Feeding the 'trolls' - Dimitry?

\\We need to get better at bribery or cut it off.// -TK

I'll buy that for a dollar...

trolls...

Yes, TK, again you are able to see the crux of the issue. 9-11 was an attack by Saudi religious fanatics based in Afghanistan, somehow we end up fighting a war against an oil rich dictator. Bush was much stronger in 2002, and the world was 100% behind us, even old Europe sent troops to Afghanistan.

THIS IS THE OFFER BUSH SHOULD HAVE MADE TO MUSHARAF, EITHER YOU LET OUR TROOPS IN AND I DOUBLE OR TRIPLE THE MASSIVE AID PLAN YOU HAVE NOW, OR IF YOU DON'T I CUT YOU OFF DRY, AND OPEN MY ARSENAL UP TO INDIA FOR WEAPONS SALES. MUSHARAF WOULD HAVE HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO CONSENT.

As in regards to Iran, you make another salient point. When Iran had a reformist president who talked about dialogue of civilaztions and of peace, the neocons said that the office of president in Iran has no power and that Khatami had no ability to deliver on his flowery rhetoric. When Iran has a deluded and bombastic President, now all of sudden we can't talk to Iran because the president is an all powerful and hateful tyrant. THEY LOVE WAR, THEY WILL USE ANY TWISTED LOGIC TO JUSTIFY WAR. Under Iran's system Ahmadinejad actually is not the commander and chief and maybe somewhere between the 5th to 15th most powerful man in the country. But according to neocons we can't talk to Iran because of Ahmadinejad.

Farzad -- I may have misunderstood your argument. I certainly agree that Bush screwed up the pursuit for AQ and OBL in 2002. Mush wasn't as far down the path then as he is now and may have provided effective assistance if Bush had kept his eye on the ball. Much is different if the Afghan war had been properly managed and no Iraq adventure. Imagine if Bush had tried to thaw relations with Iran when Khatami was still in charge. What a waste.

==The Afghani front was successful to the point that we almost defeated them - until Musharaff screwed us over.===Plainfacto

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!

That Musharaff dog ate our homework, teacher!)Dimitry

THAT IS RIGHT DIMITRY GREAT POST, BASICALLY PLAINFACTO IS BLAMING MUSHARAF FOR NOT SECURING OUR NATIONAL INTEREST, THAT IS LIKE BUSH BLAMING HIS DOG FOR EATING HIS HOMEWORK. I REALLY DON'T THINK PLAINFACTO REALIZES HOW SILLY HE SOUNDS TO SANE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY THINK LOGICALLY. VERY FUNNY INDEED DIMITRY.

Otherwise, great post Tk, I agree with everything that you say, but I want to clarify my position. If Bush did what he was supposed to do in 2002, Musharaf would not be as indispensable as he is right now. We could have thrown him away as an ally, like you suggest. I don't like the man, I think he should go away and we should stop supporting him. Unfortunately, as you have stated Bush's strategic failing in ignoring S. Asia for Iraqi oil has turned Musharaf into the administration's indispensable ally.

Actually, TK, I am an Iranian by ancestry and a citizen of the United States. And I disagree with Dimitry, Musharaf should have had his arm twisted even harder by Bush.If Bush had done so effectively we would have had our troops on the Pakistani border in 2002 and Osama bin laden's hide would have been turned into a set of luggage for some proud American serviceman. Dimitry and I differ on this point. I think that Musharaf who let our troops into Pakistan today should have been pressed to do so in 2002, in fact Bush's failure is that he didn't twist Musharaf's arm enough especially in regards to the AFghan-Pakistan border. Instead, Bush never seriously issued Musharaf (a non-military) ultimatum to get our troops on the border, because he already had plans for those troops in Iraq. It is also why Don Dumsfeld and George Bush sent a skeletal force into Afghanistan, a large mountainous country that required an intensive manhunt for high value targets.

As to Musharaf, I don't think he is the most likely suspect, because of various facts that I have indicated. IE that various Islamist groups that opposed the Musharaf/Bhutto power sharing agreement put forth by Rice had a bigger incentive to kill her, and they publicly stated they wanted to kill her. Musharaf may have done it, I don't claim to be all knowing of past and present events like our resident neocon theorist. I just think that that there are other more likely suspects.

Like Plainfacto I have a living to earn, and shouldn't take more time on this. One way or the other just about everyone on this post has a reasonably well thought out perspective. The issue is what is your first principle?

On the realism front Plainfacto is looking for an ally that says "how high" when Bush says "jump." Farzad, Dimitry and others seem to be saying that Mush's arm was twisted and we are unrealistic if we expect friendship and enthusiastic effort from Mush under such circumstances. Not going to happen, but our $10 billion interests Mush, but if he actually delivers OBL the money stops. We need to get better at bribery or cut it off.

Farzad says Mush didn't benefit from Bhutto's death, but everything I see tells me he did, so Mush remains the key suspect in my eyes. Farzad may be Pakistani, so maybe his view is better. It's irritating that Bush is so incompetent, but where I join the Rev is that we have blood on our hands as an accessory to this Bhutto episode if we keep supporting Mush. Now it is something worse than incompetence.

Rev I think our views are in sync, but am sorry for the pessimistic sound of your post. Going back over the post I share your dismay at the barbarity or our present era, all the "killers" as you refer to them. The list is long -- the guy in Kenya, Mugabe, the junta in Burma. Putin likes to keep a civilized and formally democratic face to keep his G-8 membership, but he is hardly better than Mugabe or Mush. Some of this almost makes Mush look good. Mush is a double-dealer at best and a killer at worst, but how different really? Isn't the ultimate indictment of Bush that his adventure in Iraq, his love of force and disdain for persuasion and international institutions and law forfeited the moral authority of the US and made force and fraud the real currency of world politics? But don't let dismay turn into out and out pessimism. Pessimism makes us passive and passivity is an essential condition for the triumph of evil. Keep speaking out.

By the way Saddam was not in violation of the UNSC, our invasion proved he had no WMDs, which was the basis of those resolutions...!

Posted by: Farzad

The United States violated the will of the UNSC, and the entire general assembly. It
is amazing to me that Bush preached to
Saddam, telling him that he must
comport to his mandates, which
Bush considered the Rule of Law!

However, Bush made it clear that both he
and America, under his leadership, were
above the law and would not comport
to any other law.

In fact, how many times have American
Presidents boasted that they will
not comport to the laws of any
outside nation or the U.N.?

However, given the hyprocrisy of our
leaders and American foreign policy,
we demand that other nations
comport to the will of the
often misguided and poorly
United States of America!

These are the kind of double-standards
that ruined the nation from the
outset - its double-messages,
and its double-dealing!

==The Afghani front was successful to the point that we almost defeated them - until Musharaff screwed us over.===

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!

That Musharaff dog ate our homework, teacher!

That's the sound of one lip lying!

WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study

WHAT IS THAT I HEAR, IS THAT THE SOUND OF REALITY JUMPING UP AND BITING YOU ON THE A--.

By the way Saddam was not in violation of the UNSC, our invasion proved he had no WMDs, which was the basis of those resolutions. And prior to the invasion he said he would let the inspectors in and give full access to any and all sites, which Bush said was insufficient. Additionally, the UNSC refused to give us a specific authorization to use force when we asked for it, and Bush decided to do it anyway. Also every single senior UN official including most of our own allies opposed the invasion. El Baradei said Saddam had no nuclear program, Blix opposed the war, so did Kofi Annan. In fact, the very idea of using the UNSC as cover is laughable since that very security council refused to give us the authority to use force when we asked them to vote on it, we lost the vote, and Bush invaded anyway.

Besides, after 9-11 you are telling me that enforcing 15 year old UNSC resolutions was more important than killing and capturing the architects of 9-11? Please, nothing you say makes sense, you just repeat silly neocon talking points that have all been debunked. Some of which have been debunked now for 5 years, you do better when you just create phony hypotheticals right out of deep space. That way you are not bound to the infamous historical record of the build up to this war or to any facts at all, you can just create your own bizarro world and sell it to morons as reality.

Right, Pervez Musharaf sent some Afghan mercenaries and about a battalion and half of US troops to capture Osama Bin Laden at Tora Bora, only resulting in abject failure. Musharaf decided to send only 30,000 people into a massive mountainous country to do an intensive manhunt. Bush wasn't committed to rooting out AQ in S. Asia and it is clear from the historical record. If he wanted troops in Pakistan badly enough in 2002 he would have gotten in. And if bush is so easily played by a two-bit dictator how come he still publicly kisses up to the guy and sends him billions of our tax money. And why is it that our troops are going in now, and why weren't they going in 2002?

Quite frankly with every single post you make you dig yourself deeper into a rhetorical hole, and you just show yourself as a transparent Bush apologist. Nothing is ever Bush's fault, he relied on an unreliable dictator for our national security and was duped by him, and he has done nothing about it but suck up to him and send him even more money, according to your theory. Well that is an even more damning indictment of the idiot-n-chief.

I GUESS YOU WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE THAT GEORGE BUSH IS THE ONLY PRESIDENT IN HISTORY WHO BEARS NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS OWN GOVERNMENT'S MISTAKES AND DECISIONS. EVERY CALAMITY OR ERROR IS SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT.

\\Yes, Plainfacto, I am the warmonger, I opposed the Iraq invasion from the outset, and supported our campaign in S. Asia against the people who actually attacked us.//

You are confused. But this isn't about confusion; isn't it?

The Iraq campaign was a result of Hussein sh!tting on the UNSC sanctions imposed on him; since the UNSC never resolved their stance with documentation nor decree that stated so. We had an obligation to do something with Iraq after we deposed Hussein, and we weren't about to make it easy for the Iranians to have it.

The Afghani front was successful to the point that we almost defeated them - until Musharaff screwed us over.

If you cannot figure this out for yourself - coucellor - after it has been in everybody else's knowledge of the situation - then I am afraid that you will never get it. But that is not the way that you roll; you live to do this so that you can hold up the neodem banner and troll for responses for those who may pass this way.

You are like a broken record, and the song that it is stuck on was a bad one to begin with.

