Bhutto, The Pictures
Getty Images senior staff photographer John Moore was there as Bhutto was murdered, and just posted his shots, before and after, with audio. Here at CNN.com. In his words, "Gunshots rang out and she went down."
I'm disgusted, but not surprised, at Bhutto's murder.
TO: Amy Alkon, et al.
RE: Bhutto's Assassination
I think Steyn did a superb job of analysis on this...
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTYyZDM1ZTJiYTEzMzM2ZDZjNTAxZWQ3MzMzODBmOTg=
And, I think that Rice should be hammering Bush for a replacement of the senior staff at CIA, as well as a thorough scrubbing down of the bureaucracy therein....if the reports of false data being passed on from CIA to State are correct.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Chuck Pelto at December 27, 2007 4:50 PM
I'm surprised Bhutto lasted as long as she did.
Doobie at December 27, 2007 5:02 PM
Shooting Bhutto says a great deal about the militants and fanatics in Pakistan and in Islam. None of it positive. This will not end well.
I don't mind if they want to go back to the fourteenth century. I do, however, mind that they want to take me with them.
Sadly, we have our own history of madmen shooting the messengers. Johnny Carson once called Elvis Presley "the only great man America ever produced that we never shot at." Wonder what that says about us.
Of course, Elvis was frequently armed, drunk, and firing random shots at television sets and bathroom fixtures - so there may be a reason no one got a shot off at him.
Conan the Grammarian at December 27, 2007 5:39 PM
> Rice should be hammering Bush
> for a replacement of the
> senior staff at CIA
Not that the CIA could or should have done anything about this, or that they in any way failed to prepare us for tis tragedy, but you're wrong in any case: The seniors at the CIA and the juniors should be summarily terminated. Thanks, kids: We'll call if we needja.
Crid at December 27, 2007 6:46 PM
"Guarding Tess", circa 2007, Muslim style. I don't think it will be Gavrilo Princip though. Ashes to ashes, funk to funky...
eric at December 27, 2007 6:47 PM
We know Major Tom's a...
PS- Pelto's link really hits the spot. Steyn's done a lot for public affairs in this decade.
Crid at December 27, 2007 6:49 PM
And remember, Steyn never went to college.
Crid at December 27, 2007 6:50 PM
I just lectured some chick about that today via e-mail. It's what you know, not how much you spent to learn it, and whether or not you got a piece of paper saying you spent buttloads of dough at some college.
Girl in question is a junior in college and got pregnant by a guy who's lying to her and cheating on her with somebody else...mentioning that she can use him for financial security. I told her the best thing she could do for the baby is give it up to an adult couple -- people who are financially and emotionally prepared to raise it, and as an intact couple.
That didn't go over big, as you can imagine.
Her response: that I don't have a degree in therapy.
A pity all you need to have a child is a vagina that's not broken.
Amy Alkon at December 27, 2007 7:09 PM
Her response: that I don't have a degree in therapy.
Then why did she e-mail Amy for advice?
Doobie at December 27, 2007 7:28 PM
I was fine to e-mail until I didn't give her the rubberstamping of her behavior she was looking for.
Amy Alkon at December 27, 2007 8:04 PM
PS- Pelto's link really hits the spot.
I'm surprised to find myself in agreement with the memo master, but I do. Well done, Chuck. I read The Corner with some frequency, either for amusement at the insipid Christianist dogma (e.g., K-Lo) or for frequently insightful from smart people I with whom I mostly disagree politically (e.g., Steyn, Goldberg) or posts with which I disagree strongly sometimes, agree sometimes, but almost always find enjoyable (Derb).
This sucks. Anyone who pays attention to the world should be very worried about what is going on in Pakistan. Jihadis can't get nukes.
justin case at December 27, 2007 9:23 PM
Bhutto was by no means perfect, but by comparison she was a freakin messiah to those bozos. Last time I was in Pakistan was thirty years ago. It was a shithole then and has gone downhill since. Bhutto wanted to join with NATO forces and clean those head choppin morons out of the hills. She was really a revolutionary in a muslim world. She definitely had bigger balls than any man in Pakistan. With here gone, the world is a much more dangerous place. If they whack Mussaref, thats going to leave a nuclear armed nation with nobody leading it and its full of Al Queda and Taliban. Scary, realll scary.
