There, I said it. And not only are the Iowa caucuses an exercise in undemocratic, cliquish elitism and lily white gerontocracy, they're ridiculously complex, too, especially on the Democratic side. By the way, this is one upon which The Wall Street Journal and I agree.
John Edwards leads a statistical three-way tie between himself, Hillary and Barack in Iowa, and Romney appears to beat back the Huckamob in that state ... maybe. These and other results render Iowa officially too close to call just days ahead of the caucuses.
MSNBC/McClatchy/Mason-Dixon Likely Democratic Caucus Goers' Choice for President
John Edwards 24 percent Hillary Clinton 23 percent Barack Obama 22 percent Bill Richardson 12 percent Joe Biden 8 percent Chris Dodd 2 percent Dennis Kucinich 1 percent
MSNBC/McClatchy/Mason-Dixon Likely Republican Caucus Goers' Choice for President
Mitt Romney 27 percent Mike Huckabee 23 percent Fred Thompson 14 percent John McCain 13 percent Rudy Giuliani 5 percent Ron Paul 5 percent Duncan Hunter 1 percent
Sampling error for both polls: plus or minus 5 percentage points
I say if it snows heavily, Edwards wins (his union supporters are about the only ones you can count on to trudge out in waist deep snow) and Obama is hurt most (his supporters are the most enthusiastic, but also the most green, and young -- both predictors of unreliability). I'd bet Hillary comes in second to either Barack or Edwards, but that prediction, like everything else about Iowa, is subject to change...
Why is Blogger crashing Safari every time I try to edit a post on this blog? Why is there no actual helpdesk to support Blogger users? Why didn't I just use Wordpress from the get-go???
(sigh)...
I'd worry that someone at Google/Blogger might read this and take offense, but this post will likely not make it to the Web anyway. I'm expecting Safari to crash as soon as I hit "publish"...
Benazir Bhutto's 19-year-old son, Bilawal Bhutto Zargari, prepares to take over his mother's political party, and he and his father call for the January 8 elections to go forward. Reports the Guardian of London:
Benazir Bhutto's 19-year-old son Bilawal was catapulted into the maelstrom of Pakistani politics yesterday, appointed leader of her party just three days after the assassination that plunged the country into chaos. It is arguably the most perilous job in Pakistani politics. Bilawal's grandfather died at the gallows, his mother following last week's bomb and bullet attack. But his leadership will be initially symbolic because the party will be stewarded by his father, Asif Zardari, until his studies at Oxford are over.
"When I am at university my father will take care of the party," said Bilawal at his maiden press conference at the family estate in Naudero. "The party's long struggle for democracy will continue with renewed vigour," he said. "My mother always said, democracy is the best revenge."
It was a remarkable day for Bilawal, described by relatives as a polite, somewhat bookish young man who just one week ago was a university student on Christmas break at the family home in Dubai.
Now, barely coming to terms with the assassination of his mother, he has become the titular head of Pakistan's greatest political dynasty as the country staggers towards turbulent elections.
If Benazir now passes into legend as Pakistan's Diana or JFK, Bilawal now carries the burden as one part Wils, one part John-John. Nothing to envy, that...
Channel 4 in Briton has what is probably the last big scoop of 2007 -- video which appears to show both the gunman and the suicide bomber who teamed to assassinate Benazir Bhutto.
The video clearly contradicts the Musharraf government's official version of events -- they claim Bhutto died from a wound she suffered when she struck her head on the sunroof of her vehicle, while ducking from the bomb blast. The video clearly shows her falling before the bomb went off -- and you can hear the two shots which precede the bomb blast.
The story and a link to the full Channel 4 story can be found here.
With the new evidence hitting the web, even the Bushbots are raising doubts about the Musharraf government's version of events. Though some of his readers remain unconvinced, neocon/Bush devotee Powerline admits:
... the apparent conflict between the government's account and the video and other evidence will no doubt fuel claims of a conspiracy. Benazir Bhutto appears to be destined to go down in Pakistani history as a combination of Princess Diana and John Kennedy.
The problem for the Pakistani government is that it cannot account for the surgeon who treated Bhutto for multiple gunshot wounds to the head and neck. Moreover, the video shows that Mrs. Bhutto clearly fell into the car before the bomb blast, and as Channel 4's reporter points out, the car was bomb-proof, and once inside, she would have been safe (no one else inside the vehicle was hurt.) Third, there was not blood found on the sunroof handle, which the government claims she hit her head on, causing the fatal wound. That's a big problem for the Bush-bots.
Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey is also among the realists:
This puts to lie any notion that Bhutto did not die from the gunshots that can clearly be heard in this and other videos, just before the explosion. Her head jerks to the right as the hair and scarf rise, and then she falls into the car going sideways. After she falls completely back into the vehicle, the bomb explodes.
Musharraf has a huge credibility problem, and this video makes it crystal clear. Until now, Musharraf has resisted calls for an international investigation into the assassination. Today, CNN reports that the Pakistani government could reconsider that decision. If they do, the family of Bhutto could then agree to an exhumation and an autopsy by an independent coroner which will confirm the cause of death.
That will open up a lot of questions about the official government story and what prompted it. With so many eyewitnesses to the murder, why float such a ridiculous theory about a sunroof handle? What were they trying to cover up? The video also shows the vehicle surrounded by people; where was a security cordon? How could the police, seen standing around the vehicle, allow a gunman to get within a few feet of Bhutto?
