Thanks to commenter 4tehlulz for the link. Benazir Bhutto was killed this morning in a suicide attack:
Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was killed in a gun and bomb attack after a rally in the city of Rawalpindi on Thursday, her party said.
“She has been martyred,” said party official Rehman Malik.
Ms. Bhutto, 54, died in hospital in Rawalpindi. Ary-One Television said she had been shot in the head.
Police said a suicide bomber fired shots at Bhutto as she was leaving the rally venue in a park before blowing himself up.
“The man first fired at Bhutto’s vehicle. She ducked and then he blew himself up,” said police officer Mohammad Shahid.
Police said 16 people had been killed in the blast.
There will be chaos in Pakistan because of this. F**king crazy. Holy shit.
Update: apparently, she was shot after the suicide attack.
Kevin Drum calls it “stunning”. I call it as predictable as sunrise. I also think there is danger in overestimating its signifigance. I am not an apologist for the Musharraf regime, but I think there was more danger from the turmoil that would result from a disputed election result or a turnover of power than from her assassination.
We live in interesting times.
let’s ee, india, afghanistan, russia china…anyone else potentially in on this clusterfuck gangbang?
Ugh: More like frightening.
Bob In Pacifica
That’s the quickest, most efficient way to change politics in a democracy (albeit, Pakistan is a democracy pretty much in name only these days). Part of the mechanism of a democracy is the fetishism of leaders. Removing a leader forever from the political stage puts a movement in disarray. Hopes placed in a leader are smashed.
Fascism is efficient that way. Congrats to Musharraf. Smooth sailing until the next eruption.
Maybe the fallout from this will not be so severe…perhaps the country is already too shaken up.
Here’s the time line:
1. Musharaff declares another SoA.
2. Places other opposition candidates in “protective custody” for an undetermined amount of time.
3. Musharaff decides his current general isn’t up to keeping the country safe so he’ll take over the army again for a little bit.
5. Martial law.
6. Musharaff cancels elections until order is restored.
7. Osama bin Laden gets a big fat check.
chaos in Pakistan? Unfortunately, her death has far wider implications than just that country.
Also from CNN
This is how democracy works isn’t it? Intimidate, Arrest, and Assisnate all rivals until there is only one left standing at the top. I can’t wait to hear what G-Dub says about this.
Not much will happen. Political assassination is more the rule than exception in Pakistan – they already tried this the day she returned, I think.
Her father had a lot of enemies and so did she. She had zero influence in the NWFP, the only place that matters in the current version of the Great Game. Musharraf is the winner, and since he’s protected by the US everything will cool off in a few days. She just wasn’t as important as she thought.
G-Dub will tell us that this is why we’re in Iraq, to bring Democracy to an unstable region, duh!
And in other news, if any of the GOP get elected this year, I’m moving to Thailand. At least their coups are bloodless.
These guys have nukes, and Bin Laden’s buddies run the security apparatus.
Remember when Georgie-Porgie called off the hunt for Osama so we could go after Saddam?
But killing a leader doesn’t disband a movement. You’ve still got a large number of people eager to affect change. The difference is that now you’ve got those people feeling frustrated and weak, and that’s a recipe for violence.
Take a look at the MLK assassination. That didn’t exactly end the civil rights movement, but you did see a whole lot more Black Panthers once he was gone. Or, if you want to get really historical, look at the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Reconstruction still happened under Johnson. It was just a massive clusterfuck.
Musharraf hasn’t done himself any favors by letting this happen unless he was really itching to plunge his developing nation into a third world civil war.
There is no way the assassin got that close unless he was part of her security detail or was aided by someone who was on the inside.
We gave Mushariff 8 or 9 billion dollars over the last few years to help prop him up. He was Bhutto’s main rival.
He may not have had anything to do with this, but I would not be surprised is he was. I expect he will use this attack and the inevitible protests that are coming in the next few days to reimpose martial law.
Fixed. You think India is just going to chill while the ISI and/or Al Qaeda gets its hands on nukes? Fuck that.
Unfortunately I have to agree. India has been growing increasingly uncomfortable with the state of affairs in Pakistan, and they are definitely going to prevent the control of Pakistan’s nukes from falling into uncontrollable hands by any means necessary.
The immediate aftermath will see riots, martial law, more ‘deaths’ off-camera, etc. At some point, things will tip into total chaos.
The long term ramifications are, of course, completely dependent on how India, China, Russia and U.S. responds to it all.
There should be serious questions to all Presidential candidates about how they handle a Pakistan that is clearly heading towards violent collapse and that will clearly cause problems for all the other nations in that region. Much like Afghanistan. And Iraq. And you get the f-cking feeling that we’re screwed now no matter what we do.
I still blame the mapmakers at Versailles. >:(
You obviously haven’t seen any pictures or video from her rallys.
What caliphygian said. I am amazed she survived this long.
Her attitude was very heroic – either arrogantly so because you know others are going to lose their lives with you, or courageous because you make it easier for them to get you (and maybe she thought that would mitigate someone having to use huge truck bombs, thus limiting casualties).
Either way, I agree that the long-term impacts are way overestimated. Her loss was calculated into the body politic there awhile ago. Short term, everybody will go crazy.
Too bad Obama isn’t in office, he could start the bombings tomorrow.
Bob In Pacifica
Zifnab, having lived through the sixties, yes, assassination does work in hurting and even destroying political movements.
When assassinations are planned those committing the assassinations plan for what comes after. New leaders are kept in the wings as replacements. When Torrijos’ helicopter crashed in Panama, there was a Noriega there to take his place (and eventually someone to take his place; the reservations are full of collaborators).
Think of reasons for the removal of leaders and then think of what came next. JFK to LBJ. RFK to Nixon (Bobby would have won in ’68). Nixon to Ford (okay, just a coup). MLK to Jesse Jackson. Can you honestly say that Jackson was an equal or an improvement to MLK? Malcolm X to Elijah Muhammed? Louis Farrakhan? The history of the Black Panthers was a series of political assassinations. Gone the Black Panthers, arrive the Symbionese Liberation Army, the phoniest terrorist group ever. What’s left on the African American Left? The New Black Panther Party? They’re only a group of agit-prop racist clowns marched out when white people need to be scared or Bill O’Reilly needs a foil.
