While the jihadists say that Al-Zawahri himself ordered the killing. "U.S. Checking al Qaeda Claim of Killing Bhutto," by Brian Ross, Richard Esposito & R. Schwartz for ABC's The Blotter (thanks to James):
While al Qaeda is considered by the U.S. to be a likely suspect in the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Banazir Bhutto, U.S. intelligence officials say they cannot confirm an initial claim of responsibility for the attack, supposedly from an al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan.An obscure Italian Web site said Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, al Qaeda's commander in Afghanistan, told its reporter in a phone call, "We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahedeen."
It said the decision to assassinate Bhutto was made by al Qaeda's No. 2 leader, Ayman al Zawahri in October. Before joining Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, Zawahri was imprisoned in Egypt for his role in the assassination of then-Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.
Bhutto had been outspoken in her opposition to al Qaeda and had criticized the government of President Pervez Musharraf for failing to take strong action against the Islamic terrorists.
"She openly threatened al Qaeda, and she had American support," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism adviser. "If al Qaeda could try to kill Musharraf twice, it could easily do this," he said.
Al Qaeda had claimed responsibility for the bomb attack Oct. 18 during Bhutto's homecoming rally that killed 140 people but left the former prime minister uninjured.
Senior U.S. officials say it will take several days to sort out who was responsible and that it will be "a test of credibility for the Pakistani government."
"U.S. intelligence officials not sure Al-Qaeda really killed Bhutto" ?
Intelligence services around the globe aren't even sure what Iran is doing with it's nuclear program.
Intelligence services around the globe aren't even sure what Islamic extremism is yet.
Not sure. Not sure.
For sure.
Of course! It was an evil Crusader Zionist plot!
The Mossad! Under subcontract to the NSA/CIA! At the bidding of the International Jewish Oligharchy and their agents in Washington!
So, who says world affairs are hard to understand?
U.S. intelligence officials not sure. . .
After the WMD in Iraq issue, and the "Iran abandoned it's nuke program in 2003" report, that about sums it up.
Does it even matter what faction of Islam killed her at this point?
"Bhutto had been outspoken in her opposition to al Qaeda and had criticized the government of President Pervez Musharraf ...."
......hmmmmmm...two suspects....
Do they have grassy knolls in Pak?
John C, don't forget the Freemasons and Illuminati!
'U.S Intelligience Officials not sure'-fings ain't
what they used to be-that's for Sure...Probably
because Cowboy Bush with the big gob & small brain
hasn't decided what to do about latest crisis.
As for his so called 'advisors' they haven't a clue either since most of 'em are Draft Dodgers
& Oil Boys with little or no military savvy.
As for their 'democratic'stooge Musharrif he's between a rock & hard place-must be deciding to settle in either U.S or U.K with his ill gotten
gains.
Pakistan has been in trouble for a long time-have
a pessimistic feeling America is about to open
a THIRD War front!
Mere accessories, my dear Abu Allah.
Naturally, it was the jooz!
We jooz are responsible for everything, even global warming.
Just kill us all and then those peace loving muslims will embrace the rest of the world and you all can bake cookies together and stuff.
NOT.
This is all, of course, another sinister plot to defame Islam! And to think, so many good Muslims are unwitting tools of this vast, evil Jewish conspiracy!
Does it even matter what faction of Islam killed her at this point?
by: Stinkyinfidel
Probably does to Bush and Condi, anyway. Al Qaeda openly murdering another (former and future) head of state represents a sticky wicket for our leaders.
Do they oppose terrorism in all its forms or don't they? If they're going to sit back and watch al Qaeda operate with virtual impunity in parts of the Muslim world, then what does Osama have to fear? Bush is supposed to make a quick trip to the West Bank soon. Should Islamists fear any repercussions if he meets his end? Probably not. Our bark is worse than our bite. Can't punish all the "peaceful" Muslims for the deeds of a few bad actors, can we? We'll just turn the other cheek, in good Christian fashion.
I'm surprised he's not headed to Karachi (or is it Lahore?). Will Bhutto have a public memorial/funeral? Surely Bush will send someone.
The blame everybody other than the Muslims/Islam game is getting old.
