Benazir Bhutto Dies in Attack

[ISiddiqui]

:eek:

Breaking News on both CNN.com and NYTimes.com!

Apparently in a suicide bombing, she was shot in the neck.

:(

[Flasch186]

yup, the new front of the war on Al Qaeda will be in Pakistan (if it's not already), and like times before it's critical that civilized society win. Al Qaeda will not stop attacking until they are extinguished.

[Klinglerware]

Who said Al Qaeda was behind this?

[jeff061]

If it's convenient to someone it will be said.

[Flasch186]

are you kidding, theyve repeatedly tried to kill her over the last month(s).

[Klinglerware]

are you kidding, theyve repeatedly tried to kill her over the last month(s).

Bhutto didn't seem to think it was Al Qaeda targeting her...

[Flasch186]

....if youre thinking Musharraf did this, I can see it plausible but his enemies are her enemies.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, regardless of who actually killed her, this makes the elections in Pakistan even more muddled. Sharif can't run. Bhutto is dead. Musharraf is entirely unliked. It's quite scary to think what will come out of this.

[Flasch186]

Bhutto didn't seem to think it was Al Qaeda targeting her...

really?

http://in.news.yahoo.com/071023/251/6mbfc.html

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/10/bhutto-blames-a.html

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/189816.php

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/10/19/pakistan.explosions/

http://article.wn.com/view/2007/12/27/Benazir_Storms_Into_Militant_Territory/

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This kind of stuff just goes to show just how nasty muslim fundamentalists can be. It's a damn shame that great leaders like her have to worry about idiots taking her out when trying to put a country back on its feet.

[ISiddiqui]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/27/pakistan.sharif/index.html


RAWALPINDI, Pakistan (CNN) -- Pakistan former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has died after a suicide attack, according to media reports.
Geo TV quoted her husband saying the politician had died following a bullet wound in the neck.

The suicide attack left at least 14 dead and 40 injured, Tariq Azim Khan, the country's former information minister, told CNN in a telephone interview.

The attacker is said to have detonated a bomb as he tried to enter the rally where thousands of people gathered to hear Bhutto speak, police said.

Bhutto is said to have been leaving the rally when the attack occurred and was taken to a hospital in an unconcious state, the Geo TV report said.

Earlier, a spokesman for Bhutto told CNN she was safe and taken away from the scene.

Video from the scene of the blast broadcast from Geo TV showed wounded people being loaded into ambulances.

Up to 20 people are dead, the report said.

Earlier, four supporters of former Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif died when members of another political party opened fire on them at a rally near the Islamabad airport Friday, local police said.

Several other members of Sharif's party were wounded, police added.
While President Pervez Musharraf has promised free and fair parliamentary elections next month, continued instability in the tribal areas and the threat of attack on large crowds has kept people from attending political rallies and dampened the country's political process.

Campaigners from various political groups say fewer people are coming out to show their support due to government crackdowns and the threat of violence.

At least 136 people were killed and more than 387 wounded on October 18 when a suicide bomber attacked Bhutto's slow-moving motorcade. The former PM returned to the country after eight years of self-imposed exile to a massive show of support in the southern port city of Karachi.

Bhutto called it "an attack on democracy" and vowed it would not deter her political campaign.

Today's violence come less than two weeks ahead of January parliamentary elections and as many days after President Pervez Musharraf lifted a six-week-old state of emergency he said was necessary to ensure the country's stability.

Critics said Musharraf's political maneuvering was meant to stifle the country's judiciary as well as curb the media and opposition groups to secure more power.

[Klinglerware]

really?


