In Memory of Benazir Bhutto, Cut U.S. Ties to Musharraf

In an interview with David Frost, Bhutto explained that these groups were being used by those inside the government to create unrest and fear.

She named three people she thought were behind it and said she had told Musharref that she intended to get Scotland Yard's help with an investigation...

She also said one of the people she suspected aided Omar Sheikh, "the man who murdered Osama bin Laden".

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2007/12/28/bhutto-names-obl-murderer-and...

Thank you Dave,

Though there is much factual and objective information in your post and elsewhere (today's NY Times), this is one of those instances where I would hope many other experts, whose veracity can be tested by the general public, on the culture and history of Pakistan, would encourage all readers, especially American readers, to back off a moment, and ask some questions before jumping on the anti-Musharaf and martyrdom for Bhutto bandwagons. One would include posing the query, who benefits most from creating turmoil in Pakistan and insisting that markers of increasing democratic standards in Pakistan are reversing, at a standstill or not progressing.

Attacking Musharaf would seem to be playing into the hands of a western capitalistic corporate media intent on serving him up as a failed goof-off; as well as serving some political entities, who appear to the naked eye to be "fomenting" right, left and central in Pakistan and have been for ever so long. First, I would encourage all to temper their positions by reading about Ms. Bhutto on Wikipedia or some other sites, as to her full history, if you have not already, so you really have a personal sense of where she was coming from, vis a vis, America's belief system and culture. Also to read about Nawaz Sharif.

It was not that long ago Ms. Bhutto was charged with corruption as leader of government - review that. There is extensive history of those charges at Wiki. Most stem from what the West deems "money laundering" and maybe the globe does too now. However, it seems that the Middle East class system has managed its way for centuries, if not milleniums, practicing a money system that is nothing but money laundering, skimming off to maintain a luxurious existence by western democratic standards. Did I say "class system?" Ms. Bhutto and spouse, evidence revealed, did this. Investigations by western nations, i.e., Switzerland and others, found the couple did engage in money laundering, by western democracy standards in current and recent decades. They viewed a way of life and income from a different perspective than democratic westerners, it would appear.

She and her pol. party, while in leadership in Pakistan, did not advance into law, or try to, relief legislation that she campaigned on as to helping women or the impoverished. She had the chance; she provided rationalized excuses. It was recently reported that if she had stood for election to the legislature, she might have done so this time; we will never know. (I wonder who would have forced her to do so, since there is little practice in Pakistan towards increasing democratic legislation, or is there?)

Additionally, when Nawaz Sharif returned to Pakistan about 2-3 months
ago, upon landing in Pakistan, he was whisked away for "safekeeping" to Egypt for a few days, then allowed to return to Pakistan in a more media quiet mode. From what I can see, he basically kept his mouth shut, and a low profile, through this period; but may be speaking now. Someone may want to review him. A couple of weeks later, when Benazir Bhutto returned to Pakistan, (and who was it that was encouraging these folk to just return, knowing it would foment chaos in the streets) it was to a highly inflammatory rally, which inflammatory rallies have been constant, as in Elvis is in the building. Appears to me to be planned moments of foment towards greater unrest and "radicalization" with no goal in sight. Hmn.

When almost 140 persons were killed in a rally a couple of weeks ago, Ms. Bhutto came right back out rallying again, encouraging more hysterics in the street. Would you have done so? At the same time she was trying to hire additional private security,it has been reported. She was on a political mission - encouraged by whom?

A couple of weeks ago she reportedly struck a deal with Musharraf that he would essentially forgive (give her amnesty) for corruption (money laundering) crimes for which she has been found guilty and was standing punishment. (Her spouse has spent about 5 years in prison on related charges.) It was estimated that she, in turn, would not challenge Musharraf for his office as President, but would run for the legislature, rep'g her party, and possibly run for the office of "Prime Minister;" no comparable role playing in the U.S. At the same time she joined in the call for Musharraf to take off his military cloak of leadership while President - this may have been a compromise, encouraging the people to support him as President, if he did so (you know, this for that). She encouraged him to lift the country from those restrictive emergency controls, as has the current U.S. administration and some in and through the Media. He was real reluctant, and has been for years, but finally gave in last week. What happened, immediately?

