SubscribeNYP: Don’t Shed Any Tears For Ms. Bhutto
From Ralph Peters at the New York Post:
Sand artist Sudarsan Patnaik creates a sand sculpture of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, following her assassination, at a beach in Puri, close to the eastern Indian city of Bhubaneshwar, December 28, 2007.
THE BHUTTO ASSASSINATION: NOT WHAT SHE SEEMED TO BE
By RALPH PETERS
December 28, 2007 — FOR the next several days, you’re going to read and hear a great deal of pious nonsense in the wake of the assassination of Pakistan’s former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto.
Her country’s better off without her. She may serve Pakistan better after her death than she did in life.
We need have no sympathy with her Islamist assassin and the extremists behind him to recognize that Bhutto was corrupt, divisive, dishonest and utterly devoid of genuine concern for her country.
She was a splendid con, persuading otherwise cynical Western politicians and “hardheaded” journalists that she was not only a brave woman crusading in the Islamic wilderness, but also a thoroughbred democrat.
In fact, Bhutto was a frivolously wealthy feudal landlord amid bleak poverty. The scion of a thieving political dynasty, she was always more concerned with power than with the wellbeing of the average Pakistani. Her program remained one of old-school patronage, not increased productivity or social decency.
Educated in expensive Western schools, she permitted Pakistan’s feeble education system to rot - opening the door to Islamists and their religious schools.
During her years as prime minister, Pakistan went backward, not forward. Her husband looted shamelessly and ended up fleeing the country, pursued by the courts. The Islamist threat - which she artfully played both ways - spread like cancer.
But she always knew how to work Westerners - unlike the hapless Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who sought the best for his tormented country but never knew how to package himself.
Military regimes are never appealing to Western sensibilities. Yet, there are desperate hours when they provide the only, slim hope for a country nearing collapse. Democracy is certainly preferable - but, unfortunately, it’s not always immediately possible. Like spoiled children, we have to have it now - and damn the consequences.
In Pakistan, the military has its own forms of graft; nonetheless, it remains the least corrupt institution in the country and the only force holding an unnatural state together. In Pakistan back in the ’90s, the only people I met who cared a whit about the common man were military officers.
Americans don’t like to hear that. But it’s the truth…
Granted Mr. Peters got a little panicky a little while back about the prospects of the “surge.” But he is largely correct in his assessment here of Ms. Bhutto.
[S]he was always more concerned with power than with the wellbeing of the average Pakistani.
Indeed, she sounds a lot like another woman politician we know.
But Mr. Peters is wrong to suggest her death will help Pakistan. For it will just be an excuse for more senseless violence from now through the rest of time. (As if these people need an excuse.)
More surprisingly, Mr. Peters neglected to mention Ms. Bhutto’s early and vital support for the Taliban.
Which makes her death at their allies hands even more ironic.
19 Responses to “NYP: Don’t Shed Any Tears For Ms. Bhutto”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
December 28th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
So, she was just a Democrat, all the description fits all of their traits to a tee.
December 28th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
-’Which makes her death at their allies hands even more ironic’- It would be only to those who do not grasp that radical islamic terrorists will kill anyone at any moment - to serve their purposes above all else.
Someone somewhere either smelled a chance of ‘cooperation’ between Bhutto and Musharraf - which translated into a more stable and perhaps progressing Pakistan or someone felt that Pakistan needs to be the next home base of al-Qaeda or worse some cleric just decided ‘the woman’ needed to be put into her place.
I still can’t get my head around any woman, anywhere for any reason supporting (or being supported by) the Taliban. Ever.
December 28th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
“I still can’t get my head around any woman, anywhere for any reason supporting (or being supported by) the Taliban. Ever.”
And right you are. The Taliban murdered any women who dared had an original thought in her head, including leaving her “jail cell” without the proper headgear known as a Burka. The irony is that she supported the Taliban, enabling their power grab in neighboring Afghanistan. I don’t believe, however, that she ever truely intended to “share” power with Musharraf, but rather had a grand scheme to displace him at the earliest possible moment.
Some never grasp the concept that if you sleep with dogs you wake up with fleas (except my dogs of course who are flea free).
