who really killed Benazir Bhutto

[BASEL]

Digg This: http://digg.com/political_opinion/Condi ... tto_s_Fate




"She sacrificed her life, for the sake of
Pakistan and for the sake of this region.�
Afghan President Hamid Karzai


CONDI RICE AND NEGROPONTE
SEALED THE BHUTTO SACRIFICE

http://BreakForNews.com - 30th December, 2007
Research: Kathy McMahon, Report: Fintan Dunne

In the end it was her Harvard education, as much as anything else, that
got Benazir Bhutto killed. It formed a prism through which she viewed her
own dynastic political ambitions. Self-interested idealism was her undoing.
It was ruthlessly exploited to lead her to a predictable death. She was
carefully groomed to be a politically expedient sacrificial lamb.

Harvard, the U.S. State Department and the Council on Foreign Relations
form a triumvirate which perfectly articulates the outer surface of U.S.
foreign policy. But all that glisters is not gold, and beneath that outer
surface is an agenda which advances the unfettered greed of a global
predatory class with deep roots in the intelligence services of the G8
group of nations. Bhutto became grist in their geopolitical mill.

Primed by neoliberal Harvard idealism, she bought that outer surface.

It told her that with Musharraf on the decline and with the Pakistani people
restless under army rule, there was never a better time to relaunch the
Bhutto legacy. It told her that the U.S. needed to smooth the way to a
civilian government and that Bhutto was their prime choice for that task.

This rosy-hued Washington consensus told her that Musharraf could be
leaned on to do a deal and facilitate her return to Pakistan. It told her that
her father's old enemies, the terror-linked wing of Pakistan's Inter Services
Intelligence agency(ISI), could be contained by Musharraf and by the
Pakistani Army's paymasters - the U.S. itself.

It told her that her hour had come.

It had. Her very last hour was now but weeks away.


THE LABYRINTH

Beneath the surface of that glossy U.S. foreign policy is a rodent-infested
labyrinth of intelligence deception and political manipulation. A maze where
the actual goals differ markedly from the stated ones.

The labyrinth has some interesting twists. There is a path from the U.S.
to it's ally India. There is a path from the U.S. to another ally Pakistan.
Yet India and Pakistan are enemies?

There is a path from Musharraf via I.S.I. to the terrorist 'enemy.' Yet
Musharraf is an ally against terror? He looks more like the Mr. Plausible
Deniability of the G8's support of the very 'terrorists' they are fighting.

In truth, the CFR-dominated, so-called "international community" serves
up mere lip service to noble goals of peace, democracy and prosperity
for all nations. The kind of goals lauded in the halls of Harvard. But the
ideals are selectively applied. All nations are not equal. All do not prosper.

Despite this, capitalism and communications are rapidly leveling all nations.
This cruel reality is apparent to the current global economic power: the G8 group.
And so it serves their interests to unleash political and economic chaos in
selected Muslim and African states. These are to be kept from competing
economically and instead rendered compliant to G8 exploitation.

Pakistan is such a state. As are Iraq and Afghanistan. Along with Lebanon,
Sudan, DRC, Uganda and more. The destabilization of Pakistan is
required to engineer the introduction of NATO troops into the north to
fight the Taliban. Permanently.

But the U.S. & G8 no more wants to win the War on Terror than does the medical
monopoly want to win the War on Cancer. Neither outcome would be
profitable. Getting there is all the fun. The only game in town.

So Benazir would have been badly mistaken to believe the surface lie that
the U.S. wants a stable Pakistan in order to defeat terrorism. The reverse
is the case. The G8 want a chaotic Pakistan to ensure the continuation of
U.S. rule via Musharraf and continued U.S. and I.S.I. support for terror.



The engineering of chaos in nations is the G8 game. In Iraq it was achieved
by doing everything possible to destroy civil society and foster containable
armed resistance to the occupation. The result is that a U.S. Army which
could have exited Iraq in months is scheduled to remain forever as an army
of occupation. To ensure security, you see. Ditto, NATO in Afghanistan.

