Bush Condemns Bhutto Assassination
Tags: Foreign Leaders, President Bush.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
President George W. Bush condemned the assassination of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto on Thursday, an act of violence that shredded U.S. hopes for democratic elections in the country that is a key ally in Bush’s war on terrorism.
“The United States strongly condemns this cowardly act by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan’s democracy. Those who committed this crime must be brought to justice,” Bush said in a statement to reporters at his Texas ranch.
The president praised Bhutto’s courage in returning to Pakistan in October to participate in elections aimed at restoring a democratic government after eight years of military rule of President Pervez Musharraf.
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Interesting commentary from John Podhoretz – The End of the Primary’s Holiday From History
The past three months have seen an odd turn in the presidential primary process in both parties — a turn away from the key issues confronting the United States and toward emotional and social vapor. The success of the surge in Iraq, coupled with the bizarre “we’re safe” reading of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, drained some of the passion from the anti-war fervor in the Democratic primary electorate and from the hawkish fervor of the Republican primary electorate. In their place came the Christian identity-politics rise of Mike Huckabee on the Republican side and the “we need a nice new politics” rise of Barack Obama on the Democratic side. Republicans squabbled about sanctuary cities and sanctuary mansions. Democrats squabbled about how many uninsured there would be left if their various health-care plans were imposed on the country.
The horrifying assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan this morning comes only one week before the Iowa caucuses and 12 days before New Hampshire. It is a sobering and frightening reminder of the challenges and threats and dangers posed to the United States by radical Islam, the nature of the struggle being waged against the effort to extend democratic freedoms in the Muslim world, and the awful possibility of a nuclear Pakistan overrun by Islamofascists. This is what the next president will be compelled by circumstance to spend a plurality of his or her time on. This is what really matters, not the cross Mike Huckabee lit up behind his head in his Christmas ad.
Very true words.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Matt Margolis is co-author (with Mark Noonan) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at The Buffalo Bean. Follow Matt on Twitter.
78 Responses to “Bush Condemns Bhutto Assassination”
Caucus of Corruption
AAR – I do understand that it is a lot easier to say something like “idiotic BS” then to actually say something constructive. I believe that is why you are so easily influenced by what people want you to think. Trust me, Limbaugh, Bush, and your other idols aren’t nearly as intelligent as you think they are and it would do you good to stop repeating what they say. As Mr. T would say – “I pitty the fool”.
Uncommon,
You haven’t said anything that warrants any other comment.
AAR
So what you are really saying neocon is that your lack of education gives you a greater perspective than someone who has bothered to actually learn something. That is absolutely classic. You and AAR are full of insults and knee-jerk (that term you all love to use) rebutals tonight. Other than repeating your tired talking points and cutting and pasting from undocumented sources you guys really haven’t said anything constructive tonight. But you have done well to make asses out of yourselves.
i guess i shouldn’t have expected much else from neocon and AAR. I specifically enjoyed the bit about how juvenile I am and then when I explain my position in great detail the only response is that it is “diarrhea” or “idiotic” with absolutely no counterpoints. Its good to see how mature you are.
Beyond that you only offer that:
(1) the horrible governments we support are better then the mullahs
(2) they want to convert the whole world to islam
Well – here is my response to the only two small points you bring up.
(1) it is really unclear to me that this is even true. I mean – look at Saudi Arabia. Its the least democratic government in the middle east. If not for international pressure they would have given a woman who was raped 180 lashes for being alone with a man who she was gang raped by and they have done such things many times in the past.
More importantly – it is simply not our business to install governments in other countries for them. Would you accept it if Iran installed a government in Washington because they believed they were doing the best for our people?
Finally – even if it were true – something which I am not convinced of and you could convince yourself that we should be making this decision for them – something that you will never get me to accept – what you are saying is that we should support the lesser of two evils. So you would support Stalin because he is not as bad as Hitler? Give Stalin weapons, money, etc as he continues to purge millions and starve his people? Because it could be worse?