Yeah, really.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/world/asia/20Pakistan.html?pagewanted=1

[Flasch186]

Yeah, really.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/world/asia/20Pakistan.html?pagewanted=1

We'll never know but in your article it says she blames militants but asks why the Government isn't doing more to protect her, to crack down on the militants (AL Qaeda)

I am not accusing the government, but I am accusing certain individuals who abuse their positions, who abuse their powers,” she said at a news conference of hundreds of journalists in the garden of her home in Clifton, an upscale neighborhood of the southern port city of Karachi.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21374344/

she says the Government or individuals of authority may be complicit but continued to blame Al Qaeda Militants. If you'd like to speculate on Government assassination, that's fine and could bear out, but she feared Al Qaeda most.

[Klinglerware]

We'll never know but in your article it says she blames militants but asks why the Government isn't doing more to protect her, to crack down on the militants (AL Qaeda)

No, she's saying more than that...

“I know exactly who wants to kill me,” Ms. Bhutto said. “It is dignitaries of the former regime of General Zia who are today behind the extremism and the fanaticism.”

She named three Pakistani officials she believed were behind the plot. Sure, Islamic militants executed the attacks, but the Pakistani intelligence has used them for years for their own ends...

[Flasch186]

that all may be but I just dont see her connecting the specific dots in those articles about that attack. It could bear out that today is the culmination of those dots connecting but that's not what she had been saying about attacks in the past. Specific and outlined threats came from Al Qaeda....I suppose we'll find out eventually but I'll put my $.50 on Al Qaeda. that quote above needs some more context.

[ISiddiqui]

Musharraf does run the ISI, which is known for using fundamentalists for their own ends (as in Kashmir). It is not inconcievable that the ISI could have been behind it, just as likely as Al Queda right now. I don't think you can rule anyone out until someone takes credit (well, AQ would, the ISI wouldn't).

[molson]

It really doesn't matter so much who's behind it - it's not a murder mystery.

What matters now is the aftermath.

[Schmidty]

I have some comments, but I don't want to get put in the box for the first time.

[Klinglerware]

that all may be but I just dont see her connecting the specific dots in those articles about that attack. It could bear out that today is the culmination of those dots connecting but that's not what she had been saying about attacks in the past. Specific and outlined threats came from Al Qaeda....I suppose we'll find out eventually but I'll put my $.50 on Al Qaeda. that quote above needs some more context.

Sure. Her quote was in the context of the first attack upon her arrival in Pakistan this year. But the point remains--Bhutto suspected that several plots against her had the direct support of her rivals in the Pakistani government and intelligence service.

In the end, as others have pointed out, we don't know who was ulimately behind the attack. We don't know if we'll ever find out. Your guess is as good as mine, but I do think that your first post did jump the gun a bit as to who was responsible. I decided to post what I posted because there are plausable alternative theories out there worth mentioning.

[PilotMan]

I hardly agree that she was a great leader. She was ousted for being corrupt and was hardly popular at that time. I think that her return was romanticized quite a bit and it was merely an expression of the peoples dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. Her return was just a face to put to the look back at 'better times.'

[ISiddiqui]

I hardly agree that she was a great leader. She was ousted for being corrupt and was hardly popular at that time. I think that her return was romanticized quite a bit and it was merely an expression of the peoples dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. Her return was just a face to put to the look back at 'better times.'

IIRC, she's always been somewhat popular. Corruption is a charge that every Pakistani leader is saddled with at some point or another, at least the civilian leadership. Sharif was tagged with corruption too.

Both times she was removed by the President of Pakistan, not in election. After all, when she was removed the first time, and then ran again, she won the Prime Minister job a second time.

And of course she's corrupt. They all are.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

IIRC, she's always been somewhat popular. Corruption is a charge that every Pakistani leader is saddled with at some point or another, at least the civilian leadership. Sharif was tagged with corruption too.

Both times she was removed by the President of Pakistan, not in election. After all, when she was removed the first time, and then ran again, she won the Prime Minister job a second time.

And of course she's corrupt. They all are.

I'd agree with that. Corruption charges seem to be a convinent way to boot the other guy in a lot of 3rd world countries. I'm sure they're all corrupt to some extent, but we even have that in the U.S.

