A great deal of drivel has been written about the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and its significance. Hardly anyone, however has related the killing to U.S.-Canadian-European foreign policy. It is especially related to American foreign policy. Bhutto made the ill-advised decision to return to Pakistan, knowing that her action would further destablize that country and place her own life in danger. But like so many ambitious politicians, she chose to ignore the danger in the hope of gaining power. She enjoyed the tacit support and encourgement of other unwise politicians such as Bush and Harper in going through with her misguided plan.
So far, the most astute and reasoned commentary on the affair comes from A.J Rosmiller.
He is a fellow of the National Security Network and a former officer of the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency and the author of this book, among others.
A great deal of drivel has been written about the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, as you say.
It is of concern that so much of this writing coming from Canada is feminist piffle.
If even 5% of what I’ve found about the greedy, cold-blooded Bhuttos is accurate it’s a wonder she wasn’t doing business with Brian Mulroney.
Her assassination had nothing to do with her being a woman.
A bit more direct than I would put it, but I would say you are right on LA.
Welcome back, Blogmeister. May I wish you an Inky New Year.
Go on, grasp the feminist nettle. Bhutto wasn’t killed because she was a woman. Hillary Clinton isn’t in trouble because she’s a woman.
Oprah Winfrey didn’t threw her strength behind the cuckolded First-lady wannabe-pres of USA but instead chose Obama because Oprah is no loser, she is smart and influential.
Should Hillary have dumped Bill during/after the Suction-crisis?
I think so. She’d be better off today.
The huge question remains…what are women all about in today’s enfranchised society?
My friend who is senior in law (outside Canada) says the intake to the profession is over 80% female.
He is very happy with the work some of them do for his firm, he has to check the work of others, and some he has to instruct where the expertise should already be in place.
Where it gets weird is at legal conferences where the agenda is regularly dominated by “women’s issues”….. and three major factions duke it out.
They are the post-feminist professionals who say (correctly, in my opinion) that gender has nothing to do with anything, step up to the line and perform. Another group says we want the system to accommodate us regarding part-time work and daycare, and finally those who don’t think they’ll be in the profession all that long.
The men wonder if the bar is open yet.
I could not agree more. And I am coming around to your point of view on the Clinton business. In fact I think I’ve already come around.
Hilary lagged behind on the emancipation issue oer S-Gate and that’s likely why she failed to get Oprah’s support.
Oprah is not backing Obama because he’s black, but because he represents what is best for America, thus proving that a powerful feminist and iconic individual is quite capable of going beyond feminism.
It’s becoming obvious that the male obstruction of womens’ enfranchisement was based on the fear of what women might do with the vote.
Fortunately, we are now beginning to see women as an integral part of the system and I believe that is a good thing.
Incidentally, I saw Obama’s Iowa speech and he certainly looked like presidential timber.
I am ready to concede that Hilary acted as she did hoping to get sympathy and support. Quite clearly, it was the wrong strategy.
As often happens LA, you are ahead of the curve on this one.