I gotta say, the way she died kinda reminded me of Kennedy in this sense, she refused to hide.
Bikerken at December 27, 2007 10:36 PM
Bikky, I was thinking about that on the way home... After how many years as a nuclear power was our first chief executive or contender thereto brutally assassinated, but I think no comparison will stand.
Without meaning to taunt any Grassy Knollers or Single Bullet Theorists who might enjoy a good advice column now and then: Oswald was just a fuckin' wackjob. His incompetence didn't really say anything meaningful about the national and international issues under contention when he did his voodoo.
Also, an hour before his death, Kennedy was widely regarded as a mediocre President, and a motorcade through a shining new city of his Veep's home state was hardly an act of daring.. It's not like the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis had foretold a great new future for America under his leadership. Bhutto certainly had her corruptions as well, but her position against Musharraf's predations might well have brought something better to Pakistan.
Never been there, and haven't paid close attention, but I think you're right to mourn her.
Crid at December 27, 2007 11:18 PM
I thought the same about her unwillingness to hide -- the Kennedy comparison.
Amy Alkon at December 27, 2007 11:44 PM
I'm not getting something. How was this Kennedyesque? Or, how was JFK being admirably Bhuttoesque? She saw this coming... She spoke about it just days ago. The whole world knew she was in danger, like, this morning.
[Conspiracy theorists hold thy tongues]: Did anyone ever have reason to think that JFK'd be in particular danger in Dallas?
Crid at December 28, 2007 12:01 AM
Traveling in the open car.
You're right -- more of a situational comparison.
But, I thought of Kennedy when I saw that shot of her standing up through the sunroof. She went back despite knowing it was coming. There's a woman I bet knew how to make the most out of a minute.
Amy Alkon at December 28, 2007 12:11 AM
Crid, the reason I thought of Kennedy is that he was also warned that there was a possiblility of a plot to kill him and advised against the open limo. He refused, he wanted to be out in the open to shake hands and wave to people. Just within the last few weeks, we heard that there was a plot in Chicago to get him on November 2, twenty days earlier. He knew they were out to get him, just like Bhutto, but he wouldn't allow them to make him hide, neither did she.
Bikerken at December 28, 2007 1:24 AM
Kinda reach-y
Crid at December 28, 2007 1:31 AM
From Steyn's analysis: On the streets of Islamabad, that and a dime'll get you a cup of coffee.
It's gonna cost a fuck of a lot more than that, anymore. And guess who they're going to be lookin' at to pay it? o_O
Flynne at December 28, 2007 5:28 AM
Here's also a good article from time about democracy and Islam:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1698607,00.html
Instead of invading, they should have sent Britney, Jenna Jameson and the Black Eyed Peas there to create some chaos.
The Mad Hungarian at December 28, 2007 8:45 AM
I'm surprised I'm not seeing more about this:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/28/pakistan.friday/index.html?eref=yahoo
Bhutto actually wasn't shot to death. She hit her head on the sunroof level.
justin case at December 28, 2007 11:33 AM
MH, I hate that Time piece. Whenever somebody says 'America is trying to shove democracy down their throats,' I know I'm listening to an asshole. Because I don't see that there's any other choice morally. It's not decent to live in freedom while your vendor nations live in authoritarian poverty. (And 9/11 showed us that it's practical, either.) And just in terms of the We-Are-the-World, brothery love-edness of it all, we ought to be trying to help out people who are oppressed.
> The real problem in Pakistan
> undermining democracy is that
> it is a deeply divided, artificial
> country, created by the British
> for their expediency
First, "The real problem in Pakistan undermining democracy" is ambiguous and weakly-phrased, probably deliberately so. Second, the only nations in the region that weren't cobbled by external powers are Turkey, Iran and Egypt. It's not like we can smirkingly turn our back on the others (including Israel) until they come to the arena with some organic deportment we find sincere and admirable. The clock is running.
