Friday, January 04, 2008

Why Musharraf Lies About the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

If you want to find a culprit, look among those who lie about the crime. Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf failed to provide security for Benazir Bhutto. Now --he's lying about Bhutto, his own role, and the so-called "lone lever" theory of her death.
Describing the ground ringed by numerous buildings as a "vulnerable place", Musharraf said: "This time she went of her volition, ignoring the threat." The President, who yesterday sought the help of Britain's Scotland Yard to probe Bhutto's death, ruled out the involvement of the country's military and intelligence agencies in the assassination.

"No intelligence agency of Pakistan is capable of motivating or indoctrinating a man to blow himself up," he said, adding one has to find out who gained the most from Bhutto's killing. "Would I and the government be the maximum gainer? Or is there someone else who could gain more?"

--Musharraf denies involvement of military, ISI in Bhutto murder

Clearly --Musharraf is trying to implicate the man who Musharraf said blew himself up. Clearly, the Pakistani Prime Minister has not read this blog, has not watched YouTube, nor any number of credible sources. Let's clear this up! Benazir Bhutto was not murdered by the man who blew himself up! She was not the victim of a "terrorist" attack! She was, rather, the victim of a professional hit. I saw at least one gunman on the video and saw at least two muzzle flashes. The explosion might as well have been on another planet but for the cover, the misdirection it might have provided the gunmen.
...the establishment media is already blaming Al-Qaeda for the assassination because ever since the attacks of 9/11 the media has blamed every government sponsored terrorist attack on this fictional organization. Al-Qaeda is nothing more than a front for government intelligence agencies that was originally formed in the 1970’s as a database of people who could be counted on to fight the Soviet Union’s occupation of Afghanistan. There have already been news reports mentioning how the Pakistani ISI has associations with Islamic extremists and members of al-Qaeda.

Bhutto Killing Points To Pakistani ISI, Lee Rogers, Rogue Government

Musharraf's statement follows two previous and equally absurd cover stories: 1) that Bhutto was killed by the shrapnel from the blast; 2) that she died of wounds sustained when she banged her head on a lever, the "lone lever" theory! The "official theories" are inconsistent with one another and inconsistent with the video tapes of the event as it happened. Benazir Bhutto was shot to death. The primary suspects are those, like Musharraf, who are telling transparent lies designed to deflect suspicion and obstruct objective investigation. Having already failed to provide adequate security, Musharraf has done both.

Officialdom wasted no time in trying to pin the murder on al Qaeda. At this point, one must ask: which al Qaeda? Are we talking about the al Qaeda as envisioned by Colin Powell, George Bush, and Dick Cheney? That al Qaeda is a rag tag mob of Islamic extremists trained in the mountains by Osama bin Laden. But there is another, a real al Qaeda, a "base", specifically a CIA database.
The intelligence service of Pakistan, a crucial American ally in the war on terrorism, has had an indirect but longstanding relationship with Al Qaeda, turning a blind eye for years to the growing ties between Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, according to American officials.

The intelligence service even used Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan to train covert operatives for use in a war of terror against India, the Americans say.

The intelligence service, known as Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI , also maintained direct links to guerrillas fighting in the disputed territory of Kashmir on Pakistan's border with India, the officials said.Pakistani Intelligence Had Ties To al Qaeda, US Officials Say

James Risen and Judith Miller, New York Times, Published: October 29, 2001
Clearly, Bhutto posed a threat not only to Musharraf but to western imperial powers to whom he is dependent and indebted. The Bush administration!

Bhutto's edited remarks have caused a bit of a stir of late. In a BBC interview --edited by the BBC --Bhutto stated that Osama bin Laden was dead, a statement that strikes at the very heart of George W. Bush's "war on terrorism". Recently, however, some have said that it no longer matters whether bin Laden is alive or dead.

But --it does matter. Truth always matters especially when it strikes at the very heart of "officialdom" propped up by lies and propaganda. Osama was, after all, the Bush administration's poster boy for world wide terrorism.

Bhutto’s claim that Bin Laden is dead may very well be true. Several MSM outlets have reported precisely that, and, inexplicably they have been ignored. The best example is the FOX report of Dec 2001, for example. All but ignored until recently —-even by Fox. The New York Times reported in 2002 that Bin Laden was dead and has apparently re-discovered their story. As of yesterday, it had been republished on the NYT web site.

