Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Giuliani, Others Quickly React to Bhutto's Death

The assassination of former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has instantly roiled the U.S. presidential campaign, as candidates from both parties positioned themselves on the latest international terrorist act.

Candidates rushed forward to convey their condolences and to burnish their bona fides as staunch advocates of tough measures to defend American interests at home and abroad. The news of Bhutto's shocking death was only minutes old and details remained sketchy when former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign issued a condemnation of terrorism writ large.

"Her death is a reminder that terrorism anywhere -- whether in New York, London, Tel-Aviv or Rawalpindi -- is an enemy of freedom," said Giuliani. "We must redouble our efforts to win the Terrorists' War on Us."

That it was the first statement that arrived in The Fix email inbox is not surprising as his campaign strategy is closely linked to many voters' belief that the world is a dangerous place and that Giuliani is the candidate best equipped to deal with threats to this country.

But others rushed in swiftly to make similar points that they are best equipped to lead the country through dangerous international times.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a staunch advocate of the Iraq war, noted that: "In my numerous visits to Pakistan - to Islamabad, to Peshawar, even to the tribal areas of Waziristan - I have seen first hand the many challenges that face the political leadership there, challenges so graphically portrayed by today's tragedy. There are, in Pakistan, brave individuals who seek to lead their country away from extremism and instability and into the light of a better day. America, I believe, must do all we can to support them."

Former governor Mitt Romney, who is battling McCain for the lead among Republicans in the New Hampshire primary, added that "For those who think Iraq is the sole front in the War on Terror, one must look no further than what has happened today. America must show its commitment to stand with all moderate forces across the Islamic world and together face the defining challenge of our generation - the struggle against violent, radical jihadists."

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, the Republican frontrunner in Iowa, said: "The terrible violence surrounding Pakistan's upcoming election stands in stark contrast to the peaceful transition of power that we embrace in our country through our Constitution. On this sad day, we are reminded that while our democracy has flaws, it stands as a shining beacon of hope for nations and people around the world who seek peace and opportunity through self-government."

Democrats quickly weighed in too, with statements from Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Barack Obama (Ill.) and Joseph Biden (Del.), former senator John Edwards (N.C.) and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

Clinton said at the start of a campaign event in Iowa that "I have known Benazir Bhutto for a dozen years and I knew her as a leader. I knew her as someone willing to take risks." And Obama said: "I am shocked and saddened by the death of Benazir Bhutto in this terrorist atrocity" and that Americans would stand with the Pakistani people "in their quest for democracy and against the terrorists who threaten the common security of the world."

Richardson declared that the United States government cannot stand by and allow Pakistan's return to democracy to be derailed or delayed by violence. "We must use our diplomatic leverage and force the enemies of democracy to yield: President Bush should press [Pakistan President Pervez] Musharraf to step aside, and a broad-based coalition government, consisting of all the democratic parties, should be formed immediately," he said. "Until this happens, we should suspend military aid to the Pakistani government. Free and fair elections must also be held as soon as possible."

While it's too soon to fully gauge the effects here of Bhutto's assassination, it could well work most to Giuliani's benefit by enabling him to thrust himself back into the daily political conversation after steadily losing ground to McCain and Huckabee. With his decision to all but skip Iowa and play only at the margins in the New Hampshire primary, Giuliani has watched as the campaign in its final stages has largely passed him by.

But, with the Bhutto's death and the broader implications of the fight against terrorism worldwide likely to dominate the coverage for the next day or two (at a minimum), Giuliani immediately becomes relevant again.

The assassination coincides with Giuliani's decision to directly invoke the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in a new commercial that is running on broadcast channels in New Hampshire and Florida as well on cable nationally.

The key line? "Islamic terrorists would make a terrible mistake if they would confuse our democracy with weakness."

Giuliani must hope that the Bhutto assassination will remind voters that terrorists can strike anywhere, any time, and that with his experience as mayor of New York at the time of the 9-11 attack, he would be best qualified among all the presidential candidates to navigate those dangerous waters.

And, before the reader criticism comes rolling in, we acknowledge that the assassination of Bhutto is an international tragedy. But, The Fix is a political blog -- no apologies for that -- and ANY event with this sort of international reach is sure to impact the way in which people think about the candidates and the campaign in this country. So, we write about it -- and will continue to do so.

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 27, 2007; 11:25 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain vs. Romney: The Sequel
Next: The Friday Line: Unforeseen Events Intrude

Comments

"But, with the Bhutto's death and the broader implications of the fight against terrorism worldwide likely to dominate the coverage for the next day or two (at a minimum), Giuliani immediately becomes relevant again."

This is an unfounded conclusion that has no basis in fact - except for people who are brain-dead. Rudy has absolutely no foreign policy knowledge or experience - and he did nothing to prevent terrorist attacks - he made the devastation of the one we got even worse by sole sourcing defective radios for the NYFF; he has no good judgment; he put the command center at the WTC after it had been attacked. The guy is a mafia-connected yo-yo egomaniac who would be yet another disaster for this country.

Posted by: jo1028fraser | December 30, 2007 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Any answer will not do anymore dave. People want real answers, now and in the future. Any old propognada will not do anymore. an uncahllenged statement will no longer do. We are a nation of and by the people. you can't say this is the way it is and deal with it. this is america. You may have your reasons. But bush is not king. if the american people are not with him, then the country isn't. You people forget we are not a monarchy. Put it all on the table I say.

Your president, his choice not ours, has been a disaster. Would you for once acknowledge reality?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 28, 2007 6:22 PM | Report abuse

GordonsGirl - "THIS is the question that must be answered."
OK. Because there are people that believe that the US can chew gum and walk at the same time. Because defeating al-Qaeda and the like minded philosophies of the backwards ME requires a multipronged approach. One prong is to go after al-Qaeda where ever they currently are and are heading - and they are in Iraq. Waterboarding and other hard interrogations, secret CIA prisons, Gitmo, wiretapping, Patriot act are the way the adminstration has chosen to go after al-Qaeda. You may not agree with those methods but only a person that has had their head in the sand thinks that the US has been ignoring al-Qaeda for six years. A second prong is to try to bring about change in the region and try to get them to see the value in democracy, freedom and liberty. Those are not the only prongs but they are the main two and they should answer your question.

Posted by: dave | December 28, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

This HELPS Giuliani and Clinton? Only because no one in the media, debates or public has dared ask them:

"Why did you support Pres. Bush's decision to forego his focus on bringing al Qaeda to justice, instead turning tail into Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein?"

THIS is the question that must be answered. We've been virtually ignoring al Qaeda for nearly half a decade. Clinton and Giuliani both need to specifically answer their support for Bush's fateful decision.

Posted by: GordonsGirl | December 28, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

"Interestingly, the real loser isn't mentioned here. The assassination seems to reflect the continuing failure of Bush administration (or should we say Cheney administration) foreign policy. The candidates, esp. the Republicans need to be clear where they stand vis a vis. the obvious policy and implementation failures of the current administration. Yet, Chris doesn't seem to recognize this.....

Posted by: thebuckguy | December 27, 2007 09:30 PM
"

well said. Somehow all terror helps the republcains. that's not a very good place to be. Think about it logically. TERROR ATTACKS HELP THE GOP. Are they in with the terrorists? Gas has doubled since bush has been in office.

The real countries hiding and helping terrorists, are bushes closest allies (pakistan and suadi a). It just so happens those are the two countires that attacked us then protected the killers.

I want to reneg on somethings I said here yesterday. Bhutto was being put in by the bush admin, or helped to. i had mocked somewho for that point yesterday. But he/she was right. I'm not sure if that makes it better or wrse for the bush/cheaney admin. I say worse.

You will get no acknowledgements or corrections from the gop and the zouk/rush/oreillys of the world. They don't do corrections or accountability.

Still, bush and his party of indebt to the terrorists. What would the gop be without the threat of terrorism? What else do they have as a party platform, other than terrorizing the populance? Terror helps the gop? Then they are terrorists.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 28, 2007 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Is it any wonder that Americans rank journalists with politicians in terms of respect? Is the news cycle now moving so quickly that The Fix couldn't wait a day to trivialize her death?

Sure, it's a political blog, but one would have hoped that a modicum of propriety and human decency trumped that agenda for at least long enough to consider that most Americans, upon hearing politicians' scrambling to beat themselves to take advantage of Ms. Bhutto's assassination, ask not "Who will profit?," but rather "Who comes off like less of a vulture in the aftermath?"

Of course, it's difficult to get a sense of this larger picture when you're busy feeding on the corpse yourself.

Posted by: triskaidekamanic | December 27, 2007 10:28 PM | Report abuse

What was Ron Paul's reaction to Bhutto's assassination? He's the only Republican who seems to understand we do harm by injecting ourselves into every trouble spot. Didn't he make a statement, Mr. Cillizza?

Posted by: darrengreway | December 27, 2007 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Interestingly, the real loser isn't mentioned here. The assassination seems to reflect the continuing failure of Bush administration (or should we say Cheney administration) foreign policy. The candidates, esp. the Republicans need to be clear where they stand vis a vis. the obvious policy and implementation failures of the current administration. Yet, Chris doesn't seem to recognize this.....

Posted by: thebuckguy | December 27, 2007 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Watch them stamp the assassination with their house brands. Giuliani squawks "9/11" and "terrorists." Huckabee says he is going to pray. Romney says "jihadists." What a disgusting trio they make.

Posted by: jdadson | December 27, 2007 9:19 PM | Report abuse

I see the silly twits over here blathering on and on about Clinton and the primary still. A little something for you to think about: Hillary Clinton received a significant portion of her senatorial and presidential campaign money from Indian business interests and she (and hubby) is viewed in Pakistan as being in the pocket of India to the extent that no Pakistani politician will have a thing to do with either of them. Now, the "word on the street" in Pakistan has been that India and he U.S. will attempt to seize their nuclear weapons in the present eventuality. So, nationalist elements of the military have dispersed them and hidden several. A Clinton victory will be viewed as a slap-in-the-face, worse than the one administered by Bush thus far, and will remove all possible influence we have on Pakistan with disastrous consequences.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 27, 2007 07:46 PM

You know the word on the street is that your complete lack of supporting evidence says much about the content of your post. With respect to the Indians, who are very fine people as a whole, do you not recognize the FACT that India is highly influenced by US corporations?

As far as candidates statements, if Obama was indeed shocked by this event I am inclined to think maybe he doesn't have the experience one should have to be President. This was pretty much seen as a done deal when Mushie let her back into the country. She, as sad as it is, was the sacrificial lamb, We are likely, in my opinion to see a similar event in the upcoming year.

Posted by: RetCombatVet | December 27, 2007 8:46 PM | Report abuse

In your opinion is Benazir Bhutto a victim of Islamic Extremists or President of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf?


http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1382

.

Posted by: PollM | December 27, 2007 8:12 PM | Report abuse

I see the silly twits over here blathering on and on about Clinton and the primary still. A little something for you to think about: Hillary Clinton received a significant portion of her senatorial and presidential campaign money from Indian business interests and she (and hubby) is viewed in Pakistan as being in the pocket of India to the extent that no Pakistani politician will have a thing to do with either of them. Now, the "word on the street" in Pakistan has been that India and he U.S. will attempt to seize their nuclear weapons in the present eventuality. So, nationalist elements of the military have dispersed them and hidden several. A Clinton victory will be viewed as a slap-in-the-face, worse than the one administered by Bush thus far, and will remove all possible influence we have on Pakistan with disastrous consequences.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 27, 2007 7:46 PM | Report abuse

KingofZouk says >>>those of us who live and work in DC on actual pressing scientific, legal, political and military issues, can afford to be amused by these grown up adolescents. the wealth in this country is astounding, consider that somehow, those imbeciles manage to eat and sleep indoors.

but those of us who actually are responsible for policies and laws do not have the luxury of attacking everyone we meet. In fact, the things we do have to make sense - something that eternally escapes the likes of drindl and rufas.<<<

I take it you must either be retired or on vacation. Otherwise, given the massive number of posts you've placed here today, your employer is paying you for work you're obviously not doing. You speak of "not having the luxury to attack everyone we meet," while you're doing precisely that here. And I fail to see how you can waste so much worktime on this site while pontificating that "the things we do have to make sense," when arguing ad infinitum with total strangers to achieve no logical purpose. The only thing lacking that would make you a perfect hypocrite would be if you were a government employee as well, playing for hours on the Internet and complaining about how our tax dollars are being wasted while stealing them yourself with your endless foolishness.

Whomever it was that made the observation that you're a master of projection nailed you perfectly, Zouk. Get a real job.

Posted by: whatmeregister | December 27, 2007 7:41 PM | Report abuse

While you mentioned that Biden had comments you did not say what they were although you covered all the others that you wrote had comments. Did you not feel that Senator Bidens comments were worth repeating or have you joined the rest of the press in writing him out of the race-----a self fulling prophesy

Posted by: algalli | December 27, 2007 7:25 PM | Report abuse

aFTER RADING ZZ'ING RUDY LOVE FEST, i CAME TO A REALIZATION. Zouk is cc.

CC you are zouk aren't you, you lsy dog. There's one why to run a blog. The WaPo is a joke. CC is a joke. I just come here to make sure any progressive liberals that come here , or are pointed here by others, hear the truth. not lies smears and propoganda. Soembody's got to do it. Cc's not. no one here was before i arrived.

Previous you had a zouk, simon proud and mark in austin gop sewing circle. i'm glad to see how far this site has come in terms of news, differance of opinion, and back and forth. No thansk to cc/zouk.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 7:08 PM | Report abuse

An ultimately moronic column; Giuliani only looks good compared with Bush (whose response was pathetic). Pakistan is fractured, troubled country and not exactly like the US or a European democracy (or even an Asian semi-democracy). It's shame Dan Froomkin doesn't have this slot, he'd at least have thought through what to write....

Posted by: thebuckguy | December 27, 2007 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Sick. That article is from parade, but linked to by drudge. A disclaimer if you read. It is a hit piece, like always.

Just thought I'd add something as this site is done for the day

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Right after 9/11, Rudy went to court to get them to suspend the November election for mayor. He claimed only he could lead the city, and his soon to end mayoral term should be extended indefinitely, as he worked fevorishly to restore order. Of course Bloomberg was not happy to see Rudy do this. Fortunately, the court told Rudy to bag his ass and the election for mayor would not be suspended....Fast forward to October, 2008, and George Bush declares martial law, and says he will remain President, and that the constitution is suspended, and there will not be an election in November, as only he can fight terrorism as a sitting President. Same con that Rudy tried to pull. Don't believe it ?? Fact check Rudy with Google, or any other search engine you believe in, or ask any NEW YORKER, and learn the truth about Hiz Honor, tough guy Rudy.

Posted by: drivensnow2525 | December 27, 2007 6:48 PM | Report abuse

The reality is that none of these candidates make me feel any safer. On the contrary, our politicians' naive meddling in Pakistan's affairs put our own domestic security at great risk. Musharaff is not a good guy. This planet is not heaven. Let's acknowledde as much. If we should advocate modernization, then we ought to set a truly modern standard: begin to disarm ourselves. If nuclear non-proliferation is all the rage worldwide, then we can mitigate the need for developing nations to develop mass weaponry. Eliminate the threat to their sovereignty, and you will simultaneously eliminate our own threat at home. Not to mention all the money we'll all save from reducing our impressive, manly defense budgets. More money to service the domestic arena. Happy New Year's! Stop Rudy Guiliani!

Eugene Debs '08

Posted by: legan00 | December 27, 2007 6:46 PM | Report abuse

the preamble to the above story that is going to be released on jan 08

"PARADE EXCLUSIVE

email story

print story'A Wrong Must Be Righted'
An interview with Benazir Bhutto


By Gail Sheehy
Published: December 27, 2007

"Editor's note: We are all saddened by the murder this morning of Pakistan's Benazir Bhutto. The assassination adds more danger and confusion to the already chaotic situation in the region.

In late November, PARADE sent Contributing Editor Gail Sheehy to Pakistan. Sheehy traveled with former prime minister Benazir Bhutto as she campaigned through her home provinces. Sheehy had two long interviews with her--the first in Bhutto's home in Islamabad, a second at her residence outside Karachi. Bhutto told Sheehy that she had long been a target of terrorists. She knew she was also now a target of the Musharraf government. Today's suicide bombing mirrors the earlier attempt on her life that Bhutto described to Sheehy.

The interview with Bhutto will be the cover story of PARADE on January 6, 2008
"

r

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 6:46 PM | Report abuse

fyi

"Dust spirals from village to village across the countryside of Pakistan. Drums lead men to dance in the streets as they witness the reappearance of their revered leader. No matter how long and hard I look, there are no women. Except her.

