Bhutto has been assassinated.

<font size="5"><center>Pakistan's Bhutto assassinated</font size><font size="4">
Suicide bombing kills opposition leader, 20 others at rally, officials say</font size></center>


071227-bhutto-vmed-5a.widec.jpg

Pakistani former prime minister and opposition
leader Benazir Bhutto, who was reportedly
injured in an explosion on Wednesday, is seen
after a meeting with Afghan President Hamid
Karzai in Islamabad on Tuesday.


BREAKING NEWS
MSNBC News Services
December 27, 2007

RAWALPINDI, Pakistan - Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday in a suicide bombing that also killed at least 20 others at a campaign rally, a party aide and a military official said.

Earlier, it was reported that Bhutto was in critical condition undergoing emergency surgery at Rawalpindi General Hospital.

An Associated Press reporter at the scene could see body parts and flesh scattered at the back gate of the Liaqat Bagh park where Bhutto had spoken. He counted about 20 bodies, including police, and could see many other wounded people.

Police official, Saud Aziz, said it was a suicide attack.

The road outside was stained with blood. People screamed for ambulances. Others gave water to the wounded lying in the street.

The clothing of some of the victims was shredded and people put party flags over their bodies.

Editor's note: This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22406555/
 
interestingly, 3 hours now after the shooting, major news outlets in Pakistan are still NOT reporting Bhutto's death.

QueEx
 
Y E S T E R D A Y

<font size="4">
Youth with dynamite held near rally venue</font size>



top01.jpg



DAWN (Pakistani Newspaper)
By Ali Hazrat Bacha
December 26, 2007

PESHAWAR, Dec 26: A young man, allegedly carrying dynamite, was arrested here on Wednesday from outside the Arbab Niaz Stadium where Pakistan People’s Party chairperson Benazir Bhutto addressed a public meeting.

Reliable sources said the 19-year-old suspect, who identified himself as Raham Islam of Matani, had dynamite strapped to his body and he was trying to enter the stadium when he was stopped by security personnel. The suspect said that he had come here from a wedding party and could not find time to dispose of the explosive material.

The sources said he had been detained by the Crime Investigation Agency for interrogation, but CIA officials denied having any suspect in their custody.

Capital City Police Officer Tanveer-ul-Haq Sipra told Dawn that the accused had been arrested and was under interrogation.

He said proper security measures had been taken for the meeting and no untoward incident had taken place.

Meanwhile, a firecracker went off in a drain at a place about one and a half kilometres from the stadium. Police officials avoided giving any details in this regard. Mr Sipra, however, denied the claim.

http://www.dawn.com/2007/12/27/top8.htm
 
Heard about it on the radio not too long ago...Crazy shit..

And I agree; The hostile nature of that country is going to be a helluva lot worse than before..
 
Suicide bombed. Stop watching Faux.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons, radical Muslim bases. Should we have focused on Pakistan instead of Iraq and now Iran?:hmm:



I dont watch tv, aside from dvds so miss me with that...

Also, most of U.S., need to focus on our own back yard and keep to ourselves to thrive, hmmm
 
Last edited:
<font size="5"><center>Benazir Bhutto, 54, Lived in Eye of Pakistan Storm </font size></center>

27pakistan.xlarge3.jpg

Benazir Bhutto in front of a poster of her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, after she won first
parliamentary elections in 1988.




The New York Times
By JANE PERLEZ and JOHN O’NEIL
Published: December 28, 2007

The daughter of one of Pakistan’s most flamboyant and democratically inclined prime ministers, Benazir Bhutto, 54, served two turbulent tenures of her own in that post. A deeply polarizing figure, she lived in exile in London for years with corruption charges hanging over her head before returning home this fall to present herself as the answer to her nation’s trouble.

She was killed on Thursday in a combined shooting and bombing attack at a rally in Rawalpindi, one of a series of open rallies she had insisted on holding since her return to Pakistan this fall, after years in self-imposed exile.

A woman of grand ambitions and a taste for complex political maneuvering, Ms. Bhutto, 54, was long the leader of the country’s largest opposition political party, founded by her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Even from exile, her leadership was firm, and when she returned, she proclaimed herself a tribune of democracy, leading rallies in opposition to Mr. Musharraf, like the one at which she died.

In a foreshadowing of the attack that killed her, a triumphal parade that celebrated her return to Pakistan in her home city of Karachi killed at least 134 of her supporters and wounded more than 400. Ms. Bhutto herself narrowly escaped harm.

Her political plans were also sidetracked: she had been negotiating for months with the country’s military leader, President Pervez Musharraf, over a power-sharing arrangement, only to see General Musharraf declare emergency rule instead.


27pakistan.1901.jpg

Benazir Bhutto at a press
conference in Islamabad
in November, 2007.