[ISiddiqui]

The entire Pakistani society is far more corrupt than what we are used to in Western states. When I was there a few years back, I was just struck by how money can basically get you out of all sorts of situations. Police officers definately will take bribes, especially for traffic stops (hell, that's one of the reasons they may make stops).

[wade moore]

I'm not going to address the "Whodunit?" aspect of this because I just don't know enough about the situation over there to speculate.

But no matter how you look at it, this is something I hate to see from a country that is teetering on the edge of Democracy/Not-Democracy.

[molson]

But no matter how you look at it, this is something I hate to see from a country that is teetering on the edge of Democracy/Not-Democracy.

And one that has a fairly advanced nuclear program (started by Bhutto's father more than 30 years ago).

[DaddyTorgo]

tragedy

[JPhillips]

The more I read about this the less I think it was AQ. She was apparently shot at close range before the bomb went off. Her closest advisor is also pointing the finger at Musharref. It sounds much more like a professional job than an chance killing with a suicide bomber. It's also very fishy that four close advisors of Sharif were also killed over the past couple of days.

[DaddyTorgo]

The more I read about this the less I think it was AQ. She was apparently shot at close range before the bomb went off. Her closest advisor is also pointing the finger at Musharref. It sounds much more like a professional job than an chance killing with a suicide bomber. It's also very fishy that four close advisors of Sharif were also killed over the past couple of days.

does sound fishy - "shoot her and then blow her up so that we can claim it was an AQ suicide bomb and coverup the evidence that she was shot"

i had a whole big long post planned out in my head, but i don't know that i have the energy for it. It's just...tragic.

[KWhit]

You guys hit on the point I was going to make:

A suicide bomb and a shot in the neck?

[mrsimperless]

The entire Pakistani society is far more corrupt than what we are used to in Western states. When I was there a few years back, I was just struck by how money can basically get you out of all sorts of situations. Police officers definately will take bribes, especially for traffic stops (hell, that's one of the reasons they may make stops).

A lot of more "under developed" nations are the same way. When in Thailand and getting my work permit the bribery/gifts given to the officials who signed the documents were blatant and seemingly expected. And I also heard many of the same stories about getting out of jail, etc. When you're stopped by the police over there from what I understand you basically pay them $25 and carry on about your business.

[mrsimperless]

You guys hit on the point I was going to make:

A suicide bomb and a shot in the neck?

From what I either heard or read on the bbc this morning it was believed that the attacker shot at her as he approached and then detonated himself. (Sorry, no link) But I definitely heard eye witness accounts of shots having been fired.

[chesapeake]

Bhutto and her advisors knew that her assassination was a better than even proposition if she decided to return to public life in Pakistan. But she did it, and in an even more public way than anyone could have ever expected. That takes some kind of courage.

I'm not sure what Musharraf gains from Bhutto's death. His regime is already shaky. The public unrest and violence this event will likely cause could be enough to topple him.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban have the most to gain -- killing the leader of the Democratic movement and stirring up unrest against Musharraf, whom they have been trying to knock over for years, would be a big win for them.

[Young Drachma]

My goodness. That sure does muddle the picture up even more over there.

[Noop]

Very disappointing to hear.

[flere-imsaho]

And one that has a fairly advanced nuclear program (started by Bhutto's father more than 30 years ago).

And one who currently shelters (in fact, even glorifies) A.Q. Khan, the government scientist who sold nuclear secrets (and possibly equipment) on the black market to, amongst others, North Korea.

Just goes to show how short-sighted the "War on Terror" made everyone.


I'm not sure what Musharraf gains from Bhutto's death. His regime is already shaky. The public unrest and violence this event will likely cause could be enough to topple him.

Or it gives him ample reason to declare martial law again and rule the country under emergency status for as long as he likes.

It's all speculation right now, and will be until more details emerge.

[chesapeake]

I've heard that theory. I'm not sure Musharraf has the political capital to declare martial law again and make it stick. And I'm not sure the army will back him.