Ben-a-zir, zindabd! the men chant. Long live Benazir!

Benazir Bhutto has returned to her fractured country to run for prime minister this Tuesday. She has ruled twice before--and twice been overthrown. Her caravan continually switches direction to foil suicide bombers. Only a few weeks earlier, she narrowly escaped blasts that slaughtered 170 of her supporters. Now I watch her stand tall atop a truck, waving, white-scarved. Serenely smiling.

That evening, Bhutto invites me to her ancestral home in Larkana, where she still presides over several thousand acres of feudal lands. Meeting me alone on the men's side, she is ready to let down her veil.

Today I saw you campaigning essentially unprotected, I say. How do you do it?

In answer, she invokes her late father, Zulfikar Bhutto, a populist reformer and the nation's first democratic prime minister. "From the day my father was hanged--I was 25--whenever there is a crisis, I go into a kind of detachment. 'What should I be doing?' I just start ticking off steps. I don't feel."

Like her country, Bhutto is a riddle. Brilliant, beautiful, fearless, she is also ruthlessly ambitious, devious and corrupt. The first question that perplexes an American: How could Bhutto -- Harvard- and Oxford-educated, unapologetically secular -- have become the first woman elected to lead a Muslim country? In part, the answer is that in dynastic Pakistan, she is effectively royalty. The second question: Why should this election matter so much to America? That answer is simpler. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Also, the most dangerous place in the world is Pakistan's lawless border with Afghanistan. It is a Ho Chi Minh Trail of terrorism where Osama bin Laden is believed to enjoy sanctuary.

Bhutto maintains that the Pakistani army's decision to overthrow her in 1996 came after she announced plans to crack down on terrorism. "I am what the terrorists most fear," she tells me, "a female political leader fighting to bring modernity to Pakistan. Now they're trying to kill me."

Talat Masood, a retired general who has advised Bhutto, foresees his nation breaking in half. " The only option left to the people of Pakistan," he says, "is the military or the militants."

Or another try at democracy under Bhutto.

. . .

During our talk in Larkana, Bhutto weeps in describing her struggles after being ousted 12 years ago on charges of plundering the treasury. Her husband was jailed without charges. She faced constant harassment by the courts. Even while living with her three children in self-imposed exile in London and Dubai, she could not open a bank account or use a credit card because of the charges against her in Pakistan. "I didn't have the press, I didn't have the judiciary, I was all alone," she whimpers. As if on cue, tears fall. "I only had God," she moans.

Bhutto still insists that there are no foreign bank accounts in her name. I suggest that most are in the names of her mother or of friends. She feigns surprise--what could others' finances have to do with her? "I'm an independent legal entity!" she protests. "What's the difference between you and me?"

"One point five billion dollars," I reply--the amount the Pakistani government contends that she and her husband pocketed while in power. She also allegedly siphoned funds from the U.N. Oil for Food program. Her defense: "Six other companies in Pakistan did it. Nobody investigated them."

Beneath the theatrics Bhutto uses to such effect is an ominous reality. "She's the No. 1 target of the terrorists right now," says Humayun Gauhar, a confidant of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

Bhutto says she first heard the name Osama bin Laden in 1989, when he sent $10 million to the ISI, Pakistan's infamous intelligence service, to help it overthrow her first government. The ISI has close ties to radical Islamists and was responsible for the Taliban's rise to power in Afghanistan. America's CIA, which also supported the Afghan holy warriors in their guerrilla struggle against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, continues to work with the ISI today--theoretically in suppressing the very terrorist legions it helped to create.

"Benazir tried to push the intelligence service out of politics in her first term," acknowledges America's ambassador to Pakistan at the time, Robert Oakley. "It was a bold move, but it failed."

"I was ignorant of the extremist war of these new radical Islamists until my second term," Bhutto tells me. Upon re-election in 1993, she learned of more attempts to assassinate her from the interrogation of a Pakistani terrorist named Ramzi Yousef--the mastermind of the 1993 bombing of New York's World Trade Center. That investigation also revealed to her the existence of madrassas, or Islamic schools, preaching jihad against the West.

Bhutto tried once more to break the ISI. Again, she failed and was overthrown--and, with ISI support, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan became the staging ground for 9/11.

. . .

To understand why Bhutto is so driven, one must imagine her huddling with her mother in a cold jail cell through a long April night in 1979, waiting for her father to be hanged by the military strongman who had overthrown him. The young woman and her mother subsequently lived through repeated raids, arrests and solitary confinement.

Have you healed? I ask this 54-year-old survivor. Or is avenging your father your solace?

"I feel that a wrong must be righted," she says. She recalls her father's parting words: "You can walk away. You're young. You can go to live in London or Paris or Geneva."

"No," she told him. "I have to keep up this mission of yours, of democracy."

Bhutto's own family dismisses her little-girl-lost script. "Her father's death was enormously convenient for her politically," her American-educated niece, Fatima Bhutto, tells me. "She has no legacy of her own except for corruption and violence, so she rests on her father's laurels." Fatima blames her aunt for her own father's assassination in 1996.

Reflecting on the lessons of her two terms as prime minister, Bhutto tells me, "It's only now that America has awakened to what we were already fighting--Islamic jihadis." Fortunately for her, the West's urgent fear of Pakistan as a breeding ground for terrorists has given Bhutto the chance to redefine herself. During most of her exile, she was considered irrelevant by Washington. Then she hired Hillary Clinton's image-maker, Mark Penn, and began playing up to Musharraf.

When Musharraf's popularity dove in 2007 after his jailing of judges, lawyers and journalists, Bhutto suddenly emerged as America's "ideal." U.S. politicians needed her--progressive, secular, female, willing to compromise--to put a face of democracy on their support for Musharraf's autocratic rule.

True to form, Bhutto manipulated Musharraf to erase the charges against her, promising not to return to Pakistan until after national elections. She then broke that promise. But once she sensed that even her stalwarts were appalled at an arranged political marriage to a dictator, she spurned Musharraf and became her own woman again.

I sense a dark reflection in both Bhutto's psychological history and her country's constant turmoil--a compulsion to repeat past traumas. A prime example is the way she returned to her country on Oct. 18.

Ignoring warnings of terrorist cells plotting to kill her, Bhutto presided from atop a caravan over a parade that took 10 hours to snake through Karachi. Near midnight, the streetlights went out. The police disappeared. Her feet swollen from standing, Bhutto ducked below into a steel command center to remove her sandals. Moments later, a bomb went off. "I had a sickening, sickening feeling," she tells me. She now believes the bomb was wired to an infant that a man had been trying to hand to her. She recalls saying to the people with her, "Don't go outside--another blast will follow." It did.

When she finally emerged, Bhutto saw bits of brain and flesh and fingers from 20 members of Benazir's Brigade--the young guards who wear red shirts proclaiming "I Give My Life for Bhutto" -- decorating the platform from which she had waved. All told, 170 of her supporters died. Tellingly, the Musharraf government has mounted no investigation.

Her friend Abida Hussain, a former Pakistani ambassador to the U.S., tells me that Bhutto later felt sad and asked, "How many lives did I risk?" Bhutto herself indignantly protests this anecdote to me. "I said no such thing! We must be out on the streets, or the terrorists win."

Such is politics in Pakistan.

. . .

Musharraf called the attempt on Bhutto a suicide attack by Islamic extremists. Bhutto believes it was the work of Musharraf's allies. "There are rogue elements within ISI that are ideologically jihadist and less than enthusiastic about Benazir Bhutto becoming prime minister a third time," says a Bhutto adviser. However, Musharraf's confidant Gauhar argues to me: "We don't want a dead Benazir on our hands! She'd be just another unlikely martyr that we don't need."

If Bhutto returns to power this week, Gauhar predicts the U.S. will finally get what Musharraf has refused it: "She will allow NATO boots on the ground in our tribal areas and a chance to neuter our nuclear weapons." Yet President Bush remains reluctant to give up on Musharraf, despite the fact that two-thirds of Pakistanis want him to resign immediately. If the election is rigged, as expected, public outrage is likely to erupt. Bhutto says she won't join an illegitimate government. But her niece, Fatima Bhutto, says, "She'll work with anyone to get back into power."

Despite the corrosion of her reputation by corruption and compromise, Bhutto appears to be America's strongest anchor in the effort to turn back the extremist Islamic tide threatening to engulf Pakistan. What would you like to tell President Bush? I ask this riddle of a woman.

She would tell him, she replies, that propping up Musharraf's government, which is infested with radical Islamists, is only hastening disaster. "I would say, 'Your policy of supporting dictatorship is breaking up my country.' I now think al-Qaeda can be marching on Islamabad in two to four years."

"

http://www.parade.com/benazir_bhutto_interview.html

r

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 6:43 PM | Report abuse

drindl says:
"beaten by logic, reason and fact, resort to sexual, absurdist attacks"

I must have missed all that logic and above board humor in all your posts, for example the following:


didja get larry craig for christmas, zouk, like you asked santa? i recall you said you wanted a 'ho' with a 'wide stance' -- remember?
dec. 24 post if anyone cares to verify.

ho ho ho...

Posted by: claudialong | December 27, 2007 03:48 PM

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 6:42 PM | Report abuse

'The good thing about drindl and rufas is that they are much too busy bloggin on this site all day'

this from someone who posts every 2 minutes, every day for 7 hours. and the classic?

'why don't you analyze the issues her dress wearing husband and closeted kid must have.'

when totally beaten by logic, reason and fact, resort to sexual, absurdist attacks on families and children. really, there is no bottom for these people.

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2007 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Hey it's not fair to call Huckabee a loser on this. He hasn't even heard about it yet. Maybe he'll read about it in tomorrow's papers.

Posted by: rich5 | December 27, 2007 6:27 PM | Report abuse

"The good thing about drindl and rufas is that they are much too busy bloggin on this site all day and studying other leftist hate sites to do any real harm."

ZOUK

that's the great thing about the internet. I can be at all places at all times. The world Is my oyster. I thought you knew that by me telling you (and others here)what is happening in the world daily, and in the future. Judge my posts in the future, not now. Go dig through the archeives. What what I said come to light. And see zouk exposed for the liar and coward that he is.

The problemw ith the zouks is the truth never enters the equation. He can be wrong over and over, jsut like his masters, yet he keeps on propogating. It's funny to me. I wonder if anyone not a clone dittohead is buying their garbage. I doubt it

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Peanut gallery. No body cares about a fascist pig propognadists diagnosis. Not with all the mental problem s you have. you are so toguh zouk. Why not enlist? Are you to old to pu your life where you mouth is?

If so then serve your coutnry in other ways. Stop being a propognadist sabouter. As far as your prognostication. Time will tell. Name one thing you have ever been right about, on this site. Really. when has anything you have ever said here come to pass? All you do is attack clinton and lib's. you got nothing. you got nothing.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 6:16 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP,
you have a point about Speaker Pelosi. This is classic bait and switch. I wanted to see some real movement on Iraqi and illegal immigration and would have been happy if this was still a work-in-progress... that is both sides could agree on doing something even small. What the People got instead is a stalemate which means we are stuck with the status quo.

Posted by: Dr._Pop | December 27, 2007 6:14 PM | Report abuse

dr pop - no one escapes the put downs of drindl.

why don't you analyze the issues her dress wearing husband and closeted kid must have.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi's list of accomplishments must be calculated in dog years - just liike hillarys "35 years" of experience. do you divide by 7 or 12, I can't remember?

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 6:10 PM | Report abuse

claudialong,
ouch!! :)

Please forgive me of my typing error. Maybe you are right, I have been listening to Rush a bit to long! I hope that wasn't a Freudian slip. :)

Posted by: Dr._Pop | December 27, 2007 6:08 PM | Report abuse

The good thing about drindl and rufas is that they are much too busy bloggin on this site all day and studying other leftist hate sites to do any real harm.

those of us who live and work in DC on actual pressing scientific, legal, political and military issues, can afford to be amused by these grown up adolescents. the wealth in this country is astounding, consider that somehow, those imbeciles manage to eat and sleep indoors.

but those of us who actually are responsible for policies and laws do not have the luxury of attacking everyone we meet. In fact, the things we do have to make sense - something that eternally escapes the likes of drindl and rufas.

so to those of you who actually contribute something concrete instead of daily moonbattery, I say - thanks for your input, effort and ideas.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Dr pop, the Dems could have gotten more of what they wanted had they played their cards right. But they were more interested in making a point than making law, or actually producing legislation, you know , like their supposed to do as legislators. That tactic didn't get them very far.

And don't be fooled by Pelosi's trumped up list of accomplishments, soon to hit the airwaves. She's creating a new definition of "bipartisan" just to make herself look like an effective leader. (snort) I guess it depends on the meaning of "is".

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 27, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

'Democrat Congressmen'

the correct term is 'Democratic Congressmen, or Congressmember' -- guess you've been lsitening to Limbaugh too long.

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Something tells me drindl has a lot of experience talking to head doctors. Or clearly should get started immediately.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

"At the very least, the Democrat Congressmen could have figured out a way to blame their adversaries but even here they dropped the ball. And I'm not listening to the argument of obstructionist politics because of the record use of the filibuster by the Republicans. The Congressional rules allow for the filibuster; therefore, it is not an obstructionist tactic. Just deal with it.

Posted by: Dr._Pop | December 27, 2007 05:48 PM
"

Right pop. But we can at least point it out. That the gop has broke the records for filibusters. I to agree that the mormon republican in disguise (Reid) has sold the movement out. And pelosi has been a coward. Where is cindy sheehan when you need her. :)


In terms of bhutto. It will be interesting to see how the spinsters spin it. Cnn and wolf did the right thing. you know what fox will do. It will be interesting to see the reportage this weekend and week.

that may sound cold. LEt me say again, this was a huge blow. for many reasons. We are not getting bin laden, anytime soon, as he is protected by bush and his allies. The threat of extreamists givin nukes is at hand. A turbulent muslim country in the middle east is goign to start more war in the region. All bad things. But for the gop to say this is good for them. to me, shows what they are about. If they benief from terrorism at every level, power money, how are they not terrorists?

If bin laden is public enemy #1 why did his family flee the country with bush approval? Why are the saudi's, who are providing weapons to kill americans, not being given the same treatment as iran? Read the signs. It's not rocket science.

I had thought you gop'ers were just getting lied to. once the liars were exposed and you got worse, it showed you fascist faces.

The time for civility is long over. Play time is over. I bet the man that shot Bhutto was smiling. does that mean he is not a terrorist and a murderer? Same with you grinning foot tappers. civility? you can keep it.

I am a former army infantry soldier 11B. Better for me to vent here that in the real world. And zouk and those like them stirring the nest. you have a year. don't tim mcveigh us when your party is irrelevant for 30 years. remember your leaders incompetance and criminaity.

I will not stop. you have to pull me from this site again. The only power you thoguht police meat puppet clowns have over me is the power I give you. I'm not submitting.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Racje writes: "I would like to see someone with Richardson's grasp ...in the White House."

The only grasp Richardson has is on a big greasy cheesburger, or alternately, the hind quarters of his administrative assistant. Hi ideas about handling US foriegn policy are so out in left field, not one of his fellow libs has endorsed or agreed with his platform of retreat and speedy surrender except Dennis Kucinich. As far as character and principles go, I'd sooner vote for Kucinich than Richardson.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 27, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

'dr pop - do you think that the pack of jackels which flood this site with hate and emotion can be persuaded?

classic. i rest my case, doc.

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP,
in response to your post about the Democrats pointing fingers at each other because of the lack of achievement, I agree with you.

I understand the power of the president's veto is a hard hurdle to overcome given the Dems slight majority; however, the lack of political acumen among some long tenured Democrat politicians is inexcusable.

At the very least, the Democrat Congressmen could have figured out a way to blame their adversaries but even here they dropped the ball. And I'm not listening to the argument of obstructionist politics because of the record use of the filibuster by the Republicans. The Congressional rules allow for the filibuster; therefore, it is not an obstructionist tactic. Just deal with it.

Posted by: Dr._Pop | December 27, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Also, as I've said here. I come to HELP balance out the fascist propognadists. I'm here to should you why fox and rush should be pulled. If you would ban or silence me, which has been done, then you should not complin about lying fascist propogandists for profit (with conflict of interests up the wazoo) being pulled also.

Right mark in austin?

If I can be silenced, so can the lying pig propogandists. And they will be. Remember how you people ran the show zouk. I don't want to hear any "free speech" arguements when rush and fox and coulter and malkin and savage and on and on are pulled. Reagan destroyed political dialogue, by removing the fairness doctirne, soon we will be able to re-unite this nation again. Without those that make millions off dividing us for profit.

I just wish the gop would willingly do what needs to be done. They don't. party loyalists that choose treason over thier own country. I had hoped once all these old people were realizing they were getting lied to they would turn on fox. Nope. they ove their lies and propoganda.

Tiem to cut their chains. wheter they walk out of the cave is up to them. All we can do is cut your chains

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

r

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

tHAT'S CALLED TRUTH ZOUK. Wacthing waht you watch and listening to what you listen to would only come off as an attack. that is the problem. You fascist meat puppets are incapable of recognizing facts.

Like I said last week. I may want the 49ers to win the superbowl. If I came out today that the niners are going to win the superbowl I might lose crediblity, no? Same with you.

You may be pulling for this country, AS WE ALL ARE. But that doesn't mean we scrap any and all laws. It doesn't mean we are inable to see the wrongs happening boefore our eyes, and our freedoms from being pulled from under our feet.

That is what got the nazi's. Their inability to see the truth right in front of their eyes. you fascists propogandaist who still call themselves gop memebers are equivalnet to nazi's, In my humble opinon.

I see nothign wrong with posting truths as dirndl did here. What I do have a problem with is people liek you lying and misleading voters to get fascists elected. Or murdering people then saying that is why you should be elected. To protect.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

"persuading people to different points of views "

dr pop - do you think that the pack of jackels which flood this site with hate and emotion can be persuaded? you must be new around here.

Persuasion is the result of facts, figures, logic, reason and yes tone and tenor. but to confront the radical hystericalism that is vented on this blog minute by minute by the moonbat left requires a thick skin and an ability to ignore the noise. On occasion, an intelligent poster emerges, such as yourself, who sticks out as open to conversation, at which point the thinking bloggers respond accordingly.

In the meantime, drindl and rufas are insulting everyone in sight and spreading their message of intolerance and disgust. when thay make any sense at all, that is.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Sutter commented, "And NO Republican would dare mention the fact that U.S. arming of Islamic rebels fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan might have played a role in the Taliban (strong allies of Al Qaeda) come to power."

Ron Paul is a Republican running for president. He has always spoken strongly and consistently on the folly of US interventionism in the middle east. Mr. Cillizza consistently omits mention of the only candidate from either party who advocates ending the US misadventures, meddling, and expenditures over there.

We should thank the Washington Post for the comments section. Without it, of what use would these opinion pieces be?

Posted by: jdadson | December 27, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Actually it goes downhill the minute drindl shows, usually the first or second post of the day and the last one too:

'Bhutto's assassination could well work to Giuliani's benefit'

I have to say, CC, that this is one of the most nauseating comments I have ever read-and speaks volumes about the nature of media and politics in this country.

But it also demonstrate Rudy's naked lust for power, that he would immediately jump on a tragedy and use it to further his career, much like he jumped atop the burning bodies of 9/11 to begin his campaign for president.

It is clear that Guiliani will use any means, will capitalize on any human tragedy, will do anything to feed his massive ego and gain unfettered power and access to vast amounts of wealth.

You might also note -- if you cared about accuracy, CC -- that this was an ASSINATION -- which might well have been carried out by our ally Mr. Mushareff [rather than 'terrorists'] as he had many reasons to what her dead before the elections next month.

I know you are shameless, but try, just this once.

Posted by: claudialong | December 27, 2007 10:50 AM

And it goes on like this all day every day of poor drindl's existence.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk,
you have captured the essence of what Dr. Pop is all about. I don't take myself that serious and I know I can be wrong even about things I've held as true for a very long time. This is why I listen to other people and synthesize their thoughts and ideas with mine own.

I believe this country is great because people like yourself will say or do something outrageous to shake people out of their complacent thinking. The problem I see with your posts are they are not motivated to persuading people to different points of views but rather to beat people down to your will. Your post dehumanizes people and creates an antagonistic environment.

Now, I have agreed with some of your post as I do with some of the things Rush Limbaugh has said but the language, volume and the tone is so negative I don't want to risk being associated.

Posted by: Dr._Pop | December 27, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Bill Richardson gets my vote for his perceptive, unfearful response that promotes democracy throughout the world. It's a reasoned, hopeful, and calming response that speaks for our values. He advocates using diplomatic leverage against the enemies of democracy, including Musharraf. I would like to see someone with Richardson's grasp of the goal (democracy) and the tools (diplomatic means) in the White House.

McCain aligns with Richardson in pursuit of reason, hope, and democracy.

Giuliani, on the other hand, seeks to stoke the fires of fear and violence, claiming again that the main problem in the world is the Terrorists' War on Us. Romney echoes Giuliani.

The other candidates seem a bit muffled at this point.

Posted by: Racje | December 27, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

"Opposition leader Nawaz Sharif boycotting Jan. 8 elections, says Musharraf should resign immediately and calls for nationwide strike... Developing..."

r

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

'Why does this post always seem to devolve into personal attacks against each other?'

follow the logical and reasnable tenor of the morning discussion. then see how it goes immediately downhill into the gutter and sandbox after 2:15, and you will have your answer.

'you just can't make this stuff up! Like clockwork, Dems once again prove their ineffectiveness in government....'

here's another classic head case, Doc -- our economy is heading into the toilet, our foreign policy is in shambles, we have the biggest foreign and trade deficits in history -- and a REPUBLICAN says this. you just can't make this stuff up.

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

"Win the war, ignore the polls bush
Same view as last year, no polls needed McCain
Kill the enemy, cut taxes Guiliani


Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 05:15 PM
"

And your percieved enemies are liberals the media judges actors musicaian, anyone not a gop clone. So you hate a lot of people. Everyone not exactly like you people are your enemies. That's the problem. We are all americans. You fascists make a living dividing and inciting violence agaisnt americans. That's why you are traitors and fascists. In zouk, rush o'reilly and the like's case, they are propogandists.

If you are a propogandist and you are professing fascist principles, are you then a fascist propogandist? Ues you are. Zouk, rush, or'eiily. that is why all the hatred. These fascists lied for fun. I think zouk giggles like a 11 year old school girl over the angr he causes.

He is a traitor. When the doj is up and running again, we know what do do with traitors. Zouk once asked, "show me where treason is illegal". That is the mentality we are dealing with. Enjoy your propogandists while they last. Enjoy the last year of these games. When obama or edwards comes into office, play time is over.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Come gop. what does attacking democrats have with the topic at hand. I know you can't help yourself, drug dealer, but stay on topic.

for the sake of blog flow. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Now if only drindl would change her blog name to "head jackel", you'd have a two-fer zouk. :)

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 27, 2007 04:55 PM

You know that "truth in labeling" would end the Dem party. who would vote for "no controlling legal authority gore", or "she paid for it Kerry" or "criminal conspiracy clinton" or "I see dead people Edwards" or even "hope will have to do Obama".

the Rs however might profit from this:

Pick one:

Win the war, ignore the polls bush
Same view as last year, no polls needed McCain
Kill the enemy, cut taxes Guiliani

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

You just can't make this stuff up! Like clockwork, Dems once again prove their ineffectiveness in government....

With Democrats emerging victorious just a year ago in the 2006 midterm elections claiming a mandate to drive the country in a new direction, one would have hardly predicted headlines like "Bush, GOP prevail in host of Hill issues" in the Associated Press, "Dems cave on spending" in the Hill, and the Politico's "Liberals lose bigtime in budget battle."

And then, like jackels, they turn on each other... one Washington Post headline declared, "Democrats Blaming Each Other for Failures." The article cited House Dems accusing their Senate counterparts of selling out and folding.

In December 2006, Reid said in an interview, "legislation is the art of compromise and consensus building and I'm going to compromise." House Democrats have yet to embrace this theme.

Here's the problem; they overreached after the honeymoon period and frittered away high expectations by taking a sharp turn to the left. Bad idea. Dems in Congress get a failing grade for the year.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 27, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

bsimon,
yes Carolyn Hax would have her hands full. I think these bloggs are very therapeutic though. bloggs has replaced road rage as a safer form of venting against what we perceive as idiotic.

Posted by: Dr._Pop | December 27, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

"Can you now do the same about stupid statements from your side?" Point them out and I will consider it.

Dr pop - I have found that most people that go into the field of psychology and express an interest in it suffer from self-identity issues. they are confused about them selves and begin to study to try to figure it out logically. then they run into the wall when the math isn't there, just a bunch of silly generalities, like "must have mother issues", or "needs attention", which is utterly useless in practice. then the Fruedian idea of talk, talking kicks in - no end in sight, immense bills and weekly trips to the cathedral of this new religion. now that I put it that way, I can see why you Libs like to so much, it costs a lot, it goes on forever, there are no metrics for success, if you challange it, you can be labeled heartless and all sorts of charletans can practice it.

you have definately found your nitch. but don't get too full of yourself. the rest of us think it is an amusing hobby, like palm reading, astrology or horoscopes.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Giuliani, whose Presidential campaign (and entire post-mayoral career) has exploited those killed in the WTC attacks, has about as much credibility (that is to say none) as all the other Republican candidates, with the exception of McCain. While I am a uncommitted Democrat (and would not vote for McCain for President), among Republicans he has the most experience (both military and in the Senate) to deal with these issues.

Posted by: rdwhite | December 27, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Damn. Where have you been SteelWheel1. Your on point opinion has been much needed on this blog.


do your thing. your cracking me up. HAHAHAHA

Everything you are saying has already been told to zouk the clown fascist. I come here to battle him so the rest are free to blog without peanut gallery arguments. also to free up others to say what they really feel. no one is a left as me, here.

I love it when people stand up to these bullies. But your right. It can only be done by playing by their rules. Once you understand their fascist rules, by watching their propognadists, it is impossible for people like him to win any verbal battle. How can he. He's not working with facts. He's not working with the whole deck.

Come back. Your opinion and comedy is much needed levitity here.

good luck and may God shine his wisdom and protection on you.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Dr POp writes
"What it does indicate is a person crying out for attention because nowhere else in his life has anyone paid him this much attention."

Dr Pop - Do you think Carolyn Hax could swing on by & give some advice on how to deal with such a needy personality?

Posted by: bsimon | December 27, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

I watch fox and o'reilly for the same reason. I try to explain this to zouk when he talks about how great their ratings are. I want more people to watch. It will accelerate them being pulled from the air.

How do you speak to a martian? you must learn martian from a martian. These people ahve lost their grip on reality. how can a reasonable man explain reason to these lunatics. HEre's waht you do. You read blog and get all teh information you can. you learn about what is really going on. then you see the small picture these old folk are givin by porpogandists. They are looking through a pin size window. Normal americans (non dittoheads) are not even in the house. It's to easy to rip these propogandists to shreds. The problem comes when they refuse to acknowledge reality.

The sky is red, right zouk? how can you debate reasonably with that. the gop is done.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Now if only drindl would change her blog name to "head jackel", you'd have a two-fer zouk. :)

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 27, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"I don't support the troops because they don't support the Constitution."

That is a totally idiot, irresponsible statement that as a Progressive I condemn, don't support and I doubt you can find progressives not condemning. People on both sides make irrisponsible statements but don't try and tar every Progressive with such lunacy. I fully condemn such unpatriotic statements as you. Can you now do the same about stupid statements from your side?

The bottom line is that this is a sad day for the world peace and that we should all, left and right, mourn the loss of this visionary and not look for political advantage from this loss. The first politician that states that gets my vote next November.

Posted by: iraleichtman | December 27, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"Likewise, going to a foreign contry and telling them what you want may sound appealing to loony Li9bs, but to other countries it leaves much to be desired.

I agree. Lest's get out of iraq and the middle east. let's pull out of korea and viet.

HAHAHHAHA

You are a clown zouk. Only here for all of our amusement. nobody wants your approval. Nobody other than you blogs for "jones effect", pat on the back approval. for a person as misinformed as you, you sure have a desire to share with others. Please crawl back under the rock you came from. The real world rejected fascism years ago. Now that the americans people see you party for what they really are, you are done. YOU CANNOT WIN ZOUK. It is impossible. You have already lost. You lost when the truth of all these scandels start leaking. Any one of which can send many of YOUR leaders to federal prison. If the doj was not filled with party loyalists like you bush and cheaney and rumy and teneat would all be in jail right now. If clinton or a r get's the nom they slide. Otherwise you are in for a rude awakening in a couple weeks.

you better hope the d nominee is clinton. That's your party's only hope. i doubt it though.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

ssmith,
you asked "Why does this post always seem to devolve into personal attacks against each other? Can't you people have reasonable disagreements without getting downright nasty toward anyone who disagrees?"

My answer to your question is...
That is how one gets notice.

It is rarely the reasonable among us that gets the attention but rather the loud and unreasonable. Rush Limbaugh is a genius in this regard because he saw the gold that can be made by being loud and unreasonable.

Just skim though this blogg and count the number of people that has responded to kingofzouk and they to them. Now kingofzouk rarely makes a good point but his language is always incendiary which in turn illicit many responses. Now kingozouk thinks this indicates strength in his argument but that thought is misplaced. What it does indicate is a person crying out for attention because nowhere else in his life has anyone paid him this much attention.

Posted by: Dr._Pop | December 27, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

rufas, shouldn't you be at the airport chanting, clinging cymbals and handing out pamphlets at this hour?

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

And you smell bad zouk.

HAHAHAHAH

i fyou want to play elementary school games we can. You cannot win with the facts. You MUST lie spin and discredit. Read again. you and your movement to a tee:

"Propaganda [from modern Latin: 'propagare', "extending forth"] is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience."

Oh, and fascist terrorists. Don't want to leave that out.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

dON'T KNOW IF ANYONE SAID THIS, i have to catch up.

On wolf blitzer he had an email from bhutto. He was to release it only if she was MURDERED. In it she places the blame on the president of pakistan. For lack of security and for denying requests made, in terms of security.

One thing is for sure. We're not getting bin laden anytime soon now. Teh gop cult watches it's own back, that's for sure. If only they did the same for america and all americans, rather than just their fascist cult. Is choosing party over country still treson? If so yoru party is in for a bumpy ride. No one has earned their irrelevacne more. Enjoy it zouk. You fascist coward propogandist you

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse

iraleichtman writes
"The legitimate question is whether we can trust the Musariff govt that failed in protecting Ms. Bhutto to now hunt down the perpetrators of this horrendous event."

That is a legitimate question. The likely answer is 'no'. The Musharraf gov't will have their hands full keeping Musharraf in power. He, too, is an assassination target. The death of Bhutto will make it more difficult for Musharraf to maintain power, much less stability.

Posted by: bsimon | December 27, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Why does this post always seem to devolve into personal attacks against each other? Can't you people have reasonable disagreements without getting downright nasty toward anyone who disagrees?

Posted by: ssmith | December 27, 2007 04:21 PM

you don't know drindl very well , do you? If you DARE to disagree with it, you are either insane, evil or stupid. there are no other reasons.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 4:31 PM | Report abuse

have read nothing here even slightly suggesting that we should blame America, first,second, etc, where is that drivel coming from

open your eyes:

"The armed forces of the United States have not done much to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution from tyranny, not much to find UBL or WMD, not much to find the U.S. Military Grade Anthrax Terrorist, not much to promote Democracy OR Freedom. I don't support the troops because they don't support the Constitution.
Posted by: postamerican | December 27, 2007 03:11 PM

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

wannabe intellectuals.........attempting to understand a completely different culture. Kinda like Bush trying to create peace within a culture 3000 years old. Good luck.
Vote Joe Biden 2008!!!!!!!!!!


Posted by: lindafranke1952 | December 27, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

How come I never see you questioning the legitimacy of Syria, or Iran or N Korea etc. Instead Pelosi visits with an alternative foreign policy.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Why does this post always seem to devolve into personal attacks against each other? Can't you people have reasonable disagreements without getting downright nasty toward anyone who disagrees?

Posted by: ssmith | December 27, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk,
I like that name Dr. Pop! That was very creative! Believe me, I'm changing my blogg name to Dr. Pop. There are a lot of bloggers out there who are suffering from the same psychological/political impairments that you are suffering from. And like I said, I want to help people. You are welcome!

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 27, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

"and that is why they are frustrated and mean and nasty - because they are losers and can't find a way out of the rut."

interesting choice of words, curious why discussions with neocons needlessly turn personal.

I have read nothing here even slightly suggesting that we should blame America, first,second, etc, where is that drivel coming from. Sounds like typical Rush/Hannity attacks when the other side is suggetsing that just maybe there is a better way to fight evil people. Are some sugesting that in America we should not have such discussions, or that those that do are somehow attacking America?

