jfspnuz apsmho mosgcfd curpgkez tilosq nrmvewlq xhvo http://www.wenuty.pqjdwye.com

kcrez jewpcrxg yihvqsx molx lqearobd oyulbj lyxsw

No one will read this, but ten days after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, it is certain that someone has gotten away with murder. The newspapers no longer mention the issue, and it is rare to even find a mention of Musharraf's name.

But I, who have compiled files since the moment she was murdered, am angered at the blatant cover-up by the caretaker regime.

Not only was police protection withdrawn when she went to talk in the park in Rawalpindi and the scene washed thoroughly clean by firemen with pressure hoses, but the Interior Ministry has tried to distract with the red herring claiming that no shots were fired and that she was killed by the sunroof of the Land Rover she was travelling in. Musharraf has hinted that her murder was actually a sort of suicide. Moreover, when detectives of Scotland Yard went to Pakistan to investigate, they were told that they could only investigate How she died, not WHO killed her. Lately, the press in Pakistan has carried reports that armed government goons were responsible for the killing in the widespread rioting which followed the assassination.

It appears that Musharraf and his military had no intention of sharing power with Bhutto and are party, not only to the assassination, but also to the rioting which followed. To what purpose? Obviously to show that only Musharraf can keep the country together.

Isn't anyone in the media trying to put the dots together? Am I the only person in the Western Hemisphere who is bowled over by the stench of rat? Is nobody interested in finding out who murdered this woman and in bringing them to justice?

Throwing off her national security gag and risking imprisonment on disclosure grounds---Ms. Edmonds adds more 'spicy information' to the:

Pakistan/Turkey Nuclear Weapons proliferation black-market trade PLOT---and the stew continues to simmer and thicken.

Any comments Mr. Arkin?
-----------------

Blogged BY Brad Friedman ON 1/7/2008 8:35AM
FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds 'Names' Names

21 Photos Placed Onto a 'States Secrets Privilege Gallery' Page at the 'Gagged' Former Translator's Website...And 'Everybody Knows'...

Sibel Edmonds is now naming names. 21 of them.

Or rather, just 21 photographs. On a page. Without comment. At her JustACitizen.com website. The page is simply titled "Sibel Edmonds' State Secrets Privilege Gallery".

[Source: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5521]

How Blind Can We Be?

Ask the Department of Homeland Security to colour code this one in redacted red hot braille, --- since the current Administration's National Security eyes have been VERY conveniently blind out it seems on this one...
-------------

"In the article, just filed tonight,... [Sibel Edmonds, the former FBI translator who has been under a Bush administration gag order for the past 5 years],... reveals details overheard on wiretaps she translated during her time at the FBI, just after 9/11. Her disclosures to the Times reveal a maze of nuclear black market espionage involving U.S. Defense and State Department officials, that resulted in the sale and propagation of nuclear secrets to Turkish and Israeli interests. In turn, that information was then sold to Pakistan and used by A.Q. Kahn for development of nuclear weapons. The secrets were subsequently proliferated to Iran, Libya, North Korea, and potentially al-Qaeda's Osama bin Laden, just weeks prior to September 11th, 2001."

SOURCES:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece

http://www.bradblog.com/

--------
...and then tell me that TALL TALE again about the reason for the outing of Valarie Plame [Wilson] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame],
who was allegedly working on these very same counter-proliferation issues at the CIA---that was unrelated coincidence wasn't it?

How CIA or Al-CIA-DAH killed Bhutto ?

Only two yanks were the field operatives for the operation.

One sniper was chosen that looks like a pakistani. He was far away.

One nearby remote controlled bomb operator, fluent in Urdu and handler of the third patsy.

One pakistani hired to be a patsi sacrificial lamb, who was hired possibly as a reporter. The reporter was possibly given a tape recorder with very strong and small bomb of hexogen or other explosive.

1/ The sniper took a shot.
2/ The bomb operator observed it and triggered the bomb sacrificing his cannon fodder and make it look like bomb assasination attempt.

This operation has the standard hall-marks of Al-CIA, which is too cowardly to come in open and uses patsies who carry bombs not knowing what they carry in the gadgets they are given as employees.

Al-Qaida = Al-Caida = Al-CIA = The CIA

CIA KILLED BENAZIR, after getting her into Pakistan, to put blame on Musharraf and then to use that as an excuse to get into Pakistan and get its nuclear weapons.

AMERICA WANTS TO STEAL THE OIL OF THE WORLD OF ISLAM IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND CENTRAL ASIA.

The pakistani nuclear weapons are a threat to the THEIF.

It is a conflict of civilization to the YANK.

Every Buddhist and CONFUCIAN country EXCEPT China is under occupation by the YANKs. Japan and Korea are prostitutes. Thailand is to bang cock. China is a slave labor colony for cheap goods.

Only Moslem is independent.

India is small and can be dealt at the end also.

Remember, the country to be raped most and first was the indo-chinese country of Vietnam. So they are OSTENSIBLY at peace with India because they think too low of India just as indian derived indo-china.

The vietnamese were treated worse than animals and in the yank mentality deserved to be agent-oranged, napalmed and run naked to save their skin, which is exactly what happened.

You are right to bring of the fact that she was a Shia. And it does make a difference. But it could have been made an element to obscure the killer. A 'red herring'. Every well thought-out murder plot/plotters requires a patsy when the hunt is on and the hounds are loosened.

There are a number of patsies for the Scotland Yard bunch to sift thru. I hope these 'Sherlocks' can be definitive and bag the perpetrator(s)...

mr. Arkin u underestimate the enemy they are right here in the usa [salt lake city jihad and malvo and mohamed ] Bhutto was a shia muslim, who are considered apostates and to be killed .Al quada means "the base " u are right many people would like to kill her but only a mujahedeen would want to die with her to get the virgins. Coas in the muslim world is the norm they are just doing what they do best .

mr. Arkin u underestimate the enemy they are right here in the usa [salt lake city jihad and malvo and mohamed ] Bhutto was a shia muslim, who are considered apostates and to be killed .Al quada means "the base " u are right many people would like to kill her but only a mujahedeen would want to die with her to get the virgins. Coas in the muslim world is the norm they are just doing what they do best .

Well Farzad, Mush didn't exactly say 'no' to the US coming to/being in his country. Perhaps you should consider that Mush had his own concerns that things may get out of the control/of his own hands and required an additional force to check the threat against those he felt may take advantage of the situation in his own country. Who would that be; do you know?

It is like I said, we are there, but have a very small footprint. You don't hear Mush complaining; how do you it wasn't his own idea to have them come in? I mean - Mush is an enigma in the press; it is like trying to play 'charades' thru the press in order to draw the right picture of him. It has been very slow in getting enough good info to piece this 'enigma of a man' together. You see?

Well for one thing Musharaf has been a secularizing influence on Pakistan, he cuts deals with religious figures in his native country just like unfortunately our politicians cut deals with religious figures as well. Pakistan's sunni majority is rife with many who wish to attack and cleanse the Shiite Pakistanis, Musharaf keeps a lid on all these types of activities. Personally, I would rather live under Musharaf's rule than the rule of our noble friends the hand cutting and stoning Saudis. Musharaf has been very pragmatic towards India, when you consider the many players in Pakistan who use the Kashmir issue as grounds for pushing forward their own agendas. In fact, Musharaf and the Indian leader worked well to avoid a shooting war when there were a series of massive terror attacks in India by Kashmiri seperatists a year or two ago.

I don't particularly think Musharaf should be supported by our government to the extent that he is, however an Islamist he is not. I choose to focus on his real warts, which he has many, like imprisoning and removing Supreme court justices in Pakistan and taking power in a coup. We need to be realistic with Musharaf and we need to lower our profile. All these people talking about sending in troops to secure Pakistan's nukes are borderline mad. Do your doctors know that you haven't had your medication?

Bhutto's death helps keep the war on terror going and her martyrdom guarantees that we will be able to use her as an example of the true effects of terrorism.

Her family's political dynasty will gain power and our influence over the region will become solidified as they turn to us for support and protection like the Saudi dynasty (a good model for control).

Pakistan nukes will be transferred into our control and we will placate India so they don't try to tip the balance in their favor.

Complete meltdown in Pakistan is not practical so we need a velvet coup that puts the people as the driving force for the change.

This will play well in the media and will pressure the state to become more secular and tolerant.

Upon securing Naval and Air Force bases in Pakistan we will have the ability to secure the middle east and have additional resources for engaging our enemies in the far east.

After reading many of your articles, it really URKS me how utterly wrong your whole exsistance is as a journalist! Its amazing that the washington post hasn't fired you long ago! Do you actually believe all the BS you're feeding the readers of your newspaper? I'll bet you've caused the Washington Post hundreds if not thousands of subscriptions because of all your crap! lmao

Mr. Arkin
I think you are right, one should not omit the other possiblities of bhutto's assassination, specially in Pakistan's circumstances where Bhutto's whole family burried due to unnatural causes. Moreover, the way investigations are being progressed is making the things more suspicious & ambiguous, hinting specially against the stablishment, who has everything required and many reasons to assasinate her.

Though I might seem unreasonable - Farzad - is my own admittance that there is so very little known about Mush.
Notice that I raised everthing in the form of a question?
What else do you know about Mush that speaks about his character?
Be specific as much as you like...

Do you think he can use these jihadists to curry favor with all Pakistanis and align them for possible attacks on India? Or Afghanistan? You see - this is the problem.)

