Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Benazir Bhutto Assassinated

By

By a gunman and suicide bomber.  Details here.

Nothing like a country that is already a little fast and loose with its nuclear weapons teetering on the brink of civil war.

Good thing we have a crack team in the White House.

Yikes.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Yet one cannot be wholly surprised by this turn of events; given the state Pakistani politics it was a matter of when this would happen, not if.

    <

    p>It’s also worth noting that Bhutto had local connections as an alumna of Radcliffe College (’73). (Anecdotally, her collge nickname was “Pinky” — tho this may not necessarily have reflected her political leanings.)

  2. …I thought you were kidding.

    <

    p>Anyone want to wager on how much longer Masharraf has to live?  India must be on high alert by now.

  3. The assassination of Rafik Hariri in 2005 led to mass protests, the Cedar Revolution, and the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. Hopefully, something similar will happen in Pakistan.

    <

    p>Then again, Bhutto’s death could generate a reaction a little closer to what happend after Archduke Ferdinand was killed.  

    • This wasn’t an intervention by a foreign power, it was home grown islamist extremists who apparently are smart enough to know that knocking off the opposition leader is a great way to forestall any democratic handoff of power.

      <

      p>Bhutto wasn’t any angel herself, not nearly the stature of Hairiri and Sharif, the next most prominent opposition leader, is a lot worse and has personal beef with Musharraf to boot.

      • Source?

        <

        p>I’ve seen speculation that Musharraf and/or the military were involved, but it seems pretty early to say one way or the other.

        <

        p>FWIW, Rawalpindi is supposedly tightly controlled by the military.

        <

        p>  

        • I remember reading an interview with a former Clinton aide (can’t remember who) and he said that the most scared he had ever been in his life was on an official state visit to Pakistan.  It was the one place where they never really controlled security and they never really knew who they could trust and who they couldn’t trust and it wasn’t until the plane took off from Karachi that they could finally breath a sigh of a relief.

        • Suicide bomb says militant.

          <

          p>To extremist islamists, Bhutto was a woman (!!) who wanted political power (the thought!) and who had publicly supported Musharraf’s siege on that mosque full of wackos a few months back.  She was also representative of secular, democratic government.

          <

          p>To Musharraf, she was an opposition politician who, upon taking a seat in the Parliament, would have provided a lot of “he’s really democratic” credibility without actually taking very much power away from him.

          <

          p>That all points to the extremists to me.  Musharraf’s record is pretty good on most counts, it’s time for him to leave IMO and if I were a radical looking to screw up the government of Pakistan, stranding him there without a credible successor to hand off power to in a democratic election would be a great idea.  There’s also the “we’d kill both if we could” factor.

      • Given the fact that Bhutto’s father had been assassinated before her, it wasn’t altogether surprising.   Sooner or later,  Benazier Bhutto’s assassination was bound to happen….and it did.

    • With the whole you know Israeli invasion, Hezbollah ruling the South, and Syrians continuing political assasinations? Not to mention tensions between Maronite Christians and Shia Muslims at their highest since the end of their last civil war? Sorry no success story there.  

  6. Nawaz Sharif is now the most prominent opposition figure standing:

    <

    p>

    “Benazir Bhutto was also my sister, and I will be with you to take the revenge for her death,” he said. “Don’t feel alone. I am with you. We will take the revenge on the rulers.”

    <

    p>These are not the words of someone planning a campaign strategy for upcoming elections.  These are the words of someone looking to lead a popular movement.  At CNN right now, the correspondent is stating that popular reaction is squarely aimed at the government, which I don’t really think will be able to survive this.  Sharif is clearly hoping to ride this wave of anger and frenzy into power (though he doesn’t have a strong history of opposing Islamic extremism).  

    <

    p>I’m not convinced Musharraf authorized the killing; he was starting to smartly tame Bhutto and would have known this rioting would be a fallout from such a killing.  Though I don’t think he’ll be killed (he has Mobutu-like security and distance from people), his days in power are sharply numbered.

    • Technical reasons prevent Sharif from running in the upcoming election.  Popular revolution is his only shot at power.

      <

      p>Your best source for news while CNN stares at its navel and runs ads:  Dawn, an English-language Pakistani source with streaming but bumpy audio.