Yes, Plainfacto, I am the warmonger, I opposed the Iraq invasion from the outset, and supported our campaign in S. Asia against the people who actually attacked us. And i have been the one who has shot down every piece of propaganda Bush has thrown out to justify his insane belligerence towards Iran. In short, you are the one who supports warfare against everyone and anyone, except the people who actually attacked us. I said very plainly THAT NO MILITARY ACTION WOULD BE APPROPRIATE WITHOUT MUSHARAF'S CONSENT. AND YOU HAVE NO ANSWER AS TO WHY YOUR PRESIDENT IS NOW SENDING TROOPS TO PAKISTAN, AND WHY HE FAILED TO DO THIS IN 2002 AND WHY HE FAILED TO SEND MORE THAN A SKELETAL FORCE TO AFGHANSITAN.

IN SHORT, ANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN CAN SEE QUITE PLAINLY THAT YOU ARE THE ONE WHO WILL LIE AND MAKE EXCUSES FOR EVERY HORRIBLE MISTAKE AND PURPOSEFUL CRIME OF THIS ADMINISTRATION. YOU LOOK BACK IN TIME AND PRETEND THAT ANY BAD CHOICE BUSH MADE WAS THE ONLY CHOICE HE HAD. YES IRAQ HAS BEEN A WONDERFUL SUCCESS, I HOPE YOUR CANDIDATES KEEP REPEATING THAT LINE OF BS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND LIKE MCCAIN I HOPE THEY TELL THEM THAT THEY WANT OUR TROOPS IN IRAQ FOR A CENTURY OR MORE.

I still would like to know how it is that after we were attacked by Saudi fundamentalists based in Afghanistan that we ended up invading an oil rich secular dictator? Our own government admits that said dictator had no operational link to AQ and no link to the attacks of 9-11. When one of you "Iraq is a success people" answer that question with an answer that makes sense, I'll stop raining on your victory parade.

IN BIZARRO NEOCON WORLD WHEN YOU PAY 2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS AND 10,000 DEAD AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED TROOPS FOR A WAR YOU NEVER HAD TO FIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE THAT IS A VICTORY. Hurray for George Bush, I say we put him up on Mt. Rushmore, hell I say we blot out all those other posers up there and instead put George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, and Alberto Gonzalez up on Mt. Rushmore. I want to rename America Bushland, I think our currency should be called the Bushie instead of the dollar. I heard that George Bush cured cancer, killed a grizzly bear with one hand tied behind his back, and shoots fireballs out of his rectum.

//Hindsight certainly is 20/20, so is post hoc justifications, scapegoating, and excuse making. AND IT ISN'T NEGLIGENCE, CLEAR EVIDENCE EXISTS THAT HE PURPOSEFULLY TRIED TO LINK SADDAM TO 9-11, WHEN EVERYBODY INCLUDING HIS ADMIN. KNEW THAT SADDAM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11. LYING IS NOT AN HONEST MISTAKE, LYING A COUNTRY INTO WAR IS A PURPOSEFUL BETRAYAL.//

Karzai said recently that he is inclined to allow US forces to come back in and take out the Taliban resurgence. He sounded quite hopeful. Maybe the war monger Farzad will get his wish after all. Then he can register his indignation for two separate fronts. Maybe then he can tell the difference between the two entities once and for all. In the meantime, Iraq is coming along fine now and is looking like the plan is really getting finished up. I wonder what councellor Farzad will do with his free time in a year or two...

I wish I had a better job; this PI piecework doesn't pay like I would like to see. I'm spending all of my free time on blogs writing to compensate for the lack of proper representation waiting for work, so that Arkin can get ideas to feed and write upon - instead of earning a living like I need to. Blackwater isn't responding in a timely fashion to my resume and application, and I have to pay bills like everyone else does...

Still doesn't answer why Bush sent all those forces to Iraq, and never sent enough troops to root out Al Quaeda and never even tried to get our troops on the Pakistan side of the border. This isn't about simple errors in judgement, this about a betrayal of the American people in purposefully lying us into a war that had nothing to do with 9-11. Bush wasted our power away in Iraq, while he entrusted Musharaf with fighting AQ, well that strategy has been a disaster. And if he really cared about fighting terrorism, maybe he should have gone after the organization that succeeded in killing 3,000 of our citizens.

Bush fought a war that he knew was unrelated to the attacks of 9-11, and he never seriously committed our resources to getting those responsible for 9-11. This isn't a mistake, it is a knowing and purposeful betrayal of America and the victims of 9-11. He would rather secure Iraq's oil for his corporate buddies, and take an intractable enemey of his Israeli love child out; rather than actually do what he promised to do. Bush decided to deploy a skeletal force to Afghanistan, not Pervez Musharaf. Bush decided to shoot his wad in Iraq for his own and his faction's motivations not ours. Bush is the one responsible for betraying American security and selling us out for petrodollars and Aipac contributions. This is not a mistake, this an intentional betrayal. Add traitorous to the long laundry list of negative adjectives you can use to describe this vile administration.

Hindsight certainly is 20/20, so is post hoc justifications, scapegoating, and excuse making. AND IT ISN'T NEGLIGENCE, CLEAR EVIDENCE EXISTS THAT HE PURPOSEFULLY TRIED TO LINK SADDAM TO 9-11, WHEN EVERYBODY INCLUDING HIS ADMIN. KNEW THAT SADDAM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11. LYING IS NOT AN HONEST MISTAKE, LYING A COUNTRY INTO WAR IS A PURPOSEFUL BETRAYAL.

//What is it about "don't let OBL escape accross the border" don't you understand?//

First, let's start off by what you don't understand. In a perfect world, thare are no errors and no room for others inventive efforts to save their own asses. In a perfect world, we know more about the enemies terrain than they do. We would also be aware of possible alliances and refuges better than they would. Hello; we were fighting guerillas in their own back yard - overwhelming firepower is not always the answer. Oh, I understand just fine. Didn't someone a lot like you claim to know asymetric warfare? Guess I was mistaken...

TK in Texas,

What is so unique about Dimitry's
perspectives is that he brings
a refreshing outside perspective,
among others to the discussion.

Within America, the saying, east
is east and west is apropos. I
join you in applauding his
and others perspectives.

Will the ideologues in and out of
power ever open up to reason and
rationalism? I doubt it, for until
the need for power, and the spirit
of greed coupled with elitism and
fear of loosing a dollar goes
away (which are their motivating
factors) I doubt that anything will
ever change - it hasn't changed much
in 230 years!

Certainly a sound argument will never
alone mitigate their hardened feelings
and attitutdes over 'American Idol
Worship', and I am not talking about
the television show.

In remembrance of Dr. MLK's birthday -
he tried, but look where he ended up
- in the land of the free and the home
of the slave?

This series of posts will soon fade into the blogosphere, but I hope more realism like Dimitry's creeps into the thinking of the illustrious chicken hawks Bush and Cheney.

The bottom line of this discussion for me though is that it has become obvious to everyone but Bush and Cheney that Musharraf has been playing a double game - promise anything re OBL and AQ, but take all the money and use all the support to do whatever it takes to keep Musharraf in power -- fire the Supreme Court, suppress or make a mockery of democracy and, in my view, connive in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Now he is in Europe pretending to care about democracy and the rule of law. What a sorry spectacle.

==What I should have said, is that Mush wouldn't let us into his country after we chased the remnants of AQ/Taliban out of Afghanistan - as they fled inside the Paki border. I remember that we sent more than a few Dept/State people to Pak to persuade Mush to either let us in - or do it all himself. He said he would - and the rest was history. I'm getting convinced that Mush eats his own buggers and gets high from it. Better than someone else's - I guess... ==

Why would "Mush" "let us in", so to speak? Isn't Pakistand a sovereign country? Or is it a wholy owned subsidiary of the US?

Isn't it responsiblity of the commander in chief to make sure his generals follow the basic rules of engagement, and when encircling an important enemy asset, close off the paths of escape? And isn't it a derliction of duty for the commander in chief to not only not reprimand these rogue generals for failing in their primary professional responsibility (if that's how it happened - I doubt it), but to reward them with medals and honors?

What is it about "don't let OBL escape accross the border" don't you understand?

Bottom line, our troops have gotten consent to go to Pakistan now, why was that consent impossible to achieve in 2002? Why did Bush never commit more than a skeletal force to Afghanistan? Why did he spend most of our resources in Iraq when our own government says Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11?

He went to Iraq for his reasons, not our reasons, he betrayed the American people and the victims of 9-11.

Plainfacto, do you want me to repost the half dozen different ways George Bush has twisted Musharaf's arm into cooperating with the US government? We have already gone through this song and dance. Bush could have had our troops on the border in 2002, be he didn't try hard enough to gain Musharaf's consent. Bush could have sent more troops into Afghanistan to do an intensive man hunt, especially when opportunities like Tora Bora arose and he didn't. George Bush could have not gone and expended the majority of our war making resources, political capital, and treasure on an unrelated oil man's war, but he did.

In short, every decision that has proven to be a disaster for this country, you find a way to spin the responsibility away from the person who has the final say and all the responsibility. George Bush is just Pervez Musharaf's little victim, what a crock of crap. George Bush is just a victim of some mythical oil speculators who go around creating terrorism and creating problems for America. EVERYONE CAN SEE WHAT THESE WAR MONGERS HAVE DONE TO OUR COUNTRY, OUR TREASURY, OUR PEOPLE, AND OUR REPUTATION. THE TRUTH IS WRITTEN IN BLOOD, AND YOUR ILLOGICAL AND TRANSPARENT EXCUSE MAKING FOR THE MAN WHO CALLS HIMSELF THE DECIDER AND COMMANDER GUY IS JUST RIDICULOUS. I KNOW GEORGE BUSH JUST LOVES AND RESPECTS THE SOVEREIGNTY OF MUSLIM NATIONS SO MUCH THAT HE CAN'T POSSIBLY GIVE MUSHARAF A NON-MILITARY ULTIMATUM.