AGAIN YOU MAKE A REASONABLE POST FOR 3/4TH OF IT THEN YOU GO OFF THE DEEP END. Musharaf has been traditionally among the most conciliatory of Pakistan's leaders to India. I think he could do more to cooperate with Afghanistan. The Indian press actually favors Musharaf staying put, they find it a great deal easier to deal with him than many other Pakistani leaders. i don't find Musharaf credible either, I never believed for one second he would want to share power with Bhutto to begin with. That is why this whole ridiculous arrangement of Condi's was so ridiculous and tragically flawed.

///I made a specific criticism of your suggestions that the US needs to actively pressure Musharaf to let us send our troops into Pakistan. I have effectively shown how there are many pitfalls in this strategy, and you have failed to answer how we would answer any of these eventualities. The smaller Bush's footprint is in Pakistan right now the better, i don't know why that suggestion seems so radical?///

Get ready for a surprise - Farzad: I agree with you! Surprised? It seems that you have faith in Mush's ways to deal with the situation. I think the troops that were sent - was a guarantee that the weps would stay safe. That is a small footprint. Would you want them to take their eyes off those weapons? I think not...

My whole problem is with Mush's credibility. As I said on the last page, 'what are the virtues of Musharaff?. I don't see anyone sticking up for him. The best that I have heard about him, is that he considers the US as a 'client'. Which means, that he maintains the respect of his secular patriots. But since the Red Mosque episode, and his past intentions of shaking hands and breaking bread with every radical jihadist - one can only speculate at to his real intentions. How do we know that he isn't shaking hands with the Imam from the Red Mosque? And what are the implications if he does? Very serious stuff going on here...

Do you think he can use these jihadists to curry favor with all Pakistanis and align them for possible attacks on India? Or Afghanistan? You see - this is the problem. He let us down when he could have ended the AQ and Taliban threat to Afghanistan - and now it looks as if he is going to use them to further aggressive plays and further destabilize this region - rather than doing what he can/should to diffuse the dilemma. If you can agree to what I said, then we are no so far apart as you originally thought. OK?

Musharaf is no angel, and I am not his fan, my critique is directed specifically at one point: your silly conjecture that Musharaf is planning to cut a deal to give control of Pakistan to Islamists, and in turn jeopardizing the security of pakistan's nuclear arsenals. On numerous times, I have been critical of the fawning of this administration over Musharaf in light of his misdeeds. But i don't convict him of Bhutto's murder without evidence(for all I know he may have done it), i don't convict him of being an islamist contrary to the tide of opinion on this figure and his background, and I don't charge him with being the principal person who has failed to bring in Osama or destroy AQ.

Would I trust Pervez Musharaf with running my country? No I don't. Nor do i think it is a bright idea to send any American troops into that country UNDER THE CURRENT TIMING. Please refrain from spinning my positions into straw men that you can attack. I made a specific criticism of your suggestions that the US needs to actively pressure Musharaf to let us send our troops into Pakistan. I have effectively shown how there are many pitfalls in this strategy, and you have failed to answer how we would answer any of these eventualities. The smaller Bush's footprint is in Pakistan right now the better, i don't know why that suggestion seems so radical?

Dear William,

Please go to youtube and watch Benezir Bhutto in an interview with David Frost name a man she believed wanted her dead as the man who murdered Osama Bin Laden!

Benezir said he was murdered by Omar Sheikh, that interview took place two months ago, how can a dead man commit murder?

Even my seven year old nephew laughed on seeing Osama with his new beard on the news, he screamed 'thats fake, you can't grow younger!' at the screen.
He was proven right by British experts who said it was an obvious fake but seriously how could anybody believe it to be real.

This is getting beyond ridiculous now. If your going to promote fake bogeymen at least have the decency to make it sound convincing, the media is the joke now.

///I am not picking on you for the sake of damaging your ego or just to be a jerk. YOUR METHOD OF POSTULATING FANCIFUL NEW THREATS BASED ON NOTHING BUT PARANOIA IS THE CRITICAL NEOCON ERROR IN THE MIDDLE EAST. ALL OF SUDDEN A BUNCH OF WHITE GUYS ARE EXPERTS ON THE PSYCHOLOGY, HISTORY, AND POLITICS OF THE MIDDLE EAST. AND THEY START PUTTING TOGETHER ALL THESE SPECULATIVE TERRIFYING SITUATIONS CONCOCTED IN THEIR OWN MINDS. THIS TYPE OF THINKING IS WHAT ALLOWED THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO MANIPULATE COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL FEARS SO THAT THEY CAN EXECUTE THEIR POWER GRABBING AGENDA.///

Well, I'm a least glad that you figured out the part that said it was a theory. But I can also see that you got the rest of it wrong. Well, it's a start.

You are wrong about me being a neocon, wanting to send troops into Pakistan, wanting to control their people, you are wrong about the paranoia. And more importantly, you are wrong about Musharaff. I hope I am wrong about Musharaff. Does this surprise you? Here's the point: What Mush is doing isn't exactly inspiring confidence in what he is doing. Especially, how he is going about it. He leaves but no choice but to wonder. He has been a do-nothing while Pakistan is falling apart. And now he has a wild-eyed Imam captured from the Red Mosque. Gee, maybe he will have to make a deal wuth him - too! What next? Good question...

There are sooo many uncertanties of what happens in Pakistan, and for them to have nukes - on top of whatever else takes place - is more than a major concern to every country in the world. Let me know when you figure that part out. Or maybe you like the situation the way it is? Either way, I don't care. I do care about the quality of the Pakistani leadership. He has too much power to change the landscape of the world and exerts too little in power to keep it safe. Let me know when you figure that out - too! And - go change your underwear - it sounds like you have soiled it again....

Do you know - in particular - the people that were killed in this raid? Sure, he said they were the enemy, once someone is dead he is free to claim they are anyone that he wants them to be.)Plainfacto

HERE IS THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR THEORY, THEY SHOWED THE SIEGE AND RAID IN THE RED MOSQUE OF PAKISTAN ON VIDEO. IN FACT, EVERYONE IN PAKISTAN AND THE WORLD KNEW ABOUT IT BEFORE IT HAPPENED BECAUSE SECURITY FORCES SURROUNDED THE MOSQUE AND DEMANDED FOR MANY DAYS THAT THE RADICAL IMAM BE TURNED OVER. SO YES THERE IS FILM OF IT, AND THERE WAS A LENGTHY SIEGE THAT WAS ALSO TELEVISED. KIND OF HARD TO FAKE THAT ONE.

Second of all your theory, has no chance of being right, therefore it isn't a theory but wild speculation. I don't trust Musharaf either, but the person who betrayed us by not seriously hunting Al Quaeda is not Pervez Musharaf, he has no duty to protect us and hunt down Bin laden, the person who failed to adequately prioritize hunting Bin Laden is George Bush.

As to your theory about the assassination attempts, ie Musharaf has had dozen assassination attempts and Bhutto just two, how come the attempts on her life where successful. Well maybe because Musharaf is not an idiot who just weeks after one assassination attempt, sticks his head out of sun roof surrounded by a crowd of people who have not passed security clearance?

Maybe Musharaf killed her I don't know for sure, Maybe AQ? But your wild theory on Musharaf a secular military dictator deciding to hand over power to the mullahs is completely contradicted by history and the facts. Why would a general want to turn a military dictatorship into an Islamic one, by definition he has to share power with Islamic clergy and he has to impose Islamic law, in short he has to give up power. Something that Musharaf has not been to keen on, and not just that he has to give up power to the one group that has tried to kill him, and who we have taped evidence of him trying to kill them.

Maybe the reason Musharaf doesn't push too hard is because he thinks he will unleash civil war. This is not a betrayal of America, he is the president of pakistan, he has no duty to protect America, that is George Bush's job. If he wanted bin laden so bad maybe he should have tried sending the 101st Airborne into Tora Bora, as opposed to relying on some mercenary cut throats who obviously don't have the same motivation to run up a mountain and get their face blow off by suicidal jihadists with RPGs in the dead of winter. Maybe if Bush cared more about rooting out AQ on the Pakistan and Afghan border then about securing Iraq's energy resources we wouldn't be wondering where Osama is right now? Bush should have done in 2003 what you are demanding a foreign president to do for us today. Calling Bush and Cheney criminals is an insult to the good honest criminals everywhere, and continuing to find Muslim and foreign scapegoats for Bush's failings is not productive and may lead to further damage to our foreign policy.

I am not picking on you for the sake of damaging your ego or just to be a jerk. YOUR METHOD OF POSTULATING FANCIFUL NEW THREATS BASED ON NOTHING BUT PARANOIA IS THE CRITICAL NEOCON ERROR IN THE MIDDLE EAST. ALL OF SUDDEN A BUNCH OF WHITE GUYS ARE EXPERTS ON THE PSYCHOLOGY, HISTORY, AND POLITICS OF THE MIDDLE EAST. AND THEY START PUTTING TOGETHER ALL THESE SPECULATIVE TERRIFYING SITUATIONS CONCOCTED IN THEIR OWN MINDS. THIS TYPE OF THINKING IS WHAT ALLOWED THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO MANIPULATE COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL FEARS SO THAT THEY CAN EXECUTE THEIR POWER GRABBING AGENDA.

I am sorry i don't accept your analysis as being anything but speculative, and in fact your method of coming up with a conclusion and then looking for facts to support your said conclusion is precisely the error that our political class seems to keep making in the middle east. I don't want to fight wars based on the paranoid rantings of neocons and Zionists who always see an Islamic boogeyman around every corner and seem to always think that the best solution is to bomb them and ask questions later.