Her record in power, and the dance of veils she has deftly performed since her return — one moment standing up to General Musharraf, then next seeming to accommodate him, and never quite revealing her actual intentions — stirred as much distrust as hope among Pakistanis.

A graduate of Harvard and Oxford, she brought the backing of Washington and London, where she impressed with her political lineage and her considerable charm. She also became the first female leader of a Muslim nation when she became prime minister in 1988 at the age of 35.

But during her two stints in that job — first from 1988 to 1990 and again from 1993 to 1996 — she developed a reputation for acting imperiously and impulsively. She faced deep questions about her personal probity in public office, which led to corruption cases against her in Switzerland, Spain and Britain, as well as in Pakistan.

Ms. Bhutto saw herself as the inheritor of her father’s mantle, often spoke of how he encouraged her to study the lives of legendary female leaders ranging from Indira Gandhi to Joan of Arc.

She grew up in the most rarefied atmosphere the country had to offer. One longtime friend and adviser, Peter W. Galbraith, a former American ambassador to Croatia, said he and Ms. Bhutto believed they first met in 1962 when they were children: he the son of John Kenneth Galbraith, the American ambassador to India; she the daughter of the future Pakistani prime minister. Mr. Galbraith’s father was accompanying Jacqueline Kennedy to a horse show in Lahore.

They met again at Harvard, where Mr. Galbraith remembers Ms. Bhutto arriving as a prim 16-year-old fresh from a Karachi convent who liked to bake cakes.

After her father’s death — he was hanged by another general who seized power, Zia ul-Haq — Ms. Bhutto stepped into the spotlight as his successor.

Following the idea of big ambition, Ms. Bhutto called herself chairperson for life of the opposition Pakistan Peoples Party, a seemingly odd title in an organization based on democratic ideals and one she has acknowledged quarreling over with her mother, Nusrat Bhutto, in the early 1990s.

She was also wont to self-aggrandize. She recently boasted that three million people came out to greet her in Karachi on her return last month, calling it Pakistan’s ”most historic” rally. In fact, crowd estimates were closer to 200,000, many of them provincial party members who had received small amounts of money to make the trip.

Such flourishes led questioning in Pakistan about the strength of her democratic ideals in practice, and a certain distrust, particularly amid signs of back-room deal-making with General Musharraf, the military ruler she opposed.

“She believes she is the chosen one, that she is the daughter of Bhutto and everything else is secondary,” said Feisal Naqvi, a corporate lawyer in Lahore who knew Ms. Bhutto.

When Ms. Bhutto was re-elected to a second term as Prime Minister, her style of government combined both the traditional and the modern, said Zafar Rathore, a senior civil servant at the time.

But her view of the role of government differed little from the classic notion in Pakistan that the state was the preserve of the ruler who dished out favors to constituents and colleagues, he recalled.

As secretary of interior, responsible for the Pakistani police force, Mr. Rathore, who is now retired, said he tried to get an appointment with Ms. Bhutto to explain the need for accountability in the force. He was always rebuffed, he said.

Finally, when he was seated next to her in a small meeting, he said to her, “I’ve been waiting to see you,” he recounted. “Instantaneously, she said: ‘I am very busy, what do you want. I’ll order it right now.’ ”

She could not understand that a civil servant might want to talk about policies, he said. Instead, he said, ‘’she understood that when all civil servants have access to the sovereign, they want to ask for something.”

But until her death, Ms. Bhutto ruled the party with an iron hand, jealously guarding her position, even while leading the party in absentia for nearly a decade.

Members of her party saluted her return to Pakistan, saying she was the best choice against General Musharraf. Chief among her attributes, they said, was her sheer determination.

Ms. Bhutto’s marriage to Asif Ali Zardari was arranged by her mother, a fact that Ms. Bhutto has often said was easily explained, even for a modern, highly educated Pakistani woman.

To be acceptable to the Pakistani public as a politician she could not be a single woman, and what was the difference, she would ask, between such a marriage and computer dating?

Mr. Zardari is known for his love of polo and other perquisites of the good life like fine clothes, expensive restaurants, homes in Dubai and London, and an apartment in New York.

He was minister of investment in Ms. Bhutto’s second government. And it was from that perch that he made many of the deals that haunted Ms. Bhutto, and himself, in the courts.

There were accusations that the couple had illegally taken $1.5 billion from the state. It is a figure that Ms. Bhutto has vigorously contested.

Indeed, one of Ms. Bhutto’s main objectives in seeking to return to power was to restore the reputation of her husband, who was jailed for eight years in Pakistan, said Abdullah Riar, a former senator in the Pakistani Parliament and a former colleague of Ms. Bhutto’s.

