December 27, 2007, - 11:34 am

Karma: Terrorism-Supporter Bhutto Was No Saint . . . And “Jimmy Carter” Bush Moves Predicated This Outcome

By Debbie Schlussel
**** UPDATE: READ about St. Benazir’s conviction for kickbacks and money laundering in a Swiss Court, her support for Arafat, her recognition of and support for the Taliban, and her own niece’s L.A. Times Op-Ed piece calling her a liar. ****
Trite, but true: What comes around goes around. And today’s assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a bit of both for her and for George W. Bush’s deliberate, destabilizing “democracy” policy in Pakistan and the rest of the Mid-East.
While the whole world (yes, including plenty of ignorant conservatives) is hailing the late Benazir Bhutto–in the wake of her assassination, this morning–as some sort of saint and would-be messiah of Pakistan, let’s be clear: She was neither saint nor savioress. Closer to the opposite, in fact. And her death is not a loss for America. It is a step back from Bush’s failed “democracy” plan for destabilizing a ally-dictator who defied Islamists to publicly support America.

benazirbhutto.jpgarafat.jpg

Karma: “Moderate” Arafan Bhutto Defended Palestinian Homicide Bombings

The “moderate” Bhutto was actually a Saudi-backed, anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian-terrorism force of instability, anarchy, and protest in Pakistan. Her return to Paki politics would only divide and conquer pro-U.S. forces in the country, allowing the more popular Islamists to dominate. That she was assassinated was not a good thing, especially since the U.S. made the mistake of backing her and forcing her on Musharraf. But that she is now gone from Pakistani politics is a positive development in a myriad of ways.
The George W. Bush-orchestrated move of returning Bhutto to Pakistan from exile in the Gulf was a bad move on so many levels. It echoes the Jimmy Carter era of ushering out the pro-U.S. Shah of Iran and ushering in the never-ending Ayatollah Khomeini/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad era. This time around, Bhutto’s opposition to Musharraf would have ushered out a pro-U.S. dictator, Pervez Musharraf, and ushered in Islamist chaos, HAMASastan-style.
True, Musharraf is not exactly the greatest counter-terrorist. He came to office in a coup, and he comes from atop an army dominated by the pro-Al-Qaeda I.S.I. He may even be protecting the whereabouts of Bin Laden and isn’t the greatest ally of the U.S.. But he is not the worst, either, and he is far better than the alternative, including the would-be now-late Bhutto. Without Musharraf atop the country, it will revert to the natural state of what really is Greater Barbaria bubbling beneath the entire Islamic and Arab worlds. If you liked the Daniel Pearl beheading and dismemberment in Karachi, you’d love Pakistan under a short-lived Bhutto return and long-lived post-Bhutto Iran, er . . . Pakistan.
One Khalid Sheikh Mohammed running free through the streets of Pakistan, plotting murders of thousands of Americans? Under a Bhutto, or post-Bhutto overthrow revolutionary “government” in Pakistan, the country would be overrun with them, and they’d be running the country.
George Bush had no business demanding the free return of Bhutto to Pakistan and demanding free elections in this barbaric microcosm of Greater Islamia. Did Bush/Condi Clueless really expect a different result than the zoo-states he created with elections in Gaza, Hezbollah-stan, Muslim Brotherhood Nation (formerly Egypt), etc? Bush created riots and mayhem and chaos in Pakistan by doing so and destabilized the very man on whom he depended as a Muslim ally in the largely unsuccessful “War on Terror.” If this is how Bush treats our lukewarm Muslim allies–by laying out the blueprints for their demise–then, few will support us.
Bhutto, in the end, was really no different than Musharraf (though far less strong a leader and incapable of being the tough dictator necessary for that country), and–even had she won the election and ruled the country–could afford to be no different. And she was no different. Not long after 9/11, she made the rounds on Sunday political TV shows (including NBC’s “Meet the Press”), uttering the same extremist platitudes against Israel and the Jews to even the amazement of the hosts (including Tim Russert). Ditto for her repeated pronouncements justifying and defending Palestinian homicide bombings against innocent civilians. Today’s events were a bit of karma for Ms. Bhutto.
An Arafat-fan, Bhutto and her criminal husband were largely kept people by the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates. They owed the Gulf States, big-time. Not only was her husband was a crook, but she, in many other ways, was a fraud. She could not hold onto power the first time. With Pakistan much less stable, why on earth would we usher out the mild U.S. ally Musharraf to give her the chance a second time in far more rough waters. If you like Iran, you’d love the second post-Bhutto Pakistan.
So, while I’m sorry to see a U.S.-backed opposition leader (whom Bush made the mistake of backing) go out in an explosion of non-glory, the loss of Bhutto is no loss at all. It is actually a good thing for the U.S., despite Bush’s attempts to usher out Musharraf the way Jimmy Carter ushered out the pro-U.S. Shah . . . and usher in greater Islamic extremism in the name of his silly “democracy” experiment.
Bush’s “democracy” has failed in Gaza, Lebanon (where Hezbollah gained seats and key government ministries), Egypt (where the Muslim Brotherhood gained seats), and everywhere else it’s been tried. Gone to supersecret Mass in Iraq, lately? Democracy will fail in Pakistan, too.
Make no mistake. Benazir Bhutto’s death is no loss for American interests. Her reinsertion into Pakistan by our country was the problem. And she was no savioress. Not even close.
Remember, just because a Muslim has a pretty face, it doesn’t make her a moderate.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