      • … and then the murderer or his accomplices detonated the bomb(s) to throw everyone off the scent and make it look like a run-of-the-mill suicide/homicide bomber.

  7. Besides lambasting the Adminstration, I wonder how the Dem presidential hopefuls will play this.  

    <

    p>Previously:

    <

    p>1. Hillary punted when Musharraf made his power play.  “It’s hard to know what to do right now.”

    <

    p>2. Obama, the day after a debate, made a statement that he’d override Pakistani sovereignty and send US troops in to pursue Al Qaeda targets.  Hmm, I wonder how that would affect stability.  

    <

    p>3. Edwards said we should use “diplomatic sticks” along with aid to restore stability.  He also said Musharraf “needs to be doing everything in his power to shut down terrorist acts like the recent assassination attempt on Benazir Bhutto.”  Guess Musharraf let his subscription to the Quad City Tiems lapse.

    <

    p>I assume that Dems here have much more to lose than to gain by telling voters what they’d do.  Do folks agree?  There are no easy answers.  

    <

    p>Ie, much better to play it safe, blame Bush, blame Bush some more, blame Musharraf, and stick with vague proclamations about “When I am president….”

    • If we want to mock someone just to relieve ourselves, that moron Jon Keller just said that this is “a sign of the political instability in the Middle East”.  Takes a special guy to think Pakistan is in the Middle East.

      <

      p>~~~~
      What I don’t say here, I say here.

      • Oh dear:

        <

        p>

        PAKISTAN FALLOUT

        12/27/2007 11:30 AM
        The murder of Benazir Bhutto underlines once again the violence and political instability of the Middle East, and the potential threat to US national security posed by chaos within heavily-armed (and in Pakistan’s case, nuclear-armed) regions.

        It’s a jolting reminder of the world’s dicey realities to those voters lulled by six years of no successful terror attacks here and a drop in US casualties. So how might that wakeup call affect the outcomes in Iowa and New Hampshire?

        Who knows, but here’s a guess. Among the competitive candidates on the Republican side, John McCain is clearly the most experienced in foreign affairs. Hillary Clinton has travelled more and received more White House and Senate briefings than her competitors. They’re both also the senior figures in their races. I bet that winds up mattering to suddenly-nervous voters.

        • Just how close Pakistan and India are to producing the hydrogen bomb? Something with serious fallout effects?
          Probably not too close, it is an expensive undertaking after all…sadly though that is all the comfort we have today.

        • The self appointed expert on  politics:

          <

          p>

          Jon Keller is widely regarded as the top political analyst in New England. He is a favorite of the region’s viewers because he is smart and witty, and he asks the tough questions everyone wants to have asked.

          <

          p>He can ask those tough questions like: Where the f*ck is Pakistan anyway? Middle East, South Asia, Sunni, Shia, what’s the dif?  

        • I wonder if what he meant was “Islamic World” and got “Middle East” as a more PC-way of saying the former, even though it is wrong.

          <

          p>I don’t disagree with the rest of his point.

      • Takes a special guy to think Pakistan is in the Middle East.

        <

        p>I prefer the European definition: Near East, Middle East and Far East.  By that classification, Pakistan would be in the Middle East.

        • …..does not contain Iraq, Iran or syria since the europeans generally consider “middle east” to be the Indian Subcontinent.  

          • The Near East (German “NahOst”) are generally countries from the former Ottoman Empire, which largely includes Iraq, as well as Lebanon and Syria which were formed out of the French protectorate following the dissolution of the Ottoman empire at the end of WWI, and Israel and Transjordan–now Jordan–which were formed out of the British protectorate).  I have insufficient information to opine over the formation of Turkey, Armenia, etc., but they would likely be consindered Near East.  

            <

            p>I’m not sure about Iran.  The Middle East is the Indian subcontinent, which includes India, West Pakistan (now Pakistan) and the former East Pakistan (now Bangla Desh), and possibly also Afghanistan.  The Far Eaat is largly China and other oriental countries.

        • not the Middle East.  Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, the rest of the Arab countries and Israel are in what’s long been considered the middle East.