At the least, the video of Bhutto's assassination shows that the Pakistani government and military services failed to protect that country's most popular politician -- the gunman literally gets within a couple feet of the car, as does the bomber. There was no security cordon around the car. Here's the Youtube version:
CNN released a letter this past week sent to on-air neocon ... I mean reporter ... Wolf Blitzer by slain Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. According to reports:
Blitzer received the e-mail on Oct. 26 from Mark Siegel, a friend and longtime Washington spokesman for Bhutto. That was eight days after she narrowly escaped another attempt at her life.
Bhutto wrote to Blitzer that "I have been made to feel insecure by his (Musharraf's) minions," that specific improvements had not been made to her security arrangements, and that the Pakistani leader was responsible.
Blitzer agreed to the conditions before receiving the e-mail. He said Friday that he called Siegel shortly after seeing it to see if there was any way he could use it on CNN, but was told firmly it could only be used if she were killed. Siegel couldn't say why she had insisted on those conditions.
...Blitzer was the only journalist sent such a message, Siegel said. He also sent the e-mail to U.S. Rep. Steve Israel, a New York Democrat.
Siegel said he did not believe Bhutto's opinions had changed since she wrote the e-mail. Her message specifically mentioned she had requested four police vehicles surrounding her vehicle when traveling; Siegel said it seemed evident from pictures taken at the assassination scene that the request was not fulfilled.
Bhutto did not necessarily believe that Musharraf wanted her dead, but felt many people around him did, he said.
Her husband contacted Siegel on Thursday to remind him about the e-mail message and to make sure it got out, he said.
Says Blitzer of the email:
Blitzer said he had no regrets about the way he handled the story. To report about it while she was still alive would have meant going back on his word, he said.
"I don't think there is a clear black-and-white in this situation," he said. "I did what I think was right."
Bhutto also sent an email to the British foreign secretary, this time naming three prominent Pakistanis whom she suspected of wanting her killed, including a key intelligence official, according to the London Daily Mail (which declined to print the names):
Benazir Bhutto claimed three senior allies of Pakistan's president General Musharraf were out to kill her in a secret email to Foreign Secretary David Miliband written weeks before her death. Astonishingly, one of them is a leading intelligence officer who was officially responsible for protecting Miss Bhutto from an assassination.
The second is a prominent Pakistani figure, one of whose family members was allegedly murdered by a militant group run by Miss Bhutto's brother. The third is a well-known chief minister in Pakistan who is a long-standing opponent of Miss Bhutto.
Miss Bhutto told Mr Miliband she was convinced that the three were determined to assassinate her on her return to the country and pleaded with him to put pressure on the Pakistan government to stop them.
...One is a senior intelligence officer and retired army officer who worked for Pakistan's sinister Inter Services Intelligence spy agency, which has close links to the Taliban and has been involved in drug smuggling and political assassinations. He allegedly directed two Islamic terrorist groups and reportedly once boasted that he could pay money to hired killers to assassinate anyone who posed a threat to Musharraf's regime.
He was given another senior intelligence post by Musharraf after his bid to become a senior overseas diplomat for Pakistan failed when the host country refused to let him in because of his past activities.
He was also linked to Omar Sheikh, the former British public schoolboy convicted of kidnapping US journalist Daniel Pearl, who was murdered in 2002 by having his throat cut and being decapitated by Islamic terrorists.
The second individual named by Miss Bhutto is well known in Pakistani political circles and has been involved in a vicious family feud with her for decades.
One of his relatives was said to have been murdered by the militant Al Zulfiqar group run by Miss Bhutto's brother, Murtaza. The organisation was set up to avenge the execution of Miss Bhutto's father Zulfiqar Bhutto by ex-Pakistan dictator Zia ul Haq.
The third individual is a chief minister who has repeatedly denounced Miss Bhutto - and faced political annihilation if she won the elections scheduled for next week. He made an outspoken attack on her only hours before her death.
A senior source said: "She knew the risk she was taking when she decided to go back but also took the precaution of informing the British Government of the names of those she thought presented the biggest danger to her. ...
I'll be on the radio this evening at 6 on WKAT 1360 (owned by Salem Broadcasting, the people who bought 1080AM) with Marlon Hill's show (he moved over with some of the other Caribbean programs.) One of the themes we'll be discussing will be the top news stories of 2007, and the outlook for the January 29 election. So what were the top stories? Like Santa, I've been making a list:
Internationally:
Benazir Bhutto is shot to death.
Saddam Hussein is hung, with the video becoming an online sensation/horror show, and showing Bush's war to be an open door to Iraqi fratricide.
China recalls toys ... lots of toys...
Nationally:
- When you at war, it's always a top story, so I'll have to include Iraq, and the "surge"
- NFL player Sean Taylor is shot to death during a home invasion robbery at his home in Miami. One of the robbers was an acquaintance of Taylor's younger sister; invited to the home for her birthday party. You can't let just anybody into your home...
The Virginia Tech massacre stuns the nation.
High oil prices and a housing bubble that burst, plus a subprime mortgage blow-up, make the U.S. economy feel recessionary, even as the Dow soars past 13,000.
