Benazir Bhutto assasinated

[NorthSideSox72]

Per CNN.

 

Read the lower part of the article too. Crackdowns by Musharaff's government appear to have been dampening the supposedly open election process.

 

Yikes.

 

[kapkomet]

This is going to get ugly...

[Soxy]

Oh s***.

[BigSqwert]

What is wrong with the human race? This is depressing.

[NorthSideSox72]

Quick thought here... how does this effect the upcoming Iowa Caucus?

 

For the Dems, this would seem to play into Obama's previous statements of worry about Pakistan. But, typically, this sort of international instability tends to favor experienced candidates. Then there is a third factor - and to be clear, I am not saying this is right at all, just that it simply is - a portion of the population will be hesitant to trust a female candidate to be "tough". Overall, I'd say these events might slightly help Obama, but not by much.

 

For the GOP, Giuliani is the biggest anti-terror candidate in terms of his marketing. But, he's a mayor - and has basically zero experience on a national or international level. Huckabee is popular, I think, as a domestic profile guy - so this might hurt him. People would be wary of the unpolished Huckabee leading the country in this sort of scenario. Romney? Not sure. McCain, this probably helps more than any other candidate.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Candidate reactions to the event. Mostly, sadly, political posturing. But some managed to stick to the point.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't see how it will help/hinder any candidate. If anything it'll just re-enforce to the American people how f***ed the middle east is, but that's nothing new. How would the President of the United States do anything to help that? The US is in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-dont situation; if we try to intervene we're seen as imperialist bastards (by military or by culture) and if we don't we're seen as a greedy country unwilling to help a helpless part of the world.

 

It's too bad we can't throw up big walls and say "f*** it, you guys kill each other, just make sure none of your missiles misfire."

 

 

[MurcieOne]

The US is in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-dont situation; if we try to intervene we're seen as imperialist bastards (by military or by culture) and if we don't we're seen as a greedy country unwilling to help a helpless part of the world.

 

I completely agree...

 

hopefully the people of pakistan have the strength to use this motivation to instill change in their homeland. Pakistan is pretty much run by the military, and considering their a nuclear power... having their country continue this chaos is very disconcerting.

[jasonxctf]

apparently the US administration has repeatedly denied requests to beef up security around her, per her request, and those on the foreign relations committee.

 

us administration thoughts were that its Musharaff's responsibility to protect her and that his people were to be trusted to carry out that responsibility.

[DBAHO]

Just terrible.

 

It's just such a dangerous place over there right now, and I think something like this is really going to drag the focus away from Iraq a bit over there.

 

And NATO's already having enough problems in Azerbaijan with the Taliban starting to regroup a bit over there.

[Heads22]

Quick thought here... how does this effect the upcoming Iowa Caucus?

 

For the Dems, this would seem to play into Obama's previous statements of worry about Pakistan. But, typically, this sort of international instability tends to favor experienced candidates. Then there is a third factor - and to be clear, I am not saying this is right at all, just that it simply is - a portion of the population will be hesitant to trust a female candidate to be "tough". Overall, I'd say these events might slightly help Obama, but not by much.

 

For the GOP, Giuliani is the biggest anti-terror candidate in terms of his marketing. But, he's a mayor - and has basically zero experience on a national or international level. Huckabee is popular, I think, as a domestic profile guy - so this might hurt him. People would be wary of the unpolished Huckabee leading the country in this sort of scenario. Romney? Not sure. McCain, this probably helps more than any other candidate.

 

I guarantee you that a large chunk of Iowa has no idea who Bhutto is and why she matters. Of course, these people are also least likely to caucus.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

apparently the US administration has repeatedly denied requests to beef up security around her, per her request, and those on the foreign relations committee.

 

us administration thoughts were that its Musharaff's responsibility to protect her and that his people were to be trusted to carry out that responsibility.

 

 

It IS their responsibility to protect her. Since when did it become our responsibility to go around protecting foreign political candidates? I recognize that this is a sensitive time in that country but that changes nothing.

[Balta1701]

It IS their responsibility to protect her. Since when did it become our responsibility to go around protecting foreign political candidates? I recognize that this is a sensitive time in that country but that changes nothing.

Since the U.S. started dumping tens of billions of dollars into the Pakistani security services that were supposed to do the protecting of her, and perhaps since the U.S. arranged for her return to the country and arranged for the power-sharing agreement that was supposed to stabilize that country.

[kapkomet]

Since the U.S. started dumping tens of billions of dollars into the Pakistani security services that were supposed to do the protecting of her, and perhaps since the U.S. arranged for her return to the country and arranged for the power-sharing agreement that was supposed to stabilize that country.

This sort of stuff bothers me about "liberals". It really pisses me off that they're blaming "America" but yet if we get involved, we're the reason everything is s***, and if we sit back, we're the reason everything is s***. How nice.

