Bhutto's dead was the Pakistan equivalent of "suicide by police". You know the situation. The future victim confronts police with a unloaded gun and says he going to shoot them. Police fire killing suspect. Upon review find gun unloaded.
She did the same for reasons only she knows about. Now the vulture pundits are trying to put the blame on some one else. Bhutto's and her innocent supporters' blood are on her hands and the assassins. No one else is to blame. She knew exactly what she was doing.
The armour car protected everyone not foolish enough to stick their heads out.
SwabJockey05
· 1 year ago
PN Hit's it again.
Anthony Ragan
· 1 year ago
This sounds like the old "who lost China?" argument, and just as fallacious. So, State should have insisted on Americans providing security for Bhutto? That would have gone over just dandy in a sovereign ally. Or is it that we should have forced Musharraf to provide more thorough protection? You even mention the Islamist penetration of ISI and military, Ed. In that case, Musharraf having his security people provide more protection would be like the farmer asking the fox to guard the hen house. I don't doubt State was naive here, but I think our influence was really limited here.
And another thing: Bhutto was wealthy, She made a lot of money through corruption when she was PM. Don't you think that, if she was so concerned about her safety, that she could have afforded quality private protection? That and her actions at the rally tell me she wasn't as concerned as she pretended for public consumption.
Maybe she should have been. --Anthony (Los Angeles)
jr565
· 1 year ago
Even with security if you're driving a car into a crowd of people milling about, its not the most secure location. And security is not giong to be able to put everyone through metal detectors or pat everyone down. Why on earth was she making herself so open to attack? She's' blaming Musharaff, but maybe she's was behaving a bit recklessly, and expecting a level of security that is just not realistically there.
RKV
· 1 year ago
The Bhutto family enterprise makes them the richest people in a poor country. You don't get that way without corruption. We have no pure choices in Pakiland. None. Deal with the real world folks. The point is to keep the islamofascists away from the nukes. That's about all we want. They can kill each other all day and all night otherwise.
hunter_123
· 1 year ago
No, terrorists murdered her. Bhutto may have been the best choice, but she was not a good choice. She was corrupt, she was hard core lefty, and she was not very acceptable to a lot of Moslems. We did not kill her. Musharrif did not kill her. The Taliban/Al Qaeda killed her. Focus on that, and please do not fall for this blame America first bs.
Lightwave
· 1 year ago
I'm with hunter_123 on this one. Blaming the State Department for this one is exactly what AQ/Taleban want to happen.
NahnCee
· 1 year ago
So we're back to the "if we do This or That or The Other Thing", Al-Queda will have won meme. Personally, I'm getting really tired of planning my life and it's activities on whether or not Al-Queda will have won. So far, we've been killing them handily and I can't see that they've won a damned thing. So blaming the State Department and Dr. Condoleeza Rice for pressuring Bhutto into returning to Pakistan and then leaving her twisting slowly in the wind strikes me as being an honest and logical perception of the situation, and I don't much care how the denizens of Al-Queda feel about it ... unless they're scared to death of the next attack and constantly looking over their raggedy shoulders in paranoia.
onlineanalyst
· 1 year ago
If I recall correctly, at one point not all that long ago after her return to Pakistan, Bhutto's movements were limited within the country. While this was done for her safety, the critics were raising a cry that Musharaff was holding her as a "political prisoner".It appears that Musharaff was damned if he did or didn't protect the woman.
Now I read that it is Bhutto's corrupt husband, who will not permit the autopsy and who will share the mantle of power with the Bhuttos' son.
I have to concur with those rejecting the responsibility for Bhutto's safety with the United States, whether through federal agencies or through independent contractors. Nothing further would rile the volatile Islamists than to see our country injecting itself into Pakistan politics.
Madame Hillary's calls for an international investigation are even more clueless.
middleclassguy
· 1 year ago
Why should Musharraf allow a foreign law enforcement agency in his country to investigate an event aimed at a citizen of his country? As to Ms. Bhutto's security- we will not know the truth for a while. I no longer trust Novak, as he has started to believe his own press releases.
joefrommass
· 1 year ago
When your life is threatened on a daily basis, indeed attempts already made on your life. Assasins already killing members of your own family. You live in a country that is home to Al Qaida and the Taliban and where lawlessness and religious fanatisism are the rule. Then you pop your head out of a sun roof in a slow moving vehical on a crowded street? Tell me where the resposnibility for your safety lies.
billyoblog
· 1 year ago
Publicly admitting US involvement in her security would have redoubled assassination efforts. Besides, it shouldn't be the US responsibility to protect politicians within the borders of their own countries, especially politicians with a death wish.
wfiguy
· 1 year ago
How exactly is a dynastic familial politician our best hope in Pakistan. Looking at the fact that her Husband and Son are now sitting in the catbird seat, what does that say about her belief in Democracy. She was "ahem" asked to leave Pakistan (or chose to instead of facing jail time) because of corruption in her former regime. This isn't the way of improvement.
gene finneran
· 1 year ago
If Benazair Bhutto was our "best option", I shudder to think of who might be worse !