No, murder works quite well. That’s why it’s been around so long in human history.
This rally was at a compound and a reporter stated that to get there you had to pass through several security checkpoints.
This is all Britain’s fault, actually. I’m convinced there is a special place in hell for Lord Mountbatten.
Bob In Pacifica
Wilfred, Bhutto’s party looked to win big in the general elections in a couple of weeks. If it happens she would have had great influence in Pakistan. Who knows? Maybe Musharraf calls off elections, or maybe he’s got the local version of Diebold machines. Anyone who thinks that this assassination was done by some independent terrorist org unrelated to Musharraf, and thus to America’s army of the night, should cut down on the number of Disney movies he or she watches.
Remember when Benigno Aquino was the leading opposition to Ferdinand Marcos? When he returned from exile in the U.S. he was assassinated at the Manila Airport minutes after he arrived.
Who killed him? Marcos’ agents. Who was Marcos’ biggest supporter? The United States.
When Bhutto first arrived back in Pakistan, they tried to kill her with a truck bomb. They missed her, but killed 150 other people. Who was responsible for protecting Bhutto? Pakistan’s security services, run by Musharrif.
One day event, tops.
Brittany’s a train-wreck, remember? And CNN has to tell us who Teh Bestest and Worstest of 2007 are before Tuesday….
Musharraf is the President and he has little influence in the NWFP. You can’t think of Pakistan as a unified whole. Bhutto was running as a representative of the landed interests in Baluchistan. Without the support of the Army and the ISI she would have had no effect at all in the part of the country that concerns American interests.
In Pakistan, the military is the only form of government that is uniformly respected and believed to have the interests of the country at heart. there’s lots of reason for that, among them class – Musharraf came from nothing, while Bhutto comes from old line landed gentry, like most Pak politicians of national stature.
I didn’t wish evil on her, but Bhutto was no saint and neither was her father. She was always seen as a creature of the West.
Obama is the only candidate to have declared being for bombing Waziristan. You must have missed his foreign policy statement(s). Most “progressives” and dems have.
What Wilfred said. Iraq has simple ethnic, religious and political problems compared to Pakistan.
What, no link? I can’t find this. I’m not saying it never happened, but you’ll excuse me if I can’t take your word on it…
Even less likely to be Musharraf then, since there were so many easier opportunities and public rallies. Even Bhutto wanted it both ways – complaining about Musharrafs security forces and wanting to be protected. There’s a pin to dance on.
Nope, no links. You must have been in a cave.
Teh Google is your friend
It’s about the only thing he actually said he would do, beyond all that talk about being “responsible” and “muscular”.
My money is on Al Qaeda with help from sympathizers in the ISI and the military.
I wonder if Pervez! has a suitcase packed in case he needs to make a quick getaway to the Cayman Islands.
Oh, you mean what every Democratic candidate has said. “Go in, get terrorists.” Over and over again. I don’t understand your point. Obama’s position on Pakistan is hardly unique, let alone Hawkish. He just made a point of spelling it out in more detail than the rest of his peers. Maybe because he finds it less necessary to twist his own words.
It doesn’t look like she was inside the compound anymore, but we’ll see.
If Bush had wanted her to stay alive, he would have outsourced this to Blackwater.
That’s exactly what they want you to think. You know, 99.99999% of Waziristani’s don’t consider themselves card-carrying members of AQ? A lot of people have wanted Bhutto dead way before we started blaming Osama for everything.
Just saw the Preznit’s reaction on TV, and there was a lot of tough talk about the “cowards” that did this, etc. etc. But he likely forgot all about it as soon as he stepped from the mike. Mushariff has the U.S. government’s support, and that’s not going to change anytime soon — not over anything domestic anyway.
Sorry to burst your “naive” (Hillary’s word) illusions, but no other Democratic candidate has said they would go into “Pakistan” to take out “terrorists” even without approval of the soveriegn nations leader.
You seem to think everyone else would (but just won’t say it), or that they have said the same thing. They haven’t.
As far as his policies not being “Hawkish”. You either don’t know what that word means, or you haven’t read a single paragraph of Obama’s foreign policy statement. There hasn’t been any point in this campaign were he’s tried to portray himself has being to the left of Hillary.
I suppose you think she’s a “Dove”.
Enough. You’re a troll, part of the Demohypocritisanti here, or you need to do some studying.
Apparent Musharraf has called for three days of mourning and told the country to expect riots. In Lit-speak, we call that foreshadowing.
I think you need to reconsider. I think Hillary Clinton is pretty much the worst thing ever and wouldn’t blink twice before sending the United States into another ill-advised military conflict. I think Obama IS left of Hillary in some regards. My comments thus far here I think would bare that out. And if you think for a moment that if any of the other candidates were seen as “soft” on terror, as Obama’s early polling was indicating, that they wouldn’t have come out and said the exact same thing, you’re not reading the same political landscape that I am.
And don’t think that China is going to let the religious fuckers in the kashmire get a nuke either. Last thing they need is AQ deciding to attack the Godless Heathens of Heretical Hindu India and even worse, the Pagan and/or Athiest evil of China.
I’ve always said that I think the first full blown nuclear exchange is going to be in the Himilayas, just because you have the insane fucktards there who’d be crazy enough to use it, or fully rational people trying to protect themselves from the same.
Hawkish: “LET’S NUKE TEHRAN! NOW! NOW! NOW!”
Dovish: Everyone else
That’s a pretty big Overton window shift.
I’m just sad that various democrats are not pointing out that the Hawks for 1811 got DC burned to the ground over ill-advised military adventures, and before they were poking brittian with the sharp stick they were taking jabs at France when she was Ascendent.
It’s srv, he of the ‘It’s immoral to vote for anyone but Jefferson Davis Paul and Camerahog Kucinich.’ You’re better off just leaving him in his happy little world.
She probably had herself killed just to cause trouble for Musharraf. She learned that trick from the terrorists at Gitmo.