I simply cannot comprehend how you can convince yourself that it is a moral position to take. The correct response is to reject both Stalin and Hitler. Just as we should have rejected both the mullahs and the Shaw.
(2) contrary to what Glen Beck, Ann Coulter, and Bill O tell you this is simply not true for the vast majoirty of islamisists. The majority of them want an islamic republic in Islamic countries – most of them could care less about what government Iceland has.
Secondly – and more importantly – the simple fact of the matter is that even if *some* of them want this they are in absolutely no position to establish this. I mean just think about it – do you honestly think that the 9/11 hijackers thought that after the attacks the US would have an islamic revolution? Could that possibly there motivation? That doesn’t make any sense. Have you ever seen any islamic terrorists trying to overthrow the government of iceland, swizerland, or new zeeland and establish an islamic government there? It is just coincidence that they attack the countries that have troops in their countries, support corrupt regimes, and try to control their regional resources?
In terms of what I think in terms of Israel? I believe we need to put international pressure through the UN and the world court towards Israel to accept an equitable solution for a two state solution. The solutions that have been proposed are so ridiculous that the Palestinians can’t possibly accept them. Would you accept your country to be divided into two separate non contiguous states? One in which you need an identity card and need to apply for permission to be escorted under army escort to go from one part of the country to the other? To go live in the dessert while the other half gets to live in the lush fields?
At the same time we also need to pressure both sides to end hostility. No more bombings and no more Israeli incursions and bulldozers into the Palestinian territories.
Logic only a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer could concoct: Because we are there is justification for them to kill us here, there, and anywhere else they choose.
AAR
God help the United States of America if a Democrat should gain the White House…Is all I have to say.
~ Jeremiah
…it is simply not our business to install governments in other countries for them.
But, it is their business to assassinate those who would run in a democrat election!
AAR
AAR
(Ah – back to the old standard “if you don’t agree with me you must be a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer”. Now there is the BS of the night. Accuse people of being terrorists when they don’t agree with you on how to handle them.. nice..
The same holds for your nonsense about the assassins. Obviously their actions are deplorable and unjustified. Shame on you for trying to assert that if I have the courage to stand up and disagree with you that means i support or sympathize with the terrorists. Shame on you .
Well, neocon, no. Not only did I not remotely say anything like what Pakistan was, if you paid attention to things I’ve posted before you’d know that I view the term Islamo-fascist as a completely mindless comic book-level neologism.
liberalT,
It’s apparent you believe terrorists have the “right” and are justified in their efforts to kill Americans because we support Israel, and because we are in the Mid-East.
It’s clear you are on the side of our enemy and condone and justify the actions of those who want to attack and kill Americans!
AAR
OBL and his Al Qaeda cronies have been hanging out in western Pakistan for six years. During that time Bush hasn’t done a damn thing about it and has almost never even MENTIONED Osama. Something like this was bound to happen. I’ve mentioned this to supporters of President Bush in political discussions and invariably the response is a blank stare followed by a “Libs hate America” tirade like I never said a word. It never even registered.
Now there’s rioting going on in Kharachi, Pakistan while Kurdish warplanes bomb Northern Iraq and oil heads back to a hundred bucks a barrel. Don’t tell me I don’t get it. The ones who don’t get are the yellow-sticker-on-the-SUV crowd.
AAR,
It is quite clear to someone who was reading what was written that liberalT does not “believe terrorists have the ‘right’ and are justified in their efforts to kill Americans because we support Israel, and because we are in the Mid-East.” Only a small and fearful mind would believe that. What is clear is that you are so sadly disinterested in one of the most important things that actually makes America what it is, the freedom to disagree, that you are willing to accuse people of de facto treason. Very sad. May I suggest you go read Henrik Ibsen’s play An Enemy of the People?
no AAR. I never said that and would never say that. Of course terrorism of any kind is never justified. Do I agree that we shouldn’t be in the middle east – sure – but there is a VAST difference between that and believing in terrorism. You are a shameful fool
Diana,
For someone who doesn’t believe terrorists have the right and are justified in their efforts to kill Americans, LiberalT, Uncommon, and Jonathan sure wasted a lot of space taking up for and defending them.