Again if our troops are going in now, why would he have not been able to get our troops in there in 2002 when it actually mattered? We were flush with victory, much richer, and both Bush and Musharaf were stronger. Instead this evil cabal of zionist oil men used 9-11 as a cover to go to Iraq and rob both countries (US and Iraq) blind. Shame on Bush if he entrusted our security to Musharaf while he dallied in Iraq. Our own government states that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, if that is the case how come most of resources have been dedicated to Iraq and not to the Afghan/Pakistan theater? You have no answers except raw speculation about shadowy speculators assassinating foreign leaders, and the lie that we had no influence over Musharaf.

Please, do you want me to document again all the ways we have made Musharaf dance since 9-11? Stop this charade, no one buys it, nobody, that is why you won't here even one of these republican presidential candidates mention this buffoon's name while they are campaigning. Your attempt to absolve the president of the United States and his warmongering faction for all of their mistakes is quite frankly laughable and disgusting at the same time. And not even the war supporters on this site will join you in this effort, because you can't cite a single fact to back up your excuse making. The people that attacked are located in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and this moron president decided to shoot his wad in Iraq.

//Second, the gall of this "Mush" to actually refuse our troops entry into his country (!), after we "paid" him to do the "job". I means whom does this fella think he is - a President or something? And one can't blame the Republican President for not leading his military as Commander in Chief - heck that's the Democrat's rap! Just because we didn't block our most important theater of operations at the Pakistani border (isn't that War101?), it is surely unfair to blame the man who was in charge, right?//

I nearly laughed so hard - that I almost stained my own 'tidy whiteys' as Farzad does so often. I'm serious; I thought your appoach was humerous. Irony is present, but it lacks the element of truth to my character, which is often in the sight of your misaligned crosshairs. You took liberty on a poorly written phrase; although you knew better. I appreciate a good sense of humor, though.

What we gave him as a package doesn't necessarily mean that we can own a sovereign leader (read 'dictator') or their country. We expected him to do as he had previously agreed. That is why he dropped the ball. Not just any ball, but the one that nearly lost the game; or at least an inning. I don't know what kind of 'stuff' he may be handing out to EU asking for support, but he had better back it all up by promises to clean up the ISI and take that suggestion seriously.

If Mush has failed to show us that we can depend on him, I think that now would be a good time for him to build some confidence with substance - by doing that which is prudent and acceptable. Not only for his ties to the US and EU; but especially what these measures can do for the confidence of his own countrymen.

I don't need to remind you that Pakistan itself is at a very delicate crossroad. Doing things for the sake of appearances has been Mush's 'rap' to this point. Do you think he will do it a second time? How much choice do we have; how much trust is lost? As the election approaches in Pakistan in a month; what is he going to do to ensure that something that can be called a democracy will emerge under those conditions? It will be a test of his reach and leadership skills. I'd say that he needs some help; and he needs to be a man of his word...

//YOU WILL DO WHATEVER POSSIBLE TO ABSOLVE BUSH FROM HIS OWN ACTIONS, HIS OWN DECISIONS, AND IT IS COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT.//

Wrong. Its not Bush I am protecting. I just want the info to speak correctly - or at least speak on behalf of those who are not being represented in this forum. Is it a passion of yours to make the US - or Bush - the butt of your criticism? You have that right, but I have the right to set the record straight - as I see it too. So what if Mush gave us the OK to overfly Pakistan? He still let us down when it counted most; that's what really matters. Maybe Mush is trying to mend fences now - we will see. Somethings are only answered with time...

Plainfacto, none of your arguments make any sense. George Bush never committed to Afghanistan, never, he sent a skeletal force and committed most of our forces to Pakistan. George Bush got Musharaf to dance for him after 9-11, and if he wanted troops on that border badly enough he would have gotten. Why is it that Musharaf has consented now to having our troops go into Pakistan? Why did Musharaf let us fly over his country to bomb Afghanistan if we had no influence over him? Bottom line, Bush is the one who never committed to fighting AQ, and instead he went to war for unrelated reasons in iraq. Bush is our commander and chief, Bush took an oath to this country, Musharaf never did. You will do whatever possible to shift blame from this moronic traitor, you will blame foreign dictators, generals, liberals, and some vague oil speculators, but you won't blame the man who calls himself the decider and has all the power and the responsibility. It is phony and you are tying yourself in rhetorical knots. Bush is the one who bears responsibility for launching a war totally unrelated to 9-11, and never committing the full resources of the world's only superpower to doing the job on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. And if Bush was fooled by a two-bit dictator and entrusted our national security to Musharaf, that is even more damning. YOU WILL DO WHATEVER POSSIBLE TO ABSOLVE BUSH FROM HIS OWN ACTIONS, HIS OWN DECISIONS, AND IT IS COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT.

//MOSTLY DUE TO THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS TAXES, AND HAS LITTLE OR NOTHING DO TO WITH SPECULATORS.//

Check the prices that EU pays for its oil and you will see for yourself.

//Why couldn't Bush buy Musharaf's consent in 2002, when we were richer and more powerful, and the situation in Pakistan was more stable?//

Maybe you can ask him yourself - if he is planning to come to the US...

The only problem with this 'Republic' view is that it isn't a 'Republican' view. My mistake for not phrasing my sentence correctly. I don't often proof read what I write; my bad. I should; but I don't work for the Post. You know what I meant anyway.

What I should have said, is that Mush wouldn't let us into his country after we chased the remnants of AQ/Taliban out of Afghanistan - as they fled inside the Paki border. I remember that we sent more than a few Dept/State people to Pak to persuade Mush to either let us in - or do it all himself. He said he would - and the rest was history. I'm getting convinced that Mush eats his own buggers and gets high from it. Better than someone else's - I guess...

Now Mush is in the press and taking a trip to Europe to reassure his motives and desires to be responsible. Yea, sure; that and five bucks will buy a cup of coffee. I am not happy about him playing games in Pakistan; but I am pissed that he is trying to do it all over again. I don't know; maybe he will do his job responsibly this time around. I think he needs to clean up the ISI house - if he expects any more US handouts. He not only owes us for this request - he owes it to the stability of his own citizens. He needs to something that builds real confidence...

The 'soapbox' is back over to you - D...

Why do Europeans pay a lot more for gasoline? They shouldn't - it doesn't have to go as far as the US.
Answer: Speculators!)

WRONG AS USUAL THE EUROPEANS PAY MORE FOR GAS BECAUSE THEIR GOVERNMENTS TAX GAS AT DOUBLE AND TRIPLE THE RATES AND THEN USE THE REVENUES FOR SOCIAL PROGRAMS AND ALTERNATIVE FUELS. IN FACT EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS MAKE MORE MONEY OFF OF A GALLON OF GAS THAN THE GOVERNMENT OF SAUDI ARABIA DOES. OIL IS NO MORE 30-40% THE PRICE OF GASOLINE, MOST OF THE PRICE OF GAS IS REFINING, SHIPPING, AND GOVERNMENT TAXES. CRUDE OIL IS THE RAW MATERIAL, SIMILAR TO HOW PARTICLE BOARD IS THE RAW MATERIAL OF CABINET BUT THE PRICE OF RAW PARTICLE BOARD IS ONLY A FRACTION OF THE COST OF YOUR IKEA CABINENT, COMPRENDE? EUROPE'S HIGHER GAS PRICES IS MOSTLY DUE TO THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS TAXES, AND HAS LITTLE OR NOTHING DO TO WITH SPECULATORS.

Maybe we should be going to war with Pakistan - isn't that what you are asking? You can blame Bush for what Mush should have done - if it makes you feel better - do it. But it isn't correct.?/////Plainfacto

Stop feigning stupidity, I just spent the last two days telling you what Bush should have done, and none of it involved attacking or even threatening to attack Musharaf. You are aware that our forces have permission to go to Pakistan today in 2007, as was announced on the pages of the Washington post and other news outlets. Why couldn't Bush buy Musharaf's consent in 2002, when we were richer and more powerful, and the situation in Pakistan was more stable? I have never supported any strike or unilateral action in Pakistan, what I spent three days talking to you about is that Bush should have offered Musharaf massive amounts of cash and military assistance on one hand, or in the alternate if he didn't let our troops in that we would make his life miserable (no military force) if he didn't consent. Have you blocked out of your mind the ten posts I made detailing what Bush should have done in the previous posts. Either Musharaf gives Bush a yes to the troops on the border or we cut all aid and open our arms arsenal to India, he would have had no choice but to say yes, and you would not have to threaten direct American force at all. Stop playing this neocon short term memory loss game and pretending that you forgot our discussion from 24 hours ago. I told you in detail how Bush could have made Musharaf bend to his will. I also showed you a half dozen other ways that Bush has influenced Musharaf through non-military means. Bush is the one who failed, Musharaf has no duty to America, as Dimitry has pointed out. If Bush wanted our troops on the border in 2002 he could have gotten them there.

==Wrong; Mush got paid to do a job he said he was willing to do- as you know we had chased the remnant of AQ/Taliban up to the Paki border. Mush wouldn't let us in - he flatly refused us entry. It was in all the papers - I remember reading it distinctly. I know - because I was as pissed off then as I am now about it. Can't blame Georgy Boy for this one - sorry old boy.==

That's a very American and Republican view. It is also very wrong - it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the world outside one's own psychological circle. Lets parse this gem out.

First, "Mush" (meaning Pervez Musharaf, head of Pakistani government) got "paid", which means he was obligated to "deliver" on that payment. Like, you know, you pay a mechanic to fix your beamer, so he better! Actually, Musharaf was threatened with destruction of his country so he reluctantly and without any loyalty agreed to act like he is helping us. That's what you get for being an a major leage a66hole - very reluctant and minimally acceptable facimile of cooperation- republicans never get this part. The money was incidental - he spread it around the army and in return he wasn't immediately deposed, but his ability to attack his citizens on our behalf did not improve because his army was able to get bigger guns for parity with India. Implicit in the boneheaded assertion is psychological projection of one's own values - anything, including patriotism to one's nation can be bought and sold for a price, money talks, bu11$6it walks.

Second, the gall of this "Mush" to actually refuse our troops entry into his country (!), after we "paid" him to do the "job". I means whom does this fella think he is - a President or something? And one can't blame the Republican President for not leading his military as Commander in Chief - heck that's the Democrat's rap! Just because we didn't block our most important theater of operations at the Pakistani border (isn't that War101?), it is surely unfair to blame the man who was in charge, right?

