Rice Scripted Bhutto’s Return then Left her Unprotected

An update on the Benazir Bhutto assassination from the American Everyman:

Two months ago Secretary of State, Condi Rice, convinced Pakistan’s president and current dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to allow exiled Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto back into the deeply troubled country.

Rice also had to convince Bhutto it to come out of exile and go back into public spotlight and the rough and tumble world of Pakistani politics. She did so with a promise of US support and a shared power structure agreement with Musharraf. (Slate story here.)

But after two attempts on her life, beginning almost the minute she touched down in Pakistan, one might start to wonder if the former Prime Minister wasn’t set up from the beginning. Especially when you consider Bhutto was sent there with no additional security.

However, the State Department didn’t offer her any personal protection, even though they all knew that Bhutto’s past history with the Pakistani Taliban and al Qaeda would make her an instant target. Rice didn’t even offer the services of private firms like Blackwater, which the State Department routinely uses all across the globe to protect important diplomats.

The results? An attempt on her life the moment she touched down in Pakistan which killed 158 innocent civilians and another one this week that did take the life of Benazir Bhutto. At least, one of the three official causes of death took the life of the “last hope of Pakistan.”

Keep reading…

48 thoughts on “Rice Scripted Bhutto’s Return then Left her Unprotected

  1. I am particularly proud of the “conspiracy theory” implications of this one.
    BushCo sets up an unwitting victim so that they can put troops on the ground to prop up the illegal Musharraf government, just like they wanted to do in the first place right after the dictator shut down democracy there.

  2. Its hard to see how BushitCo can be so utterly incompetent at everything they do. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    Sorry, clocks…

  3. I was reading something about how incompetent Bush and Rice are… when it hit me:

    Rice set this whole thing up after Musharraf declared the state of emergency over there.

  4. And by incompetent, I mean setting shit like this up, only to have it blow up in their, as well as a multitude of others, faces…

  5. Not quite accurate apparently. Benazir Bhutto tried to hire British and American security experts (Blackwater) to protect her, The Sunday Telegraph is reporting this Sunday morning in the UK.

    The plans failed because President Pervez Musharraf refused to allow the foreign contractors to operate in Pakistan, according to senior aides.

    “She asked to bring in trained security personnel from abroad,” said Mark Siegel, her US representative. “In fact she and her husband repeatedly tried to get visas for such protection, but they were denied by the government of Pakistan.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/30/wbhutto230.xml

    The facts support a case against Musharraf far more than a case against Rice.

  6. The fact that Musharref denied visas to the security forces Bhutto asked for does not mean that Rice and Bush were innocent. For all we know, They may have been telling Musharref to ignore our public comments and allow Bhutto’s security to suffer. With Musharref, they have the kind of military dictator they like having in control of a country with oil and gas reserves, for they can be mroe easily bribed to give it all away to American companies. But Bhutto was not someone they felt they could control as easily. So, naturally, they did not want her to succeed.

    I can easily imagine Rice looking her in the face and promising to pressure Musharref to allow her greater security while at the same time telling Musharref not to do it.

  7. “The facts support a case against Musharraf far more than a case against Rice.”

    So… what do we know about the discussions between Rice and Musharraf about bringing Bhutto in?

    Do you think that Musharraf could have been convinced to allow these contractors into the country had we used, say, the billions of dollars in aid as leverage?

  8. “For all we know, They may have been telling Musharref to ignore our public comments and allow Bhutto’s security to suffer.”

    Exactly. Either way, it is a horribly failed foreign policy manuver that merits Rice being fired at least.

    But instead, she will be given the medal of freedom.

  9. “With Musharref, they have the kind of military dictator they like having in control of a country with oil and gas reserves…”

    As has been the case many times over.

  10. As has been the case many times over.

    And as horrible and disgusting as that is, I would feel slightly less sickened by it if we would just publicly admit it, instead of lying to the rest of the world and claiming that we support democracy for everyone. We don’t, and we never have!

    And that’s what bothers me about being an American. It’s not that I oppose the ideals for which this country stands, I support them completely. It’s the secret, backroom, fingers-crossed-behind-my-back deals that we make to subvert true democracy in favor of U.S.-corporate-friendly dictatorships that oppress their people just to make the capitalists in this country a little more richer, so they can enjoy a third or fourth home someplace because having two homes is just not enough.

    I’d like to paraphrase H.L. Mencken’s comments on Christians and Christianity and just say this for the record:

    I have nothing against Capitalism, it’s Capitalists I can’t stand.

  11. Mencken said, “I have nothing against Christianity, it’s Christians I can’t stand.” I don’t think Ghandi expressed hatred for anybody, even the British soldiers who used to beat him senseless during his non-violent protests. We can all learn a lot from Ghandi’s ways.

  12. This is what I was thinking of, Wayne:

    I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
    Mohandas Gandhi

    Either way, the nail is hit on the head.

  13. Now that you mention it, that rings bells. You were right, Zooey. I remember the Mencken quote because I come across it more than the Ghandi quote. But, as usual, you were right. I should know better than to doubt you, Zooey. 😉

  14. Is your Portable Curmudgeon curmudgeonly about being portable?

    It might be. 😀

    I’d have to find it and check the cover. The author might have had some snarky comment to make about having done all the work for the reader. 🙂

  15. “Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

    Are they talking about President Bush, or is it some kind of trickery!