“She told me, ‘Time will prove he is the Nelson Mandela of Pakistan,’ ” Mr. Riar said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/world/asia/28bhuttocnd.html?hp
 
This assassination only makes things worse in the region. With talks with India over Kashmir reaching a stalemate and also the added problem with the resurgence of the Taleban in afghanistan to the north.
 
Pakistan's military is well equiped to kill off any democracy seekers it needs to

US interference/partnering is what is weakening Musharaff and the current regime.
 
Suicide bombed. Stop watching Faux.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons, radical Muslim bases. Should we have focused on Pakistan instead of Iraq and now Iran?:hmm:

Ha, I was thinking that. "Homocide bombing" is such a stupid term... why not just say "blown up" at that point?
 
<font size="5"><center>Al-Qaeda claims Bhutto killing </font size></center>

Asia Times
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
December 29, 2007

KARACHI - ”We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat mujahideen.” These were the words of al-Qaeda’s top commander for Afghanistan operations and spokesperson Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, immediately after the attack that claimed the life of Pakistani politician Benazir Bhutto on Thursday (December 27).

Bhutto died after being shot by a suicide assailant who, according to witnesses, also detonated a bomb that killed himself and up to 20 others at a rally in the garrison city of Rawalpindi. Bhutto, with Western backing, had been hoping to become prime minister for a third time after general elections next month.


“This is our first major victory against those [eg, Bhutto and President Pervez Musharraf] who have been siding with infidels [the West] in a fight against al-Qaeda and declared a war against mujahideen,” Mustafa told Asia Times Online by telephone.

He said the death squad consisted of Punjabi associates of the underground anti-Shi’ite militant group Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, operating under al-Qaeda orders.

The assassination of Bhutto was apparently only one of the goals of a large al-Qaeda plot, the existence of which was revealed earlier this month.

On December 6, a Pakistani intelligence agency tracked a cell phone conversation between a militant leader and a local cleric, in which a certain Maulana Asadullah Khalidi was named. The same day, Khalidi was arrested during a raid in Karachi. The arrest, in turn, led to the arrest of a very high-profile non-Pakistani militant leader, which, it is said, revealed an operation aimed at wiping out “precious American assets” in Pakistan, including Musharraf and Bhutto.

The operation is said to have involved hundreds of cells all over Pakistan to track targets and communicate with their command, which would then send out death squads.

Mustafa referred to a recent address by Bhutto in North West Frontier Province, in which she lambasted Islamic extremism and asked the people to stand against it. Bhutto was the only Pakistani leader who regularly spoke against al-Qaeda.

At the time of her death, Bhutto was vigorously campaigning around the country, following the November 20 announcement of general elections to be held on January 8. She had returned to Pakistan from exile in October, after a US-brokered deal with Musharraf gave her immunity from charges of corruption during her previous terms as prime minister. In return, her Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) supported Musharraf’s bid to be re-eleted as president.

Bhutto returned to Pakistan in the face of death threats from Islamist militants. Within 24 hours of landing in Karachi on October 18, she narrowly escaped with her life when two bombs were detonated near her motorcade, killing at least 130 people.

Addressing a press conference the following day, a defiant Bhutto pointed to the involvement of Pakistan's intelligence agencies in the attack.

Bhutto's death ignited violence all over the country, particularly in Sindh, her home province. “They've shut down all the shops, and there is firing all around,” said Abdul Jabbar, who works as a driver in Karachi, Pakistan's business capital. “People are just overcome with grief.”

By 9 pm Thursday, violence had claimed at least five lives in Karachi. Protesters evacuated two trains and set them on fire. Angry mobs attacked police stations and other symbols of state authority. Commuters were reported to be stranded in towns and cities all over the province. In Sukkar, a mob broke into the jail and released all the prisoners.

The assassination and ensuing violence immediately threw into doubt attempts to return Pakistan to democracy after eight years of military rule under Musharraf. Opposition leader Nawaz Sharif announced shortly after the assassination that his party would boycott the elections, and demanded that Musharraf resign immediately.

“The holding of fair and free elections is not possible in the presence of Pervez Musharraf. After the killing of Benazir Bhutto, I announce that the Pakistan Muslim League-N will boycott the elections," Sharif told a news conference.

He urged other parties to join the boycott. If other parties, including the PPP, which is in disarray following the assassination, heed his call, the legitimacy of the January 8 elections will be seriously undermined.

Bhutto’s killing, it would seem, is only the first major incident in al-Qaeda’s war against “American assets”, which is likely to plunge the country into further chaos and divert it from the democratic path.

(Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online. Inter Press Service contributed to this report.)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IL29Df01.html
 
Gunshots And Blast Clearly Visble In Newly Released Footage

New film has emerged showing the moment Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. It shows a gun emerging from the crowd and at least two shots fired - apparently contradicting President Musharraf's version of the cause of her death
<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="370" wmode="transparent" data="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=6be_1198938194"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=6be_1198938194"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><param name="quality" value="high"></object>

Sherry Rehman : 'I Saw Huge Gaping Bullet Wound In Benazir's Neck
<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="370" wmode="transparent" data="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=733_1198937580"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=733_1198937580"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><param name="quality" value="high"></object>
Benazir Bhutto's Spokeswoman say's she saw a gaping wound in Bhutto's neck which was delivered by a bullet from a 'Trained Assassin'.:angry::smh:

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="370" wmode="transparent" data="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=1f9_1198935932"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=1f9_1198935932"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><param name="quality" value="high"></object>
Al-Qeada Militant Claims Musharraf To Blame For Bhutto Killing.

As theories and counter-theories multiply over who killed Benazir Bhutto, an al Qaeda-linked Pakistani militant has denied any involvement in her death.

The government says Baitullah Mehsud was behind the assassination of the former prime minister as she left an election rally.

But, as a video was released showing the last moments in the opposition leader's life, a spokesman for the accused militant claimed she was in fact a victim of President Musharraf's own security apparatus.

It is a conspiracy theory that many Pakistanis are willing to believe.

Security forces are on the streets after civil unrest following Thursday's killing left more than 30 people dead. Life however is far from back to normal and many shops are shut.

In this atmosphere, it is still unclear whether elections due on January 8 can realistically go ahead.

With Benazir Bhutto now laid to rest, confusion remains over how she died.

Pakistan's Interior Ministry says the force of the blast from a suicide bomber smashed her head into the sun-roof of her car. But political collagues of the assassinated opposition figure maintain she died from bullet wounds
:angry::smh:
 
Last edited:
Re: Gunshots And Blast Clearly Visble In Newly Released Footage

The right wing media is trying to say that Al Qaeda is behind her murder. Al Qaeda might or might not have a hand in it but, you can be sure that Musharraf and the Pakistan military masterminded it. Why do we always back the military dictators?
 

Not surprisingly, especially during this “bush crime family” putsch of the US Constitution, one must avoid the American corporate media if one is seeking ‘reality-based’ context & perspective about who Benazir Bhutto really was and about.

The nauseating glorification of her in the US media is sickening.

The blog post below and the links that follow contain more real information about Bhutto than all the 24/7 CNN coverage that is being feed to the clueless rabble.



Benazir Bhutto - The Fall Of A Corrupt Puppet





benazirandperes.jpg




"I had the chance to meet her (Benazir Bhutto) on several occasions, in which she expressed interest in Israel and said that she hoped to visit upon returning to power." -Shimon Peres (President of "Israel", pictured above with Benazir Bhutto at a "socialist international" (sic) conference)


Thursday, December 27, 2007

http://ihsan-net.blogspot.com/2007/12/benazir-bhutto-fall-of-corrupt-puppet.html


A few months back (October 18th, 2007) Benazir Bhutto returned to Pakistan at the behest of a three way arrangement between herself, the hated dictator puppet Musharraf, and the United States. At the outset of this arrangement, it was clear that Bhutto would provide the democratic facade to the neo-colonial project of the US in Pakistan.

In many ways she was the ideal US face on the "democracy promotion" lie: Benazir was "educated" at the Imperial University of Harvard, she was articulate when speaking the lies of imperialism (couched in terms of "democracy") and could even appeal to some of the lslamophobic liberal-left crowd with her fake social-democratic credentials, and she was considered "beautiful" by the gossip rags. The icing on the cake was her recent conversion to staunch secularist ideas (wrapped in a half covered head scarf ) and she now opposed the Islamic political parties within Pakistan (not that these "Islamic parties" in Pakistan have much to offer). I say recent conversion, because Benazir was the one who gave the go ahead to the horribly sectarian anti-Shia (and anti-Iran) Taliban, who took over Afghanistan in the late 1996s.
The Taliban took power in Kabul in September 1996. It was during Bhutto's rule that the Taliban gained prominence in Afghanistan. She viewed the Taliban as a group that could stabilize Afghanistan and enable trade access to the Central Asian republics, according to author Stephen Coll.[18] He claims that her government provided military and financial support for the Taliban, even sending a small unit of the Pakistani army into Afghanistan.


But before Benazir could return to Pakistan there was some work to be done:

1. Musharraf had to be convinced that his time was up - and now it was Benazir's time to serve the US.

This took some arm twisting, but he was convinced, he would allow Benazir to become the PM if he was allowed to remain the President.

2. The pending corruption charges in Pakistan had to be dropped.

Since few, if any of the big landlords (feudals) or capitalist industrialists are prosecuted for corruption anyways, this was no big deal.