LiberalT rationalizes and tries to lay the blame for the terrorist’s actions and killing on Americans, because “we just don’t understand them”…
They don’t just hate indiscriminately and for no reason. …It is your inability to understand that even the terrorists are real people . …lack of empathy and understanding of others leads to never ending war. …It is not until you stop and understand why they are doing what they are doing that you can understand the root causes of the behavior and stop it from happening again.
Then there’s “Uncommon” with statements like…
The entire Middle East is falling apart and it has largely to do with our presence there … The only way that that region will ever recover is by the lack of our presence.
Then Jonathan chimes in with “bravos” for LiberalT and Uncommon, adding…
…did it ever cross your mind that the reason for the terrorist attacks that occurred on American soil or involved American citizens is because of our continuing presence in the Middle East?
As for suggesting reading material, you may suggest anything you like, but I have no desire to read your selection!
AAR
liberalT,
Try standing up for and defending America!!!
AAR
Jay,
There’s no point telling you yet again that you don’t get it. You haven’t, you won’t, and you never will! It’s just not in ya!!!
AAR
AAR – i have said repeatedly that terrorism is never justified. Our lack of understanding them doesn’t mean that they are justified. Do not get me wrong – they are horrible murders. However, to ignore what causes terrorism or to come up with laughably simplistic explanations f of their actions dooms us to continue to suffer from terrorism. If you want – continue to ignore the multiple intelligence reports which indicate that Bush’s policies are increasing the treat of terrorism. If you want – continue to ignore the fact that we create more terrorists with our actions as the NIE tells us we are doing. But that is not saving America it is dooming it. I do stand up for America – but not blindly and without thought. You are a shameful individual to try to warp my words into justifying terrorism when I could not be more clear about the matter. Shame on you.
ARR,
I’m pretty sure that looking for solutions other than using soldiers as bait for terrorists so we can kill them is standing up and defending America(ns). I’m pretty sure wanting our troops here at jome to protect us God forbid something happens is standing up and defending America. I’m pretty sure having the understanding that you do not fight idea’s with guns and bombs is defending America. You have no idea what we are dealing with over there. You will not find a country in that region with more than a 20% minority that wants us there. When you are not wanted in a sovereign country – you leave. And you keep defending Israel and don’t even realize that this administration could give a crap less about Israel. We are currently in the process of arming almost every member of the Arab Leauge in a $20 billion arms deal. In case you didn’t know the purpose of the Arab League is the REMOVAL OF ISRAEL. And yes we have created many of the problems that are currently in the region – if you can’t see how or why then you are truly blind.
And before we play grammar police – yes I know there are a dozen errors in my last post -I’m in a hurry. Get over it.
liberalT,
Perhaps you should change your words.
It’s not President Bush who is “increasing the treat of terrorism” and “increasing the number of terrorists”. It is the words, actions, and deeds of Democrats — as I have said many times before!!!
But that’s another topic; it’s late; and you wouldn’t understand it anyway!
Uncommon,
I’m “pretty sure” I don’t agree with you!!!
But, as I said, it’s gettin’ late and time to quit.
AAR
um – no AAR. The NIE was very specific on the matter – it is the Iraq war and the failure to capture Bin Laden and defocussing off AQ to focus on Iraq that has caused this. Just continue to deny, ignore points you cannot respond to, and try to accuse others of being traitors when every thing else fails. Apparently it is the best you have to offer
71. liberalT | December 28th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Well said, but the wingnuts will just tell you we had to divert our attention away from Afghanistan because all 2003 NIE reports (albeit cherry picked) indicated Iraq threatened the very existence of the United States and Bin Laden was already dead. 1/20/09
liberalT,
Believe whatever you choose.
