|
|
|
December
2007 - January 2008
Collected commentary on the death of
Benazir
Bhutto
Feb.
9/08: NYT: Bhutto’s Party Disputes Scotland Yard Report on Her Death
Despite the lack of a full post-mortem and limited
X-rays and other forensic material, the two British forensic
investigators leading the team were able to draw reliable conclusions,
the executive summary said.
YYC: Whoever wrote that could moonlight as a comedian.
Friday
January 4, 2008
Understatement of the year - so far
AllAfrica re Bhutto - Someone
must be covering up
YYC: But wait - this article is written in
code! Look at this paragraph: <Benazir's death has further
exposed the international conspiracy of weaving every policy around the
bogey of Al-Qaeda. The United States must be particularly angry that
many people think someone else killed Benazir.>
Someone else besides the United States?
There's so much absolute rot being written now
that it can only be the CIA who did it on orders from Washington.
Well, CIA,MI5, ISI - is there any diff? No wonder CSIS is
champing at the bit to be allowed
to work abroad (HamSpec/CIRC). It's a good old
boys club, it is. British
Dicks (RadioNetherlands) have been sent in to not solve
the case. Musharraf won't let them interview any politicians, but
that'll save them from having to do something they wouldn't have
bothered to do.
The bad old Taliban might get them off the
hook anyway. The fictional militant leader Mehsud - who plays a dual
role as an Al Qaeda operative when necessary - says he would
only welcome a probe that didn't involve the US or Britain (South
Asian Focus). Gee, they might have to turn the case over to
Musharraf and let him find and torture and few "Al Qaeda" patsies on
TV.
Sure enough, The
Australian is paving the way for that by quoting King
George hisself: <Last night, US President George W. Bush backed
Mr Musharraf's assertion that Ms Bhutto's killing was the work of
al-Qa'ida. In Washington, Mr Bush said the assassination had "all the
hallmarks" of an al-Qa'ida operation. He went on to again praise Mr
Musharraf as an ally in the war against terror, declaring: "I've always
been a supporter of President Musharraf. He's an ally.">
With the Brits currently poking around in
Pakistan, I suppose it's just a coincidence that Jonathan Power, a
foreign affairs commentator based in London, has written an
article highly supportive of Musharraf while completely
trashing Bhutto (KaleejTimes). The New York Times seems
to be helping out with that as well: Bhutto’s
Deadly Legacy.
Her death is certainly bringing out a lot of
weirdness. Here's
a writer (ArabNews) who first waxes maudlin and gushes
about all the good she would have done for women (as if he really cares
about the women more than he cares about, oh so incidentally,
reinforcing the Al Qaeda, Bin Laden myth), calls himself a supporter of
Bhutto and her family, brags on how he met them all and was in their
home - and then proceeds to trash her worse than anybody else. Isn't
that a condition called psychosis? Or is simply that he prefers a
male leader for the party he claims to support?
Failing all else, Bhutto's death could be blamed on
her servant who was seen acting "suspiciously" just before she died -
if they can find him, that is. He's
reportedly on the run (Hindu) after seeing himself on TV
standing beside Bhutto and running his finger across his throat. Maybe
in Pakistan that's not as rampantly common a gesture as it in North
America when we want somebody to shut up, or stop filming.
Maybe he'll never be found, and the case will
forever be a mystery like JFK and RFK and MLK Jr. - you know, in the
established American way.
But take heart, Bhutto lovers and
haters! Finally, finally the
movie (HindustanTimes) can be made! So it's all
well worth it, don't you think?
Wednesday
January 2, 2008
Bhutto was not killed for what she said
about Bin Laden
A little common sense, please. There was an
attack on her life prior to her saying in an
interview with David Frost that Sheik Omar murdered Bin Laden.
To give her and the BBC some benefit of the doubt, since she's gone now
and cannot clarify, she may have meant to say Daniel Pearl. And
the BBC may have removed that segment at her request because she had
lost track of what she was saying. It happens.
Look at the way she says it - as if it were
something that everybody knows. Everybody
did know that Sheik Omar was convicted of murdering Daniel Pearl.
But it was hardly common knowledge that Bin Laden was murdered by him.
What is common knowledge, however, is that Bin
Laden succumbed to his many physical ailments in December 2001. (WelfareState)
Mind you, Bhutto also spouted other disinfo,
reinforcing the idea of Al Qaeda and of a Taliban terror leader named
Mehsud - as elusive a wraith as Zarqawi - and paving
the way for Hamza Bin Laden to come to the forefront as the
next really big bogeyman (TimesofIndia) - but at that time
she was trying to please Bush. She gave up on doing so, departed
from her script, and called for Musharraf's resignation, gaining plenty
of support for it. And so she was killed by a sniper under cover
of a suicide bomber/shooter. The US has always found Musharraf
more useful than Bhutto.
Sunday
December 30, 2007
Some important details in the execution of
Benazir Bhutto International
Herald Tribune:
a) The team of doctors who frantically tried to revive her Thursday
said they had requested an autopsy but were rebuffed by the chief of
police in Rawalpindi
b) ... new images of the apparent assassin, dressed in a sleeveless
black waistcoat and wearing rimless sunglasses, were splashed across
the front pages of Pakistan's Sunday papers. The man with the gun who
is seen opening fire on Bhutto just a few meters from her wears a short
haircut reminiscent of plainclothes intelligence officials. He is seen
standing in front of a man whose head is covered in a shawl in the
style of Pashtun men from the Pakistani tribal areas where Al Qaeda has
strongholds. He is described in the newspaper, Dawn, as the suicide
bomber who detonated a bomb after the shots were fired.