3. Two acts had to be passed in order to allow Benazir to take the helm.

i) A National Reconciliation Act that would absolve her of all of her past corruptions

ii) Another constitutional amendment was to allow her to become the Prime Minister of Pakistan for the third time (and allow Musharraf to remain President).

These two ammendments were pending challenges in Pakistan's Supreme Court when Busharraf declared his martial law, got rid of the judges, and installed his own kind. These new judges, in blind obedience, did whatever was asked of them.

The declaration of martial law by Busharraf led to some minor concerns for Benazir because she came under some slight pressure from her liberal-elite supporters - so she made some half hearted attempts to challenge the measures. However, the declaration of martial law, and deposing of the judges were as much for her benefit, as for Musharraf. And she eventually backed off any direct confrontations, and was happy to continue as if nothing had changed. Benazir, now free of the corruption charges, free of any other constitutional road blocks, went into political deal making mode for her party to "win" the biggest share of seats.

These deals were to maintain the status quo in Pakistan, it would allow her to gain Prime Ministership with a host of loyal landlords and industrialists backing her, who would continue to have a free hand to loot the country of its wealth and resources. And her patron, the US, would continue its neo-colonial project unhindered about any worries about Pakistan not being a "democracy."

A Pakistani NGO reported that nearly half of the candidates on the PPP (Benazir's party) are feudal landlords, and most of the rest are connected to super wealthy industrialist types. Far from being a savior of democracy (in the better sense of this word) Bhutto was a savior of the feudals and industrialists.

Benazir was indicted at a Swiss court on charges of creating off shore companies to receive kick backs from government contracts.
Benazir and Zardari were, thus, paid $8,190,085 in the account of Bomer Finance Inc. at UBS Geneva; and $3,807,338 in the account of Nassam Overseas Inc. at Barclays Geneva; a total of $11,997,423. Both Benazir and Zardari were sentenced "to reimburse" these proceeds of "the unfair management of the public interests" of Pakistan which were "laundered in Switzerland". There were $2,484,000 in the account of Bomer and $3,748,373 in the account of Nassam at Barclays. Bomer transferred to Hospital Middle East Inc. at UBS, Geneva, $5,502,292. All these, totalling $11,734,665, were ordered to be confiscated.

It does need to be noted that none of what Benazir and her husband Zardari (aka Mr. 10%) did was out of the ordinary for the Pakistani elites. This is more of a reminder that, while the mainstream media is potraying her as a martyr for "democracy," she was, in reality, nothing more than a petty thief who deserved to have been tried in a court of law, and should have been serving out a jail sentence for corruption, not running for Prime Ministership.

Benazir's closeness to the present US regime was even more disturbing; in a recent statement, she made the incredible claim that
“In the past the United States would support dictatorships but now it is supporting democratic forces, which is a sign of encouragement for all the democracy-loving people."

Aside from her unstinting support of the US war on "terror" (i.e. war on Islam and Muslims) she did not have a single word of criticism for the continued US occupation of Afghanistan, and Iraq, and was all for having regular consultative meetings with US state department officials to coordinate her return to power.

Pakistan is undergoing its most difficult crisis yet, and without leadership, and no cohesive indigenous based ideology, the army is the only institution that can manage to stay in power. But a center that is based on such a high level of corruption, and obedience to imperial masters will not be able to hold on for any length of time. And unless there emerges a real grassroots movement for social and economic justice with an Islamic identity that would appeal to the masses, it will be difficult, if not impossible for the country to maintain its integrity.

Read The Links Below

They blame Musharraf by Robert Fisk

Daughter of the West (Benazir Bhutto) by Tariq Ali

Tariq Ali on Democracy Now

 
<font size="5"><center>Doctors told to keep Bhutto details quiet</font size></center>

United Press International
Published: Jan. 1, 2008 at 9:13 AM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Jan. 1 (UPI) -- Pakistani doctors say the government has been pressuring them to conceal details of the injuries that killed opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.

The doctors said records of Bhutto's treatment were removed by the government and they have been pressured not to reveal details of the injuries she suffered during the Dec. 26 attack that claimed her life, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.

"The government took all the medical records right after Ms. Bhutto's time of death was read out," said one doctor, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Look, we have been told by the government to stop talking. And a lot of us feel this is a disgrace."

The cause of Bhutto's death has become a politically sensitive issue. The Pakistani government claims the former prime minister was killed when the force of the suicide bombing caused her head to collide with a lever on her vehicle's sunroof.

However, Bhutto's supporters say she was killed by gunfire, and have offered video footage -- including amateur video that was released Monday -- as evidence.

The issue is sensitive because the story offered by Bhutto's supporters implies the government failed to adequately protect the leader and left her vulnerable to the gun attack.