You know you're dealing with scared little men when they have to assasinate a woman because she threatened their All Boys Club. Yes, had she lived and instituted reforms, then she might have empowered more women in Pakistan to claim their equality as citizens and productive members of Pakistani society. And, scared, little men can't allow that, can they?
Many candidates for this dubious distinction. Part of the problem respecting who killed Bhutto is that the Islamic radical world itself is fractured (typical of virtually any radical movement because there tends to be so many psychopaths in one and psychos really are true believers and want their fifteen minutes of fame big time, hence lots of ruthless narcissism and thus splintering).
It's possible we'll never know who killed Bhutto but I think the truth of things will out itself in the end. Meanwhile, Pakistan's instability will get even worse, as if it isn't bad enough already. India, in particular, must be extra concerned now. And what's at the bottom of this mess? Why it's Islam once again.
Like a knee jerking...
It's Bush's Fault!
Well after searching the bloggs this is the best conspiracy I could find. It was a CIA plot to kill Bhutto! Supposedly Bush did this to throw Pakistan into a civil war so he could justify invasion to secure the nuclear weapons, and wmd facilities in Pakisan. Well that didn't take too long.
Obviously Musharaf was wise to keep Bhutto under house arrest. It was after all for her own protection.
Beagle: Thanks for the link. You know, there's legitimate criticism of the President and then there's that vituperative, highly emotional condemnation of him that deserves little or no respect. Many who post here are guilty of that, including some, I think, who should know better. I've never met, or in any way encountered, the person yet who thinks Bush is an idiot, a moron, blah, blah, blah, who can then go on to provide a sophisticated analysis of international or domestic affairs. I would add that no such person, not a one, would I prefer sitting in the Oval Office over George W.
I will now await visceral condemnation of myself and Bush. If it comes, it's expected and so what? If it doesn't, hey, life provides you a bonus once in a while.
Does anyone doubt that 2008 is going to be an interesting year?
But on a more important note Hilton won't get her grandfather's money. The sarcasm switch is definatly broken in the on position.
Ms. Bhutto's assasination is making it abundantly clear that Islam's "reformation" is taking shape before the very eyes of the world: this "religion" (of peace, they tell us!) is going from 97% EVIL to 100% EVIL.
And yet--
Someone STILL needs to clue in the idiot Washington DC beltway whores that homicidal Islam and Islam are ALL cut from the same cloth (the kuran) and need to be disposed of in toto ASAP if only to save the world from it. There is absolutely no reason to vacillate on this. If al-Qaeda and Taliban DIDN'T order Ms. Bhutto's assassination (unlikely we think), they certainly approved of it and would have done everything possible to see to it that it would have been carried out (and in fact was).
Wellington,
A quick word of thanks for your response to rocketman on other posts. The needless insults directed at any and all who don't agree with him tend to delegitimize whatever argument he wants to make.
Although I'm no longer a Bush fan, I hardly blame him for all that's wrong in the world. There's a lot that he will have to accept responsibility for but at this point the harangues are counterproductive.
“Although I'm no longer a Bush fan, I hardly blame him for all that's wrong in the world. There's a lot that he will have to accept responsibility for but at this point the harangues are counterproductive.”
Is that YOU, PMK?
I am... speechless!
Wellington, etc -
President Bush isn't responsible for everything that's wrong in the world. That would require focus.
PMK: Thanks for your comments. I too have many disagreements with the President (e.g., signing the McCain-Feingold bill, his support of the immigration measures last spring, saying nice things about Islam and, until recently, going along with way too many spending initiatives) but he's not an idiot (actually, far from it), deserves great credit for keeping us safe here at home since 9/11 and has steered the economy as much and as well as a President can. Besides, there is no one out there who looks as though they will be better than Bush come 2009. No Democrat (Dhimmicrat) certainly, maybe McCain, Romney or Giuliani, but nothing definite here either. And I wish folks would realize that Ron Paul makes Robert Taft look like an internationalist (i.e., he's extremely unrealistic about the world and America's role in it) and that Tom Tancredo has a lot of good ideas but is way short of being the right messenger.
As for rocketman, he doesn't want debate. He wants complete and full acceptance of his positions, no disagreement allowed. One in every crowd.
Havoc: I respectfully submit to you that a cheap shot about Bush does not constitute an argument. The President has a lot on his plate, more than the vast majority of folks realize, and has to juggle realities of the most exigent kind, while those of us who post at JW have the luxury of Monday-morning quarterbacking par excellence-----------and with responsibility to no one.