We get it. We have seen asasinations in Israel and other places that turn our stomachs, that deserve investigations and reprisals by the sovereign govt where it occurs not by a foreign power. The legitimate question is whether we can trust the Musariff govt that failed in protecting Ms. Bhutto to now hunt down the perpetrators of this horrendous event. Does questioning the legitimacy of that govt some how make progressives any less American? If so I would appreciate your detailed explanation of how that is, rather than rants that all liberals are evil.

Posted by: iraleichtman | December 27, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

'and that is why they are frustrated and mean and nasty - because they are losers and can't find a way out of the rut.'

the man has a real talent for projection...

Posted by: claudialong | December 27, 2007 03:53 PM

drindl falls back on the "I know you are but what am I" classic retort. the depths of her creativity have expired for the time being. time to head over to a hate site to recharge.

drindl, you still could use "I'm rubber you're glue" since original thought is so elusive.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Dr pop - heal thyself, you are not making any sense.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk,
I posted below your latest post. Isn't this what the neocon wanted? And isn't this the exact thing that George W. did? But you are attributing this to the Liberals. See...that is a Freudian slip. You do think the Liberals have it right don't you! We are making some progress here. Keep talking it helps to get things off your chest so that the healing process can begin.

Previously written by kingofzouk:
I understand that you Libs think the entire world is your oyster and wishes to do things your way, but the recent congress results should inform you that going to extremes and expecting all others to bend to your will is totally ineffective.

Likewise, going to a foreign contry and telling them what you want may sound appealing to loony Li9bs, but to other countries it leaves much to be desired. some countries need coercion, some need diplomacy, some need encouragement, some need intervention. why is this so hard for you moonbats to figure out?

the clinton policy treated all our enemies as if they could be talked off the ledge. this did not turn out too well. It turns out that enemeies respond to violence and friends respond to talking. Just the opposite of the Lib methods.

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 27, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Occasionally a worthy adversary emerges. not today. I don't avoid intelligent questions. I just don't get them from drindl's jackels.

compare what I have written today to her rantings and let me know what you think about the relative merit.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Will Bhutto's death kill Obama's & Huckabee's momentum in Iowa?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1380

.

Posted by: PollM | December 27, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Maybe you should lay off the pop psychology until hillary is the candidate. you will have plenty of opportunities to use it then.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk,
I listen to Rush Limbaugh's radio show, not because I agree with him but rather to understand his listeners.

Your posts are a classic Rush Limbaugh dodge technique. When asked a good question Rush doesn't answer he simply begin blovating about how hard it is to follow the Liberals' logic and then inject a lot of nonsense insults designed to avoid answering the question. And other technique of Rush is to answer a question that wasn't asked.

Now if the Liberal's on this blogg were the libbie moonbats, moron, idiots as you say they are why is it that you keep coming back to argue with them? Who is the fool? The fool or the person who argues with a fool?

If your intentions were to persuade Liberals to your way of viewing the issue I don't think you would have as must antagonism as you are presently getting.

But your aim seems to be to promote yourself to the position of "The Great Omniscience" and relegate all those who disagree with you to the idiot chamber. Maybe that is the reason you keep coming back to this great bastion of Liberalism. Because you stand out here and you know you wouldn't stand out if you were on an ultra conservative blogg.

Like I said, I listen to the Limbaugh show to understand his listeners

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 27, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

I understand that you Libs think the entire world is your oyster and wishes to do things your way, but the recent congress results should inform you that going to extremes and expecting all others to bend to your will is totally ineffective.

Likewise, going to a foreign contry and telling them what you want may sound appealing to loony Li9bs, but to other countries it leaves much to be desired. some countries need coercion, some need diplomacy, some need encouragement, some need intervention. why is this so hard for you moonbats to figure out?

the clinton policy treated all our enemies as if they could be talked off the ledge. this did not turn out too well. It turns out that enemeies respond to violence and friends respond to talking. Just the opposite of the Lib methods.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

'and that is why they are frustrated and mean and nasty - because they are losers and can't find a way out of the rut.'

the man has a real talent for projection...

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Why would anyone think Giuliani would be strengthened by this event? All candidates are against terrorists and we need positive leadership to sustain this effort. I see no evidence that his local government experience equips him to deal with complex international relations issues. He is on this Islam Facists kick which is ironic since the two biggest sources of Islamic terrorist, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, are supposedly our allies. Go figure.

Posted by: cdierd1944 | December 27, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

with friends and 'allies' like pakistan, who harbor terrorists, we don't need enemies, do we?

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

didja get larry craig for christmas, zouk, like you asked santa? i recall you said you wanted a 'ho' with a 'wide stance' -- remember?
dec. 24 post if anyone cares to verify.

ho ho ho...

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

This inane debate between ignorant Republicans and ignorant Democrats aside...

The US has made the same mistake in Pakistan that they made in Iran, propping up a US-friendly puppet who oppressed hsi own people until the people rebel. Based on the past history of such US screw-ups (Iran, Cuba, to name just two) if Musharraf falls, whatever government replaces him will hate the US ... and they have nookular weapons. Blowback is a *****!

Posted by: postamerican | December 27, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

This type of murderous incident is always a very good indicator of who is liberal and who is not, and exactly what is wrong with the Liberals of today.

A liberal's first instinct is to blame America or its allies, nevermind the enemy who is the most obvious culprit. then they go into a sort of irrational hysterics about all the other things that ever went wrong according to them. finally, they fall back on the tired old chanting from every last battle they ever went through, all the way back to the 60s.

In the end they offer no solutions, no tangible advice, suggestions for more talking, more meetings, more oversight, more government, more control, more money all the while ignoring the actual enemy or problem at hand. ultimately they attempt to appeal to changing everything with an election although they offer no substance as to why anyone should vote for them.

and that is why they are frustrated and mean and nasty - because they are losers and can't find a way out of the rut.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

SAL3456....Powell's kind of loyalty gave us Nazi Germany.
****
I'm amazed at Richardson's shooting from the lip by calling for Mush to resign before all the facts are in.... we've already got one cowboy in the WH, we don't need another.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | December 27, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

What a sad, even stupid rush to get out a statement by Giuliani. "... the Terrorists' War on Us" as a comment on such an attack on THEM!? Hillary had it right. SHE met and knew Benazir Bhutto and knew to point out that we must stand with THEM "against the terrorists who threaten the common security of the world." Giuliani deserves nothing but our contempt for his naked grab for power using her terrible death and that poor nation's sad loss.

Posted by: lloydhall76 | December 27, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

For anyone who believes that Musharif was elected in a fair election - I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

Posted by: jimd52 | December 27, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

That has to be a first. a Dem asking for accountability for money spent. there may be hope for you yet drindl. too bad your first attempt at this emotion was to cut the legs out from under one of our war allies and not on your extravagent social programs.

you see the Dems promised to reduce earmarks from 2000 in half. Instead we got 8000. that is Dem "accountability".

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

JKrishnamurti: let us all get into a pissing contest because what you believe and what I believe is so different yet completely irrelevant. Right? Call Bush and tell him to send a sympathy card with every VOTERS name personally signed. That would be a REAL testament to our honest concern. A check for $100.00 would get more of a response.

Posted by: lindafranke1952 | December 27, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

rufas if you wrote in English and made any sense, perhaps some of us may respond to your inannities one day.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

steel wheel - I am not a Liberal so I don't suffer from the hate mentality like drindl and her pack of jackels.

I do not agree with most liberal policies or "solutions". but it is hard to get any of them to defend them. they are too busy with things like:

"gay basher who is secretly gay who expresses his emotional confliction "

which pretty much reaches the limit of Dem analysis these days, although I can't figure out what this means except some sort of self-flagulation about mommy issues, I think.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

'the newly-appointed Pakistan Election Commission was appointed by -- Mushareff.

I have never advocted overthrowing Mushareff -- that's only in your tortured imagination, such as it is. I only suggest, as Biden does, that if we are going to give him billions of US taxpayers dollars, we ask for accountability. But this administraton doesn't know what the word means.

You have today outdone yourself zouk, in that you have made a bigger fool of yourself publicly than ever before. Everyone sees through you and ridicules you, because all you deserve is ridicule.

I wonder why you come here to be ridiculed. Is is masochism?

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

"So drindl advocates we invade and overthrow him. I suppose she thinks the same thing about the US election of 2000. Invalid because the court intervened.

Now you see the depth of battiness of this poor tortured individual. Facts and reason have no weight to her, only what she reads on hate sites.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 03:23 PM
"

He is housing terrosist. If we are not to invade pakistan why afganistan. You show your clown face.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Musharif was FORCED, by the us, to take off his uniform. HE WAS FORCED

Are you suggesting that Bush exhibited some diplomacy and coerced one of our allies to do as we wished. I didn't think Repubs were able.

So is it our business what other countries do or not. Or does it depend on whether it can get hillary elected or not before you answer?

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk,
I think you are really a Liberal but you are trapped in a Conservative's body. This behavior isn't unlike the gay basher who is secretly gay who expresses his emotional confliction by attacking the very people he secretly identifies with.

This would explain your unnecessary and unreasonable hatred for Liberals. Even your staunches of Conservatives can have good reasoned disagreements with Liberals and still join arms as Americans.

Now, I'm not going to charge you $24.95 for this information like Rush Limbaugh would. I believe in helping people resolve their inner conflicts. You are welcome!

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 27, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

So according to drindl's logic - Mushaarraf did indeed win the election but because certain aspects went through the court (he resigned from the military which corrected this), it is not a good result.

Yet:

On November 24, 2007, the newly-appointed Pakistan Election Commission confirmed his re-election as President

So drindl advocates we invade and overthrow him. I suppose she thinks the same thing about the US election of 2000. Invalid because the court intervened.

Now you see the depth of battiness of this poor tortured individual. Facts and reason have no weight to her, only what she reads on hate sites.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

"This is an outstanding question!! But don't expect kingofzouk to answer, at least not coherently or on point, because Rush Limbaugh hasn't finish his left wing demagoguery talking points on this subject for his radio listeners. I think Rush charges them $24.95 a month to get his talking points.

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 27, 2007 02:55 PM
"

HAHHAHAHAHAH

I say that here all the time. If anyone wants to know zouk or a dittohead's "opinion, they need not come here. turn on rush. He does the gop's thinking for them. Someone's got to. Like the borg they share the same fascist brain.

funny point

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

unfortunately smc91 we understand Washington and politics just fine and that is why only 45% of Americans turn out to vote. Who cares what political advantage an assasination delivers to a politician, there are things beyond political advantage. Its called authenticity. That is why I will be most impressed with the nonpolitial answer to Chris' querry. I am looking for the nonpolitical answer that tells voters that he/she is a real human being, a mensch, who understands this loss from a humanity perspective. Voters seem to me to be turned off by poll driven answers to the disaster de jeur and why many don't care to register, turn out on a cold Iowa day to a caucus, or find excuses not to find 5 minutes to vote every 4 years to choose a leader of this country. That is not a slap at Chris or even this blog, but an analysis on why voters are turned off when they are most need to change the current direction of our nation.

Posted by: iraleichtman | December 27, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

I see the entire pack of moonbat jackels is back today. you must be feeling more normal again drindl with so much craziness swirling around you.

congratulations on your leadership position.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

"I see drindl has gone completely off the deep end again and is spewing contorted reality again.

1. Pakistan elected Musharif

"

"In October 1999, General Pervez Musharraf, Chief of Army Staff of the Pakistani army launched a military coup to topple Nawaz Sharif, then the elected Prime Minister of Pakistan."

Zouk shows his fascist lying propogandist for profit face again. his "re-elcetion" was more illegigtimate than Putin's. Musharif was FORCED, by the us, to take off his uniform. HE WAS FORCED. So what did he do then. Took off his uniform. then murdered the opposition. you show your face zouk. In justifying terrorists you show your face.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Pervez Musharraf is the current President of Pakistan, and former[1] Chief of Army Staff of the Pakistan Army. He came to power in 1999 by effecting a military coup d'état and has suspended the constitution of Pakistan twice; since then, he has been actively supported (through military and monetary aid) by western countries including the United States.

He took power on October 12, 1999, ousting Nawaz Sharif, the elected Prime Minister, dismissed the national and provincial legislative assemblies, assumed the title of Chief Executive and became Pakistan's de facto head of government, thereby becoming the fourth Army chief of Pakistan to have assumed executive control. Later in 2001, Musharraf appointed himself to the office of President of Pakistan.

On November 3, 2007, only days before a bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan was to decide on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of his re-election as president in the controversial October 2007 elections, he, as Chief of Army Staff, suspended the constitution, jailed several justices and lawyers of the supreme court including Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, ordered the arrest of political dissidents and human rights activists, and shut down all private television channels.[2]

He declared an emergency. On November 24, 2007, the newly-appointed Pakistan Election Commission confirmed his re-election as President.[

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

drindl - please show me where it says AWOL on his record and the time he spent in jail for this offense?

Or are we to understand that you know way more about this than the military itself?

Hoowwwll. found a sore subject for moonbat drindl.

good use of your loony tunes websites though. can you give me that link that shows the WTC imploded under a Bush designed demolition again? Or the saucers from space you must be familiar with? I think your tin foil hat needs tuning again.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

There goes zouk again -- taking at face value the word of some terrorist while he calls all US news media other than the rightwing Fox News liars.

A great American, that zouk.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 27, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

The armed forces of the United States have not done much to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution from tyranny, not much to find UBL or WMD, not much to find the U.S. Military Grade Anthrax Terrorist, not much to promote Democracy OR Freedom. I don't support the troops because they don't support the Constitution. Same reason I don't support the Dems or the GOP!

Posted by: postamerican | December 27, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"Just curious but, would the average Pakistani citizen really care if they knew when one of our "leaders" or presidential candidates were assassinated?
NO nor should they really be concerned.

Get real people......the average joe walking Main St. in America does not know nor care who Bhutto was or her significance to the people in Pakistan.

Isn't it time for America to butt out?
Send a sympathy card.

Posted by: lindafranke1952 | December 27, 2007 02:31 PM
"

Yes as the world would. She was going to get elected, but was murdered before. You show your face, gop. Unbelievable.

If you think not you do not understand current politics. If this is nothing, waht is the purpose of the "war on terror". If you don't care why is all out money going to places like pakistan. Any independant thinker should see you people and what your about.

If it's a $400 haircut, it should run for 4 weeks. If a democratic presidential candidate in one of the fronts in our war get's murdered we should ignore? WOW. Crazy rationalization, IMO. But this is america. tiem has shown the crazy justification you people use. I just like to force you to realize your fascist republcain double think.

your party is done. in 08 they go back to the closet where they belong. Traitors belong in jail. I hope justice is served come 08

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Bush says he's released all his records...if that's true, then has anyone seen:

Any pages from Bush's flight log
Records from the Flight Inquiry Board convened after Bush was suspended as a pilot
Any evidence of Bush's reclassification into another AFSC after suspension as a pilot
Any photos of George Bush in a military uniform after 1972
Anything at all from any Alabama unit with Bush's name on it
Any copies of form 44a from the Alabama National Guard certifying attendance
Air Force Form 142 (Aviation Service Audit Worksheet)
Anything proving service (not just receipt of pay) by Bush between May 1972 and May 1973?
(And what is it precisely that the blathering right-wing pundits seem to think is missing from John Kerry's service records?)

Click here for a side-by-side comparison of publicly available military records of both GW Bush and John Kerry.

http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

While Bush and Mush blame the terrorists, the Pakistani People are burning down Government buildings and posters of Mush. On every channel here in the homeland they hint that the terrorists are behind this!
Chris Matthews is on MSNBC opining that those who benefit most from the Assassination are the Terrorists, no mention of Pervez. Tweety says this is great for Rudolph, McCain, and Hillary.

2,292 days since WMD said he'd catch UBL??

Posted by: postamerican | December 27, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

The assassination is yet another reminder to American voters that we live in a cruel and dangerous world. Voters will soon have to decide whether they prefer candidates like Obama, Edwards, or Hillary to command the armed forces of the United States.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | December 27, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Presidential election, 2004
On January 1, 2004, Gen. Pervez Musharaf won 658 out of 1,170 votes in the Electoral College of Pakistan, and according to 'Article 41(8)' of the Constitution of Pakistan, was "deemed to be elected" to the office of President

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Pakistan

Poor old loony drindl, always letting facts get in the way of her rants.

Karachi, 27 Dec. (AKI) - (by Syed Saleem Shahzad) - A spokesperson for the al-Qaeda terrorist network has claimed responsibility for the death on Thursday of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=1.0.1710322437

For those of you who are new to this blog, the individual called claudialong aka drindl is a loony leftist moonbat who lives here to spread disinformation. The best course of action is to ignore it, or correct its lies if you must.

most of the postings are pure hate and spite, replete with insults and non-sense or hysterical emotionalism. Any "fact" you see is highly suspect, as I have just shown.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

"kingofzouk wrote: "OMG - terrorists still want to kill people??? Someone ought to tell the Dems."

