UPDATE 5:35 p.m.:
At Hot Air, Bryan Preston is peeved at Ron Paul's reaction:
In a very, very narrow sense, he has a point: I argued at the time of the emergency rule that we were pushing too hard and too soon on Musharraf, a man attempting to lead a country that is about as riven with difficulty as a country can get. . . .--RSMBut in Ron Paul's world, all problems are the result of the US taking action. Any action. Anywhere. Against anyone, doing anything. In the case of Pakistan, he says we should cut off aid to our "puppet" in Pakistan and make sure not to march in there with troops.
UPDATE 4:30 p.m.:
Video footage of the last moments before the assassination:
Video courtesy of Pamela at Atlas Shrugs, who says:
This may very well be a defining historical moment much the way the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the match that set the world on fire and set off the outbreak of World War I.Let's hope not. But I just got an e-mail from a buddy who's now a senior enlisted military man, who says:
Musharraf, or the Pakistani people or who ever is still in charge, needs to open the northwest sector of their country up to us and we can hunt the [Al Qaeda terrorists] down and kill them like rabbits running out of a fire.--RSM
UPDATE 3:30 p.m.:
In a time of crisis, exactly how does this help?
Another former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, who leads the Pakistan Muslim League -- Nawaz (PML-N), said his party would boycott the Jan. 8 election.Boycotting the vote? Calling for a general strike? This doesn't sound like the kind of "solidarity" that Pakistan needs now.Just weeks earlier, Mrs. Bhutto had persuaded him to participate in the vote along with her PPP, despite fears by both that the election would be rigged.
Mr. Sharif also called for a nationwide strike tomorrow.
"Every Pakistani is shocked, even if he is a trader or a transporter or an ordinary person. Whoever joins this strike will display solidarity with the country," Mr. Sharif told reporters.
-- RSM
* * * MORE UPDATES BELOW * * *
Today's assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto generated a swift reaction from bloggers. A quick sample via Memeorandum:
- Hot Air has a series of updated reports, with Allahpundit noting a previous attack on Bhutto:
Bhutto herself blamed jihadis for that one but her husband accused the intelligence services of complicity. Given Musharraf's unpopularity and antipathy to Bhutto, a lot of fingers are going to be pointing at him. God only knows how destabilizing this will prove to be.
- Jammie Wearing Fool has another "running update" post, capturing the confusion immediately surrounding the event:
This is curious that she reportedly died from a bullet wound, likely meaning the suicide bomber may not have caused the wound and she was shot by someone else.
- The Atlantic Monthly's Megan McArdle highlights that magazine's October feature on "After Musharraf," by Joshua Hammer.
- Michelle Malkin captures the sheer relentlessness of those who hated Bhutto:
They tried and failed when she returned to Pakistan in October. They tried and failed with a baby suicide bomber. Yesterday, they stopped a 15-year-old with a bomb packed full of nails trying to kill her. Today, they succeeded.
- Instapundit links to Jules Crittenden, who asks questions:
Jihadis, ISI, or some combination?
Does this unite them against jihadis or just further fragment Pakistan to the jihadis benefit?Does the election even go ahead, or is it straight to martial law? Short-term or long-term suspension, and in the event of an election, who rises? . . .
If there's a coup, who and what ends up on top?
-- Robert Stacy McCain, assistant national editor, The Washington Times
UPDATE 3:10 p.m.:
The Jawa Report links Betsy Pisik's exclusive report from Islamabad:
At least 22 supporters were killed in the attack, the Interior Ministry said. . . .Courtesy of Hot Air, video of Fred Thompson's reaction:Doctors pronounced Mrs. Bhutto dead today shortly after 6 p.m. Pakistani time.
Supporters . . . rampaged through the streets of Karachi and Lahore, setting fire to cars and shops.
Several people were reported killed in the riots.
-- RSM
UPDATE 5:35 p.m.:
Meanwhile, Ace of Spades links to Andrew McCarthy at National Review:
A recent CNN poll showed that 46 percent of Pakistanis approve of Osama bin Laden.Phyllis Chesler writes:Aspirants to the American presidency should hope to score so highly in the United States. In Pakistan, though, the al-Qaeda emir easily beat out that country's current president, Pervez Musharraf, who polled at 38 percent.
Today, Benazir Bhutto's death . . . forces me to remind us all that the world chose not to stop suicide killers when their targets were mainly Jews and Israelis. That method has proliferated globally. A suicide killer has now assassinated a westernized Muslim woman leader -- one who, wearing a headscarf, bravely returned to Pakistan with a vision of democracy.-- RSM
Comments (5)
"...the world chose not to stop suicide killers when their targets were mainly Jews and Israelis."
By "the world" I hope you do not mean anyone other than the Palestinian terrorists who invented and perfected this form of atrocity, and the western media who glamorized it. The honest citizens in the democratic countries of the world had no way to "chose" anything about it.
Had there been no sympathetic media coverage, suicide bombings would not have generated what their sponsors wanted - legitimacy for their cause. It's a shame more reporters aren't blown to smithereens, but I can assure you it is no coincidence!
Posted by sherlock | December 27, 2007 8:15 PM
Has anyone been analyzing, or does anyone seem to care, about what India's reaction to all this is? Is India concerned that there may be a civil war in neighboring Pakistan and that this may have dire consequences regarding their dispute with Pakistan over Kashmire? I have not heard any coverage of India's reaction is to all of this and what they plan to do if Pakistan is torn apart because of this event.
Posted by Libertyship46 | December 27, 2007 11:02 PM
Bryan says "But in Ron Paul's world, all problems are the result of the US taking action. Any action. Anywhere." I have never called anyone a doofus in print, and I shall relent here as well, but c'mon Bryan.
That is about as knee-jerk a misunderstanding of Ron Paul's insight into foreign policy as I've ever heard.
What's not hard to fathom is that because of meddling in the Middle East, the US has fomented an atmosphere where those kinds of things (assassinations) can happen. If we just stop trying to force everybody to do everything and rather polish off our once exemplary example of what liberty should be, the world would be better off.
So Ron Paul, once again, is correct. You should consult your history books more often.
Posted by Frank Staheli | December 29, 2007 2:29 PM
What was most shocking to me was that a Muslim WOMAN was specifically targeted. Up to this pont in time, this was a NO-NO. I believe there may be some "rule" in the Islamic religion about targetting a muslim female for asassination.
If I'm correct, this shows a new level that Al-Qaeda has taken it's ideology to, and it basically means that anyone is a target. Benazir Bhutto was an advocate of the seperation of church and state. This view is opposed by the vast majority of practioners in the Islamic movement. This freedom and seperation that Benazir Bhutto wanted to see happpen, is the very same reason we are so hated by the majority in the Islamic world. They hate the freedom's that we have, and after spending roughly 3 years in the Middle East I honestly believe we are going to see the level of terrorist violence escalate in a tremendous way. I hope I'm wrong.
Posted by steve dailey | December 30, 2007 3:29 PM
nobody cares.
Posted by chris | January 2, 2008 6:08 PM