Subject: Who gained most from
Hi again Bart.
When I heard that Benazir Bhutto was going back
to Pakistan, my immediate thought was,
"Holy shit -- who wants her dead so bad?"
Clearly, someone was out to destabilize Pakistan
by setting her up like a tame duck on one of
Cheney's hunting trips, to blame her murder on
Musharraf as a pretext for military action.
And who was behind getting Bhutto to go to Pakistan?
Another episode in the soap opera "Incompetence,
or Is Everything Going As Planned?"
The media played up Bhutto as a Woman Heroine
of Democracy and Progress, who was
going to save the country, and all the usual
amnesiac suckers fell for it. No one remembered that
she governed poorly, actually set back
democracy, and had an administration rife with corruption
-- that's why she was kicked out and few were
sad to see her go.
In truth, her death, as sad as it was, was not
like losing MLK or Bobby, who were authentic
agents of change. She was expendible as
a leader, which is why Condi could send her to her
certain death. But she was invaluable as
a symbol to die a martyr's death that could be paraded
before the gullible American public to soften
them up for an attack on Pakistan.
A lot has been made of a supposed involvement
and cover-up by the Pakistani government
regarding her assassination, as further evidence
Musharraf has to be expelled. The truth is,
no one in Pakistan argues that she was not assassinated.
Whether a bullet actually entered
her body, or she cracked her cranium in a fall,
she died as the result of assassination - duh.
Her assassination, IMHO, was a LIHOP or MIHOP,
engineered for an underlying political strategy.
Who's all involved, I do not know, but
its some mixture of puppeteers, puppets, and patsies.
The knives are out for Musharraf in the American
government. Whatever his shortcomings,
he is being unfairly blamed for some things.
He is in a very difficult position, trying to do a
balancing act between opposing forces in
his country. He needs to appease the Americans,
but it has the consequence of turning Pakistanis
against him and destabilizing his own country.
We hear some Americans say that the war in Iraq
is bad, but that we should turn our attention
to Afghanistan and Pakistan, which are the
good wars. Any one who says such a thing is either
lying or ignorant about these two countries.
I happen to know a little bit about this "neighborhood"
because of my profession.
Clearly, any one who thinks Musharraf is being
lazy and ineffective about capturing bin Laden
and his pals knows nothing about the geography
and culture of the mountainous region between
the two countries. Truly, it is No Man's
Land. Law and Government and Nation do not exist there,
nor can they penetrate, and never have,
ever, because it is so remote and the terrain so treacherous.
No army can get in there -- not even Alexander
the Great could -- no body. The Pakistani Army
can't get in; the Marines won't be able to
get in, and not even Special Forces or Seals have a hope
to get in. And America won't be able
to get a bomb into the area either. These are facts.
And yet, people blame Musharraf for not being
able to do what Alexander the Great could not.
Clearly, he is being set up to be the next
Saddam Hussein, and he knows it and there is nothing
he can do about it except think about what
he wants his last words to be as the noose goes around his neck.
Let me conclude this Kerry-like droning lecture
on old news by saying that nothing good has come
out of invading Afghanistan, or will, and
nothing good will come out of military or covert action against Pakistan.
People just haven't figured out that these situations
are total disasters created by the Giggling Murder Monkey's
administration, just like Iraq, and for the same
reasons. I just hope not too many innocent people and American
soldiers die in the meantime.
Always pessimistically yours,
Back to Bartcop.com
to Bart | Discuss
it on The BartCop Forum | Comment
on it at the BartBlog