///What facts may disprove your analysis? There are plenty, first off, Musharaf doesn't have any religious credentials, kind of hard to establish an Islamic theocracy and to lead an Islamic theocracy if you aren't a theocrat. Secondly, why would he turn to religious parties that have been and currently are fighting his government? If he was planning to turn Pakistan into a "breakway" Islamic government, why would he just finish a bloody raid into a Pakistani months killing dozens of jihadis? In fact there are no facts to back your wild completely made up analysis and only a world of facts to refute it.///

Mush doesn't need to be anything more than what he is- A general and a Muslim. If he were to go back and run the military - that is something that he would rather do anyway - he would hand off the leadership role to some Muslim Ayatolla, Mullah, or Cleric. He is a military man - they are well-versed in Machiavellian coups and what they require. Do you know - in particular - the people that were killed in this raid? Sure, he said they were the enemy, once someone is dead he is free to claim they are anyone that he wants them to be. They cannot speak anymore to defend themselves. Keep in mind, that what I wrote was based upon evidence that has not had its best chance in the news. All I did was piece together the many loose ends. To do any kind of real investigation, I would yet require more info and question many people before I have claimed to be the truth. Don't get so excited; does this possibillity scare you or upset you? It is nothing more than a theory right now. Relax..

///What exactly would be Musharaf's motivation to give nukes to Islamists who have tried to assasinate him? Musharaf is no angel, but your tall tales are completely unlikely and actually contradicted by all the empirical evidence. I think you should be successful in convincing every republican primary voter of your suspicions, it is right up their alley, a theory based in sheer supposition fed by paranoia and without any facts at all to back it up.///

Did you read everything that I wrote? I pointed out that Bhutto had only two attempts on her life and the second attempt was successful. Mush had about a dozen or so attempts on his life - and amazingly - he is still alive! Why is that? A coincidence? Luck? Has it occured to you that it may be a ploy, in order to hide any suspicious activity on his part? Is it possible that AQ had staged all of it to make him appear to be an enemy - when in reality - he isn't? You know - a charade? That is also a very Machiavellian concept - too! The agent that was interviewed on CNN claims that he knew that Mush has no interest in pursuing AQ/Taliban at all. Furthermore, he claimed that Mush has many liasons with AQ and the Taliban and many other jihadist groups in Pakistan. Isn't he supposed to be capturing and fighting them - instead of shaking their hands and breaking bread with them? When do we really consider what we have hooked ourselves up to? I don't know about you; but I have some severe doubts of Mush's motives...

What facts may disprove your analysis? There are plenty, first off, Musharaf doesn't have any religious credentials, kind of hard to establish an Islamic theocracy and to lead an Islamic theocracy if you aren't a theocrat. Secondly, why would he turn to religious parties that have been and currently are fighting his government? If he was planning to turn Pakistan into a "breakway" Islamic government, why would he just finish a bloody raid into a Pakistani months killing dozens of jihadis? In fact there are no facts to back your wild completely made up analysis and only a world of facts to refute it.

What exactly would be Musharaf's motivation to give nukes to Islamists who have tried to assasinate him? Musharaf is no angel, but your tall tales are completely unlikely and actually contradicted by all the empirical evidence. I think you should be successful in convincing every republican primary voter of your suspicions, it is right up their alley, a theory based in sheer supposition fed by paranoia and without any facts at all to back it up.

Please, your post is filled with drivel like an Islamic hegemony, have you been reading the papers the only country or block that has been trying to establish hegemony the last oh 20 years has been the good ole USA. (see project for a New American Century)I forgot it is the white, western, capitalist, and zionist nations' duty to rule the world, they own it, the rest of us are just renting. Just last month these neocons were saying the same thing about Iran, now Musharaf is new Hitler, last month it was Ahmadinejad. "EURASIA HAS ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH EASTASIA".

Don't stain your 'tidy-whiteys' just yet - Farzad. What I said stands unanswered; it was also a 'what if?' scenario. The truth is, you would bash on someone else's ideas just because they do not agree with yours.

Too bad. I can say what I want, and I was careful enough to say that I was 'going out on a limb'. What part about that didn't you understand? Furthermore, if you want to enter into a conversation and answer the question of 'what facts can disprove this as a possibillity' I would be more than glad to have an open and frank discussion with you about it.

Plainfacto-I haven't seen any evidence to support any of your allegations of what could happen. Musharaf forming a breakaway Islamist state? Huh? I swear, you can't just make up scenarios and expect people to take your suggestions seriously. Musharaf is already a dictator, why would he possibly want to work with Islamist terrorists, if any nukes fall into those unreliable hands it would be Pakistan and his own power base that would get annihilated. We have seen the pitfalls of basing our nation's policy on the rantings of prowar conservatives who always see existential threats everywhere, and just coincidentally military action seems to be their most favored solutions for all these crises.

I am terrified by the discourse of many in the right wing and even democratic parties in this country. Some want military intervention in Iran, in Iraq till judgement day, in Syria, and now Pakistan? Serious presidential candidates talking about strikes against nuclear countries and expanding a war that is already bankrupting this country. The warmongering solutions of the American political class since 1965 has resulted in the death of the American Empire. An Empire that could have been about peace, prosperity, and scientific advancement has instead been smashed on the rocks of rampant militarism, xenophobia, and paranoia. I for one think it is time that we have revolution in our approach to the world.

It has not - or ever been - in the best interests of Great Britan or the US to see Pakistan descend to a state of anarchy. In fact, such a situation makes it far more difficult to deal with terrorism/terrorists. Worse than that, it would change the entire security of that region for the worse - overnight.

The only chaos that I can see, is from your allegation that wishes this to be the case. I am more concerned that Mush may be brewing/creating chaos in order to break away and create a nuclear Islamic extremist state.

Mush has that particular and unique opportunity to follow at this time - with little or nothing to stop him. Where are the assurances that it won't happen?

The assassination of Bhutto followed 2 months of urgent pleas to the State Department by her representatives for better protection. The U.S. reaction was that she was worried over nothing, expressing assurance that Pakistani President Musharraf would not let anything happen to her!

The truth is that the British imperial circles, with their stooges in Washington, set up Bhutto's execution, to advance their scheme to break up Pakistan, and create chaos throughout this strategic region.

I am no fan of Musharaf and unelected dictators, however I feel some contexts needed to be added here to this discussion, Musharaf is probably one of the best dictators the US works with. He is secular, and much more tolerant of dissent than most of our bought and paid for childselling sheiks and military strongmen. In fact, one of the main reasons people hate in his own country is that he is seen as our client. The Saudis are way worse than Musharaf as is the filthy emir of Kuwait and the various illegitmate leaders we have supported in the middle east. Saudi Arabia has always been the heartland of Wahabism and Sunni fundamentalism, and most of the foreign fighters in Iraq are Saudi by a 2 to 1 margin. This is not a matter of Musharaf, or the Saudis betraying America. America has put itself in the position of being so unpopular and hated in the middle east that to work to closely with us is the kiss of death.

Certain people on this site believe Musharaf betrayed America. Let us remember that George Bush has never had more than 30,000 troops in Afghanistan looking for Bin laden. Meanwhile he has 160,000 troops in Iraq securing Halliburton and Exxon's contracts there. Last time I checked, Bush was America's president and if anyone betrayed us by not seriously hunting down Bin Laden it was George Bush. He promised everyone that he would get the perpetrators. Instead he used the attacks of 9-11 as an excuse to aggrandize the oilmen in America and to bring the massive oil reserves of Iraq under their control.

At this point, I believe foreign troops in Pakistan would be a disaster. George Bush should have done this in 2003, and sometimes when an opportunity passes it passes. As I have said, both Musharaf and Bush are weaker than in 2003. THE EVENTS OF THE PAST FEW YEARS PROVE THAT THOSE OF US WHO CLAIMED THAT IRAQ WAR WOULD DESTROY OUR ABILITY TO RESPOND TO OTHER CONFLICTS ARE VINDICATED, BUSH SHOULD HAVE FOCUSED HIS ATTENTIONS ON AFGHAN-PAK BORDER IN 2003. AND UNLIKE THE LSAT GEORGE BUSH CAN'T TAKE THIS EXAM AGAIN, CERTAIN TESTS IN YOUR LIFE ARE ONE SHOT DEALS, AND AS USUAL BUSH DOESN'T DO TO WELL ON TESTS.

And the answer to our problems now isn't just blindly sending in US troops. This is the same knee jerk response of conservatives. If you can't think your way out of a problem shoot your way out of a problem.

How Blind Can We Be?

Bill Arkin started this page with the notion that some of our thinking on Pakistan and Al Qaida is missplaced.

I would like to go out on a limb and take it one step further. Please permit me some leeway while I contemplate other possibillities out loud. Let's look at some peculiar and unusual evidence. More importantly, where the evidence leads us.

First, Mush did not follow through when the US forces chased the Taliban and Al Qaida into Pakistan. He refused us entry into Pakistan, and he claimed that he would do his part and claimed any further action would be his responsibilty. He did nothing at all.

Secondly, we must consider what it means if Pakistan fails, and anarchy and revolutionaries take over. Mush knows that he is holding the imternational community over a barrel with this possibillity. Having Al Qaida and the Taliban with nukes means that we have already succumbed to his will; can Pakistan be stopped or swayed back to more peaceful notions without him remaining in place?