My own opinion is that Bin Laden had been long dead by the time a "tape" surfaced just prior to the 2004 elections. Many believe the tape was faked. Whoever faked that tape had a dog in the race --George W. Bush! Qui Bono? George W. Bush? Who had lied most loudly, most vehemently and most often about "terrorism". George W. Bush! Again --if you want to find a culprit, look first at those who lie about the crime. Who lies? Bush. Qui Bono? Bush. Who is compromised? Certainly, the release of what is most certainly a "fake Osama" benefited one who presumes to rule by decree. George W. Bush.

Conspiracy theories, moreover, are most vociferously denounced by conspirators. The only world wide conspiracy that we are supposed to believe in is the one that has been promoted most vociferously by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney et al. What is al Qaeda, if not a conspiracy?

In the meantime, check Findlaw or the Cornell Law School library. Search for SCOTUS or Federal Court decisions having to do with ’conspiracies’. That’s a helluva lot of ink, time, and labor about something that does not exist. What is al Qaeda if not a conspiracy? What is an Islamcist radicalism, if not a conspiracy? Certainly --the GOP does believe in conspiracy theories. They believe and have a religious-like faith in many worldwide conspiracies of anti-war hippies, secular humanists, pornographers, liberals, feminists, academics, environmentalists, baby killers, and --during the Nixon years --nattering nabobs of negativism. The GOP leadership is a conspiracy of liars, graft-takers, and co-conspirators in the Military/Industrial complex, itself a conspiracy best described by St. Thomas More:
So God help me, I can perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men procuring their own commodities under the name and title of the commonwealth.

They invent and devise all means and crafts, first how to keep safely, without fear of losing, that they have unjustly gathered together, and next how to hire and abuse the work and labour of the poor for as little money as may be.

-Of the Religions in Utopia, St. Thomas More

The conspiracy described by More is as accurate today as a description of the Military/Industrial complex and the web of robber barons that comprised the GOP base. Of course, the GOP has a stake in making sure you don't believe the truth about them. If they truth were know about their party, a Republican candidate might never, ever get elected.










Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

16 comments:

Life As I Know It Now said...

excellent post sir. I always enjoy reading your blog and I admire your willingness to speak truth to power.

Unknown said...

Thanks liberality. I must have PO'd someone. I have been called a "spam" blog. But I've read the TOS. It doesn't apply to me since I am a real person --not a robot.

Still --I am an "offline cowboy", limited to the comments section, for about four days.

Your support is appreciated. I will soon be back in the saddle.

Unknown said...

Clinton's Embarrassing Iowa Flop Exposes Key Democratic Leadership Myth

In Iowa --where unaffiliated voters are free to participate in either a Democratic or Republican caucus --41 percent voted not for the conservative, tough-talking "centrist" Hillary Clinton. They voted instead for the black, nominally anti-war candidate, Barack Obama. The implications both bot parties will be enormous in the general election. --Buzzflash


Barack Obama's Vote Total Nearly Beats All the GOP Candidates Combined

... is that the number of votes Obama won there is equal to 84% of the votes won by all of the Republican candidates combined. This being accomplished at all (let alone in a state which is 98% white) suggests that GOP complicity in the Bush assault on basic human values and decency over the past 8 years has virtually undone his party's huge gains since the Reagan Administration.

Furthermore, if one factors in Edwards' 29.8% of the 239,000 Democratic turnout (71,222), between Obama and Edwards alone, two of the most progressive candidates in this race, the number of their combined votes (161,803) is 150% that of the entire turnout for the Republicans (112,000).

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Mrs Buttho would still be alive if she did not muttered on camera - and to the world - than Bin Laden was killed...

Because, saying those words only one time gets everyone puzzled. Saying it more than once, and you would a whole world and their respective press wanting to inquire...

Anonymous said...

... plus, By Buttho telling the world that Osama is dead, you have not only a motive for the US secret services in Pakistan to shut her down, but Musharraf also has a strong motive to stick some eternal duct tape on Mrs Buttho as well:

No Bin Laden, no need for the US to keep funding Musharraf with billions in order to chase a dead man. No billions from the US, no gift to the Pakistani army. No gift to the Pakistani military, you can bet the men in uniform will fire the tar pit, gather the feathers, and dusting the rail...

Unknown said...

Well, folk! I am back in the saddle again. Blogspot has obviously determined that I am not an "evil spammer" despite what the GOP might have said about me.

Now --I am REALLY gonna give the bastards hell!

Thanks for the great comments.

Dante, I have wondered about that as well. I think there were numerous reasons that "they" felt Bhutto had to go. 1) Bin Laden was just one important piece of evidence proving the utterly fraudulent nature of the war on terrorism. 2) Relatedly, Bhutto was in a position to reveal the criminal complicity of Musharraf with Bush --a known liar and war criminal. 3) When she said that US policy CAUSES terrorism, she plunged a dagger into the heart of the fraud.

Bhutto was a dangerous woman. She told the truth.

Christopher said...

I may comment on your latest piece later on.

But for now, I simply want to say how much better your blog now looks with your template-change, since it goes much better with longer pieces, being so much easier on the eye.

Anonymous said...

I find the older format much easier to read, Christopher. But whatever people want...

Anonymous said...

Bhutto's fate was probably sealed when she said that if elected she would allow the IAEA to interrogate AQ Khan about his nuclear weapons program. Apparently, the CIA, the FBI, and Britain's MI6 knew more about the AQ Khan network than AQ himself. When AQ first acquired the centrifuge blueprints in Holland in 1976 the CIA asked the Dutch government not to arrest him so they could "watch over him". They've been watching him ever since. They watched him build nuclear weapons technology in Pakistan, and distribute it to Iran, North Korea, Libya and to other countries (Malaysia) and terrorist groups, possibly even al Qaida.

According to Lukery (who covers all of this in detail ) -- "at various times in the last 30 years elements of the US and British governments: actively assisted in the AQ nuclear proliferation; tipped off the perpetrators to various stings; stopped investigations into the network; destroyed people who threatened the network: Richard Barlow, Sibel Edmonds, Valerie Plame, and the latest addition, Atif Amin." Nuclear weapons technology has been stolen and traded from the US and US officials have been complicit.

( see also 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 )

American companies helped build the AQ Khan network with the full knowledge of Western Intelligence. I can think that might be as good a reason as any to bump off Benazir Bhutto.

Anonymous said...

It's possible that Musharraf doesn't know who murdered Bhutto -- it may be that ISI elements with orders from rogue elements in the CIA or Cheney etc to carry out the murder. Still, Musharraf is not entirely in the clear. The murder gun has been found and it's a Steyr M 9X19mm handgun -- used exclusively by Pakistani army special forces. Scotland Yard will have some fun there!

Anonymous said...

Fuzz enthuses...

Wow Cowboy! You sure done a swell job of frehenin' up the front porch real purty 'n' all. Don't worry about that Damien fellah. He's a speed reader. Straight down the middle line. The new template
extends his scanning parameters somewhat. I'm sure he'll adapt:)

Btw, guys and gals, this link to Danny "The Big F" Froomkin's WaPo piece on Cheney's impeachment is for filing. Brilliant journalism.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/01/03/BL2008010302043_pf.html

"it may be that ISI elements with orders from rogue elements in the CIA or Cheney etc to carry out the murder."
This one flies best with me too, Damien. It's absolutely "true to character" with death merchants of this ilk.

Unknown said...

Welcome back, Christoper. And on the subject format change ---

Damien, I had reservations as well. Fuzz claims you are a speed reader. Likewise, I read right down the middle. But, I opted for this fresher, less cluttered "magazine look".

Everything you say about Bhutto is probably correct. There were many motives to murder Bhutto. What a waste! Thank for the murder gun update.

Anonymous said...

The new format is fine, Len (although I'd replace the long archive list with a drop down menu box). Hi, Fuzz.

Anonymous said...

Why have you used an image of Osama bin Laden superimposed on, or rather replacing Paul McCartney in the picture of the Beatles in your report on Bin Laden's death? "Some people say" (Fox memo talk) that Paul McCartney, like Osama bin Laden, apparently, also died a long time ago and was replaced so that the Beatles as a band could go on.Am I on the right track?
Sincerely and all the best,
C.M.

Unknown said...

Indeed, the pic is a visual "inside joke", meaningless to anyone unfamiliar with the "Paul is dead" rumor that surfaced in the early seventies. I had feared that some may think that it was a crafty signal that Bin Laden is not really dead. But, in this case, that's not the case. My opinion is that Bin Laden, like the wicked witch of the west, is really most sincerely dead!

Anonymous said...

Very good article.

Who is buying Mainstream Media BS nowadays? All Corporate controlled.

Down with the NWO/Bilderberg/MIC!