Did Bush send Bhutto to her death?

The Bush Administration “condemned former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto to death” by ignoring warnings from that she would “almost certainly be assassinated” if she returned to her native country, intelligence sources tell Capitol Hill Blue.

An assessment prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency said Bhutto would not be safe if she returned to Pakistan but the Bush White House ignored the warning and dispatched Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to London to persuade Bhutto to go home and seek political office.

“If the former Prime Minister were to return to Pakistan, she would almost certainly be assassinated,” said the CIA assessment, prepared by agency operatives on the ground in that country.

“The Bush Administration murdered Benazir Bhutto by convincing her to return to Pakistan,” a former CIA operative said this week. “She was doomed the second the set foot on Pakastani soil. The White House condemned her to death by talking her into returning.”

Capitol Hill Blue has learned that the Rice promised Bhutto that CIA assets would be dispatched to Pakistan to provide protection to the former Prime Minister but the assets were never sent and were not present when suicide attackers carried out the assassination last week.

“They took a chance with the life of a foreign national,” the CIA operative said. “They gambled and they lost. She never stood a chance of surviving.”

Some in the intelligence community believe the Bush Administration welcomed the assassination because it give the U.S. a chance to point another finger of blame at al-Qaeda at a time when interest in Bush’s “war on terrorism” is fading.

“Bush needs a new face of evil,” says a current CIA operative. “Now he has one.”

Maybe not.

Reports AFP:

As with other assassinations in Pakistan’s bloody political history, the world may never know who killed Benazir Bhutto — but there is no shortage of potential culprits to choose from, analysts say.

There could be almost as many motives as well, in a country with a murky nexus of intelligence agencies, dozens of Islamic militant outfits, hundreds of tribal clans and an army whose reach extends to every corner of Pakistani life.

While the government was quick to point a finger at Al-Qaeda, that name is little more than a convenient catch-all for a staggering array of militant groups, and the reality is vastly more complex, analysts say.

The government’s ties with Islamic militants, whether training them to fight in Kashmir or jockey for power in Afghanistan, leave the state apparatus itself with questions to answer, they say.

“It is common knowledge that some of the intelligence agencies have maintained links with militant and sectarian groups, dating back to the Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan,” said political analyst Hasan Askari.

“Even after Pakistan joined the global war on terrorism, there was always doubt whether these agencies fully severed their connections to militant elements,” said Askari, former head of political science at Punjab University.

The leaders of Pakistan’s three intelligence agencies are all current or retired members of the military, which has run the country for more than half its existence — and has its own chequered history with the Bhutto family.

22 Responses to "Did Bush send Bhutto to her death?"

  1. mary cali  January 2, 2008 at 9:02 am

    This is just another example (as if we need more) of clueless, faith based, incompetence by Bush and his sidekick Ms. Rice that has gotten thousands killed and inflammed the Mideast. What does it take for their incompetence to be declared criminal??
    What benefit was it for Mrs. Bhutto to return to Pakistan?? Did the benefits outweigh the very obvious risks?? What were they thinking (an oxymoron) in the WH and at State??

    Your informants refelect dissonance in the intelligence arena with Bush policies that does not get told in the MSM. Many analysts disagreed with the Bush/Cheney WMD hype leading up to the war. We have not had the Congressional investigations as to how the intelligence was misused. Of interest should be the Nigerian fake dossier about Saddam’s seeking yellowcake from Niger. Where did that very obvious fake document come from?? Some have suggested it was a black bag job from Cheney’s office. I wouldn’t be shocked by more bungling, deceit from the neocons.

    As suspicious as I am of this administration, I do think it is ridiculous even to suggest that they had anything to do with 9/11, other than more incompetence. Ms. Rice was totally unqualified to be the National Security Adviser.

  2. mary cali  January 2, 2008 at 9:17 am

    Mary

    To Seal, Ms. Rice could have been persuasive in keeping Bhutto from going to Pakistan. Why all of a sudden did Bhutto and the other party leader suddenly decide to return to volatile Pakistan???It didn’t take a genuis to know that Bhutto’s presence was going to be further destabalizing. Many members of her family had already been assassianted for political reasons. Assassinations seem to be the way they change governments there. If they encouraged her to return to Pakistan the Bush administration is certainly complicit in her death. I am still saying if, because I have a hard time believing that even they were that stupid.

  3. adamrussell  January 2, 2008 at 11:44 am

    1. What do you think Bush had to gain by Bhutto’s return to Pakistan?
    2. Do you seriously think Bhutto herself did not know the magnitude of risk?

    They both percieved that the gain was worth the risk. She gave her life for freedom for her people. A more noble accounting there cannot be.

  4. mary cali  January 2, 2008 at 3:49 pm

    Oh, I see Adam, she was a sacrificial goat, like all the US servicemen and Iraqis who are dead or dismembered because of this administration’s stupidity. Bush and Condi still have this dream of Mideast “democracy” and they are careless as to who has to be sacrificed to fulfill their wishful thinking. Apparently, Adam is of the same opinion. I think Bhutto could have been of more help to her people alive as could the dead US servicemen and dead Iraqis.