The CNN report had the testimony of a certain unidentifiable agent that claimed that Mush has no intentions of stopping AQ or the Taliban. In fact(if he is a reliable source or not - that yet remains to be verified) this agent claimed that Mush himself is playing both sides against the middle, which can be interpreted as a power-grabbing move to use these extremists to futher forment a terrorist force to use against Afghanistan and possibly India.

If we are to believe the claim/report of Benazir Bhutto as a fact, that if she were to be killed - that we were to know it was Mush that had her killed. If we believe what she said and take it on face value -and I think it is fair to say- then Mush is formenting a condition in Pakistan that intends to break away from democracy and lead it to a state that is ruled by Mullahs with useable nukes. The 'worst kind' scenario...

I believe that we must consider that Mush is not going to tow the line with the US. We must not consider him as trustworthy or reliable. Whatever chance Pakistan had to move from a failed nation to a democracy has been brutally dashed by the death of Bhutto. By the time her son graduates from Oxford, Pakistan will be long gone.

Mush's plan to take out Bhutto - even if he did gave the job to AQ to do it - means that he is already in a position to be the one that calls all of the shots - rather than taking US aid and playing an important role to stop terrorism.

Terrorism and terrorists have become his means to break away and create a dangerous situation that no one can stop without risking a self-sacrificing nuclear exchange. Would Mush use this to make his move on India?

Ever since Mush had survived so many attempts on his life by AQ; it began to make me consider other possibillities. Is it possible that these attempts on his life was an agreement with AQ to make him look like he was their enemy? To fool us into believing that he was on our side while he had already made an agreement with AQ to stage these events until he was in a position to deal menacingly with the West?

At this point in history, it doesn't merely look like a possibillity - it is now a likihood. Making what I have said a prologue to nuclear Islamic extremist hegemony. And the name on this business account is Pervez Musharaff...

///1. What would make us safer annihilating Al Quaeda at the risk of not being successful and actually causing a civil war in Pakistan, which could result in the collapse of a nuclear state much worse than the peaceful breakup of the Soviet Union? Which of these two risks is worse? I don't know the answer, but it needs to be seriously considered.///

I am not disagreeing with your point; I just want to comment on it. In fact, I share the same concern. Mush has allowed a safe haven for AQ and the Taliban. He is certainly holding a lot of dangerous pieces. I can see that he has betrayed the US, the international community and his own people in the last six years. Even Hilary Clinton -today on CNN- said that he has not done anything to keep his promises and has done many dangerous things. He already is a danger.

Whatever we choose to do, like making actionable ultimatums concerning his recieving US aid - because he chose not to go after (or not allowing the US/Coalition to take over and finish)AQ and the Taliban in his country as he promised he would do - would be the logical place to start.

///2. Secondly, what happens when the locals start resenting our troops like they have in every other part of the middle east and start firing at us? The simple answer is you shoot back, but that simplistic answer also begs a simplistic response from the Pakistani people whose family members get collateral damaged by our forces. Namely, what about the risk of creating an Iraq style insurgency in the lawless, and mountainous border regions of pakistan?///

That is not entirely true. Karzai still wants help from the US to rid the Taliban and AQ. It would have worked the first time - if Mush would have let us into Pakistan when the last of AQ and the Taliban ran from us. Collateral damage is a possibility - but at this point - I don't think that Mush will go along with anyway...

To a certain extent, I agree that Musharaf needs to get serious about rooting out Al Quaeda along the frontier. But the very actions Plainfacto and others want him to take may result in disintegration of a nuclear state and may cause the nightmare scenario of nuclear weapons passing into the wrong hands. My problem with giving Musharaf an ultimatum of allowing foreign troops into his country is many fold. As usual, Pfacto makes the classic Neocon error, he commits our troops without asking serious questions.

1. What would make us safer annihilating Al Quaeda at the risk of not being successful and actually causing a civil war in Pakistan, which could result in the collapse of a nuclear state much worse than the peaceful breakup of the Soviet Union? Which of these two risks is worse? I don't know the answer, but it needs to be seriously considered.

2. Secondly, what happens when the locals start resenting our troops like they have in every other part of the middle east and start firing at us? The simple answer is you shoot back, but that simplistic answer also begs a simplistic response from the Pakistani people whose family members get collateral damaged by our forces. Namely, what about the risk of creating an Iraq style insurgency in the lawless, and mountainous border regions of pakistan?

3. What troops and from where, and with what money?

IN SHORT IT IS ALWAYS EASY TO WRAP YOURSELF IN THE FLAG AND DEMAND THAT THE MARINES BE ALLOWED TO GO IN AND KICK ASS. BUT A MILITARY AND POLITICAL OPERATION LIKE THIS IS VERY STICKY AND RIPE WITH MANY PITFALLS. AND I HAVEN'T SEEN AMERICAN POLITICAL OR MILITARY LEADERS BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE MANY GREAT SUCCESSES IN THE MIDDLE EAST RECENTLY.

And certainly the competence of the current group of presidential candidates and the current president don't increase my confidence any. The type of military operation on the border of Pakistan should have been done 2003, but that train may have already left the station. Musharaf is weaker now, Bush is weaker now, America's military is stretched, there is no good will left internationally from 9-11, and our country is faced with a fiscal crisis.
Maybe we deranged liberal where right when we said that Iraq was a dangerous distraction in the real war located in South Asia. But I remember the response from one neocon pundit in regards to our campaign in S. Asia being distracted by a war in Iraq(Ann Coulter), "America is a great power we can walk and chew gum at the same time." This is how flippant and ignorant these conservatives are when it comes to matters of war and death. These people really did believe that iraq and Afghanistan would be cakewalks and they prepared accordingly. Now the same line of thinking is getting our troops involved in military operations in Pakistan at a very delicate and inopportune time.

SORRY, NOWADAYS I JUST TEND NOT TO LISTEN MUCH TO PEOPLE WHO CLAIM THAT THE PROPER PRESCRIPTION IS TO SHOOT FIRST AND ASK QUESTIONS LATER. IF THINKING BEFORE BOMBING MAKES ME LESS AMERICAN, WELL THEN I THINK I CAN LIVE WITH IT. I don't trust George Bush to solve this problem, and if you send troops in there in this current delicate time, well then you may be opening up an even bigger can of worms.

///VOTE THEM OUT OF POWER!!///

Here's a thought for you, Rev. If 'Silly Hilly' should unfortunately get into office, she will have to make an about-face that will infuriate Dems. I'm telling you now - so you won't be disappointed when it happens. It's been seen in history several times -check it out.

The office of the presidency has more responsibilities than keeping it promises to its constituants. Billy Clinton tried as hard as he could to keep military actions from happening - but the responsibility that the office of president - does not allow for mistakes to be made. He took military actions - too.

Maybe, you should consider that some of the past presidents - Dems or Repubs - were recipients of intelligence findings that demanded them to respond with appropriate measures. And - as unfortunate as it is - sometimes it included the necissary use of military force as the only possible solution to an otherwise unsolvable dilemma...

The blog tergiversators, plainfacto, lmao and sometimes Frank won't like this...

however, the rest of us can recall when Mr. Bush told the other side to 'bring it on'. His wasn't exactly a call for calm, and it never has been has it? And, in response to his demand they brought it on!

The question that remains is will the calmer voices in the world prevail, and get the violence to end before Bush is in Crawford and the Republicans warhawks are forced back into isolation, where they should have remained in the first place?

The Republicans and the President have contributed as much to the climate of hatred, murder, hostility and fear around the world, if not more than any other entity or groups!

Perhaps the Republicans and Mr. Bush will call for an end to the violence, and for that matter end their own violent behaviors. Hee hee hee!

We all know that nothing has changed since the Bush crusade began, frankly, we have the same problems today, that we did 6 years ago when this man set out to place his stamp upon the rest of the world.

The rest of us are going to have to come up with a way to rid the world of fascism, fascists and crypto-fascists before the apocryphal moment comes upon the rest of us, including those fascists and crypto-fascists who frequently adorn themselves in red, white and blue!

VOTE THEM OUT OF POWER!!

///pot. kettle. black.
That's pretty funny - 1mao!

Posted by: plainfacto///
That is one of the most appropriate descriptions of your character displayed based upon what you have written here in the past, Rev. He was right! I stopped laughing already...

///I am black, however, that has nothing to do with the fact you are missing the real point, for none of this is funny. How some of you can be so glib about the fact that innocent lives are being destroyed around the world I will never know.///
I have no idea that you are black. And you know very well about the expression 'the pot calling the kettle black' - and you know very well what he meant by it.
I know.
Arkin knows.
Anybody that has ever read you - knows. Stop it!
As long as there is war, deaths will happen. To somehow blame it all on me is your MO. it has been your MO, it will always be your MO.
I am not glib about any of it. Again, you think you know me because you assume too much - and poorly I must add.
How many points have you missed in this space already? Too many...

///And alQeada is not the only group that is responsible for the deaths that are taking place, and that is a 'plain facto'.///
Yea, I have seen too many autopsy pictures in my life, don't sell me on what you try to pass as wisdom.

///And I am still waiting for an answer -- how much are they paying you?///
I said this once before, but I will repeat it just for you. My family has been in this coumtry since 1632, and we have been watching anyone that may potentially compromise this country of its' freedom. Nobody needs to pay me for it - I do it for free-dom.
Socialist diatribes - too...

pot. kettle. black.
That's pretty funny - Imao!