Locally:
New York (via Trinidad) college grad Stepha Henry comes to Miami for Memorial Day weekend and disappears. She still has not been found. She becomes the Black Natalee Holloway, only without the 24-7 news coverage;
Poinciana Park becomes the name of a scandal, and the site of a development paid for by HUD, but that never materialized;
The House of Lies is uncovered by the Miami Herald investigative team, netting reporter Debbie Cenzipper a Pullitzer, and the paper a renewed reputation for ferreting out scandal;
Barrington Irving flies around the world solo, setting records as the youngest person and first Black person to make the trip;
The Liberty City Seven trial ends in a hung jury, with one member acquitted outright. The Bush administration tries to deport him anyway;
Dr. Robert Ingram, legendary former Mayor, cop and NAACP chair, and current School Board member, dies. His funeral is perhaps the event of the year in Miami.
The Dunbar Village rape case disgusts the nation.
Radio One sells out ... I mean, sells 14 stations, including WTPS in Miami.
A rash of police-on-civilian shootings is matched with a rash of shootings of police officers. One shooting, that of BSO deputy Brian Reyka, nets a nearly $300,000 reward, but remains unsolved.
In politics:
- Barack Obama catches Hillary, after the Hil camp stumbles post-Philadelphia debate, and a full frontal assault by the mainstream media;
- Mike Huckabee becomes a phenomenon, frustrating Willard Romney's nomination purchase plans;
- Iowa still matters most, while the DNC screws Florida and Michigan, by making our votes count for nothing. Thanks, Howard.
In Sports:
- Barry Bonds passes Hank Aaron's record, but steroid rumors persist
- Major League Baseball is confronted with its full steroid problem, with the Mitchell report recommending no punishment (yes, Bonds is on the list);
- Michael Vick fights dogs, gets 23 months in prison
- Locally, the Northwestern High School Bulls endure a sex scandal (the Antwain Easterling underage sex scandal), a principal's indictment (flawed in my opinion) and the klieg lights, as they become the nation's top team;
- Staying local, the Miami Dolphins suck (nothing new) and almost go winless (but they'll get a great draft pick!)
In Entertainment
Anna Nicole Smith dies at the Hardrock in Hollywood, Florida.
Paris Hilton goes to jail for a hot minute.
Jennifer Hudson wins an Oscar for "Dreamgirls" (you know Beyonce hates her)
And the world learns to accept Brangelina (yuck!)
Oh yeah, and Britneey Spears remains a train wreck.
Pakistan's response to the world's offers of assistance in the wake of the Bhutto assassination looks curiously like Syria's response post-Hariri... from the AP:
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Pakistan rejected foreign help in investigating the assassination of Benazir Bhutto on Saturday, despite controversy over the circumstances of her death and three days of paralyzing turmoil.
The Islamic militant group blamed by officials for the attack that killed Bhutto denied any links to the killing on Saturday, and Bhutto's aides accused the government of a cover-up.
President Pervez Musharraf ordered his security chiefs to quell rioting by Bhutto's grieving followers that has killed at least 44 people over three days and caused tens of millions of dollars in damage.
"Criminals should stop their despicable activities, otherwise they will have to face serious consequences," Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema said.
Furthermore:
Questions about Bhutto's assassination have intensified since she died Thursday evening when a suicide attacker shot at her and then blew himself up as she waved to supporters from the sunroof of her armored vehicle outside a campaign rally.
The disputes were sure to further enflame the violence and have led to calls for an international, independent investigation into the attack.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that an international probe was vital because there was "no reason to trust the Pakistani government," while others called for a U.N. investigation.
Cheema dismissed the suggestion.
"This is not an ordinary criminal matter in which we require assistance of the international community. I think we are capable of handling it," he said. An independent judicial investigation should be completed within seven days of the appointment of its presiding judge, he said.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Pakistan had not asked the United States for help.
"It's a responsibility of the government of Pakistan to ensure that the investigation is thorough. If Pakistani authorities ask for assistance we would review the request," he said.
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband offered his country's assistance. "Obviously it's very important that a full investigation does take place, and has the confidence of all concerned," he said.
The government blamed the attack on Baitullah Mehsud, head of the Tehrik-i-Taliban, a newly formed coalition of Islamic militants along the Afghan border believed to be linked to al-Qaida and committed to waging holy war against the government.
But a spokesman for Mehsud, Maulana Mohammed Umer, dismissed the allegations as "government propaganda."
"We strongly deny it. Baitullah Mehsud is not involved in the killing of Benazir Bhutto," he said in a telephone call he made to The Associated Press from the tribal region of South Waziristan. "The fact is that we are only against America, and we don't consider political leaders of Pakistan our enemy."
Bhutto's aides said they, too, doubted Mehsud was involved and accused the government of a cover-up.
And the story's even got an "official version of events" -- and another version:
"The story that al-Qaida or Baitullah Mehsud did it appears to us to be a planted story, an incorrect story, because they want to divert the attention," said Farhatullah Babar, a spokesman for Bhutto's party.
After an October suicide attack targeted her in the city of Karachi, Bhutto accused elements in the ruling party of plotting to kill her. The government denied the claims, and Babar said Bhutto's allegations were never investigated.
Authorities initially said Bhutto died from bullet wounds. A surgeon who treated her later said the impact from shrapnel on her skull killed her.
But Cheema said Friday that Bhutto was killed when the shockwaves from the bomb smashed her head into the sunroof as she tried to duck back inside the vehicle.