That was called colonialism in a earlier era.

Now it's called counter-terrorism. Neat.

So, how to ensure chaos in Pakistan? Already the U.S./NATO/G8 had
primed the Taliban with arms and funds via shady friends, so the media
was trumpeting a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan on TV screens around
the globe. Next step was to raise the temperature in Pakistan.

To advance the chaos agenda, the best bang for their buck would be a
psychological operation along the lines of the massive Bali bomb or the
the assassination of Hariri in Lebanon. Something that would grip world
public imagination and legitimize subsequent military and political actions.

Which is where Benazir Bhutto came in. And quickly went out.


GROOMED FOR DEATH

For Benazir it must have seemed a dream come true. To be plucked from the
political wilderness and feted by the U.S. as it's sole ardent hope for Pakistan.
The Washington Post recounts how she was "suddenly visiting with top State
Department officials, dining with U.N. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and
conferring with members of the National Security Council." [1]

Too suddenly.

But, that was at the culmination of months of matchmaking between Washington
and Bhutto, managed by career foreign service officer Assistant U.S. Secretary of
State Richard Boucher, who has served under Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell and
now Condoleezza Rice. He is a 'Baker Boy' --elevated by Jim Baker in 1989.

Boucher also arranged two deal-making meetings between Bhutto and Musharraf
in Dubai. But after the Bhutto assassination he backed Musharraf unreservedly and
called for elections go forward on Jan 8, as scheduled before Bhutto's killing. [2]

Being a 'Baker Boy' Boucher would be at home with the likes of current U.S. Deputy
Secretary of State John Negroponte, who as Mr. See-No-Evil, blindly oversaw murderous
mass political eliminations by U.S. during it's Reagan-era South American dirty wars.
Negroponte is these days a Mr. Fixit for the same 'Boys.'

So, next up Negroponte himself became involved in the Bhutto issue and eventually in
September, 2007 he went to Islamabad, supposedly to hack a deal with Musharraf [1]

It must have seemed plain sailing, but Bhutto was moving through dangerous waters,
and was getting deeply embroiled with an arm of the Bush/Reagan shadow government.



The 'Baker Boys' [3] are part of a crew which includes Ollie North, John Negroponte,
CIA Director William Casey, Edwin Meese and a host of political, financial, military
and semi-legitimate intelligence interests. Their power is that of George Bush Snr..[4]
Mr. New World Order himself. The Iraq Study Group is one current political face.

While GW Junior, the Neocons and the U.S. Military PsyOp boys fight a propaganda
war in the media, the Baker Boys 'n Girls in the Iraq Study Group form part of what the
Washington Post coyly refers to as "foreign policy elites" --who call the shots from
behind the scenes.

They do more. As Oliver North showed, the arrival of this Bush/Reagan group was where
the surface U.S. policies began to merely palely reflect the criminal objectives of a
de facto inner government with secret and ruthless methods. This cabal are to this day
still in power, and have by now a global G8 reach.

These are the people who ushered in the Reagan era with the staged release of Tehran's
U.S. hostages. These are the people who played the Iranians against the Iraqis in war.
And sold arms to both sides. These boys devised the economy-wrecking World Bank
and IMF scams. These are the ones who demonized and removed Milosevic and then
Saddam while taking Eastern Europe and Asia at China's border, for NATO.

In other words, completely ruthless, duplicitous, geopolitical schemers.

Least this harsh reality might somehow dawn on Bhutto, perhaps it was reassuring that
Condi Rice then also personally became involved. And it was Condi who made the phone
call that finally sealed Bhutto's return to Pakistan. For Harvard-educated Bhutto, getting
reassurances from a former Stanford Provst must have been quite cozy and consensual.

Pity for Bhutto that the surface mantras about bringing stability to Pakistan were the exact
opposite of the outcome desired by those whom we may call the New World Order, for short.
Or the G8 for even shorter.

