Reality Overtakes Rhetoric: Why Bhutto’s Blood Is On Bush’s Hands
Let’s put a few things in perspective before we mourn the passing of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated by a gunman prior to a suicide bombing today that took upwards of 20 lives at a campaign rally in Rawalpindi. An earlier attempt on her life killed 140 people in October shortly after she returned from exile.
It speaks volumes that:
* Bhutto, who herself was duplicitous and corrupt as the leader of this troubled nation, nevertheless was seen as a vast improvement over President Pervez Musharaff.
* The Bush administration not only has thrown in its lot with Musharaff as its key regional ally, but has repeatedly helped prop up his repressive regime, pouring billions of dollars into a rat hole that has become a safe haven for the very terrorists both nations profess to want to eradicate, while claiming that great strides are being made in heartland of the Global War on Terror.
* Other than obligatory tut-tutting, the assassination will have no impact on the U.S. presidential race. Foreign policy generally and the U.S.’s deeply troubled relationship with Pakistan specifically are pretty much non starters in this topsy-turvy campaign season.
The immediate upshot of Bhutto’s assassination will be that it gives Musharaff a convenient excuse to postpone parliamentary elections scheduled for next month.
Her death comes just days after Musharraf lifted a state of emergency that he had used to suspend the Constitution and arrest thousands of political opponents on the largely spurious claim that they were terrorist threats.
Bhutto, warts and all, was widely seen as an appealing alternative to Musharraf and eight years of military rule in a supposed democracy, but her tragic passing will have little effect.
It will continue to be business as usual in Islamabad and Washington. You can bet on it.
More here.
26 Responses to “Reality Overtakes Rhetoric: Why Bhutto’s Blood Is On Bush’s Hands”
You know, I was going to counsel people on here not to be so incredibly [overwrite unearned kindness here to keep things clean] as to blame Bush for this, and what do we see?
*squawk* Bush’s fault! Bush’s fault! Bush, Bush! *squawk*
DLS:
Of course the assassination is not Bush’s “fault.”
But he and his administration have been the only outside force — in fact the agents of most powerful and wealthiest nation on earth — that could try to leverage change in Pakistan, specifically it’s hand’s off approach to the very terrorists who masterminded the 9/11 attacks.
Six-plus years after those attacks, that effort has not and will not be made.
Repeat: Bhutto’s blood is on Bush’s hands. Get over it.
I have to agree with DLS here. Bush is certainly indirectly connected to events in Pakistan. But how is the blood of Bhutto on Bush’s hands?
Maybe…but the myopia that grips the Bush administration and the Musharraf regime, and their short term policy goals, would have serious consequences for both the USA and Pakistan.
Bhutto was seen as a leader propped up by the USA, while Nawaz Sharif by the Saudi Arabia. Bhutto’s disappearance from the scene can be viewed as Pakistan establishment thumbing a nose at the US administration.
Signals emanating from Washington, including selective leaking of information that Musharraf regime played around with $ 5 billion of US aid without any monitoring, must have raised the hackles of Pakistan president.
Benazir Bhutto paid a heavy price by depending on the USA for her safety by opting to return to the violent jungle that Pakistan has become. Yes, in that way Bush has blood on his hands.
That means that no leader in the world would trust Bush or the USA, especially when it is a matter of life and death (maybe they would now turn to Vladimir Putin!!!).
Swaraaj:
You make my argument better than I made it.
With the conspicuous exception of Iraq, I can think of no instance in the last six-plus years where the Bush administration’s rhetoric has so far outpaced the reality.
And while we’re on the blood thing, to suggest that Bush hasn’t gotten splashed with Iraqi blood is as ludicrous as saying that he gets pass on the blood of Bhutto and the other forces for the better good in Pakistan.
Earlier I was going to caution Swaaraj Chauhan not to bash Bush in all-too-sadly-common PC-hip fashion, but he didn’t, and I really didn’t think anyone would then stoop so low. But I was wrong.
Pakistan was a mess before Bush got into the White House, Bhutto was in trouble there before he got into the White House, and Pakistan will continue to be a mess after Bush leaves the White House, and we still cannot depend on (nor is it the responsibility of the USA to provide) a better alternative than Musharraf. It’s up to the Pakistanis.
DLS:
Speaking of stooping, your rationalizations are positively subterranean and, I daresay, lazy.