YYC: There are not nearly as many suicide bombers as we are
led to believe. At least not voluntary ones. As soon as I saw the word
"sunglasses" I thought "American". I wonder if he was wearing a
big old wristwatch too and had beefy arms from pumping iron.
Here's a little item that can't be taken at
face value:
PressTV:
Hillary blames Bush for Bhutto's murder Clinton said that Bush has
given Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf a 'blank check' adding that
Musharraf, a staunch US ally, cannot be trusted.
Clinton appears to blame Bush at the same
time as she puts the blame squarely on Musharraf. She calls
Musharraf a "staunch US ally" at the same time she says he "cannot be
trusted". How she do talk out of both sides of her lip gloss!
Saturday
December 29, 2007
It was Washington whut dunnit
StraightGoods:
Bhutto, Bush and Musharraf
Washington sent Bhutto to her death, because Musharraf wouldn't do what
he was told.
YYC: It was Washington that dunnit allright, but I'm
surprised at the reasons given here. My Friday article shows clearly that
Musharraf
had been publicly re-blessed by a cordial visit from Karzai, and also
that in calling for Musharraf's resignation Bhutto had failed to stick
to Washington's script.
When it came to having to make a choice, Washington chose the devil it
knew, and Bhutto was removed from the scene in the American way.
By the way, I agree with what the writer said
about America's hamfisted tactics, and the military home invasions in
Afghanistan. Our own soldiers are doing that, and it's the reason
for the roadside explosives.
CTV
says that Bhutto gave CNN's Wolf Blitzer an exclusive through the
co-writer of her book indicating that Musharraf should be held
responsible for any successful attempt on her life, because he didn't
provide enough security as she campaigned. Nice try to deflect
the blame from Washington, but she didn't say it was Musharraf trying
to kill her, only that he didn't try to prevent it.
After all the conflicting reports as to cause
of death, CTV simply says: "... a man charged her vehicle as it made
its way through a crowd of supporters, shooting at her several times
before detonating an explosive device he was wearing."
Like Lee Harvey Oswald, he no doubt renamed
himself "Patsy".
But Washington has found better ways to keep that from being said aloud.
"Intelligence", however, is not all that
intelligent and tends to give itself away by getting carried away in
spinning its fictions. It did so in Bhutto's case by hauling out
the fictional wraith Mehsud and quoting him as saying: "It was a
spectacular job ... They were very brave boys who killed her." (Toronto
Star)
Boys, not boy. Get it?
Friday
December 28, 2007
How to emulate the US and rub out people - Benazir
Bhutto,
for example - who complicate the goals of the New World Order
First make it publicly clear there is official
acceptance of
this person's arrival on the scene. An extra clue to that and to the
eventual need to eliminate Bhutto may be found in this
Global Policy article which states: "Despite
her anxiety to preserve the US administration's newfound goodwill
toward her (after keeping her at arm's length in recent years),
Bhutto's instincts of political survival are getting the better of her."
Indeed, instead of
relying on the US to referee
(Times of India) as they did between Musharraf and Karzai,
Bhutto
called for Musharraf's resignation (Rediff).
The next step in the plot is to start
reinforcing the idea of
an elusive (illusive) Afghan bogeyman - Mehsud
(YYC) -
similar to Iraq's Zarqawi,
dreamed up
by neo-con spooks who find it useful to make ghosts and goblins real
and culpable.
Then set up a series of
"suicide" bombings so that when the time comes this will seem a
plausible indirect
cause (CityNews: Shrapnel,
Not Bullet, Killed Bhutto, Surgeon Reveals) - but also arrange for
snipers to be absolutely certain of the
job getting done.
Now, show the world
how Musharraf, after
some prompting, is finally
doing all the right things - taking off his uniform, freeing Bhutto
from house arrest, making
nice with
Karzai (Brietbart)
renewing
his vow to "fight terrorism".
When the time comes, make it a public spectacle creating plenty of shock and
confusion, a state that makes it easy to convince people of almost anything - as
for instance when Americans were made to believe that 19 young
fanatical
Muslims flew planes into the WTC, in which case the buildings were
pulverized to prevent a proper autopsy.
Then try to make the death seem like an
accident: TimesOnline:
Bhutto 'died after hitting head on car roof', Pakistan government claims.
Make sure there is no autopsy - blame that on the
husband for as long
as you can - so that there is nothing to confirm what
Bhutto's
lawyer says:"It is a pack of lies ... Two bullets hit her, one in
the
abdomen and one in the head."
Next, because you know that certain truths are
going to start to leak out, and because the "authorities" will be
expected to look as if they are investigating, admit it was an
assassination, but blame
it on Al Qaeda.
Now you can begin to drive home your real,
underlying purpose - to once again "prove" the existence of "Al Qaeda"
and the need for an overt crusade against Islam, with the covert goal
of owning the Middle East and all of its resources.
Remind people of Bhutto's
sins (CFR), but as the case evolves, be ready to place the
ultimate blame where it will count the most. Iran?
Wired
News has a fairly thorough run down on the
conflicting
reports and possible culprits, so there isn't much more for me to say.
Except that here in Canada we
apparently don't wonder about such things, but only about the impact on
our pocket books:
CTV:
Bhutto's death behind gas price hike: watchdog "It doesn't
matter now what happens around the world, Canadians can expect to pay a
little bit more for their energy as a result of the volatility that
we're seeing internationally."
One thing's for sure - some people have
already made a
lot of money from this.
AFP:
Oil spikes towards 100 dollars after Bhutto murder
yayacanada
|
|
