Consider the following…
An unelected Presidential candidate (Bhutto) was a greater threat (and subsequently assasinated) and not the current dictator, who has been bankrolled by the US to the tune of $5 BILLION dollars.
Bhutto
December 28th, 2007 · 2 Comments
Tags:
Related Posts
...
2 responses so far ↓
1 albert // Dec 29, 2007 at 5:58 pm
cui bono? who benefits most from bhutto’s death besides musharraf?
2 rzklkng // Dec 30, 2007 at 1:06 pm
The benefactor, regardless as to whomever
shot herexploded the bombcaused her to hit her head on the sunroof, is clearly Musharaff. The next question is who done it.Cheney’s office ran Pakistan policy - he is a staunch advocate of Perez. Surely they had a horse in this race.
The military in Pakistan has been the recipient of all of those US funds (in cash, mainly) - the election of Bhutto, who appeared to be anti-military, would clearly change the balance of power. Military contractors would lose it as well.
As to the Taliban or Al Qaeda claims - I’m deeply suspicious of a smoking gun that is ‘discovered’ one day after the assassination. But based on the volume of money we’ve sunk into Pakistan and the failure to either root out the Taliban and Al Qaeda or deliver Bin Ladin tells me they’d prefer the status quo.
Leave a Comment