By your crude calculus Pakistan was a mess to begin with, so the U.S. gets a free pass despite willingly pouring billions upon billions of dollars into a bottomless pit of a nuclear power that has amplified the terorist threat, not made inroads to exterminate it.
And all the while Bush and Cheney and Rice bloviate about what a hail fellow and exemplar of democracy that Musharraf is while putting virtually no pressure on him to earn those greenbacks.
This kind of lazy thinking is a big reason why foreign policy has become such a turn-off to people like myself who once revelled in its labyrinthian aspects. That was when the U.S. had a foreign policy that occasionally had some teeth. Are you old enough to remember?
Today many of us, yourself included, just go to the default setting when something like a Bhutto assassination occurs: Pakistanis are just a bunch of unwashed and unworthy towelheads on the other side of the world who cannot be expected to understand, let alone be grateful for Washington’s almightily benevolent hand.
Disgusting.
You said this; I didn’t. You’re being lazy, if that explains it rather than being deranged; I am not.
(Does derangement extend beyond Bush with you?)
BENAZIR BHUTTO ASSASSINATED…
By Damozel (photo by Anna) | At the moment, all that is really known is that she was killed, possibly by a suicide bomber and possibly by gunshot wounds. (CNN) A number of others died as well. (CNN) Bhutto, 54, was being driven from the rally in her bu…
Gee Shaun, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You seem to have a pat answer for ANYTHING bad in the world – somehow, some way, it is Bush/the USA’s fault.
Bush and/or the USA are the center of all evil, and all other countries only react to our misdeeds. No other country ever instigates problems, or manipulates events towards their own ends, or is, God forbid, actually responsible for events within their own borders.
Deranged is hardly adequate to describe your world view, IMHO.
AustinRoth:
How nice to hear from you. Please read Comment #2.
How about providing a list of negative events that aren’t, in your view, directly or indirectly Bush’s responsibility. I assume the tsunami would be among them. Or would it?
Marc:
A silly exercise to sure, but for sh*ts and giggles lets take the AP‘s top stories of the year:
(1.) VaTech killings. (No.)
(2.) Mortage crisis. (To an extent.)
(3.) Iraq war. (Duh.)
(4.) Oil prices. (To a very small extent.)
(5.) Chinese exports. (No.)
(6.) Global warming. (To a very small extent.)
(7.) Bridge collapse. (No.)
(8.) Presidential campaign. (Yes and no.)
(9.) Immigration debate. (No and yes.)
(10.) Iran nuke program. (To a very small extent.)
The Bush administration not only has thrown in its lot with Musharaff as its key regional ally, but has repeatedly helped prop up his repressive regime,
And this is why editors are not allowed to make foreign policy.
So what do we do? Attack Pakistan because we dont like their repressive regime?
Hmm we dont like Syria’s, Egypts, Somalia’s….IRANS.
Oh wait they have nukes. Mabey we shouldnt attack them cause they might nuke our entire navy, airforce and marines back to the stone age.
I know perhaps we can talk to them……..you know like Clinton and Obama and the rest of the left wants to do…..Talk, work out deals. be friends. Sing Kumbyeahhh.
Oh but wait…..They are meanies and are not playing fair.
Gee ya think? Lets give them a whole lot of MONEY to make them like us………..darn that didnt work.
I just wonder. What is the answer?
I know lets just Blame Bush for trying it the Democrats way.
I will however defend Shaun here to a point. When something happens in the world it usually falls at the presidents feet.
Jimmy Carter was saddled with the fall of Iran. Bush most likely will be saddled with the fall of Pakistan. However I do think that the best approach to this nation in light of the USA’s apparent war on terror was a hands off, keep your distance policy so as to not rile the radical Muslim element that has been stirring in Pakistan for quite some time.
The onus of keeping the citizens in order had to fall upon Pakistan itself. The conspicuous absence of US presence and pressure was by design in order to prevent Musharraf from looking like a stooge for the USA.
He was and is his own man and it had to be that way or else he would have fallen from power long before now.
In Iran we tried the covert, overt, active props and in the end it only resulted in massive hatreds for the west. Forcing a moderate stance on a nation full of anti western Muslims is and has always been a pipe dream.
Bush truly did approach Pakistan much as Clinton and Obama claim we should approach all of foreign policy and as can be seen………it just doesnt work.
See? Just what I meant. You don’t think that India, Iran, China, Afghanistan, or any other countries ‘could try to leverage change in Pakistan’? As SNL would say, ‘REALLY?’