But Doug, I’m here to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted! :)
This isn’t a time or a topic for trolling.
But trolls don’t give a fuck.
Too bad you can’t fix stupid.
Someone gave his “The people who leaked Valerie Plame’s name will be found and fired,” speech a quick edit.
“I don’t want a totalitarian regime of goose-stepping fascists running my country, but I also don’t want to get shot in the head.”
Talk about a flip-flopper.
Not as big as you’d think. America has been trigger happy for the last 60 years. Ever since we single-handedly conquered all of Europe and Asia in a 4-year military campaign back in WWII (please ignore the English, French, Russians, Chinese, and numerous local insurgent forces spread across much of the Middle East and Europe), our country has decided that carpet bombing for Democracy was a sure-fire strategy for success.
Look at Korea – a failure, Vietnam – an epic failure, The War on Drugs in Latin America – so much failure it hurts, Iraq #1 – a middling success if you don’t consider, Iraq #2 – clusterfuck to end all clusterfucks, and Afghanistan – wait, we have a war there?
This country has been extremely hawkish for the last two generations. What makes Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran so notable isn’t the fact that we were ok with charging in like gangbusters in each case, but that we’re trying to do all three in a single Presidency.
Show me a “True Dove” in the US Presidential Race, and I’ll show you a candidate polling in the single digits.
Zif, it’s for people like you that I keep reading BJ. I know you at least understand it’s not nuance when defining what a Hawk really is, even if you kid about it. Now that the Dems are ascendant, the crowd here will just about put up with anything and move the goal posts as needed. It does not bode well for the next year or so as they support most of the same policies but insist on it being “responsible” and “muscular” (Baracks language, for the many of you here who don’t read him).
Some people think Bhutto was a saint and that their comments bare out that Obama is left of Hillary. Not like any links, foreign policy papers, foreign policy staff members or facts should get in their way… Just what do they think Obama is going to do with adding that 100000 troops increase (oh, sorry, he didn’t say that because I didn’t hear it and you didn’t put a link in that I didn’t bother to read either, or if I did, that’s just landscape stuff – he didn’t really mean it)?
And to think that Darrell insisted everyone here was a “leftist” or “liberal”. Hillary is the “worst thing evah”, Obama isn’t, and I’m a troll. Wow. These people will buy anything as long as it’s not a “liberal” in a dress (unless she’s Pakistani).
So Musharaff finds a way to have a political opponent killed. He plays our game so we support him financially and with weaponry. Sounds just like Saddam … who the conservatives also supported. Interesting how we never learn.
Bald WH bobblehead says this is the nature of our battle against “terrorists” who will stop at nothing to kill innocent people, then admits that it isn’t known whodunit yet.
If it was the Pakistani military or intelligence agency that killed Bhutto, then what does it have to do with our eternal war on terror?
Srv, I still don’t know why I’m a troll because I believe you are cherry-picking a single statement by Obama that is not out of line with any of the rest of the candidates and wasn’t even disparaged by Bhutto herself. I’ve read most (not all) of Obama’s policy papers and many of his speeches. I’ve got no real issue with anything he’s said, and the things I don’t agree with, I can at least see his perspective on. Clearly you DO have issue with him, and that’s all fine and dandy. But I’m a troll for the left if I defend him or his statements? Bhutto was a popular voice in Pakistan, and occasionally even a sane one, and she perhaps put Obama’s words in better perspective than you have:
Given that the Taliban were the creature of Pakistani intelligence before (and while) they were the creature of Al Qaeda, it would just show that we’ve been backing the bad guys in Pakistan for years.
What’s the news there, again?
If it wasn’t clear from my 11:11am excerpt, Bhutto repeatedly complained about the forces assigned to “protect” her – in the sense of restricting access to her on occassion and calling off events like the one she just got killed at. I didn’t mean that in a general state-security sense.
But the other Bhutto fanbase here might look into her Presidency to get a feel for her concept of state security.
These past few years feel increasingly like a cascading clusterfuck, like a snowball rolling downhill towards my house, getting bigger and bigger. . . .
This isn’t about a Bhutto fanbase. She’s got a bad record in a country with rigged elections and a stacked judiciary, so its kinda hard to figure out if she’s actually a sleezeball or if its just everyone else.
This is about freedom of Democracy, not cheering on a favorite Pakistani politician. Her “protection” squads were impeding her ability to campaign by “protecting” her through house arrest.
You know who else offers you that sort of protection, then shots you when you turn it down? The mob. I’m just say’n.
What the CNN/ABC/Cthulu news isn’t mentioning:
– Former Pakistani PM Nawaz Sharif was shot at yesterday, and 4 in his entourage were killed;
– A bomb was smuggled into the high-security cantonment area of Rawalpindi yesterday, and 4 were killed;
– A bomb was exploded yesterday beside a bus transporting Pakistani Air Force personnel, killing an undetermined number;
– Riots have erupted across Pakistan in the wake of Bhutto’s assassination;
– The DJIA is down 166 points, oil is up to $97 BBL.
Interesting times, indeed.
It’s like the movie “Go!” just one big “But wait…it gets worse”.
The Fountainhead, did you have to use the word “fallout”?
Thanks… I think?
I agree that Dems can take us into bad wars just as quickly as Republicans. JFK and Johnson dragged us into Vietnam for a good eight years. You can’t blame that on the Big Red Elephant.
But compare Clinton’s Desert Fox campaign against Saddam, his air strikes against Bin Laden, and his missions in Bosnia and Sudan. Were they good, smart moves? You’ll have to ask the historians. Did they leave us trapped in endless quagmires that cost us trillions of dollars? That, you can probably answer yourself.
Even Carter went into Iran, guns blazing. No one is suggesting that Dems can’t be hawkish or that “hawkish” Dems are really lovey Doves in disguise. But the Democratic Party has a track record of competency that Republicans just lack. I don’t know whether Obama would try to settle Pakistan’s internal problems with the 101st Airborne, but I do know that I trust Obama to settle the situation more peacefully and practically than Rudy Guiliani or John “Bomb Bomb Iran” McCain.