But I agree, it is all speculation.

[Klinglerware]

I've heard that theory. I'm not sure Musharraf has the political capital to declare martial law again and make it stick. And I'm not sure the army will back him.

But I agree, it is all speculation.

Of course, it's all speculation.

I would agree that Musharraf is unlikely to be behind this, since there is little for him to gain from Bhutto's assassination and much to lose, since much of the fallout would focus on him.

The resulting chaos would of course give the military the opportunity to guarantee it's current position by both deposing Musharraf once and for all and canceling elections, in the name of promoting stability.

[dawgfan]

Just goes to show how short-sighted the "War on Terror" made everyone.
Short-sighted alliances of convenience are nothing new for the region - I'd highly recommend reading Steve Coll's Ghost Wars for a comprehensive history of U.S. and Soviet/Russian involvement in Afghanistan and the resulting effects in the surrounding areas and throughout the Middle East.

[JW]

The method of the assassination does nothing to eliminate Al Qaeda. There is no reason Al Qaeda could not have orchestrated that attack. That doesn't mean btw that I think AQ did it. I have to go back to what Issiquidi said. You can't rule anyone out right now.

[Crapshoot]

This kind of stuff just goes to show just how nasty muslim fundamentalists can be. It's a damn shame that great leaders like her have to worry about idiots taking her out when trying to put a country back on its feet.

Stick to PS3 posts. Bhutto was as much of a crook as any other Pakistani leader in the last 40 years - hell, her husband corruption was legendary. Calling her a "great leader" without knowing the details smacks of stupidity. Yes, she was more pro-Western than many other Pakistani leaders, but probably not to the scale of Musharaf. From a US perspective, an army man in power is significantly better IMO - if only because he controls the real power source in Pakistan, and the fact that he's hunting Islamist extremists bodes well (or "less bad") for any long-term reform of the ISI.

[JeffNights]

I have some comments, but I don't want to get put in the box for the first time.


Bah, its not that bad. :)

[Chief Rum]

Short-sighted alliances of convenience are nothing new for the region - I'd highly recommend reading Steve Coll's Ghost Wars for a comprehensive history of U.S. and Soviet/Russian involvement in Afghanistan and the resulting effects in the surrounding areas and throughout the Middle East.

Wow, I have that book right here on my desk. Haven't read it yet--it's among several nonfiction books I have been trying to get around to reading.

[Young Drachma]

Mitt Romney is on FOX right now talking about it. He just looks like a flip-flopping slimball there. Not hardly presidential. I mean, Hillary sure does wear the stench of "I'll tell you whatever you want to hear..." but he looks the same way, only with less familiarity.

[SackAttack]

My first thought was Musharraf, but that almost seems like the obvious answer. So obvious that whoever's responsible wants attention to focus on him.

My second thought is, why was Sharif's party attacked as well?

To me, that suggests one of three things.

1) Musharraf is a moron who thinks that killing the opposition is going to intimidate the populace into letting him re-declare martial law and just hang onto power for as long as he likes.

2) The military is trying to bring Musharraf down, and making him look bad gives them the opportunity to step in.

3) An outside entity is stirring up trouble. India?

[Flasch186]

4) an AQ coordinated attack.

[Flasch186]

CNN reports that an AQ person claimed responsibility to a French newspaper but they're not confirming that yet.

[Young Drachma]

4) an AQ coordinated attack.

+1

they have the most to gain.

[SackAttack]

I'm not convinced AQ would try to shoot Bhutto and then set off a suicide bomb attack. That just seems like overkill, pardon the pun.

If they're behind it, I have to think they either a) would claim responsibility, or b) don't want to be spotlighted as the culprits. If the latter, why would you risk the killer being caught and questioned if the bomb doesn't go off?

Why not just send two or (if Bhutto's elimination was a high priority) three suicide bombers in? Triangulate, take her out, and do more damage among her crowd of supporters?