Get realpolitik. As with all countries, Pakistan (encompassing the current government and it’s enemies internal and external) constantly tries to leverage all the above entities, and more, for pro and con, at all times to it’s internal benefit and own agenda.
My problem with the mindset you seem to represent and act as cheerleader for is not that you say that the US/Bush has done wrong things. Rather, it is the unwillingness to include NON-Bush/USA factors that come into play, and often are the much more prevalent, or even the sole, proximate cause for specific incidents.
You constantly harp on the simple-minded, black-or-white mentality of the Bush administration (a fair criticism overall, I might add).
However, as I just said in my previous post, in your case it is the pot calling the kettle black, as you seem to also refuse to discuss the true complexity, and sometimes intractable nature of the problems faced by ANY American administration. Rather, you fall back on ‘Bush/USA’s fault’.
Your own words convict you.
Shaun, I respectfully disagree with your interpretation, and I think it is way over the top. The group with Bhutto’s blood on their hands is not the Bush administration, the GOP. or the West. It is the murderous Islamists who refuse to join the modern world, and who are willing to die for their goal of reverting to the world of approximately AD 600. They and no one else is guilty of this murder.
Clff May writes, at _The Corner_:
No matter how much one agrees with, or disagrees with an administration, it is not moderate in any way to keep blaming them for much of what is wrong (in your view) with the world. It was equally disappointing when this blame came from the right side of the aisle, and was directed at the Clinton administration. I don’t have a huge amount of sympathy for our President, but I have some. No matter what he does, he’s going to be wrong. If he talks to the folks like Hamas and Iran and Pakistan, and he’s tarred as a wimp; if he sends in the military to force the Iraqis to elect good men, and he’s a militaristic bully. I disagreed with the Bush administration’s military policy in the Gulf from the start, but I also recognized it not as a GOP play, but a page from Woodrow Wilson’s brand of internationalism. He failed (as did Wilson), but I don’t see how his failure is responsible for murdering Bhutto. The Islamist thugs did that.
For those who take Newsweek, check out the article in the most recent issue on the dwindling number of voters. An interesting theory – the increasingly nasty playing to the base – by both sides, people, by both sides – is alienating the former largely silent and overwhelmingly moderate majority, who are, apparently, turning off the political stuff on the TV and internet and playing mindless games on the computer, watching sports, or even reading a book. What they are also not doing is voting in primaries or, increasingly, general elections.
This brings me back to my beginning point. Shaun, I don’t think your analogy was helpful. I’m sure it will appeal to the Democratic party base, but it’s comments like that, or the folks who claim Hillary Clinton is the Devil incarnate, who lead reasonable, logical people like some of my neighbors to simply declare that they aren’t going to vote any more. Now I do NOT think you are to blame if they choose not to vote, but I do think there is a lesson for all of us, especially the few who seem to profess moderation. How do we bring moderation about? It seems to me we might begin by being more temperate and judicious in our comments about political figures. Especially those political figures we do not agree with. Just my opinion. That and a buck buys you a cup of coffee.
I see it as partly apologist reflex and partly naive to imagine our own president bears zero culpability in connection with this tragedy. It’s just one more sad chapter in a long dynamic of incompetent meddling, negligence, and another demonstration of a willingness to let others do the dirty work and make the sacrifices.
The attempted return to power of Bhutto was in large part orchestrated by Washington, and the dangers to her in Pakistan were well known, both by her and by the people who encouraged and enabled her in the decision to try and create power sharing with Musharaff. I guess GWB has more than enough blood on his hands from Iraq without being blamed for this too, but he IS connected, and his connection is in keeping with the character he has exhibited all along – that being a person who has no compunctions about pushing or advocating that others go into harms way.
Bhutto was a flawed person, but she was a woman of great courage, and probably last real hope for her country in many ways. It’s too bad that with all the billions we spend in Pakistan, all the truck we have with Musharaff, and all the lip flapping our govt pays to the so-called progress in the war on terrorism, that we couldn’t have managed to do more to assist in maintaining the safety of this single very important person.
Shaun –
Kudos for answering my question.
Truly a classic of the BDS lexicon. Good work, Shaun. Keep it up.
By the way, I haven’t seen the names Scooter Libby, Karl Rove or Valerie Plame lately. Get with it.
The whole situation is complicated…
I’ll take a stab at what I see as some of the main points… So let’s see… the Bush administration supported Bhutto’s attempt to regain power, which would have meant Musharaff had to give up control. The Bush administration has sent Musharaff billions of dollars over the last few years, much of which was essentially bribe money to gain his allegiance in the fight against terrorists. Though Musharaff did not make much of an attempt to clamp down.