The policy of macho Americanism hasn’t served us particularly well. But the policy of blind, foolish, incompetent macho Americanism is much worse. In that sense, Hillary/Obama/Edwards is the lesser of two evils and one I’m willing to support.
Wah wah WAH wah. Obama isn’t different and where he does go off the reservation, it was just saying something they’re too cowardly to say.
Wah wah. Word.
Darrell used to do this all the time – I’m sure demi has some fancy term like cognitive dissonance or something for it.
Thanks for the Bhutto landscape comment pandering to the Hawks who aren’t happy with Bush.
Heh, and I was beginning to think no one got my poor, grim attempt at humor!! Yay, Gus!
What I’m saying is that AQ is up to something. Today was the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. They like anniversaries. They like coordinated attacks.
I’m concerned. And I’m not trying to fear-monger, I’m generally a political liberal and opposed to Bush’s fear-mongering.
But I think the situation bears watching.
Really? Ya think? After all these years, that perpetually elevated threat level and its Color Code finally mean something? The goddam thing has been blinking at me for six years.
Of course an assassination in that part of the world “bears watching.” Jesus H. Fucking Christ.
I’d say you could thank Bhutto for that, actually, but that would be tough now, huh? I think it’s safe to say though, that if some crazy took the time to blow her up (not as rare a distinction in that region anymore, I know) then she was probably doing something right, and her comments are likely NOT out of line with the thinking of mainstream Pakistan, where democracy will have to come from if it is ever to be realized there.
I think that’s a very good approximation. But the Bhutto family would historically be closer to the Sopranos than Musharraf.
I just think Hillary or Obama will be under more pressure to prove themselves, and their policy staffs certainly demonstrate a historical capacity to pursue the status quo with vigor.
For those that laugh about my Paul/Kucinich thing – I ask you: Do you think our foreign policy should be moral, and exactly how will your most beloved candidate change the historical status quo Zif has aptly demonstrated?
Alas, most of you probably think everything pre-GW was moral, so we’re stuck.
They axed Ahmed Shah Massoud for the Taliban…
It’s one big game of Clue but I’d be willing to bet it was the ISI or the ISI via Al-Qaeda who did it. Or a convergence between the two. As was said elsewhere it wouldn’t be the first time Pervez used assassins to eliminate rivals.
Coordinated attacks require conspiracy. The attacks we have heard about indicate either involvement or infiltration of the military, security services and/or police. This had to more than a “lone-nut” assassin with an old bolt-action Italian rifle.
Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that we will ever know for sure who is responsible.
The first rule of
Fight Clubpolitical assassination is you don’t talk about Fight Clubit.
Sharif to boycott elections, like they would procede anyway
Shit, meet fan. Fan, shit. You two will be having a close relationship in the Subcontinent for awhile.
Good thing we have all those American troops in the region.
What a tragedy.
I just can’t see beyond that right now.
Moral? By whose standards? What is the purpose of foreign policy against which morality should be measured?
Oops. Sorry, srv. I just called you disingenuous again, didn’t I? It’s too bad that you keep proving it.
Notice in the Pakistani model that Musharraf no longer “controls” the military. Perhaps NO president is better for someone?
If others are right, Meet your new leader here
And of course, he’s former head of the ISI.
And I think Rawalpindi is the headquarters for the Army.
Or maybe Musharraf now has good reason to say the Army can’t do the job and he has to take back over?
You’ve always considered “standards” like any other microserf (or a microposeur, depending on the color of your badge). It’s who you are. But I expect that at least some of the others here could come up with some standard for their candidates.
Disingenous? Tell us about “Don’t be evil”.
Yes, I have a term, although it isn’t cognitive dissonance — I’d use the fancy term rationalization. Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort you experience when you hold inconsistent beliefs. Rationalization is one of the several techniques for getting rid of it.
Then again, I largely agree with you that there’s no real difference in the foreign policy stances of the various Dem candidates. I just disagree about whether you have the least justification for your claim of “morality” beyond some special message from the Sky Ghost in Chief.
If you want a defense of Item 6, “You can make money without doing evil.”, you’ll need to contact Google PR for it. It’s their slogan, not mine.
Unfucking real that you can even type this, having lived thru (have you been in a COMA?) 7+ years of one of the worst, most inane, indifferent, and lying MoFos in the history of this country.
Is she perfect? Nope. “Worst thing evah”? Man, what in hell are you smoking?
All I can say to that is “Heh.” Google is great for searching but making money without doing evil? I think there are a lot of free speech advocates who would beg to differ vis-a-vis google cooperating with China.
Bob In Pacifica
A long time back I said something like the fetishism of political leaders. I meant the fetishization of political leaders by their followers.
To paraphrase Dennis Green, Musharref is who we suspected he was.
The last president we had who tried to implement what I would consider a moral foreign policy was heavily criticized by all of Wingnuttia, including the so-called “Christian Right.” His name was Jimmy Carter.
Our current foreign policy is inconsistent and often counter-productive. We support dictators like Musharraf, and try to undermine democratically elected leaders like Chavez. Fidel Castro is no saint, but our policy towards Cuba has punished the Cubans without doing anything about Castro.
We intervene (often secretly) in the internal affairs of other nations in order to protect the profits of our corporations and without regard for the effect on the citizens of those nations, or our own.
We engage in preemptive war, which is forbidden by the United Nations.
But the answer isn’t Ron Paul.
It’s certainly comforting to know that George Bush was elected by many of you to be at the helm in this time of crisis.
Heh. Dumb motherfucker.
Okay, fine, she’s not the Bush Administration. Yet. But God she frightens me so.
Yeah, just for pure speculation I thought about that possibility when I heard of Bhutto’s assassination. As Dreggas noted, AQ whacked Massoud just before their 9/11 attacks. But they assassinated him not for the benefit of the Taliban, but for themselves.
Thinking forward they would know our entering Afghanistan would be high probability. The Northern Alliance was a collection of self-interested warlords with Massoud marginally able to unify them. Sort of like Bhutto being a unifying point for more secular Pakistani groups. AQ knew we would use the Northern Alliance. So take out Massoud to hopefully weaken that before attacking us.