Finally, it's really not important that the President chose not to capture or kill a mass murderer of American citizens in Afghanistan - what's important is that he remain blameless of the charge of utter military incompetence and utter impunity. The OBL thing simply doesn't matter - the party comes first.

//It is easy to blame Musharaf, did Musharaf decide to dedicate 30,000 troops and 1/10th revenue to Afghanistan, (Osama's last known location), and then to dedicate 90% of the resources and 175,000 troops to secure Exxon's profit center in Iraq.//

?? Please clarify; what you have written here isn't making sense. Could you rephrase this statement pleae?

//Musharaf has no duty to protect America. Bush is the one who dropped the ball and failed to properly exert influence on Musharaf to get our troops on the Pakistani border.//

Wrong; Mush got paid to do a job he said he was willing to do- as you know we had chased the remnant of AQ/Taliban up to the Paki border. Mush wouldn't let us in - he flatly refused us entry. It was in all the papers - I remember reading it distinctly. I know - because I was as pissed off then as I am now about it. Can't blame Georgy Boy for this one - sorry old boy.

//Why is it possible to get our troops there in 2007, and why would it have been impossible to do it in 2002. All we wanted from this moron was that he get the people responsible for 9-11 and any group or groups complicit in the action, ie the Taliban and AQ. We didn't want him to go an remake the middle east to make it safe for Israel, we didn't want him to take our blood and treasure to secure the profits of megabillion dollar oil companies. He went to Iraq for his reasons and not ours, and he purposefully shirked his duty to get AQ, for this he is a traitor to the American people and a traitor to the victims of 9-11. Period, end of story.//

Maybe we should be going to war with Pakistan - isn't that what you are asking? You can blame Bush for what Mush should have done - if it makes you feel better - do it. But it isn't correct.

To answer your previous post, you must understand thet the price of oil per barrel coming out of SA or Iran isn't the same price that we are paying. China pays a lot less for oil from Iran than we pay SA for it - for openers. The biggest profit margin is made by the speculators. If SA were to suddenly flood the market with oil - say 50 percent more for arguement sake - the oil speculators would lose their ass and the price of oil would drop at least a buck - estimate - in the US.

Why do Europeans pay a lot more for gasoline? They shouldn't - it doesn't have to go as far as the US.
Answer: Speculators!

Because the rule of supply/demand; suddenly more oil than there is a need for it - so it falls - and would. Oil speculators have historically hiked the price of gas by promoting great bluffs; like the first phoney oil crisis in the US in the mid 1970's. Phoney, phoney, phoney. Even though the supply hadn't changed; they 'fluffed; the situation to their liking and made multi-billions - ever since. In fact, the statistics show that the greatest price in the oil scam is padded in the speculators.
Dig deep Farzad.

Why Bush went to Iraq? Simple the real axis of evil; big oil, the Israel lobby, and defense and defense related contractors. Follow the money boys, the only ones that have gotten exponentially richer from the Iraq war or who have gained a strategic advantage from Bush middle eastern policies. Israeli aid, already very high, shot through the roof since the Iraq invasion, not to mention they got the guy who shot Scuds at them and gave cash rewards to Palestinian freedom fighters. Big oil and defense contractors raked in megabillions. Follow the money.

It is easy to blame Musharaf, did Musharaf decide to dedicate 30,000 troops and 1/10th revenue to Afghanistan, (Osama's last known location), and then to dedicate 90% of the resources and 175,000 troops to secure Exxon's profit center in Iraq. Musharaf has no duty to protect America. Bush is the one who dropped the ball and failed to properly exert influence on Musharaf to get our troops on the Pakistani border. Why is it possible to get our troops there in 2007, and why would it have been impossible to do it in 2002. All we wanted from this moron was that he get the people responsible for 9-11 and any group or groups complicit in the action, ie the Taliban and AQ. We didn't want him to go an remake the middle east to make it safe for Israel, we didn't want him to take our blood and treasure to secure the profits of megabillion dollar oil companies. He went to Iraq for his reasons and not ours, and he purposefully shirked his duty to get AQ, for this he is a traitor to the American people and a traitor to the victims of 9-11. Period, end of story.

Plainfacto the entire REVENUES OF SAUDI ARABIA FROM PERTORLUEM WAS ABOUT 80 BILLION DOLLARS LAST YEAR. EXXON, ONE US OIL COMPANY REPORTED PROFITS OF 40 BILLION, AND TRUST ME IF THEY REPORT 40 BILLION IN PROFITS THE REAL PROFIT LINE IS PROBABLY CLOSE TO DOUBLE THAT, MEANING THAT EXXON MADE CLOSE TO AS MUCH IN PROFITS AS THE REVENUES OF ALL OF SAUDI ARABIA. Oil companies make money both of the extraction and also on distribution through gas stations, most independent gas station operators make pennies per gallon from the sale of gasoline. Crude oil is only maybe 33% of the price of gasoline. So the middle eastern countries actually get a small piece of the pie, and why should they pump more oil to feed our addiction, why should they pump more oil to help Bush out. When they have asked America to pressure Israel into a modicum of justice the Americans say that there is nothing that we can do, so what do they owe Bush and the zionist neocons. They should help prop this Arab killer up, so that he can give tens of billions of more aid to their most hated adversary? Please nobody owes us anything after the destruction and disaster we have wrought in the middle east. If anyone owes us something its Israel, and they have yet to do one thing for our benefit, immediately after Annapolis they began construction of new settlements on captured land in the West Bank. 200 billion in US handouts to Israel can't even buy a single freeze of a single settlement block in the West Bank, who is the disloyal ally? In fact, the Arab economies are suffering because as a bone to this government they still transact all their oil business in dollars. The day they sell their oil in Euros you will see our currency go into the toilet even further, does Bush thank them publicly for taking an economic bite by still charging dollars for their oil transactions, if they switched to Euros last year they would have made 20-30% more on their sales this year.

These speculators you talk about don't make a fraction a fraction of what the big 4 or 5 oil companies make. Saudi Arabia's gross revenues is almost the same size as one American companies NET PROFITS. THE ONES GETTING RICH ARE CLEARLY THE ONES WHO ARE REPORTING THE LARGEST PROFITS IN THE HISTORY OF GLOBAL BUSINESS, AMERICAN OIL COMPANIES. THIS WAR WAS FOUGHT FOR OIL AND FOR ISRAEL, IT IS VERY CLEAR TO ANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN. WHO HAS BENEFITTED FROM BUSH'S POLICIES, CERTAINLY NOT ANY OF US, BUT HIS REAL CONSTITUENTS HAVE. RIGHT NOW THE ECONOMY IS IN THE TOILET AND WE HAVE RECORD BREAKING INFLATION, WELCOME TO BUSH'S BRAVE NEW WORLD, WHERE YOU FALL INTO TWO CATEGORIES; THE SUPER RICH, AND THE STRUGGLING, THAT IS WHAT THE WORLD WILL LOOK LIKE IF WE CONTINUE TO GO DOWN THE CORPORATE FASCIST NEOCON PATH.

//the "qui bono" question.//

If money is the answer to the question of 'who benefitted?'; the oils speculators stated themselves that they had to raise the price of oil for that reason alone. It's peculiar that they waited a day or two before they did it. A guilt conscience perhaps - or was it just being low key?

Of course I am speculating about speculators; how this make them feel - threatened? If it were for money reasons alone - then yes, the oil speculators win hands down. Mush didn't benefit - although even I once considered it - he has as much to lose as we do if not more if a civil war does break out. It's pretty shakey in Pakistan right now. I'm not going to deny that he is a dictator - he is. But as long as he has the responsibillity of keeping his nukes safe and does, then Martial Law and US advisory may be the only chance he has to keep 175 million people together.

//You say oil speculators win, but I don't think they killed Bhutto.//

They had money for a goal. The price per barrel raised nearly four dollars a barrel to an even $100 . It looks like they would prefer a nice, round figure to use when banking their new-found profits. It is possible that Mehsud used professional coaching to get Bhutto's death right this time. It does have a two-fold effect against US help - and it furthers the chances of civil war. With so much at stake - and the fact that this was the first time that the killers had all of their ducks in a row - then I am must say they had help. Maybe the Russians helped; they have always provided a 'turd in the punchbowl' in the past. It's their way to even up old scores and win with a new strategy...

Plainfacto -- Your view that Mush is "holding it together" does not answer the "qui bono" question. Bhutto's assassination benefits Musharraf because he was getting ready to lose the election, and he is trying to retain power. The benefit is clear and direct, thus he is the number 1 suspect. How hard is that to understand? You say oil speculators win, but I don't think they killed Bhutto.

Do you doubt that Musharraf believes that blaming terrorism is the best all purpose justification or cover-up for any action he chooses to take? Earlier he declared an emergency over terrorism in the provinces, and "solves" the problem by firing the Supreme Court. Then he sets Bhutto up and blames terrorists. "Fighting" terrorism is the all-purpose answer to every question. Open you eyes.

//In ancient rome the first question after an assassination was "qui bono?" -- Who benefits?//

The oil speculators made the most profit. Any country that wanted to see US efforts in Pakistan to fail benefitted. Those two points are for certain; there may be more.

//In my view the Bhutto assassination benefits Musharraf more than any Al Qaeda types. With her dead he is the guardian of secularism.//

Mush has a situation in Pakistan that is now closer to civil war than it ever has been. How does benefit him - when he is barely keeping it all together?

//For Al Qaeda she is a secular woman prime minister with dubious support from the army. How does her accession hurt them? Musharraf has played Bush like a violin and this is just another successful gambit//

Nothing has been proven conclusively - except, perhaps that Mehsud is the likely candidate behind Bhutto's assassination. Along with 'outside' professional coaching to ensure his jihadist groups success. I am not too fond of Mush, but I can't see any thing that he can gain by putting the whole country in jepardy of civil war. I don't believe that Mush has too much time to play the violin with the possibillity of civil war on his dinner plate. Mush will still need to have a PM in the coming election to fill the ranks of gov't. If Bhutto isn't in office, then some other candidate will take the office. I can only speculate here, but It looks like the election will be plagued by terrorist bombings and assassination attempts on the candidates. Anything that will destabilize the Paki's gov't will be at stake. That much is safe to say.

