My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

April 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    

« Benazir Bhutto’s assassination kills Pakistan’s best chance for early return to democracy | Main | Rare moment to agree with Josh Marshall and Paul Krugman »

December 29, 2007


jj mollo

As you say, Peters is usually thoughtful. But earlier this year he was willing to give up on Iraq.

I suppose that insatiable ambition is hereditary? For this reason her father and brothers were killed? Or perhaps she believed, as many leaders do, that you have to swim with the sharks if you don't want to get eaten. I'd like to see Peters swim a mile in that water. The Pakistani army is now the vehicle of corruption and radicalism in Pakistan. It is infiltrated by both forms of rot. So much for Musharraf's good intentions. Personally, I think the civilians should get a share of the corruption. In such a foul situation, where the rich get rich and the poor get poorer, where there is really little hope for freedom, democracy or prosperity, it takes someone with uncommon leadership abilities to turn the situation around. I think it was clear that she had a better chance at that than Musharraf.


I confess to being ignorant of her works, since I didn't care a bit what the muslim world was doing pre-9/11. (side note: If they'd stop spontaneously combusting, I'd be happy to go back to my little world and leave them be)

But I'm reading (no links, sorry, I forget where I read these things) that she is not the great liberator that we had been told she was. I think I read that she is responsible for rescuing bin laden from the Sudan and bringing him to Afghanistan! I also read that her governments were among the most corrupt in Pakistan history, and that she helped her country become a nuclear power under Clinton's nose.

I don't know if these things are true, but I also don't know them to be false. If they are true, I'm still sad that the terrorists succeeded in killing someone, but not all that sad that she didn't win an election.

jj mollo

The only way to have prevented Pakistan's nuclear status was to have prevented India's nuclear status. The only way to have prevented India's nuclear status was to have prevented China's nuclear status. The only way to have prevented China's nuclear status was to have prevented the Soviet Union's nuclear status. The only way to have prevented the Soviet Union's nuclear status was to have prevented America's Nuclear status. The only way to have prevented America's nuclear status was to have prevented the rise of Hitler. So, I think we can lay this at Neville Chamberlain's doorstep. The question is not who-struck-John, though. This is about making the best decisions with what you have, from where you are now. Her death might provide a political opportunity for anti-terror political consolidation. I'm hoping Peters is right about that part.

FTR, I believe it was her father that made Pakistan into a nuclear state. I don't know about the Bin Laden deal, but I am sure that there are powerful Bin Laden sympathizers within the power structure of Pakistan. Maybe Bhutto knew who they were and how to deal with them. If you want to know who let Bin Laden get from Sudan to Pakistan, the favorite whipping boy is Clinton. Bhutto saw the Taliban, as did a lot of people at the time, as beneficial for Pakistan and Afghanistan, which had suffered by America's lack of interest. Who knows what she would have done to get in the good graces of the Taliban and their contacts within the Pakistani power structure. It's not a simple country.

The comments to this entry are closed.