If AQ or their friendly elements in the ISI were behind this assassination, wouldn’t be surprised to see them take another attempt at Musharraf before or soon after the Pakistani elections in two weeks. If Mush appears in public, he’ll probably have enough security to make a McCain stroll really look like a walk through his garden.
Good times for AQ. Bhutto gone, a lot of the population angry certain that Musharraf will re-coup the government in the coming January elections. Take him out, Pakistan then leaderless while the population fears up and is angry would be prime conditions for the fundamentalist nutters to come out to play seizing more power in the name of Allah.
Bonus, the idiocracy still in the WH would likely respond by saying we need to redouble our efforts in Iraq as that is the central front in the GSAVE. Known truth. They see the big picture. Yep, good times for AQ. Bush has been their Santa.
And yet another spooftroll bags yet another gaggle of victims …..
Really? The worst thing ever? Worse, than, say, the Bubonic Plague, or Idi Amin?
Do, tell. What an interesting figure you cut here, sir.
Uh….hmmm….when are they not up to something? Aren’t they pretty much in a perpetual (sp?) state of Planning Something Nefarious?
That was an invitation, I was just starting an argument.
Maintaining (perhaps begrudgingly) the historical status quo: myiq2xu, ppGaz
My candidate parrots just like the rest, but he would do something about it: FountainHead (what a nic for that view)
Relativist party: demi
Historical status quo is immoral: srv
Is your real name Stuart Pitt? The furniture store guy who does those campy commercials where he wears a crown and calls himself the “Sofa King?”
Cuz when I read your posts I thought you were Sofa King Stu Pitt.
I think the appropriate analogy is that while supporting Teh Clagina is like asking the fat chick to prom, supporting Bush is like asking Bush to prom. A little better choice (boobs, a brain, etc.), but not by much.
Meanwhile, Obama is the slutty blonde whore on the pill in this analogy.
Oh god, no. The man was a fringe lunatic before any of us knew who he was … and the complete takedowns of him that Markos has been doing have certainly put the stake through his insane … I mean, inane … heart.
The guy won’t even be an asterisk on the 2008 election story after it’s over, and that is good news for all Americans. He’s a fucking nut job.
Wrong, I think we need to change our foreign policy in many ways, some of which are advocated by Ron Paul.
But he isn’t the answer.
Ross Perot was right about NAFTA, but he would have been a disaster as President (although probably not as bad as Chimpy&Cheney)
Oh, no. Total misrepresentation. I am out to destroy the GOP beast. Whatever it takes to do that in 2008, it must be done.
After that, my candidate is Jim Webb.
Apparently my mildly hyperbolic statement about Hillary being the worst thing ever has ruffled some feathers. She, as a person, and even as a politician, is perhaps not the worst thing ever, as that bar has been set intollerably low by the current administration and lackeys thereof. That being said, nominating her for president would be a blunder on an epic scale. I think we can all agree that we live in dangerous, and more importantly, precarious times. Our economy is holding on by a fingernail, hanging over an abyss of a recession. Our military is stretched thin and being misused. The American people have little or no faith in our government. Our standing among the other nations of the world, big and small, has been dragged through the mud and left bleeding. Most importantly, our Constitution was practically set fire to. Hillary, to my mind, is not the answer to these problems. She has shown time and again in her actions, her words, and her attitude, that her interests are focused on gaining power and then controlling it. I hardly would expect her to correct these issues without finding something in it for herself or the interests that have seen to it that she get elected. And that’s where my biggest problem with her lies. She has convinced the necessary powers and old guard politicians to see to it that she is elected, despite the fact that she’s not only the most likely to lose the general election, but also the least likely to begin to pull us back from the brink of all this. That’s why I somewhat flippantly referred to her as the worst thing ever.
In short: A wolf in sheep clothing is far more dangerous than a naked wolf.
I wish! He probably makes more money than I do…
Again, define “moral”. What’s a moral foreign policy? What’s the standard for measurement? I’m afraid I can’t hear the voices in your head, so you’re going to have to repeat what they’re saying to you.
Let me ask then, are you better off today than you were 7 years ago?
Were you better off 7 years ago than you were 15 years ago?
Tell us who is then.
I know you don’t do nuance, but GW has not been pursuing the foreign policy status quo. He’s been off the range for awhile. But he is converging back to it now.
A vote for Hillary is a return to the status quo. As is a vote for Obama, Giuliani, Romney, McCain and what-not. You could make a good faith argument about Gravel, Paul, Kucinich, maybe Edwards, and maybe Huckabee.
I’ll put you down as the Lieberman Party. I know you hate that, but that’s what your 60 Senator Philosophy is going to end up with. Lieberman as #60.
I’ll start with dead body counts caused by our direct or indirect intervention. Not by our inaction.
AAnd you need me to explain “Don’t be evil” to you?
What the heck, I’ll play too.
I think our policy should first and foremost be in the best interests of the American public. Our next priority should be to have a foreign policy that shows the world there’s something to ensuring life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Reagan was right about one thing: We were the Shining City on the Hill, and the next President’s first priority should be to restore that image.
Whether or not that’s moral, that’s up for debate. I’ll go with whatever can realistically make a better world with the least amount of blood spilled.
Now whether my candidate, Senator Dodd, is up to that, I think he is. He’s certainly not standing for Bush-league recklessness, that’s for certain.
Of course not!
Are we making the argument here that Hillary’s administration would be equal to Bill’s in some way?? If so, you need to revisit the Bill Clinton 4 President Campaign (which is eerily similar to Obama’s campaign), as well as revisit the historical context of his two terms in office, particularly the first. I was all for the Clinton presidency then, and it was a good one by and large, but my God were those different times both here and abroad. 1992 is not equal to 2008 by any means. It scares me a lot that a lot of Democrats are voting based on that logic, and it’s utter fallacy.
Only slightly OT:
Watch them eat their own
God damn this is going to be great comedy.
“Wealthy Republicans have a new political nightmare that may be scarier than Hillary Clinton: Mike Huckabee.”
Best hook-line I’ve seen in months.