      • Pakistan, mideast or not, discuss:.  You’re hardly a moron if you say yes:

        <

        p>

        The Middle East (or West Asia) sits where Africa, Asia and Europe meet. The countries of the Middle East are all part of Asia, but for clarity reasons we geographically show them here as a separate landmass.

        Opinions vary as to what countries make up the modern definition of the Middle East. Historically, Armenia and Azerbaijan have been long associated with the Middle East, but in recent years, some sources now consider them to be more closely aligned with Europe based on their modern economic and political trends. We have moved in that direction, and the same applies for the island country of Cyprus, as it does for Georgia, the former Russian republic.

        The African country of Egypt is still thought (by some) to be in the Middle East, as well as the northern African countries that border the Mediterranean Sea.

        We attempt here to show the modern definition, but in world of geography, there are often many answers or (personal or political opinions) to what appears to be a simple question

    • From MyDD:

      <

      p>

      Benazir Bhutto was a courageous woman. Her death, and the deaths of so many of her supporters, is more than just a tragedy. It is a testament to the will of the Pakistani people to see democracy restored. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of those who died today.

      Ms. Bhutto knew the dangers to her safety. But she would not be intimidated. We also must not be intimidated.

      A leader has died, but democracy must live. 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 Musharraf to step aside, and a broad-based coalition government, consisting of all the democratic parties, should be formed immediately. Until this happens, we should suspend military aid to the Pakistani government. Free and fair elections must also be held as soon as possible.

      It is in the interests of the US that there be a democratic Pakistan that relentlessly hunts down terrorists. Musharraf has failed, and his attempts to cling to power are destabilizing his country. He must go.”

      <

      p>Emphasis added.

      • I think our next president needs to be able to articulate the scope, depth and action steps needed like Richardson has in response to the horrific tragedy committed today.  After last year’s election season, I am looking at experience, intelligence and more than cautious when it comes to star quality.

        <

        p>May Peace prevail.

      • Teh people want democracy. If we shove out bad guy, good guys will hold hands at constitutional convention while killing terrists for us.

        <

        p>Bhutto may have represented the desire of many Pakistanis for secular democracy, but she was also, supposedly, Bush’s plan to shore up Musharraf’s credibility.  

      • This, and with his position on no troops in Iraq, no matter what the circumstance, make Richradson seem shrill, screeching, and profoundly lacking in subltlety or nuance.

        <

        p>Is he operating under some belief that something that replaces Musharaff will be better at extending the writ of

        <

        p>I am glad that his goose is about cooked in this campaign.

        • …Richardson doesn’t approach foreign policy as an exercise in one-liners, and shouldn’t be taken that way.  Notice Richardson doesn’t say that Musharraf has to go right away, and with no planning.  Sadly, discourse on foreign policy is so dumbed down on both sides that it’s tough to break that habit of applying that template.

          <

          p>As has been widely stated in the aftermath of Bhutto’s assassination, Musharraf’s current position is similar to that of the last shah of Iran.  He is reviled by democrats, extremists, and nearly everyone outside his immediate circle.  If a force composed of Sharif’s and Bhutto’s people takeover in a mass movement, there is little guarantee that they could hold to power.  Both the Russian Revolution and Iranian Revolution were instigated by moderates fighting corruption who quickly got overtaken by extremists.  Musharraf is going to go, either through a planned, sensible transition, a secular coup, an extremist revolt, or some mix thereof.  Frankly, I find Richardson’s recognition of the situation better than “the democracy is AWESUM/ Musharraf isn’t AWESUM” that other candidates call a foreign policy.

  9. Even if this tragic event leads to instability of the sort that might lead to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal falling under the control of jihadists, we cannot use militiary force to intervene in a manner to prevent such an outcome because no forces are available.

    <

    p>Yikes.

    • the hair on your neck stand up, there was this poll taken a few months back that yielded an eye opener:

      <

      p>

      Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf — a key U.S. ally — is less popular in his own country than al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, according to a poll of Pakistanis conducted last month by an anti-terrorism organization.

      <

      p>And in the ‘used to be popular before she was murdered’ department:

      There were a few bright spots in the poll results, however. Opposition leader Benazir Bhutto — a relatively moderate and progressive figure, as well as a woman — had a 63 percent approval rating.

      <

      p>I can’t quite square these two things in my head, but I don’t even pretend to understand the dynamics at work in Pakistan. I guess $10 billion just doesn’t buy as many friends or as much peace as it used to.