As I said, you would not understand. It’s beyond your comprehension, and you wouldn’t admit it if you could figure it out. Subjects like that are best discussed without Liberal participation and interruption.
The three primary authors of NIE report are critics of President Bush with their own agenda, and they slanted the report accordingly, undermining our diplomatic efforts to deal with Iran and avoid military action or a nuclear exchange. They should have been fired. Time will show their analysis and conclusions in the NIE report were just as erroneous and invalid as their previous “intelligence” assessments.
It’s interesting how you Libs defend the NIE report, but conveniently forget their other failures — Iraq’s WMD for example. They can’t even keep classified information secure from the press. Our intelligence agencies are in need of a good house cleaning!
Speaking of ineffectiveness and incompetence, one would think that, after all this time, the CIA could at least find Osama bin Laden. I mean, how difficult is it to locate a six foot tall terrorist who walks with a limp, especially given the money and resources of the CIA?!!!
plainjane,
Would you like to expand and add to the list of the CIA’s failures?
As you point out, the CIA failed in the past, and they failed in the NIE report. That fact will become clear with time.
Perhaps the CIA could be a little more effective in interrogating terrorists if they weren’t so busy making videos, which they can’t keep a secret anyway!!!
AAR
AAR: The three primary authors of NIE report are critics of President Bush with their own agenda, and they slanted the report accordingly, undermining our diplomatic efforts to deal with Iran and avoid military action or a nuclear exchange. They should have been fired. Time will show their analysis and conclusions in the NIE report were just as erroneous and invalid as their previous “intelligence” assessments.
Explain to me why the “primary authors” could not be undermined by their superiors. More importantly, explain to me why both Bush and Cheney expressed satisfaction with their conclusions. Also, it is important to keep in mind that what we peons see, and what is reported about in the press, is the unclassified, summary version.
the powers of light and the powers of dark are drawing closer to an inevitable conflict
there is not enough voices of reason being sounded in pakistan to impact the populations to pursuade them to cleave to good sense instead of islam, so we will see the fall of the military regime, and the rise of chaos
we should never have allowed pakistan to be created in the end, and india would be that much stronger
As you point out, the CIA failed in the past, and they failed in the NIE report. That fact will become clear with time.AAR | December 28th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Swift-boating is a way of life for you. I never said any such thing. My point is Bush and Cheney cherry picked 2003 NIE to make the masses huddle in fear of a two bit dictator we defeated in about 2 weeks during the first gulf war. There were three primary reasons; oil was primo, war profiteering for Cheney’s Haliburton and third he did not want to suffer his father’s fate. History says we don’t throw out Presidents during war time.
Sooner or later the minutes of the meetings between the oil executives and Cheney will come out. I am almost certain Iraq will be mentioned.
interesting words from bush considering he’s one of the reasons bhutto was assassinated. he and condi put all their pakistan eggs in bhutto’s basket. al-quaeda claims they assissinated her. bush and condi have no plan b for pakistani democracy. bush hasn’t defeated al-quaeda and a real nuclear power (with real wmds) is now in chaos. how many weeks/months until another bush war that will add to his failures and leave a bigger mess for the next us president?
I guess it’s just a cliche… but “cowardly” is strictly speaking not exactly an accurate description of the acts of whoever it was who murdered Benazir Bhutto. It took a lot of courage to infiltrate a rival’s campaign rally and blow yourself up… especially in this case where you had to take advantage of a blunder by that rival. (She was traveling in a bombproof limo, but she opened up the sunroof to wave to the crowd at just the wrong time. There was no guarantee that she would in fact make that mistake)
It’s even less cowardly if the killer was in fact with al-Qaeda, a group which is (ostensibly, at least) fighting not just the Pakistani government but also the most powerful nation on the planet (that would be the USA.)