Bazaar Bhutto Death Facts..

The first confirmed report thats I had from CNN and then on MSNBC was that according to witnesses at the scene of Bhutto's assassination a thin young man was seen shooting at her as she stood up in the sun room of the vehicle she was it. It was reported that  one bullet when through her head, and one bullet when through her back and that her cause of death was that one or more or the various bullets had ruptured her cerebral cortex. Those reports came on Thursday. Later on Friday morning the story had been changed from "bullets" to a piece of shrapnel in the back or her head.

By Friday evening, the world was then told a entirely different story, and I find this the most puzzling of all; that Bhutto did not in fact die from an assassins bullet, but from hitting her head on the back of a metal piece of the truck she was being transported in.  As quoted from a story I read by Murid Ahmad:

Authorities on Thursday said Bhutto died from bullet wounds fired by a young man who then blew himself up, killing 20 other people. A surgeon who treated her said Friday she died from the impact of shrapnel on her skull.

But later Friday, Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema said all three shots missed her as she greeted supporters through the sunroof of her vehicle, which was bulletproof and bombproof.

He also denied that shrapnel caused her death, saying Bhutto was killed when she tried to duck back into the vehicle, and the shock waves from the blast knocked her head into a lever attached to the sunroof, fracturing her skull.

At a news conference, Cheema played a videotape of the attack showing Bhutto waving, smiling and chatting with supporters from the sunroof as her car sat unmoving on the street outside a campaign rally. Three gunshots rang out, the camera appeared to fall, and the tape ended.

The reason I find this story strange, is I think that something is going on here behind the scenes by the Pakistan government. The final medical conclusions came directly from the Interior Ministry spokesman, and I saw two different reports from two different doctors about the cause of her death. So let's see, we have three different versions here.

Who would want to change the story from "Bullets to a Bump On The Head" is my question.

It would of course be the ultimate smoke and mirrors routine by Musarif. Kind of like see, "she wasn't really shot to death, it was an accident," trying to in a way defuse the blame on him. And of course, immediately thereafter we are told that his government intercepted a phone call of Al Quaida congratulating each other on a job well done.

The last shaky film that was shown of her, is really of no use, so we can only base our truth on that film, that unfortunately does not show us what really happened.

The doctors that worked on her head had plenty of time to "change their story about a bullet" and I am not trying to start conspiracy stories here. I just find the way this story changed, and the various reports we were given including the fact that she did not have an autopsy as really bazaar. Does any one else?

God rest her soul and the twenty other dear souls that died in the bomb attack.

Badabing  

•  I wonder who is really behind all this...

  Something tells me its not just what it all seems right now....

  Badabing

  by Badabing on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:08:33 PM PDT

  •  I think it's exactly what it seems--

    A blatant cover-up.  How convenient that Bhutto is already buried, sans autopsy.  

    Didn't Negroponte visit Pakistan very recently?  Usually, death follows closely in Negroponte's wake.

    by Boston Boomer on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:13:59 PM PDT

    •  Cover up what?

      The fact that the assassin who killed her was a bad shot? The basic explanation of why Bhutto is dead hasn't changed at all, whether it was the bullet or shrapnel or the blast itself that did her in is an insignificant details.

      by amRadioHed on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:25:48 PM PDT

      •  First she was shot three times,

        once in the neck.  Then she was only hit with shrapnel.  Finally, she was responsible for her own death, because she stood up and then hit her head.  Conveniently, there was no autopsy, so we'll never know what really killed her.  No doubt the first doctor, who claimed she had been shot three times will have been disappeared by now.

        It's much more convenient for Bush if "Al Queda" caused Bhutto's death than if she actually died because Musharif made sure (as she had said) that she didn't have adequate security.  

        by Boston Boomer on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:37:14 PM PDT

        •  Only shrapnel?

          You're going to have to do a better job at explaining why these details matter. What do you mean only shrapnel? Is being killed by shrapnel from a bomb as opposed to a bullet somehow dishonorable in Pakistan? I don't think so. And why are you saying her death is her fault if she hit her head? Did she know their was an assassin outside with a bomb that would cause her to hit the car when it exploded?

          None of the details of how she died change the greater story of what happened. That guy with the gun and the bomb is responsible for her death no matter what the specific mechanism was. Where do you get the idea that bumping her head instead of being shot makes Musharif any more or less responsible? If there is a connection please explain it to me, I'm not seeing it.

          by amRadioHed on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:24:57 PM PDT

          •  I said "only" shrapnel,

            because that was the tone of the coverage.  Then it was reduced to hitting her head.  The message to people in Pakistan is that Bhutto was responsible for her own death, and thus not a martyr.  It almost seems as if you are being deliberately obtuse.  You can't judge this from the point of view of U.S. culture and attitudes.  

            by Boston Boomer on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:34:19 PM PDT

            •  I attempt to stick to reason

              when discussing things. Does that comes across as obtuse to someone with an emotional stake in the story? Maybe, I don' t know. Why do you insist their is a cover up when the only evidence you presented to reach that conclusion is that it might make her look bad from a Pakistani perspective.

              by amRadioHed on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 11:16:31 PM PDT

            •  The mesage to Pakistan is

              Al Qaeda killed Bhutto.
              Certainly it won't necessarily make Al Qaeda or the Taliban popular among those who aren't already fanatics, and would have the effect of justifying martial law and extra security precautions from the President/General.  Just because the gunman blew up, it doesn't mean he blew himself up. What better way to dispose of your gunman while painting him as a fanatic, than to add some C4 to his body armor? Early reports at least had the gunman dressed as a policeman.

              by Snarcalita on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 07:59:52 AM PDT

              •  The foreign news reports I've seen

                say that the Pakistani people overwhelmingly believe Musharif is responsible and don't believe the official story.  

                by Boston Boomer on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 02:23:55 PM PDT

                •  That makes them less gullible

                  than many kossacks when it comes to accepting Al Qaeda boogeyman conspiracies about gov't power grabs.

                  by Snarcalita on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 09:51:33 PM PDT

        •  Possibly

          You hit the nail on the head when you wrote:

          Finally, she was responsible for her own death, because she stood up

          That is indeed the summation of what wen wrong as she left a secured area in an armored car only to expose herself when she opened a trap door in the roof to acknowledge the crowd and try to create a path through it. Ironically she possibly survived the first recent attempt on her life, when she returned from exile, because she left an armored dias at the from of the truck she was being carried on.

          Both these situations are down to the nature of the politics in Pakistan which are heavily personality based. This perhaps is the ultimate responsibility for the deaths of her, her siblings and her father.

          by Lib Dem FoP on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 11:32:31 PM PDT

          •  Hey Lib Dem

            check the PBWH blog......

            by betson08 on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 11:37:07 PM PDT

            •  Wow

              Wonderful and in the context of such dreadful news as the death of BB, very heartwarming. Still I will leave my signature line as it is for the time being as we always need to remember that injuatices continue whatever the season.

              by Lib Dem FoP on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 11:56:11 PM PDT

              •  Thanks

                I'm also leaving the chipin up there until the end of January, and of course will continue updating the blog.

                by betson08 on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 09:00:06 AM PDT

        •  sounds entirely too much

          like the JFK Assassination. I suspect that the truth with respect to the Bhutto Assassination, whatever it is, will never be public knowledge.

          by alizard on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 12:46:58 AM PDT

      •  It does matter, the truth matter to her memory...

        If they are going to tell a pack of lies about how she was killed it matters. It matters to her legacy, the people that loved her, it matters because she was murdered, and did not fall and hit her head, it matters because she loved her country, and I'm sure to those that revered her memory are horrified and probably more angry than ever, that not only did they lose her and the hope she was bringing back to them, but that those that killed her are lying about the way she was killed. They are probably so full of hatred and revenge now because of this simple fact: The Pakistan government is now saying, "Oh she is not a martyr, it was just an accident."  

        I'd say that mattered.

        Badabing

        by Badabing on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:01:19 PM PDT

        •  Where are they saying

          "Oh she is not a martyr, it was just an accident." I have not heard anyone making the clearly absurd statement that her death was an accident, I mean their was a gunman clearly shown in the video they released. Regardless of if the bomb hit her or caused her to hit her head, she was still killed by the bomb.

          by amRadioHed on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:29:57 PM PDT

          •  Are you always this literal?

            sigh...

            by Boston Boomer on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:38:21 PM PDT

            •  It helps to be literal when seeking truth.

              by amRadioHed on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:54:29 PM PDT

              •  You don't seem to want to accept

                that events are perceived differently in different cultures.  Instead of trying to perceive these events in the light of what we know about the beliefs and attitudes of people in Pakistan, you want to impose your own view of "the truth."

                In fact, we will never know "the truth."  Musharif and the ISI, with the aid of the Bush administration, will make sure of that.

                by Boston Boomer on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 11:13:59 PM PDT

    •  Isn't her religion a reason for the swiftness of

      interment and the lack of autopsy? Her family were Shia.

      by BlackSheep1 on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:30:47 PM PDT

      •  I think you're right nt

        by betson08 on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 11:38:15 PM PDT

  •  Cui Bono?

    Who benefits?

    Basically, if she was going to be a viable replacement for Musharrif in the eyes of the Bush administration, they would have contrived a way to off HIM when she returned to the country and he had established martial law.

    They didn't do that, and thus her days were clearly numbered.

    The benefits to both Musharrif and the Bush administration are as follows:

    1. Heavily increased fear factor

    2. Destabilization of the Pakistan government, which "requires" further application of martial law

    3. Obviously, elimination of a political rival for Musharrif

    4. A reason to continue to make Al Qaeda the boogeyman

    5. Simultaneously, a reason to DISTRACT the American public from any need to actually CAPTURE bin Laden

    How do 4 and 5 work together? The same way they have for the last 7 years.

    Musharrif is permitted to shelter bin Laden on the pretense of having to ride herd on his angry citizens.

    Al Qaeda serves as the convenient boogeyman/scapegoat for everything, including things that either Musharrif, the US, or some combination of the two might be fully complicit in. Like, say, Bhutto's murder.

    But oh, they're so hard to catch! We're very busy looking in Afghanistan and Iraq even though we know he's in Pakistan! And poor Musharrif has a giant shitstorm on his hands from Bhutto's assassination so we can't spare any assistance to find him!

    Lather, rinse, repeat...

    by Randgrithr on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:00:00 PM PDT

    •  And send $5 billion more. nt

      by walkshills on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:31:21 PM PDT

    •  except al qaeda has claimed resoponsibility

      KARACHI - "We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat mujahideen." These were the words of al-Qaeda’s top commander for Afghanistan operations and spokesperson Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, immediately after the attack that claimed the life of Pakistani politician Benazir Bhutto on Thursday (December 27).

      "This is our first major victory against those [eg, Bhutto and President Pervez Musharraf] who have been siding with infidels [the West] in a fight against al-Qaeda and declared a war against mujahideen," Mustafa told Asia Times Online by telephone.

      http://www.atimes.com/...

      if she hadn't stood up she'd still be alive, so it was only by chance they got her there...plus the method is that of al qaeda. This was the only rally announced in advance, so al qaeda knew where she was gonna be. The gov't always knew where she was and could have killed her anytime in other ways.

      but interestingly one al qaeda dude is now denying any involvement, so al qaeda's story has changed in the last 24 hrs. too

      AL-QAEDA linked Pakistani militant Baitullah Mehsud was not involved in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, his spokesman said.

      "He had no involvement in this attack," Mehsud's spokesman Maulvi Omar said by telephone from an undisclosed location.

      "This is a conspiracy of the Government, army and intelligence agencies," he said.

      "I strongly deny it. Tribal people have their own customs. We don't strike women."

      http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...

      by Keith Moon on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 12:55:59 AM PDT

•  Anyway you parse it...

  she died from hostile action. It is strange, however, that the story keeps changing.

  by catullus on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:10:25 PM PDT

  •  I don't find it strange at all.

    Any time that you have such a chaotic event happening news reports will vary wildly at first.

    What we know for certain is that she died of a head wound, and that has been the story right from the start. Because people saw a gunman and an explosion, it's natural that those will be the original assumptions about the cause of the wound and as more is learned over time the story gets revised as needed.

    First they assumed the gunshots were they cause but then they found that it didn't really look like a bullet wound. Then shrapnel was posited, but they found no metal inside her body. Finally they decided it was the sunroof when they found her blood on it. All were perfectly reasonable assumptions at they time they were made.

    by amRadioHed on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:19:27 PM PDT

    •  Absolutely not a"perfectly reasonable assumption"

      that she bumped her head on a piece of the sunroof and died within minutes of such a "fatal sunroof bump". What have we, the American public become when those of us will actually entertain such ludicrous notions? Have we become so conditioned by the incessant usurpations of law in our own country and the lies manufactured for invading other countries that we will entertain any absurdity?

      The latest theory given by Pakistan is that she hit the side of the sunroof in a hard manner as she had ducked because of the gunfire and was then jolted by the subsequent blast of the suicide bomber/shooter. Don't you think if she heard gunfire and had time to react (highly unlikely to begin with) that she wouldn't have retracted herself all the way into the vehicle between the time of the gunfire and the subsequent explosion which is now claimed to have caused her to hit her head?

      This is such total BS and nonsense. That anyone would give it one moment's credence is a sad statement about American society.

      by codigo rojo on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:12:38 PM PDT

      •  I think

        It would be incredibly foolish to make any assumption about someones reaction to gunshots without seeing what actually happened. Jackie Kennedy climbed out of the car where her husband was shot, she didn't duck for cover. And how long after the gunshots was the explosion? The shooter could have hit the trigger almost immediately. If her first reaction after hearing the gunshots was to get into the car than an explosion could have very likely hit her before she was all the way in.

        You are making too many assumptions to lay claim to the rational high ground.

        by amRadioHed on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:51:15 PM PDT

        •  No rational high ground here...

          Just common sense. This absurd discussion is taking place thanks to Pakistan and US authorities offering up  tasteless diversions (an American hallmark) to their citizenry to focus on, rather than the focusing on the repercussion of the somewhat more sober notion that a chance for some semblance of Democracy in Pakistan has just been permanently eliminated by the murder of the front-runner, Benazir Bhutto.

          Should we now drift into a discussion about recalling all US vehicles with sunroofs as they are deadly hazards? Those wielding power in Pakistan and DC must be truly happy you are doing their bidding by keeping the plebeians entertained with the continued proffering of this foolish nonsense.

          by codigo rojo on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 11:44:17 PM PDT

          •  A sunroof is a deadly hazard

            when your head is propelled into it by a suicide bomber. I don't see why you ridicule that as a cause of death. Neither do I see any reasons offered for that being wrong other than that it somehow makes her look less like a martyr. That may or may not be the case in her society but it's still irrelevant.

            I agree that what physically caused her death is a distraction not worthy of the attention it's been getting, but it is a distraction happily prolonged by the diary. The only important question is who had her killed. None of this nonsense about what hit her head or the desire for her to have died in a way good enough to her culture helps us answer that question.

            by amRadioHed on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 05:11:06 AM PDT

            •  Yes who had her killed is the primary question.

              However, the notion that her official cause of death was due to impacion of her skull on the sunroof without an autopsy even being performed is simply "dangerous nonsesne" in the words of her Mrs. Bhutto's aide and the notion that the Pakistan government could attempt and fail so badly in it's lies to cover-up the circumstances of her murder does makes the government itself appear increasingly complicit in her assassination.

              "There were clear bullet injuries to her head," said Rehman. "When we bathed her we saw that."

              Rehman said Bhutto was hemorrhaging on the way to the hospital and that the two cars used to get her there were blood-soaked.

              "The government comes up with the most bizarre, dangerous nonsense and it indicates that they are abdicating themselves of all responsibility by saying that she may have knocked her head or concussed her head against one of the levers on the sunroof," Rehman said.

              Sherry Rehman is the Pakistan People's Party information secretary.

              by codigo rojo on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 11:31:44 AM PDT

•  Rice got Bhutto killed.

  Bhutto had no business being in Pakistan but for Rice.  Rare indeed does a government policy end in so spectacular a failure as having the bloody brains blown out of a former and potentially future head of state before millions of onlookers.  It was in the name of the State Department's "Freedom and Democracy" agenda that Rice first conceived of the purely cosmetic notion of having the telegenic and politically pliable Bhutto pose as the duly elected spokesmodel, for what was to remain a brutal, military tyranny directed by the US to root out, torture, and exterminate every deemed pro-Taliban/Al-Queda lifeform in Pakistan from lizard up.  Even in an Administration infamous for using plausible gullibility to exonerate its members from personal responsibility and guilt for catastrophic failures, surely this last, in a long, long line, of world historical blunders should compel that rarest of occasions in the Bush White House, a resignation for failure.  Rice has got to go.

  As one looks back on the unremitting gross blunders of this White House, the offical media narrative designed to minimize personal liability has always featured the supposed rivalry between the Pentagon and State for control of America's agenda abroad.  The subvertion of the State Department by Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and their neocon cohorts in the Pentagon with respect to the prosecution and management of America's ridiculous "War on Terror" and the fraudulent Iraq War is well documented.  The horrendous fiascoes, and more importantly, the personal embarassment, which resulted led to the political necessity of re-establishing some semblance of authority and control to formulate and implement foreign policy at State.  Thus, the Department was butressed with the appointment of a man with undoubted gravitas and authority, and with a long record of dirty deeds for further credibility, to work beside Condoleeza Rice, namely John Negroponte.

  In contradistinction to the Pentagon's eternal reply to, what LBJ onced complained of, was for every foreign policy conundrum, specifically "Bomb! Bomb! Bomb!", and its blind faith in Musharaff and the Pakistan military to keep things in order, Rice's State Department appeared to be the only entity on the face of the planet to take seriously the Bush alibi and mantra of "Freedom and Democracy".  And no where was America's insistence that all of the blood spilt and money spent was done for "Freedom and Democracy" more utterly exposed for the ugly truth of its detestable hypocrisy than in Pakistan.  In cruel contrast to all of the sanctimonious talk of reversing America's traditional support of the most vicious of tinpot dictators and their tyrannical regimes with Bush's Born Again inspiration for freedom-lovin' people all around the world, oft-quoted to justify our recent relish for criminality, there stood the spectre of our active support for General Pervez Musharaff, our "most important ally in America's War on Terror", with his guns and ammo, tanks and torturers, who toppled a civillian government legally elected in a peaceful and ordered way by a nation of 170,000,000 people. Yet, even he was aware of the bad optics of it all.  Thus, he claimed, he promised, he decried, he re-promised, he swore, he warned, he guaranteed, he apologized, he excused, and for over 8 years, he sat on top.  But at the end of the day, when he had played all of his cards, with an American ace in his back pocket, he was still in danger of being trumped by his enemies, and far worse than any fantastical Taliban or mythical Al-Queda conspiracy, stood his greatest enemy: the people of Pakistan.  Thus, he suspended, he declared, he abolished, he imprisoned, and in the end, he assassinated.  And with that ace still in his pocket, he continues to sit on top.

  Dr. Condoleeza Rice, once a limp academic and present Bush sycophant, after suffering personal ignominy and public ridicule for her strangely dyslexic command of her portfolios, took over the reigns of the State Department.  She disappointed no one with a repeat perfomance of utterly ineffectual stewartship, her chief accomplishment being little else but the accumulation of frequent flyer points.  And so in watching the time run out in this her last stint in the vainglorious sunshine of power and celebrity, where shopping for shoes or scolding a clerk made her more headlines than her foreign policy,  she seized a last chance for redemption and gratitiude from her host ego, George Bush, by thinking up a way to put a smiley face over the glowering scowl of Musharaff, in the vain hope that the hopelessly naive, i.e. the people of Pakistan, would fall in love with its perfect makeup, its perfect hair and its oh so western love for conspicuous consumption.  That face was Benazir Bhutto.

  Therefore, as only the truly empowered and enrich can do, with nary a care or concern for principles, or victims, Condoleeza Rice began to play house with real people, a Paris Hilton on steroids. In collusion with Negroponte, her chaperon, and Gordon Brown, her footman, the plot was hatched:  foist a corrupt and reliable figurehead upon a gullible electorate, get it voted in by hook or crook, ensure it abides by any marching orders emanating from DC, and keep it happy like a Digimon Pet with regular feeding and affection until we can can all flee the jurisdiction this January, 2009 with our amnesties, pardons and most importantly, our contracts intact.

  Yet alas, this 54-year-old smiley face came with wrinkles, and to be rude, specifically $1.5 billion-dollar wrinkles, tucked away in various Swiss bank accounts, chiefly embezzled from the horrendously impoverished people of Pakistan.  Let no one dare doubt the plaintive professions of love for her people, the regular declamations of the evil of Musharaff, the tireless tirades against the terrorist Taliban, versus the nice Taliban of yesteryear she supported when last in power, all voiced in that perfectly cadenced politician's cant, bred by the best bastions of olde English imperialism: Oxford AND Cambridge. Nothing could keep her back from running to Her People in Their Time of Need.  But what money don't buy, she don't need.  Hence, the awkward need for an amnesty from a compliant judiciary.  For Condy, it would just not do to have Benazhir's trademark glasses and many flounces of fabric flying over who gets the top bunk with an Islamabad hooker in a Pakistani correctional facility  ("The people of Pakistan demand I get it!"). Enter Musharaff.

  From Vietnam, through Iran to Iraq unto Pakistan: as every deposed US-backed dictator in the history of the post-WW II world would ruefully report, once that proverbial American ace in the back pocket is withdrawn, you may as well pack your bags and start googling all countries with air conditioning and no extradiction treaties.  Musharaff knows as well as any corporate shyster how to do "the Google", but he would much rather stay at home than absquatulate to a foreign jurisdiction.  Hence, "one amnesty coming right up, Ms. Rice."  Presto, the National Reconciliation Ordinance, shoved through an obeisant legislature and soon to be ratified by a "new and improved" Pakistani Supreme Court.  And in keeping with the spirit of the matter, Musharaff expanded the amnesty to cover not just the "innocent" Bhutto, but heavens to betsy, everyone everywhere who at anytime embezzled funds from the people of Pakistan, the vast majority being former members of his military.  For some, can a silver lining have a silver lining?

  Yet in spite of all of these machinations, truth has a terrible way of interfering with the plans of mice and men, ...and women.  The woman Rice lured to return to Pakistan to save the day for George Bush and his idea of Freedom'n'Democracy is now dead, possibly murdered with the silent instigation of Rice's rivals in the Defence Department, and by the Pentagon's undoubted Man of the Moment, Musharaff.  She is now far more useful to everyone in death than ever in life.

  Bhutto was never as popular as her own press releases alleged.  Indeed, local polling put her rival, Nazwar Sharif, ahead.  Revelations concerning the much vilified amnesty, which legalised grand larceny upon some of the poorest people in the world, knocked down her numbers, and fatally destroyed any legitimacy she might have otherwise held.  Furthermore, suspicions concerning both her collusion in an American-brokered deal with Mushraraff, and her ultimate loyalty in Bush's silly "War on Terror", alienated much of her base.  She would have lost the election, if and when it would ever had been held.

  Ms. Rice has failed in her mad experiment to revive this Pakistani Frankenstein to decorate the already politically dead corpse of the Musharaff regime.  She failed us with 911, she failed us with the Iraq War, and now, most dangerously, she has failed us in Pakistan.  

  by Neocynic on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:19:15 PM PDT

  •  Didn't you already post that as a diary?

    It seems to me that Bhutto was capable of making her own decisions.  Not that I disagree with you about Rice's incompetence.

    by Boston Boomer on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:23:32 PM PDT

    •  Rice is a Russian expert, so her role in Dubya's

      Gov't further proof that this WH gang is a dollar late and an hour short!

      And how do we square her "expertise" with Putin's soulful eyes?

      Aloha .. .. ..

      by dolphin777 on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 03:23:30 AM PDT

      •  Not an expert, just a liar

        The "russian" thing is a resume' padder. She can barely speak it, and her expertise consists in regurgitating neocon thinktank propaganda on cue.

        by Snarcalita on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 08:06:04 AM PDT

•  Unless she died in a market, it was 'bizarre'

  sorry to quibble, but I did want to clarify your headline.  I am still deeply saddened, and concerned, by her assassination, so don't think I'm being silly. The fact that some are trying to say she died from hitting her head on the sunroof is a lame attempt to further demean her, and deny her a martyr's (misplaced and way-overrated in that region) glory.

  by Doolittle Sothere on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:22:32 PM PDT

  •  I was wondering about the spin, spin, spin.......

    And the Rice connection is something else to consider.  Can Rice ever get anything right?  Or, is this the intent?

    by Tropical Depression on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:27:02 PM PDT

  •  How?

    How does her being thrown into the sunroof by the explosion demean anything?

    by amRadioHed on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:27:33 PM PDT

    •  If you really don't understand,

      try reading some articles on the situation written by people who know the history of the region.  Here's a good one.

      http://news.independent.co.uk/...

      by Boston Boomer on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:41:13 PM PDT

      •  Nothing in that article...

        explains why a head wound caused by the sunroof is less honorable than a head wound caused by a bullet or shrapnel.

        by amRadioHed on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:10:10 PM PDT

        •  FYI...because cultures differ in that part...

          of the world, the effort to spin the facts and blame the victim for her own death makes a significant difference. In the Islamic world, women are not seen as equals in virtually any sense. To have a woman be given "martyr" status rather than a man is contrary to centuries old traditions. If she were to have died from a "fatal sunroof head bump" as absurd as it should sound, this would significantly hamper the effort to make her a martyr, something that many, many Muslims not the least among them "President" Musharraf would disdain.

          by codigo rojo on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:23:00 PM PDT

          •  Exactly codigo..

            I matters because of the way they are demeaning her and it is cultural, not to mention that it is such a slap in the face, a way of humiliating her memory and legacy and beliefs, that those of her party and followers.

            Badabing

            by Badabing on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:41:27 PM PDT

•  Roll your shit in little balls and feed it to

  the stupid Americans who will believe anything as long as you air it on the major television networks. Hey 9-11 was pulled off by 19 guys with the combined IQ of a billiard ball. Why not death by a bump on the head while ...ducking? She should have been in those old wild west shows she has the reflexes of superman to react that quickly to be able to duck out of the way of bullets by reacting to the sound???? How many of us would be able to dodge bullets?  ready, set, go. GOTCHA

  by barbybuddy on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:24:02 PM PDT

•  I'm sorry

  I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm not one of those people who think the CIA organized JFK's assassination and 9/11 was an inside job, but she hit her head? I don't think so.

  I am convinced she was shot, she fell and hit her head on the way down and she bled to death through her neck, perhaps the bullet ruptured her common carotid artery. Upon seeing that she had hit her head on the way down, the Pakistani government used that as the excuse. i have a hard time believing she died of a tiny fracture in her skull caused by hitting a lever, and died THAT FAST.

  She was assassinated by Taliban or Al-Qaeda elements or sympathizers within the Pakistani ISI or military and Musharraf knows it and is afraid to admit it. Why? Because he won't fight them, he'd rather fight the lawyers and justices.

  Musharraf is a double agent, perhaps, in giving him the benefit of the doubt, because he has to be to survive. We trust him at our own peril.

  by nrafter530 on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:35:25 PM PDT

•  Updated another source....

  I just read this from an article written by: Isamabard Wilkinson, a Pakistan Correspondent:

  As hundreds of thousands mourned the murdered opposition leader, the country's Interior Ministry rigadier Javed Cheema, a ministry spokesman, said Miss Bhutto had died from a head wound she sustained when she smashed against the sunroof's lever as she trclaimed she had died from hitting her vehicle's sunroof when she tried to duck after a suicide attack.

  However, one of Miss Bhutto's aide rejected the government's explanation of her death as a "pack of lies".

  "The lever struck near her right ear and fractured her skull," Mr Cheema said.

  But the explanation was ridiculed by Farooq Naik, Miss Bhutto's top lawyer and a senior official in her Pakistan People's Party.

  "It is baseless. It is a pack of lies," he said.

  "Two bullets hit her, one in the abdomen and one in the head. It was a serious security lapse."

  The dispute came as Pakistani security forces were given orders to shoot on sight in an attempt to curb unrest as millions across the country mourned Miss Bhutto.

  So apparently, the reports of the way she died are considered to be nothing put a pack of lies and a cover up....yeah, something is going on here for sure.

  Badabing

  by Badabing on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 09:45:48 PM PDT

•  In a few months...

  ...the official story will be that the killer was a lone nut assassin named Ali Habri Oswaldian who fired three shots from an Islamic book depository and that people who said they heard a bomb go off were just hearing echoes from the lone nut's bolt action rifle.

  Anyone who refuses to believe the official story will be labeled a "conspiracy theorist" even though the vast majority of people won't believe the official story.

  by Rex Manning on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 10:23:09 PM PDT

  •  Indeed it seems that the majority of people...

    in Pakistan already believe that Musharraf and the US Government were the principal players in Benazir's assassination, as hinted by this recent Time article:

    The sentiments provide a powerful insight into how angry Pakistanis are at their President and how mistrustful they are of the U.S.

    With such mistrust, rumors thrive. On the streets of Lahore Friday afternoon, many blamed Musharraf and the U.S. rather than Islamic extremists for Bhutto's demise. White-haired Mohamed Sharif, 61, who runs a sidewalk barber's shop using a rusty old metal table and a worn mirror, says the "rumor is that America is involved in this with Musharraf's help." A passerby butts in with his agreement: "America and the government are in the same direction, they are allies," says Sabir Hussain. "If the government is doing this it is on the order of America."

    "People are afraid to air their opinions but as far as I know America sent Benazir and later killed her with the help of Pervez Musharraf," says M.A. Mohamed, who runs a car parts company. "I can confirm this idea."

    It would seem as though the rest of the world not informed by US MSM has a considerably ever more cynical view of US presence and motives. The notion of flowers being thrown at the feet of our mere presence has certainly been put to rest forever.

    by codigo rojo on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 11:00:12 PM PDT

•  let's not get too deep into conspiracies...

  ...come on folks.  The Bush administration didn't kill Benazir Bhutto.

  I think it's very plausible to assume that General Musharraf was involved, at least in the swift and sloppy story change.

  Look, Bhutto wasn't perfect by any means, but she had set herself up, both in the past and recently, as the leader of a strong opposition to Musharraf.  Whoever did this either a) wanted to further destabilize the country, or b) wanted to off Musharraf's opposition.  Don't dismiss Al Queda/Taliban just because it sounds like a Bushism - they definitely profit from a less stable Pakistan.  It could be have been anyone, honestly.  But Musharraf's going to get what he wants out of this, too - no elections, more martial law, the seeming need for a strong dictator, etc etc.

  At the same time, opposition supporters are rallying around her martyrdom, and will continue to do so.  Ms. Bhutto makes a helluva martyr, a role that I believe she welcomed (just look at that email she sent Wolf Blitzer a couple months ago).