She had zero capability of ruling without the backing of Islamists who hated her-and, in fact,had reached out to one of the sheikhs to that end.
TomB
· 1 year ago
I don't understand Pakistan's politics much, but our hysteria about imposing "democracy" in Pakistan, using a corrupted and convicted felon (don't forget, also in a few European countries), in a very delicate times was misplaced and misconceived. If anybody was intending to destabilize our important ally (and to put a wrench into our war efforts), it is an "A" for almost total success (I can hear distinct "Down with the Bush's war!" cry in the background). Not to mention that she was asking for trouble by publicly preaching to already convinced in a very unsafe country, exposing herself to assassinations and declaring Musharraf guilty beforehand. Was she that naive and unexperienced, or was it a form of committing a suicide to get ride of Musharraf?
mikey
· 1 year ago
No, she knew exactly what she was getting into. She knew Blackwater wasn't going to be allowed in to protect her. Us allowing that would have been crazy on our part anyway. She was smart enough to sit out a while in Dubai but it was her choice to go back. She could have simply lived out her life peacefully in London.
Musharraf had nothing to gain from her death. A woman was NOT going to have power in a country being taken over by the Taliban and AQ. Screw whatever elections are going to happen, it's about the nukes and India now.
SDN
· 1 year ago
It does not surprise me that the State Department did nothing. After all, this is the same State Department (along with the CIA) that has been working against George Bush since the day he took office.
mikey
· 1 year ago
I don't disagree with your 2nd sentence but what was State or CIA supposed to do? Milt Green, an IRM person posted in Islamabad lost half his family while at church in 2002. In March 2006, David Foy, a Facilities person, was killed just outside Karachi Consulate in a car bombing. What can State or CIA do to protect Bhutto in-country when they can barely protect their own stationed there or those on TDY? The 4 Pakistan posts are already unaccompanied tours because it's so dangerous. Peshawar has always been the worst--no one goes outside there.
NahnCee
· 1 year ago
How has Karzai in Afghanistan managed to stay alive all these years? My guess is that it's a combination of Blackwater security types and American military/Secret Service with very little Afghan security.
My guess is further that whatever Karzai has is what Bhutto was pleading for ... and didn't get.
mikey
· 1 year ago
I think Dyncorp is the security contractor in Afghanistan for Karzai. Diplomatic Security pays a lot for them. I doubt the Pakistanis would put up with the same arrangement. The Afghanis barely do.
Math_Mage
· 1 year ago
What are the odds that Musharraf was going to allow American forces into Pakistan to protect Bhutto, given that he wouldn't let them in to chase Al Qaeda? If Bhutto was pleading for those forces, she was naive. That she stuck her head out of an armored car and negated all the security she DID have only substantiates the charge of naivete.
essucht
· 1 year ago
We helped broker that deal to send Bhutto back to Pakistan, and we had at least a moral obligation to help address the obvious and serious security issues.
She wanted to return to Pakistan, no? We certainly leaned on Musharraf to allow her return, but ultimately, Bhutto's safety was her own responsibility. The country is a mess, and if Bhutto didn't know the risks before travelling home, she certainly knew after the assassination attempt on her return.
I would hope that we gave her any behind the scenes help we could, though depending on the State Dept is not a wise choice these days.
Insufficiently Sensitive
· 1 year ago
"The US had even more to lose. She was our best option, and one might think that State would have kept that in mind."
I'd love to see more attention paid in the reporting on Ms. Bhutto and her husband (who now inherits the PPP her father invented) to the long record they've both achieved in facing charges from corruption to murder. If those charges are true, how was she our best option? Yes, she could raise photogenic crowds cheering her, but so could various other demagagues, some of them Islamic fundamentalists, were Pakistan to forbear to suppress them. Now that hubby's taking over the party for the short term, why aren't we hearing more of his dark track record? Ms. Bhutto with her Harvard English was indeed a favorite of Western media, but how much democracy could we have expected from a dynastic tribally-based party?
