December 27, 2007
Earlier “Deep Thoughts”
4:34 A.M.
Who the hell goes to the zoo on Christmas Day?
7:06 A.M.
Crazy, crazy day. Huge story, with all of Pakistan’s democracy, freedom, modernity and nuclear missiles in the sites of Al Qaeda and other Islamic Fascists, and I’ve got to leave to get on a plane to work on Episode #3 with dB for two days. Will update from a laptop in the editing room as much as possible.
Plus, there is still more tape I want to get together and out to the Shumneys, and was working on that all day. Man, what a feeling that was meeting his kids before playing those tapes.
As for Bhutto, I hate to say it, and certainly my mere words cannot detract from all that was great about her, but I said it on this blog before, this woman was letting her political instincts for the grand public event outweigh the common sense of not endangering herself and others with grand public spectacles.
7:17 A.M.
Word on the street is that all public protests are pointing the finger at Musharraf, not Al Qaeda. The attack bore all the hallmarks of Al Qaeda, mostly the suicide bomb.
In case you didn’t hear, a 15 year old suicide bomber who planned to kill her was arrested yesterday. That ain’t no government assassin, that’s an Al Qaeda/Taliban assassin.
By the way, the number of nuclear weapons in Pakistan is “hundreds”.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
Who knows, a jewish guy maybe?
December 27th, 2007 at 5:38 amBob USMC
December 27th, 2007 at 8:14 amTook me a minute–but a good one! HA!
Pat:
Regarding the attack having the earmarks of AQ. I have never heard of AQ being able to get close enough to their target (Especially such a high ranking target as her)to shoot their target before detonating a suicide bomb. Seems to me Uncle Mushy might have had a lot more to do with this then AQ. Just a feeling.
December 27th, 2007 at 9:12 am“I have never heard of AQ being able to get close enough to their target (Especially such a high ranking target as her)to shoot their target before detonating a suicide bomb.”
If you’ve never heard of Al Qaeda getting close enough to their targets to shoot them, with or without the bombing, then you haven’t been listening. The shooting information may not even be legitimate, as it has been reported the wound may have been inflicted by shrapnel. And if Pakistan could do it, as you seem to be inferring, why couldn’t or wouldn’t AQ? ESPECIALLY if it made Musharraf look complicit!? Besides, why would Pakistan need to shoot her? To MAKE SURE she’s dead? No, they wouldn’t need that to get the effect that they want, and getting her out of the election would have been made easier by simply KEEPING HER OUT OF THE COUNTRY (which Musharraf could have EASILY done by not granting amnesty from corruption charges) after her SELF IMPOSED “exile”.
December 27th, 2007 at 9:56 amREN:
I most assuredly HAVE been paying attention.
Mushy couldn’t keep her out of the country. How would THAT look to his people and how would that play out to the US if he tried to keep her out?
“Earlier this month, Musharraf cleared the way for Bhutto’s return after agreeing to drop outstanding corruption charges against the former prime minister and a number of other politicians, as part of his own bid to stay in power.
A union with Bhutto would allow Musharraf to stave off criticism about his grip on power, which would be significantly weakened if he stands by his pledge to abandon his position as military chief.
He overwhelming won a third term as Pakistan’s president earlier in October in a parliamentary vote. Bhutto has said she would only join Musharraf’s government if he abandons his military post, which he has vowed to do sometime before he is sworn into office on Nov. 15.”
Not only has he NOT stepped down, but Mushy has bent so many times to every terrorist organization in that country, why wouldn’t he bend to them now?
December 27th, 2007 at 10:16 amMusharraf stepped down from his military position in late November. I will have to look up the exact date, but you are already wrong. Fuck that, look it up yourself. =Þ Did he take it back up when I was not looking?
*I deleted the rest of my post because you are really pissing me off, and I am not being very nice about this. LoL. =Þ I will post later.*
December 27th, 2007 at 7:26 pmHOW TO STAY ALIVE IN PAKISTANI POLITICS:
RULE #1: Don’t go wading into crowds of people when you know that AQ has sworn to kill you.
RULE #2: Don’t hold political rallies out in the open, especially when AQ has sworn to kill you.
Please feel free to contribute.
December 27th, 2007 at 8:00 pmREN:
No need to get pissed off. Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani was appointed.