The outcome they desired is precisely the one they have now attained.


ORGANIZED CHAOS

If Pakistan is in chaos, it's a meticulously arranged chaos. The opposition is in shreds, now
facing Musharraf rule by default if they boycott the election, else a postponement which would
solidify Musharraf's grip against a backdrop of crisis. Exactly the tactics that in 2000 and in
2004 got Bush elected and reelected in the U.S., by the way.

What a sweet outcome for Washington and it's hand-picked local pro-consul. Their ever-
reliable cut-out, Mr. Scapegoat, is home and dry. Described by Aziz Huq in the Nation:

Quote:
"The death of the major opposition leader will make it easier for Musharraf
to assemble a parliamentary coalition to do his bidding in the coming January
elections. It renders more distant the possibility of elections that are not
manipulated and leaders who respond to the people rather than to bosses in
uniform. And it makes it less likely that the Pakistani military will shift from its
symbiotic entanglement with religious hardliners at the polls and in the streets."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20071 ... 0080107huq

Aziz continues by bemoaning the outcome of what he sees as U.S. 'incompetence':

Quote:
"....on September 12, 2001, there was one failed state that could be a terrorist
haven. Today, it is violently and tragically clear that the Administration's policies
have wrought two more failed states that could, and likely will, sustain terrorist
activities in the future."

Which by any standards is an achievement of outstanding competence!
Because you can't have a multi-generational was against terrorism (see: Rumsfeld, Donald)
unless you ensure that you have a well-funded and well-marketed terrorist
enemy to wage war against in the first place.

And you must ensure that an inconvenient democracy in Pakistan does not rob the terrorists
of their home bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan. These mountain guerillas are the extras
drafted in to be morphed by the media into the news-friendly Al-Qaeda global terror force,
as if in some dated Bond movie. They need somewhere to be notionally based.

Pakistan is now home base, according to Strategic Forecasting, Inc., more commonly known
as Stratfor, a private intelligence agency based in Austin, Texas. Rather predictably, Stratfor
blames Al-Qaeda for the assassination, but even the subtle propagandists of Stratfor admit:

"This assassination could not have been possible without the jihadists
being enabled by elements within the government... " [6]



That is precisely the issue on which a staged controversy about the cause of Bhutto's
death is focusing media attention. The Pakistani Interior Ministry is saying she died of a
blow to the head from a sunroof handle. This preposterous claim comes against considerable
video and medical evidence that Bhutto was shot twice:

"A doctor on the team that treated her said she had a bullet in the back of
the neck that damaged her spinal cord before exiting from the side of her head.
Another bullet pierced the back of her shoulder and came out through her chest.
....the main cause of death was damage to her spinal cord, he said....." [7]



The medical reports are backed by compelling video showing a handgun being fired
three times at Bhutto. But this may not have been the only gunfire. There are eyewitness
accounts of a sniper or snipers, and the fatal shot may have been taken by a professional
operating under cover of the visible assassin's fire. The proximate cause of Bhutto's death
was a shot which struck her spine at the back of the neck. The spine at the nape of
the neck is a reliable target for a profesional head shot. It moves about less than
the head itself, and is as fatal a shot.


THE I.S.I. STRAW MAN

But why the widely-disbelieved Pakistani government claims that there were no gunshot
injuries to Bhutto? Likely the goofy claims are on instructions from U.S. controllers.
A lightning-rod to deliberately attract blame onto the I.S.I. . Better that the I.S.I.
take the heat, before people remind themselves that the I.S.I. is merely the Pakistan
office of the C.I.A.. And has been, ever since the U.S. inspired anti-Soviet genesis of
Al-Qaeda under Carter in 1979.

Note that it was Carter who neatly paved the way for Reagan's subsequent Afghan agenda.
So, even today, the U.S. has official sanction over the appointment of the I.S.I. leadership.

Therefore if the I.S.I allowed or planned the assassination of Bhutto, it was with the full
complicity of it's intimate bosses in the C.I.A., and among the intel-ridden, backroom
'Baker Boys'. The latter handle the issues too dirty even for the C.I.A.

