maverick4

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

"NEW YORK (AP) - It was a story CNN's Wolf Blitzer hoped he'd never have to report—an e-mail sent to him through an intermediary by Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto complaining about her security. Conditions of use: only if she were killed.

Bhutto, who was assassinated on Thursday, wrote to Blitzer that if anything happened to her, "I would hold (Pakistani President Pervez) Musharraf responsible."

Blitzer received the e-mail on Oct. 26 from Mark Siegel, a friend and longtime Washington spokesman for Bhutto. That was eight days after she narrowly escaped another attempt at her life. Bhutto wrote to Blitzer that "I have been made to feel insecure by his (Musharraf's) minions," that specific improvements had not been made to her security arrangements, and that the Pakistani leader was responsible.

Blitzer agreed to the conditions before receiving the e-mail. He said Friday that he called Siegel shortly after seeing it to see if there was any way he could use it on CNN, but was told firmly it could only be used if she were killed. Siegel couldn't say why she had insisted on those conditions. Blitzer reported on the e-mail late Thursday. "

Fogbuster

.

Saw this today on CNN. They questioned the highest ranking member of Bhutto's PPP party and asked him what he thought about that assertion. This PPP party representative said: "Benazir Bhutto did hold Pres. Mussharif responsble for the security situation in Pakistan, but as we can see it is a huge job. So, she was holding Mussharif partially responsible. Nothing more."

And that seems to be it. Other Pakistanis were also questioned on CNN and BBC, and no one is seriously blaming Mussharif for this tragedy. It is virtually impossible for one man to control every single situation in a nation of 200 million.



//

__________________
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing."

maverick4

Then why did she write a letter to Blitzer before her death solely blaming Musharraf, asking Blitzer to release this if she died?

maverick4

Look at the picture in this link, moments before she died:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...icle628825.ece

There is no security whatsoever for the car, she had repeatedly asked Musharraf and the government to provide security cars surrounding her car.

Patters

It fascinates me how the right rushes to defend a military dictator who secured his job in a coup, is corrupt, has overseen the growth of Al Qaeda, and oversees a nuclear arsenal.

I can understand saying that we have a strategic interest in remaining allied with him, but the way the righties are defending him is bizarre. I think it exposes their fraudulent claim that a main reason we went into Iraq was to give them democracy. The righties don't want democracy. They are so afraid of the rest of the world, they want control, even if the price of that control is death, destruction, and debt.

Fogbuster

As her spokesman said, she held Mussharif partly responsible, but not entirely. The big quote in the news yesterday was her Bhutto saying, "I am the terrorists biggest nightmare". It is clear she knew that al qaeda and other terror cells wanted her dead because she represented democracy and because she was a woman representing democracy, two things that probably send the radical Islamist extremists absolutely bonkers.


//

__________________
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing."

Fogbuster

That's baloney. They'be been showing the tape a hundred times of her SUV pulling away from her final speech, and there were security guys all over her vehicle, from the front, the side, and one or two riding on her rear bumper. Plus, there were some 35 police and security guards ALSO KILLED when she was. So don't try to say she was not given lots of protection; she was.

What's your point?


//

__________________
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing."

maverick4

It's the same reason why during the 80's Saddam Hussein was our great ally and a friend, and we didn't criticize him because he was fighting Iran for us. Meanwhile during that time he was gassing the Kurds and killing his own people.

It's all politics, not about spreading freedom or anything, as long as a tyrant does what we want, they are our best friend.

PatsFanInVa

Sounds like what Musharraf did was accorded her little security, which led to previous attacks on her.

The fact that AQ can make some hay by taking credit does not in any way prove that AQ did it. In this case, it obviously serves the purposes of both Musharraf and Al Qaeda for AQ to take credit. No "deal" is necessary. Musharraf gets off the hook with the gullible, and AQ gets a new recruiting video. Win-win.

The fact of the e-mail to Siegel makes this worth pursuing, and leaves the question open. If I'm killed in a drive-by, it's a random crime. If I write on PatsFans "if I'm killed in a drive-by, investigate Foggy," then it definitely raises questions.

PFnV

Fogbuster

Ah-h, the personal attack. Last refuge of an impotent argument.


//

__________________
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing."