![]() |
By Len Hart (about the author) Page 2 of 2 page(s)
Bolton: US 'helped precipitate' conditions for Bhutto's assassination: John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations, said it was a mistake to collaborate with Bhutto's "desire to get back into the game in Pakistan" and view her as an alternative to the country's current leader, Pervez Musharraf.
A timely update: Anglo-American Ambitions behind the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the Destabilization of PakistanBy Larry Chin
12/29/07 "Global Research" -- -- It has been known for months that the Bush-Cheney administration and its allies have been maneuvering to strengthen their political control over Pakistan, paving the way for the expansion and deepening of the "war on terrorism" across the region. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto does not change this agenda. In fact, it simplifies Bush-Cheney's options.
Seeding chaos with a pretext
"Delivering democracy to the Muslim world" has been the Orwellian rhetoric used to mask Bush-Cheney's application of pressure and force, its dramatic attempt at reshaping of the Pakistani government (into a joint Bhutto/Sharif-Musharraf) coalition, and backdoor plans for a military intervention. Various American destabilization plans, known for months by officials and analysts, proposed the toppling of Pakistan's military.
The assassination of Bhutto appears to have been anticipated. There were even reports of "chatter" among US officials about the possible assassinations of either Pervez Musharraf or Benazir Bhutto, well before the actual attempts took place.
As succinctly summarized in Jeremy Page's article, "Who Killed Benazir Bhutto? The Main Suspects", the main suspects are
1) "Pakistani and foreign Islamist militants who saw her as a heretic and an American stooge", and
2) the Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, a virtual branch of the CIA. Bhutto's husband Asif Ali Zardari directly accused the ISI of being involved in the October attack.
The assassination of Bhutto has predictably been blamed on "Al-Qaeda", without mention of fact that Al-Qaeda itself is an Anglo-American military-intelligence operation. ---
A related note about "conspiracy theories", specifically attempts to discredit a proposition by simply labeling it --"conspiracy theory". Such "labeling" is a crude and fallacious meat clever attempt to avoid the issue. In fact, very little of significance --legal or illegal-- is ever accomplished by one person working alone. If "what gets done" is legal, it's usually called "free enterprise" or some such. If whatever "gets done" is not legal it's called a "criminal conspiracy".
Anyone who thinks that conspiracies do not exist has never bothered to read law of any type. If as few as two people agree to commit a crime, you've got a conspiracy. Conspiracies are not rare. They are, in fact, the general rule. Check the Cornell Law Library, Findlaw, or any other reputable source for law, Supreme Court decisions, et al. Do a quick search of Findlaw for SCOTUS decisions having to do with "conspiracies". You will get hundreds if not thousands of returns, thousands of SCOTUS decisions having to do with conspiracies of one sort or another. There are certainly more SCOTUS decisions having to do with "conspiracies" than I care to waste my time counting. Now --why would the Supreme Court waste so much time and paper deliberating something that does not exist? Why can't this stupid issue, this stupid tactic be put to rest? If conspiracies do not exist, then please tell the justices of the Supreme Court of the US to stop wasting their time and taxpayer money deciding cases about issues which do not even exist.
1 | 2
http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
View Authors' Articles |
| 10 comments |
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
|
||||
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |