Al Qaeda will continue to be a convenient boogeyman so long as it resides alive and well in Pakistan, and its Saudi funders continue to dictate our Persian Gulf policies.

Larry, what do you think of this for a conspiracy theory of how the attack might have been carried out:

First, you take some eager young man in intelligence service and give him the job of shooting her. You promise him protection, a bunch of money, a house in Dubai, whatever. And to prove your sincerity, you give him a bullet proof vest to wear while he's doing it. Only it isn't a bullet proof vest, it's a vest loaded with explosives and rigged with a remote detonator.

This eager young man goes out and pulls the trigger and then gets blown up by his superiors before anyone can lay a hand on him and question him.

That's my theory. Only, I can't imagine why Musharraf would think killing Bhutto was a smart move. My guess is it will lead to his downfall. So, I'd also theorize the culprit is someone poised to take over as dictator.

One can only wonder to what extent our $10 billion "aid" to Pakistan contributed to this? Meanwhile, congressional Democrats battle bigger enemies such as MoveOn.org.

I have a feeling people will be asking, "Who killed Benazir Bhutto?" for decades.

Larry, when you've got something besides "you can't trust the government of Pakistan," I'll look forward to hearing about it.

According to that minister: the force of the blast slammed her head into the lever of the car. Yet some papers have made it seem like she just hit her head and accidentally killed herself.

I'm not saying that it actually happened that way, but that's the current explanation.

Spencer Ackerman posted an observation made to him by an ex-intelligence official over at Josh Marshall's TPM' it's absolutely worth reading.

The official noted that there were at least two native radical Islamic groups in Pakistan which had more to 'win' by assassinating Bhutto than either the Taliban or Al-Qaeda. But I doubt we'll ever find a full explanation of her death, any more than we know the true details surrounding JFK's assassination 44 years ago.

One thing, though -- a more destabilized Pakistan (however that's achieved) is very attractive to Pakistani and Afghan Taliban, Al-Qaeda and its satellites, and 'local' Islamist groups in Pakistan, in that it creates more opportunity for them. This is a simplistic analysis, but Bhutto's violent death could be viewed as benefiting all fundamentalist Islamic groups in the region to some degree -- and if sympathetic elements in the Pakistani military of ISI were involved, it makes no difference to that result.

But any number of harsh-response scenarios (from the U.S. pressuring Musharraf into a wider war with the Taliban/Al Qaeda in the Northeast; to a Cheney decision to send U.S. Troops into Pakistan to secure their nuclear munitions; to Musharraf's reinstitution of marshal law) would be good news for native groups which want a fundamentalist Pakistan, and Al-Qaeda with its vision of a wider, international jihad.

The real worst-case scenario for the United States is any which continues overreaching itself through stupid and ill-considered military planning, just as our economy begins to seriously falter.

Lil' Boots and Shooter have wounded and crippled this country far more than any terrorist attack could have; they're incompetent and irrational. Their stupidity and lack of foresight will make any move regarding Pakistan a foregone disaster for America -- and they still have a solid year to continue destroying our country.

(Just as an aside, Axelrod's comments were idiotic and unnecessary, no matter who you support in the primaries.)

Hey, Common Dreamer. Axelrod said something stupid. It happens. Bill and Hillary have done it too. Grin and bear it. Your golden boy screwed up for once.

You know, I'd really appreciate it if "supporting Hillary" wasn't "shilling for her," and a million other little insults like that. All it impresses me with is the fact that a lot of Obama supporters only seem to be able to support their guy after saying something snide about Hill. Grow up.

I'm interested in getting on to my next errand and so maybe I'm missing something, but I simply don't see where anything LJ said is supposed to be so biased or influential on the side of Hillary or any other candidate.

Clearly the point of the joke did go over me since I wasn't wrapped up in what somebody's spokesperson said or didn't say yesterday. So I just glossed over it and it didn't register, I guess I assumed it was a hit at Bush or somebody.

With 30 years experience writing, a joke is almost always a very poor idea if you are not named Art Buchwald -- even the pros throw a lot of incompletions when they're trying to stretch the intellectual field, so to speak. If you are so great your punch line is hilarious to all factions, then you've scored a touchdown, but the odds are way against you. At the very least it's good sense to announce that you're trying for a joke in an otherwise serious piece.
Obviously LJ didn't hit it this time.

But to me, the serious advocates of peace are not going to make any progress until we can absolutely rid ourselves of the habit, and launch an education campaign to rid others of the habit, of choosing our Presidential candidates on the basis of emotion and then defending them thick or thin against all the other similarly flawed candidates.

None of these candidates is going to be a saviour. After the years since Nov. 7, 2000, we have all become justifiably paranoid that any of them could become the AntiChrist, the Rosemary's Baby, the Nero who completes the destruction of civic values begun by Caligula Bush. So there's a lot of emotion out there, and it's real and move to it.

And that's precisely why we have to undertake the civic movement to consciously make the choice more intelligent and rational. This would also help deny the traditional media the power to move us with their "Dean Screams Muskie Cries" lemming rushes.

I don't often disagree with Dan K. on foreign policy (or anything else). It's also fun to bash Clinton and to harp on her Iraq and Iran votes, although in practice I think of her positions as more cowardly and evasive than hawkish. Trying to figure out her intentions on Iraq, or even whether it actually differs substantively from Obama's, is as pointless as reading tea leaves. I also enjoy screaming about Bush, whose policies in Pakistan have been very bad, and I'd certainly be suspicious of anyone using hysterical attacks on Clinton to justify her. We've had enough "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" from foreign policy realists, much less in campaigning.

However, let's even let aside how serious Clinton stand out among others in responsibility for Bush's war. I've said it's overblown, but I'll at least entertain the notion that it requires scrutinizing her more than others. But even without that, this "direct line from the war in Iraq" thing to Bhutto's death is so overblown that I can't waste time on it.

True, a little more success in Afghanistan might have put pressure on Pakistan to work with us, so going to war in Iraq hurt there, but I doubt it's a major driver to Musharef's seizing power or Bhutto's return from exile. True, we stirred up more Muslim extremism worldwide, although not so obviously in terms of destabilizing Pakistan than some other places, such as with the growth of AQI. True, if we had seized bin Laden on schedule, we might not have to cut Musharef a break, but that's logical only if you think Bush has ever been serious about catching bin Laden. True, there's a similar set of assumptions in Bush's hope for the spread of democracy in Iraq and in Pakistan, with similar lack of knowledge about both nations, but that's not cause and effect from one nation to the other. And true, militarism generally is not terribly democratic, but that's an even looser link to Bhutto's assassination (and she was only the most secular, not the least corrupt or perhaps even democratic of the bunch). Besides, that assumes it's our job to play tough and shape up Pakistan, which is not my idea of liberal foreign policy.

Have we so demonized Clinton that we're desperate to find anything to lay on her? Why not just say you'd like to hear her speaking out more forthrightly for peace, if that's the real beef with her, and stop trolling the mud for more?

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

My two-cents worth: I'm neither a Clinton nor an Obama supporter so with any luck bias will not play a part in my comment. A large part of Obama's appeal to many Dems is his firm stand against the Iraq War, both in its inception and its currently disastrous consequences. It's only rational politics that he would take every opportunity to use Clinton's (and Edward's) war resolution vote as his best weapon in this campaign. And, quite frankly, I think he has a point in saying that had the US not been intentionally misled into a war having absolutely nothing to do with al Qaeda or 9/11 and instead had focused on Afghanistan and its reconstruction and northern Pakistan, then the threats still existent in that region would be considerably less. That's simply a realistic view on US policy. Whether such a wise policy would have 'saved' Bhutto from assassination is anyone's guess. The fact that her return to Pakistan was largely brokered by the US and Britain as a means to achieve a more aggressive anti-terrorist Pakistan should also be given
a certain amount of blame for the current crisis. US attempts at regime change, whether military or whatever you would call this move of bringing Bhutto back, almost always lead to tragedy for the people of the country involved.

As to the comment about the FBI, Scotland Yard and Mossad being asked for security help by Bhutto, I can't imagine that such a forthright foreign presence would have been appreciated by the Pakistani people and would have rather clearly shown the world what was taking place in Bhutto's return, i.e., regime change approved by Western powers. This isn't to say that Bhutto didn't want to return, just that the timing was too dangerous and should have been given higher priority.

Disclosure: I've given money to Barack Obama.

Let's see.

Agree or disagree:

1-diverting resources from Afghanistan to Iraq weakened the U.S. effort against al Qaeda and boosted al Qaeda recruiting?

2-The very quote to which the "joking" headline refers has Axelrod citing specifically al qaeda's resurgence as a main reason for the assassination

3-Thus, an opening sentence that reads "Yep, it’s official. Al Qaeda...killed Benzir Bhutto," actually lends credence to the idea that Bhutto's assassination can be somewhat linked to U.S. policy in Iraq

No?

4-Regardless of your political take on the situation, Larry Johnson's "joke" in the headline and lede are in poor taste.

5-Larry Johnson's behavior here and here are inappropriate of any commenter on this site, let alone a regular columnist. Regardless of political persuasion, one should not be calling others "moron[s]" or twisting their usernames into insults. At first I rated them each "1"s because I felt almost awkward rating a regular columnist a troll, but then realized that, [a]were he not a regular columnist, I certainly would have rated those "0" each, and [b]columnists ought to be held to higher, not lower, standards. As such, both were rated troll-worthy, and I will be submitting a formal complaint to the site managers.

That behavior is simply unacceptable.