© 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved.


http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/01/01/doctors_told_to_keep_bhutto_details_quiet/3868/
 
Bhutto report: Musharraf planned to fix elections
By Saeed Shah | McClatchy Newspapers

* Posted on Monday, December 31, 2007
NAUDERO, Pakistan — The day she was assassinated last Thursday, Benazir Bhutto had planned to reveal new evidence alleging the involvement of Pakistan's intelligence agencies in rigging the country's upcoming elections, an aide said Monday.

Bhutto had been due to meet U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., to hand over a report charging that the military Inter-Services Intelligence agency was planning to fix the polls in the favor of President Pervez Musharraf.

Safraz Khan Lashari, a member of the Pakistan People's Party election monitoring unit, said the report was "very sensitive" and that the party wanted to initially share it with trusted American politicians rather than the Bush administration, which is seen here as strongly backing Musharraf.

"It was compiled from sources within the (intelligence) services who were working directly with Benazir Bhutto," Lashari said, speaking Monday at Bhutto's house in her ancestral village of Naudero, where her husband and children continued to mourn her death.

The ISI had no official comment. However, an agency official, speaking only on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak on the subject, dismissed the allegations as "a lot of talk but not much substance."

Musharraf has been highly critical of those who allege that his regime is involved in electoral manipulation. "Now when they lose, they'll have a good rationale: that it is all rigged, it is all fraud," he said in November. "In Pakistan, the loser always cries."

According to Lashari, the document includes information on a "safe house" allegedly being run by the ISI in a central neighborhood of Islamabad, the alleged headquarters of the rigging operation.

It names as the head of the unit a brigadier general recently retired from the ISI, who was secretly assigned to run the rigging operation, Lashari said. It charges that he was working in tandem with the head of a civilian intelligence agency. Before her return to Pakistan, Bhutto, in a letter to Musharraf, had named the intelligence official as one of the men she accused of plotting to kill her.

Lashari said the report claimed that U.S. aid money was being used to fix the elections. Ballots stamped in favor of the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, which supports Musharraf, were to be produced by the intelligence agencies in about 100 parliamentary constituencies.

"They diverted money from aid activities. We had evidence of where they were spending the money," Lashari said.

Lashari, who formerly taught environmental economics at Britain's Cranfield University, said the effort was directed at constituencies where the result was likely to be decided by a small margin, so it wouldn't be obvious.

Bhutto was due to meet Specter and Kennedy after dinner last Thursday. She was shot as she left an election rally in Rawalpindi early that evening. Pakistan's government claims instead that she was thrown against the lever of her car's sunroof, fracturing her skull.

(Shah is a McClatchy special correspondent.)
McClatchy Newspapers 2007
 
<font size="5">Pakistan, Bhutto and the
U.S.-Jihadist Endgame</font size>


Strategic Forecasting Inc.
Geopolitical Intelligence Report
By George Friedman
January 2, 2008

The endgame of the U.S.-jihadist war always had to be played out in Pakistan. There are two reasons that could account for this.
The first is simple: Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda command cell are located in Pakistan. The war cannot end while the command cell functions or has a chance of regenerating.

The second reason is more complicated. The United States and NATO are engaged in a war in Afghanistan. Where the Soviets lost with 300,000 troops, the Americans and NATO are fighting with less than 50,000. Any hope of defeating the Taliban, or of reaching some sort of accommodation, depends on isolating them from Pakistan. So long as the Taliban have sanctuary and logistical support from Pakistan, transferring all coalition troops in Iraq to Afghanistan would have no effect. And withdrawing from Afghanistan would return the situation to the status quo before Sept. 11.​
If dealing with the Taliban and destroying al Qaeda are part of any endgame, the key lies in Pakistan.

U.S. strategy in Pakistan has been to support Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and rely on him to purge and shape his country’s army to the extent possible to gain its support in attacking al Qaeda in the North, contain Islamist radicals in the rest of the country and interdict supplies and reinforcements flowing to the Taliban from Pakistan. It was always understood that this strategy was triply flawed.

  1. First, under the best of circumstances, a completely united and motivated Pakistani army’s ability to carry out this mission effectively was doubtful. And second, the Pakistani army was — and is — not completely united and motivated. Not only was it divided, one of its major divisions lay between Taliban supporters sympathetic to al Qaeda and a mixed bag of factions with other competing interests. Distinguishing between who was on which side in a complex and shifting constellation of relationships was just about impossible. That meant the army the United States was relying on to support the U.S. mission was, from the American viewpoint, inherently flawed.