"No question the current Administration has made far more mistakes than are justified; I am gravely disappointed in them. But those mistakes are not justification for an isolationist and paralyzed foreign policy that cedes all initiative to those who have our destruction as their first priority."

Wouldn't repeated mistakes, one fumble after another, ever increasing blow backs be justification enough for a temporary stand down in any more foreign initiative? Just get in a holding pattern so no more damage will be done and wait for the next team? Is that too much to ask?

"Musharraf has played Bush like a violin and this is just another successful gambit."

Who else has not played Bush like a violin, except for maybe Saddam? Iran benefits from having their enemies on both sides removed for them. Al Qaeda and the Talibans are back stronger than ever. The Saudis and Russians are raking in the petro dollars. With Saddam around breathing down their necks do you think the Saudis would dare say no to a request to pump more oil from the US president, in such a public way?

And we haven't started talking about the rise of China and India yet.

"The government .. on the other hand .. gets 55 cents for every gallon sold. And it's all profit! The don't have to pay employees, supply costs, distribution costs, R&D, provide shareholder dividends, etc."

Ah, but have you forgot the 200 billions we spend annually in Iraq, plus another 500 billions or so on defense, plus maybe another 100 billion on intelligence to make sure the free flow of oil?

Let's see at say 50 cents per gallon per 22 million barrels a day works out to 22*42/2 = 462 million dollars a day. 462 * 365/1000 = 167 billion a year. Slightly less than the cost of the Iraq war. But check my math, I am not so good with numbers.

In ancient rome the first question after an assassination was "qui bono?" -- Who benefits? In my view the Bhutto assassination benefits Musharraf more than any Al Qaeda types. With her dead he is the guardian of secularism. For Al Qaeda she is a secular woman prime minister with dubious support from the army. How does her accession hurt them? Musharraf has played Bush like a violin and this is just another successful gambit.

//IS IT A COINCIDENCE THAT AMERICAN OIL COMPANIES HAVE RECORDED THE LARGEST PROFIT NUMBERS IN THE HISTORY OF GLOBAL BUSINESS//

True. The oil companies make about 19 cents of profit on every gallon of gas they sell. Their total profit is so huge because they sell so much gas! Of that 19 cents profit, the oil companies reinvest about 6 cents of that profit on research and development, and distribute about another 5 cents annaully to their shareholders as dividends.

The government .. on the other hand .. gets 55 cents for every gallon sold. And it's all profit! The don't have to pay employees, supply costs, distribution costs, R&D, provide shareholder dividends, etc. That motor fuel tax supposedly goes to road maintenance ... but that's not going so well, is it. Last I read it would cost over 1.5 TRILLION dollars to get our roads and bridges up to the government's own safety standards!

So rail all you want about "big oil". But the real "culprit" here is government. No oil sales means no tax revenue. And no tax revenue means ... well .. nominally no road maintenance ... which means decreased mobility ... which means a slowed down economy and a bunch of irrate citizens.

Point a finger at the villians in 'big oil' if you want. If only it were that simple.

Press Release on BENAZIR BHUTTO'S ASSASSINATION
Gallup Pakistan, January 11, 2008

Public Opinion on WHO KILLED BENAZIR BHUTTO?

Nearly half of the sample suspected Government agencies (23%) and Government allied politicians (25%). Al-Qaeda or Taliban were suspected by 17%, while 16% suspected other external forces, principally the United States (12%) and India (4%). 19 % said they would not know.

The view that Government agencies and allied politicians were responsible for the assassination was higher than the national average among voters of Pakistan People's Party (61%).

http://watandost.blogspot.com/2008/01/gallup-poll-pakistan-who-killed-benazir.html

i think this
mr williams stance is rel stance of pakistani peopl.he and hi allies are not tiring to say that mr mehsud is the master mind of assasination but that master mind was once declared by the sincere officers of mr. musharf as "man of peace". if we accept mushrraf regimes claim then there is a serious question that how can millitants managed to enter in the heart of pakistans power ful forces headquarter and who has helped them to faciliate in this regard/

Hatred, political shennanigans and the
inability of human beings to resolve
their differences on either side of the
ocean killed Ms. Bhutto.

Amd there are more deaths to come!

But I will say this for our system, although we need some minor changes our constitutional protections of individual liberties is pretty much top notch, even though the founders where not pure democrats, the Bill of Rights is an earth shaking document that deserves even more respect than it gets. Currently, though the republicans have assaulted some of its most important provisions like the 4th, 6th, and 8th amendments that limits the police powers of the state.

This is not condescending. Remember that the Nazis were initially democratically elected.)Reason

WRONG THE NAZIS NEVER GOT MORE THAN 32% PERCENT OF THE VOTE IN GERMANY, POWER WAS GIVEN TO THEM THROUGH A COALITION GOVERNMENT IN WHICH TRADITIONAL GERMAN CONSERVATIVES AND BUSINESS INTERESTS GAVE HITLER THE SEATS IN THE PARLIAMENT TO PROTECT AGAINST THE COMMUNISTS WHO THEY FEARED WOULD END THE MARKET ECONOMY. Sorry, I just had to through in the clarification, you otherwise make some good points.

As in regards to liberal democracies, not fighting liberal democracies I don't know if that is true, if you think Israel is a democracy, i don't buy it. They are democracy unless you are Palestinian who has lived for 40 years under Israeli military occupation. Democracy means that you vote for those that rule over you, do you think the millions of Palestinians living in the West bank voted for Israeli military rule? Lebanon is very democratic country by third world standards, and Palestine has the freest elections in the entire Islamic world since they are all monitored by the UN, that hasn't stop Israel from attacking them.

Democracies require a free and independent press, something that we do not have anymore in this country, we used to, but not since deregulation. Democracies require an educated electorate, and the American public is more educated on the color and shaving pattern of Brittney spears female genitalia than they are about real news and politics. In recent surveys, most people can't tell you even one single issue that any of our candidates really stand for, they vote like it is an American idol episode. Without education and a free media democracy is dead. And our country is hardly a democracy anymore and it never really was one in the past either, although we had a good run from 1965-2000, where you could make that claim. We are more of an oligarchy with some minor democratic elements.

I am all for winning hearts and minds and democracy promotion, but the manner of democracy building promoted by the neocons is probably the most counterproductive method available. And quite frankly I don't believe for one second that any of the conservatives in this country give a crap about democracy in the third world. They support dictatorships when it is convenient and then they bring out the democracy rhetoric when it is convenient. Bush is such a democratic why is he kissing the but of every dictator for Cairo to Islamabad?

If this is a democracy how come 70-80% of the population has wanted us out of Iraq for 2 years, they voted for a democratic Congress to end the war, and not one of the front runners supports ending our military involvement in Iraq until oh 2013. For the first 180 years of this country you could not call us a democracy, we where a democracy like south Africa in 1983 was a democracy. In fact the majority of our country could not vote until the 1920s. And if anything we have relapsed back into a more hierarchical approach since the republican revolution. Our presidential election system is the most money polluted and undemocratic process in the entire first world.

Conspiracy theorists love to have their say... Regardless, we have to deal with the situation on the ground as it exists.
It is both disingenuous and foolhardy to advocate that the U.S. simply stand aside and never try to influence the direction of events in foreign lands. Every nation does this to the greatest extent of its ability. I defy any of those decrying U.S. efforts to stablize a nuclear-armed Pakistan to say with a straight face that Russia, China, and other nations don't do everything they can to tilt events their way.
Yes, we have a strong interest in the promotion of democracy. It is a trusim that "liberal democracies don't wage war on other liberal democracies." On the other hand, the realists know that democracy doesn't just spring up from the ground. Every nation must find its own path to democracy, and often that requires the guidance and yes, intervention, of other states during the maturation process.
This is not condescending. Remember that the Nazis were initially democratically elected. So was Hamas. Those who advocate a "just stand aside" policy are impossibly naive. We have a right and a duty to be engaged where our national interests are at stake.
For what it is worth, I will take our record on human rights and the promotion of democracy over that of our global competitors any day. Anyone who feels differently might want to stop and take a sober reassessment of the record of our current competitors. Guantanamo is a paradise compared to the Russian gulags or the Chinese "re-education" camps. And all you had to do to get a one-way ticket under those regimes was to dare to think differently - not be captured in an active war zone, waging or supporting war.
No question the current Administration has made far more mistakes than are justified; I am gravely disappointed in them. But those mistakes are not justification for an isolationist and paralyzed foreign policy that cedes all initiative to those who have our destruction as their first priority.

//IS IT A COINCIDENCE THAT AMERICAN OIL COMPANIES HAVE RECORDED THE LARGEST PROFIT NUMBERS IN THE HISTORY OF GLOBAL BUSINESS//

Let's keep in focus and remember that the international oil speculators are by far the real profiteers here. American stocks are paying pennies on the dollar to what the int'l oil gangsters are making as profit. Theses are the criminals that can spend billions on plans to destabilize governments, regions, and peoples. Because - they know that to spend a few billion can net them multi billions in returns.

Since the death of Bhutto, the price per barrel had made a significant jump in cost. The speculators said that Bhutto's death 'forced' them into pushing the price up; how convienient. Pure profit and the profiteers are not to be excluded from the list of possible candidates that are responsible for the death of Bhutto. There is nothing quite like being able to jump up between two opposing forces and fire in both direction - then duck down and let the rest take its course - so to speak...

//WHAT ARE YOU A JEDI KNIGHT "SENSING THE DARK HAND OR DARK SIDE". COME ON PLAINFACTO, YOU START OUT MAKING SENSE AND THEN YOU MOVE OFF THE RAILS//

Ever have a 'hunch'? I get them all of the time; I thank God for it. Having dealt with simple and complex investigations, I have learned to listen to myself when I sense gaps in the overall picture where something belongs. Intuition is hard to express with words.

I can believe that AQ or the Talibam was behind Bhutto because of the sacrificisl element; but it looked like the event was coached by a pro. I'm not saying the jihadists are bumpkins, I am saying that the act had too much finesse and experience to look merely like jihadists. Someone wanted to ensure that the shooter got away; and have another blow himself up.

