Bhutto; Bush Was The Triggerman

The fool was way in over his head on 9/11, if not Inaugration Day, 2001 and has been ever since, stirring up hornet's nests and creating instability all over the middle east and south east Asia.

I hate to be the one to tell Hillary, but it will take more than Bill and GWHB to clean up America's act around the world.

December 28, 2007
Memo to Pundits:
George W. Bush Was the Triggerman, and We Don't Need Another George W. Bush

Let's be clear. George W. Bush was the triggerman.

I did a slow burn yesterday throughout the cable-news coverage of Benazir Bhutto's assassination. Pundits and analysts came out of Washington's woodwork to pontificate on the tragedy and speculate on who the villain behind it might be. It could be al Qaeda, of course, or even Ms. Bhutto's insidious protector, President Musharraf. Yet not one of these musical-chair popinjays ever so much as even hinted at the manifest truth: that the ultimate responsibility for Ms. Bhutto's death and Pakistan's fresh round of turmoil lies with the man in the White House.

For seven years, through self-thwarting military crusades and mindless saber-rattling and Western ideological offensives, Mr. Bush has stirred the pot and rattled the hornet's nest of the Middle East and South Asia. He took an intolerable situation and made it impossible. His gun-blazing cowboyism has radicalized vast segments of Islam, propped up dictators and alienated moderates. And now it has killed the astonishingly courageous Ms. Bhutto.

Was it al Qaeda that physically pulled the trigger, as it promised it would? Could be. And God knows it's strong enough once again to have squeezed it off. As Mr. Bush was playing global checkers rather than chess, and chasing the one stabilizing strongman and principal opponent of al Qaeda in the Middle East, he was letting the terrorists off the hook -- to regroup, and multiply, and metastasize, with exponential momentum.

I know of not one Middle East analyst who differs with the analysis. Bush diverted crucial resources from the critical battle. In doing so he pumped life into a severely endangered species. He also handed it the perfect propaganda material on which to newly thrive -- the monsters could not have written the script more favorably themselves -- and he squandered every square inch of the mountainous good will heaped on the U.S. after 9/11. His single-minded bellicosity and obliviousness to harsh, geopolitical realities have done nothing but aggravate and embroil. And now his propensities have killed the courageous Ms. Bhutto.

Yet not one of the cable-news pundits even hinted at the manifest, blistering truth in their exhaustive speculations. One wonders whether the cause was gutlessness or blindness. Nevertheless the effect was the same: The American people will continue to have little inkling of the catastrophic consequences that Mr. Bush has wrought for U.S. national interests, or of the equally disastrous consequences for the poor bastards at the geographical heart of it all.

The pundits did, however, speculate with profundity on what it all means to the presidential crop. And in my opinion, they balled that up as badly as their whodunit analyses.

Experience, experience! they cried with approval. That will be the electorate's demand that goes forth, thereby benefiting, principally, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Hillary Clinton. "Change" is now so risky and yesterday.

And what were these reassuring voices of experience saying? A short survey of the banality should suffice.

McCain's insights were that Bhutto's assassination was "tragic," that the "radical Islamic extremists" profited from it, and that if he were president he'd be huddling at that very moment with his national security council. Damn, I wouldn't have thought of that. I guess that's why I'm not in the big leagues.

Giuliani's insights were that Bhutto's assassination was "tragic," that "terrorism anywhere" -- and it happens to be everywhere -- "is an enemy of freedom," and we must, of course, "redouble our efforts to win" -- yep -- the "Terrorists' War on Us." Well, if nothing else, he can dazzle them to death with clever wordplay.

Clinton's insights were that Bhutto's assassination was "tragic," that she was "outraged," and that "it certainly raises the stakes high for what we expect from our next president." And that would be, specifically ... ? Perhaps experience in converting a national healthcare plan into more than 1,000 pages of inscrutable, unworkable mumbo-jumbo?

Parenthetically, because it's just too juicy to pass up, Mike Huckabee's insight was that maybe Musharraf should continue martial law, which, of course, was abandoned weeks ago. Would someone please buy that man a newspaper subscription?

But the upshot of all the "experienced" candidates' wisdom was -- if I'm reading the tea leaves correctly -- that more of the same is the surefire cure for what ails us. More Bushian doggedness, more us vs. them, more muscular squaring off into other peoples' problems, however much we've so haplessly exacerbated those problems for seven, long, agonizing years.

Contrary to the pundits' speculations on what the electorate will now both want and need -- that is, purely self-proclaimed experience -- it seems to me that accumulating events cry out instead for profound change. And if the electorate can't see
that, then once again it will get the president it deserves.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.