    Well, it was Ghandi, and it had to be at least 59 years ago when he said it. Maybe he was referring to Prescott Bush. 😉

  16. willyloman,

    I think you’re stretching for the conspiracy theory. The simplest answer is most often the right one. In all likelihood one of the militant groups in Pakistan killed Bhutto with the aid of her security force.

    The second, not quite as probable but hardly impossible though is that Musharraf had her killed. I hold this as a lesser possibility because of the shared power deal that everyone is talking about. Musharraf stood to only limited gain by assassinating Bhutto compared to the risks involved.

    The US’ involvement is highly improbable. Our government is not looking to destabilize Pakistan at this time. Our troop commitment is too high in Iraq for that. Frankly, within the US, Bhutto’s assassination benefits the Democrats more than the current administration.

  17. He kind of has that bewildered cherub look…like… like … Chimpy?

    Oh no… what are the implications?

    Wayne is really Chimpy the President disguised as a bearcub? Fiendish indeed.

    A pox on your house, Bush! Pox!

    A pox on your Bush I say!

  18. You can condemn anybody using logic like that. 😀

    Isn’t that how Poe’s first detective story mystery was solved? Didn’t someone notice “The Purloined Letter” precisely because it looked too much like it belonged there? (It’s been a while and maybe I’m remembering it wrong. You know how it is when you’re just a cute, little innocent bear cub who doesn’t mean harm to anyone.)

  19. “The simplest answer is most often the right one. ”

    what is the average wing velosity of a laden sparrow?

    What is the value of Pie?

    Why is Brittney Spears famous?

    you see? Ocam’s Razor is not always the only measure of a solution. Sometimes there are things that take place that require a little investigation and thought to understand.

    “Be careful we don’t over simplify ourselves into complete facism.” ( I just quoted myself. What are the odds that I would have done that to make my point? Hard to calculate? hmmmm?)

  20. “(It’s been a while and maybe I’m remembering it wrong. You know how it is when you’re just a cute, little innocent bear cub who doesn’t mean harm to anyone.)”

    Thank you for that George… I mean, Inspector… I mean Wayne…

  21. I’m going to have to agree with willy on this one. Occam’s Razor doesn’t always apply when you;re dealing with people like Bush. For one thing, he’s not capable of simple reasoning. For another thing, his long-term strategy is, for the most part, self-defeating because it is not reality-based, it’s ideology-based, and only a small percentage of people believe that it is the correct strategy.

    And Bush has not acted int he best interests of the United States, he has acted in the best interests of his corporate friends, and even Occam’s Razor would tell you that.

  22. Several problems with your “razor” solution, jonolan.

    1. It’s not “her security force” that was in charge that day…

    2. the shared power deal was in trouble because as she said to David Frost, she was going to bring Scotland Yard in to do a full investigation into the first attempt on her life that killed 158 civilians.

    3. “Musharraf stood to only limited gain by assassinating Bhutto…” Musharraf can now completely crack down on the country with “good reason” just like he was doing before Bhutto came back. he gets what he wanted in the first place; full power as a dictator.

    4. “Our government is not looking to destabilize Pakistan at this time.” You mean like they stood nothing to gain from a destabilized Iraq? They disbanded the Army, and allowed lawless looting and rampant destruction…

    See? the Razor doesn’t always hold up to the light of day.

  23. Perhaps jonolan still believes that Johnson only escalated the Vietnam “police action” because of the attack in the Gulf of Tonkin…

    but I would offer a slightly more complicated explanation of Johnson’s decision.

    In case you didn’t know, the Gulf of Tonkin attack, never really happened. And that, is a fact that complicates the world, just a bit, don’t you think?

  24. 1. I was using “her” to describe assignment, not command structure. Sorry for the confusion.

    2. An interesting piece of rhetoric on her part. If the US has so much power in Pakistan though, was it anything more than rhetoric? With Musharraf in charge of the military, he would have the real power anyway. Killing a woman who would be in effect a figurehead would be of limited benefit. This is assuming that the US actually controls the situation.

    3. Musharraf now has massive unrest to deal with, which will limit his capacity to meet commitment to the US. How long will last if the US finds him less than useful? This is also assuming that the US actually controls the situation.

    4. I doubt that our government wants to destabilize Pakistan at the moment. We don’t have the forces necessary to capitalize on it right now. I won’t speak to the future however…

    As for Viet Nam, it is my belief that it was escalated solely in order to deny the Soviets access to the undersea oil fields discovered off its coastline. We may or may not disagree on the validity of such a move based on the then-current world political situation.

  25. jonolan; there has always been profit to be made in times of war. Whether as a banker or an arms dealer or manufacturer, war is very very profitable.

    The people behind Johnson’s decision may have had their eyes of undersea oil field… but they definately had their eyes on increased rearmament deals. check out the Rockefellers and Rothchilds and where they have money invested and where they have people implanted into our system of government.

    You will certainly see many names repeated over and over again.

    This is Occam’s Razor over the long term. The cast of players is relatively small, yet they keep popping up over and over again.

    I hope you have a good new year. Better than the one we leave behind.

  26. You know jonolan, your avitar looks alot like my last girlfriend. only, somehow, it suggests a more cheery nature than she really had. Oh the good old days…

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s