just offering possibilities, she shouldn't have, because they'd be misconstrued as founded in something.

It sounds like she's trying to prove that she's smarter and more informed than others, and she's doing so by stirring up a hornet's nest in an already dangerous situation. This is self-serving grandstanding and just plain reckless. We owe it to the world to shut the fuck up at this moment and watch things very carefully. From many knowledgeable sources, Pakistan has a large moderate population and may very well be able to sort this out themselves without extremists taking control, but it's a very complex country and it's THEIR country; stomping around with cocksure ignorance and meddling in others' affairs is the kind of colonial bullshit that got us into Iraq.

This shows flagrant immaturity, inconsiderate opportunism and sloppy garrulousness.

[Sparkly]

9. A damning accusation?

"There are those saying that al-Qaida did it. Others are saying it looked like it was an inside job..."

That's not even an accusation.

And what politicians here say has little bearing on what's happening there. It's not like the people of Pakistan just woke up and read Clinton's remarks in Newsday and thought, "Wow, that never occurred to me! Musharaf might be involved?!?"

They aren't stupid.

[Onlooker]

8. Good for her

Some people seem to be defending Mushareff, but let's remember he's a corrupt military dictator who took over in a coup, and then blocked democracy, while Al Qaeda seemed to get stronger, not weaker. He's no ally, and Bush has been way too soft on him.

[Sulawesi]

10. I agree...

...but that doesn't make her musings on the matter any less irresponsible. Sometimes what you say as a presidential candidate, when not thought through, gets people killed (for example).

[BeyondGeography]

12. This is the voice of experience?

:freak:

[itsrobert]

14. She's off the reservation.

It may be true but for obvious diplomatic reason you don't voice it in the press. This is best handled through diplomatic channels.

[sniffa]

15. how naive

showing off her inexperience again.