Right now, the most likely and logical suspect is none other than President Pervez Musharraf, Dubya's main partner in the "War on Terror." So is he a terrorist? And if he is a terrorist then is the man who has provided more than $60 billion in aid and comfort joined the Axis of Evil in accordance with the Bush Doctrine?

Posted by: TominChicago | December 27, 2007 02:30 PM
'

On point. What are our billions over there going for? I recently heard many of the weapons in Iraq are from the SAudi's. Bush's buddy and the culprits behind 9-11. Do the math. Are the american people dumb enough to buy the gop propopganda? We will see soon enough. I pray the america people stay strong and brave in the face of terrorism. Local terrorism. Gop terrorism. What is a terrorist? Sounds liek the gop platform, and his ally musharaf:

"Terrorism in the modern sense[1] is violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians for political or other ideological goals.[2] Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. Many definitions also include only acts of unlawful violence."

Fascism:

"Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state or party. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism"

propoganda:

"Propaganda [from modern Latin: 'propagare', "extending forth"] is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience."

That is all the gop has left. The only power they have is the power the american people give them. America was supposed to be a nation governed by the people. We reject kings. Time to turn the page.

To all republcains here. Please, please realize what you are fighting for. Please listen to reason. Stop this treason. Treason may be en vogue now, zouk, but eventually the rule of law will return. Do not cry and whine when the enforcement of treason is enforced. Liek the other laws your king has gutted, they were never supposed to be moot anyway. We are a nation of laws. If you got a problem with that, move elsewhere.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

I can't fathom why readers of a political blog will criticize Chris Cillizza for writing about the political impact of Bhutto's murder. It's his job to analyze the political implications of events such as these on the campaign. That some find this "sickening" is just beyond belief. Please, take your head out of the sand and post your comments elsewhere. You obviously don't understand Washington, or politics, for that matter.

Posted by: smc91 | December 27, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Pakistan is a basket case of a country. Benazir Bhutto was a Pakistani politician complicit in the corruption that is rampant in that country. However, she did represent a large segment of the Pakistani people and had more popular support than Musharaf. The administration hoped that a coalition government with Bhutto as PM and Musharaf as President would provide stability and popular support.

The Pakistani intelligence services are not really controlled by Musharaf or anyone else. Elements within the intelligence service were in bed with the Taliban. Given the Pakistani intelligence service's close ties to extremists, it is not too far-fetched to imagine that the intelligence services could find a fanatic suicide bomber.

The Pakistani government does not control all its territory. The Pakistani military and intelligence services are independent power centers in the country. Elements within the military and intelligence services are supportive of Muslim extremists. We have to be concerned about the security of their nuclear arsenal.

Dealing with Pakistan will be one of the thorniest problems the next president will face. There are no easy solutions and the potential for disaster is high. We will have to encourage the moderate forces withing Pakistani society to resist the extremists. We have to get Pakistan to cooperate more in hunting down Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in their country. However, we cannot be seen by the Pakistani people as dictating to the Pakistani government. Fostering both democracy and stability in Pakistan will be a very tricky proposition.

Posted by: jimd52 | December 27, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Spectator2,
Great eye for hypocrisy!! kingofzouk is real good at being a hypocrite just like his Master teacher Rush Limbaugh. I think Rush Limbaugh charged kingofzouk $24.95 for those outrageous talking points. kingofzouk sure is getting his money's worth repeating Rush's toilet thinking. ha haha!!!

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 27, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Hey, kingofzouk, why are you still fixated on John Kerry? Have you checked your calendar lately? He's old news, but W isn't, and whatever his military record shows or doesn't show, he's a pretty weak excuse for a "war president" when his record is compared to that of McCain, among others. Admit it, you're really Bill O'Reilly (or maybe Ann Couter)!

Posted by: leistritz | December 27, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Caludia and Political_Sage were right on the mark. This topic is digusting and moribud and I am looking for a leader who proclaims that anyone who attempts to use this tragedy for political gain is unfit to be President. If that makes me a left wing whacko so be it. I am worried about the loose nukes,and instability in Pakistan, but I am equally saddened for the people of Pakistan, her husband and children. Its a human loss first and foremost for her family and children and anys sense of decency here or by politicians would recognize that. Humanity folks, humanity.

Posted by: iraleichtman | December 27, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

TominChicago ,

you asked kingofzouk " Right now, the most likely and logical suspect is none other than President Pervez Musharraf, Dubya's main partner in the "War on Terror." So is he a terrorist?

This is an outstanding question!! But don't expect kingofzouk to answer, at least not coherently or on point, because Rush Limbaugh hasn't finish his left wing demagoguery talking points on this subject for his radio listeners. I think Rush charges them $24.95 a month to get his talking points.

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 27, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

i would like to remind Huckabee, our constitution also has peaceful separation of church and state. GOP murders everyday, lack of healthcare, Iraq, polution, nutrition, etc. Who are they to condem!!!!!

Posted by: linda_521 | December 27, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

"We must redouble our efforts to win the Terrorists' War on Us." Huh? It has been 2,292 days since WMD said he'd catch UBL? What ever happened to the hunt for the U.S. Military Grade Anthrax Terrorist? Oh!
Listening to Hillary, Rudolph, Mitt, John, Barack, this morning has been DISGUSTING!
This Post American is voting for Ron Paul!

Posted by: postamerican | December 27, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

"AWOL Bush "

funny I didn't see that distinction on his service record which he released in full. Perhaps you dreamed it or made it up - the usual Lib method of slander.

now it would be difficult to compare to Kerry since he still hasn't released his full service record, despite promising to do so years ago on MTP. what is it about empty Dem promises?

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama and McCain are the ones that benefit most from this tragedy. When Obama talked about going into Pakistan to rout out the terrorist maniacs Hillary and all the other dems just about threw a fit. And Obama was right, the only way to stop this
madness is to be willing to go after the terrorist no matter what country they are in. Friend or foe!

Posted by: lumi21us | December 27, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

•In October 1999, General Pervez Musharraf, Chief of Army Staff of the Pakistani army launched a military coup to topple Nawaz Sharif, then the elected Prime Minister of Pakistan.

None of Bhutto's family were killed by 'al queda' -- inclduing her.

For those of you who are new to this blog, the individual called kingofzouk is a [possibly paid] troll here to spread disinformation. The best course of action is to ignore him, or correct his lies if you must.

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

"Bhutto's assination is real blow to our efforts to stabilize Pakistan. This could easily turn into another Iran if her supporters believe that the government was responsible. The real political story is that this is another black mark on President Bush's foreign policy. Instead of focusing on Al Queda Bush has squandered American lives and resources in Iraq which posed little danger to us. Next he saber rattled againt Iran which has nothing to do with Al Queda. America has failed to destroy Al Queda and we are paying the price.

Posted by: steven08817 | December 27, 2007 02:34 PM
"

Well said. But if you factor in his terror ties and his support of the current "president" then what? Is that treason? Fascism? I agree with what you said. But dig deeper. The time to hide our heads is over. this will can can happen here. we must stop the fascist terrorist gop.

Again, if fear and terrorism helps the gop. If the destruction of america helps the gop. Are they traitors?

I have been asked by republcains on this site "show me where treason is illegal". With that kind of mentality in the gop. Where to you go from there? When bill o says "How long are americans going to stand for these protestors." What happened today is his goal. We must acknoweldge reality now. or just start killing all democrats, republains. Eitehr way you are fascist terrorists using proxies. We see you now. Where do we go from here?

If the elcetion goes to the republicans or clinton these will be the tactics they employ. Like JFK, like MLK. Terrorist fascists. Either we submit of fight them. But make no mistake, the left are not the terrorist, liek the gop tries to paint it.

If the left was, would we have stood by without vioelnce the last 8 years. It's only now that the fascist gop is losing power do the attacks start. It was obvoius an attack would happen before the election. Terror is their only hope. What are we going to do about it? the left are not terrorists like the right. so what?

What do we do? how do we stand strong in the face or terrorism? It's easier than you would think. We already have the power. It was giving to us by the constitution for this very reason.

VOTE THE BUMS OUT. If the falsify the eletion again. VOTE THE BUMS OUT ON THE LOCAL LEVEL. Vote the gop out until then no longer exists and have to go underground. do not pity them. they have made their bed. We have a choice. Pity or fear these traitor fascists. Or leave them behind in the dust and move forward. I'm for looking ahead, not back.

Vote ALL teh GOP bums out. Show the moderate sell-out democrats that have sold out to the gop they do not represent you. Vote them out also. Vote out everyone putting defense contracotrs drug and oil above the american people. Vote out the bribe takers and replace them with the american people's reps. We have that power. We must not be scared to use it.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Interesting how the first candidate to try to capitalize on this bad news is Rudy Giuliani, the chosen candidate of kingofzouk, who has posted hundreds of times about how Dems are always hoping for bad news to improve their political fortunes.

Nice candidate, zouky.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 27, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

What's wrong with you! You keep being dismissive of Mr. Edwards, and his sentiments in this bereft moments for Benazir Bhutto. The likes of your values add blindness to the world badly in turmoil. Come on, be fair for once to Mr. Edwards. We are his supporters, but we are also citizens needing your fair reporting.

Posted by: ipball7 | December 27, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Remember, folks, during a Democratic debate a few months back, candidates were being asked how they would respond to a nuclear threat from Iran. ONLY Joe Biden said that Pakistan was more a threat than Iran & the president should not take his eye off the ball. Only Biden has the expertise to handle the US position on the chaotic crisis in Pakistan.

Posted by: swilson1 | December 27, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

I see drindl has gone completely off the deep end again and is spewing contorted reality again.

1. Pakistan elected Musharif
2. Libs seem to want to overthrow all Middle east democracies and support the fascists
3. Libs think our allies, especially the ones with nukes, should be invaded.
4. Libs think our enemies like syria, Iran and N Korea should be talked to death or ignored completely
5. Libs think we should butt out of the middle east, unless Condi wants to interfere in an elected government

Maybe now the Libs will realize that this effort is going to take more than talking, begging, pleading, ignoring, cajoling and dancing. you know, the old clinton policies.

so every family member of Bhutto's has been killed by the Al queda but this particular time, it is Rudy's fault.

Hooowwwwl, moonbat. Maybe today is the end of the world, or perhaps, like yesterday, another loony left false alarm.

If I were you drindl and the other jackels, I would be outraged. but then you always are.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk:
Of course, Kerry earned his medals, by showing up and following orders. They were lawfully issued by his superiors.
Does the law cover people in the military who don't show up where they are supposed to and then claim that they were there?
If so, AWOL Bush should stay out of California.

Posted by: capemh | December 27, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Matt99stevens says >>>Also, I was a little disgusted by Obama's comment. This woman, while a democratic leader, was corrupt as they come and full of cronyism. Her democratic principals were great, but she didn't practice good democracy.<<<

The same description could be equally applied to Hillary, but if tragedy befell her then I would hope Obama would show the same charity and grace in his comments about her.

Posted by: whatmeregister | December 27, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes,

you said you "I was supporting Mitt but seeing Claudia really hates Rudy, I may want to give him a second look. If the looney left doesn't like him then maybe he is the Leader we need in this dangerous world".

I sure hope there is more substance to your thought process than what you demonstrated in your post. You just gave a text book case study of how a mindless person operates.

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 27, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

John Edwards' statement on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto:

"Benazir Bhutto was a brave and historic leader for Pakistan. Her assassination is a sad and solemn event, and our hearts go out to her family and to the Pakistani people. But we will not let this contemptible, cowardly act delay the march of progress in Pakistan for a single second.

"I have seen firsthand in Pakistan, and in meetings with Prime Minister Bhutto and President Musharraf, the instability of the country and the complexity of the challenges they face. At this critical moment, America must convey both strength and principle. We should do everything in our power to help bring the perpetrators of this heinous act to justice and to ensure that Bhutto's movement toward democracy continues."

Posted by: capemh | December 27, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Bhutto's assination is real blow to our efforts to stabilize Pakistan. This could easily turn into another Iran if her supporters believe that the government was responsible. The real political story is that this is another black mark on President Bush's foreign policy. Instead of focusing on Al Queda Bush has squandered American lives and resources in Iraq which posed little danger to us. Next he saber rattled againt Iran which has nothing to do with Al Queda. America has failed to destroy Al Queda and we are paying the price.

Posted by: steven08817 | December 27, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Just curious but, would the average Pakistani citizen really care if they knew when one of our "leaders" or presidential candidates were assassinated?
NO nor should they really be concerned.

Get real people......the average joe walking Main St. in America does not know nor care who Bhutto was or her significance to the people in Pakistan.

Isn't it time for America to butt out?
Send a sympathy card.

Posted by: lindafranke1952 | December 27, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

--David Gergen, Republican political consultant:

'The brutal assassination of Benazir Bhutto will come as a shock but not a surprise to many leaders of U.S. national security. They have quietly worried about just this outcome since she returned to Pakistan a few months ago.

In fact, they have been deeply worried about Pakistan for a long time. A retired U.S. four-star general this past summer told a small gathering that I attended that he was concerned about Iraq but he was much more concerned about Pakistan.

What can the U.S. do? Musharraf has apparently misdirected billions of our anti-terrorism dollars; he declared martial law against the fervent wishes of Condi Rice; he has allowed Islamic terrorists, probably Osama, too much of a free hand on the Afghan border; and now there will be well-justified suspicions that he failed to give Mrs. Bhutto adequate protection.'

Guiliani's policies are exactly the same as Bush's, CC. Wish contributed to the mess in Pakistan. Even responsible republicans admit that. So tell me how a Bhutto being assasinated either by or wit the help of 'our' dictator Mushareff help Guiliani?

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk wrote: "OMG - terrorists still want to kill people??? Someone ought to tell the Dems."

Right now, the most likely and logical suspect is none other than President Pervez Musharraf, Dubya's main partner in the "War on Terror." So is he a terrorist? And if he is a terrorist then is the man who has provided more than $60 billion in aid and comfort joined the Axis of Evil in accordance with the Bush Doctrine?

Posted by: TominChicago | December 27, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes,

you said you "I was supporting Mitt but seeing Claudia really hates Rudy, I may want to give him a second look. If the looney left doesn't like him then maybe he is the Leader we need in this dangerous world".

I sure hope there is more substance to your thought process than what you demonstrated in your post. You just gave a text book case study of how a mindless person operates.

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 27, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Att: John Kerry
It's the Law: Medal Liars Face New Sanctions
New California law makes it an infraction to lie about military awards on a job application or in an interview or by boasting in public about medals never earned.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Petty Politics
Senate Meets For 9 Seconds To Block Bush Appointment
A nine-second session gaveled in and out by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., prevented Bush from appointing as an assistant attorney general a nominee roundly rejected by majority Democrats

Dem leadership

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

The tragedy of yet another assasination in the Middle East has no beneficial effect for any Republican candidate since all of them lack the knowledge, skills and abilities to be an effective President in a time when knowledge of the world and its history is so critical in analyzing events and assessing the impact. The Democrats are the only candidates with people with the requisite skill base: Joe Biden and Bill Richardson have now shot up to top tier status because they are the only candidates with real understanding of the complicity of the situation in the Middle East.

Posted by: lavinsr | December 27, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON - More than 3 million people will have to wait until February to get their tax refunds because of Congress' late fix to the alternative minimum tax, the IRS said Thursday.

thanks Nancy. can you lend me a little until then???

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

I don't agree with Giuliani that:

"We must redouble our efforts to win the Terrorists' War on Us."

Scare-tactic 9/11 drum-beating is helping the Terrorists win the "War on Us" just fine without any effort redoubling on our part.

Posted by: adk4143 | December 27, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

OMG - terrorists still want to kill people??? Someone ought to tell the Dems.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 27, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Said "proudtobegop":

"Benazir Bhutto was beautiful and charming and sophisticated and smart and modern, and everything we in the west would like a Muslim leader to be - though in practice, as Pakistan's Prime Minister, she was just another grubby wardheeler from one of the world's most corrupt political classes.

She could never have been a viable leader of a post-Musharraf settlement, and the delusion that she could have been sent her to her death.

Earlier this year, I had an argument with an old (infidel) boyfriend of Benazir's, who swatted my concerns aside with the sweeping claim that "the whole of the western world" was behind her. On the streets of Islamabad, that and a dime'll get you a cup of coffee.

As I said, she was everything we in the west would like a Muslim leader to be. We should be modest enough to acknowledge when reality conflicts with our illusions. Rest in peace, Benazir."