    • Nuclear weapons are in several pieces and are in the hands of the Pakistani Secret Service, the ISS.  The ISS is the most stable and regimented organization in Pakistan, and they aren’t militant Muslims.  Of course, they also have nominal loyalty to whomever is the leader of Pakistan, but one problem at a time.

        • …the only way that I have seen the Pakistani secret service referred to was as the ISI.  Not the ISS.

          <

          p>On the subject matter of the comments above, the extent to which the ISI harbored what eventually became the Taliban in Afghanistan is fairly unclear.  From what I have read, those who became the Taliban in Afghanistat were largely refugees who settled in western Pakistan, and who returned to Afghanistan following the power vacuum there after the Russian withdrawal.  

          <

          p>I could continue about GHWBush’s dereliction of duty to stay in Afghanistan and try to establish a working central government after they forced the Russian withdrawal, but I’ll refrain.

          • I usually see it at ISI as well.

            <

            p>While there is evidence that they sponsored the Taliban, it is a common assumption that sponsoring the Taliban shows that the ISI favored Muslim extremism.  Rather, the Taliban favored being in control of Afghanistan, and the Taliban were their chosen proxy.

            <

            p>Very rarely are disputes between religious groups about religion…much more likely to be about power.

            • The main point of my comment was that the US, after it chased the Russians out of Afghanistan, was derelict in its duty to at least try to establish a stable government there.  Hence the power vacuum.

              <

              p>I won’t go looking for it now, but there was a lengthy paper on the Internet regarding the success of the British in establishing a peaceful government in Maylasia following WWII.  I believe it’s on globalsecurity.com regarding “low intensive conflict” (or something like that).  It’s absolutely fascinating.

  10. …this is the second assassination of a female politicians in the Middle East in recent decades.  Recall the assassination of Indira Gandhi in 1984.

    <

    p>Two (going up a bit to Subatai) it appears that Sharif is also under death threats.

    <

    p>Three, recall that this follows (relatively) closely on the assassination of Hariri in Lebanon.

    <

    p>And four, recall that, because the US military is pinned down in Iraq, there is nothing that it can do there.  The only country that can do much of anything to pacify the situation is India.  I suspect that the Bangla Deshis (former East Pakistan) is glad that they are no longer part of West Pakistan.  WP is a mess.

  11. The Strategy of Defeat
    Terrorism Mark Silverberg, Featured Writer
    December 27, 2007 Print page sponsored by
    BasicsProject.org
    America has learned that the road to stabilizing the Palestinian territories, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and virtually the entire Middle East runs through Tehran. Unfortunately, it has not learned that a defensive military strategy cannot stop an aggressive enemy committed to conquest – unless that enemy believes that its very existence is at stake.

    <

    p>The asymmetry of waging a defensive war against an aggressive enemy surfaced during the Truman administration in its confrontation with Communist North Korea. When the Chinese Communists drove the UN forces out of North Korea in their quest to conquer the entire peninsula, Truman (to the surprise of the Chinese) failed to threaten the overthrow of the North Korean Communist regime adopting instead a defensive posture by choosing to wage the war in the South. As a result, American forces quickly became bogged down in a conflict with no clear end in sight. [1]

    <

    p>In 1961, the Kennedy Administration institutionalized this policy and morphed it into the doctrine of “flexible response.” The doctrine assumed that an enemy would more or less conduct war according to our rules of engagement and “get the message” if we gradually escalated the conflict in response to their aggression. While it may have worked on Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, the doctrine proved to be useless against the Communist North Vietnamese who were committed to the conquest of South Vietnam and the unification of the country under Communist rule. Both Presidents Kennedy and Johnson adopted what amounted to a defensive posture in South Vietnam to counter the Communist threat from the North. As a result, five hundred thousand American troops were confined to South Vietnam with no thought of bringing down the Communist government of North Vietnam. Because of that strategy (according to a 1995 Wall Street Journal interview with Bui Tin, a former colonel on the General Staff of the North Vietnamese Army), North Vietnamese leaders felt confident enough even after their tremendous losses during the Tet Offensive to drag out the war until America’s will to fight was broken by the American anti-war movement.