The shooter is the key; if he can be identified, captured, and questioned; it would allieviate my apprehension of who is behind it. Pros would ensure that he is long gone by now; either dead or in a another country. If the shooter were - let's say - of Russian nationality, he would be out of the country; if he was a gangster - he may well be dead. Why were the jihadists so successful the on the second attempt on Bhuttos's life? Because there was more than one at the scene - this time - and they knew how to capitalize on the inside info. This unseen 'hand' made certain that the effort was functional and exacting and profitable.

Place this notion in the foregraound, and in the background place the fact that the jihadists tried to kill Mush over a dozen times and failed. There is more than cooincidence or fate at work here. That is not exactly the Modus Opperandi of AQ so far. Can you see what I am saying now?

Excellent post Roger, the world supported our actions against the Taliban and AQ, and nobody supported Bush's naked power grab in iraq. Bush should have focused every lever of power at his disposal to get at the people who actually attacked this country. Instead he went on a 2 trillion dollar field trip for Israel and American robber barons in Iraq. I remember one comment from Ann Coulter when they asked her wouldn't our invasion of Iraq side track us from Afghanistan and the war against Al Quaeda. This repulsive hag had the following comment:"Like the US government can't chew gum and walk at the same time." OBVIOUSLY NOT YOU VILE HAG. THIS IS HOW GLIB AND COCKSURE THESE PEOPLE WERE ABOUT WAR AND DEATH, AND WE ARE ALL PAYING THE PRICE, THIS RECESSION WE EXPERIENCE WILL BE THE BIGGEST ECONOMIC CRISIS OF A GENERATION, THANKS TO BUSH FLUSHING OUR MONEY DOWN THE TOILET IN IRAQ WHILE HE CUT TAXES FOR HIS FAT CAT FRIENDS.

From day one Bush, never committed more than a tiny skeletal force to Afghanistan and he never pressed to get our troops on the Pakistan side of the border. Why? because he already had a plan for the men and resources we needed to properly deal with the AQ. He was already dreaming of megabillion dollar oil deals and getting the man who tried to kill his daddy. IT IS A CLEAR STRATEGIC FAILURE OF THIS ADMINISTRATION THAT THIS COUNTRY WILL REGRET FOR GENERATIONS. ALL HIS FAKE CHEERLEADING AT GROUND ZERO WAS JUST THAT, A PHONEY LEADER PLAYING FOR THE CROWD. HIS NEGLIGENT HANDLING OF THE AFGHANISTAN/PAKISTAN THEATER AND HIS BASIC FLUFFING OF HIS DUTY TO GET AT THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY EXECUTED 9-11 WAS BASICALLY A GIANT KNIFE DRIVEN INTO AMERICA AND THE VICTIMS OF 9-11'S BACKS.

Bush is a traitor to this country and traitor to humanity, and all you fools who believe he loves America because he says so, need your head examined. On the day after 9-11, the one thing we expected from this man was that he would grind AQ to a pulp like the cutthroats and pirates they are, instead he went off on a war to benefit his faction, and his zionist and corporatist paymasters. Personally, I wouldn't criticize him one ounce if he executed the sacred duty of his office and acted like a real war leader, one who understands the gravity of warfare and understands that you fight the right war for the right reasons. Instead he fought the wrong war for his reasons, not ours, not for the people that died on 9-11. OUR OWN GOVERNMENT INSISTS THAT SADDAM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11, WELL WHY IS IT THAT IRAQ HAS SUCKED UP THE VAST, VAST MAJORITY OF THE RESOURCES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN USED TO BUILD A BETTER AFGHANISTAN AND TO RID THE WORLD OF THE SCOURGE OF BIN LADENISM?

IS IT A COINCIDENCE THAT AMERICAN OIL COMPANIES HAVE RECORDED THE LARGEST PROFIT NUMBERS IN THE HISTORY OF GLOBAL BUSINESS, IS IT A COINCIDENCE THAT BLACKWATER TURNED FROM A SMALL START UP TO A MEGABILLION DOLLAR COMPANY? IS IT A COINCIDENCE THAT AS A RESULT OF AN ATTACK BY SAUDI FUNDAMENTALISTS BASED IN AFGHANISTAN THAT WE LAUNCHED A WAR AGAINST A SECULAR OIL RICH DICTATORSHIP? Those of you who still vouch for this man should remember that he was more interested in iraq its oil and strategic worth than he was in capturing and killing those who blew up our buildings and killed our people. This will tell you all you need to know about Bush's love for America and his motivations. I KNOW BUSH LOVES AMERICA BECAUSE HE TELLS YOU SO, AND THE RIGHTWING FASCIST MEDIA TELLS YOU SO AS WELL, SO IT MUST BE TRUE, RIGHT? HE IS A TRAITOR WHO HAS SOLD US OUT TO THE REAL AXIS OF EVIL; BIG OIL, THE ISRAEL LOBBY, AND GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS. HE DOESN'T WORK FOR YOU OR YOUR INTERESTS, ALL WE WANTED WAS JUSTICE FOR THE CRIMES OF 9-11, AND HE DIDN'T DELIVER, AND HE NEVER TRIED. HE JUST USED THE ATTACK AS POLITICAL COVER TO ENRICH AND EMPOWER HIS OWN FACTION.

==I still sense the hand of a stranger in all of this; it is possible that the Russians took an active part. ==

It's Barbados, I am nearly positive.

Ah, Al Qaeda in Pakistan. The same group that Bush derided in 2004, right? The Americans had already arrested or immobilized 3/4ths of the leadership, I believe the claim was. Osama? Osama who? Well, that's a couple trillion dollars over the dam, for after all, in our great war on terrorism, we are now calmly switching from one brain track to another, and now Osama and Al Qaeda are suddenly in the saddle again, assassinating world wide leaders, training a new generation of assassins, etc. How wonderful the much lauded success of Bush's plans in Afghanistan, circa our smashing, smashing victory in 2001 are working out! A victory that was unquestioned by the press at the time. Such a smashing victory that we could proceed to war two. Such a smashing victory that Afghanistan could be put on the back burner. There it would gel into a delicious democratic soup.

Of course, this was a giant suckers game, with the question before the house being: who is more moronic, the white house, the press corps, or the D.C. elites in general? I vote the last option! Our think tankers, politicos, and editorial writers at the Washington Post are the most miserable, narcissistic, uninformed, untalented, unimaginative, and repulsive elite ever to be hoisted on the back of the American people. Unbelievably bad, by every dimension and criteria. And they just keep chugging along, spewing lies, ignorance, misinformation and conventional wisdom as though nothing has happened. It is a painful spectacle. I hope Arkin goes back to December 2001 and January 2002 and reads some of the mindless dreck we were getting for news in this country - it will explain how the survival of a small paramilitary group and their flourishing in Pakistan was enabled by the wholesale ignorance spewed out by the Bush-enamored press.

I still sense the hand of a stranger in all of this; it is possible that the Russians took an active part.)Plainfacto

WHAT ARE YOU A JEDI KNIGHT "SENSING THE DARK HAND OR DARK SIDE". COME ON PLAINFACTO, YOU START OUT MAKING SENSE AND THEN YOU MOVE OFF THE RAILS. The hit was an opportunistic hit, if Musharaf wanted her dead he would have killed her the first time. The fundamentalists announced that they where going to kill her, they bombed her on the first day, and then she practically painted a target for them when she stuck her head out the sun roof. Not to mention that she gave everybody her itinerary as she was going to do some sort of protest march against Musharaf. With all due respect to her, and her family, I think she didn't take proper care of her own safety, when I saw the tape I thought you got to be kidding me. If AQ was trying to kill you would you drive in an unarmored car through an unscreened crowd, and pop your head out of the sunroof, after a previous assassination attempt?

I THINK MUSHARAF IS WAY DOWN THE LIST OF SUSPECTS AND RUSSIA ISN'T EVEN ON THE LIST, NOR IS IRAN, AND NOR IS CHINA. YOU NEED TO GET MORE SLEEP, SLEEP DEPRIVATION'S #1 SYMPTOM IS PARANOIA AND DELUSIONS. Your theory would be more likely if you said colonel mustard killed her using the knife in the Library. Putin didn't kill her to create problems for the US, George Bush is doing a wonderful job of damaging this country by himself. MOST PEOPLE WAIT FOR FACTS BEFORE THEY START LOBBING ALLEGATIONS, I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT CONCEPT FOR CONSERVATIVES. I UNDERSTAND THAT SCIENCE, LEARNING, AND RATIONALITY IS AN ANATHEMA TO THE FAITH AND BIGOTRY BASED CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT IN THIS COUNTRY. I ACTUALLY DO LIKE YOU BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH I HAVE MERCILESSLY ATTACKED YOUR LOGIC, YOU HAVE NOT ATTACKED MY RACE AND TAKEN THE EASY WAY OUT. But you need to cleanup your rhetoric and logic if you want to have anyone take the things you say seriously. Start with some facts, then build a theory, that is how the rest of us do it.

It is all part of a bigger game and we all know who plays such games. It is a shame to commit crime against humanity with such skills and pack of lies.
When you enter the house of your neighbour, he will fight you then pack of lies and conspiring stories and useless.

//Now the United States, convinced that all those triggers were pulled by al Qaeda as well, is moving forward with its Pakistani surge and a new era of counter-terrorism cooperation. The grand plan is to drive out al Qaeda and the foreign fighters and so weaken the tribal culture that the central government can finally exert its control there. The only problems are these: One, I don't think this plan is realistic, and two, in trying to implement it, the United States will have to align itself with anti-democratic forces in Pakistan.//

Pakistan is still a 'sandwich short of a picnic'. They still need to have an election for power sharing - to align, polarize, bind, and strengthen gov't.

The only part of this that is unrealistic, is that we are expecting to turn off a possible civil war in a coutry of nearly two hundred million people. Our moves had better be decisive, inventive, strategic, timely, thorough; and with good leadership. We can do that; so can the Paki's. Mush may have no choice but to enforce Martial Law to stop any possible uprising.

If Mush's gov't has jihadist eyes and ears on the inside - as we know they do - shouldn't they clean house first? The first thing that we do should is help Mush to clean up the ISI. I hope Mush won't be offended when this is brought up - or it could be a problem.