Bhutto's spokeswoman Sherry Rehman, who was in the vehicle that rushed her boss to the hospital, disputed that.
"She was bleeding profusely, as she had received a bullet wound in her neck. My car was full of blood. Three doctors at the hospital told us that she had received bullet wounds. I was among the people who gave her a final bath. We saw a bullet wound in the back of her neck," she said. "What the government is saying is actually dangerous and nonsensical. They are pouring salt on our wounds. There are no findings, they are just lying."
Cheema stood by the government's version of events, and said Bhutto's party was free to exhume her body for an autopsy.
The man being blamed, Baitullah Mehsud, is profiled by the BBC here.
And the controversy over just what killed Mrs. Bhutto lingers in smoldering Pakistan.
Benazir Bhutto suspected that people inside Pakistan's intelligence services wanted her dead, and she said as much in a letter to Pervez Musharraf shortly before her return to that country in October -- a letter which made clear that she also had suspicions about the man she was mainly campaigning against -- Pervez Musharraf himself:
[From the International Herald Tribune] The assassination is likely to bring renewed attention to Pakistan's security agencies. Bhutto had long accused the main military intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, of working against her and her party because they opposed her liberal, secular agenda.
In a letter she sent to Musharraf just before her return to Pakistan in October, she listed "three individuals and more" who she said should be investigated for their sympathies with militants in the event that she was assassinated.
An aide close to Bhutto said that one of those named in the letter was Ijaz Shah, the director general of the Intelligence Bureau, another of the country's intelligence agencies and a close Musharraf associate.
The second official was the head of the country's National Accountability Bureau, which had investigated Bhutto on corruption charges. The third was a former official in Punjab Province who had mistreated her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, when he was in jail awaiting trial on corruption charges.
Bhutto never publicly confirmed the three names in the letter, and it was unclear how many names it actually included.
She complained that the government was not thorough in its investigation into a deadly suicide attack in the southern city of Karachi on the day she returned from years of self-imposed exile abroad to contest the parliamentary elections. Since then, she had continued to accuse the government of doing too little to protect her while campaigning for nationwide elections.
Bhutto was a sharp critic of the emerging military dictatorship in her country, and she was brave enough to criticize it outright, as she did in this commentary to CNN, in which she also describes the curious circumstances of the prior attempt on her life:
... The ruling party is an artificial, political party created in the headquarters of the Inter-Services Intelligence (Pakistan's equivalent of the CIA) during the General Elections of 2002. Its core support comes from the political partners of the military dictator of the '80s, General Zia al-Haq, who empowered the most radical elements within the Afghan Mujahedeen who went on to morph into al-Qaeda, Taliban and the Pakistani militants of today.
This party has called for a banning of outdoor rallies, demonstrations and caravans. They would thus suspend all activity that demonstrates to the people of Pakistan and to the people of the world which parties enjoy mass support amongst the people.
On my return to Pakistan last month, throngs of people turned out to welcome me back home. The demand to ban grassroots political activity is a suspicious prelude to what could be an overt attempt to rig the upcoming elections. All people who believe in the process of democracy should reject this attempt to undermine public participation in the campaign and set the table for what I believe would simply be a fraudulent election. Watch as Bhutto expresses fears for the future of her country »
It has now been more than two weeks since the horrific assassination attempt against me and the police have still not filed my complaint. They filed their own report without taking statements from eyewitnesses on the truck targeted for the terrorist attack which resulted in the death of more than 158 of my supporters and security guards.
Soon thereafter, I was asked by authorities not to travel in cars with tinted windows -- which protected me from identification by terrorists -- or travel with privately armed guards.
I began to feel the net was being tightened around me when police security outside my home in Karachi was reduced, even as I was told that other assassination plots were in the offing.
While the authorities speculated on whether a suicide bomber had been involved or two suicide bombers or perhaps a hand grenade or perhaps a car bomb, I reflected on my plight.
I decided not to be holed up in my home, a virtual prisoner. I went to my ancestral village of Larkana to pray at my father's grave. Everywhere, the people rallied around me in a frenzy of joy. I feel humbled by their love and trust.
Although it remains difficult to know for certain, I doubt that a suicide bomber was involved in the attack on me. I suspect, after talking to some of the injured, that the terrorists used a small child as a ploy to get to me. They were trying to hoist the child -- dressed in the colors of my party's flag -- onto my truck.
Failing to do so, they dropped the child near my vehicle. Some witnesses said the child had been rigged as a human bomb. I can't be sure. What followed was a massive explosion, killing scores immediately, tearing many bodies in half and sending blood, gore and flames up into the vehicle.
In less than a minute a second bomb -- reports later suggested a car bomb -- went off.
As I have reflected on the past two weeks, there are some things I wonder about:
• What was the car doing there?
• Why had the street lights been turned off?
• Was that intended to prevent my security from clearly seeing any approaching dangers?
• Is there any truth to the report that a high government official ordered the lights turned off "to prevent her getting so much television coverage"?
• Why would the leadership of the ruling party of Pakistan make a claim that my own party had committed the attack to gain sympathy?
• Why would the investigation be initially given to a police officer who was present when my husband was nearly tortured to death in 1999?
Bhutto did add the following to her commentary:
We can only wonder -- if there is nothing to hide -- why international investigators from the FBI and Scotland Yard are being prevented from assisting a Pakistan-led investigation?