20 Responses

Debbie,
Thank you for this reality check, it’s very important in the face of all of this morning’s sadness that ‘a poor woman was murdered’. There’s Far more to it than that, but that’s as far as many of us go, only seeing the face of it.

Bosch Fawstin on December 27, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Thank you very much Debbie. That is the full truth.
Amazing, amazing, amazing article.

Daniel on December 27, 2007 at 12:40 pm

The few moderates in the Islamic World are not nice guys and its time we realized it. Democracy as Bush wants will only bring Al Qaeda type extremists to power. Put quite simply, the Islamic World is not yet ready for Western-style democracy. Pursuing our ideals in Pakistan not only cost Benazir Bhutto her life; it also reminded us that recklessly insisting on democracy is likely permanently disempower the few real moderates in the Islamic World who do support us… and they are likely to wind up dead. That would be a real setback in the War On Islamofascism.

NormanF on December 27, 2007 at 12:44 pm

How are her views any more hate filled and venomnous than what I’m reading throughout this blog and the comments section?
So the better answer is to continue to let the Islamic world live under pro-American dictatorships while continuing to let the citizens live in poverty and fear, allowing it to continue to be a breeding ground of hate and radical Islamic viewpoints towards Israel and the West? While democracy cannot happen overnight, isn’t it better to lead the people in that direction than continue the unabated rise of hate towards the West? While it may not happen in our lifetimes, isn’t it better for future generations if we attempted something like democracy than more bombs and angry rhetoric from both sides?
It’s almost as if people like Miss Schlussel WANT the hate and anti-American and Israeli rhetoric to continue forever. Why work towards a solution when name calling and playing the victim are so much easier?
[LD: YES, I LOVE HOW THE DEMOCRACY IN HAMASASTAN HAS TAKEN THE PEOPLE AWAY FROM POVERTY, FEAR, AND A BREEDING GROUND FOR HATE. DITTO FOR THE NON-FEAR AND NON-HATE BREEDING GROUND OF HEZBOLLAH-STAN, AND, OH YEAH, THOSE CHRISTIAN IRAQIS WHO NOW HAVE TO MEET SECRETLY FOR MASS BECAUSE OF ALL THE HATE THAT HAS DISSIPATED IN THE SHI'ITE DEMOCRACY OF IRAQ.
THANKS FOR THE MID-EAST LESSON, BUT YOU CLEARLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. PRO-U.S. DICTATORSHIPS VERSUS HAMAS-STYLE ISLAMIC "DEMOCRACIES"--THE DECISION IS PRETTY EASY IN FAVOR OF THE FORMER, BUT YOU AND BUSH DON'T GET IT.
I WANT THE ANTI-SEMITISM AND HATE TO END, BUT I AM A REALIST, UNLIKE YOU, RODNEY KING II. DS]