And so, the I.S.I. is hung out as scapegoat again. Just as with 9/11, when I.S.I. boss
Mohammad Ahmad was whispered to have wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta to fund
the 9/11 attacks.

Anyway, even within the narrow limits of the official story (where the I.S.I. is somehow a law
unto itself) wasn't Musharraf supposed to have kept the I.S.I. in line as part of his deal with
the Negroponte, Rice, the NSC, the C.I.A. and Bush's State Department?

Wasn't that the reason why Bhutto could even consider returning to Pakistan?

So where is the outrage against Musharraf's supposed treachery? Where were the dire
warnings to Musharraf after the first assassination bid on Bhutto? All strangely absent.
Musharraf allegedly plunges U.S. policy in Asia into chaos and within hours he gets
the unreserved support of the U.S.

Of course, if chaos is the desired goal, it would be rude to scorn him for a job well done.
Let the I.S.I. take the heat, as usual. Let's pretend. Let's pretend we believe the surface.


THE EVIL TWINS MEET BHUTTO

Let's pretend we haven't spotted the following sequence of events. The U.S. has
been hammering away for months at the need for close cooperation between
Pakistan and Afghanistan in order to defeat cross-border terrorists. The day before Bhutto
was murdered, Musharraf and Afghan president Hamid Karzai meet to discuss the issue.

Their meeting was described as "unusually cordial and friendly." [8]



Karzai, who repeatedly called Musharraf 'my brother' during their news conference, vowed to
improve intelligence sharing between the two countries to defeat militants. Said Karzai:
"Afghanistan and Pakistan are twins. More than that, they are joined at the body." [9]

In the wake of such glowing relations it's no surprise that Stratfor are already predicting that
US Special Forces will soon increase their presence in Pakistan and that the country is to
become the central battlefield for an al-Qaeda supposedly being driven from Iraq.
"The first Special Forces personnel could be on the ground in Pakistan early in the
new year", says Stratfor.

Early in the new year, eh? That's not wasting any time. But Stratfor notes that all this has
"coincided with disclosure of a 15-year 'anti-terror investment plan' for Pakistan that has been
high on the agenda of US Deputy Sec. of State John Negroponte in recent visits to Islamabad." [8]

Ah! So Negroponte had more than Bhutto on his mind when visiting Islamabad. He also had big
plans for a major U.S. anti-terror expansion in Pakistan. The later meeting between Karzai and
Musharraf on the day before Bhutto's assassination was a key element of that ongoing plan.

How convenient then, that just a day after the two U.S. puppets met on U.S. cue to advance
U.S. anti-terror policy, a political assassination took place which pushed that cooperation
deal into the spotlight and served as a launching pad for a full-blown military alliance between
Pakistan and Afghanistan under U.S. tutelage.

An assassination which escalates the War on Terror with an international dimension and thus
takes domestic heat off the unpopular U.S. occupation of Iraq; while playing out an anti-terror
soap opera to a world fed by a compliant media.

Promoters often bring in a big name star to garner publicity for launching their wares.

They don't usually get the publicity by killing the star though.



On that fateful day, fresh from his meeting with Musharraf, the Afghan president Karzai meet
with Musharraf's enemy Benazir Bhutto, just before she attended her tragic last political rally.

The parting handshake she got from Karzai was fittingly, a handshake of death.

Later, Karzai --who should know about these things-- said Bhutto had sacrificed her life, for
the sake of Pakistan, "and for the sake of this region.� [10]

Close. But the sacrifice was arranged.


EPILOG

Bhutto had just BEEN sacrificed.
For the sake U.S. interests in the region and the U.S./NATO/G8 War on Terror.

As were thousands of far more innocent people on 9/11.
And for exactly the same hidden duplicitous reasons.

But let's pretend.

Let's just blame the I.S.I.

Let's pretend Condi meant it when she signed the Bhutto book of condolences.