Not saying they couldn't have done it, only that their involvement doesn't seem to fit the facts at hand.

[molson]

It sure didn't take long for the conspiracy theories to start. India???

Sadly, it's probably the least surprising assassination in history.

Al-Qaeda itself doesn't have the organization it used to, but there are many, many groups throughout the world that claim links, and at the very least, share ideologies.

Musharraf and the Pakistani government need to answer accusations that the security was not what it needed to be, and I'm sure their responses in the coming days and months will be political, but it's a REAL stretch to say this is some kind of government hit. It just doesn't make any sense.

[Crapshoot]

My first thought was Musharraf, but that almost seems like the obvious answer. So obvious that whoever's responsible wants attention to focus on him.

My second thought is, why was Sharif's party attacked as well?

To me, that suggests one of three things.

1) Musharraf is a moron who thinks that killing the opposition is going to intimidate the populace into letting him re-declare martial law and just hang onto power for as long as he likes.

2) The military is trying to bring Musharraf down, and making him look bad gives them the opportunity to step in.

3) An outside entity is stirring up trouble. India?

Dude, if you think India has any interest in an unstable Pakistan...

An unstable, nuclear-armed, ISI (or Mujahadeen) controlled PAkistan is a danger for the US - its a fucking disaster for India.

[mrsimperless]

Stick to PS3 posts. Bhutto was as much of a crook as any other Pakistani leader in the last 40 years - hell, her husband corruption was legendary. Calling her a "great leader" without knowing the details smacks of stupidity. Yes, she was more pro-Western than many other Pakistani leaders, but probably not to the scale of Musharaf. From a US perspective, an army man in power is significantly better IMO - if only because he controls the real power source in Pakistan, and the fact that he's hunting Islamist extremists bodes well (or "less bad") for any long-term reform of the ISI.

How are you so convinced the corruption charges against her were legit? I haven't done much research in that area, but from what I've read the charges themselves seemed suspicious and possibly politically motivated.

[ISiddiqui]

How are you so convinced the corruption charges against her were legit? I haven't done much research in that area, but from what I've read the charges themselves seemed suspicious and possibly politically motivated.

The New York Times has "followed the money" to show some corruption and I don't think anyone except Bhutto's most strident supporters believe she wasn't guilty of massive corruption. The Swiss government even convicted Bhutto and her husband of money laundering (they had Swiss bank accounts).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

How are you so convinced the corruption charges against her were legit? I haven't done much research in that area, but from what I've read the charges themselves seemed suspicious and possibly politically motivated.

As I mentioned before, I agree with that. I have no doubt that she had some level of corruption as it's nearly required to get anywhere politically in that country. But a lot of those corruption charges are used for nothing more than political gain and the people making the charges are likely doing similar things on their end.

Bhutto represented a pro-democracy movement. She was idolized by women not just in Pakistan, but across the Muslim world simply because she was able to be a leader in a society controlled by men. She also knew that a return to Pakistan would likely mean an untimely death for her, yet she went back because she knew people wanted her leadership. She could have sat in Dubai with her family and lived the good life, but she chose the road less travelled. Those kinds of traits make her a great leader IMO.

[molson]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071228/wl_afp/pakistanattacksbhuttocause

Two interesting notes there:

-She wasn't killed by a bullet or the bomb. She fractured her skull when she hit her head against the sun roof lever when trying to duck back inside the car.

-A call was intercepted from a high-up member of Al-Qaeda in Pakistan congratulating a militant for the attack. But I guess since that's from the government, it won't mean much to conspiracy people.

[Wolfpack]

I could buy that second point, but that first one seems awfully hard to believe. She died because she failed to pull herself down into her own car correctly? How much force must you descend with in order to fracture your skull (and fatally at that)? It'd be one thing if the bomber blew himself up while she was outside the sun roof and the concussion whiplashed her into it or something, but this doesn't make as much sense.