JDScott
· 1 year ago
Why is the Western media so taken with Bhutto? Is it because she's a western educated aristocrat who mingled with many of them at Ivy league parties? This is a serious question. It's easy to discount Novak since he routinely publishes rumor, innuendo, and just plain fiction in order to get noticed, but this is a world wide issue.
Her death is tragic, but she was a twice deposed corrupt leader who has been angling to get back to power for years. And the passing of the mantle to her husband and son show just how uncommitted she and her supporters are. No doubt her claims to the State Department that the US wasn't acting as an honest broker was designed to get the US to help her gain greater power.
While the State Dept hoped she would bring secularists together and marginalize the power of the the Taliban and Islamic extremest, there is no evidence that she wouldn't have done the opposite. In many countries fundamentalist Islam has risen to power because they are viewed as non-corrupt populist leaders in contrast to self enriching, corrupt leaders exactly like Bhutto.
The Yell
· 1 year ago
This is a stretch by Novak. It reminds me of the old farce, "Who lost China?"
I am really sick of the lame American analysis of this tragedy. Every pundit wants to point out Pakistan involves Al Qaeda and nukes, and then they each offer a totally different spin on how the US dropped the ball here. We should have installed Bhutto in 2001. We should have saved her. We should have kept her from returning. We should have declared war on Pakistan. Wut-eva.
I_R_A_Darth_Aggie
· 1 year ago
What? she and her legions of followers couldn't provide for her security, independent of an indifferent and potentially hostile government that she didn't trust to begin with?
State department doesn't protect foreign nationals in THEIR OWN COUNTRY. Not their job. That's the job of the nation itself. That's one of the things that make the country a legitimate country.
In fact, the State department is not technically responsible for the Ambassador's (or his staff) safety...other than to continuously conduct risk assessments. The host nation usually provides security for all the Diplomats -- remember, the Marines are only assigned duties inside the walls of the Embassy and mostly focus on securing the secrets. They work for the Regional Security Officer, the guy responsible for the security assessments. The third world hell-hole Embassy I worked at had a “high crime” threat…and the Ambassador’s body guards were ALL FOREIGN Nationals.
It’s all part of that sovereignty thingie…a “real” country can protect the foreign diplomats and their mission. Don’t get confused by what goes on in Iraq. War zones are a different matter as far as “protocol” is concerned…
Ray_in_MPLS
· 1 year ago
As others have pointed out here, it's not the function of OUR State Department, or any other American governmental department to provide security to foreigners in foreign countries. That's the job of the foreign governments and the person needing protection. Just how could have America protected her without inflaming an already volital situation? Should we have surrounded here with the Marines? Should we have hired a private security detail to protect her? How could we have done that without the permission of the foreign government involved?
msr
· 1 year ago
Are Pakistani politicians less corrupt than our own? Or merely more open about it? Consider your answer carefully. If the answer is that ours are better, ask yourself why. Is it that Americans are inherently more decent and altruistic, or that they aren't infected by greed so much as lust for power?
JDScott
· 1 year ago
The primary difference is that regardless of how our politicians abuse the system to get re-elected and enrich themselves, they are limited to a certain degree by the system and if/when they are convicted of a crime or voted out of office they respect the rule of law.
Musharraf (and Bhutto for that matter) respect no authority above their own. They are happy to ignore the will of the people and unilaterally ignore or change laws. Even Nixon resigned in the face of impeachment and conviction. And yes, Al Gore sued to overturn the results of the electoral college and the elected representatives of Florida but he respected (unhappily) the decision of the Supreme Court.
No matter how bad our political battles get or how angry, we can peacefully transfer power from one party to another and continue to govern (in our limited manner). Pakistan cannot say the same thing!
All Comments
She did the same for reasons only she knows about. Now the vulture pundits are trying to put the blame on some one else. Bhutto's and her innocent supporters' blood are on her hands and the assassins. No one else is to blame. She knew exactly what she was doing.
The armour car protected everyone not foolish enough to stick their heads out.
And another thing: Bhutto was wealthy, She made a lot of money through corruption when she was PM. Don't you think that, if she was so concerned about her safety, that she could have afforded quality private protection? That and her actions at the rally tell me she wasn't as concerned as she pretended for public consumption.
Maybe she should have been.
--Anthony (Los Angeles)
Why on earth was she making herself so open to attack? She's' blaming Musharaff, but maybe she's was behaving a bit recklessly, and expecting a level of security that is just not realistically there.