Posted by: plainfacto

I am black, however, that has nothing to do with the fact you are missing the real point, for none of this is funny. How some of you can be so glib about the fact that innocent lives are being destroyed around the world I will never know.

And alQeada is not the only group that is responsible for the deaths that are taking place, and that is a 'plain facto'.

And I am still waiting for an answer -- how much are they paying you?

What did we bargain for when we backed Mush - Dao? We expected him to use the military to deal with the AQ and Taliban by acting as a sovereign nation that claims they are against terrorism. We almost finished off the Taliban and AQ; but they ran across the Pakistan border - Mush said we weren't allowed in to finish the job - he said he would do it.

My gripe with Mush is that he is two-faced and has not kept any of his promises to the international community - as well as provide a secure government for his own people. The only problem that the US had - is that we trusted him - our mistake. But we wished to honor Pakistan's sovereinty. Instead of dealing with the remnant of the Taliban and AQ himself - he permitted them to regroup, resupply - and by doing so - has created a situation that self-perpetuates the same problem.

What are the alternatives? I think we should strongly consider new options. For one, if he wants to seek/recieve any more aid, he must change his mind about letting Coalition forces into his country and hunt terrorists down. This will be a pivotal action/ultimatum. He needs to stop the provocation of the Khashmiri conflict - it has been an illiegitimate excuse to foster terrorism by calling it 'self-defence'. That's another load of BS. It is piling up pretty fast, high, and thick!

I tend to believe that he will disagree. That being said, he may turn entirely against us and claim that we upset the peace he has tried to create. This is nothing but a smokescreen to continue to build up what should have been torn down. And it would have - had he let us in to finish this dilemma when we had the chance to do so. He has proven himself to be a bigger terrorist the OBL or the Taliban. And this is my resoning to say unequivically - that he is passing out the largest dose of Bovine Scat that I have seen in many years.

Furthermore, it has been my pet project here on Arkin's page, to see that it is necissary to destroy the poppy fields of Afghanistan - that feeds this vicious circle of narco-terrorism. We must unplug them in Afghanistan. This would have a dramatic effect on terrorists that depend so heavily on the profits and the weapons and the internation drug mobs that supply them with materiel, money and run interference - as well as provide them intelligence that feeds their cause.
Gung Ho!
Gung Ho!

I see you are a conservative with some respect for facts.

Facts and nothing but facts. Who care about the grammar and missing commas? Don't we make them all? Mush it will be then.

So CNN woke you up to Mush? Good for you. What do you expect from someone who turned on the guy who appointed him chief of army over more senior generals, seized power through the barrels of guns, sacked judges who ruled against him, sent his militia to beat up peaceful demonstrators in the streets?

Pakistan is a complicated place even from casual readings. Guys like Mush come and go. There will always be another to replace him. And that's why it is astonishing to see - and here comes the Bush bashing, call it what you will - Bush put all his eggs into this guy. And when things started looking shaky they tried to corner him by first making him give up the army job thus isolating him from his power base. Then they tried to foist that brave but perhaps foolhardy woman on him, trying to make her the head of government. What is left for Mush to do? Cutting ribbons at county fairs? Any wonder he struck back, if he indeed struck back.

The value of Pakistan once again started with geography and 9/11. We needed to go through them to get to Afghanistan a second time. You can't move troops and vast supplies any other way. Then due to our clumsy strategy in Afghanistan, we let Al Qaeda slip away into the mountains of Pakistan. So unless we are prepared to invade Pakistan full force, which by the way is an impossibility right now with the all volunteer army, we need their permission and cooperation to go after Al Qaeda one more time. But all that is moot and sideshow now. If Pakistan implodes the way Iran did thirty years ago and the mullahs gain control of the country and the nukes, all bets are off. Never mind Iran, those guys are still spinning aluminum tubes after thirty years. Pakistan already cooked the things.

And here we come to the second biggest blunder so far of the Bush administration in the war on terror. The first being their failure to prosecute the war in Afghanistan to its full conclusion back in 2001/2002 and let Al Qaeda escape. We could have finished them off once and for all when they were concentrated in Kandahar but did not. And notice I do not include Iraq as a blunder in the war on terror except for maybe its distraction effect. It has nothing to do with such war. The fact that there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded, together with the fact that once the Sunnis decided this year they had enough of Al Qaeda In Iraq, AQII goes on the run, is proof enough that Iraq is first and foremost a war of resistance, we being the occupier.

So what is the second biggest blunder of the war on terror? It is the failure to seize the opportunity and come down in full and public support of the justices and lawyers when they stood up against Mush recently. First it would have scored a public relation coup through out the Muslim world that we are serious about democracy for Muslims and not just when it suits us. Second it would show we recognized and took advantage of what is clearly a working component of the institutions needed for democracy. The neocons have been making excuse for the past six years about how hard it is to build up democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq because there are no existing or surviving apparatus for democracy in those countries. And here we have a working legal system, one of the three corner stones of our own democratic institutions, one that is based - due to British colonialism - on English common laws that can be traced back to the Magna Carta, same as our Constitution is! My Lord, lawyers in suits and ties demonstrated peacefully in the streets! How much more civil and democratic can it get? Instead they went and dragged back a former prime minister with a checkered past and then failed to protect her. What are Bush and Condi trying to do? Build up a dynastic democracy in Pakistan based on some sort of cult of personality? How can that last?

The first error is too late to correct. The second one, who knows? Given their records so far one should not hold out hope.

Thanks for the feedback - Dao. I appreciate the 'gung ho'. You're right - I am. I wrote what I did in a state of being very tired, equally upset, and I had only one drinkey-winkey (sorry about my grammar and punctuation - too!). But what I said is what need to be said for the American people.

Here we are in Pakistan, and even though we have tucked more than a few billion dollars into it - that is not what really and truely bothered me about that situation. The money loss - however grevious - is not as bad as the alliance or lack of reasoning - that is currently in place. Don't bother to take this oppertunity to slam Bush, funky Clinton did the same dumb-ass thing...

The grief of the money loss does not come as close to the grief concept of Musharaff taking that US money and using it against us. That is what I would like to holler about. I had just seen a CNN news report on Musharaff's Pakistan. If only half of the story was on the level, then we need to change our policy twards 'Mush' (AKA-'Musharaff' from this point forward) and I mean - now! Like the steaming bowl of 'crock' that he is. He is a undesireable mix of Bovine Scatology carefully blended with a small amount of bulgar wheat. Thoroughly spiced with lots of opium so that the taste is undetectable, and served up to the American people with all the phony trimmings. Trimmings? I meant terrorist camps, drug money laundering, AQ hand-shaking sessions, etc..

Gung Ho!
Mush's been kowtowing to every rat, 'possum, and cobra in his domain. But if ALL of that story is true - what is the value of Pakistan to us in this fight against terrorism? It is a complete sham! I would like to hear from our State Dept. and have them explain this to us all, and face-to-face without looking to the left. It is time we took invantory...

Beginning invantory...
Terrorism training/planning that spawned the 7/7 attack in London.
The laundering and trafficking of narcotics.
The terrorist camps that have become universities in their own right.
Bhutto's death - tragic as it was - was our own wake-up call.
The riots that are occuring Pakistan are from those disenfranchised individuals who hate Mush, hate being in the middle between the US, AQ/other terrorists, and the lack of having a future.
They just get to sit in the middle and are forced to suck on both ends of this crap.

We need to send Mush a message and a new agreement that says we aren't going to accept his Bovine Scatology any more.
That is clear enough...

The issue that strikes me here is that the manner in which Bush and Cheney have chosen to fight their war on terror has destabilized large segments of the globe. Pakistan is at best hanging by a thread, and many other parts of the middle east are on the precipice. The situation from Bhutto, shows how the current American political class lacks any ability to navigate in the middle east and the Islamic world. Our sponsorship publicly of Bhutto most likely played a role in her death, it seems that if we keep electing neocons (Hillary keep the troops in Iraq till 2008) included then Bin Laden will have his dream. Bin Laden wanted to ignite a war between America and Israel against the entire Islamic world, Bin laden wants to overthrow secular corrupt regimes across the globe. In short, Bush has assured that Al Quaeda's attack on 9-11 was the greatest of strategic successes. His bungling, greed, dishonesty,and violent approach to the middle east has been tested and it has failed.

The situation in Pakistan requires a real election monitored by the UN, and it requires that the whole world not just American neocons help set up a truly stable representative government in Pakistan. I am not talking about military options. Instead of concocting unfair power sharing agreements between two unpopular western tyrants(Bhutto, and musharaf), we should work peacefully towards a global situation, in which the will of the people there is truly reflected by their government.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration used the phoney rhetoric of democracy building to actually subvert the will of the Pakistani people. All in order to insure a pro-western ruling coalition, regardless of how unpopular this coalition is among those that they rule. Sometimes pursuing your short term interests blindly guarantees that more important longterm goals will forever be out of reach. This lesson in life is lost on our greedy, racist, militarist government. They focus narrowly on securing short term power and financial gain, while lacking the capacity to see that this quest for power creates the very enemies that they are trying to battle.

Plain facts? We don't need no stinkin facts...

This is so typical of Americans, particularly the gung ho conservative types. Do this do that go invade this country go invade that country. Never mind the missin commas. Go git the commies! Go do some reading on Wiki about Pakistan first. That country is even more tribal than, say, Iraq. Punjabis, Sindhis, Pashtuns, Balochis, ... It's another Middle Eastern/South Asian stan cobbled up by the colonial Brits. The only unity is Islam. But that has not stopped anybody...