So after Musharaff places Bhutto under “house arrest” just a couple months ago, suspends the constitution and orders the arrest of thousand of political prisoners (claiming they were terrorists) he finally agrees to democratic elections. Now Bhutto, who is campaigning, is assassinated.
Set aside the blame game for a moment, but Musharaff is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. Sharif may withdraw his party from the elections, causing mass popular uprisings against Musharaff if his party wins control (and if his party is the only party in the elections…). On the other hand if Musharaff cancels the elections then everyone will believe that Musharaff never really wanted the elections to proceed…. And he probably will need to declare martial law again….
So what’s the guy to do?
Given the amount of power terrorists have in certain parts of Pakistan I’m concerned that the military (or at least some of it- the most anti-American part) may use this disarray to seize part (or all) of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
I don’t think Bush has blood on his hands on this. But if the situation spirals out of control and the terrorists are able to use it to their advantage, then at that point Bush DOES have blood on his hands. Simply because Bush has not pushed Musharraf hard (nor have they had the right conversations) on fighting terrorists. To the extent that the nuclear arsenal in Pakistan is threatened, Bush has that on his head too. We’ve known for years that nuclear material needs to be secured around the world and Bush has not made an attempt at this. I don’t mean that Bush should send in troops to all the places with nuclear material, but he can push governments (and offer advice) on securing the material.
I suppose the Pakistani government has not done all it could do to protect Bhutto, but then again she was riding around with her head /body sticking out of a sunroof in an unsecured area. She knew she was a target- and even our own Bush isn’t stupid enough to ride around like a teenager on prom night with his head through the sunroof. I’m sorry she was assassinated but she certainly bears some of the responsibility for her own death.
To the extent that Musharaff maintains control of the situation (and I think he should cancel the elections and hold them later) and keeps the fallout from spreading- meaning the terrorists aren’t able to capitalize on the situation in any way- then the assassination itself won’t have any real political ramifications here.
Personally I believe that Musharaff did have a hand in her assassination. The Pak. government is already blaming terrorists (and not Sharif’s political party) which is just convenient. If it were indeed the terrorists who assassinated Bhutto, then I’d have to wonder if it’s part of a larger scheme to gain control.
I don’t mean to suggest that any nuclear material will fall into the hands of the terrorists, but given the situation I think it is a definite possibility and both Musharaff (and Bush as much as possible) need to gain control of the situation.
One last comment for Somebody: you said, “I know lets just Blame Bush for trying it the Democrats way.”
Plenty of Dems and Reps. believe we should take a harder line with Musharaff and Obama has even gone so far to say that if Pakistan can not fight the terrorists then the US should act to protect it’s interests. Your characterization of the Dems is off the mark. There is a time to talk and a time for action. I hope that the Bush administration sees this for what it is- a time for action (and in this case I do not mean military action) to help stabilize the situation.
[...] given President Bush a kick in the chops yesterday for being complicitous in the Benazir Bhutto assassination because of how he has coddled [...]
It seems to me that this is one more example of our efforts to create a more democratic ME are blowing up in our faces. The well-meaning moves that Bush has made to bring more openness and freedom to the region have only let loose a murderous radicalism that he knew lay right beneath the surface when he took office. I believe he may be doing the right things, but at the wrong time.
Anti-Americanism has grown so strong in Pakistan and the other countries that any politician that is associated with the US becomes an instant target.
Bottom line is actions taken during the Cold War have angered Muslims worldwide. Free elections (as we have seen in Egypt, Palestine and Lebanon) only bring angry radicals into power where they have the opportunity to turn terrorism into state sanctified force. Our response has to be to crush the results of those elections because they endanger the stability of the region and our national interests there.
[...] al Qaeda claims responsibility for Ms Bhutto’s assasination, the wacky left blames (guess, it’s not a real stretch) … Bush. Jeepers, it’s like a conditioned [...]
As I just said on another thread:
Karl Rove sent Valerie Plame to kill Bhutto so Scooter Libby could be installed in her place and avoid further jail time without the need for a politically costly Bush pardon.
DLS said:
“As I just said on another thread:
Karl Rove sent Valerie Plame to kill Bhutto so Scooter Libby could be installed in her place and avoid further jail time without the need for a politically costly Bush pardon.”
Sweet. You made my day…..