Comments on And the Bhutto Assassination Means... ?

This is a time to be focused on the tragedy of the situation, its implications for the U.S. and the world, and to be concerned for the people of Pakistan and the country’s stability. No one should be politicizing this situation with baseless allegations.

Translation: "Shut up! Am not!"

It means an Islamic country with a lot of nuclear missiles is going to be having a civil war.

Eli you have a bad case of tunnel vision.

You know, this makes Obama look even better. We need fresh leadership that is grounded in good judgement; not grounded in political expediency.

This is a time to be focused on the tragedy of the situation, its implications for the U.S. and the world, and to be concerned for the people of Pakistan and the country’s stability. No one should be politicizing this situation with baseless allegations.

Translation? Damn, they beat me to it!

To the Obama campaign, everything means an oportunity to remind voters of Clinton's Iraq vote.

Napoleon is right on here. The significance of this event does not lie in its effect on the U.S. presidential campaign.

Benazir Bhutto is the new Archduke Franz Ferdinand

Hmm, here is a thought: Some of us know that Bush has given himself a presidential directive back in May of this year to declare marshal law under certain circumstances. IF #7 is right and this triggers a "problem" with a country with nukes what are the chances that Bush may...you know use that presidential directive?

I never buy into conspiracy theories but it is something for everyone to put on the back burner of your minds. I am not saying that will happen (there are other factors to take into consideration) but just let it sit and stew in your minds for awhile.

@8

What's this directive

@7 and what will be the Armenian Genocide? (besides possibly a new Spielberg vehicle)

@9, you can still find it on the White House website. Here is the link: Enjoy!!!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

It defines catastophe just vauge enough to cause confusion. Which, in the words of Toby Zeigler in the West Wing, you want in times of emergency.

Obama buying into the Al Qaeda/Islamic terrorist b.s. already? Because, you know, military dictators never killed their opponents and blamed the guerrillas/terrorists/subversives/criminals before.

Hmm, here is a thought: Some of us know that Bush has given himself a presidential directive back in May of this year to declare marshal law under certain circumstances. IF #7 is right and this triggers a "problem" with a country with nukes what are the chances that Bush may...you know use that presidential directive?

If the Bush Administration were to declare Martial Law, I would expect California to secede from the Union (or, possibly, to simply ignore the directive), presumably to be followed in short order by other states.

Think about it. If the Bush Administration, for just three examples, is helpless to obtain law and order in Iraq and Afghanistan, is completely impotent in the face of Chavez' constant needling, and was wholly unable to achieve anything constructive in New Orleans (and say what you may about the Iraq fiasco's prominence in his fall from the graces of the American public, but pre-Katrina, Bush was still approved by about 50% of us), how in the world could it ever hope to enforce a declaration of Martial Law?

Not to say the sons of bitches won't try it. But it'd succeed about as well as everything else they've tried.

I mean, I suppose it might work out okay if it didn't affect the NFL schedule or the National Cheetos Inventory (NCI); but given recent economic news, the latter, at least, is to be considered highly unlikely.

@Shitbrain, yeah cause we all stood up to Bush when he got rid of habeas corpus and we were all so objective right after 9-11 in dealing with what happened to us.

Never underestimate complacency in an environment of fear.

yeah cause we all stood up to Bush when he got rid of habeas corpus and we were all so objective right after 9-11 in dealing with what happened to us.

Nobody gives a fuck about that because the Cheney/Bush civil rights violations, in practice, only affect coloreds.

Your argument here is, essentially, what I was referring to with my National Cheetos Inventory (NCI) comment: if Martial Law doesn't adversely affect caucasoid lifestyles, it might fly.

But in that instance, what would be the point? Coloreds can already be "disappeared" in to-day's environment without any corresponding political fallout; so it logically follows that if declaring Martial Law wouldn't affect the crackers, there wouldn't be any need of Martial Law.

I've about had it with Clinton telling everybody what they can and can't say.

CNN just said the following about Bhutto: "Security Experts say she exposed herself, allowing people close enough to touch her. She needed that political money shot."

Apparently she was a Republican.

I love listening to the Clintons talk.

This is a time to be focused on the tragedy of the situation, its implications for the U.S. and the world... No one should be politicizing this situation with baseless allegations.

What allegations? That AQ might have attacked an anti-AQ leader? And that "allegation" doesn't have implications for the US and the world?

Translation: "Cheney was right: Fuck yourself."

"REPORTER: But looking ahead, does the assassination put on the front burner foreign policy credentials in the closing days?"

Axelrod was responding to a 'foreign policy credentials' question not how he felt about the death of Bhutto with a link to Hillary's Iraq vote. Your framing of this issue is really misleading