Here's what can be found just by reading. Musharraf is one of many in the long line of leaders both civilian and military who come and go, and usually go by being disposed of by those waiting to come. The guy who had Bhutto I hanged died in his own plane. No one knows who got him bumped off - on the same plane were the US ambassador and a two star US general, so it probably wasn't CIA. But somebody got to him, from the inside. It's reasonable to bet Musharraf is having trouble sleeping these days. Sure he survived the attempts from outsiders. But how to survive the ones from inside, say the determined and fanatic ones bent on avenging their beloved leader's death?

The US has a long history of backing dictators who kowtow to it, at least in public. Almost in all cases it has backfired and brought about even more popular resentment against us.

The current administration also has a long enough history of wading into countries and situations it has no clear understanding of. Sending Bhutto II back to be killed and thereby destabilizing an already volatile situation is the latest example of self inflicting wounds. So far the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan are stilled contained even though the costs have been high. This time it is different. This time we are dealing with an unpopular dictatorship in an unstable country teeming with terrorists and fanatics and with no one knows who has ultimate control of already cooked WMDs - and if anyone thinks Musharraf has firm control of his nukes, just remember what the US own Air Force did with six of it nukes one day and night this year.

The choice was between the lawyers and the generals. The easy and expedient choice was the generals. The hard but wise choice would have been the lawyers. And what brave lawyers, the like of those we have not seen even here in our own democracy!

Bin laden has been dead since 2001. AlQueda is used as the boogy man by our administration. Rice set it up for Buhtto to return to Pakistan and then made sure, along with Musharref, Bush and Cheney that she was made an easy target. Our govt. helped murder her.

'handle'? Rev?
'handle'?
In a past life - were you a C.B operator? Or are you still using a C.B. radio?
I mean - it's OK if you do
I've always thought or considered that it was a moniker, an alter-ego, or a pen name...

pot. kettle. black.
That's pretty funny - Imao!

Wow lmao, how many times did you invoke my handle, 'the Rev'?

When will you grow up and realize that the heart of a killer, no matter what side of the ocean he or she happens to reside on - is still the heart of a killer?

Sin, hatred, murder, terrorism, hegemony, greed, superemacy or duplicity, all are derived from a common source!

American hatred is just as responsible for the senseless murders, and the woeful plundering that has been taking place around the world than any other source.

Our nation is as much responsible for any of the above, than any other hate group that happens to reside outside of our borders!

Ever hear of englightenment, you need go and get enlightened?

What concerns me is that if Bazooka were ever to quit producing bubble gum, along with the enclosed caricatures and vignettes, you would not have a source to provide you with your very learned opinions/material!

Addenda lmao,

Individuals like the late Benazhair Bhutto will continue to hsve their lives cut short, as long as there is ignorance and ignorant people in the world like you - those who have a terrorist mindset!

You are a blogging terrorist!

YOU ARE THE PROBLEM - silly little child.

Thank you lmao,

For I am in good company with people like MLK, Gandhi, Jesus ..., people who worked for peace, a concept that you and few others cannot seem to comprehend.

And who are you aligned with, well let's see - ah, who am I kidding, what group out there would claim a dimwitted, narrowminded, retrograde knucklehad like you? Well the Republican party seems to be fond of your kind.

You haven't offered one cogent piece of information since you started writing into this blog. Name calling seems to be your only forte, and you are not very good at that either!

I would recommend regression therapy for you, for I suspect that in a former life you were likely an assassin, a jackass or simply an ass. Perhaps its not too late to cure you!

So Bhutto said OBL was killed. It's too bad we cannot cross-examine her as a witness. Death has a way of making people very quiet - doesn't it? And where is the trial? Does this 'fact' have an effect or a bearing on the court of public opinion? How does she know OBL is dead? Did she see the body? Did she take someone else's word that OBL is dead?

OK. He's dead. If Zawahiri and the rest of the 'crew' w/o OBL are still alive or uncaptured; their influences and actions are still taking place. To take out OBL never promised the result that AQ would suddenly go away and go home or give up.

This is an unconventional war fought with unconventional tactics with an enemy that is anything but conventional. Where does that leave us? Still fighting this unconventional war. So we must adapt by becoming more unconventional than they are - in order to win order in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

What does it mean 'to win'? Are we going to continue to spend American 'blood and treasure' to fight a people to win those same people a freedom that they themselves should be fighting for themselves and their childrens future? This is clearly the disposition of Musharaff; it is his responsibility and his fight. So - get off of your ass - and put it to work. Don't expect more aid if you cannot do for yourself what you alone must do...

Or are they all just 'floating downstream' with a dose of opium they got down the street? And why do they fight us? Because we are there? Why is it - that they cannot deal with their own problems, and end up being the source of a much bigger problem?

If free elections were to take place in Pakistan as they were supposed to - what can be the expected outcome? It would not stop AQ or the Taliban - or any other of the assorted terrorist groups. Musharaff needs to act like a pitcher - and not a belly scratcher...

It is too bad that Pakistan cannot become like Turkey. Turkey has a Islamic democracy, and it strictly backs its rule. There is terrorists in Turkey, although they have no chance to win and even less chance to survive.

Musharaff hasn't done very much to stop AQ or these other groups; he does nothing at all. Except to survive so many attempts on his life and survive them. Why is that? It looks like a game - and nothing more. Because Musharaff has nukes and not being in control makes him look more than just ineffectual - it makes him look inept. By default, it makes him a 'loose cannon'....

You know, most people under these conditions would feel the need to go all out and destroy any threat to their own hearth and home. The early American patroits felt just that way, and won a democracy and a country for themselves. Even though they knew they must always have to defend it. And they do, and they have, and they will...

If you look at Pakistan in that way - with this same understanding - one must conclude that Musharaff isn't acting as he should. He certainly has not done anything to go after what threatens the people or their government. Just what kind of man is he; what kind of leader is this? One that permits attacks - and then cannot find his own ass with both of his own hands?

Maybe we should encourage some advisors from Turkey to show up on his doorstep and show him what to do - and what he should have done already.
Just some thoughts.....

It is astonishing to see stupid clueless comments from ex american general saying alqaeda did it. What a stupid fking general!.

It was 100% PAK ISI!. It is about who take the most money from govt.Army or politicians (people). Pak army wants 80% cut. With bhutto comes to power they will not get any foreign training and luxury vacation for army officers. So it is time to terminate bhutto. Pakistan is formed with a bad idea.

==========================================

Here's a paradox for all you neo-con apologists to ponder over. Bushco: the shrub and his puppetmaster Dickless Chee-nay say we are bringing democracy to the Islamist-riddled regions. Standard party line of the Kool-Aid imbibers.

While a female leader has been struck down, it seems to me that she came to power before the Islamic fundies were fully entrenched and able to dictate policy.

The paradox is why is it that all the aftermath images coming out of Pakistan show only men? Even at her gravesite, only her brother and father are present in the WaPo picture strewing flowers on the grave. Where are her daughters? Indeed, where all the Pakistani women during this historic moment?

Guess, the Islamo fundies have them all scared. And Mushie, along with all other regional leaders, kow-tow too much to the religious fundies. Price to pay for staying in power, perhaps? Do ya'll see any similarities here in U.S.???

With the archaic Islamic mindset of women being out of mind, out of sight, covered from head-to-toe, etc. etc. etc. .....

....the U.S. is going to install democracy in the region!!!???!?!?!?! Puh-leeze!

Enjoy your Kool-Aid!!

==========================================

Bin Laden was killed. Bhutto even said so in an interview on Nov 2nd 2007.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg

I thinks its the Intelligence unit of the military regime called ISI. They are responsible for many 'devilish' acts in that region. They were the one's to lose the most in a regime run by Mrs. Bhutto. Al-Quida has never killed a Woman.

Rev: "individuals who will not tolerate a difference of opinion?"

ok...I'm done laughing.

pot. kettle. black.

and...in all of this...the idiot arkin can't bring himself to admit the obvious - he...like many others...has no clue whatsoever who lies behind this murder.

nothing like the Rev for empty platitudes and content bereft of of first hand experience!

you are the enemy Rev! just accept that idea and your life will be easier for you.

YOU ARE THE PROBLEM - silly little child.

No, I keep an eye on all diatribes that spew from Socialism and Communism leanings. Actually, you are more of Anarchist-Socialist. It is the correct pigeonhole for your 'pigeoness'. My family has been watching your kind since we got here in 1632.

And now for your dining and dancing pleasure - the Communist diatribe of 'the Rev'......

Thank you plainfacto, it is better than the diatribe of a crypto-fascist, an individual who admires or desires fascism, but keeps this admiration hidden to avoid social persecution...

Did you forget that your ilk also accused Dr. Martin Luther King of being a communist. When will you people evolve?

Besides, Koinonia is not a bad word, it was practised in the Bible (Acts chapter 4).

I wonder how much they pay you and a couple of others on this blog!

Ms. Bhutto was aware of the dangers associated with her noble cause.

I give her a lot of credit for her courage, and her willingness to expose herself as she did, to some demented individuals.

We have a lot of demented individuals in the American Republican Party - some who write into this blog.

Ms. Bhutto reminds me of several American leaders who were snuffed out in the past, JFK, RFK and MLK.

Was alQeada responsible for their senseless deaths, or do the Pakistanis have the same problem that we have over here in the land of the free and the home of the slave, i.e, individuals who will not tolerate a difference of opinion?

