The Real Bhutto?
December 28, 2007 -- FOR the next several days, you're going to read and hear a great deal of pious nonsense in the wake of the assassination of Pakistan's former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto.
We need have no sympathy with her Islamist assassin and the extremists behind him to recognize that Bhutto was corrupt, divisive, dishonest and utterly devoid of genuine concern for her country.
During her years as prime minister, Pakistan went backward, not forward. Her husband looted shamelessly and ended up fleeing the country, pursued by the courts. The Islamist threat - which she artfully played both ways - spread like cancer.
In fact, Bhutto was a frivolously wealthy feudal landlord amid bleak poverty. The scion of a thieving political dynasty, she was always more concerned with power than with the wellbeing of the average Pakistani. Her program remained one of old-school patronage, not increased productivity or social decency.
Colonel Ralph Peters in the New York Post... One man's opinion.
Geez Ralph... She isn't even cold yet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
The scion of a thieving political dynasty, she was always more concerned with power than with the wellbeing of the average Pakistani.
I hate to state the obvious, but isn't that a universal truth of any presidential candidate anywhere?
Also, did you hear that her 19 year old son has been named her successor. WTF?! Jesus.
I hadn't heard about the son.
I have a feeling that corruption in Pakistani government has been a chronic problem... Maybe the Bhutto family represented a "lesser of two evils" situation.
But it's interesting how she was glorified in the press... Maybe because the alternative was a military dictatorship.
Because the idea of a liberal-leaning government right in the epicentre of theocratic fascism would be a massive step forward for the Middle East.
But I've heard that she and her family were/are just as corrupt, so who can honestly tell?
I saw an interview of Monsoor Ijaz, who knew Bhutto well, but they parted ways after he reported on the corruption in her government. Ijaz said, "She married into the wrong family." According to him, she was driven by good motives but her husband was the corrupt one. He also said, however, that she had an imperious side to her.
In the end, the question about Pakistan and its leadership is, "Who do you trust with their nukes?" Bhutto probably would have been trustworthy. Musharraf has shown himself to be trustworthy as well. But the leading opposition candidate right now, Sharif, appears to be in bed with the terrorists, so we'd better hope he doesn't take power.
Skye:
Musharif already has been in power. Truth be told, I believe we are about to see just how much the U.S. has been played by Pakistan's insistence it was not harboring Bin Laden.
Uh huh. Some of us have always felt Bin Laden was harbored by Musharif - and that the US gov't knew it but were afraid to act.
SIGH
Trust you to make the first idiotic comment, Delta.
Why Jacob, Thank YOU!
Coming from you, that's quite a compliment!
:-)
Delta...
You have an interesting perspective on this.
You think Musharif might be playing us?
Yeah, buy a dictionary.
(lame comeback, btw)
Chris:
Think about it. Bin Laden was in dire straits, needing a liver transplant. How, he is healty and moving about once again. Bin Laden was once shown in the mountains of Afghanistan/Pakistan. Yet, several of his video's have obviously been inside a home. Someone helped him be able to have a liver transplant (which takes a LOT of technology, an organ "match", etc). Bin Laden is able to move about freely from rough terrain to homes, and is able to make and send video's. All this requires assistance and access to people, places, and things which cannot go completely unseen.
Yep, I think both Pakistan and Afghanistan's gov'ts have known and have been complicit in the harboring of Usama Bin Laden.
Post a Comment