I like what JFK said about the man in the arena. He may fail but credit belongs to him and not to the crowd which takes no risk. I wish the President well, even though many who post here have no regard for him whatsoever. That's my position and I'm sticking to it.
Al Qaida? Al Qaida?
I'm trying to keep all of this straight... Can someone explain to me why our media and our government are so obsessed with determining "Was it al Qaida!?"
Can someone tell me again, which one is al Qaida?
Is al Qaida the really really really nasty Islamic movement that makes all the other really really nasty Islamic movements look like "moderate" Islamic movements? Perhaps that's why it's so important to implicate al Qaida. It preserves the delusion of "moderate" Islam for everybody concerned...
It's Bush's Fault! - Leftist Blog Grand Conspiracy Edition
U.S. intelligence officials Needn't spend a lot of time and taxpayer's money trying to figure out who killed Bhutto. I can tell them for free.
It wasn't Al Qaeda. It wasn't the Taliban. It wasn't Musharraf. It was Islam, plain and simple.
Ever sense I became aware of why "Duck and Cover" was practiced in School, did I ever for see the reason for the US to use Nukes first. Until today.
I think it is a little too long to put on a Bumper Sticker.
Davegreybeard,
Have you recovered from your shock?
I made the mistake of voting for Bush once, but didn't do it the second time. I find his policy on immigration unacceptable but he's not a dictator and we have ways of fighting back. That doesn't mean I don't respect him and don't want him to succeed. He's still my president.
I don't understand the many cheap shots and name calling by some posters here (what purpose do they serve?), nor the Democrats' inability to get away from impeachment. Three Representatives put out an ad saying hearings were necessary. When Bush has just over a year left and Democrats have a lot to do before they come up for reelection, why can't they (in their own words) move on?
I am pleasantly surprised PMK,
we may agree on more than I previously thought. Bush is not perfect, but so many who bash him have no good ideas to offer. Bush bashing becomes an end in itself – it is a complete waste of time and leaves a dismal, defeatist odor in its wake.
I voted for him twice and would do it again given the same alternative choices. As I have said before I believe history will record him as one of the great presidents, though not “among the greatest”. Iraq is his finest achievement followed by Afghanistan and his tax policy.
All is not perfect however. Bush has many failures, but the greatest is his failure to name our enemy. I do understand the difficulty of declaring war on 1.5 billion Muslims all at once – but at some point we have to start edging in that direction. He would be off to a damn good start if he would just shut up about “the religion of peace”.
We cannot hope to win this ideological battle, if we cannot recognize evil when it confronts us and challenge it for what it is, clearly and loudly for all the World to see.
"Senior U.S. officials say it will take several days to sort out who was responsible and that it will be "a test of credibility for the Pakistani government."
....Ms Bhutto requested extra police cars to surround her car while moving about...prez Mushy denied her request
....Ms Bhutto requested bulletproof car with tinted windows....prez Mushy denied her request
....Ms Bhutto requested more screening of those allowed to stand on the sidelines...prez Mushy denied her request
....Ms Bhutto requested extra undercover guards to mingle in the crowd....prez Mushy denied her request...
....Ms Bhutto made other reasonable security requests normally afforded to important people and foreign dignitaries....prez Mushy denied all requests
.....maybe prez Mushy knew something , maybe he did not...but he is Muslim......taqqiyya baby...
....Islam ....feel the love?....
Actually, it's true; it doesn't matter which Islamic faction killed Ms. Bhutto. There appears a reluctance in Washington to really do anything about the ravages of Islamic terror. Does the reason have anything to do with commerce? The big corporations don't want to have their profits squeezed, which would certainly be the case if the flow of oil were disrupted or we got into a real dispute with China, the China that is arming all of our enemies as fast as they can, a China to whom these same companies sold the very technology that enabled the weapons systems they are selling to Iran and others -- talk about "selling us the rope we will hang you with". Now the major corporations are falling all over each other to sell advanced security technology to China for the Olympics, which will later be used against dissidents. The greed and short-sightedness of the global corporatocracy is leading us down the road to nuclear terrorism with their prime directive of don't-rock-the-boat -- it's bad for business.