I don't know how they have the ISI organized, but I would hope that they compartmentalize their info and players. Now would be a good time for them to reorganize before they let the cat out of the bag. And if not reorganize, they should investigate their own thoroughly.

Who knows? Maybe they are already up to snuff. But after the death of Bhutto, one can only wonder. Maybe they are just sloppy; could be a discipline problem. Or maybe they just don't have their heads wired ro their ass; equipment problems maybe. Either way, they had better get it right - or start making it right. Otherwise it will be more than a culture clash when send our liason. It would be a good confidence building measure. We should have these plans ready to go yesterday.

after reading this second blog on the subject i am even more convinced that the writer is a plain and simple. But i do think he is lucky to have a space in Washington post.

after reading this second blog on the subject i am even more convinced that the writer is a BONEHEAD plain and simple. But i do think he is lucky to have a space in Washington post.

//I AM NOT SAYING MUSHARAF WASN'T SOMEHOW INVOLVED, I WOULDN'T PUT IT PAST THE MAN, BUT I DON'T THINK HE IS THE LIKELIEST SUSPECT, I THINK IT WAS PROBABLY RADICAL ELEMENTS WITHIN THE ISLAMIST OPPOSITION WHO FELT LOCKED OUT OF POWER BY A BHUTTO MUSHARAF POWER SHARING AGREEMENT, WHICH BUSH SO DESPERATELY HAD LOBBIED FOR.//

Then we agree. But we still do not know enough - you must admit. That is why I said that I was guessing; there is nothing so certain about much of what happened. Keep in mind that we are commenting on second-hand information.

The assassination had a two-fold effect. It not only messed up Pakistan's political alliance that Condi cooked up, but it also pushes the country closer to the brink of civil war. Yes, a jihadist organization may have done it, but still see this as a job done too professionaly to believe it was the jihadists. I still sense the hand of a stranger in all of this; it is possible that the Russians took an active part.

The blame for the assination lays with the clerics and their supposed "Allah given right". Bhutto was a power to be recconned with and they just couldn't have someone more willing to crack down on them. What do you expect from a qroup that spends most of their time listening to their dribble and the path to enlightenment.
Their spilling of blood at any provacation is good population control and should for the sake of the world be continued. Let the Muslims infight and while their attention is elsewhere the rest of the world can living as they chose, not some misguided book quoter version of living.

//Ah, how convenient Plainfacto sees the hand of the Iranians in the assassination of Bhutto.//

If you would have read it all in context, you would have noticed that I said that Iran was an unlikely but possible candidate. Bhutto was probably killed by one of her own people aligned with jihadisits that have one of their members in a position of the Pakistani gov't. That is, to be in a position to get the necessary info of her particular whereabouts to carry out all od the elements of the assassination with precision.

I also wrote this bit late at night and didn't bother to proff read it. Alas; I wash I had!

Ah, how convenient Plainfacto sees the hand of the Iranians in the assassination of Bhutto. Please, you just make things up, pull it right out of the place where the sun doesn't shine and you come out and try to sell it to people. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF IRANIAN, RUSSIAN, OR CHINESE INVOLVEMENT IN KILLING BHUTTO. IF SOMEONE FARTS ANYWHERE IN THE MIDDLE EAST YOU WILL SAY THAT THE IRANIANS POISONED HIS BEAN BURRITO AND VLADIMIR PUTIN WAS SOMEHOW COMPLICIT.

The two biggest and most obvious causes of Bhutto's death:

1. Bhutto's return to the country and acceptance of a power sharing agreement put forward by the Bush administration that effectively locked the islamic and other democratic opposition forces out of power in Pakistan.

2. Dreadful security considering that the very day she arrived a massive suicide bombing occurred, and why the hell does she stick her head out of the sun roof, when AQ types have publicly said they want to kill her, and have already tried to kill her.

I AM NOT SAYING MUSHARAF WASN'T SOMEHOW INVOLVED, I WOULDN'T PUT IT PAST THE MAN, BUT I DON'T THINK HE IS THE LIKELIEST SUSPECT, I THINK IT WAS PROBABLY RADICAL ELEMENTS WITHIN THE ISLAMIST OPPOSITION WHO FELT LOCKED OUT OF POWER BY A BHUTTO MUSHARAF POWER SHARING AGREEMENT, WHICH BUSH SO DESPERATELY HAD LOBBIED FOR. Musharaf to me strikes me as a dictator, but not as a radical, and taking out Bhutto like this seems like too big a risk and too destabilizing of an action for him.

In the book of Genesis, after the fall of Adam and Eve and their exile from the garden; the next heneous thing that happened was Cain's killing of Abel. Murder is only one of many symptoms of man's fallen state; there are many more. There is no cure for it, except for Jesus blood, thru his death and resurrection it was made available for any who would believe and accept his sacrifice. Many are called, but few are chosen.

From the time of the Garden, Adam was given dominion of the earth by the Lord. In other words, we are to be responsible for what we have been given.

The books of the Old Testament teaches us that governments and people don't always follow the right course.

The Book of Daniel and others say it best. I thought you knew this -Rev?

Americans have always been tough on crime-

particularly our government and the
majority culture! Well there is
one exception, neither group
has been as vigilant at
pursuing the crimes that
they commit against
other people,
nationalities
or nations!

How much time did Lt. Calley actually serve in 'the barracks' for the crimes that he once committed, or Oliver North for that matter?

Unfortunately, this less than amusing double-standard has been lost on
the greater society, and has
persisted since the
inception of this nation - we are
neither purists nor
noble, except in our
own eyes!

And as I understand it, no one in prison or on death row believes that he or she
is guilty of a crime and neither do
we as a nation believe that we
have done anything wrong!

The same Americans who will police
other nations, suddenly hide
their heads in the sand
when it comes to
policing our
own nation!

Isn't it wonderful that Ms. Bhutto's
death conveniently took the onus
off of the killings being
committed, and the ones
that have been
commited by
our own -
even when we know
who dunnit?

If we could rid the whole world of crime
given our own ambitious crimes that we often engage in - so that we can eliminate the crimes of others in other nations or groups, then our nation would be the remaining criminal nation on
earth!

Is our survival dependent upon our
own government surreptiously
going around the world
and behaving like
a rogue band of
criminals?

Is that how we thrive as a nation?
If so, 'Ameristan' is not any
different than Pakistan,
or any individuals
hiding in the
White Mountains
of Pakistan!

An atmosphere of hate...

brought on by the vying parties around
the world, are responsible for
this woman's death!

Until this atmosphere is abated, there will certainly be more unaccounted
for deaths of this sort in the
future!

It is inconceivable that there are not
more people on board who are
saying, 'stop the madness!

On the other hand there appears to be far more individuals on board who seem to believe that you can 'eliminate the
problem by eliminatomg those
individuals that they
disagree with' - mafia hitman style!

The problem that remains, after one
killer kills another killer, is
is that you still have
KILLERS!

And, governments are not exempt from killing - clearly there is a preponderance
of evidence to prove that any
government, including the
US Government could be
responsible for the
death of yet another
world leader!

No one authority is telling us what is going on in detail dept - and indeed they cannot. Why not; because it would likely upset any investigation if too much data were to be revealed at this point. So I'm getting assertive and make some practical guesses on my own.

Take issue with this if you want. I don't care; like I said - I'm just guessing. I am not exausting all of the possibillities in the small space given here. I am not attempting to say that the CIA or Scotland Yard is wrong in their assessments; they probably are right. This is just so much thinking-out-loud.

Let's define the problem; we must locate a party - or a 'proxy' party that would benefit the most in this circumstance. I think that it is fair to say that the assassination of Bhutto created advantages for some, and severe problems for others that needed her to be alive.

In my opinion, the people of Pakistan didn't all like or agree with Bhutto. But if she were to share power with Musharaff, many of the divisions in Pakistan would have at least polarized the government and given it strength to pull political power together. The net effect would be bad news for the tribal regions that are controlled by the Taliban, AQ, and other jihadist factions. Either the Taliban, AQ, or a jihadist group could have planned and supplied this operation; and another one of these same groups could be the proxy for the assassination.

You would need to know if they were able to get inside info. Without it - it would be impossible to get Bhutto's schedule and make arrangements that needed to occur like clockwork. Then, after the dirty deed was accomplished, those who were the first-party participants would need to be extracted to a safe location - where no one could touch them. And where might that be: incountry, or in a safe but undetermined nation? These arrangements would have to be already made and ready to go as well. If it was a conspiracy done by pros - and it does have all the elements present; that is what would be considered necessary for success without being caught or exposed.

I've previously mentioned that it could have been done by outside forces that would have interests in seeing Bhutto fall. I'm nentioning those who I see as possibillities; maybe you can add to it - if you like. Not to be forgotten, any nation may have become an unwitting recipient of the conspirators; it only depends upon the forethought of the planners.

India's motives may be that they didn't want Pakistan internally strong and virulent. Keeping Pakistan off-balance and self-defeated would keep them on the back burner; but it would do nothing to keep Khashmir from flaring up on their own. Not the most likely candidate - but not off the hook - either. Saudi arabia may not want for a Shia woman to have so much power over a Muslim nation. Saudis are Sunniss, and don't want Shia to gain another country in dominance. And being a woman isn't exactly 'status quo' in the Koran, it is not permitted for women to rule over men. They have the money, the means, and the inclination. I don't know if they felt stongly enought to do it for these reasons. Last time I checked, the Saudi-Pakistani relations were strong. Not a practical candidate. Unless, they are unwittingly a proxy nation that may be hiding the conspirators.

The US has no motive that I can see. In fact, the death of Bhutto has forced the US to seek alternative options to help pull Pakistan out of the quagmire of civil strife and war. It's put us in quite a pickle - in truth. Bhutto's death has caused us to question our relationship with Musharaff - which is nearly strained to the breaking point. I'm sure Condi is staying up late to resort the options she has left to help the people and govt of Pakistan.

I've also said that the oil speculators could have done it to simply destablize the the peace of this volotile region. War has a subtle but efficient means to raise the price of petroleum; historically, it always has. Oil at a hundred bucks a barrel? How much oil profit was made in the space of time since her murder? Conspiracies to make commodities rise in value isn't out of vogue; it has been common in the last fifty years. Oil is no different. With money they can afford to throw away in an effort to make even more money is not out of the question. A possible candidate with pure profit as motive.

