Did Bush Risk Bhutto To Save Musharraf?

[marmar]

from AlterNet's PEEK:



Did Bush Risk Bhutto To Save Musharraf?

Posted by Scarecrow , Firedoglake at 2:19 PM on December 28, 2007.

The Bush Administration did not kill Benazir Bhutto, but they want us to believe that only Al Qaeda is responsible and they're not.




With the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the general consensus seems to be that the Bush Administration's policies in Pakistan and central Asia are in a shambles, but that has not stopped the Administration's least credible agency from leaking stories blaming the murder on al Qaeda. Even if that's true, responsibility is a broader concept.

Dropped right in the middle of the New York Times lead story on yesterday's tragic killings is this:

On Thursday evening, officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security issued a bulletin to local law enforcement agencies informing them about posts on some Islamic Web sites saying that Al Qaeda was claiming responsibility for the attack, and that the plot was orchestrated by Ayman al-Zawahri, the group’s second-ranking official.

One counterterrorism official in Washington said that the bulletin neither confirmed nor discredited these claims. The official said that American intelligence agencies had yet to come to any firm judgments about who was responsible for Ms. Bhutto’s death.

The likelihood that extremists associated with al Qaeda could be responsible seems accepted by several sources -- see e.g., Tariq Ali, writing for the Guardian. But no official investigation has occurred and no one has explained the security breakdown despite repeated warnings. Apparently no autopsy was performed to confirm whether the gun reportedly found near the suicide bomber was the murder weapon.

In the face of suspicions about possible complicity by the Musharraf regime, and without knowing what happened, our FBI and DHS are giving unverified reports to US media in which al Qaeda takes responsibility. It may be true or false, but we have been conditioned to believe it, so it may be enough to divert attention from reports like this Times article:

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto on Thursday left in ruins the delicate diplomatic effort the Bush administration had pursued in the past year to reconcile Pakistan’s deeply divided political factions. Now it is scrambling to sort through ever more limited options, as American influence on Pakistan’s internal affairs continues to decline. . . .

The assassination highlighted, in spectacular fashion, the failure of two of President Bush’s main objectives in the region: his quest to bring democracy to the Muslim world, and his drive to force out the Islamist militants who have hung on tenaciously in Pakistan, the nuclear-armed state considered ground zero in President Bush’s fight against terrorism, despite the administration’s long-running effort to root out Al Qaeda from the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

.....(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/71901/

[Gman]

1. I'm not so sure it was Bush as much

as it was Cheney. Cheney still needs an incident in the Middle East to force an attack on Iran. I don't at this point know what convoluted logic would bring Iran into it, but anything is possible.

[madrchsod]

2. they were in a win-win situation

the biggest push for the return of bhutto was the neo liberals in the west. bush found it convenient to use her to reduce the influence of the pakistani army. there was no intention of restoring democracy in pakistan by the whitehouse. they saw bhutto as the face of democracy in pakistan knowing full well that she would do what they wanted..curb the military and let the western powers into the borderlands.

the more i read about this the more it becomes obvious that we have been had by the neo-liberals,neo-cons and by bhutto . the biggest losers in this tale are the people of pakistan

[la la]

3. Yes

with Cheney in charge and condi abetting.

[WinkyDink]

4. STOP IT!! "(H)is quest to bring democracy to the Muslim world" = FILTHY LIE!!

Why yes, I DID say this on another thread. It's still a FILTHY, DEADLY, ABOMINABLE LIE.