    <

    p>This same failed strategy has dogged American military war strategy ever since. During the Iranian embassy crisis, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini told his Revolutionary Guards that they had nothing to fear from America after the Embassy take-over since President Carter’s only serious response to the hostage-taking was to impose ineffectual diplomatic and economic sanctions, an embargo on Iranian oil and a break in diplomatic relations – none of which threatened Khomeini’s regime. More aggressive U.S. action concerning capturing Iranian oil fields or conducting targeted bombings in Iran were ruled out as too dangerous. “Our youth should be confident that America cannot do a damn thing,” Khomeini told his followers three days after the embassy takeover. “America is far too impotent to interfere in a military way here. If they could have interfered, they would have saved the Shah.” What especially surprised Khomeini was that Carter and his aides, notably Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, rather than condemning the seizure and the treatment of the hostages as a barbaric act appeared apologetic for unspecified mistakes supposedly committed by the United States and asked for forgiveness and magnanimity. In the end, Khomeini ordered the U.S. flag to be painted at the entrance of airports, railway stations, ministries, factories, schools, hotels and bazaars so the faithful could trample it under their feet every day – the ultimate insult. One could almost discern the words of Adolf Hitler after his 1938 meeting with British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain: “Our enemies are little worms,” Hitler told his General Staff. “I saw them at Munich.” America had lost more than its prestige in the eyes of Ayatollah Khomeini; it had lost its credibility.

    <

    p>And President Clinton fared no better. His defensive approach to foreign aggression continued even as Americans were being harvested by Islamic terrorists from New York to Saudi Arabia to Kenya to the USS Cole in Aden Harbor. He sent cruise missiles to blow up empty tents in the Afghan desert and pharmaceutical factories in the Sudan, passed on “taking out” bin Laden, signed agreements with dictators based on the assumption that America would somehow be “safer”, hamstrung American intelligence services in the name of civil liberties, shrunk the American military in the name of economy, and chose to use the courts as the battleground, rather than engaging with the terrorists and taking the war to them and their sponsors. This led bin Laden to believe that he was dealing with an American “paper tiger” – a country that relied on rhetoric, compromise and dialogue but never aggressive military action to secure its strategic interests abroad – the same mentality that has now led the Saudis, the Egyptians and Arab Emirates to mend fences with Iran’s Ahmadinejad whom they perceive to be the “strong horse” in the Middle East.

    <

    p>If any of this sounds uncomfortably familiar, it should, because this same failed military strategy is now playing itself out in Iraq. Senior American officials report that approximately 75%-80% of foreign terrorists in Iraq are of Saudi, Libyan, Syrian, Algerian, Yemenite and Sudanese origin and have been provided with sophisticated weaponry and other logistical support by Iranian Revolutionary Guard units and an estimated 30,000 Iranian agents operating within Iraq. A Defense Department report released on December 19th emphasized that support for terrorist groups by Tehran’s Shiite government remains “a significant impediment to progress.” No kidding.

    <

    p>So the question arises: “How can America possibly stabilize, reconstruct or democratize Iraq, when Iran and its terrorist proxies are totally committed to humiliating us, breaking our spirit, destroying our efforts and ultimately driving us from the region?” During World War II, it would have been unthinkable for the Allies to have stopped at the German border and begun reconstruction efforts in liberated France in 1944 before destroying the Third Reich and de-Nazifying Germany. Similarly, the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq can only be accomplished after we have brought down the mullahs and de-Islamified Iran. If the American people have grown weary of the war in Iraq, it is because the average American is tired of waging futile wars predicated on a failed military strategy. Americans want victory, not excuses. A military strategy based on a defensive posture can never defeat an enemy determined to wage a war of conquest.

    <

    p>Today, we hear rumblings of secret U.S. dealings with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Truth is, dialogue and the attendant relaxation of sanctions will only strengthen the power and influence of the Tehran regime and give them a green light to move on the fast track to uranium enrichment. Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (and even our erstwhile Arab “friends”) believe that American resolve is faltering and our flawed military policies in the region are only facilitating their perception of American weakness. By removing the threat of military intervention and regime change, we have guaranteed a nuclear Iran. The Iranians know it. The Arabs know it. And now even the Israelis know it. We have sent a message both to our friends and to our enemies that we consider bringing down the mullahs and ending the Islamic revolution in Iran too costly to pursue. In so doing, we have conveyed the perception that Washington may possess great military power, but it lacks the political will to use it.