December 28th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
You’d think this would inflame her supporters to go after the Taliban and Al Queda. Let’s see, they said they’d kill her if she came back. They tried to kill her within days of her return. They claimed credit for that attempt and said they’d try again. Then they tried again and killed her. They immediately claimed credit and were even caught gloating about it over the phone. So obviously it was Musharraf’s fault and the answer is to riot and try to destroy the country. Makes perfect sense.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Per Debbie Schlussel, Ms. Bhutto was a big supporter of Pali terrorism and was a defender of homicide bombers - pretty ironic, don’t you think - as long as they killed Jews and Israelis. She also makes the comparison between Musharref and the Shah of Iran and Bhutto being like Khomeini - opening up the Islamfascist damn. She also states that it is time that Bush got it through his head that it is not about “democracy” - the Palis elected Hamas, Egypt the Islamic Brotherhood, and Hezbollah gained seats in Lebanon - it is about stamping out Islamofascism as much as possible or at least making them pay big for their terrible deeds. Many years ago I saw an article called “Women of the Taliban” and there was a photo of veiled women holding the Koran over their heads. Yes, the Taliban has its female fans! And for a long time Ms. Bhutto was one of them. She also supported terrorism in Kashmir. And let’s not forget that Bangladesh was once part of Pakistan and that it was freed because of the support of India.
December 28th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Ms Bhutto was certainly no saint but to bash her previous support of the Taliban while conveniently forgetting Musharraf’s own support of the Taliban before 9/11 (that and the “truce” that was personally signed with pro-Taliban militia in 2006) is unfair. I’m sure that one could find equally harsh articles about President Musharraf on the web, but the reality in Pakistan is not as simple as Musharraf – Great ally while Bhutto – Pakistani Shrillary.
For all the money that Musharraf has received from the U.S. government, he has done precious little. I think Bill O’Reilly summed up the situation perfectly on the O’Reilly Factor today. Musharraf needs to produce results; he must let the Western forces to wipe out Taliban forces in places like the city of Quetta, which is known for housing key Taliban operational forces. Sadly, with the passing of Ms Bhutto, the West has no choice but to support Musharraf. After all, who else is left, Nawaz Sharif? The man is a joke and would instantly capitulate to Taliban forces.
For the record, I do not think that Musharraf is directly involved in the assassination of Ms Bhutto (although the latest mutterings from the Pakistani Interior Ministry that Bhutto died from banging her head sounds a bit dodgy at best), but I do not think he stands to lose that much within his own country. The West, particularly Europe, may crow about democracy but any pragmatic politician will tell you that the only viable road to stability for Pakistan is through the military, which is while they will support Musharraf no matter what.
The ones who will suffer most out of all this are the Pakistani people and the West. They’ll be plunged into uncertainty and chaos, while Western troops and Western cities will continue to be attacked by terrorists that originate from Pakistan. I really do hope that things don’t go that far, but unless things change for the better in the coming days and months in Pakistan (after the elections, if they are even held now) it will take something big to change the tide. God be with us and with the brave men and women who put their lives in danger daily for our safety and protection. May their fight not be in vain!
December 28th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Bhutto is being canonized by the MSM as we speak. Ummmm, do I sense an ulterior motive here?
Bhutto was a devout socialist. She was called “Pinkie” Bhutto while attending college here in the U.S. because of her socialist views. She also was the most corrupt PM in the history of Pakistan. But gee, all that was ignored as she told the Pakistani people that she was going to bring “democracy” to Pakistan. Sound familiar? It should.
We currently have a woman running for POTUS that has more baggage than Cher, Madonna and Brittany combined. But somehow, like Clinton, all that baggage that Bhutto carried around was ignored as she became the darling of the west because she said all the right things. Never mind that her actions spoke volumns about her. Just listen to the rhetoric and be fooled into thinking that it was PAKISTAN, not herself, she was all about.
We can only hope that when the Pakistanis are sick and tired of fire bombing the Kentucy Fried Chicken places and turning over cars making them look like the 7th century cretons they are, they will have their Anbar Awakening and start fighting the radicals that have taken over a good part of their nation and throw the bastards out after they kill them.
But it is not encouraging watching how they react to Bhutto’s assassination.
I am hoping that Musharraf can hold on to his nation. The Pakistani military is really the only stabilizing force there and Musarraf has a hold on it. And you can look for Bhutto’s replacement to be pro-Taliban.
December 28th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
While we’re on it, here’s another scary thought….
Musharraf is in his 70’s.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Canonized, nothing - the MSM is making her out to be a martyr even more than her supporters in Pakistan are.
Of course the Democrats on the campaign trail are doing their tying; as related on Fox News, our invasion of Iraq took troops from Afghanistan, which allowed al Qaeda to become resurgent there, which allowed them to grow in power in Pakistan, which allowed them to kill Bhutto.
So yes, it’s all Bush’s fault.
How surprising.