Russia and China have always played a major role in offsetting our influences in other countries. the motive would be to bolster their own influence, or just to interfere with ours. It may sound petty, but do not make the mistake of putting it past them - either. If it would somehow make us weaker, it has the tendencies to make them stronger. Putin may have done it for Iran; to make things harder for the US because we have sought many sanctions against their little Iranian friends.

And for all the same reasons, China's main oil supplier is Iran; they could be helping their efforts. The only unlikely part of this scenario, is that Bhutto was a Shia - and Iran is mostly Shia.

Iran would have a better chance to influence Pakistan with a Shia leader in power. Although it is possible - it is not likely they had much to do with her assassination.

The best scenario is up to you; it is almost a parlor game already. One thing is for sure; one of these parties knows for sure...

I hate that kind of war rhetoric.

However, Farzad

It seems to be the only kind that the
inchoate leadership of the world today
understands, in addition to war itself!

I believe that several nations of the
world are already on a war footing, and
one spark could take the nations of the
world beyond an American DEFCOM5.

And, the spark more and more is looking like it will be lit as a result of what is taking place in Pakistan.

The leadership, oxymoron, that was voted into office in Ameristan (I thought that was cute) was voted in to kick some international butt, as well as to assuage the failure of the Clinton Administration, as some saw it, for not showing the world that America is bad - what juvenilles!!!!

An attack on Pakistan by the stretched
to thin U.S. Military could draw Russia, China and other nations of the world that have been relatively silent, into a 1960's Bay of Pigs confrontation or
perhaps a worldwide conflagration.

If we survive this current crop of weak
world-wide leadership including our own warhawks in Washington, I hope that all nations of the world, including the USA, will in the future elect a more erudite, visionary and responsible style of leadership - and embrace a new praxis.

I don't know enough about Pakistani politics to say for sure if Musharraf was involved, but the day Bhutto returned a massive suicide bombing by Pakistani militants, and these groups publicly put Bhutto on their hit list. They probably tracked her at every event waiting for the right opportunity and then she helped them out by sticking her head right out of the roof of the car like a target. Musharaf may or may not have been involved, but at the end of the day there really isn't much we can do about it. In this particular case i don't think Bush has any choice but to work with Musharaf in pakistan to get at Al Quaeda in the border regions, which is what he should of done in 2002 as opposed to going after oil and israeli interests in Iraq. His miserable war in Iraq has robbed us of our credibility and power to respond to other crises.

I am not suggesting any military options against Pakistan, I hate that kind of war rhetoric. But if Bush focused the last 5 years to actually getting at Al Quaeda, Musharaf may not have been as instrumental to our goals today in 2007. We could have mopped up what was left of the AQ types in the border region, pulled out, and pulled our support of Musharaf. Bush needs any kind of friends and allies he can get, and we are married to Musharaf, even if he is involved. Bush should have never forced Musharaf to let Bhutto back in and should have never forced an anti-democratic power sharing agreement between the two parties. Anyone locked out of that agreement has motivation to kill one or the other of the parties involved and to scuttle such an arrangement. He didn't pull the trigger but without his active involvement Benazir Bhutto would be sitting comfortably in Abu Dhabi right now, waiting for a more opportune time to return.

I think his strongest argument was that Musharaf facilitated the murder by denying her protection from the police and the military. His culpability in that is pretty clear. In a country like Pakistan, if a person has the kind of enemies Bhutto had, you can just step back and let human nature take it's course. Musharaf is not going to go quietly into retirement on something as ephemeral as " the will of the people", not as long as he controls the army.
US Political theater aside, he's a nuclear dictator, he's safe as houses from the wrath of the US. You can even be a leg of the "Axis of Evil" and keep your day job as long as you have a nuke (or in North Korea's case, a reasonable facsimile).

The killing of eight tribal elders involved in peace negotiations in the Waziristan region of Pakistan is the first flash of violence in the area for about six months.
The bloodshed unfolded in a series of attacks between Sunday night and Monday morning around Wana, the lawless capital which is a hotbed of al-Qaida linked violence.

The Pakistani military reported attacks on two "peace committee" offices in Wana and the nearby Shikai Valley, a rugged mountain retreat where soldiers discovered a network of al-Qaida safehouses in 2005.

Article continues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bloodletting underscores the collapse of government authority in Waziristan, where 100,000 troops are deployed, and the perils run by those engaged in controversial efforts to broker peace between the government and well-armed militants.
The stakes are high. US intelligence officials claim Waziristan has become al-Qaida's international operations hub, a lawless morass where militants are plotting fresh attacks on the west. A report in Sunday's New York Times suggested the US government was considering sending special forces teams and new CIA operatives to Pakistan to capture or kill top al-Qaida officials.

Waziristan is also a major worry for the Pakistani government.

The "Talibanisation" of North West Frontier province - involving the imposition of strict social edicts at gunpoint - first took root here, and the president, Pervez Musharraf, has identified a prominent local commander, Baitullah Mehsud, as the main suspect in the December 27 assassination of the opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto.

The militants are a loosely allied patchwork of local tribesmen, Taliban commanders and foreign fighters from Arab countries, Chechnya and Uzbekistan. Efforts to broker a peace deal have been fraught with bloodshed and deeply controversial.

Militants have assassinated dozens of pro-government elders - at least 50 in 2006, according to Dr Farzana Shaikh of the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Many died in night-time attacks similar to the shootings on Sunday night.

"Eight in one night is not particularly surprising. On one occasion, four tribal leaders were found beheaded with their heads split. On other occasions, it is the sheer quantity of murders that is alarming," she said.

In recent months, south Waziristan has been relatively quiet as fighting between government and militants shifted across the mountains to north Waziristan. Yesterday's attacks show just how fragile that peace has been.

On Sunday, Ali Muhammad Jan Orakzai, the official behind much of the deal making, resigned as governor of the province. "His resignation marked his failure to achieve a deal," said Shaikh.

Western allies have long been unhappy with the deals that Orakzai helped to broker. A September 2006 accord between Musharraf and militants in north Waziristan was sharply criticised by US officials who claimed it resulted in a surge in cross-border Taliban attacks in Afghanistan and allowed militants to push across northern Pakistan.

"Effectively, the government handed control of the north-west to militants," said Shaikh.

The results are painfully apparent in Swat, a "settled area" on the far side of the province once known for its sweeping mountain scenery, now a battlezone.

Hundreds of lives have been lost in fighting between a new group of Islamist militants, reinforced by allies from Waziristan, and the government. Today, a suicide bomber struck outside the gates of a military compound in Swat, wounding 10 people including eight soldiers, according to news agency reports.

The Swat militants are led by Maulvi Fazlullah, a radical preacher who has been blamed by Musharraf for a wave of suicide attacks across the country.

About 400 people had been wounded and 900 injured in 19 attacks against political rallies and military targets in the past three months, Musharraf told reporters in Islamabad last week.

The explanation for the latest eight deaths could be linked to local factors as much as the faltering peace process, analysts said. Uzbek militants linked to al-Qaida sheltering near Wana were killed last month. Reprisals had been expected

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2236761,00.html

Musharraf must have evaluated pros and cons of ploting to assassinate Benazir. If musharraf can order to assassinate former governer and chief minister of Baluchistan province Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti an 85 years old leader then why anyone does not believe that musharraf has the means to plot assassination of Benazir as well.

Musharraf has publically admitted the assassination of former Governer and chief minister Bugti. Is anyone has any doubt about his admission of Bugti's killing?

Musharraf has used army for his illagal actions. Consider the case, on Nov 3, 2007 the supreme court 7 judges panel passed a judgement and declared musharraf's emergency as illegal. Supreme court ordered the police and army to refuse to accept any illeagl orders contrary to constitution of pakistan.

Instead the army went against the constitution and stormed the supreme court building on the orders of general pervez musharraf and kicked all the judges out of the supreme court building.

There should not be any doubt to anyone's mind that musharraf has been illegally ordering and misusing the ARMY and intelligence agencies for his own nefarious designs.

If musharraf can order ARMY to hit a missile on a 85 old leader to get him killed then how come he can not plot to kill benazir?

There should not be any doubt in the minds of the people that ISI of pakistan intelligence has been involved in the killing of Governer and chief minister Bugti. Everyone should make his/her mind whether musharraf has plotted the killing of benazir

Another thing which proves that CIA report is flawed, there is no such thing as seperatist group in waziristan area and it never been any sepeararion movement there.

Baluchistan has intensified the separtist movement after the killing of Governer Bugti but those separatist groups have always been very cordial relationships with the benazir bhutto and her party.

//But upon reflection, I decided not to make that apology. There are three things wrong with Hayden's conclusion: First, the CIA is largely dependent on the Pakistan secret services for this kind of inside information.//

Trusting the lot that makes up the ISI, I am certain that DCIA Hayden needs to show faith in their ability. I will not argue that it may appear to be a 'last gasp' effort. Despite what people think of the CIA, their primary job is to support and advise the policymakers. The CIA are aptly armed to influence sovereign nations without leaving a trail of dead bodies behind them. That is what our enemies may do, to sway things back to their needs and likings in such a way to lay the blame at the US feet.

//Second, who pulled the trigger does not answer the question of how the assassins made their way to the right place at the right time.//

Certainly, it was an inside job. I believe that it is time to consider a larger power, say Russia and/or China; knowing that if they could thwart Condi's efforts would win a battle to keep the US off-balance and reaching for other options.

//And third, the current chaos simply creates too many common benefits to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and his Pakistani Taliban adversaries for me to be comfortable with the CIA's conclusion, which contradicts public opinion in Pakistan and much press reporting.//

Any well thought-out operation against Pakistan and US interests - necessarily includes the need to do the job correctly. Any operation that is properly planned includes all aspects from begining, middle, and final sanitizing. That is why I believe Russia and/or China must be involved. It was too important to allow for mistakes. One must consider all the possibillities before any can be catigorically excluded.

As you already are aware of, I am not a fan of Musharaff. But that doesn't me