Then again, it still comes back to what would the government gain by suggesting she wasn't killed by the assassin (at least directly). I'd guess it reduces her martyr's roll somewhat if her death was actually self-inflicted, but would there be any other cultural or political significance?

[ISiddiqui]

It'd be one thing if the bomber blew himself up while she was outside the sun roof and the concussion whiplashed her into it or something

That's what I was thinking when I first heard it. That she ducked, but before she was buckled in, the bomb concussion slammed her into the roof.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

That's what I was thinking when I first heard it. That she ducked, but before she was buckled in, the bomb concussion slammed her into the roof.

That's reportedly exactly what happened. Press is now saying the the bomb shockwave was what threw her head against the edge of the sunroof.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318788,00.html

[st.cronin]

On the way in to work this morning, I heard an NPR report that Al-Qaeda is claiming not to be responsible for this. I'm inclined to think that there may prove to be AQ connections, as in "this person was trained by AQ" or "the assassin was on friendly terms with bin Laden" or something. But my guess is that the plot is more Pakistani-politic than al-qaeda.

[Flasch186]

the video of the incident looks like you can clearly see someone shooting at her from mere feet away so if she wasnt hit, when he even had the gun propped for stability, then either the gun was jacked, he's an awful shot, or there is something more amiss.

it also seems that the sites where AQ normally would claim responsibility are quiet on this topic. The only claims from AQ are being touted in a French paper and have not been confirmed.

[jeff061]

We'll never be able to cut through the BS and focus on the truth. Not like it really matters anyways.

[Cringer]

Was there a grassy knoll anywhere near this attack?

[dawgfan]

Wow, I have that book right here on my desk. Haven't read it yet--it's among several nonfiction books I have been trying to get around to reading.
I can't recommend this book enough. It's thick and will take you some to get through, but it's worth it. Not only does it give a fantastically detailed account of what went on in Afghanistan politically from about 1979 on and how it relates to U.S. actions (and the resulting ramifications throughout the muslim world) but it also gives the reader a greater appreciation of how foreign policy attitudes can shape and skew priorities. Lots of good info about the U.S. relationship with Pakistan in that time frame as well.

[Chief Rum]

I can't recommend this book enough. It's thick and will take you some to get through, but it's worth it. Not only does it give a fantastically detailed account of what went on in Afghanistan politically from about 1979 on and how it relates to U.S. actions (and the resulting ramifications throughout the muslim world) but it also gives the reader a greater appreciation of how foreign policy attitudes can shape and skew priorities. Lots of good info about the U.S. relationship with Pakistan in that time frame as well.

Cool! I'll definitely have to raise it up higher in my queue of books then. Thanks!

[JPhillips]

This BBC report certainly casts doubt on the government's story.

<object width="425" height="373"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vq-DwHXx4oI&rel=1&border=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vq-DwHXx4oI&rel=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="373"></embed></object>

[KWhit]

No kidding. That footage is pretty telling, IMO.

[Crapshoot]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2233334,00.html


FYI, a decent read (and overly fair to Bhutto IMO). Those of you without more than a cursory knowledge of Pakistani politics would do well to recognize the whole story before labeling her a martyr.

[Klinglerware]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2233334,00.html


FYI, a decent read (and overly fair to Bhutto IMO). Those of you without more than a cursory knowledge of Pakistani politics would do well to recognize the whole story before labeling her a martyr.

Agreed. This is classic misperception at play: just because a leader has a pro-western orientation does not necessarily mean he or she is sympathetic to democracy. Likewise, someone with democratic values isn't necessarily going to be a friend to the west.

Reading the news today, in a move surprising to no one, it sounds like Bhutto willed the leadership of her party to her husband until her 19 year old son can take the reins. There doesn't appear to be any power struggle or much dissent in the choice; it is almost as though there is some sort of cult of personality going on in that party, where people just take it for granted that the party should be led by a Bhutto.

Edit: reading the guardian article, I can see how choosing Bhutto's husband and son as the next leaders of the party could be a Pakistani cultural manifestation of "fealty to the landowner". It does seem odd for a democratic/social-justice movement nonetheless...

[ISiddiqui]

On the other hand, in non-US, non-European countries, it seems quite common for the spouse to take over. Look at Latin American politics and Eva Peron or even recently, Cristina Kirchner (yes, both are from Argentina, but it goes beyond just that country).

[ISiddiqui]

Interestingly enough, it appears that doctors at the hospital were asking for an autopsy to find out how Bhutto died, but the police chief said there was no need for that.

[JPhillips]

Sorry about the whole hit her head thing.

From the Times of India:

In a dramatic U-turn, Pakistan government has "apologised" for claiming that former premier Benazir Bhutto died of a skull fracture after hitting the sunroof of her car during a suicide attack.

Caretaker Interior Minister Hamid Nawaz Khan has asked the media and people to "forgive and ignore" comments made by his ministry's spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema which were slammed by her Pakistan People's Party as "lies" and led to an uproar at home and abroad.

The Interior Minister made the apology during a briefing for Pakistani newspaper editors on Monday.

[Flasch186]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080118/ap_on_go_ot/us_pakistan

CIA blames extremist for Bhutto killing

By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer 33 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The CIA has concluded that a Pakistani tribal leader's network was behind the assassination of former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, according to a U.S. intelligence official.
ADVERTISEMENT

The tribal leader, Baitullah Mehsud, is an extremist with strong ties to al-Qaida and an alliance with the Taliban. He heads up a network in South Waziristan, a lawless border region abutting Afghanistan. He has been blamed for an organized campaign of assassinations of Pakistani officials and suicide bombings in the country.

The CIA concluded that Mehsud was behind the Dec. 27 killing of Bhutto shortly after it occurred, according to an intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

The Washington Post first reported the CIA's take on Friday, in an interview with CIA director Michael Hayden. "This was done by that network around Baitullah Mehsud. We have no reason to question that," Hayden told the newspaper.

The intelligence official said Mehsud, believed to be in his early 30s, is a "committed jihadist" who recruits and trains suicide operatives for the Taliban and al-Qaida. His network carries out suicide attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan, primarily along the border. The attacks have stretched from Nuristan province in northeast Afghanistan to Helmand province in the south.

He has bragged of having 3,000 would-be suicide bombers. His suicide squads have taken credit for attacks against the military and police in northwestern Pakistan, as well as bombings at a hotel in the capital of Islamabad that killed a security guard and at the Islamabad international airport.

Mehsud's men kidnapped nearly 250 Pakistani soldiers in August and held them until November, when he negotiated the release of two dozen jailed tribesmen, a group that included extremists and would-be suicide bombers.

Mehsud's forces also are believed to be behind an attack Wednesday on a Pakistani army fort near the Afghan border that left at least 22 soldiers dead or missing. The insurgents later abandoned the fort.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has blamed Mehsud's movement, Tehrik-e-Taliban, for 19 suicide attacks that killed more than 450 people over the last three months.

Mehsud, whose tribe of the same name is the most violent in South Waziristan province, signed a peace pact with Pakistan's army in February 2005. In it, he promised to deny shelter to foreign al-Qaida fighters in exchange for an end to military operations in the region and compensation for tribesmen killed by the military.

"It was a disaster for the U.S. The bad guys had more operational freedom," said Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan, the senior Republican on the House Intelligence subcommittee on terrorism. Rogers has made more than a dozen trips to Pakistan and Afghanistan in the last two years.

Al-Qaida has since re-established its headquarters in the sanctuary of the tribal area, and suicide bombers and Taliban fighters are believed to cross into Afghanistan regularly to attack civilians and U.S. and Afghan forces.

Mehsud fought in the late 1990s for the Taliban against the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, according to U.S. intelligence.