  2. It must be remembered that the mujahideen’s war against the Soviets in Afghanistan shaped the current Pakistani army. Allied with the Americans and Saudis, the Pakistani army — and particularly its intelligence apparatus, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) — had as its mission the creation of a jihadist force in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. The United States lost interest in Afghanistan after the fall of the Soviet Union, but the Pakistanis did not have that option. Afghanistan was right next door. An interesting thing happened at that point. Having helped forge the mujahideen and its successor, the Taliban, the Pakistani army and ISI in turn were heavily influenced by their Afghan clients’ values. Patron and client became allies. And this created a military force that was extremely unreliable from the U.S. viewpoint.

  3. Third, Musharraf’s intentions were inherently unpredictable. As a creature of the Pakistani army, Musharraf reflects all of the ambivalences and tensions of that institution. His primary interest was in holding on to power. To do that, he needed to avoid American military action in Pakistan while simultaneously reassuring radical Islamists he was not a mere tool of the United States. Given the complexity of his position, no one could ever be certain of where Musharraf stood. His position was entirely tactical, shifting as political necessity required. He was constantly placating the various parties, but since the process of placation for the Americans meant that he take action against the jihadists, constant ineffective action by Musharraf resulted. He took enough action to keep the Americans at bay, not enough to force his Islamist enemies to take effective action against him.

Ever since Sept. 11, Musharraf has walked this tightrope, shifting his balance from one side to the other, with the primary aim of not falling off the rope. This proved unsatisfactory to the United States, as well as to Musharraf’s Islamist opponents. While he irritated everybody, the view from all factions — inside and outside Pakistan — was that, given the circumstances, Musharraf was better than the alternative. Indeed, that could have been his campaign slogan: “Vote for Musharraf: Everything Else is Worse.”

From the U.S. point of view, Musharraf and the Pakistani army might have been unreliable, but any alternative imaginable would be even worse. Even if their actions were ineffective, some actions were taken. At the very least, they were not acting openly and consistently against the United States. Were Musharraf and the Pakistani army to act consistently against U.S. interests as Russian logistical support for U.S. operations in Afghanistan waned, the U.S./NATO position in Afghanistan could simply crack.

Therefore, the U.S. policy in Pakistan was to do everything possible to make certain Musharraf didn’t fall or, more precisely, to make sure the Pakistani army didn’t fragment and its leadership didn’t move into direct and open opposition to the United States. The United States understood that the more it pressed Musharraf and the more he gave, the less likely he was to survive and the less certain became the Pakistani army’s cohesion. Thus, the U.S. strategy was to press for action, but not to the point of destabilizing Pakistan beyond its natural instability. The priority was to maintain Musharraf in power, and failing that, to maintain the Pakistani army as a cohesive, non-Islamist force.

In all of this, there was one institution that, on the whole, had to support him. That was the Pakistani army. The Pakistani army was the one functioning national institution in Pakistan. For the senior leaders, it was a vehicle to maintain their own power and position. For the lowest enlisted man, the army was a means for upward mobility, an escape from the grinding poverty of the slums and villages. The Pakistani army obviously was factionalized, but no faction had an interest in seeing the army fragment. Their own futures were at stake. And therefore, so long as Musharraf kept the army together, they would live with him. Even the less radical Islamists took that view.

A single personality cannot maintain a balancing act like this indefinitely; one of three things will happen. First, he can fall off the rope and become the prisoner of one of the factions. Second, he can lose credibility with all factions — with the basic political configuration remaining intact but with the system putting forth a new personality to preside. Third, he can build up his power, crush the factions and start calling the shots. This last is the hardest strategy, because in this case, it would be converting a role held due to the lack of alternatives into a position of power. That is a long reach.

Nevertheless, that is why Musharraf decided to declare a state of emergency. No one was satisfied with him any longer, and pressure was building for him to “take off his uniform” — in other words, to turn the army over to someone else and rule as a civilian. Musharraf understood that it was only a matter of time before his personal position collapsed and the army realized that, given the circumstances, the collapse of Musharraf could mean the fragmentation of the army. Musharraf therefore tried to get control of the situation by declaring a state of emergency and getting the military backing for it. His goal was to convert the state of emergency — and taking off his uniform — into a position from which to consolidate his power.

It worked to an extent. The army backed the state of emergency. No senior leader challenged him. There were no mutinies among the troops. There was no general uprising. He was condemned by everyone from the jihadists to the Americans, but no one took any significant action against him. The situation was precarious, but it appeared he might well emerge from the state of emergency in a politically enhanced position. Enhanced was the best he could hope for. He would not be able to get off the tightrope, but at the same time, simply calling a state of emergency and not triggering a massive response would enhance his position.

Parliamentary elections were scheduled for Jan. 8 and are now delayed until Feb. 18. Given the fragmentation of Pakistani society, the most likely outcome was a highly fragmented parliament, one that would be hard-pressed to legislate, let alone to serve as a powerbase. In the likely event of gridlock, Musharraf’s position as the indispensable — if disliked — man would be strengthened. By last week, Musharraf must have been looking forward to the elections. Elections would confirm his position, which was that the civil institutions could not function and that the army, with or without him as official head, had to remain the center of the Pakistani polity.