While emergency restrictions were in place, much was done in civil life in Pakistan, even against foreigners, that draws criticism, esp. by those who value American style democracy. When Ms. Bhutto was leader of Pakistan, did she develop democracy in the form that America or the West likes, or much of any kind of democracy? Kinda puts one in mind of Haiti. No. She was elected leader twice. Did she leave office in turmoil? Yes. Is that the way democracies work? No. Note the following from Wiki, albeit Herman's letter is "controversial":

"Arthur Herman, a U.S. historian, in a controversial letter published in The Wall Street Journal on 14 June 2007, in response to an article by Bhutto highly critical of the president and his policies, has described her as "One of the most incompetent leaders in the history of South Asia", and asserted that she and other elites in Pakistan hate Musharraf because he was a muhajir, the son of one of millions of Indian Muslims who fled to Pakistan during partition in 1947. Herman has claimed, 'Although it was muhajirs who agitated for the creation of Pakistan in the first place, many native Pakistanis view them with contempt and treat them as third-class citizens.'[46][47][48]

"Nonetheless, as of mid-2007, the US appeared to be pushing for a deal in which Musharraf would remain as president but step down as military head, and either Bhutto or one of her nominees would become prime minister.[49]"

Yes, she has followers. Now, who stands to gain by the "assassination?"

Musharraf has steadied a boat of sorts for some years, and forgave her debts so she was not going to stand trial. She was free to run for office. He finally (apparently through much doubt on his own part) relinquished his military leadership role, and released the emergency controls. What happened? In Pakistan, what did that mean? Inflammatory rallies and a set up for a bicycle gunman to do his thing, and leave a marker of a handgun sticking up in the street for all to see. Also a suicide bomber set off his pellets. Who does that look like? Musharraf??? I am simply asking you. I think Musharraf is extremely angry for being played the fool when he relinquished his guard, once, just a little, and relaxed emergency measures.

Has Musharraf played the game? While we are so forgetful in the West, he has taken the heat for not finding Bin Laden. It was reported by a CIA operative on CNN, who was subsequently whisked away from his on-air consulting position immediately thereafter, never to be seen again, but may be blogging incognito today, that in the Fall of 2002 Osama and some of his entourage were allowed passage to the Rider Dunes area of southeast Saudia Arabia, the area of his mother's people, where he grew up. At that time there was a news report of a jeep filled with four persons, including a tall person, who were shot at in the Rider Dunes by U.S. aircraft, out of nowhere, but the group got away. The operative swore, his hand tacitly before his American countrymen, that Bin Laden is in the Rider Dunes (if still alive) and that operative has never been seen in public again. I never heard that operative say anything on camera that wasn't so. So Musharraf has played the game; he knows that Bin Laden has not been in Pakistan or Afghanistan for five years; but when required he says he is doing his utmost to smoke him out of the hills. How angry would you be, if you were Musharaf today?

Every report since her death could have been written by a blogger who follows Washington politics, hours before the actual reports were posted; it is just like the election news - phony. If you know the script of "Casablanca" you can recite the dialogue along with the actors. We are being led to believe a revolution should be waged against the President of Pakistan and the person who was killed was a martyr. I don't think so.

Musharraf does not appear to gain from the fomenting of further rallies and anti-government rhetoric. Who does? Who wants control of Pakistan and why?

support@informamerica.net
Bhutto had done much for peace for quite some time. We appreciate her efforts and mourn her passing. She's in, however, a better place than what we've all been left in to fight the "con" which probably killed her.
This is yet another dot in connection with many others which illustrates the usual murder-m.o. when the "con" is in danger of exposure. How can the 911 lie be perpetrated when Bhutto announces that Bin Laden was murdered. Even one internet source stated the Colin Powell said Bin Laden had been dead for several years.
As I wrote in "Candidates For The Con" at www.informamerica.net, there is a huge clean up job which goes beyond an initial assassination or event of the magnitude of the J.F.K. Assassination, or the 9/11 Attacks. Perhaps hundreds if not thousands of undeclared informants and snitches and underground operatives were killed after these above mentioned events.
The great 9/11 lie will not go on very far, perhaps until Bush-Cheney are no longer in office. Along with this tumbling down lie will also probably be a stark revelation that J.F.K. was shot point blank with a hand weapon device by limo driver, William Greer, as more and more exposed Zapruder films such as the late William Cooper version, make the light. thanks, joe martin

http://creativeyouth.net/bhutto.html
STOP THE LIES
WE KNOW WHO KILLED BENAZIR BHUTTO
Analysis from the Creative Youth News Team

December 27, 2007
It's time the lies and falsehood coming from the old guys running the major news stations stopped. Benazir Bhutto was not killed by Islamic terrorists - unless you consider official government assassins to be Islamic terrorists. The American public has been asked, by the news media, to buy lie after lie after lie. All too often, Americans dumbed down by years of brain-damaging education lose their ability to think and to comprehend truth from propaganda presented to them by the news media.

When they are legitimate, investigations work like this. Law enforcement officers who want to solve crimes look at three factors: motive, means and opportunity. Since for the last seven years, the Bush Administration and its robotic media have trying to make the public forget how to solve crimes, the Creative Youth News Team will do it for them.