lawdood on December 27, 2007 at 1:14 pm

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.
They will not change until they want to change. For the islamic world to take a new course, its citizens must rise up and fight back against their opressors. You might recall a group of people in the mid to late 1700s got tired of being kicked around and decided to do something about it.

Ford Jones on December 27, 2007 at 2:06 pm

Debbie,
You are a fantastic investigative reporter. You should be on a major
news or cable network reporting the news.

Menorah Menorah on December 27, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Can I ask….are there any sources for the info presented here? I’d love to see the “root” info, if possible.
Thanks.

Talismen (aka "Lady Crusader Against Jihad") on December 27, 2007 at 2:28 pm

Debbie
In addition to her statements about the Palis, Benazir was a major sponsor of terrorism as Prime Minister. Under her leadership, Pakistan switched support to the Taliban, and was largely responsible for the Taliban rise to power in Afghanistan.
On top of that, when she was PM the first time, she belied all expectations of her being a moderating influence, and actively promoted Jihad in Kashmir. Major problem I had with her was her being such a good taquiyya channel to the West of what Islam could be, while proving exactly the opposite as leader both times she had that opportunity.
I don’t like assassinations, but as far as I’m concerned, she won’t be missed.

Infidel Pride on December 27, 2007 at 3:01 pm

I have mixed feelings about the Bhutto assassination. I think it is a victory for the terrorists whenever someone such as Bhutto gets assassinated, and a reversal for the U.S. Whatever opinions someone may have about Bhutto, I don’t think she would attack the U.S., and most likely, she wouldn’t attack Israel.
Her record is not good, and I certainly don’t consider her to be better than any of the other anti-Israel, anti-U.S. Muslim leaders, and I’m glad that you had the guts to say that this shows the stupidity of the Democratization program that Bush, Rice, and the other ****s in the Government and State Department were pushing. Pakistan is just one more place it has failed, and just represents one more instance that would cause possible allies throughout the world to distrust the resolve, capabilities, and depth of understanding of the U.S.

c f on December 27, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Hi Deb!
By and large, I agree with your analysis. A little story is in order here.
13 years ago, I was partnered with a Pakistani in our power systems analysis department and we became very friendly. My friend was what I call a “modernist” Muslim; not necessarily moderate in his beliefs, but comfortable with the belief that Sharia is in no way suitable as a legal and governmental system for modern industrialized countries.
When Benazir Bhutto was elected, I bought hook, line and sinker the media’s image of her as a liberal pro-democracy pro-reform Prime Minister. My friend shook his head and said no. I thought it was old-world regression on his part, but he said: “Wait! You’ll see!” He furthermore warned that she’s not what the media says she is. Moreover, even if she was, there is no way she can avoid being sucked into Pakistan’s political system of corruption and militarism.
It wasn’t long before she started to prove him right. First came the visit to “Palestine” where she went out of her way to get to Gaza without ever stepping foot in Israel. With her visit to Arafat, came all the anti-Israel rhetoric of someone who was not going to move (even gradual baby-steps) Pakistan to a new level of moderation; even as other Arab/Muslim states were doing so at the time.
Then came the corruption scandals with her husband and my Pakistani friend said: “Aha! You see? I toldja so!”
In the following years, Benazir Bhutto vindicated everything he told me about her.
In the mean time, we see leftists decry Musharef’s authoritarianism while praising Bhutoo. These people seem unable to recognize that it was Bhutto’s corruption scandal that paved the way for Musharref’s coup in the first place.
What the heck were President Bush and Condi Rice thinking when they forced Bhutto on Pakistan? By undermining Musharref and bringing Bhutto (never a friend to the US when she was in power) back, they borrowed a play right out of Jimmy Carter’s Iran playbook. They THINK that promoting elections is a good thing, but all they are doing is allowing every Islamo-Fascist to come out of the closet and swarm the ballot boxes.
From the Bush Administration’s vantage, this is all good stuff. Anything that destabilizes Muslim countries drives up the price of oil. Just why do you think they HAVEN’T found (or admitted they have found) bin Laden. If the Bush Administration found bin Laden and broke up Al Qeida, one of the biggest threats to oil supply would be gone. Oil prices would tumble and we’d probably see one very hefty recession.
From that standpoint, it PAYS to force Benazir Bhutto on Pakistan and stir up the pot. She gets assassinated. We get rid of an anti-American creep and the Persian Gulf states laugh all the way to the bank.