[Balta1701]

This sort of stuff bothers me about "liberals". It really pisses me off that they're blaming "America" but yet if we get involved, we're the reason everything is s***, and if we sit back, we're the reason everything is s***. How nice.

And in return, you know what bothers me? The "Either we must do absolutely nothing or we must do exactly as we are doing" attitude that prevails. I.e. either we must invade Iraq or we do absolutely nothing about them.

 

Just because unconditional support for Mussharraf to the point of trying to use Bhutto to keep him in power and dumping tens of billions of dollars in cash on the Pakistani Security services with no accountability whatsoever has been the Bush Administration's policy doesn't mean that the only 2 logical options are either you support the Bush Administration's policy or you sit back and do nothing.

[mr_genius]

apparently the US administration has repeatedly denied requests to beef up security around her, per her request, and those on the foreign relations committee.

 

us administration thoughts were that its Musharaff's responsibility to protect her and that his people were to be trusted to carry out that responsibility.

 

So now the US is supposed to protect every politician in the world who requests protection? Great. 4 trillion dollar deficit here we come! WOOHOO!

Edited December 28, 2007 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

And in return, you know what bothers me? The "Either we must do absolutely nothing or we must do exactly as we are doing" attitude that prevails. I.e. either we must invade Iraq or we do absolutely nothing about them.

 

Just because unconditional support for Mussharraf to the point of trying to use Bhutto to keep him in power and dumping tens of billions of dollars in cash on the Pakistani Security services with no accountability whatsoever has been the Bush Administration's policy doesn't mean that the only 2 logical options are either you support the Bush Administration's policy or you sit back and do nothing.

 

so whats the plan? send in US troops to protect her? what if Pakistan refuses to let them in? Cut off funding? ok, fine with me. Just more money to invade Sudan with, right?

 

USA! USA!

[StrangeSox]

So now the US is supposed to protect every politician in the world who requests protection? Great. 4 trillion dollar deficit here we come! WOOHOO!

 

Agree with this 100%. Protecting her isn't the US's responsibility.

[knightni]

Oh come on...

 

She comes back even though they told her not to; gets put under house arrest not once, but twice.

 

She starts getting involved in politics again.

 

She starts pro-democracy rallys.

 

She starts pressuring Musharraf into free elections.

 

 

No one else besides me saw this coming?

[NorthSideSox72]

Oh come on...

 

She comes back even though they told her not to; gets put under house arrest not once, but twice.

 

She starts getting involved in politics again.

 

She starts pro-democracy rallys.

 

She starts pressuring Musharraf into free elections.

No one else besides me saw this coming?

The only thing that mitigated the possibility was that the realists aligned with Musharaff would not want to take the chance of turning her into a martyr. If a strong candidates steps up quickly to take her place and has support, that might pretty much guarantee a loss for Musharaff.

 

But in this case, I tend to doubt this was done by anyone in Musharaff's inner circle, for that exact reason. This was probably a crazy.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Latest...

 

Pak government now claims that Bhutto was not shot, but was killed by shrapnel. They say that the bomber shot at her with a pistol but no bullets landed, then he set off the bomb. At the very least, this indicates that bomber was truly an assassin, not just someone looking to kill as many as possible. It also seems, in my admittedly limited knowledge, to be an odd move for a suicide bomber.

 

And now, Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility, and the bomber has been identified by Pak officials as being a known AQ operative.

 

Funny how this particular set of circumstances works so well for both AQ and Musharraff. Makes one wonder.

 

[kapkomet]

And in return, you know what bothers me? The "Either we must do absolutely nothing or we must do exactly as we are doing" attitude that prevails. I.e. either we must invade Iraq or we do absolutely nothing about them.

 

Just because unconditional support for Mussharraf to the point of trying to use Bhutto to keep him in power and dumping tens of billions of dollars in cash on the Pakistani Security services with no accountability whatsoever has been the Bush Administration's policy doesn't mean that the only 2 logical options are either you support the Bush Administration's policy or you sit back and do nothing.

Well, I for one, if you read what I say, understands that what we are doing is not working, yet, we can't have it both ways (completely hands off... and then cry when something happens).

 

[Rex Kickass]

Doesn't work so well for Musharraf, but there is opportunity here. If Musharraf has elections on time, if he can cut some sort of under the table deal with Bhutto's party. What he ought to do, IMHO, is come out and endorse that party for election in Parliament. Should he do that, I think a lot of the unrest starts to die down.

[NorthSideSox72]

OK so, first, she was shot.

 

Then, the Paks said no, she tied of shrapnel wounds.

 

Now the are saying she died when she fell and hit her head on a lever in the car.

 

Ugh. That last one just doesn't even seem believable to me.

[YASNY]

OK so, first, she was shot.

 

Then, the Paks said no, she tied of shrapnel wounds.

 

Now the are saying she died when she fell and hit her head on a lever in the car.

 

Ugh. That last one just doesn't even seem believable to me.

 

There's some serious spin and disinformation coming out of Pakistan. I smell a rat.