WHO HAD THE MOTIVE TO KILL BENAZIR BHUTTO?

This isn't a hard question. Benazir Bhutto was expected to win the upcoming election, which would have changed the power structure and perception of Pakistan. Who would lose the election to Benazir Bhutto or have their plans for Pakistan thwarted if she stayed alive? Who would lose economically if she were elected? Her main political competitors are President Pervez Musharraf and former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. If Bhutto had succeeded in ending concerns about Islamic terrorism , the economic beneficiaries of the war on terror would lose financially. Pakistan's relationship with the U.S. Government, which is close to Musharraf, might have changed.

Now, to assist the dumbed-down journalists in the mass media, let's list those with the greatest motives:
1) President Pervez Musharraf. He was forced to call parliamentary elections for January 8, 2008. The voter turnout was expected to be in favor of Bhutto if she were alive.
2) Nawaz Sharif. Bhutto voters would likely turn to him with her out of the picture.
3) The Bush Administration. It requires an unstable world to maintain power. Bush is a friend of Musharraf. Bhutto was powerful enough in her own right that she could say "no" to Bush.
4) The U. S. Military Industrial Complex. The U.S. Military Complex includes a lot of organizations, including all the contractors, defense, rebuilding, security, etc., that are benefiting from an unstable world. When trillions are involved, a lot of corporate executives tend to get very greedy.

Let's list those who did not have any real motive unless they were on salary from the above three.
1) Islamic terrorists. Why do you think the Islamic masses are protesting her death?

Reaoning ability quiz:
Who would be more likely to kill a Muslim for religious reasons: a Muslim or a Christian?

WHO HAD THE MEANS TO ASSASSINATE BENAZIR BHUTTO?

1. President Pervez Musharraf certainly had the means. He has the military. He has prisons full of individuals who could be recruited to do suicide bombings. He could arrange for the gunman and the bomber to get past Bhutto's security.
2. Nawaz Sharif was a popular prime minister, who was exiled after Musharraf took power and accused Sharif of hijacking a plane. It appears the verdict, resulting in exile, was politically motivated. Let's short cut this. Anyone with the power to be a prime minister has the the resources to carry off an assassination of the nature that took place. His ability was muted, somewhat, by his loss of power.
3. The Bush Administration. Examples can be seen in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo. Is there any reason to question whether the Bush Administration has the means?
4. The U.S. Military Industrial Complex. This is the richest industry in the world and it has the suicide bombs.

WHO HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSASSINATE BENAZIR BHUTTO?

1) The political assassination happened near the capital of the country Musharraf runs. Of course, he had the opportunity.
2). Sharif was in the country and so was his election team and his supporters. He was likely being watched by Musharraf's military intelligence.
3) The Bush Administration has operatives in Pakistan. The CIA is in Pakistan. It is supposedly looking to assassinate Osama Bin Laden.
4) The U.S. Military Industrial Complex has operatives everywhere, working to make deals with foreign government or to overthrow them. The Bush Administration shares intelligence and resources with this Military Industrial Complex.

Islamic extremists have no motive to assassinate a leader they respect. They would need a source for the means. Bhutto undoubtedly had security with the ability to watch for and detect individuals carrying bombs and weapons. The gunman and suicide bomber would have had to have been individuals security would have let get close enough to do the shooting and suicide bombing. This wasn't an act of religious terrorism. It was a highly thought out professional operation.

There, we've solved the crime. Now, the issue is whether the old guys in the news media will focus on the group least likely to be responsible for the political assassination or on one of the four who undoubtedly is responsible. Here's a game plan. Get a notepad and label it"idiots." On this notepad, write down the names of all the reporters who use the words "Islamic extremists" to describe the perpetrators of the assassination.

Political assassinations and convenient deaths have become a way of life in American politics. John F. Kennedy was conveniently killed after he had signed an executive order (Executive Order 11110) that would have destroyed the Federal Reserve Bank and after he made plans to pull America out of Vietnam and to disband the CIA. His brother Robert was assassinated the night Robert won the California Presidential Primary in 1968. John's brother Edwards was almost killed in a convenient automobile accident in 1969, that limited his chances of becoming President. John's son John, Jr., an upcoming President, conveniently died in a plane crash before he could run and win the 2000 election. Mel Carnahan was killed in another convenient plane crash and beat John Ashcroft as a dead man for a U.S. Senate seat that affected the balance of power in Washington. Paul Wellstone was killed in another convenient plane crash shortly before the election in 2002, just in time to stop him from winning re-election to the Senate and beginning a potentially-successful bid for the Presidency in 2004. Now, American-style Democracy appears to have been exported to Pakistan.

Copyright ©2007 by the Creative Youth News Team. All rights reserved.