    <

    p>Like it or not, the responsibility for regime change and de-Islamifying Iran rests with America, Europe, Israel and the many dissident Iranian groups seeking an end to the Islamic revolution and a return to stability, international acceptance and economic prosperity. If Iran
    is to go nuclear, we had best insure that a friendly government rules in Tehran. If not, no nation that ever opposes the mullahs’ global Islamic ambitions will ever be secure once their nuclear shield is in place.

    <

    p>  

    • a United States Marine.  They have an IQ test to join the marines, and anyone who passed would know better than to post,without apparent sense of irony, such a torrent of crap without recognizing it as such.

      • First off on Nukes:

        <

        p>-The ISI will have full control, no extremists will touch them
        -They have practically no delivery systems so the Presidents ability to order a strike is very limited, no ‘button’ to push so to speak
        -It is highly unlike extremists could gain control of all the material, if they had some its unlikely the would hand off or use in a terror attack since they are local extremists and their immediate goal is an Islamist state in pakistan. Nuking the US or India does not achieve that goal

        <

        p>Secondly on the situation:

        <

        p>-The true danger is in a civil war kind of confrontation or the chaos spilling over into Kashmir causing a conventional and perhaps a nuclear response from the Indians
        -There is little the US can do to contain the situation, vague empty rhetoric like “Musharaff must go” will only fan the flames, replacing him with one of his underlings or somehow creating a power sharing agreement with the PPP and their new leader would be appropriate

        <

        p>Third on the cause:

        <

        p>-The ISI is loyal to the President but they have never been behind political assasinations within Pakistan, and even if they were they would not use a suicide bomb
        -Anyone saying Musharaff ordered this is very unfamilar with Pakistan and the situation, Musharaff’s goal is to stay in power and keep his enemy under control, she was under control as a partner and someone under house arrest, making her a martyr gives the power to her party to exploit and his against his interests
        -It was a suicide bomb and the bomber is dead, nobody would be willing to sacrifice themself for a “fake out” it was likely a local extremist group

        <

        p>Fourth: Its Bushs fault

        <

        p>-In hindsight perhaps we should not have trusted this guy or vetted him more, but after 9/11 we needed a partner and its easier and safer to go with the one you have rather than the one you want to have
        -We needed immediate staging grounds for operations in Afghanistan and a way to cut off the AQ retreat into Pakistan, the only way to secure this was to cut a deal with Musharaff
        -Sure he renegged on the deal afterward and this should have been anticipated, we should have approved more unilateral military action in Wajiristan that would have forced Musharaff to pick sides instead of play us

        <

        p>Fifth: Pakistan is a failed state

        <

        p>-Much like Iraq its made up of several different ethnic groups and was carved out of India by the British and their Raj’s, hence people in Kashmir have been unhappy with which country their in, and hence the continued tension throughout the country

        • First she was killed by a suicide bomber, fundamentalist-style. Then the photographer who snapped pictures of her immediately before her death said he heard gunshots, and the media was reporting that she had been shot to death. Now, according to CNN, a Pakistani official is saying it was shrapnel that killed her, which may or may not mean that she was also shot, but not fatally. Since there is a certain amount of suspicion that has fallen on the current Pakistani ruling administration, I’m not sure that the statement of “a Pakistani official” should necessarily be considered to be the last word on the matter. I’m not saying I know who was responsible, I’m just saying that it’s hard to trust everything that’s coming over the wires, and which gets reproduced as the gospel of the moment on every major media website. I guess this is one of the liabilities of the new media- quotations from anonymous sources, speculation from experts (Report: Victims may have taunted Siberian Tiger), and eyewitness reports all get equal treatment in the crush of news that immediately follows a catastrophic event.

  12. the speculation about Benazir Bhutto’s death, I’m awe struck when reading about her life.

    <

    p>As complex as any persons story can be, hers was remarkable.  I can’t help but think that nearly anyone else in her position would have stayed clear of Pakistan, the death threats, and the byzantine religous/political turmoil. Brave woman.

Archives