There is NO Santa Claus on December 27, 2007 at 8:48 pm

You get what you paid for LOL! Democracy or mob rule is a seriously bad joke for anyone with more than a few thousand souls.
Clueless Condi, bush and company should see this as a wake up call but they all suffer from cranial rectal diseased (CRD).
Mean while, oil prices rise and our beloved dollar circles ever closer to the drain opening. Thanks to all the sound policies from the last 50 years. Flushing sound!
Thanks DS for the amazing illumination on this crazy anti-Semitic bitch

warpmine on December 27, 2007 at 9:47 pm

I’m surprized no one has mentioned Bhutto’s self-congratulatory autobiography published twenty-odd years ago. In it, she idealized her late, corrupt, blabby father who, like her, loathed Israel. The fact that he was hanged at the behest of Islamic triumphalist Pakistan president Zia ul-Haq was insignificant to her; the international Zionist conspiracy was the real entity behind it all. Like her pal Yassir Arafat, she will not be missed for long, whether by the feminist talking heads in the West who are beatifying her right now or by the Pakistanis themselves, who, sadly for the innocents among them, have plenty more gory history awaiting them.

nenamldu on December 28, 2007 at 12:43 am

Benazir’s conviction
Well, I can’t defend her cause I don’t know enuff about her cept what I read those who hate her say.
BUT …. according to the conserv. press here she was never actually convicted. So, if that’s wrong what are the chances of other ‘facts’ being skewed as well. I am not saying they are but just asking.
I do agree with those who are critical of our attempt to export democracy and western thinking as tho ppl are ready for it or even understand it.
As someone else posted here, I’d like to see the root info as well.

jayd on December 28, 2007 at 8:43 am

It amazes me that President Bush, while professing to be an Evangelical Christian, is so terribly ignorant of where our liberties came. The freedom that we, as well as other Western countries, enjoy is rooted in Judeo-Christian, or Biblical foundations. The Islamic world has no such foundation. It’s a tribal culture that has no regard for the dignity and right of the individual.
The colonial powers made the same mistake in the 1950’s when they released their colonies in the Third World to have free elections. The belief the “One Man, One Vote” equals freedom in any culture is a sorry myth. In cultures that are not steeped in Biblical Law, the result was “One Man, One Vote, One Time Only” (E.G.-Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana and his Zimbabwean acolyte, Robert Mugabe). President Bush only reflects the ubiquitous ignorance in our current culture resulting from a government school education.

Nite Rider on December 28, 2007 at 1:48 pm

Thanks, DS Lots of good information that so many of us were not aware of.
Nite Rider: I agree – it is more than time to stop trying to impose “democracy” on countries that have no structure fitting such a government! Democracy is NOT for everyone – there are many who have absolutely no desire to think for themselves.
Look at our own country…we think for ourselves but even contacting congressional representatives does no good most of the time. They just pretend to let us think we matter. The recent immigration bill not being passed was a rare achievement by the citizens of our country and I am proud to have been a part of the group that stood up to be counted.
I say leave the other countries alone! We have enough “on our own plate” to take care of!

