I heard from an anonymous source within the administration it was Iran who assassinated her.

Peace!!!

Sorry, not on GW's watch!

As I said in a comment on the previous story, the perception of military involvement is inevitable because this occurred in Rawalpindi, which is under close military control. It really doesn't matter whether people believe in a LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) or MIHOP (made it happen on purpose) theory, but one or the other will be generally believed.

And I happen to be among the believers. Was it necessarily Musharraf's personal decision? No. But it had to be at a fairly high level of command. The alternative -- that Islamist extremists could do this in spite of a serious effort to provide security -- is scarcely more encouraging, actually.

So Musharraf was responsible? It may sound like a dumb statement, but if there were sudicide bombers as well as the shooter, (or perhaps one in the same) than that to me speaks volumes about Musharraf; the willingness to use the tactices of terror, even by proxy, is unspeakable. That's quite an accuasation.

It will be interesting to find out how much of the $11 billion in untraceable cash that Bush has given Musharraf over the last 6 years was used to pay for the killer's vest and bullets.

This strikes me as a rather irresponsible post.

I don't think they should blame Musharaaf right away. Nawaz Sharif is doing just that ... but he is just a fraud seeking political gain. He talked about Bhutto as a sister but it was he himself who got her out of office when he became PM.

Pakistan's politics are very confusing people. The population can turn on a whim over there.

Their best hope is to make each branch independant from another which could cause some increased checks and balances

If Musharraf directed this hit, then he was really afraid of losing power. This is going to make Pakistan literally ungovernable.

More likely than Musharraf directing this action, he has never had full control of the government of Pakistan. Bhutto threatened the ISI and the military control than currently exists more than she threatened Musharraf.

Whatever the internal Pakistani causes for Bhutto's assassination, this directly threatens both India and Iran. Iran has been surrounded by the failed state of Afghanistan, the failed state of Iraq with the MEK insurgents acting out if Iraq in the South and the Kurds working with the Iranian Kurds in the North, and now Pakistan blowing up on their border.

I will expect to see the Shiite Amedinejad from Iran back talking to King Saud and trying to tamp down the Shiite - Sunni conflicts as much as possible.

One thing is certain, though. No one over in the middle of that mess is going to bother the U.S. as long as we don't idiotically choose sides and start more fights. They all have much more immediate problems than anything we represent. Can anyone muzzle Cheney and Podhoretz? And is this enough threat to get the Israelis to talk seriously with Hamas and Hezbollah, and is Rice sufficiently conscious to use these problems to work towards an Israeli - Palestinian Peace?

This strikes me as turning to Bernie Kerik for commentary on Guiliani. Surely TPM can do better than this.

Madam Bhutto did not deserve to lose the election in this manner. "Assassination politics" is a basic tool of the worlds' secret services and intelligence agencies -- as well as of terrorist groups (and an occasional nut-case). Shame on the cowards who are responsible!

Good job CIA, it's all going according to plan.

Musharraf stands to gain.

However, for kicks, let's theorize for the moment that he didn't order the hit and see where that premise leads. Well, the next likely suspects would be the Taliban in Pakistan, who are indistinguishable from the Taliban in Afghanistan. They are the same people. Musharraf has allowed them free reign to operate in Pashtun areas; or has been unable to stop them. It may well be that the government security apparatus is infiltrated by the Taliban and that Musharraf is not in control. Or maybe he is playing both sides (the US and the Taliban) for suckers. The most scary possibility is that the Taliban are remarkably close to a government that has nuclear weapons and/or that said government has such a tenuous hold on things that they would be unable to prevent transfer of one of these weapons to terrorists.

All the while, the USA has been giving Musharraf unaccounted for billions and chasing their tail in the Iraqi dessert fighting people who had nothing to do with 9-11.

Anonymous wrote:
When a democracy abandons the rule of law, the political leaders overseeing that abandonment cannot afford to relinquish power.

Could this be a portend of things to come here in the U.S.?

Anybody with half a brain knew that people wanted to murder Ms. Bhutto. I have to agree that Mushariff is responsible in one way or another. And while we're dicking around in Iraq for absolutely no good gd reason, bogged down in a country we should never have invaded, Pakistan goes to shit.

Instead of going after the idiotic religious nutjobs, Bush/Cheney went off to solve another alleged problem, how to keep control of all that wonderful oil in the Mid East.

Never mind the tenuous grasp that yet another US supported military dictator holds over his nuclear, let me repeat that, NUCLEAR, armed country, yes, by all means, lets invade Iraq, Dick, to show everybody what we mean.

And show them we have.