> And democracy will only be
> nurtured when the wars on
> its border come to an end, ...
Says who? Is there any reason to believe that this is true, other than that it gives you an isolationist boner?
> ...whether in Afghanistan or
> Kashmir, and the need for
> the military to meddle in
> politics is removed.
Is there anyone who isn't laughing at that? Is there anyone who thinks the militaries in these nations were aroused to martial law and other oppressions by some righteous "need to meddle"?
People who want to be sophisticated about saying that the threats to American safety are transnational can't therefore retreat from the world by asking us to cower within our own borders.
Let me give you the end of that paragraph:
> and the need for the
> military to meddle in
> politics is removed.
> And never before.
See? That "And never before" is a cluck. He's laying it out for the little people.
> It is high time Americans...
("high time") is another cluck
> ...return a pragmatic president
> to the White House. When
> George H.W. Bush, James Baker,
> and Norman Schwartzkopf
> decided not to occupy Iraq
> in 1991
There's a strong case to be made that Iraq and the Middle East might have been better off if we'd pushed to Baghdad in '91. Just for starters, the marshlands wouldn't have been drained (nor their six-figure population disperse in refugee poverty). There are few dozen other things like that (or a few hundred thousand, if you want to do the math by counting individual Iraqi lives).
Secondly, at the peak of his career, at the shimmering apex of his global fame and American popularity, Schwartzkopf risked his commission to make it clear that not going into Baghdad was Bush' idea, not his. The precise details don't come to mind, but I remember that he had a monster press conference where he said exactly who was who and what was what. Then he waited six hours or so before apologizing to Bush abjectly. (This was back in the days where news cycles were easier to manipulate.) It went something like "I meant no dishonor to my Commander-in-Chief..." It was a political masterstroke.
This columnist should not claim partnerships he hasn't earned.
> Robert Baer, a former CIA
> field officer assigned to the
> Middle East, is TIME.com's
> intelligence columnist
I believe Mr. Baer should go and be fucking himself.
PS- Cute thang at the bottom of that page-
> More from CNN.com
>
> * Sunroof blamed for Bhutto's death
Please compose your own jokes and post them below.
Crid at December 28, 2007 12:21 PM
The wording of these things is important, y'know? The sunroof didn't kill this woman. This is like people who claim that an airbag killed a guy... Even though he happened to be experiencing at 75mph car crash at the time.
Crid at December 28, 2007 12:23 PM
Three posts in a row. That makes five total! Sorry, it can't be helped... Linky-linky linkapoo, it's a prehistoric flying link-asaures.
First, Hitch has his say. He drops names, the Brit bastard.
http://www.slate.com/id/2180952/
Can someone tell me what's so precious about the Flashman hotel? Bikerken? You've been there, right? Does it have anything to do with the Flashman books, which after all, were novels? Nothing special ever seems to have happened there, so why does Hitch mention it?
(more)
Crid at December 28, 2007 3:43 PM
When the tsunami hit malaysia, sri lanka and other regions...the united states went balistic...not because other countries were experiencing chaos but because we were worried about when the tsunami would come for us...whenever there is a crisis in any country all over the world...what do we do...somehow wonder what will go wrong with our nation....i wonder if the problem really lies in countries, races or religion...OR just lies within us selfish self absorbed ME ME ME....look at me...help ME...individuals...who should be more concerned about human beings as a whole...i wonder...do you? (btw thats rhetorical...spare me and dont respond...i think i know what the responce would be...aggressive as usual)...Save the world...Recycle humanity! :)
Dee at December 28, 2007 3:46 PM
Her profile looks kind of Hollywood. You don't suppose that...
http://tinyurl.com/27uptx
(more)
Crid at December 28, 2007 3:46 PM
Yep, she's had a nose job.
http://tinyurl.com/2852jp
There's special meaning to this! I'll explain it to blog readers later, when I have a clue as to what it is.