CapeConservative on December 28, 2007 at 3:27 pm

From the time of the ratification of the US Constitution, one of its express purposes was to limit the size and scope of the Federal government. The idea of “empire” building was the kind of activity the Constitution intended to prevent. However, in comes Lincoln and his determination to transform the Federal government into a powerful, central, empire-building Leviathan.
Examine closely how many succeeding presidents have followed in that path!
Bush and Condi are probably the best examples of empire-building in modern times so far. It is almost unbelievable to comprehend the ignorance of Bush, Condi, Cheney, et.al., in their dealings with Islam. It seems that no one in the administration “gets it”!
The vast majority of Muslims are simply that–Muslims. It makes no difference if they are considered “moderate,” “extreme,” etc. They are Muslim. The so-called “moderate and peaceful” Muslims are, in fact, part of the “extreme” factions because of their silence in the face of the atrocities committed by the extreme jihadists.
And one of their most powerful weapons used against our own democracy is “taqiyya”!
Speak total untruth to your face, speak and act the very opposite to your back. Bhutto was just as cunning and effective in her use of “taqiyya” as were Arafat and all the rest, including CAIR right here in the US.
If, instead of our being the “policeman” of the world, we had been keeping most of our troops here at home throughout most of the last 100 years, securing our own borders, keeping our own people safe, electing truly wise and prudent representatives, senators, presidents who actually understood the Constitution and were willing to undo the damage done by congressional, executive, and judicial lunacy and idiocy, events such as WWI, Korea, Vietnam, the Federal Reserve, and Iraq (to name a few) might never have happened.
Oh, and one more thing, if we, as a nation, had insisted on our leaders supporting ways and means of really protecting and securing our borders, freedoms, and rights, Islamofascism having such a foothold here in our homeland might also never have happened.
I take no pleasure in the violent death of anyone. But if Islamic jihadists do not want us interferring in their business, then let us accommodate and get the hell out and take care of our own matters here. Let them fight it out amongst themselves.
We have the means, the resources, and the brilliant minds needed to be virtually self-sufficient, no longer depended on “foreign oil” as we are now. If we are going to be addicted to anything, let it be to our own abilities and ingenuities.
To paraphrase the Irish policeman after 9/11, “Islam, you can kiss my royal ass!”

jlking on December 28, 2007 at 3:41 pm

Right on Debbie,
I do not mourn for a Jew-hating supporter of the Jew-Killer Yasir “ibn Hitler” Arafat. She was a duplicitous, narcissistic, plundering political whore of the first order. In short, she was a great con woman who pulled the wool (or in her case) the veil over dreamy-eyed Americans who look for “moderate Muslims.”
I humbly suggest that if you are looking for “moderate Muslims” please check the Muslim cemeteries. Ironic that she died in the same way that her mentor Arafat’s victims died. Good riddance to this trash.

Steven on December 30, 2007 at 11:03 pm

Trying to find a good Muslim today is like
trying to find a good German in 1941.

Rick on December 31, 2007 at 6:10 pm

Some now suggest that she is behind Zia-ul-Haq and her own brothers dispatching. Looks very logical, at least. Romans were saying: (it) is done by the one who profited (by this).

MarcAurelio on January 12, 2008 at 10:15 pm

Concerning CapeConservative’s “taqiyya”!
Who told you/us that you/we are bound to tell the truth to anybody? – Do you owe money to somebody? Are you a slave of somebody? Are you under the oath in the court of so-called justice? – Guys, dear! – Feel free to tell anybody just what you want or need to tell. If you feel, that anybody (Muslims, as you point) are taught to tell any non-Muslim (and fellow Muslim as well, as we may see) pure “untruth” – feel free to teach yourself and your folk to do the same, if you feel so. Nobody can press you to tell the truth if you don’t want to tell it. Live all as you want, not considering anybody around you worthy of your inner respect – just pretend and say whatever you allowed to tell by the surrounding situation of a given moment (and, if you can – do whatever you can too).

MarcAurelio on January 12, 2008 at 10:25 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field