With moonbats like the Rev, who needs moonbats like Arkin?

Posted by: Master Shake

Now really, is that all that your small mind could come up with?

Have you ever wondered why there is peace on the moon? I will tell you why, because there aren't any individuals on the moon like you.

Unfortunately, there are too many like you on Earth!

President Musharraf knows exactly how to generate sympathy and dollars in Washington. He yells: "al Qaeda".

//The information of the route that Bhutto took would have to been compromised for any attack to take place.
From the picture I saw of the rally...there was only one way in or out. That being the case, then not much foreknowledge was required. The bomb went off just outside the exit point.//

Wrong. Assassinations and their perpetrators absoltely require times, schedules, and movements. Without this - they have nothing to move on. It was the job responsibillity of Musharaff's Security Servive to protect Bhutto. The films show people within reaching distance of BB in the crowd. That's a huge 'no-no' in the security business. That shows a lack of preparation - or willfullness - and not sticking to the basic rules of personal security.

//*The explosion that followed the shooting appears to be a separate event. There is nothing linking the shooter to the blast that has been documented. When more than two people are involved in a crime - it can be considered a conspiracy.

You use a lot of subjectives and then draw a substantive conclusion from them...what's wrong with that picture? The fact that there isn't definitive linkage between shooter and bomber a mere 48 hours after the incident isn't surprising. Conspiracy might be appropos...but who's conspiracy is the real question.//

OK. The news - as it originally left Pakistan - had precious little coverage. They initial story erroneously linked the two actions to the same individual. We can see by the film that the shooter's location and the direction of the bomb blast are inconsistant. This means that there were at least two or more people present at this time to finish the act. Who are the perpetrators? BB claimed that if she were to die - it would be the PLM-Q - when do start believing her?

//*The planning for this 'conspiracy' takes time, money, info, and communication to complete. They would have to know at least a few days ahead of time to make it work.

You seem to imply it was a Pakistani government operation. AQ has money, intelligence, communictation and time.
Ms Bhutto was campaigning. By your standard it could easily have been AQ. Rallies require places that can hold lots of people. That limits the amount of places to target. Suicide bombers are nothing if not mobile. They are the most intelligent and flexible of precision guided weapons. You presume this was way harder to orchestrate than it really was. On the contrary, I'm amazed it doesn't happen more than it does. I think you'll see it more often now. If I were the leader of aan Islamic state and I was at odds with the Jihadists, I would be taking steps to learn from this.//

Again, the particulars of BB's movements are supposed to be of a highly secret nature. This info is known by a privelidged few Security Service people. It is done in this fashion so they can place strict controls on the situation. The 'SS' must be aware of all the unique dilemmas that each situation poses to make sure they can all be in their control. Not only was there a huge lapse of personal security rules being enforced - but it would have been essential to leak this data for the killers to know where and when to strike. In other words, it looks like an inside job because the security people told the perpetrators where the kinks in the armour existed. That, and the fact that they laxed their protection at that given moment.

The question has always been 'to whom did they leak this info to?' is the million-dollar question that has yet to be answered with satisfaction - to date.....

Scott

The Al Jazeera [English] Frost interview video is all over the bloggistsphere today if you google it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_English]

'Blogger Pete from the UK' posted the video as a blog comment to Wm Arkin's earlier EW blog piece about Pakistan.

I asked for a FACT CHECK of this information in a previous post on this blog comment space, but no one replied.

Here is one sample of what is being said; there are links to Binside TV [Source: http://binside.typepad.com/binside_tv/2007/12/benazir-bhutto.html]

"Pakistan is in chaos after the assassination of fmr. Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto who was laid to rest on Friday. Thousands of mourners paid their respects with an outpouring of emotion over the loss of their beloved opposition leader.

The Pakistani governement says Al Qaida and the Taliban are responsible for her death.

There is a controversial video posted on YouTube where Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto seems to eerily speak from the grave. In the clip, she names the people who she believes are responsible for her murder.

She also tells the interviewer David Frost that Osama Bin Laden was killed and is dead. These statements are considered controversial because new recordings have just been leaked with Bin Laden calling for jihad in Iraq."
[Source of this comment: http://www.agi.it/world/news/200712281539-cro-ren0049-art.html]
------

I would still like to know if there is any truth in this information.

Read this article objectively. and see where it cherry picks to prove a false point.

First declared is the fact that Al Qaeda was founded and in Pakistan since 88. Then we say it is absurd for Al Qaeda and foreign fighters to work in Pakistan. Both are true, but the outcome isn't in sync. Al Qaeda, as they have done in Iraq, recruits internally too, and then foments anger between the political sides to create chaos. It is quite plausible for Al Qaeda to have planned this. Much the same as Iraq exploded after the Al Qaeda attack on the Mosque at Samara there intension was to appear as if Musharaf offed Bhutto.

Whenever one of Bush's foreign policy misadventures blowS up in his face, you can count on the neocon apologists coming in here to deny the obvious facts.

Fact: George Bush pressured Musharaf for months to let Bhutto in, practically twisting his arm

Fact: This Bush administration, tried for months to create a power sharing agreement that effectively marginalized large portions of Pakistan's opposition, and simultaneously tried to prop up Musharaf's dictatorial reign. The very idea that Condi Rice should be so intimately involved in crafting Pakistan's next government is a slap in the face and another example of Washington not getting the picture.NOBODY ACCEPTS THIS ADMINISTRATION'S MORAL AUTHORITY, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY. Only Bush could subvert democracy and sell it is a part of his democracy building program.

Fact: Benazir Bhutto died as a result of buying into Bush and Rice's ridiculous democracy subverting power sharing agreement.

IT IS TIME THAT WE ALL STOPPED BELIEVING IN NEOCON FAIRY TALES, THESE PEOPLE HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT CAUSE DEATH AND DESTRUCTION ON A GLOBAL SCALE AND THEY HAVE SULLIED THE NAME AND GOODWILL THAT AMERICA POSSESSED.

Murphy's Law: "If anything can go wrong, it will go wrong". Bush/Cheney's Law: "By golly if it ain't wrong, we will make it go wrong".

The information of the route that Bhutto took would have to been compromised for any attack to take place.
From the picture I saw of the rally...there was only one way in or out. That being the case, then not much foreknowledge was required. The bomb went off just outside the exit point.

*The explosion that followed the shooting appears to be a separate event. There is nothing linking the shooter to the blast that has been documented. When more than two people are involved in a crime - it can be considered a conspiracy.

You use a lot of subjectives and then draw a substantive conclusion from them...what's wrong with that picture? The fact that there isn't definitive linkage between shooter and bomber a mere 48 hours after the incident isn't surprising. Conspiracy might be appropos...but who's conspiracy is the real question.

*The planning for this 'conspiracy' takes time, money, info, and communication to complete. They would have to know at least a few days ahead of time to make it work.

You seem to imply it was a Pakistani government operation. AQ has money, intelligence, communictation and time.
Ms Bhutto was campaigning. By your standard it could easily have been AQ. Rallies require places that can hold lots of people. That limits the amount of places to target. Suicide bombers are nothing if not mobile. They are the most intelligent and flexible of precision guided weapons. You presume this was way harder to orchestrate than it really was. On the contrary, I'm amazed it doesn't happen more than it does. I think you'll see it more often now. If I were the leader of aan Islamic state and I was at odds with the Jihadists, I would be taking steps to learn from this.

How come no one is citing this invterview from a month ago, where Bhutto asserts that Omar Sheikh killed Osama Bin Laden.

It's at 2:15 into the interview

Its the al-cia-duh

MOST STORIES HAVE COMMENTS DISABLED GET THIS INFO OUT

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg

I think the facts point to a number of groups that had an interest in seeing Bhutto dead.

The PLM-Q - a pro-Musharaff political group said to be comprised of some military people and thugs. Musharaff was willing to allow Bhutto to be Prime Minister to appease the population. Dying kinda put that idea to an end. This is the group that Bhutto herself implicated if she were to die due to lack of proper security measures for her movements within Pakistan. Probably the best suspect so far. There was little love lost between Bhutto and the PLM-Q. She blamed them on the frame-up of both her and her Dad of political malfeasance. Her Dad was found guilty and hung while she went into self- exile to England after she was implicated in a scandal.

Al Qaida - Many refugees from Afghanistan's fighting included a generous portion now found in Pakistan. Since the US and Coalition partners were not allowed into Pakistan when pursuing the Taliban and Al Qaida, they have collected and found a safe haven. Their interest in killing Bhutto would be a blow to the US interest to help legitimize the Pakistani gov't.

Taliban - Same as above.

ISI - The ISI is the parent organization composed of smaller agencies that carry on gov't funtions. They are equivalent to administative, political, field intelligence, signals intelligence, monitoring regions of Pakistan that need close supervision, and foreign intelligence. Any one of these branches - or combinations of the above - has been implicated due to the loss of security info that surrounded the death of Bhutto.

Musharaff - Wouldn't be so stupid as to have people directly underneath him do anything to Bhutto. That would be too obvious. Not likely - but possibly indirect thru the PLM-Q.

The latest confirmed info on Bhutto's death restated the fact that a gunshot wound to the neck was responsible. When the spinal cord is severed, the heart beats until ir runs out of oxyginated air. The lungs/breathing are part of the autonomic response of the brain. If you cut the connection from the brain to the lungs, the body basically 'forgets' to breathe with a normal synchronous rhythm; dysfunctional suffocation follows.