Crid at December 28, 2007 3:48 PM
Whenever somebody says 'America is trying to shove democracy down their throats,' I know I'm listening to an asshole. Because I don't see that there's any other choice morally. It's not decent to live in freedom while your vendor nations live in authoritarian poverty. (And 9/11 showed us that it's practical, either.) And just in terms of the We-Are-the-World, brothery love-edness of it all, we ought to be trying to help out people who are oppressed.
Don't be naive, Crid. Just about everywhere you look in the Middle East, and in Muslim communities in the West, there are hefty pluralities of people saying "Fuck democracy, bring on the Sharia!" Sorry if this makes me an asshole, but hardcore Islamists are not. like. us. Promoting democracy in countries where one's tribal affiliations are paramount and thus do not have any republican institutions is a fast track for state failure, and we shouldn't do it. It isn't democracy that makes a state strong and economically prosperous these days, but concepts such as rule of law, transparancy in government, enforcing of contracts, etc. If you don't have these institutions in place, democracy is worse than futile.
One thing that I thought democracy had going for it, is that it would really make people accountable for the governments that they put in place. But I understand that we have recently offered a multimillion dollar package to the Palestinians, so you can see that idea falls flat.
As for 9/11 being linked with poverty, please. Al Quaeda and fellow travellers are not wreaking havoc because they are poor or care if their people are poor. They are doing so in order to bring back the Caliphate, ultimately world wide. The concept that poverty and jihadi propensity is linked is a leftist fallacy, and the more we can economically marginalize jihadis the safer we will be.
Funny, I never pegged you as a kumbaya-type. :)
liz at December 28, 2007 4:36 PM
> a fast track for state
> failure
In many cases, we should hope so, because we wouldn't want to deal with well-running states with those attitudes. As it happens, there aren't many. Get the picture?
> concepts such as rule of
> law, transparancy in government,
> enforcing of contracts, etc
That's like saying you have a modern hospital that doesn't rely on cleanliness, medication, or treatment of patients. What does "transparency" mean to North Korea?
> Sorry if this makes me an
> asshole, but hardcore
> Islamists are not. like.
> us.
Thanks for the layup.
> Al Quaeda and fellow travellers
> are not wreaking havoc because
> they are poor
When saying "authoritarian poverty", I shoulda stressed the authority more than the poverty. The 9/11 hijackers were middle-class, almost to a man. But they were also stuck... Their prospects for improving their lives financially, sexually and in a few other important respects were bleak indeed. Last I heard (five years ago), there were something like 14,000 guys in Saudi Arabia called "Prince." (If anyone knows more about this, please share.) Their oil money is a big load of booty, but it can only be cut into so many tranches for people who haven't the skills to actually generate wealth.
Our efforts to sustain bogus "kingdoms" atop the civilization's most precious resources --because it was convenient for us to do so-- is what made 9/11 happen. (And by the way, all kingdoms are bogus.) Instead of dimwitted, robotic chirping about "shoving Democracy down their throats", I wish people would thoughtfully offer alternative plans for how these matters could be handled ethically and successfully. During this presentation, I will have many, many specific questions. The CIA will not be invited to participate.
> They are doing so in order
> to bring back the Caliphate
You give them too much credit. I think they're using their fantasies of a Caliphate to act like shitheels.
Crid at December 28, 2007 5:15 PM
TO: Crid
RE: [OT] JFK in Dallas
"Did anyone ever have reason to think that JFK'd be in particular danger in Dallas?" -- Crid
Actually, some Secret Service type, who retired some time ago, reports that there were numerous credible threats to JFK in October and November of 1963. They all seemed to spring up at once. They canceled a visit to Chicago because there were two of them at once.
It's almost as if some group was out to get him....
...and three weeks later he was dead in Dallas.
Check this...
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=investigative&id=5778871
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Chuck Pelto at December 30, 2007 7:23 AM
Leave a comment