Bhutto may have been the best choice, but she was not a good choice.
She was corrupt, she was hard core lefty, and she was not very acceptable to a lot of Moslems.
We did not kill her. Musharrif did not kill her.
The Taliban/Al Qaeda killed her.
Focus on that, and please do not fall for this blame America first bs.
Now I read that it is Bhutto's corrupt husband, who will not permit the autopsy and who will share the mantle of power with the Bhuttos' son.
I have to concur with those rejecting the responsibility for Bhutto's safety with the United States, whether through federal agencies or through independent contractors. Nothing further would rile the volatile Islamists than to see our country injecting itself into Pakistan politics.
Madame Hillary's calls for an international investigation are even more clueless.
She had zero capability of ruling without the backing of Islamists who hated her-and, in fact,had reached out to one of the sheikhs to that end.
Not to mention that she was asking for trouble by publicly preaching to already convinced in a very unsafe country, exposing herself to assassinations and declaring Musharraf guilty beforehand. Was she that naive and unexperienced, or was it a form of committing a suicide to get ride of Musharraf?
Musharraf had nothing to gain from her death. A woman was NOT going to have power in a country being taken over by the Taliban and AQ. Screw whatever elections are going to happen, it's about the nukes and India now.
My guess is further that whatever Karzai has is what Bhutto was pleading for ... and didn't get.
She wanted to return to Pakistan, no? We certainly leaned on Musharraf to allow her return, but ultimately, Bhutto's safety was her own responsibility. The country is a mess, and if Bhutto didn't know the risks before travelling home, she certainly knew after the assassination attempt on her return.
I would hope that we gave her any behind the scenes help we could, though depending on the State Dept is not a wise choice these days.
I'd love to see more attention paid in the reporting on Ms. Bhutto and her husband (who now inherits the PPP her father invented) to the long record they've both achieved in facing charges from corruption to murder. If those charges are true, how was she our best option? Yes, she could raise photogenic crowds cheering her, but so could various other demagagues, some of them Islamic fundamentalists, were Pakistan to forbear to suppress them. Now that hubby's taking over the party for the short term, why aren't we hearing more of his dark track record? Ms. Bhutto with her Harvard English was indeed a favorite of Western media, but how much democracy could we have expected from a dynastic tribally-based party?
Her death is tragic, but she was a twice deposed corrupt leader who has been angling to get back to power for years. And the passing of the mantle to her husband and son show just how uncommitted she and her supporters are. No doubt her claims to the State Department that the US wasn't acting as an honest broker was designed to get the US to help her gain greater power.
While the State Dept hoped she would bring secularists together and marginalize the power of the the Taliban and Islamic extremest, there is no evidence that she wouldn't have done the opposite. In many countries fundamentalist Islam has risen to power because they are viewed as non-corrupt populist leaders in contrast to self enriching, corrupt leaders exactly like Bhutto.
I am really sick of the lame American analysis of this tragedy. Every pundit wants to point out Pakistan involves Al Qaeda and nukes, and then they each offer a totally different spin on how the US dropped the ball here. We should have installed Bhutto in 2001. We should have saved her. We should have kept her from returning. We should have declared war on Pakistan. Wut-eva.
State department doesn't protect foreign nationals in THEIR OWN COUNTRY. Not their job. That's the job of the nation itself. That's one of the things that make the country a legitimate country.
In fact, the State department is not technically responsible for the Ambassador's (or his staff) safety...other than to continuously conduct risk assessments. The host nation usually provides security for all the Diplomats -- remember, the Marines are only assigned duties inside the walls of the Embassy and mostly focus on securing the secrets. They work for the Regional Security Officer, the guy responsible for the security assessments. The third world hell-hole Embassy I worked at had a “high crime” threat…and the Ambassador’s body guards were ALL FOREIGN Nationals.
It’s all part of that sovereignty thingie…a “real” country can protect the foreign diplomats and their mission. Don’t get confused by what goes on in Iraq. War zones are a different matter as far as “protocol” is concerned…
Musharraf (and Bhutto for that matter) respect no authority above their own. They are happy to ignore the will of the people and unilaterally ignore or change laws. Even Nixon resigned in the face of impeachment and conviction. And yes, Al Gore sued to overturn the results of the electoral college and the elected representatives of Florida but he respected (unhappily) the decision of the Supreme Court.
No matter how bad our political battles get or how angry, we can peacefully transfer power from one party to another and continue to govern (in our limited manner). Pakistan cannot say the same thing!