Profile In Courage - Benazir Bhutto
Posted December 28th, 2007 by Da King
Benazir Bhutto knew she was risking her life by returning to Pakistan. By directly confronting the extremist Islamic elements there, such as Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the madrassas, the radical imams, and radical elements within the Pakistani government, Bhutto knew she was venturing into the very heart of darkness of Islamic terrorism. She made no secret that it was the tyrranical terrorist element she was coming to fight against, by instituting democratic reforms, by removing military rule, by appealing to the vast majority of moderate Pakistanis. Bhutto had even condoned the use of NATO forces to eradicate Al Qaeda and other terrorist factions from the tribal regions in Waziristan, a move the Musharraf government had rejected. The Musharraf government turned against the terrorist element mainly because it's other option was to incur the post 9/11 wrath of the United States, most indelicately stated as being 'bombed back to the stone age'. Yet, even in turning against the radical Islamists, even though Musharraf did apprehend more terrorists than any country other than the USA, he seemed to be playing both sides of the fence, as he tried to juggle the opposing interests of the jihadists and the free world. Democratic reform was not coming under Musharraf, and the Pakistani people increasingly lost confidence in his government. The january elections in Pakistan, if fairly held, would have seen Benazir Bhutto return as prime minister, and led to a probable sharing of power between herself and Musharraf.
The biggest losers in a Bhutto return to power would have been the Islamofascists, no question about that. They knew it. They tried to kill Bhutto last october, and they have wanted to kill her since the 90's. I'm sure there was joy among Al Qaeda and the other like-minded subhuman scum when Benazir Bhutto was assassinated yesterday. In typical fashion, after the assassin shot Bhutto, he detonated a bomb, killing himself and a number of other innocent people. We've seen this scene play out way too many times. When will the world stop tolerating this ?
Now, we must endure our own media and the partisans, with their typical 'who do we blame ?' attitude. Blaming the actual killers evidently never occurs to them. Last night, I already heard elements blaming Bush for pushing democracy in Pakistan (as if he's supposed to push for something else ?). I heard elements blaming Condoleeza Rice for encouraging Benazir Bhutto (as if the decision to return to Pakistan was made by anyone other than Bhutto herself). I heard elements playing that old tune that Pakistan isn't ready for democracy (bs, and racist bs as well. 99% of Pakistan IS ready for and desires democratic reforms). I even heard some american presidential candidates say that Bhutto's death proves that we should vote for them, because they have foreign policy experience (one more great argument for limited government).
Benazir Bhutto's death is a tragedy. She died for her country, and if anything positive is to come from it, it will be when her reforms are CARRIED OUT. It will be because the Pakistani people realize what Bhutto represented was the correct path, which is the path against tyrrany. You don't abandon that path because it is difficult. The path of least resistance isn't usually the correct one, and it certainly isn't in Pakistan. My hope is that after the initial shock of this crime is absorbed, the good people in Pakistan and the rest of the world realize that, and act accordingly. When heinous acts like this are carried out, it is the terrorists who should end up paying a hundredfold, not the innocent. It's my hope that's what happens here.
For Bhutto's speech following the october 2007 attempt on her life, click here.
"The only people who are safe are militants because they will not be attacked by the peaceful people. And we will not be intimidated by this minority. This is a battle for democracy. We want to avoid bloodshed. We want to avoid loss of life. But, if it means sacrificing our lives to save Pakistan and to save democracy because we believe democracy alone can save Pakistan from disintegration and a militant takeover then we are prepared to risk our lives and we are prepared to risk our liberty."
Benazir Bhutto
Former Pakistani Prime Minister & PPP chairperson
October 20, 2007
Amen, and rest in peace, Benazir Bhutto. The tyrants can silence one voice, but they can't silence them all, unless we allow it.
December 28th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Call me insensitive for saying so, but the Islamic world is not up to democracy. (And the way things are going, don't be surprised if Turkey loses its democracy to Islamofascists within, say, ten years.)
Being born and growing up in this God-blessed country, Americans don't quite realize how difficult it is to create a liberal democracy (I'm using "liberal" in the traditional sense.) We take too much for granted.
Not to discount what the King has written, but if you want an alternative and more realistic take on Benazir Bhutto, see Ralph Peters at:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12282007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_bhutto_assassination__not_what_she_s_912265.htm
December 28th, 2007 at 9:56 am
I admired Bhutto for standing up to the Islamist radicals, which is exactly what needs to happen in the Middle East for the terrorism problem to truly be dealt with. She was a Muslim fighting for the future of moderate Muslims, who are the majority. The radicals are the minority, the ones who won't tolerate democracy. Ralph Peters has a point about some of Bhutto's corruption in the 90's, but I am not nearly as harsh in my criticism as he is. I also find it disingenuous for him to say Bhutto's recent actions were all about power. That looks pretty silly now, in light of what happened.
December 28th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
I don't like to accept Peters' attempt to make it look like Bhutto returned to Pakistan for power only. She had two real choices, to remain alive outside Pakistan or to certainly be killed by returning. The fact that she survived the first attempt on her life in October convinced me that she would never survive any period of time. I believe that she knew it would happen sooner or later and yet she stayed.
I am saying that the lady must have had some little bit of caring feelings for the Pakistani people. If this is not true then she must have been less intelligent than it appears she was. I still think that she wanted what was best for the people and was willing to give her own life for their best interests. I agree with KIng that she has possibly done more for them by being assassinated than she could have by regaining power. It appears very likely that the common people of Pakistan may well rise up and demand that militant terrorists be dealt with in a very harsh manner which could start a ground swell in other Middle Eastern nations. This assassination may well be a very important happening in the freeing of the region from the threat of terrorism.
December 28th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
King, you're exactly right when you say, "The radicals are the minority, the ones who won't tolerate democracy."
But the problem is that, as you know, it only takes a committed minority of these loons to make democracy all but impossible for everyone else. This is why:
If you attempt a liberal democracy or free society — rule of law and all that — the crazies walk all over the system and take the country over, not by elections, but by force & cohersion.
But on the other hand, if the people want to have safety and to defend their society against naked political violence, you more often than not need a military dictatorship.
Either way, democracy can't get established.
This is why the Middle East looks the way it does. One can argue if they wish that most Arabs and Muslims are decent people. But so what? That doesn't matter. There is a cancer within their societies of sufficient size that it poisons the whole and makes building a free society impossible.
December 28th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Condi did encourage Bhutto to go back to Pakistan.
The important part of this story…..the part absent from King's post…..is the part where the president of the U.S., lacking knowledge or interest in that region of the world, had no clue what to do in the al-Qaeda infested nation of Pakistan. And so he did nothing.
Despite the fact that ISI people funded the 9-11 hijackers and Kalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramsi Yousef spent a great deal of time inside Pakistan as they planned their capers…..Pakistan, a sovereign nation to be sure, was basically untouchable to the neo-conservatives….it still is.
Instead, our military resources were sent to another sovereign country. A sovereign country that set atop an ocean of oil.
The time frame from September 2001 until the end of the criminal Bush/Cheney regime in 2009 will be regarded as the most monumental lost opportunity in the history of the world.
The Pakistani problems today would not have been as severe had we had the benefit in the U.S. of leaders who actually gave a damn.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Let's see now, Red. If Rice did try so hard to get Bhutto back in Pakistan and Bush did nothing about the conditions there then it would appear that you are getting ready to scream conspiracy and insert Bush at the bottom of your conspiracy. Am I really very far from the truth with this statement? I really don't think you will come back with any kind of reason I am wrong. Of course, the days of the ABB aren't over with, with another year to go.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Roy: I don't have to be a conspiracy theorist or believe in any way that Junior's bunch had anything to do with anything inside Pakistan….to know that these people in our executive branch couldn't find their asses with both hands….and what's worse….they really don't care. They just want their own term of service to be over.
Roy, I realize you love your country. But you defend quite a bit of what the neo-cons are doing even though you say you didn't agree with the Iraq invasion.
It's the larger picture…..it's always the bigger picture. These neo-cons have destroyed so much in and out of America…..stuff you either choose to misunderstand or simply won't accept.
And mistaken you are about the ABB nonsense. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney are attempting to out neo-conservative the neo-conservatives.
The matter is simple and uncomplicated. To save America we MUST elect a Democrat to the presidency. If for some reason a GOP'er wins the 2008 election….the country you say you love……will never regain it's footing and will fall…eventually.
December 29th, 2007 at 3:13 am
Red, it seems that you haven't seen the latest ratings concerning illegal aliens. Not one Democrat managed to get past poor for the way he looks at illegal immigration and only 3 Republicans managed to get good or better. At least those three aren't as liable to invite the rest of Mexico in as any of the Dems are. Sometimes we have to look at some things like that that I do disagree with Bush totally about.
So many of your anti-Bush items are nothing but ABB type get him any way we can and I don't understand how you can think like that.
Back to Bhutto, I guess we will never know how or why she died. I am sure you will accept anything Hillary says about this subject but you will then be just as dead wrong as she is. So many things that they are pandering over aren't too intelligent but then she has been proven the only person who can handle foreign affairs by her husband, Bubba. Whoopee.
December 29th, 2007 at 10:12 am
With all due respect to everyone's points, and in this case I feel there are valid points on both sides, but da king's original post was eloquent and honest. Can we not show the lady a moment of respect and leave the neocon v. dims argument out of it for a minute?
Regardless of her past, she knew her life was in danger and she fought for democracy anyway. The fact that any presidential candidate on either side would use her death to say VOTE FOR ME is sickening. King, I wholeheartedly agree with you on this post. Rest in peace, Benazir Bhutto.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:49 am
da truth,
Sickening is right. Sometimes our partisanship gets the better of our senses. This tragedy isn't the fault of the Democrats or the Republicans. It's the fault of the terrorist elements that try to take away people's human rights.
Hey, wait a minute. Are you allowed to agree with me ? lol.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:54 am
Vince,
I have to agree with what you said about the minority terrorists being able to disrupt things for the majority. That describes exactly what is going on in Pakistan right now.
But that's also why the majority has to continue to take the fight to the terrorists. If they don't, then all is lost. The only choices are to either fight or submit. A lot of people in our own country don't even want to face up to that.
December 31st, 2007 at 11:00 am
Reverend,
Once again I hear you saying in so many words that the USA should attack Pakistan. I've heard this frequently from the left since 9/11, but I've never believed a single word of it. If Bush attacked Pakistan, the left would be calling for his head on a stick. Congress would never approve it, and if Bush acted without their approval, they'd move to impeach him in about two seconds. I agree with Roy that you are just exhibiting the classic ABB mentality, and that there's no more to it than that.
December 31st, 2007 at 11:42 am
What options do the Pakistanis have? I was very saddened by Bhutto's assasination, but the installation of her teenage child as a co-leader of the opposition party seems telling.
Military strongmen, Islamic nuts or ruling families. Their choices are almost as bad as ours.
December 31st, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Well, yeah Larry, but they have appointed the kid's father to run things until he is politically ready to do so. I don't know how long that will be but he better not stop looking over his shoulder at any time because he may be next. Without the son the father would inherit the whole thing and those Muslims don't do things according to the same rule book we use.
January 1st, 2008 at 6:20 pm
I understand he's in training and that the culture is different, but it all seems a little King Tut-ish to me.
One could argue that the biggest problem in these countries isn't American intervention or religious fanatics, it's that they've got governments straight from the middle ages–royal families, military tyrants and theocrats.
January 1st, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Larry, speaking of ruling families: Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton?
If Hillary served two terms, that would be 28 straight years of those two. Then Jeb could take over, until Chelsea gets old enough.
I think I'm convincing myself to vote for Ron Paul
January 1st, 2008 at 8:54 pm
King,
Excellent point (am I really saying this) on the regimes of the Bush and Clinton families. After Mrs. Clinton's two terms, I guess it will be Jeb's turn. Change comes slowly in America, even slower among the political parties.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:51 am
Change does not come slowly to America.
In fact, America is the most dynamic country on the planet which is one of the main complaints the Euro-trash have against us.