Well played TZ, but of course he makes more sense than I do. All he has to do is sell a damn sofa. I have to talk about the fate of America. ;)
Since this post has gone from Bhutto to Hillary, let me weigh in. I agree with TheFountainHead. Am I better off than I was 7 years ago? Personally, yes. and I don’t attribute that to anything either party has done. I work for a great company and have made good decisions. But the country? I don’t think so. While Hillary would be an improvement – anything would, really – she is not the best choice, in my opinion.
If you want someone who’ll really change Washington, there’s no one on either side who will. They are ALL talking a game that they can’t deliver on. For my money though, John Edwards is the only person who has a chance to do something. A lot of it, I won’t like, but I’m perfectly willing to put up with shit I don’t like to see Washington get a good shake up.
Barack Obama is a wonderful guy, I’m sure. But his only platform is to say he’d work to reach across the aisle. Big deal. So two parties will be working to keep troops in Iraq. Cooperation like that, we don’t need. For my money, it’s John Edwards.** He may not want me to get married, but he’s certainly not someone who is going to work with people simply to say he is bipartisan.
To me, that’s a good thing. I hope I’m not wrong.
** I would prefer Bill Richardson, but I am realistic.
Ruffled feathers? God, for some decent spoof.
NO, you horse’s ass, it simply revealed you for the mediocre spooftroll that you are.
In case you aren’t paying attention, a pretty good percentage of what’s posted here is spoof. If you can’t elevate your drivel above the everyday :yawn: spoof level, you are going to be treated accordingly.
Either step up your game, or find a new playground.
Doug H., srv’s argument is a lot deeper and a lot more subtle than you may realize.
In saying that our foreign policy should first and foremost serve the interests of the American public, you’ve just committed to an avowedly amoral foreign policy, which, not coincidentally, happens to closely resemble the policy of the last fifty years or so. You may not recognize that, but it’s true; we’ve taken a brutally utilitarian view of international relations since World War II. I happen to think that it’s mostly worked, with a few casatrophic failures; srv appears to think that it’s failed catastrophically with a few periods of relative lack of failure between them.
Either way, utilitarian morality is a dangerous ground to play on. Does an act become immoral if it fails? Similarly, does failure to act become moral if the consequences are less grave than expected?
Who asked you, a mediocre spoof, to talk about the “fate of America?”
Are you being held prisoner by some blogowners? Tap your left foot under the stall three times for yes.
Well, that’s what you get for reading Bloomberg, I guess.
Oh yeah, it will be fun, and funny, to watch the GOP implode if they nominate this motherfucker.
Molly Ivins’ First Rule of Holes: When you’re in one, stop digging.
The GOP has put us in a hole and they’re still digging. So we need to elect a Democrat.
Any of the current crop would be better than what we have or what the GOP is offering: Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Gravel, Kucinich, Obama or Richardson.
My preference would be Edwards, with Obama as VP, Biden as Secretary of State and Kucinich in the Cabinet as well. I’d like to see Webb or Wesley Clark as Sec. of Defense, Harry Reid as Attorney General, and Chris Dodd as Senate Majority Leader.
My biggest concern with Hillary isn’t her experience or policy positions, it’s the way the VRWC will go after her.
Clinton Derangement Syndrome is still pandemic in Wingnuttia.
TAP TAP TAP
Michael D, please pick up a white courtesy telephone ….
Same here, pretty much, although my biggest concern with Hillary is that her voice makes me want to saw my leg off without anesthesia.
I would argue that most “moral” interventions were the result of previous questionable/amoral interventions. You can always pick a relative starting point as long as I can go back another 30 years.
But I can be practical. For instance, I’d have supported intervening in Yugoslavia because our long-standing national policy had worked to prevent an independent UN or Euro force from being ready and capable of dealing with it. So our intervention in the natural course of European development left us in a position of responsibility.
Biden should be the secretary of state no matter who the hell we elect. That’s a no brainer.
Harry I-was-briefed-on-waterboarding-in-2002 Reid?
The mind reels. I’m going to have to invent a variety of leftist and anarchist nics to survive 2008 here.
Two reasons: Reid was a prosecutor in Nevada and wasn’t afraid to take on the Mob. He once found a bomb attached to his car. We need someone who, if not incorruptible, a lot less putrid than our last AG
Secondly, we need a new Senate Majority Leader.
Well, there’s that too, but I have a volume control on my boob tube.
World War II. (Yeah, I know, Godwin. Work with me here, OK?) You can’t win by pulling out WWI, the Crimean War, or even the Spanish-American War.
Digby has a post summarizing John Cole on Pakistan, and what we’re doing wrong in regards to that region.
What does her voice have to do with the volume of her boobs? I mean, yes, the fact that she’s got a woman’s voice is related to her having cleavage…is that what you meant?
Oh, please. We need a good Chomsky parrot, and I hate the man (personally) too much to pull it off.
I think you’re misreading here. The reason is not that Obama is braver than the other candidates, it’s because Obama is not the other candidates. I agree with TheFountainHead about this.
Obama is starting out with a reputation as less experienced and more conciliatory than the other serious candidates. That could be the only reason for the tough talk he’s given. Call it disingenuous or pandering or whatever, but what we’ve heard so far from him is very, very weak evidence that he would actually be any more aggressive than any other.
Link, please, or you really are just arguing with the voices in your head.
Is this based on anything other than him asking you to clarify what you mean by “moral”? Because I think that’s a valid and entirely reasonable question. For someone who seems so certain that two fringe, nutty candidates are the only reasonable alternatives to forthright imperialism, your 3:22 p.m. answer is ridiculously glib and simplistic.
I can’t spoof worth shit, so I don’t try.
I snicker, snark, jibe and joke, I can be sarcastic, bombastic, and occasionally fantastic.
But when I spoof, I goof, cuz I can’t make arguments without proof.
I ain’t much for poetry either.
Cyrus — I *am* a relativist when it comes to foreign policy. Calling me what I am is hardly an insult, and I doubt that srv even thinks it is.
I genuinely don’t know what moral foreign policy even means, so I’m reduced to an amoral relativism. It’s not a position in which I’m comfortable, but it’s the only one I can adopt which predicts my own feelings and behavior.