    What irony, promoting democracy abroad, while diminishing it at home.

  5. SEAL  January 2, 2008 at 6:32 pm

    Submitted by Doug Thompson on January 2, 2008 – 3:49am.

    I wrote the headline and I stand by it.

    That’s one of the reasons I like and respect you so damn much. However, I stand by my opinion of it, also, and appreciate being allowed to express it.

  6. adamrussell  January 2, 2008 at 9:55 pm

    No Mary, a sacrificial goat has no choice in the matter. She went back there under her own will and was martyred. She apparently thought it was worth the risk, and that is and was her choice.

  7. Pablo  January 2, 2008 at 10:12 pm

    If bush/cheney would lie to us to lead us into an imperialistic oil war , killing nearly 4,000 U.S. soldiers (and at least tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens), why wouldn’t they look the other way while “terrorists” bomb our buildings and kill a few thousand U.S. citizens?!? It’s the same thing!

    History is full of greedy, treasonous people willing to murder their own populace to meet their own ends…Why not here and now? Or is that just too much to accept as a possibility? As the old saying goes, “Tell the people a small lie and they get suspicious, but tell them a big lie and they fall at your feet.” Well folks, I believe 911 is the latter; there’s a reason there is so many holes in the official story. I have absolutely no doubt that, minimally, they just looked the other way; 911 was EXACTLY what they needed and prayed for. Look how they immediately used the fear of the citizenry to do what they damned well wanted all along. I suggest reading about the 1997 “Project for a New American Century” think tank (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm), founded by upstanding, moral individuals such as dick cheney, richard perle and donald rumsfeld…Their original desires were for world control, basically achieved by eternal war and strife, but they just needed something like Pearl Harbor to get the ball rolling. And what did they get shortly after they drew up their plans? I also suggest googling “Able Danger”, which was a secret CIA operation, which informed bush and co. about secret plans of terrorists to hijack airliners and do something very similar to what happened on 911, the bush administration totally ignored their dire warnings, and later the 911 commission as well. It is all extremely fishy. These people are much more sinister than most can even imagine.

    But all this should come as no surprise…history has been repeating itself for all of history!

  8. mary cali  January 2, 2008 at 10:59 pm

    Pablo, I will grant that their stupidity and delusional thinking have gotten alot of people killed, but I do not believe they are so malicious as to intentionally kill thousands of Americans. There is no substantial evidence that indicates otherwise. I do think they should be held accountable for lying us into this unnecessary war, but making accusations about their involvement in 9/11 only undermines that.

  9. SEAL  January 2, 2008 at 11:40 pm

    Ther is one indisputable fact that cannot be ignored about 9/11. Those three buildings came down under controlled demolition. One of them wasn’t even struck by an airplane. I won’t even comment on the little bitty hole a great big comercial airliner made in the Pentegon and then disappeared.

  10. SEAL  January 3, 2008 at 1:25 am

    Mary: there were numerous articles wherein the interviewers pointed out to Bhutto there would certainly be attempts on her life if she returned. In every case she responded there was no waY in hell she would not go home.

    It was obvious that anything Rice said to her would have no effect on her decision.

  11. hank-the-nite-watchman  January 3, 2008 at 3:43 am

    Thank you, Pablo and Seal, for lending a little more tug on the string with regard to 9/11. There is a mountain of suspicion that points in the direction of Bush/Cheney and their pals. Do we just pick ourselves up, shake off the pulverized cement, and move on like good Christian sheeple? Is that not our lot? If Operation North Woods (Google it) could get a green light from the Joint Chiefs of Staff prior to JFK’s murder, why doesn’t it seem plausible the neocons of our day could be even more malicious and nefarious? The subject of Building No. 7’s collapse, which you mention, Seal, wasn’t even listed in the whitewash of the Commission’s volumeness tome. It’s as if that building did not exist. Yes, Pablo, the “big lie” has swept us off our feet and we are prone before the powers that told it. And their boundless power may be measured by the immensity of the silence it has energized.

  12. mary cali  January 3, 2008 at 7:54 am

    I repeat, there is no credible evidence that the administration brought down the WTC. Anyone who clings to that conspiracy theory loses their credibility. There are enough high crimes and misdeamenors to impeach Bush/Cheney without advocating that far out conspiracy. Doing so only makes the proponent look silly and not to be taken seriously. Noone in Congress would introduce articles of impeachment based on the WTC conspiracy, nor should they.

  13. bryan mcclellan  January 1, 2008 at 9:30 am

    As our little cowboy merrily rides his rusty squeaking tricycle of state with all three wheels wobbling off into the sunset, we are left with the reality that there is no safety in numbers and our government has truly become the merchant of death.

  14. Sandra Price  January 1, 2008 at 11:43 am

    This would (should) be added to the Bush legacy. Is there any chance that these warnings could still be in existence or had the great “W” had them all destroyed?

    Was there nobody in our Intelligence Department or in the White House that could have sent the warnings? How many more deaths will be reported before the current administration is thrown out?

    This report is an open invitation for Islam to send the big bomb here. What can we do to stop what we all know is coming? This is so awful, that there must be some proof somewhere.

    Tell me you all don’t believe that 43 didn’t know about 9/11.

  15. WWWexler  January 1, 2008 at 12:34 pm

    It’s hard for me to fathom how the assassination of Bhutto could possibly be good for the Bush administration. Pakistan is in chaos, Musharraf is in the spotlight as a suspect while he cracks down on dissent and keeps coming up with a new daily account of the assassination. Bush is exposed as supporting another murdering dictator in the name of “spreading democracy”. Bush even calls the murderous bastard his “strong ally in the War On Terror”. Whoever was paying attention knows that it has been public information for YEARS that Musharraf seized political and military power in a coup in 1999 by overthrowing a democratically elected government. How can anyone take Bush’s “spreading democracy” schtick seriously when he does “bidness” with Musharraf, ignores elections in Palestine and Lebanon, continues to play footsie with Saudi Arabia, a major source of terrorist volunteers, and trashes the US Constitution?

    No, I don’t think anybody sent Bhutto back to Pakistan to die. I think Rice, Bush, and the rest are so frikkin’ clueless that they really just didn’t understand what might happen to her.

    We need to get these people out of the Executive Branch before they get even MORE people killed. Please support Rep. Wexler’s (no relation) push for impeachment and make time for an email or phone call to Pelosi and Conyers. Tell them to read the Constitution and then just do their job.

    -Wexler

  16. hank-the-nite-watchman  January 1, 2008 at 12:44 pm

    Thank you, Sandy, for acknowledging the sweating, stinking elephant that has been crowding the parlor for oh so long. It seems sadly obvious, this creature has been off-limits for too long on CHB.

    “Tell me you all don’t believe that 43 didn’t know about 9/11.”

    I, for one, find it inconceivable that 43 didn’t have something going re 9/11.

    Hank the nite-watchman

  17. Sandra Price  January 1, 2008 at 12:54 pm

    I’m thinking that Bush felt that Bhutto was a threat to his pal Musharraf. I doubt that Bush could work with any decent leader in any country. The one thing I’m learning about Christians is that they judge others by their own character weaknesses. Bush has cut deals with many disreputable leaders (like Putin) because he understands how they work. A truly honest man/woman would never be hired in the White House and we have seen the characters that Bush is surrounded by.

    I don’t know about you, Mr. Wexler, but I’ve never seen so many corrupt people in the White in my long life. I fear that the GOP will follow Bush with another born-again Christian and Huckabee might be the one who follows him.

  18. CheckerboardStrangler  January 1, 2008 at 3:11 pm

    Whether by direct action with the use of a hired assassins bullet or by the inaction of misdirecting American blood and treasure to Iraq while allowing Pakistan’s cancerous tribal areas to continue festering, the result is the same. Bush is a key figure in the death of Benazir Bhutto.

    If a mother leaves a child in a garage with the car running, she is responsible for the death of that child.
    If she simply fails to fix the leaky exhaust system, she’s still responsible.

    A retard could have figured out that Bhutto faced risk of certain death.

    It doesn’t matter if Bhutto’s death by lead poisoning was the result of a direct set of actions or by the cumulative effect of inaction, when action was desperately needed.

    JeffH in Occupied TX

  19. Bill Jonke  January 1, 2008 at 4:41 pm

    Chalk up yet another notch in Bush’s sad legacy. He always knows how to screw things up, and he seems bound and determined to concentrate his efforts on the latter in the remaining months of his term.

    Rice is merely a partner in crime, aiding and abetting the idiot in endangering other people’s lives, especially if there’s a threat to their own.

  20. DejaVuAllOver  January 1, 2008 at 11:35 pm

    Evil knows no bounds when the Bush Reich is involved. And yes, I agree with you: 9/11 was just the beginning of the Final Ascent of Greater Israel, with GWB and the neocons in the cockpit.

  21. SEAL  January 2, 2008 at 2:00 am

    I think the headline is ridiculous. The lady was going to go regardless of anything Rice said to her. However, I don’t doubt that Rice encouraged her and made promises she had no intention of keeping.

    To send our people to provide protection for Bhutto would be a futile geture anyway. Our people don’t have a clue who is who over there. Their security people would be much better suited for the job.

    But to consider that Bush “sent her to her death” Is just silly. He may be happy the way things turned out but he isn’t responsible for it. Headlines like this are irresponsible.

  22. Doug Thompson  January 2, 2008 at 3:49 am

    I wrote the headline and I stand by it.

Comments are closed.