December 29th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
According to Bhutto’s close advisor, Eric Margolis, she had planned to get elected as PM and then push Musharref out of power. Now the truth comes out. I wonder if she was being financed by Soros….just saying.
http://www.foxnews.com/studiob/index.html
December 29th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
According to Bhutto’s close advisor, Eric Margolis,…
Oh gawd Tex…
Are you familiar with Margolis ? He’s a hack. And a nut. An American who writes for the Toronto Sun (which guarantees him an audience stupid enough to believe him).
According to him, he’s James f*cking Bond: friend and advisor to heads of state; chased and threatened by agents of various nations’ intelligence services (they invariably stop after he threatens to kill them); he was a crucial part of the US military during the cold war; when Israel and Hezbollah went at it a while back, he wrote three back-to-back columns of what really started the shooting (all ridiculous, all different and none mentioning the other “scoops”); and when he’s got nothing better to write about, he launches into tirades about “neocons” that make Captain Queeg sound like Mahatma Gandhi.
December 29th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
More surprisingly, Mr. Peters neglected to mention Ms. Bhutto’s early and vital support for the Taliban.
And may I add, with America’s tacit support.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
And whose watch was that on Debjeet? Does the name Clinton ring a bell? Most of the Taliban’s reign of terror and AQ’s rise to major terror organization occurred on Clinton’s watch while he was getting blowjobs in the oval office. So just what are you trying to imply here?
December 30th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
What I meant was this: America, with Pakistan’s help was primarily responsible for building the Taliban (or the Mujahideen as it was called then) to counteract the Soviets in Afghanistan. The succeeding nurturing of Islamic militancy was carried out by Pakistan with the full knowledge of the Americans (and undoubtedly with American dollars), who could have nipped the scourge of Islamic terrorism right in the bud back then. Instead, America turned a blind eye, only to have it emerge as a multi-headed Hydra in 2001. If I remember correctly, someone in the American government once even went on to praise the Taliban for bringing much-needed stability and law and order to Afghanistan. Things, of course took a U-turn after 9/11. As for Bill Clinton, his perfunctory act of throwing a few stray missiles at Khartoum and a patch of barren desert in Afghanistan was as silly as a three-year old kid throwing water balloons at passersby. I strongly believe that had 9/11 not happened, Bush would have allowed the Taliban to continue in Afghanistan. We Indians have suffered from the scourge of Islamic terrorism for as long as I can remember, and for us (as well as for our friends in Israel), the War on Terror had begun a long time back.
December 30th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
“We Indians have suffered from the scourge of Islamic terrorism for as long as I can remember, and for us (as well as for our friends in Israel), the War on Terror had begun a long time back.”
I get your point now Debjeet….now that I know you’re Indian. You’re still pissed off that the Mujahideen (not the Taliban at that time) threw your buddies the Russians out of Afghanistan. And while we did support the Mujahideen during the Russian occupation, we could have had no idea they would turn on their own people and us in the end.
“I strongly believe that had 9/11 not happened, Bush would have allowed the Taliban to continue in Afghanistan. ”
Really? And do they have crystal balls in India that tell you this? I strongly believe that even if 9/11 had not happened, Bush was going to go after at least one, if not more, governments in the ME, including Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe it, but it doesn’t make it fact.
The bottom line is that if BJBill had been doing his job instead of letting the Islamists run him out of Mogadishu, thereby emboldening OBL and had taken OBL out when he had several chances to do so, there probably would have been no 9-11.
If you’re not happy with your lot in India, tell it to your government, but don’t blame America for your problems. We aren’t your freaking nanny.
December 30th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Oh, and Debjeet…..although you, like every other country in the world has suffered at the hands of Islamists, India has been pretty damn good at producing it’s own brand of terrorist from the Hindus and Skihs.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:02 am
‘According to Bhutto’s close advisor, Eric Margolis,…
Oh gawd Tex…’
But DW, Bhutto has a plethora of “close advisors” and new best friends! Haven’t you noticed? Like Clinton and CNN. LOL
December 31st, 2007 at 8:52 am
Yeah Tex. Too bad she didn’t take them all with her.
(sorry, haven’t had my coffee yet :-)
December 31st, 2007 at 9:52 am
The Taliban (which is NOT the same as the mujahideen; the term basically means ‘holy warrior’) didn’t arise to power until the mid-90’s, when the Soviet Union was already defeated by Reagan and they had finally given up on the invasion of Afghanistan.
Bush Sr., who was something of a wuss, and Biilzebubba, who apparently couldn’t get head from Pakistani women, then had no problem with the Taliban taking over. Part of this was the simple fact that the Taliban promised to get rid of the opium trade, which would make Clinton look like a strong anti-drug president without actually having to do anything anti-drug…. naturally, the opium trade flourished under the Taliban.