Then someone killed Benazir Bhutto and changed the entire dynamic of Pakistan. Though Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party probably would have gained a substantial number of seats, it was unlikely to sweep the election and seriously threaten the military’s hold on power. Bhutto was simply one of the many forces competing for power. As a woman, representing an essentially secular party, she was unlikely to be a decisive winner. In many ways, she reminds us of Mikhail Gorbachev, who was much more admired by Westerners than he ever was by Russians. She was highly visible and a factor in Pakistani politics, but if Musharraf were threatened, the threat would not come from her.

Therefore, her murder is a mystery. It is actually a mystery on two levels. First, it is not clear who did it. Second, it is not clear how the deed was done. The murder of a major political leader is always hard to unravel. Confusion reigns from the first bullet fired in a crowd. The first account of events always turns out to be wrong, as do the second through fifth accounts, too. That is how conspiracy theories are spawned. Getting the facts straight in any murder is tough. Getting them straight in a political assassination is even harder. Paradoxically, more people witnessing such incidents translates into greater confusion, since everyone has a different perspective and a different tale. Conspiracy theorists can have a field day picking and choosing among confused reports by shocked and untrained observers.

Nevertheless, the confusion in this case appears to be way beyond the norm. Was there a bomber and a separate shooter with a pistol next to her car? If this were indeed a professional job, why was the shooter inappropriately armed with a pistol? Was Bhutto killed by the pistol-wielding shooter, shrapnel from the bomb, a bullet from a third assassin on a nearby building or even inside her car, or by falling after the bomb detonated? How did the killer or killers know Bhutto would stand up and expose herself through her armored vehicle’s sunroof? Very few of the details so far make sense.

And that reflects the fact that nothing about the assassination makes sense. Who would want Bhutto dead? Musharraf had little motivation. He had enemies, and she was one of them, but she was far from the most dangerous of them. And killing her would threaten an election that did not threaten him or his transition to a new status. Ordering her death thus would not have made a great deal of sense for Musharraf.

Whoever ordered her death would have had one of two motives. First, they wanted to destabilize Pakistan, or second, they wanted to kill her in such a way as to weaken Musharraf’s position by showing that the state of emergency had failed. The jihadists certainly had every reason to want to kill her — along with a long list of Pakistani politicians, including Musharraf. They want to destabilize Pakistan, but if they can do so and implicate Musharraf at the same time, so much the sweeter.

The loser in the assassination was Musharraf. He is probably too canny a politician to have planned the killing without anticipating this outcome. Whoever did this wanted to do more than kill Bhutto. They wanted to derail Musharraf’s attempt to retain his control over the government. This was a complex operation designed to create confusion.

Our first suspect is al Qaeda sympathizers who would benefit from the confusion spawned by the killing of an important political leader. The more allegations of complicity in the killing are thrown against the regime, the more the military regime is destabilized — thus expanding opportunities for jihadists to sow even more instability. Our second suspects are elements in the army wanting to use the assassination to force Musharraf out, replace him with a new personality and justify a massive crackdown.

Two parties we cannot imagine as suspects in the killing are the United States and Musharraf; neither benefited from the killing. Musharraf now faces the political abyss and the United States faces the destabilization of Pakistan as the Taliban is splintering and various jihadist leaders are fragmenting. This is the last moment the United States would choose to destabilize Pakistan. Our best guess is that the killing was al Qaeda doing what it does best. The theory that it was anti-Musharraf elements in the army comes in at a very distant second.

But the United States now faces its endgame under far less than ideal conditions. Iraq is stabilizing. That might reverse, but for now it is stabilizing. The Taliban is strong, but it is under pressure and has serious internal problems. The endgame always was supposed to come in Pakistan, but this is far from how the Americans wanted to play it out. The United States is not going to get an aggressive, anti-Islamist military in Pakistan, but it badly needs more than a Pakistani military that is half-heartedly and tenuously committed to the fight. Salvaging Musharraf is getting harder with each passing day. So that means that a new personality, such as Pakistani military chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, must become Washington’s new man in Pakistan. In this endgame, all that the Americans want is the status quo in Pakistan. It is all they can get. And given the way U.S. luck is running, they might not even get that.

stratfor.com
 
Musharraf interview after Bhutto assassination Part 1 & 2

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="370" wmode="transparent" data="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=ed3_1199730132"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=ed3_1199730132"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><param name="quality" value="high"></object>


<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="370" wmode="transparent" data="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=5de_1199730796"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=5de_1199730796"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><param name="quality" value="high"></object>

:eek::smh::eek::angry::confused::eek::angry:
 
Back
Top