The reason I call srv a hypocrite is not that I’m insulted by the label, but rather because I think he’s a relativist, too. He’s yet to convince me otherwise.
From the Clinton Camp:
Pity the foo!
Whoops, you had me on a Mister T riff there for a minute ..
Pity the foo!
Whoops, you had me on a Mister T riff there for a minute ..
Uh, your troll is getting lamer by the minute there, Potatohead guy.
And I need to step up MY game?
Yeah, Beginner Spooftroll would be an improvement over the crap you are dishing out here.
Seriously, you suck.
Like Jeff Gannon/Guckert at the White House
Well it ain’t easy with all the high end material you’re giving me to work with!
Fair enough. I’m not even sure how much you and I would differ. Either way, though, glib and simplistic seems more likely to me than hypocritical. (At least, it did before I read his 3:57 comment, which wasn’t up when I started writing mine.)
Okay, you are now down to arguing “I know you are but what am I?” with me.
Are you sure you don’t want to take a break and try to pull yourself together?
Do the right thing. Find another hobby, this isn’t for you.
Yeah, but I think William C brings a wealth of international respect that no other candidate could garner so fast. Hell, she should make him Sec of State–stop laughing–the guy’s got more real street cred in Budapest and East Timor than any other guy on the planet.
Plus, that would drive Bolton/Boortz/Kristol/Hannity off a cliff.
So says you. Thankfully, that matters very little in the end.
TZ: Kinda like beating up a cripple isn’t it? Faucethead’s so lame Jesus would have shrugged and said “Sorry.”
Oh, don’t underestimate him. He’s been here a long time, srv has, and he’s very subtle.
I just think he’s *wrong*. Big difference.
Jesus would have said, “Thy post awaiteth moderation” I think.
Nah, I can win by pulling out WWI. It was within 30 years. I’d argue that if we hadn’t intervened in WWI, the terms of the Treaty of Versailles would have been far less abhorrent and damaging to the German pysche and economy. It’s not like all our boys got Wilson a seat at the table, did it? In fact, he predicted the Treaty would be a disaster for Europe. Too bad he didn’t figure out his proper place until after jumping in.
There’d have still been a Weimar Republic, but far less kindling for the Nazis to work with. A “moral” nation with a healthy sense of trade and non-intervention would have told the Brits and French to go f**k themselves when they disagreed with economically working with the new Republic. I mean, shit, we bail them out, we don’t get a vote, and then they proceed to bitch slap us around. Just another fine example of bad consequences from “moral” intervention.
As far as Japan, I could cheat and go back to Commodore Mathew Perry. I mean, we did set the standard for their empire. So what would our responsibility have been to the Brits, Phillipines and China? I guess I’d feel guilty enough and help, and would have been dragged into it.
So if dropped into the vacuum of 1937, if the Firsters (and most Americans at the time) had won out, Germany hadn’t declared war on us, my namby pamby philosophy might have let Hitler get his jig in Picadilly Square (although the Brits really won the Battle of Britain without us). But we’d still have the bomb and his 1000 year reign would be decapitated not long after finally getting around to us.
And they would have, so we would have won with a lot less dead bodies on our side, and probably all sides.
All those other dead people in Europe? How many exactly did we end up preventing via intervention?
You guys talk to Jesus too??
I thought that was just the Huckster…
Sure. He’s been a good yard man to me, and I take his advice.
Ah. The Silent-J Jesus. Well, his wisdom is probably as good as any others, though I doubt he said, “Thy post awaiteth moderation.”
It was the teachings of Jesus that made me a liberal.
Take the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus said a man was beaten and robbed and left lying on the side of the road. All the “good” people walked past without helping him.
But the Samaritan (which was a despised group) carried the man home, tended his wounds and nursed him back to health.
BTW – Jesus never asked anyone who their insurance carrier was before healing them.
In my case it was the Jesuits. Not quite the same thing I suppose.
What else would you expect from a jew communist?
There are two problems with WWI. First, the US was a debtor nation prior to WWI, entry only happened late in the game, and almost certainly had no major effect on the war’s evolution. (Except for the introduction of the 1918 flu into Europe. I’ll acknowledge that the US intervention certainly made that worse.) If anything, Versailles would have be far more draconian without Wilson, wrong-headed though he was.
As to the effectiveness of the Bomb, your thesis has two problems. First, without Hitler, we’d never have gotten von Neumann, Fermi, or a number of the other critical figures in the Manhattan project. Second, what most Americans ignore is that the atomic bomb played barely makes it into the top five body-count events in course of the war: Hiroshima is number five, behind such stellar achievements of Western civilization as the fire bombings of Tokyo and Dresden. Nagasaki doesn’t even make the top five.
If anything, the WWI experience made things worse, since it strengthened the hands of the isolationists for a lot longer than it would have. As a result, a lot of dead bodies cropped up who wouldn’t have been dead if we’d been less willing to sit back and be “moral”.
Pakistan is broken. There isn’t anything for us to fix, other than stand by and wait to what blow-back is headed our way.
Man, I’m bored. Too cold outside to work and too much EOY paperwork. At least you get to sit around watch your bots.
Maybe I should take up gaming.
Heh. I’m responding to a code review. You want bored, dude? You got *nothing*.
Sadly, some are already trying to figure out how this affects the 2008 election. Bhutto Assassination: Who Benefits? Disgusting.
And no, I’m not included in the “some.” It’s a tragedy for Pakistan and the Bhutto family. That is all.
Our arriving in Europe did have a physchological impact on the German Generals in a big way. It was a final straw to those that had a clue. I can agree that our non-involvement would not have led them to fight any more intelligently, so maybe Versailles would still have been as bad, but I don’t think it could have been worse.
But even in that case, the Republic would have collapsed sooner and then the Brits and French would have had to deal with it. Far better to deal with it sooner than give the National Socialists all the time they needed.
If Hitler hadn’t happened, WWII would have been a pretty quiet affair. Either the Weimar Republic would have survived (no war), or we’d have gotten Hitler. If the latter, we would have gotten Fermi, Einstein and the bomb. I can’t argue a what-if there’d been no Weimar and no Hitler.
You don’t need body-counts with the bomb. Body counts didn’t settle WWII. The ability to kill their leadership did.
As far as dragging out involvement – what could we have realistically done earlier in Europe? I’d guess there would be a higher probability it would have made the war longer, because even Hitler would not have been crazy enough to attack Russia if we’d declared war in 1939.
My preference would be Edwards, with Obama as VP, Biden as Secretary of State and Kucinich in the Cabinet as well. I’d like to see Webb or Wesley Clark as Sec. of Defense, Harry Reid as Attorney General, and Chris Dodd as Senate Majority Leader.
There’s a strand in the Multiverse where Edwards does so well by SuperTuesday that Hillary announces she’ll serve as his VP. (Hey, look what Cheney’s done with that once-obscure position!) That would just about lock up the White House for the Democrats, while simultaneously causing at least a few deaths by apoplexy among the Media Village Elders. Chris Matthews would probably expire on camera with foam on his lips & blood trickling from his ears.
And then the new administration can appoint Ron Paul to Bernanke’s current position, because given the shitmire we’re in right now, it would probably be an improvement.
Crap. That reminds me I have a design to review.
They all had what Jesus had….Blue Cross, natch.
I think once the Dems take over the WH, they oughta fuck with Ron Paul. Make him Secretary of the Treasury, and see if he’s willing to eliminate his own job.
Whatever happened in Pakistan today, it was good news for Republicans.
I don’t think it was Blue. Natural wood with a blood stain. Very popular in that era…Christian’s were known to hang around them all the time.
Damn! another misused apostrophe…will I ever learn?
My hope is tha JohnE will nominate Hillary to SCOTUS, along with Slick Willie.
Lifetime appointments, bitches! Imagine all the exploding heads if that happened.
I read the fisrt ten comments,
The water that we tread is most definately impacted by this. I, as some others had made a prediction on how long she would survive. You can as you wish overlook what killed her. If you do, it will come back to haunt you. I am quite sure that anyone who reads this blog is a target for them. I do not expect them to come in your home and commit the same. But know this, you and anyone like you is deserving death(IAW) their rules.
As a minor thought, they do have nuclear weapons on hand. Not ICBM’s but enough to rile the neighborhood. Her death may not mean much to you, but we will feel the brunt of the international impact.
You blog outline sucked. You wouldn’t know if you were kicked, stabbed, or shot until a doctor told you.
If you had any interest at all it would have started several months ago, not today or because a major event took place. You are like John, a media bottom feeder.
One can only dream.
No. Please give exact citation (and link) for your claim.
Yeah, sad Bhutto died. She was pretty brave despite all the attempts to end her life. As a politician, she wa probably as ruthless as any other in Pakistan. Subcontinent politics is pretty brutal on either side of the line.
Believe it or not though, India has been fairly happy with Musharaff thanks to various gestures by him. So they have been pretty careful not to rock the boat. That’s why you don’t hear much from them. (this is what I hear from my relatives in Bombay)
As for the MO, I don’t ever remember suicide bombings taking place in Pakistan till this year. I mean it’s unheard of. This stinks of Al Qaeda and I’m not sure what their aim is under than to cause destabilization. You’ll recall that they didn’t do this in Iraq either until Al Qaeda moved in.
It will be interesting to see what happens in one Friedman unit.
Now there is a good observation. And a leading question whose answer may not lead to where the questioner wants. Hummmm, what if, eventually, Iraq comes out as the only democracy?
Between myiq2xu and thymezone,
I don’t know which I should laugh at. myiq2xu does instill fear, to the average rat in a maze looking for food or to avoid electrocution for looking back, Thymezone offers the same garbage as always.
The thoughts and prayers should be for a women that had more courage than both of you or your forefarthers every had(or they never passed on).
In the immortal words of His Supreme Excellency, Doctor, Field Marshal, Sith Lord, Vice-President for Life Richard B. Cheney:
“Go fuck yourself.”
The joys of Biden.
Bob In Pacifica
Is there a link to the update, about Bhutto being shot after the explosion? Because every article I’ve seen puts the shooting before the explosion.
Every so often, I copy-edit trolls. I feel like I can’t let it pass without criticism when I see someone argue that the Democratic platform is tantamount to communism or “Islamofascism” is as dangerous to us as the U.S.S.R. was or something like that, but at the same time, there’s simply no way that logical argument will reach them. To put it charitably, their premises about current events and how the world works are so different from mine that common ground is very unlikely. To put it uncharitably, they’re obviously nuts. So I figure I can have a little fun, let other people do the work of making arguments and draw attention to particularly egregious bits of stupidity. If I’m very lucky, they’ll reply, which is often funny.
JWW really bugs me because he’s exactly the reality-free kind of commenter I try to reply to, but if I copy-edited him, each comment would take hours.
Apparently, the Pakistani gov’ment is claiming she died from bumping her head ducking into the car.
They do tend to give hyperbole a bad name.
In terms of Islamic militants being a strategic threat to the Continental United States the threat is really negligible. They found a chink in our armor and exploited it. They will never be able to strike at us that way again, if for no other reason than the passengers would not sit idly by while they targeted buildings and landmarks with a hijacked plane.
Sooner or later they will find another chink and strike at us there. If they don’t, some other group with a grievance (real or perceived) will. But the damage they inflict will pale in comparison to what global thermonuclear war would cause.
It will also pale in comparison to the damage we will inevitibly bring to their native countries, or whatever nations we decide to blame instead. As Carlos Mencia put it, they blew up two of our buildings, we blew up two of their countries.
We simultaneously beat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, then engaged in a decades-long “Cold War” with the USSR and Red China. Now we’re supposed to cower in fear from some guys hiding in caves?
And the most foolish notion is that the GOP would treat any Democrat differently.
They will direct there $200 million dollar fire against whomever is the nominee. My preference is someone who go right to fucking war with the bastards.
If the United States had not entered WWI, there would have been no Treaty of Versailles, because the Allies would have lost.