Let's pretend Bush Snr. and the Baker Boys haven't been in power since Kennedy.

Let's pretend that when the G8 leaders said after the London bombings that they would
protect us from terrorism, that they weren't already busy fostering that very terrorism.

Let's even pretend 9/11 was orchestrated by terrorists.


29th Dec., 2007 by Fintan Dunne, with research by Kathy McMahon.

Digg This: http://digg.com/political_opinion/Condi ... tto_s_Fate


Link

Quote:
REFERENCES

Video:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sTfNll93JU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7msb84xau4E
http://broadband.indiatimes.com/News/Bh ... 656202.cms
http://www.channel4.com/player/v2/playe ... owId=10619#

References:

1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01481.html

2. http://www.dawn.com/2007/12/29/top11.htm

3. http://www.breakfornews.com/forum/viewt ... =7550#7550
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=7067#7067
http://www.breakfornews.com/forum/viewt ... =9905#9905

4. http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=986

5. http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20071 ... 0080107huq

6. http://rednation.ning.com/profiles/blog ... Post%3A153
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4610.2877.0.0

7. http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti ... 23/0/rss07

8. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22978944-2,00.html

9. http://thepost.com.pk/Arc_Fb_ShortNews. ... us=Archive

10. http://www.forbes.com/markets/economy/2 ... ets26.html


Further References by Kathy McMahon:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/BENA ... 655962.cms
http://broadband.indiatimes.com/videoshow/2656278.cms
http://broadband.indiatimes.com/News/Bh ... 656202.cms
http://broadband.indiatimes.com/default.cms
http://www.newslogging.com/general-news ... st-journey
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiap ... topstories
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... topstories
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... topstories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Zinni
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1683427.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Stor ... 24,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Stor ... 19,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Stor ... 35,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Stor ... 96,00.html
http://broadband.indiatimes.com/videoshow/2657514.cms
http://broadband.indiatimes.com/News/Be ... 657159.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Doct ... 657770.cms
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 100052.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia ... 59669a.jpg
http://www.upi.com/International_Securi ... utto/2983/
http://brilliantatbreakfast.blogspot.co ... hutto.html
http://technorati.com/posts/gTItS%2BWYr ... 37TX37A%3D
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019343.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/world ... an.html?hp
http://www.hindu.com/2007/12/29/stories ... 311800.htm
http://www.hindu.com/2007/12/29/stories ... 940100.htm
http://www.hindu.com/2007/12/29/stories ... 751800.htm
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/dec-2007/29/index6.php
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 28,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/photo ... utto27.jpg
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318787,00.html
http://www.newshounds.us/ssBhuttoGraphic.jpg
http://www.abcnews.go.com/International ... =1&page=11
http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?pa ... 2007_pg1_6
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 105443.ece
http://www.dawn.com/2007/12/28/top4.htm
http://www.dawn.com/2007/12/28/top1.htm
http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=88039
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-2 ... 200519.htm
http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Dec ... updatenews
http://www.khabrein.info/index.php?opti ... &Itemid=88
http://www.app.com.pk/en/index.php?opti ... 1&Itemid=2
http://www.app.com.pk/en/index.php?opti ... 3&Itemid=2
http://www.app.com.pk/en/index.php?opti ... 4&Itemid=2
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 2007_pg1_7
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asi ... 291600.ece
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Doct ... 657770.cms
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/htm ... _SLAIN.asp
http://www.newsweek.com/id/82179
http://pkpolitics.com/2007/12/28/benazi ... -video-14/
http://pkpolitics.com/2007/12/27/benazi ... assinated/
http://www.lyngsat-address.com/tv/Pakistan.html
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20071230/wd1.jpg
http://www.gulfnews.com/world/Pakistan/10178283.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7msb84xau4E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_984XMpxkc&NR=1
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=11974
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/255498.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... tto130.xml
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti ... 23/0/rss07
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 5343637182
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/30/ ... php?page=2