The sham investigation of the October 19 massacre and the attempt by the ruling party to politically capitalize on this catastrophe are discomforting, but do not suggest any direct involvement by General Pervez Musharraf.
But NBC is reporting that she also wrote a letter to rival CNN, to be opened only in the event of her death, in which she suggested that if she were to be assassinated, the culprits should be sought within the government or intelligence services under Pervez Musharraf.
As for the fallout on this side of the world, NBC, TIME Magazine and others report that the assassination bodes bad things for the Bushies, who have already wasted $10 billion on Pakistan's "democracy" and the so-called "war on terror," to absolutely no avail.
From TIME's analysis:
... there are some who think the Bush Administration is not without blame. Hussain Haqqani, a former top aide to Bhutto and now a professor at Boston University, thinks the U.S., which has counted Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as a key ally against terrorism since 9/11, bears some of the responsibility. "Washington will have to answer a lot of questions, especially the Administration," he says. "People like me have been making specific requests to American officials to intervene and ask for particular security arrangements be made for her, and they have been constantly just trusting the Musharraf Administration." U.S. officials said they were leery of intervening in another nation's internal affairs, and didn't want to give Bhutto Washington's imprimatur.
Haqqani is not shy about pointing fingers. He blames Musharraf himself, above all, for Bhutto's death. "It's quite clear that Musharraf does not want an election — you can quote me — he is the one who has constantly wanted anybody who can threaten him or his power, out." Haqqani told Congress in October that U.S. aid for Pakistan has for too long been tilted toward the Pakistani military. "Since 1954 almost $21 billion had been given to Pakistan in aid," he told the House Armed Services Committee. "Of this, $17.7 billion were given under military rule, and only $3.4 billion was given to Pakistan and the civilian government."
It is Musharraf's iron grip on power that has made Washington's own policy toward Pakistan such a target of criticism. While Washington has publicly extolled the virtues of democracy and hoped that Bhutto's return to Pakistan in October would usher in a power-sharing deal with Musharraf, it was also clearly nervous about the instability if the country's strong man were to lose power entirely. Pakistan — the world's second-most-populous Muslim nation, with elements of al-Qaeda and the Taliban controlling lawless mountainous pockets in the northwest — is also the only Islamic state with a nuclear arsenal. And though Washington publicly says Pakistan's nuclear weapons are safe, there are always private concerns about their security, concerns that will only heighten in the wake of Bhutto's assassination.
The U.S. has few options in Pakistan. One thing is clear, says Peter Galbraith, senior fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: It is "not a good idea to have 70 nuclear weapons in the hands of a country that is falling apart." Some observers believe that U.S. policy in Pakistan has favored personalities over principles. "We have a bad habit of always personalizing our foreign policy," says P.J. Crowley, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "We've done it with Musharraf, and we did it with respect to Bhutto. We are very good at providing technical support to the Pakistani army. We are not good at building indigenous or effective local political processes or strong institutions of government." Given the realities on the ground, the U.S. is likely to continue to throw its support behind Musharraf. "In terms of political leadership, Pakistan does not have a deep bench," says Crowley. ...
The CNN photographer who took what may have been the last photo of Benazir Bhutto before she "dropped down through the sunroof" of her bulletproof SUV because of an assassin's bullet describes the scene.
Stunning developments this morning as the former prime minister of Pakistan, and daughter of its "founding father," is shot by an assassin who then blew himself up.
Bhutto was killed inside a vehicle she had entered only moments before, which would appear to make it an inside job. From CNN:
Former Pakistan government spokesman Tariq Azim Khan said while it appeared Bhutto was shot, it was unclear if the bullet wounds to her head and neck were caused by a shooting or if it was shrapnel from the bomb. Watch Benazir Bhutto obituary. »
The bomber detonated as he tried to enter the rally where thousands of people gathered to hear Bhutto speak, police said.
The number of wounded was not immediately known. However, video of the scene showed ambulances lined up to take many to hospitals.
The attack came just hours after four supporters of Pakistan's former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif died when members of another political party opened fire on them at a rally near the Islamabad airport Thursday, Pakistan police said.
Several other members of Sharif's party were wounded, police said.
Bhutto, who led Paksitan from 1988 to 1990 and was the first female prime minister of any Islamic nation, was participating in the parliamentary election set for January 8, hoping for a third term.
The explosion occurred close to an entrance gate of the park in Rawalpindi where Ms Bhutto had been speaking.
Wasif Ali Khan, a member of the PPP who was at Rawalpindi General Hospital, said she died at 1816 (1316 GMT).
... Supporters at the hospital began chanting "Dog, Musharraf, dog", referring to President Pervez Musharraf, the Associated Press (AP) reports.
Some broke the glass door at the main entrance to the emergency unit as others wept.
A man with a PPP flag tied around his head could be seen beating his chest, the agency adds.
An interior ministry spokesman, Javed Cheema, was quoted as saying by AFP that she may have been killed by pellets packed into the suicide bomber's vest.
However, AP quoted a PPP security adviser as saying she was shot in the neck and chest as she got into her vehicle, before the gunman blew himself up.
On CNN, the question was asked: who benefits?
Two words: Pervez Musharraf.
Ms. Bhutto had been the target of assassination attempts before, and she went back to Pakistan anyway. She was a brave woman, and the U.S. should have strongly backed her, rather than hanging on to the dictator in training, Musharraf.