Think Bush or Cheney would ever have the courage that Benazir Bhutto demonstrated, knowing full well she was probably going to die a violent death trying to bring secular democracy to her country?

Worthless cowards.

PEEJ WHERE DID YOU COME FROM WITH YOUR FOOLISH IDEA? ISRAEL?? YOU MUST BE A JAP!
THIS IS PURELY A BUSH PROBLEM WITH A CRIMINAL DICTATOR, WHOM HE CALLS A DEMOCRATIC LEADER. THEN THE BUSH ADM. WANTS TO MAKE US BELEIVE THS U.S. GOVERNMENT IS DEMOCRATIC BE REAL AND BE HUMAN. THE KILLING OF THIS WOMAN COMES FROM BUSH´S AND MUSHARRAF COMPLIANCE. REMENBER GUANTANAMO
SALUDOS
ROBERTO

Iran assassinated her? The US assassinated her? Israel assassinated her?

I'm not sure what these other countries could have gained from her assassination. All they (any other country that might have wanted he dead) had to do was wait and someone else would assassinate her- The Pakistani government probably did not provide good protection and despite all the threats on her life (and her own complaints that she didn't have enough protection by the govt.) she's the one who rode around in her car with her head/body through the frickin' sunroof. I'm dismayed that she was assassinated but if you go around and act like a target then you are going to get shot. And if Cheney is doing the shooting, you don't even have to act like a target.

It was someone in Pakistan who assassinated her- either Musharaff or terrorists who wanted to mix things up for a bigger purpose.

This is an ISI job at behest of mushy/military.

Why??

1) Uncle is keen to make it easier for them, by bringing in Bhutto and thus slowly removing their dependency on mushy. Mushy knows it.

2) At any day Mushy is not co-operating with US by choice, but by sheer compulsion of situation, and is determined to safe-guard military/ISI control of pak and its nukes.

Bhutto is more willing to be on USA side as she is not a military woman. She openly declared giving full hands to USA in waristan, letting IAEC question AQ-khan etc which mushy has till now prevented. ALso mushy/ISI suspect the pak nuke state with bhutto as a US pawn with more powers as PM.

3) As a first step, he chaged the whole supreme-court, jailed CJ, removed news source that can hamper military agenda and amended constitution.

Bhutto declared that she will chnage all these once she is PM.

4) Mushy is more afraid of US using bhutto, than bhutto. With uncle stick at neck, mushy needs to do something before it become irrepairable.

5) Mushy denied external security for her from USA/UK. The venue is rawalpindi, the military home quite difficult for such missions without ISI support.

Bhutto has 2 weeks ago mailed to her spokesperson in USA, that if she dies, mushy is responsible as he is putting every possible impediment for her security.

6) Now uncle has no replacement for mushy. Uncle has to be more careful and give him support. He can claim more support and money saying extrimists may take over. PPP without leader can be rigged for votes by bribing etc. In short pak power is safe within ISI/military reach.

Now let us see how she is assasinated.

There are many conflicting reports seemingly purposeful.

At first assassins should have learned one thing from their previous expeditions. That is she is having a semi-armored SUV that can survive a major blast.

Hence shotting is the sure way of killing.

Report on clinically how she died.

href="http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/12/27/pakistan.html?ref=rss

"One of the doctors who attended to Bhutto said she had a bullet in the back of her neck that damaged her spinal cord before it exited from the side of her head.

Another bullet pierced the back of Bhutto's shoulder and came out through her chest, the doctors said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

Bhutto was given an open-heart massage, but the main cause of death was damage to her spinal cord, he said."

So she died by a bullet that passed her neck from back and exited through side of head which might have severed spinal-chord.

Now read an excellent analysis from a "Bharat" in BR forum.

"Avram,
You are right on !!!
To shoot an handgun at 30 feet, aiming at a moving target (albeit slowly) is great marksmanship.

Few things to know:
Did Benazir Bhutto always stick her head out of the sunroof as soon as she leaves a rally?
I believe yes, politicians always love to leave an impact and that could be tough to resist. question is, did someone inside the vehicle tell her stand up and wave to your people ?

If the guy had managed to sneak in an AK-47, it would have sprayed more bullets with a couple of lucky shots.
No.. he got a gun and fired with little time to prep on a target, in the midst of hundreds of people who were probably moving towards Benazir.
Also, the bullet is said to have gone from neck to side of head. That means an upward trajectory which is baffling... I mean, if the bullet had gone from head to neck, it would have been a sure shot sniper attack from tree or roof tops.

Also, this was a suicide bomber. If the guy had explosives strapped to him, why did he take the risk of shooting an handgun. A single missed shot and Benazir would have got inside the armored car and no suicide bomber could have harmed her.

