“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…..

[...] I haven’t seen the names Scooter Libby, Karl Rove or Valerie Plame lately.

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.

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.

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.

By the way, I haven’t seen the names Scooter Libby, Karl Rove or Valerie Plame lately. Get with it.

Kudos for answering my question.

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.

Clff May writes, at _The Corner_:

Pakistan Lessons

Bhutto’s murder points to a lesson we (the Foreign Policy Establishment in particular) has been slow to learn:

This is not some extraordinary event. This is not the work of some lone madman. This is how militant Islamists contest elections – not just in Pakistan but also in Lebanon and Gaza and wherever they they get a foothold.

Why bother with opeds, TV commercials, high-priced campaign strategists, spin doctors and pollsters when with one suicide bomber you can eliminate your opponent entirely?

Hard to argue with the logic.

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.

But he and his administration have been the only outside force…that could try to leverage change in Pakistan

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.

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.

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.

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.)

How nice to hear from you. Please read Comment #2.

Today many of us, yourself included, just go to the default setting when something like a Bhutto assassination occurs

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.

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…

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 [additional illogical false charges deleted]

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?)

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.