Lyglenson Lemorin has been acquitted of terrorism charges. To repeat -- a jury heard the government's case against him, including allegations that he swore and oath to al-Qaida and plotted to blow up the Sears Tower along with Miami FBI headquarters, and found the government's case wanting. While the other six members of the so-called Liberty City Seven received mistrials on the same evidence, Lemorin was found NOT GUILTY.
So why is the Bush administration rushing to deport him?
MIAMI -- A federal judge warned the Bush administration Friday not to fast-track the deportation of a Haitian man acquitted of terrorism conspiracy charges because he may be called as a witness in the retrial of his six former co-defendants. "I have to protect the rights of these defendants, and I intend to do so," U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard said at a hearing.
Lenard also said the identities of the jury to be chosen next month for the second trial will be kept secret from prosecutors, defense lawyers and the public because of improper contacts and leaks in the first trial. The mother of one defendant was given a list with "X" marks next to the names of six jurors.
"This was a cause of great concern to me," the judge said. "At this point, it is unknown to the court what that list was about."
The retrial is set to begin Jan. 7 for six men accused of plotting with al-Qaida to destroy Chicago's Sears Tower and bomb FBI offices in hopes of starting an anti-government insurrection. The first two-month trial resulted in a hung jury Dec. 13 for those six and an acquittal on all charges for 32-year-old Lyglenson Lemorin, a legal U.S. resident originally from Haiti.
A day after the trial ended, Lemorin was taken into custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and transported to a detention center in Lumpkin, Ga., where officials have begun deportation proceedings. An initial hearing in that case is set for Jan. 8.
Defense lawyers intending to call Lemorin as a witness asked Lenard to prevent ICE from whisking him out of the country quickly, and Lenard agreed.
Lenard is acting due to the pending retrial, but the fact of the Bush administration's keen desire to deport Lemorin in the first place raises alarms for me.
It sure looks like they're trying to have their trial and eat it too -- having lost in court, they are seeking to push him out of the country so that they can call him a terrorism threat anyway. Either that or they don't want him in the country talking about what has been done to him and his cohorts. From the Herald this past week:
Lemorin, 32, a lawful U.S. resident, [emphasis added] remains behind bars -- far from his Miami family -- in the tiny town of Lumpkin, Ga., a deportation center 150 miles south of Atlanta.
On Thursday, Lemorin's wife learned from The Miami Herald that federal authorities have charged her husband with unspecified ''administrative immigration violations'' and that he has been placed in ''removal proceedings'' that could lead to his deportation to his native Haiti.
''He has kids here, and we really need him home,'' said Lemorin's wife, Charlene Mingo Lemorin. ``He can't do anything for us in Haiti. Everything was settled by the jury. He was found not guilty. It's like the nightmare is not over.''
Family members say they are upset and dumbfounded because Lemorin has lived in South Florida for more than two decades and has no criminal history.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials declined to discuss Lemorin's alleged immigration violations.
''He was detained by ICE, and for safety and security reasons, we can't say where he is,'' agency spokeswoman Barbara Gonzalez told The Miami Herald.
... The day after he was acquitted [December 13], immigration agents whisked Lemorin away to Miami International Airport.
Lemorin -- born in Haiti, raised in Miami and the father of two children who live in Little Haiti -- told his family and attorneys that he feared the agents were going to put him on a plane to his native Haiti.
Instead, they drove him to the Krome detention center in West Miami-Dade County. Then came an overnight drive to the Stewart detention center in Lumpkin.
Leonard Fenn, who temporarily represented Lemorin in the immigration case, expressed outrage over the government's actions.
''We're presuming they're claiming there is reason to believe he was a supporter of terrorist activities or a terrorist himself,'' said Fenn, who got on the case through Lemorin's criminal attorney, Joel DeFabio.
''It's outrageous -- a complete misallocation of government resources,'' Fenn said.
Immigration experts said that under the USA Patriot Act, adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a lawful U.S. resident such as Lemorin may still be locked up and possibly deported on terrorism-related charges -- even if they cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in federal court.
Miami attorney Cheryl Little, who heads the Florida Immigration Advocacy Center, said Lemorin's arrest by ICE may be ''overreaching but not unprecedented'' in the post-9/11 era, in which non-U.S. citizens acquitted at trial on drug-trafficking or other charges are sometimes picked up and dumped into the immigration legal system. Her center agreed to represent Lemorin, whose first immigration court hearing is set for Jan. 8.
Lemorin's attorneys and family now fear he will be charged with the same terrorism-related conspiracy offenses in immigration court, where an administrative judge -- not a jury of his peers -- decides his fate.
There is no principle of double jeopardy barring his prosecution on the same charges, and the burden of proof is based on a weaker civil standard, the weight of the evidence tipping one way or the other.
And for that, you can thank the United States Congress.
Even though I think many of his policies (abolishing the income tax, pulling U.S. troops out of every base around the world and ending federal support for public schools) would be radically ... um ... transformative (in a disruptive, market crashing sense), I love his plucky determination to defend the Constitution from those within his own party who have developed a very unhealthy taste for interventionism and authoritarianism (the link is to Paul's now famous "Neoconned" speech on the floor of the House,) and even "soft fascism."