If it was a 2 man job, where the second guy was a lookout again why take the risk that you might scare the target away. I mean Benazir's exposure, was only limited to sticking her head out of the sunroof. Why take a chance, that you might miss a shot and have her stick her head inside the armored car?
The moment you take the handgun out, people around you are going to be scared and shout. Security will notice you, and at the least the target would have been alerted. It does not make sense.

Let's look at the shot ballistics:
the bullet entered the neck and left through the side of the head.
the bullet severed the spinal cord, which was the primary reason causing death almost instantaneously.
witnesses say, that as soon as the shot was fired Benazir collapsed inside the car and through the sunroof.

First point to note, she did not collapse on the roof of the car half sticking out. So the first shot was the kill shot, which severed the spinal cord even before a spasm. A spasm (usually a forward motion of the body) would have forced her to bend over the roof of the car. The first shot caused her legs to drop(slip), so she went into the car and not on the roof.

Second point, the bullet went from neck to side of head and severed the spinal cord. So the shot was taken from the back, and not side ways.
Probably at 7.5 or 4.5 o'clock.

So the shooter was probably right behind the car. Typically, when a politician car leaves two things happen. The crowd in front of the car very reluctantly parts to give way. Once the car moves ahead of them, the crowd runs right behind it. The crowd will not just stand by the side, so for a handgun guy the crowd should have been a factor. A jostling crowd will make you lose your aim and
will notice someone putting their hand out with a gun. Everyone sticks their hand out, but a handgun is more noticeable (Unless, it is accepted as Pak tradition to fire handguns in the air)
I am not an expert on marksmanship, but 30 feet in the midst of 100+ moving people is extrordinary. It can be quite accepted, but the galle to take such a risk where you might miss the target is tough to digest.

What could have happened?
The pattern of Bhutto's sticking her head out, just as she is leaving the rally might have been noticed.
As long as she was away from the crowd (30+40 ft) on a dais, or in the midst of a crowd but 70% inside an armored vehicle a suicide bomber attack would not have been successful (point from the Karachi attack).
So the idea of shooting at her must have been conceived.
My points above indicate my skepticism on a handgun attempt. Too much risk, that she would escape unharmed.
A second close escape, might have just caused her to cut down rally's and be more careful. She could have become Prime Minister after elections, making any further attempts very tough (with the military now protecting her). Also, the very idea of her being in charge would have anathema (political or religious) to her assassins.

IMO, a sniper sat inside a parked car on the side of the road and took the shot. The suicide bomber after hearing the shots detonated the bomb to cause the confusion, mayhem and allow the sniper to escape. So the sniper could have been a professional, second having the sniper's body would open up more avenues to find out who actually masterminded the assassination.
Why did the sniper not for the side shot (side of head entry)? He would have been to close to the suicide bomber for comfort.
Why not for the more dramatic front shot ? It would lot easier for a car to be parked behind Benazir's armored vehicle then park in front. Park in front of the vehicle, and you risk Benazir not getting up on the sunroof till she is too close to you. Once you miss the front shot, then you need to reorient yourself (move from back to front seat) to take the shot from behind. Stay behind the armored car all the time, and you need to set up only to take a shot from the back.

Some basis for my theory:
A suicide bombing had failed. There might have been some half attemps or plans to repeat it, but the bombers might have failed to get close enough.
Despite what Benazir and her aides said, she was too well protected at home to attempt a suicide bombing at home.
A handgun attempt would have been a risky attempt with lots of chances of failure, so a sniper was designated the task.
The sniper was probably a professional or more important to give up his life, or he could have been a red pointer towards the mastermind and other helpers.
The security must have been really lax to allow a parked vehicle within sniper range. Or there was someone on the inside to get a vehicle (security/press) tag inside the cordon without full check (easily possible in Pakistan).

I have seen Arafat give speeches (when he was alive) and his guards would pretty much hug him as a body armor. If Benazir was always going to stand out of the sun roof, they should have got the roof bigger and have 3-4 security (female) be a body shield.
Especially covering the back and side on shots. The only shot tough to cover would be the straight in the forehead ones, which are very tough to orchestrate against a moving target.

That's my musings...

OTOH, I could be all wrong and it was indeed a crazy guy (Pakistan has enough of them) with a gun and a bomb, who decided to take the shot and then pull the bomb. Armchair experts ( yours truly) have been proven wrong countless times by facts and reality.

A question to our gun experts, does a handgun fired at 30 ft generate enough velocity to go through the body?"

Now think, is it Mushy or al-quaida..??