The Musharraf government fingered Mehsud for Bhutto's death in December, but some members of her political party and her family have questioned those assertions. There have been complaints that the government failed to provide her adequate security and vague allegations that elements within the government might have been involved in the assassination.

In December, the Pakistani government released the transcript of a purported conversation in which an al-Qaida operative reported to Mehsud that his men carried out the attack on Bhutto.

Rogers, who receives frequent intelligence briefings on Pakistan, told AP he has not seen definitive proof Mehsud's organization carried out the attack.

"We had good information that he was at least making the attempt to do it. If his folks were the first ones to do it, I haven't seen that yet. I do believe he had every intention to kill Bhutto. I don't think you can say (he did it) that definitely."

Bhutto was a secular politician popular in the U.S. and other Western countries for her opposition to hard-line Islam. Mehsud has denied involvement in her death.

[jeff061]

The creation of another "threat" begins. Oh well, better than just straight up invading that area of Pakistan.

[BishopMVP]

No offense, and that's probably the most likely scenario, but I find it hilarious whenever the media reports on what an intelligence agency "believes".

[Klinglerware]

No offense, and that's probably the most likely scenario, but I find it hilarious whenever the media reports on what an intelligence agency "believes".

It seems plausible to me as well. But, considering that killing Bhutto (from an Islamist perspective) would primarily be of symbolic rather than tangible value, why deny that you did it then? Going the plausible deniability route is not their typical m.o.

[Neon_Chaos]

She could have sat in Dubai with her family and lived the good life, but she chose the road less travelled.

Man, oh man. I'd love to live in Dubai. My friend works/lives there, and he tells me it's like a giant technological/architectural oasis in the middle of the desert.

[ISiddiqui]

It seems plausible to me as well. But, considering that killing Bhutto (from an Islamist perspective) would primarily be of symbolic rather than tangible value, why deny that you did it then? Going the plausible deniability route is not their typical m.o.

Yeah, that was what struck me as well. As Al Queda or people linked with Al Queda every denied carrying out a successful attack? I think if this guy did it, he'd be trumpeting it all over the place, so that other extremists flock to him (if he can kill Bhutto, he must be a big time guy, so the thinking may go).

It seems to me that the CIA is trying to help out ole Musharraf.

[BishopMVP]

It seems plausible to me as well. But, considering that killing Bhutto (from an Islamist perspective) would primarily be of symbolic rather than tangible value, why deny that you did it then? Going the plausible deniability route is not their typical m.o.Did Mehsud ever deny it? I remember hearing the denials from one Al-Qu'aida linked group, but there are enough there it's entirely conceivable one could have done it on their own, and the media here tends to lump them all under the al-Qu'aida branch (even if from what I've heard it's really Lashkar-e-Ta'iba at the top of the chain since we went into Afghanistan.)

As far as the symbolic/tangible value, that's nagged at me too. Maybe it gets you more name recognition and recruits, but it just invites so much more international scrutiny and military crackdowns I don't think it would be worth it from their point of view. I mean, Bhutto herself if elected had no chance of going into Waziristan and eliminating these groups, but if you make her a martyr the population could rise up and get the willpower to demand change. And I also don't see if being good from Musharraf's perspective either, so I guess some misguided lonesome operation makes the most sense because her death wasn't a real win for any of the major players.

[ISiddiqui]

Did Mehsud ever deny it?

According to the article linked:

Mehsud has denied involvement in her death.

[BishopMVP]

Jesus, I'm illiterate. To be fair, it was the last line, and who actually reads entire articles these days? ;)

[JPhillips]

I don't get why Mehsud would worry about scrutiny from taking credit for the assasination when he's been willing to overrun government military bases and dare the government to stop him.

I'm struck that in that article the only quote directly related to blaming Mehsoud just says " We have no reason to question that." Not exactly a firm case.

[Crapshoot]

Mehsud didn't do it. I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that. The Pakistani tribal lands are controlled by people like him, to the point where the government doesn't even pretend to have sovereignty in most of the NWF area.