A couple of important facts to remember:

*The information of the route that Bhutto took would have to been compromised for any attack to take place. This looks like an inside job. The details to this part are not even being discussed - except to say that it was possible.
*The explosion that followed the shooting appears to be a separate event. There is nothing linking the shooter to the blast that has been documented. When more than two people are involved in a crime - it can be considered a conspiracy. I know - it's a dirty word - but it looks like it belongs to the situation.
*The planning for this 'conspiracy' takes time, money, info, and communication to complete. They would have to know at least a few days ahead of time to make it work.

Flip by the way is a real name. If you were an American you would know that. Now this is exactly the area that matters. A correction and re-iteration: yes, the ISI has more than intimate relations with diverse criminal and terrorist organizations. I'm not saying they did it, and I'm sure they would not do so directly, but basing what little we know on facts and logic ISI is suspect: One has to consider the many different groups who would benefit from this assassination, consider how this occurred and where this occurred, Rawalpindi. Also one has to consider that there are many other groups in Pakistan much more capable of successfully carrying out this crime and it is very suspicious that a day after the trumpets resound with the news Al Quaeda Al Quaeda. Damn that was fast. Why aren't they themselves bragging about it from day one? Al Quaeda is just one small group among many, is rather marginalized in Pakistan and not nearly as connected as others. So many other people wanted to kill her. There is the suspicious declaration of the government as to how she actually died. Why? To deny her martyr status? There's the lack of physical evidence. You would think they'd pull out the stops to find anything they could and show the world as much as they could. And I for one am going to talk about financial or political support that has been given to al Qaeda or to the Taliban by Khan and the ISI. It is something NOT well known. And how do you know that ISI or any other group does not have a clandestine squad of suicide bombers under their direct command? As regards ISI, I say they do. And, Al Quaeda? there is NO EVIDENCE for that, though of course this is just the kind of thing I would expect from them, but the high probability is, based on facts and logic, that Al Qaeda was not behind this event. At any rate not without the assistance of some powerful group, say ISI? Don't forget that the first attempt against her a few weeks ago, was never properly investigated. Don't forget that ISI would know her itinerary. Why was she under house arrest last month? Why was requested security denied her in Rawalpindi? You have a little too much confidence in the Pakistani government. Do I see someone with an agenda here? Now lets sit back and see how this gets "investigated" or should I say reported.

Flip

You "flipping" your argument to another area. I'm not talking about financial or political support that has been given to al Qaeda or to the Taliban by Khan and the ISI. This is well known. I'm talking whether the ISI or any other group having a clandestine squad of suicide bombers under their direct command. And there is NO EVIDENCE for that! This is why the high probability is, based on facts and logic, that al Qaeda was behind it. Don't forget that the first attempt against her few weeks ago, also involved a suicide bomber and showed too all the signs of al Qaeda.

Has anyone seen Elvis, Benazir and Osama at a New Year's party in Dubai?

FACT CHECK REQUEST:

Speaking of Bin Laden, as other Bloggers have mentioned on your previous EW blog.

Al Jazeera [English] has posted a clip to 'YouTube' of Sir David Frost's interview with Ms. Bhutto on 02 Nov 07, in which the late Ms. Bhutto casually refers to the murder of Osama Bin Laden. Does anyone have the facts on this comment?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ&feature=related

http://www2.jumptv.com/seo/Frost_Over_The_World/Frost_Over_The_World.htm

"Certainly there could be many others who could be involved in the assassination of Bhutto." Yeah sure enough. And most suspect is ISI the Pakistani intelligence agency, which is intimately involved with Al Quaeda, the Taliban and an enormous list of other terrorist groups, many much bigger much more dangerous and much more influential in Pakistan. At the moment everything points directly at the Pakistan military and intelligence. "There is no evidence at all that either the Intelligent Services in Pakistan or any other group hostile to Benazir had set up a squad of suicide bombers under their command." Really? This is a joke, right? Do we forget Mohammad Aziz Khan and the $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta's bank account? The support given to Taliban by ISI all these years both prior to and after the toppling of that murderous government in Afghanistan?

Certainly there could be many others who could be involved in the assassination of Bhutto. But in the METHOD of the killing al Qaeda is WRIT LARGE. The assassin first shot at Benazir and then BLEW himself up, i.e., he was a suicide bomber. There is no evidence at all that either the Intelligent Services in Pakistan or any other group hostile to Benazir had set up a squad of suicide bombers under their command. It's therefore by far more likely than not, because of the method of her killing, that al Qaeda was the perpetrator.

With moonbats like the Rev, who needs moonbats like Arkin?

Correction ---- that's "Janes Defence Weekly"

And now for your dining and dancing pleasure - the Communist diatribe of 'the Rev'......

Factually, hatred and failed leadership from both sides of the ocean I suspect, are the culprits that are responsible for this apparently, too-good-for the world, former prime minister being slain. May she rest in peace, and may her vision for peace in the entire world, including the United States, become a reality someday!

I was hoping that future President Hilary Clinton, future Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and other sensible world leaders would get the chance to work together.

It has been my hope that together, they would come up with viable solutions to solve the problems that they would inherit; those problems which were exacerbated and oftentimes created by hardheaded males from either side of the ocean, problems which are only getting worse by the day!

It really is time to reintroduce the 'feminine principle' in the world, given that 'the old boy's network' and their policies of greed and hegemony have really screwed things up. And the latter refuse to admit just how much, given their lack of morality and vision that they have screwed things up.

They also refuse to see the need for a change of course direction and new and capable world leadership. The boyz could immediately begin to effect change in the world by first of all having themselves fired!

Is anyone else keeping score? Who has been responsible for more senseless killings over the past 6 years, al-Qaeda or the other world-wide terrorist organization, in my opinion, the Bush Administration?

The Bush administration is responsible for the murder of former world leader Saddam Hussein, and someone (we cannot write off the CIA a group that is currently involved in an ongoing cover-up investigation for its previous misdeeds in Iraq) is responsible for the death of Pakistani leader Bhutto. Is the score 1-to-1, 2-to-0 or 0-and-2, with someone being responsible for the murder of 2 former world leaders? Or in that regard, is the score really even, which is bad enough?

I wonder when will whoever assassinated Ms. Bhutto, or Mr. Bush and his administration ever see the light? For whether alQaeda murdered Ms. Bhutto or not, the commander-in-chief of the United States forces and his minions have not stopped killing people either.

Factually, we need an entirely new and capable group of leaders to assume the roles of leaderships around the world, particularly in those failed states, including our own, where the leaders have deeply disappointed the decent citizens of the world who are responsible for placing them into power.

Certainly, we had hoped for better results than we are getting. Someone needs to hurry up, step up and take over - for these fellas haven't done anything but turn what were once small manageable problems into what are beginning to look like insurmountable and catastrophic problems. And the problems are spreading like wildfire or infectious disease!

It does not appear that The National Guard, or why don't we call them what they are (the entire U.S. military), the International Guard, will have the bandwidth to solve the problems and kill everybody.

I wonder if Mr. Bush is equally saddened, having just watched his performance on television, over the innocent lives that he is responsible for needlessly and unjustly destroying. If he wants the violence to stop, he also needs to stop exporting violence himself!

The world has taken another dip into murderous political serendipity, given the fractious policies of many of the world leaders who are in charge and responsible for the problems that are occurring all over the world. And frankly, I don't see how it will get any better, not until many of them have been recalled or voted out of power - not assassinated!

Factually, hatred and failed leadership from both sides of the ocean I suspect, is the culprit responsible for this apparently, too-good-for the world, former prime minister being slain. May she rest in peace, and may her vision for peace in the entire world, including the United States, become a reality someday!

I was hoping that future President Hilary Clinton, future Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and other sensible world leaders would get the chance to work together.

It has been my hope that together, they would come up with viable solutions to solve the problems that they would inherit; those problems which were exacerbated and oftentimes created by hardheaded males from either side of the ocean, problems which are only getting worse by the day!

It really is time to reintroduce the 'feminine principle' in the world, given that 'the old boy's network' and their policies of greed and hegemony have really screwed things up. And the latter refuse to admit just how much, given their lack of morality and vision that they have screwed things up.

They also refuse to see the need for a change of course direction and new and capable world leadership. The boyz could immediately begin to effect change in the world by first of all having themselves fired!

Is anyone else keeping score? Who has been responsible for more senseless killings over the past 6 years, al-Qaeda or the other world-wide terrorist organization, in my opinion, the Bush Administration?

The Bush administration is responsible for the murder of former world leader Saddam Hussein, and someone (we cannot write off the CIA a group that is currently involved in an ongoing cover-up investigation for its previous misdeeds in Iraq) is responsible for the death of Pakistani leader Bhutto. Is the score 1-to-1, 2-to-0 or 0-and-2, with someone being responsible for the murder of 2 former world leaders? Or in that regard, is the score really even, which is bad enough?

I wonder when will whoever assassinated Ms. Bhutto, or Mr. Bush and his administration ever see the light? For whether alQaeda murdered Ms. Bhutto or not, the commander-in-chief of the United States forces and his minions have not stopped killing people either.

Factually, we need an entirely new and capable group of leaders to assume the roles of leaderships around the world, particularly in those failed states, including our own, where the leaders have deeply disappointed the decent citizens of the world who are responsible for placing them into power.

Certainly, we had hoped for better results than we are getting. Someone needs to hurry up, step up and take over - for these fellas haven't done anything but turn what were once small manageable problems into what are beginning to look like insurmountable and catastrophic problems. And the problems are spreading like wildfire or in