  Anyway, yes this is fishy.  Of course it is.  But let's not get too carried away in this blame game stuff and in stead focus on what matters - when Pakistan erupts, what happens to southern Afghanistan?  How does India respond?  Most importantly, what do we do (and by whom) with unsecured nuclear arsenals?

  This is pretty scary kids.

  by flowrider on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 11:34:24 PM PDT

  •  I see you making very contradictory statements...

    "...come on folks.  The Bush administration didn't kill Benazir Bhutto."

    "I think it's very

    Just exactly who has enabled Musharraf to maintain power in Pakistan all of this time? Yes that would be the US.

    Just exactly who has allowed Musharraf to escape numerous assassination attempts? Yes that would be the US.

    Benazir Bhutto complained repeatedly that Musharraf was inhibiting the protective services she desperately needed. Apparently this inability to protect her adequately was a non-issue with the US, as we did not force Musharraf to step up protection for Ms. Bhutto.

    If you think it very likely he was involved with her assassination, then it follows the US is complicit  simply be reason of it's unwavering support of Musharraf.

    The remainder of your comment regarding the worrisome increasing instability of the region is well taken.

    by codigo rojo on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 12:19:46 AM PDT

•  Elephant in the room

  I humbly beg forgiveness..but the word is Bizarre..and there are a lot of tangled webs active in Pakistan , within and without the government.

  by ohcanada on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 11:55:50 PM PDT

•  Since when do suicide bombers shoot people?

  This is the great inconsistency of the narrative, in my humble opinion.  Particularly if the later version of events is correct and Ms. Bhutto was killed by being blasted into the frame of the sunroof.

  As much as it pains me to say this, I don't think Musharraf had anything to do with it. Musharraf is a soldier, and this isn't the way a military man would organize an assassination. The military way would be a concealed sniper.  Intelligence services, on the other hand, have been known to use fanatics armed with handguns as assassins, so there may be elements of the ISI involved.

  But who is the prime beneficiary of Ms. Bhutto's death?  It seems to me to be the Islamists, whether Al-Qaeda or another group.  They've eliminated the leading voice of modernism, and the probability of increased repression in the name of security will simply increase the Islamists' appeal.  Meanwhile, the unrest and discontent bring them closer to taking effective power, in a replay of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

  The difference is, this brings the Pakistani nuclear arsenal into their control, and I submit this is an outcome the world cannot permit.  For the last sixty-two years, nuclear weapons have been the exclusive domain of nation-states, all of whom have (thus far, at least) exercised admirable restraint in their use.  Part of this restraint is, undoubtedly, due to the fear of retaliation from other nuclear powers.  This is not an effective deterrent to private entities such as Al-Qaeda; they have no territory to defend, and a nuclear strike by any power on whatever base they may use is simply another recruiting tool.

  There are a number of fictional analogues of the "nukes_in_private_hands" scenario, most notably Fleming's "Thunderball", but all of them seem to rely on a Hero to save the day.  Reality, unfortunately, does not appear to be so neat.

  by ProgressiVoice on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 12:01:24 AM PDT

  •  if Musharaf is involved

    his involvement may be limited to "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome politician?" and his knowledge of specific details may be what he reads in the NYTimes and sees on CNN. Perhaps there was a conspiracy using both a suicide bomber and a gunman.

    As for Al Queda, ISI, and/or Taliban involvement. . . interesting question and there's no way to settle it at this distance.

    I'll simply say that while the USA as a nation doesn't profit by destabilizing Pakistan further, the personal interests of Bush and the Carlyle Group have nothing in particular to do with the interests of America as a whole.

    by alizard on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 12:56:25 AM PDT

  •  There was a report...

    ...about a month ago that suggested that the Pakistani nuclear arsenal is in the control of the U.S. military.

    For what that's worth...

    T.

    by trevzb on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 01:29:52 AM PDT

•  Bhutto aide suggests cover-up...

  KARACHI, Pakistan (CNN)  -- A top aide who helped bathe Benazir Bhutto's body after her death said the former Pakistani prime minister clearly had bullet wounds to the head, calling a lie the government's conclusion that a sunroof lever was involved.

  "There were clear bullet injuries to her head," she added. "When we bathed her we saw that."

  "It indicates that they are abdicating themselves of all responsibility by saying that she may have knocked her head or concussed her head against one of the levers on the sunroof," Rehman added.

  "It's beginning to look like a cover up to me," Pakistan People's Party information secretary Sherry Rehman said in a CNN interview.

  Bhutto aide suggests cover-up

  by codigo rojo on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 01:13:53 AM PDT

•  Anyone ever see the move, Z?

  by Paleo on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 05:24:36 AM PDT