December 27th, 2007 at 8:21 pmKiyani’s nomination was meant to ensure that Musharraf remains in control of the armed forces. In this time of turmoil in Pakistan do you really believe that a power hungry dictator such as Uncle Mushy would give up anything? Do you believe that Bhutto ever would have won the election? If so, I have a bridge I would like to sell you. I just feel Uncle Mushy over played his hand this time.
Who the hell is up at 4am?
December 27th, 2007 at 11:21 pmI’ll never understand it.
What pisses me off, however, is that the media is going to report this like, “Bush Foreign Policy Fails–Again,” and not “Brave Muslim Woman Killed by Savages–Womanhood and Democracy Cited as Motive.”
Maybe we could have saved Bhutto, they’ll say, if only we were focused on the REAL war on terror, which would be anywhere but Iraq. And of course, then we’d need to redeploy out of THAT country, and so on, and so on.
December 28th, 2007 at 1:11 amHi,
“As for Bhutto, I hate to say it, and certainly my mere words cannot detract from all that was great about her, but I said it on this blog before, this woman was letting her political instincts for the grand public event outweigh the common sense of not endangering herself and others with grand public spectacles.”
___
No truer words were ever said.
12 days before the election…she should have used some ‘common sense’ and just put herself on her own house arrest for these 12 days.
She was going to get elected PM without having to go out in public before the election on Jan 8th.
Then after the election… she would have been able to secure herself much more protection and security as the elected PM of Pakistan…and made things much safer for her and the people around her.
And its not like she did not know other peoples lives were put in jeopardy when she went out in public among the people. Almost 200 other people now have died becuase of the way these terrorist tried to kill her. (Oct & Dec attacks)
I am certainly NOT blaming the victim here…I just agree that she used poor ’short term’ judgment…considering her ‘long term’ goals for the country of Pakistan.
May the peace of God be with her and her family.
Peace!
December 28th, 2007 at 10:59 amDan2
LftBhndAgn,
You wrote: “I have never heard of AQ being able to get close enough to their target (Especially such a high ranking target as her)to shoot their target before detonating a suicide bomb.”
To which I responded: “The shooting information may not even be legitimate, as it has been reported the wound may have been inflicted by shrapnel.”
And what was the verdict?: No bullet holes of any kind, it was indeed shrapnel, and the shooter WAS the bomber. The bomber appeared to have missed with the many hastily shot bullets, but succeeded with the bomb. That is, if we trust the government, right? Ah, this day and age is RIFE with alleged conspiracy, and conspiracy theories. I can hardly wait to see what the militant groups say and do with this, the whole thing is a circus. We are a skittish, superstitious lot, we are… nothing has changed in thousands of years.
Also, remember, Bhutto made a habit out of walking amongst people and this top-side car ride was nothing new. So, your statement that al Qaeda would not be able to get close to her, “[especially] such a high ranking target as her”, was completely erroneous and misplaced. She made the same mistake Gandhi did, probably because she had the same basic desire to be close to those who “loved” and “supported” her. What a fool, she was no Gandhi and had direct and credible threats made to her, and still she ignored them.
So what’s your new theory? Are you just trying to make the facts fit your assumptions? Keep running with your assumptions, omissions, and half truths (like whether or not Musharraf had stepped down, or that Bhutto had been shot) and I will begin to believe it is a pattern with you.
“Seems to me Uncle Mushy might have had a lot more to do with this then AQ. Just a feeling.”
Will you stop calling him “Mushy” or “Uncle Mushy”, it is Musharraf. Take the time to spell it, learn to spell it, or use your copy and paste. Do not be lazy, it is coming off as being CONDESCENDING, which may actually be your intention; but if not, stop doing it already!
December 29th, 2007 at 11:06 amIt’s interesting to watch the news, and the story of Bhutto’s killing, evolve over time but I wonder, if we can’t even seem to get American’s to agree on how JFK was killed,
or get the fringe to shut up about 9/11 already, I don’t know what success we’re going to have here with Bhutto.
Also, in my opinion, Musharraf, as President, really didn’t have to worry THAT much about Bhutto MAYBE being the Prime Minister… at least not enough to kill her. I do, however, believe that people within the corrupt system could have been a part of this killing, whether by bullet or shrapnel or whatever.
But does that possibility mean that Musharraf “needs to go”? I’m not sure, mostly because I just do not know what the alternatives really are and what they will bring. This may be the best that it CAN be for the time being, until economic conditions are radically improved in Pakistan.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:08 am