While I'm not proud to be GOP (in any sense), I think he/she is right about Bhutto -- she was who many in the Western world (but probably not Bush/Cheney) wanted running Pakistan. When she wouldn't cut a deal with Musharaf, that probably sealed her fate (and she may well have known it). The big question is what kind of investigation will ensue. Will it be real, or will it be, "Round up the usual suspects." If Musharaf remains in charge, I'd highly suspect the latter. One must wonder about the ISI's role here (and one must also wonder how much the CIA and other U.S. agencies knew).

As for the fall-out in the U.S. election, it certainly will emphasize foreign policy more. However, I don't think "the world is a dangerous place" will satisfy most folks as a foreign policy stance. It certainly emphasizes the inadequacy of current U.S. foreign policy in Asia.

Posted by: stuflash | December 27, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

"Point well-taken: The truth could be said to all politicians that serve... Does anyone really stand-up to the President... No: they gather information, build a case, provide options and advise. A CEO (President) reviews, analyzes and makes a decision. Is it the decision that the Chief of Staff, Vice President, Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State recommends? No.. Bottom line: The President has the last word and power to bargain with congress and his staff when granting approval. Legislative language can be written and interpreted to mean several different things providing latitude to do what a President wants. "

Your speaking in business terms. In amreica, unlike in business, it is the people that make the decisions. Not the king/president. he is merly our representative to the world. this is the disconnect between the two parties.

there are two americas.

The gop members are loyal subjects to their king. Their king serves on them. But he does not represent america. just his loyal subjects. So if they do not represnt america, what country does this king and his kingdom represent? the land of oz? the land of zouk?

you people are lost. The american people rejected a monarchy 200 years ago. Will will again. Fear will not win the day. terrorism will not win the day. America will win the day. Teh true america that has been lost the last 30 years, of gop rule.

When america has it's ideals and justice it is unbeatable. It is the shining city on the hill. Without those things we are nothing. We cannot be defeated by the outside. The only way america can be defeated is the way the gop is destroying our country. from within. tehy are in with the terrorists. Today was jsut another arguement in the court or publcin opinon, if not the legal one. Justice returns in 08. Fear that gop.

To everyone that has been misled. You can take your kings power at any time. The only thing stopping you is fear. Any label that is put on you is for you to choose. You do not have to follow the rabbit down the rabbit hole. If you choose to, that is a choice. But know what you are doing. stop pointing the finger at those trying to hold a mirror up so you can see how you are being percieved. Not only to american, but the world.

how much longer must this go on? forever? until 2012? Why do you people hate and fear so much?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

""I told you it was coming didn't I. the silver lining is at least they fascist right-wingers are not murdering protestors and leftists, yet.""

We'll really see their fascist faces when obama or edwards is nominated. Thenw e will really see the terrorists for who they are. Fear does not exist. The only power the terrorist gop fascists have is the power you give them. Don't ive them power by fearing them. Stand up and be recognized. this is america. Slavery and fascism ends in 08. Only fear of change/future prevents it. those taht fear change, do not pity them .Tehy do not care about you. Help them see the light. if they reject it that is their choice. But if they sabotage growth THEY MUST be left in the wind. Not the gop "no child left behind" brand or holding the hand of fascist sell-out traitors and caring about their feelings. Screw their feelings. Get with the program or don't. Work to improve the country or work o sabotage it. But don't whine and complain about the path you choose and the choices you make, gop.

if you want to stop being terrorist fascists, flip the switch. otherwise make the bed you lay in

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Mathew

Point well-taken: The truth could be said to all politicians that serve... Does anyone really stand-up to the President... No: they gather information, build a case, provide options and advise. A CEO (President) reviews, analyzes and makes a decision. Is it the decision that the Chief of Staff, Vice President, Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State recommends? No.. Bottom line: The President has the last word and power to bargain with congress and his staff when granting approval. Legislative language can be written and interpreted to mean several different things providing latitude to do what a President wants.

Truth_Hunter:

Kool-Aid - Stop looking to the past on what happen to our country! It happened, our democracy is not perfect, but any other place that I traveled has not come close to the U.S. A. I'm sure you never served your country in uniform. If so, I think you would understand that a soldier/sailor/airmen/marine may not agree on a decision make by his commander, but he follows his commander and supports him nevertheless. That's loyalty!

Posted by: SAL3456 | December 27, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

The political fallout of this tragedy is something that needs to be talked about. I am aware that it is in somewhat poor taste, but that's what happens sometimes. There's a caucus in Iowa in one week, this event will have consequences for that caucus, as well as future primaries in 2008.

We have no way of knowing for sure at this stage who is responsible for this crime. I have my suspicions, as I know many of you do, but I'll be keeping those to myself for now. In the meantime, there are political ramifications, and they should be talked about.

Posted by: cam8 | December 27, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Guiliani makes me sick. I'm sure he's been praying for something like this to happen.

Joe Biden had it correct....the only thing Guiliani knows to say is "A noun, a verb and 911".

The man is a pathetic liar.

Posted by: paguy1 | December 27, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

"I told you it was coming didn't I. the silver lining is at least they fascist right-wingers are not murdering protestors and leftists, yet."

In america, that is.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

fyi-
'There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the killing, but at Rawalpindi General Hospital furious Bhutto supporters erupted in anger at Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, chanting "Killer, Killer, Musharraf" and calling him a "liar."

They smashed doors and windows at the hospital, stoned cars, burned ruling party election posters and attacked police who fled. Protesters also took to the streets in Peshawar, and in Karachi shopkeepers closed their doors and people burned tires in intersections. Cars were burned in Hyderabad and scattered protests, some violent, broke out in cities across Pakistan.

The Pakistani military was in charge of security at the rally and it was the second time since Bhutto returned to Pakistan in October that an assassin slipped past security.'

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Even by the standards of the Village idiots, I mean wise elders, this idea that death helps Guiliani is a sick twist. Chris, you should be ashamed for participating in it.

Posted by: havok26 | December 27, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

I told you it was coming didn't I. the silver lining is at least they fascist right-wingers are not murdering protestors and leftists, yet.

Let's not be naive here. Let's not act like we didn't know there would be bombing and killings before the elections. terrorism is all the gop has left. The question becomes will the american people runa dn hide from the terroists and elected them for safety. Or will they stand up. We will know shortly. I'm for fighting for what this coutnry was founded for. Did the founders hide and cower in the face of teh red coats, or fight then. We must fight our new generation of red coats. Or submit to them.

It's up to us. Choose wisely. our childrens future depends on it. Do we want america or is american ideals outdated? Tiem will tell. I'm for america.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

'Bhutto was assassinated by some poor unfortunate misunderstood soul. '

Oh please. She was murdered by a hired mercernary, more than likely--a trained murderer paid by Mushareff. He knew precisely where to shoot to kill and he was allowed close enouh proximity by her 'guards' to do it.

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Convientat timeing for teh gop, no. A week away fromteh primaries. These fascists enrage me

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

'I think I am one of those simple people Claudia was talking about. When 911 happened, I saw it as pure evil. Should had known in the naive liberal view point it was much more complicated than that. It was about world poverty. '

World poverty? I don't know where that comes from? Did you jus make it up?

Yes, you clearly are simple, bhoomes. you reinforce it with every post. Pure good vs. pure evil exists only in comic books and the minds of children. Humans are warlike creatures -- it is the nature of natural selection -- and since our days as cave dwellers have been fighting like dogs over pride, women, resources, land, relgion, etc.

Some civilizatons are perhaps 'better' or 'worse' but that depends on who's making the judgment, doesn't it?

We need an adult like Biden as president, not some demagogue who panders to the gullible and simple.

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

It is sad that this tragic development might benefit Giuliani. It is like saying that because someone did a good job as a podiatrist on one of my toes, that person is the most qualified to perform heart and brain surgery on everyone else. This tragic event confirms that the "war on terror" does not exist; it is a slogan of this administration as I think Edwards pointed out. There are very dangerous "terrorists" and "extremists" all over the world. No US president can get rid of these extremists by invasion or war. Only the people of those countries, 99.9 % of whom are decent and peaceful people, can do it when they are persuaded that is to their benefit to do so. If we continue to support shady leaders based on economic interests and not in moral and democratic values this will not happen. Right or wrong, 80% of the world population sees Osama Bin Laden and Bush as equal threats, what makes anyone think the people in the countries suffering these terrorist acts would know what to do? Many of us question the motives of the administration foreign policies; how do you think regular people in Pakistan, Iraq and Iran feel? This will take real moral leadership from the US and other countries and a long time. Giuliani will continue Bush policies. Please, give the world a break! Actually Mike Huckabee's comments seem to be the most appropriate at this moment. However, Ron Paul is the only one that gets it on the Republican side

Posted by: enriquesvd | December 27, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Notice below the difference between the Clinton statement and the Obama statement, especially the "I knew her as a leader."
Even in death, Mrs. Clinton is self-serving.

Clinton said at the start of a campaign event in Iowa that "I have known Benazir Bhutto for a dozen years and I knew her as a leader. I knew her as someone willing to take risks."

And Obama said: "I am shocked and saddened by the death of Benazir Bhutto in this terrorist atrocity" and that Americans would stand with the Pakistani people "in their quest for democracy and against the terrorists who threaten the common security of the world."

Posted by: fprmclain | December 27, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

What a great time to try something different. Maybe we should do something we haven't tried in a long time, be respectful w/ condolences and then shut the hell up and Butt the hell out! The AntiAmerican feelings we have generated around the globe and esp. in the Arab world the last few years can only incite when healing is so badly needed. Rudy's reaction was as predictable as it was disgusting. Biden showed respect, knowledge and depth. I'm a little disappointed that Richardson's first thought is what we should "demand" and push Pakistan to do.

I'm not sure that given our "lightning-rod" stature in the region, we can do anything positive in a public way. Respecting the sovereignty of Pakistan and Offering support for THEIR handling of their travails might speak larger and louder than anything else right now.

Posted by: longshores | December 27, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

My deepest fears have come true today. Mrs. Benazir Bhutto was assassinated by Pervez Musharraf using his Hatch Men. THIS IS THE WHOLE TRUTH.

Posted by: iofaleiro | December 27, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Remember Huckabee joked about staying at a Holiday Inn when asked about Foriegn Policy. Funny but it hurts politically. I think I am one of those simple people Claudia was talking about. When 911 happened, I saw it as pure evil. Should had known in the naive liberal view point it was much more complicated than that. It was about world poverty. Oh wait a minute, Osama and his minions are well to do. Give the libs more time to somehow turn around an evil act and make it somehow our fault. But to call evil, evil, well thats just a simpleton in the puesdo/intellectual/liberal viewpoint. Bhutto was assassinated by some poor unfortunate misunderstood soul. the World is so complex. eh

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 27, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

So cc. If the murder of bhutto is great for the gop. Why should they not continue the killings? It will help them politically right? If murder and terrorism helps them, why would they want to stop it or find out who is responsible. Only bad will come for the gop from finding who did this. You fascists show your face.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

The cadle burns at both ends for these lunatics. They do the killing, then say we would be safer with them in office. So no more killings happen. Sounds like the mafia to me. Prtoection money. holding the country and world hostage with threats of terrorism. The new gop model for democracy. Threaten to murder you political opponents. Align yourselfs with murders. Pay them to not murder. then say" If not not here to pay my freinds off, God help you."

FASCISTS. You cannot win. Bhutto was martyered today. how did that work out for the romans? You fascists cannot win using terrorist tactics. you show your face. Send them all to eastern europe. Let then play their games amoungst themselves. Let the world grow and build without their murder threats or murder and sabotage.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Plain and simple -- if Bhutto had not been 'guarded' by those who were complicit in the plot to kill her, she would not have been shot in the neck at close range. No loyal guard detail would have allowed an armed stranger that close to her.

This was Mushareff -- our pet dictator-- and anyone with a brain can see it. As the police say, when there's a crime, look for a motive.

And Judge, you are absolutely right. I tole ya CC leaned right -- his column is almost exactly the same as farrrrrright nutcase Joe Scarborough.

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

I have long wondered why Biden was not more strongly positioned among the Democrats. He has been a leading voice on the situation in Iraw and other political matters int he last few years in terms of commentary and analysis. Clinton and Obama may be more popular but I believe they are vulnerable in aa general election. As shown in Biden's comments on the events today and in recent years past, he should be viewed as a viable alternative.

Posted by: mclumpkin | December 27, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

"The Neocons suffered another serious setback when Bhutto was assassinated today. They were going to put her in place of Musharraf. Neocons McCain, Huck, Hill, Giuliani, and Mitt are surely in a tizzy. It may take a major bombing to Pakistan to soften the place up. "

Wow. research and know what your talking about before you type, please. Save us time

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

FYI--the real story:

'A longtime adviser and close friend of assassinated Pakistani ex-prime minister Benazir Bhutto places blame for Bhutto's death squarely on the shoulders of U.S.-supported dictator Pervez Musharraf.

After an October attack on Bhutto's life in Karachi, the ex-prime minister warned "certain individuals in the security establishment [about the threat] and nothing was done," says Husain Haqqani, a confidante of Bhutto's for decades. "There is only one possibility: the security establishment and Musharraf are complicit, either by negligence or design. That is the most important thing. She's not the first political leader killed, since Musharraf took power, by the security forces."

Haqqani notes that Bhutto died of a gunshot wound to the neck. "It's like a hit, not a regular suicide bombing," he says. "It's quite clear that someone who considers himself Pakistan's Godfather has a very different attitude toward human life than you and I do."

As for what comes next: Haqqani doubts that Musharraf will go forward with scheduled elections. "The greatest likelihood is that this was aimed not just aimed at Benazir Bhutto but at weakening Pakistan's push for democracy," he says. "But the U.S. has to think long and hard. Musharraf's position is untenable in Pakistan. More and more people are going to blame him for bringing Pakistan to this point, intentionally or unintentionally. It's very clear that terrorism has increased in Pakistan. It's quite clear that poverty has increased in Pakistan.'

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004985.php

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Political spin of who benefits off of someones death. You folks are sick

Posted by: TennGurl | December 27, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Political spin of who benefits off of someones death. You folks are sick

Posted by: TennGurl | December 27, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

"Giuliani must hope that the Bhutto assassination will remind voters that terrorists can strike anywhere, any time, and that with his experience as mayor of New York at the time of the 9-11 attack, he would be best qualified among all the presidential candidates to navigate those dangerous waters."

Another 'virtuoso' performance, eh, CC? Do you write copy for the Guiliani campaign or what? Whatever happened to the concept of equal time for all the other candidates? I'd like to know what Obama said, for example, and his response has as much claim to being "sure to impact the way in which people think about the candidates and the campaign in this country" as Guiliani's.

Your column appears to take an unfortunate international incident and twist it into a commercial for one specific candidate.

Posted by: judgeccrater | December 27, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Just found out about the horible news. I have to vent. Sad day. Very said day. This is what is to come fromt he right-wing fascists. This is what I've been saying here for months. And why more re not fighting these fascists. THE GOP IS IN WITH THE TERRORISTS. THEY ARE IN WITH AQ. Research. You people are not this dumb. For the gop to use this as a ralling cry, when it's the people they support, that did the killings, in pakistand is a slap in the face.

Make no mistake this is the stakes. Bill o'reilyl rush malkin coulter. These are the tactics they are urging. "When are americans goign to stand up against protestors." This is what they mean by "stand up". Kill every last liberals. Kill every last non clone. These are the stakes.

Know what happened, why it happened and who is responsible. Where is bin laden? Why can we not get him? Are the same people protecting him responsible for the murder? Are they the same peopel that made bush rich. Are they the same people he backs in pakistan now? YEs.

Horrible day for democracy and freedom. I'm outraged. Bring it on gop. These are the games you want to play. Show your face. This is what the gop will do here. It is impossible they will win. So like musarif, will they allow the will of the people? Or will they do everything they can to hold power, including murder. We know they use murder as politics. What makes you think they will not use these same fascist tactics here? Are they going to hold elections? Or will they stack the deck. If clinton (republcain)is not the dem nomiinee, what then? Will they allow the will of the people to be done. Or will they resort to murder? Will they resort to stifling the vote? Will they use the power they had the last 24 years to put their own cronies in to scew the vote, like always. This is real. This is not a game. this is a window to the future. this is the fascist right-wing tactics. this is what it's all about. This is not play time. These fascists are murders. they are nazi's. They will stop at nothing to keep their power and MONEY. Who can stop the fascist murdering terrorists in america? Only americans can stop our government. Do soemthing. fight back. Or submit to a gop king. You risk everyting either way. Better to fight for what you believe. Better to fight for america.

It's on now. this is an outrage. the gop games personified in black and white. Watch bill o'reilly and see him using these same terrorist tactics. Fascism is universal. Differant places differant methods. Make no mistake, these are the stakes. Freedom or slavery do to fear of death (or terrorism). DO NOT SUBMIT TO THE TERRORIST GOP. Marginalize them. Osolate them. If they want to keep up these games, lock them up and throw away the key. SAbotuer fascist murders. I bet they are laughing it up, toasting today, aren't ya zouk. You fascists show your face.

Sad Day for all free men and women today. We cannot let the terrorists win. not in pakistan, where public enemy #1 enjoys a vacation due to bush's buddy who just murdered a political opponent. And not here. fight them or submit. I'm not subiting.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 27, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Bsimon,

The reason why I feel this is bad news for Obama is because voters tend to want to feel secure before they want to feel inspired.

This is 2004 all over again. Kerry was also talking about "change," but Bush was able to frame the election as needing a steady hand "during a time of war." The "change" Kerry was offering was seen as too risky by too many voters.

It's a net positive for Clinton, McCain, and probably Biden (if voters are paying attention). This is not good news for Huckabee, Obama, and Edwards. It's actually probably good for Romney too because it gets religion and family values and his MLK gaffe off the front pages.

I wrote more here about the political impact here:

http://www.theseventen.com/2007/12/bhuttos-assassination-political-impact.html

Posted by: theseventen | December 27, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Ah, that Rudy is a sly one...(also, incredibly stupid....)

Posted by: nyboy47 | December 27, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

SAL3456 - Powell said nothing abroad to the public because he was loyal to his President.

That is NOT leadership with integrity. He should have been loyal to his own beliefs and convictions rather than knowingly perpetuating the lies of the Bush administration - then he could be considered a man of integrity. Had Powell stood up to Bush (which, by the way, was part of his job), this world would be a much better place, and I, for one, would be happy to vote for him. But he did not. Shame on him.

Posted by: matthewmaverick | December 27, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

SAL3456.. Sounds like you've been drinking the justifers and excusers Kool-aid. Service to the country, not loyalty to a spoiled-brat bent on a nationally disasterous personal crusade, should have come first. Period.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | December 27, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

A couple of points:

1. Rudy Giuliani has no proven record of protecting America from terrorism and no experience dealing with Pakistan or any other critical Islamic country in the Middle East.

2. From Condi Rice and Dick Cheney to Rudy Giuliani and Donald Rumsfeld, there is no evidence that the Republican foreign plicy establishment has the slightest clue of how to handle Pakistan, Afghanistan or the region in general. Despite the fact that he was the biggest ally of the Taliban and sold nuclear arms to rogue nations like North Korea, Bush & Co. (whom Rudy has supported whole-heartedly)has poured billions into the coffers of General Musharaff and looked the other way while he let Al-Qaeda seek refuge along the Pakistan-Afghan border. Rudy supported the Administration's failed policy and its decisions to divert resources from fighting Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan to protecting us from non-existent WMDs in Iraq, so why would anybody think that Rudy is better qualified to handle instability in Pakistan?

3. Bush, Condi et al. ignored Al-Qaeda until 9-11 (remember when Condi said Bush didn't want to be seen as swatting at flies when she tried to explain away why no retalian was taken for the Cole bombing)and seems to have totally ignored that Musharaff has presided over the dismantling of democracy in Pakistan and the creation of the conditions that led to Bhutto's assassination. Rudy has supported the Administration's policy in the part of the world from the beginning.

4. Rudy's overt willingness to exploit the events of 9/11, which actually exposed his disastrous emergency planning (putting the emergency headquarters INSIDE THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, for example)that voters should see through any attempt by RG to exploit Bhutto's assassination. Apparently the Fix, Joe Scarborough and other talking heads are far too willing to fall for Rudy's nonsense and play into the conventional wisdom.

4. Rudy's experience on the World stage is nada.

Posted by: jbentley4 | December 27, 2007 12:27 PM | Report abuse

The problem with CC's analysis is that this event is seen as part of the horserace, rather than an opportunity to see which candidate, if president, could actually deal with situations like this in office. Sure Penn and Hillary will claim that they are ready, but are they really? If Biden is really gaining support in Iowa, this could be good news for him, since he is the only one who has demonstrated actual knowledge and experience in international affairs. I predict Biden will do better than expected as some voters wonder what the heck the other candidates have to offer.

Posted by: freedom41 | December 27, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Ya just gotta love it. Jerk politicians in the United States of Arrogance "positioning" themselves over the murder of one of their own.

Posted by: kentigereyes | December 27, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Hey CC...This brings to mind the terrible importance of a major blunder the Bushies committed. Tora Bora...we had Osama bin Laden and the Taliban bottled up there. Only 2 exits out and our military had both of them covered. We finally had him and his band of bad guys. Suddenly, the military was told to pull away from one exit and move the troops to the other exit. For 2 weeks, helicopters ferried out Osama and the boys into Pakistan. Into the safety of the Pakistani mountains. No answer was given to the military as to why this was happening. Bush let him escape and he did. The details of this betrayal came out when military officers left the service and spoke up. No one in the Bush administration wants to talk about it. I believe the reason for this blunder on the part of Bush is that he didnt want the boogey man caught, because he needed him alive to continue the pseudo war on terrorism. His number one concern was not bin Laden, but IRAQ....he wanted to attack them and Osama dropped off the front burner. Now Pakistan is in turmoil, and they have nuclear weapons, and also have a very protected visitor, by the name of Osama bin Laden living inside on the border. All the while Bush and Cheney beat the drums of war with Iran, instead of routing out Osama from Pakistan. Today...the world is a whole lot more dangerous because of the failure at Tora Bora. Thanks a lot Mr. Bush

Posted by: drivensnow2525 | December 27, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP writes
"Is the assassination of a foreign figure not recognized by many caucusgoers or primary voters going to suddenly be a resonating issue? I doubt it."

Its not so much the assassination, it is the pending fallout. We don't yet know what that will be, but it is unlikely that Pakistan will settle down and peace will break out. It wasn't too many weeks ago that Gen/Pres Musharraf incarcerated half the judiciary & hundreds of lawyers in an effort to eliminate dissent & legal challenges to his Presidency.

Posted by: bsimon | December 27, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes writes: "I was supporting Mitt but seeing Claudia really hates Rudy, I may want to give him a second look. If the looney left doesn't like him then maybe he is the Leader we need in this dangerous world."

Well, let's see...this whole mess started with Republicans in charge of the country and of New York City. It has devolved into torture, suspension of habeas corpus, thousands dead here and abroad, dollar devaluation, inadequate emergency responses, a liquidity crisis, a foreclosure crisis, lies, spying on U.S. citizens, cooked-up prosecutions--you name a debacle, the Republicans are holding the match to the fuel can. Loony left? Everything good in the U.S. has come from the left. Everything evil, incompetent, dictatorial and, let's face it, stupid, has come from the right. Look in the mirror for proof.

Posted by: edwcorey | December 27, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Truth_Hunter

Powell said nothing abroad to the public because he was loyal to his President. It doesn't mean he did not discuss his vision or dissatisfaction upon political decision makers. He stayed on the staff because he wanted to influence, but as we well already know: Rumsfield is a one dimension or the highway thinker.

Posted by: SAL3456 | December 27, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Is the assassination of a foreign figure not recognized by many caucusgoers or primary voters going to suddenly be a resonating issue? I doubt it.

We won't see the following days become dominated by foreign policy discussions is that few of the candidates have radically differing policies regarding Pakistan.

The country's a mess, and no candidate thinks they have a silver bullet. (Perhaps Ron Paul will pledge to not intervene, again.)

"Primary choices are about contrast, and right now, none of these candidates have a policy proposal for dealing with Pakistan or al-Qaeda in that region that differs greatly from one another, or from the Bush administration, for that matter.

They all boil down to, "We hope to not have to use military force, and hope Pakistan will take action in the tribal regions, and we will urge them to do so, and pressure them to do so, and if necessary we will take action, but hope to get approval from their government, but if we don't, and the value of the target is high enough, and if we feel it is worth the risk, then we will, maybe, but we don't want to say what circumstances would warrant that..."

UPDATE: I stand corrected; Bill Richardson just staked out a position distinct from the rest of the field by calling for Musharaff's resignation."


http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTAxNjI5ZjliNzY2MmJkMjUwZDM5ZmM5ZTFjZGE1Yzk=

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 27, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

'That aspect implies, to me, that the actors were fundamentalist radicals rather than Musharraf goons.'

In Pakistan, it's hard to tell the difference. That's part of the problem in our delaings with them and our funneling cash wihtout strings. Pakistan is far, far more deadly to us than Iran ever could be. They have several nukes. They harbor both the Taliban and bin Ladin--who has already proven his intentions.. The Saudi royals, some of whom have allegiance with bin Ladin, have toured ALL the Pakistani nuclear sites [with an eye on buying a nuke for themselves -- a deal is in the making] while the US does not even know where the Pakistani nukes are. All the world's terrorist attacks today are coming out of pakistan.

Iran is a mosquito compared to the danger that pakisstan now representss.

Tthank you for the Biden quote, TruthHunter. As I said, you can see that he is the only adult in the race -- the only one with the sensibilities requied to get us out of this terrible race to self-destruction. What a pity the press can't be bothered with him.

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Two quick comments. First, it is Cris' job to comment on how world events, even tragic ones such as this, affect political situations in this country. To criticize him for doing this is absurd.
Second, the nastiness expressed in the blog, by liberals AND conservatives, not only exemplifies the dangerous polarization currently in effect as we approach the '08 election, but does a greater disservice to Ms. Bhutto than anything Cris wrote.

Posted by: leistritz | December 27, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

I am tired of this guy hiding behind 9/11. He just happened to be in the chair when it happened. (Same with Dubya, by the way.) Anyone in his position would have done what he did. Before 9/11, Giuliani was widely considered no hero by the residents of New York. "Fascist" and "Nazi" were words I heard thrown around by his constituents. His act is wearing thin and I think the voters recognize that.

Posted by: bucinka8 | December 27, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Backing up a bit and putting this in context as a news-grabber for the day; it will lead the nightly news tonight for sure. This event will enable the foreign affairs credible candidates to look presidential, while it could make the others look naive.

If there is any benefit, it will to McCain. Guiliani is so transparent, his star has fallen and an assassination in a developing country albeit an important one, will not help him with his shamless referenceing of 9/11. Romney, Thompson, Huckabee, etc will not necessarily suffer for this event, but won't be in the news today because of it. (or a little bit perhaps)

On the Dems side, Biden, Richardson, and a bit of HRC can enhance their images in the area of foreign affairs. I don't think Edwards or Obama benefit, but don't suffer, other than not being in the news as much today.

Posted by: adriennemichael | December 27, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

I disagree that this benefits Rudy in any way. It just underscores his complete lack of any foreign policy experience (going to New Jersey doesn't count). McCain, Clinton, Biden, and Richardson are the only candidates I would trust to deal with this current situation.

Posted by: kissmemonster | December 27, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

1460... AMEN!

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | December 27, 2007 12:05 PM | Report abuse

SAL3456, Powell was Secretary of State when The Decider was formenting his plans to invade Iraq.... Powell didn't agree but didn't have the courage of his convictions to either resign in protest or publicly renounce these actions.

Instead he delivered what he must have known was a trumpted-up excuse for the invasion to the UN. He's demonstratly not fit to lead in times that call for courage and sound judgment.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | December 27, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

"Benazir Bhutto was beautiful and charming and sophisticated and smart and modern, and everything we in the west would like a Muslim leader to be - though in practice, as Pakistan's Prime Minister, she was just another grubby wardheeler from one of the world's most corrupt political classes.

She could never have been a viable leader of a post-Musharraf settlement, and the delusion that she could have been sent her to her death.

Earlier this year, I had an argument with an old (infidel) boyfriend of Benazir's, who swatted my concerns aside with the sweeping claim that "the whole of the western world" was behind her. On the streets of Islamabad, that and a dime'll get you a cup of coffee.

As I said, she was everything we in the west would like a Muslim leader to be. We should be modest enough to acknowledge when reality conflicts with our illusions. Rest in peace, Benazir."

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTYyZDM1ZTJiYTEzMzM2ZDZjNTAxZWQ3MzMzODBmOTg=

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 27, 2007 12:00 PM | Report abuse

If Cillizza actually thinks that Bhutto's murder will somehow validate Giuliani's electoral model of ego driven and hate based pandering, I'd say that his political acuity is lacking. One thing this latest spasm of murderous violence should continue to make clear is the overt incompetence the CheneyBushRumsfield model. The pandora's box opened by the wholly inadequate and fully self indulgent foreign policy of this troika, and blindly supported by so many in the American press, will require unique competence, coordination, and understanding to manage. The only thing that CheneyBushRumsfield can claim is that they have almost single handedly destablized global politics and economics. How can anybody...anybody at all...continue to apologize for and support such incompetence?

Posted by: l460 | December 27, 2007 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman and presidential candidate Joe Biden has released this statement:

"This is a terrible day. My heart goes out to Benazir Bhutto’s family, friends and followers.

"Like her father before her, Benazir Bhutto worked her whole life -- and gave her life -- to help Pakistan become a democratic, secular and modern Muslim country. She was a woman of extraordinary courage who returned to Pakistan in the face of death threats and even after an assassination attempt the day of her return, she did not flinch. It was a privilege to know her these many years and to call her a friend.

"I am convinced Ms. Bhutto would have won free and fair elections next week. The fact that she was by far Pakistan's most popular leader underscores the fact that there is a vast, moderate majority in Pakistan that must have a clear voice in the system. Her assassination makes it all the more urgent that Pakistan return to a democratic path.

"This fall, I twice urged President Musharraf to provide better security for Ms. Bhutto and other political leaders -- I wrote him before her return and after the first assassination attempt in October. The failure to protect Ms. Bhutto raises a lot of hard questions for the government and security services that must be answered.

"I know that Benazir's followers will be tempted to lash out in anger and violence. I urge them to remain calm -- and not play into the hands of the forces of destruction. I urge Pakistan's leaders to open a fully accountable and transparent investigation. We must find out who was behind this and bring those responsible to justice. And the United States should offer any assistance necessary, including investigative teams, to get to the bottom of this horror.

"The way to honor Benazir Bhutto is to uphold the values for which she gave her life: democracy, moderation and social justice. I join with the Pakistani people in mourning the loss of a dear friend."

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | December 27, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse

The news in Pakistan is very sad.. but we knew she was a target. This coming election will be one of the most important decisions by U.S. citizens. It will determine our "Face" as a nation to the world. Hillary Clinton is the worse possible candidate during these difficult times. Women.. (No disrespect) are not looked upon by Arab/Muslim men as leaders. The women are distance from all business and foreign policy. I'm afraid if Hillary was elected, we will suffer greater diversity in foreign policy affairs and be a country with "less face" when viewed by the Arab/Muslim community.

The only candidate not running who would best serve the United States as President is General Collen Powell. A man with leadership, integrity, and world recognition by the Arab nation and abroad. I think U.S. citizens would elect him "hands down" as an independent candidate.

Posted by: SAL3456 | December 27, 2007 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Ah, I see what you mean, bsimon. I just read Huck's statment:

" On this sad day, we are reminded that while our democracy has flaws, it stands as a shining beacon of hope for nations and people around the world who seek peace and opportunity through self-government."

Pure self-serving, jingoistic naivete. Agree with you about McCain and Biden having the creds. Wonder if anyone in the press will remember it was Biden that both Musharefff and Bhutto were consulting with, rather than anyone at State or in teh Executive Branch? He's really the only one with the experience we need--even McCain has less.

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

claudia writes
"it makes a huge difference whose 'goons' it was. and it was an assanination--she was shot point blank. Are you suggesting every political assasination in history was a terrorist act?"

Yes and no. Firstly, a suicide bomber - NPR said the gunman - detonated himself following the shooting of Bhutto. So, yes, its fair to call it a terrorist act. That aspect implies, to me, that the actors were fundamentalist radicals rather than Musharraf goons. But, it also doesn't really matter who pulled the trigger / triggered the blast - if Pakistan implodes & Musharraf is toppled, it won't matter who killed Bhutto.

To put it another way, the last time we propped up a dictator in an Islamic country, the pro-democracy groups & religous radicals teamed up to depose him. In the end, the radicals took power, and we're still dealing with the consequences - that was in Iran.

Posted by: bsimon | December 27, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Claudialong.... Agree with your comments! That Rudy is shameless isn't news is it... does he really think we would feel safer with him in the White House? With the Pakistan situation he is worse than clueless.

As The Decider and his eviler twin, Cheney, rattled their sabers against Iran, it was Biden who pointed out the real terrorist hot spot is Pakistan. In a way Biden doesn't need to make a statement, he already has!

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | December 27, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

I think if there are at least two more terrorist bombing incidents in which dozens of people are blown to pieces, Giuliani pulls out an electoral victory.
Three, and he's our next President.
We can only dream, can't we?
When people are blown to bits, it always helps Giuliani, makes him stronger, like some sort of new age Count Orlok.

Posted by: oxyconservative | December 27, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Giuliani couldn't wait five minutes before trying to parlay Bhutto's death into a a fear mongering vote for himself? He's amoral on a good day. You express condolences, don;t say vote for me cuz your scared now. HE's a fascist!

And an idiot.

Posted by: robertell | December 27, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse


'When awful events like this occur, Republicans have a huge emotional and historical advantage. - Posted by: drsbb'

Why? Because they're the first to jump on it and try to use it to their advantage?

Just for a change, someone might want to stop thinking about this in terms of who benefits and recognize that it's a tremendous blow to US policiy in Pakistan, which is in shambles.

The US was pushing Mushareff to provide her with more protection, but he refused. It was in our interests that she help guide the country back to democracy.

'Nobody is saying it was Al Quiada or Musharaff's goons or whoever; but the tactic is clear for all to see.'

I don't get your point, JD--it makes a huge difference whose 'goons' it was. and it was an assanination--she was shot point blank. Are you suggesting every political assasination in history was a terrorist act? Perhaps so, but i wish you would clear that up.

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2007 11:41 AM | Report abuse

theseventen writes
"This news could not have come at a worse time for Huckabee and especially Obama."

I think you're half right. I don't think Obama will come out of this damaged as much as Huck & Edwards. I also question your prediction that HRC will benefit. She, like Giuliani, does not have as much experience in this area as she claims.

Posted by: bsimon | December 27, 2007 11:39 AM | Report abuse

This whole rush to capitalize politically on the death of Bhutto is a little too "ambulance chaser"; it will only backfire on candiates who are seen as too quick to get the lead on this. It seems like Rudy's team has that narrative ready just in case any person of import in the whole world gets killed. Just insert name here, ____________.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 27, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

claudia asks
"Why Huckabee, bsimon?"

Because he has zero foreign policy experience. Being a short week from the first delegate selections in the 2008 race, an international event that reminds voters of just how unstable the globe is right now will damage candidates without foreign policy creds. Among the front-runners, thats Huckabee and Edwards. If voters start looking around for _real_ foreign policy creds, they should move towards McCain and Biden. Clinton and Giuliani have claimed FP experience because 'they were there', though the claims are tenuous, at best.

Posted by: bsimon | December 27, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Your little excuse-me at the end of your column doesn't excuse you one bit.

If an American political figure had been assassinated, I doubt you would be talking about who benefits. Simply because there are times when politics takes a back seat, whether you have a column to write or not.

Rather than simply dismissing annoying "reader criticism", you arrogant jerk, why not try to think about it and take it serioiusly? Or--here's an idea--write a more intelligent column about how the candidates choose to engage Pakistan. Not "who benefits" from the assassination. No one benefits, Chris.

Posted by: dcriegel | December 27, 2007 11:34 AM | Report abuse

This column is nauseating. Bhutto's death is a tragedy and, as usual, speculating on which candidate is "helped" by it is an attempt to influence Americans as to who should be "helped" by it. There is absolutely no "emotional and historical advantage" for Republicans who have done nothing to make the US safe, and have done everything to encourage and support lawless regimes and brutal dictators who have terrorized their own people.

Posted by: diane3 | December 27, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Guiliani can barely hide his glee! He loves fear, and suffering! Typical Priest. As to his winning the Presidency, it's his kind, like Bush, that have sent the world into a violent seizure. We are done with the fear candidate thing. Rudy's a martial law kinda guy, better for a tv show than this nation.

Posted by: robertell | December 27, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

The Neocons suffered another serious setback when Bhutto was assassinated today. They were going to put her in place of Musharraf. Neocons McCain, Huck, Hill, Giuliani, and Mitt are surely in a tizzy. It may take a major bombing to Pakistan to soften the place up. And these guys have Iran on the agenda for bombing too. Ron Paul mentioned today Seymour Hirsh's articles on the Neocon - Iran campaign. Another thing that Seymour Hirsh points out is that the photos we were shown of Abu Ghraib were tame. The bad ones of child rape haven't come out yet. Meanwhile the economy is collapsing - banks are falling like dominos. There is a real danger that the Republic will fail. Why in the world would God support what is going on? It is one heck of a Neocon mess and only Ron Paul can get us out of it.

Posted by: washpost3 | December 27, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

When awful events like this occur, Republicans have a huge emotional and historical advantage. - Posted by: drsbb


Yeah, LOL, like a President that sits and listens to hear the end of a GOAT story after he's been told the U.S. is under attack!

Posted by: kparc | December 27, 2007 11:28 AM | Report abuse

I don't think people should be so quick to criticize Chris Cillizza for attempting to address the political implications of Bhutto's assassination. The fact is, there WILL be a political impact from this and political analysts' job is to assess this. It's not crass at all.

Yes, the assassination is a terrible thing, and our thoughts and prayers are with Bhutto's family and the people of Pakistan. But we would all be naive if we were not to think about the consequences of this back home, especially with the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries so soon.

This news is going to cause voters to take John McCain more seriously on the GOP side and Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton more seriously on the Dem side. Joe Biden in particular has been quite prescient about the threat from Pakistan.

Politicians who will be injured by this will be Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney on the GOP side and Barack Obama and John Edwards on the Dem side. My thinking is that voters are more willing to vote for "change" when they feel safe. But when there's a threat out there, "experience" and "strength" matter. This news could not have come at a worse time for Huckabee and especially Obama.

At least with Huckabee, Romney, his chief threat in Iowa, is not a credible foreign policy candidate. (Romney has to worry more about McCain in NH.) But Clinton is going to remind Iowa voters about the importance of having a firm, experienced, steady hand in the White House and that will resonate at Obama's expense. Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson will also look more attractive, but I think only Biden is positioned well enough to actually make some noise in the caucuses.

Let us all remember that as crass as it may be, politics never sleeps. Give Chris a break. He's just doing what we expect him to do--analyze the political scene.

Posted by: theseventen | December 27, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, Dems you fail again- Posted by: Italiaxxx

So Italia are you saying with BUSH you've won?!(sic)

Posted by: kparc | December 27, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Sad, Really sad. Any politician who tries to exploit this tragic event for political gain is unfit to be president. The volatile nature of Pakistans politics has played itself for generations. From the Hanging of Bhuttos father to the mysterious plane crash of his executioner Gen Zia Ul Haq, nothwithstanding the myriad assasination attempts on Musharraf. The bigger question is what's the US policy towards a volatile nation that is a nuclear power. Any Presidential candidate that can articulate this policy gets my vote.

Posted by: Political_Sage | December 27, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Tracie, no offense, but get a life.

Are you seriously suggesting that it wasn't a terrorist attack in Pakistan? Nobody is saying it was Al Quiada or Musharaff's goons or whoever; but the tactic is clear for all to see.

As for Rudy being cynical; please. It's a tough world out there, and Rudy more than anyone else is running on the 'protect the US from terrorists' line. Why would you expect him to do anything else?

Posted by: JD | December 27, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Hello, Everyone:

So, if some terrible and unique story of death arises in the context of miserable poverty, it would be wrong for Mr. Edwards to be the first one to CC's inbox with a statement about the terrible death and how it illustrates his arguments about the 2 Americas? Let's at least be consistent here. Mr. Giuliani is doing what every candidate does: Seize the day's issue to your advantage.

I'll also freely admit when I first heard of Bhutto's assassination my thoughts immediately turned to the threat of terrorism. So, in my case at least, CC's analysis applies. (I didn't think of Mr. Giuliani, but rather the Democrat versus Republican perspective on terrorism.)

The comment response here also illustrates the larger Democrat problem on the terrorism issue. When awful events like this occur, Republicans have a huge emotional and historical advantage. Imagine that a few more of these kind of events happen in August and September and October. This is a terrible bind for Democrats.

Posted by: drsbb | December 27, 2007 11:22 AM | Report abuse

I am impressed that Giuliani has already determined who killed Bhutto. He should go to Pakistan and help the police there. There is certainly reason to believe that Al Qaeda or its allies were behind the killing, but there has also been speculation (including by Bhutto's cousin, speaking to BBC today) that Musharraf supporters were guilty. If Giuliani has proof of who was behind the killing, he shuld say so. Of course, to say U.S. ally Musharraf (who had a lot to gain from Bhutto dying) might have been behind the killing would not help a Republican running for President. And NO Republican would dare mention the fact that U.S. arming of Islamic rebels fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan might have played a role in the Taliban (strong allies of Al Qaeda) come to power.

Posted by: Sutter | December 27, 2007 11:21 AM | Report abuse

'I was supporting Mitt but seeing Claudia really hates Rudy, I may want to give him a second look'

I don't hate him, I see him for the dangerous, monstrously ambitious man he is. But your post simply proves to me that you don't vote for the person best fit to lead the country, you simply vote and live out of blind hatred for democrats.

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2007 11:20 AM | Report abuse

The US needs a strong president. Hillary, no. Barak, maybe. Guilliani, yes. If the Dems elect Hillary, Guilliani will crush her in the national election. She is about as likeable as chicken pox. Sorry, Dems you fail again.

Posted by: Italiaxxx | December 27, 2007 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Chris, when I saw your headline I thought I was watching FOX. Why not Could Bhutto's Death help Clinton since they are both women?
Hell, why not "Could Bhutto's Death Hurt Clinton?" All of this is idle speculation.
but one thing is clear the diversion of resources from Afghanstan and the fight against Al Quada to Iraq is a major cause of this calamity.

Posted by: MerrillFrank | December 27, 2007 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Bravo Claudia Long.

Seriously, the tendency of talking heads to talk about who benefits politically from this or that world tragedy really has to stop. CC is not the only media figure guilty of this. It is not only idiotic, it is out of line and disrespectful. How far have we fallen as a democracy if a cowardly act of violence influences our choice of leader. I have to wonder what person of integrity would even want to benefit from such an occurance. The horserace journalism that the beltway media are so addicted to really has no place in the wake of events like this. For god's sake have a sense of propriety, a sense of human decency.

Posted by: dcriegel | December 27, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

I, at first, agreed with claudialong but then I realized that there are 1000 other journalists writing the weeping article about the damage to democracy. While I think its bad that a politician who had long been a pusher for democracy in a country/region that had too little, Chris's job is to write about political implications.

The only person who this could really boost is Guiliani and possibly McCain. Otherwise, the other major President hopefuls have other major issues they are fighting over. So, I'm with you there CC.

However, I'm one who thinks we won't know any major implications (either in Pakistan or in the US) for a couple weeks.

Also, I was a little disgusted by Obama's comment. This woman, while a democratic leader, was corrupt as they come and full of cronyism. Her democratic principals were great, but she didn't practice good democracy.

Posted by: matt99stevens | December 27, 2007 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Leave it to Rudy to try and capitalize on someones death. Blaming terrorists before the perpetrator has even been identified. He is the worst kind of fear mongering pig, and anyone that listens to him at this point is just stupid. Unfortunatly, there are many in the republican party that have made stupid their lifes work.

Posted by: TRACIETHEDOLPHIN | December 27, 2007 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Why Huckabee, bsimon? What did McCain say about her death? I haven't seen his statement yet. rudy was the first out of the box to jump on it. I did read obama's -- it sounded human, as tonebob said.

Does anyone know if Biden issued a statement? He is the only one among them qualified to comment on what Bhutto's death actually means to the US, and the world--rathr than reducing it to some childish narrative about good and evil.

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2007 11:16 AM | Report abuse

CC -- Just because you write a political blog is not an excuse for disrespect for the dead and for poor manners. You are o better than Mr. Guiliani, with his disgusting attempt to use a tradegy for political gain. Mr. Huckabee is quick to remind everyone about the greatest if "our" political system in comparison with others (and no words about the loss of life). Mr. Obama wrote the most humane and respectful comment of all.

Posted by: marmac5 | December 27, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

It's the triumph of fear over hope.


Posted by: blasmaic | December 27, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

On the Dem side, wasn't it HRC that claimed a terrorist attack would help the GOP - and that she was the best Dem to challenge them on the security issue? I put her in the same camp as Giuliani - likely to try to exploit the assassination of PM Bhutto for her own political gain. I don't know if any Dem will 'benefit', though again, it might hurt Edwards & possibly Obama. Biden 'should' benefit as the foreign policy expert in that field, but its not clear that he is viewed as credibly able to win the nomination.

Posted by: bsimon | December 27, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

I'm a CC and a Fix fan, but this is a pretty morbid post. In CC's defense, the talking heads on the three cable news networks are already talking about which candidate benefits from Bhutto's death. Please let the Pakistani's bury and mourn her before talking before who benefits from this tragedy.

Posted by: rogden71 | December 27, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

I was supporting Mitt but seeing Claudia really hates Rudy, I may want to give him a second look. If the looney left doesn't like him then maybe he is the Leader we need in this dangerous world. it sure isn/t Hillary who never even had a secret clearance in which to make judgements she's claimed to made. (ie: solved Irish civil war)

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 27, 2007 11:14 AM | Report abuse

I think the death of former PM Bhutto will damage the candidacy of Huckabee; with Giulianni cynically trying to exploit the event to further his own candidacy, perhaps GOP primary voters will instead choose the adult on their ballot - John McCain.

Posted by: bsimon | December 27, 2007 11:11 AM | Report abuse

i must whole-heartedly agree with claudialong. this column is nauseating. especially so soon. i've clicked thru and read the story about the attack on several sites - the ny times, the post - and it never occurred to me that this might actually "benefit" a political candidate in this country. that you put it that way is sickening.

almost as sickening as the fact that giuliani is using it in that way.

i also think the other candidates statements are revealing. obama's is the only one to show any feeling about her death, the only one that actually expressed any real human emotion. the others seem to be out for political gain only.

Posted by: tonebobb | December 27, 2007 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Indeed, I'm not sure which is more nauseating, Rudito Giussolini's panting, slurred rush to insert himself directly behind Bhutto's ambulance, or CC's equally breathless rush to handicap his meaningless, silly little statement.

This is a joke, right?

Posted by: 1123581322 | December 27, 2007 11:04 AM | Report abuse

What at first could seem like a cynical question, could end up having at least a little impact on the race as Iowa is getting closer. I think you are right about the attention drought Rudy has suffered from in recent weeks (remembering in early Fall, when this was supposed to be a two-way race between Rudy and Hillary?). Anything that gets him into the loop again - and that doesn't have anything to do with Bernie Kerik - is a positive for him.

As the campaign has dragged on, it has become increasingly clear that Giuliani's message was designed for a Republican electorate that just doesn't seem to be materializing. Terrorism and national security has given way to immigration and, with Huck's surge, finally even social issues, and none of these are among Rudy's strong suits. If Bhutto's death could catapult terrorism back on the national agenda, that would be a major boost for Rudy. But, however, it still doesn't take away my sense that his poor showing in IA and NH will make a comeback very hard. For this incident to benefit him in the long run, two things has to happen:

1) He has to get through to Florida, and 2) the situation in Pakistan has to remain on the agenda. Given the fact that elections are set for the beginning of the new year, the latter seems far more likely to happen than the first. And politically speaking, Giuliani will of course have no benefit from the latter if voters have taken him out of consideration by Jan. 29.

Posted by: jorgen.lien | December 27, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

'Bhutto's assassination could well work to Giuliani's benefit'

I have to say, CC, that this is one of the most nauseating comments I have ever read-and speaks volumes about the nature of media and politics in this country.

But it also demonstrate Rudy's naked lust for power, that he would immediately jump on a tragedy and use it to further his career, much like he jumped atop the burning bodies of 9/11 to begin his campaign for president.

It is clear that Guiliani will use any means, will capitalize on any human tragedy, will do anything to feed his massive ego and gain unfettered power and access to vast amounts of wealth.

You might also note -- if you cared about accuracy, CC -- that this was an ASSINATION -- which might well have been carried out by our ally Mr. Mushareff [rather than 'terrorists'] as he had many reasons to what her dead before the elections next month.

I know you are shameless, but try, just this once.

Posted by: drindl | December 27, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

But, but, exactly what did he do to prevent the 9/11 attacks? He showed up for work the next day, but other than putting the City's emergency response center in a building WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN ATTACKED, what did he do, other than wrongly assure rescue and recovery teams that Ground Zero was safe?

Posted by: advocate2 | December 27, 2007 10:44 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company