What a performance on "Meet the Press" yesterday! His stuttery, nutty professor persona is absolutely endearing, even when he's saying the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a bad idea for the country (he says it was an unconstitutional means of making the federal government regulate private property) or when he's talking about phasing out Social Security (but taking care of those who are already dependent on it.)
Paul is a Constitutional purist, and I even accept his argument that while he's for shrinking government into the size of a split pea (with only a Pentagon inside it), he pushed for earmarks for his own Texas district. Hell, he's a Congressman, delivering for his district is what he's supposed to do.
REP. PAUL: I put it in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back. But it doesn't cut any spending to vote against an earmark. And the Congress has the responsibility to spend the money. Why leave the money in the executive branch and let them spend the money?
Paul was especially compelling when parrying with Russert over U.S. foreign policy, which he says accounts for the bulk of our trillion-plus dollar overspending. He says we should cut off aid to Israel, and to the Arab countries as well, and "give them their sovereignty back." When Russert demanded to know what he would then do if Iran "invaded Israel," Paul responded by giving the question the seriousness it deserved:
MR. RUSSERT: So if Iran invaded Israel, what do we do?
REP. PAUL: Well, they're not going to. That is like saying "Iran is about to invade Mars." I mean, they have nothing. They don't have an army or navy or air force. And Israelis have 300 nuclear weapons. Nobody would touch them. But, no, if, if it were in our national security interests and Congress says, "You know, this is very, very important, we have to declare war." But presidents don't have the authority to go to war.
Bravo. And when Russert continued to push the issue, which for some reason is a pet issue among American journalists, Paul continued to make perfect sense:
MR. RUSSERT: This is what you said about Israel. "Israel's dependent on us, you know, for economic means. We send them" "billions of dollars and they," then they "depend on us. They say, `Well, you know, we don't like Iran. You go fight our battles. You bomb Iran for us.' And they become dependent on us."
Who in Israel is saying "Go bomb Iran for us"?
REP. PAUL: Well, I don't know the individuals, but we know that their leaderships--you read it in the papers on a daily--a daily, you know, about Israel, the government of Israel encourages Americans to go into Iran, and the people--I don't think that's a--I don't think that's top secret that the government of Israel...
MR. RUSSERT: That the government of Israel wants us to bomb Iran?
REP. PAUL: I, I don't think there's a doubt about that, that they've encouraged us to do that. And of course the neoconservatives have been anxious to do that for a long time.
MR. RUSSERT: Would you cut off all foreign aid to Israel?
REP. PAUL: Absolutely. But remember, the Arabs would get cut off, too, and the Arabs get three times as much aid altogether than Israel. But why, why make Israel so dependent? Why do we--they give up their sovereignty. They can't defend their borders without coming to us. If they want a peace treaty, they have to ask us permission. They can't--we interfere when the Arab leagues make overtures to them. So I would say that we've made them second class citizens. I, I think they would take much better care of themselves. They would have their national sovereignty back, and I think they would be required then to have a stronger economy because they would have to pay their own bills.
I can just hear the sound of the neoconservatives' heads exploding...
Russert tried to draw Paul into the "Patriot trap" by questioning his fealty to the notion that the Islamofascists hate us for our freedoms and are waging global jihad against, us, therefore we must support the president (ahem):
MR. RUSSERT: You mentioned September 11th, a former aide of yours, Eric Dondero said this. "When September 11th happened, he just completely changed," talking about you. "One of the first things he said was not how awful the tragedy was, it was, `Now we're going to get big government.'" Was that your reaction?
REP. PAUL: Well, I'm, I'm surprised somebody like that who's a disgruntled former employee who literally was put out. But, yes, thought...
MR. RUSSERT: He said he quit because he disagreed with you.
REP. PAUL: Yeah, no. The point is, Randolph Bourne says war is a helpless state. I believe that statement. When you have war, whether it's a war against drugs, war against terrorism, war, war overseas, war--the mentality of the people change and they're more willing to sacrifice their liberties in order to be safe and secure. So, yes, right after 9/11 my reaction was, you know, it's going to be a lot tougher selling liberty. But I'm pleasantly surprised that I'm still in the business of selling liberty and the Constitution and there's still a lot of enthusiasm for it. So all the American people don't agree that we have to have the nanny state and have the government taking care of us. So I have been encouraged. I might have been too pessimistic immediately after 9/11 because, in a way, it has caused this reaction and this uprising in this country to say, "Enough is enough. We don't need more Patriot Acts, we don't need more surveillance of our people. We don't need national ID cards. We don't need the suspension of habeas corpus. What we need is more freedom." So in one way I was pessimistic, but in another way, now, I'm more encouraged with the reception I'm getting with this message.
MR. RUSSERT: And you actually go further. You said this. "Abolish the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency and dismantle every other agency except the Justice and Defense Departments." And then you went on. "If elected president, Paul says he would abolish public schools, welfare, Social Security and farm subsidies."
REP. PAUL: OK, you may have picked that up 20 or 30 years ago, it's not part of my platform. As a matter of fact, I'm the only one that really has an interim program. Technically, a lot of those functions aren't constitutional. But the point is I'm not against the FBI investigation in doing a proper role, but I'm against the FBI spying on people like Martin Luther King. I'm against the CIA fighting secret wars and overthrowing government and interfering...
MR. RUSSERT: Would you abolish them?
REP. PAUL: I would, I would not abolish all their functions, but I--the, the, the...
MR. RUSSERT: What about public schools? Are you still...
REP. PAUL: OK, but let's go, let's go with the CIA. They're, they're involved in, in, in torture. I would abolish that, yes. But I wouldn't abolish their right and our, our requirement to accumulate intelligence for national defense purposes.
MR. RUSSERT: But if you...
REP. PAUL: That's quite different.
Score another one for Ron Paul. Whatever your views on his radical libertarianism, you can't argue that he doesn't know the Constitution, and unlike the present occupant of the White House, he actually respects it.
And he made Russert look really quite silly on the question of amendments:
MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.
REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there?
You can argue with Paul on the substance, but uh, Tim ... the Constitution can be amended ... it's kind of written in there... Being a strict constructionist doesn't mean you don't believe in amending the Constitution, it means believing that judges and legislators cannot act in contravention to the Constitution without amending it... Anyhoo...
Paul also had great answers on the "war on drugs," the civil war and slavery (he makes the point that every other country in the West got rid of slavery without a war), but his best answer was on the question of fascism, as mentioned earlier. On that, he is in agreement with Constitutional experts like fellow libertarian Jonathan Turley and former Nixon counsel John Dean, as well as with people of the left like Randi Rhodes. Here's the back and forth:
MR. RUSSERT: ... Before you go, Mike Huckabee, Republican candidate for president, ran this commercial for Christmas and many thought that the shelf in the back looked like a cross. You were asked about it on CNN and this is what you said.
REP. PAUL: It reminds me of what Sinclair Lewis once says. He said when fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.
MR. RUSSERT: What does that mean?
REP. PAUL: What? Fascism or the definition of fascism?
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that Mike Huckabee is...
REP. PAUL: Oh, I didn't say that. I said it reminded me--as a matter of fact they caught me completely cold on that. I had not seen the ad, and they just said there was a cross there. And, you know, it was an instantaneous reflex because I knew of Sinclair Lewis about being cautious, because, you know, I--what prompts this is things like the Patriot Act. You know...
MR. RUSSERT: Let me go back...
REP. PAUL: No, no. If you're not a patriot...
MR. RUSSERT: But let me go back to this ad. You do not believe that Mike Huckabee, that ad commercial represents the potential of fascism in the form of a cross.
REP. PAUL: No. But I think this country, a movement in the last 100 years, is moving toward fascism. Fascism today, the softer term, because people have different definition of fascism, is corporatism when the military industrial complex runs the show, when the--in the name of security pay--pass the Patriot Act. You don't vote for it, you know, you're not patriotic America. If you don't support the troops and you don't support--if you don't support the war you don't support the troops. It's that kind of antagonism. But we have more corporatism and more abuse of our civil liberties, more loss of our privacy, national ID cards, all this stuff coming has a fascist tone to it. And the country's moving in that direction. That's what I'm thinking about. This was not personalized. I never even used my opponents names if you, if you notice.
MR. RUSSERT: So you think we're close to fascism?
REP. PAUL: I think we're approaching it very close. One--there's one, there's one documentary that's been put out recently that has generated a lot of interest called "Freedom to Fascism." And we're moving in that direction. Were not moving toward Hitler-type fascism, but we're moving toward a softer fascism. Loss of civil liberties, corporations running the show, big government in bed with big business. So you have the military industrial complex, you have the medical industrial complex, you have the financial industry, you have the communications industry. They go to Washington and spend hundreds of millions of dollars. That's where the control is. I call that a soft form of fascism, something that is very dangerous.
MR. RUSSERT: For the record, the Sinclair Lewis Society said that Mr. Lewis never uttered that quote.
REP. PAUL: But others refuted that and put them down and said that--and they found the exact quote where it came from.
More on Sinclair Lewis and his apocryphal novel, "It Can't Happen Here," here.
It's interesting to see Rep. Robert Wexler and fellow Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz on such polarized opposite sides of an issue, but such a thing is impeachment, that it deeply divides Democrats, more so than it does Republicans.
Wexler, who is on the pro-hearings side of things, has started his own site, wexlerwantshearings.com, to dramatize his call for an impeachment inquiry against the vice president. Good for him. And he tells ThinkP that an op-ed he co-wrote with other members of Congress was roundly rejected by all of the major rags -- none of whom take the notion of impeaching this president seriously.
These are the same papers that ran rabid with stories ginning up impeachment against one William Jefferson Clinton, not for lying to Congress to get us into a war, not for possibly secreting evidence of crimes against U.S. laws banning torture, not for illegally surveilling the American people with the help of private companies, not for defying Congress and junking the Constitution by using signing statements to make and discard laws ... but for having sex with some chick in a big old thong.
We laid out precisely why the House Judiciary Committee should open up hearings. … And we set out in an op-ed why we should do it, and none of the major newspapers in the country — the New York Times or the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the LA Times — they chose not to run it.
I thought it was a fairly significant statement by the mainstream media that when members of the House Judiciary Committee lay out a credible claim for why impeachment hearings should begin regarding the Vice President of the United States, and they refuse to run it, then we decided well we would start this website…and see what the feeling was in terms of mainstream America.
That was essentially George W. Bush's answer to reporter's queries during a press conference today, regarding his foreknowledge of the destruction of those CIA torture tapes. This will sound familiar to Valerie Plame and her husband:
The president, fencing good-naturedly with reporters at a White House news conference, parried a question that suggested there was ambiguity in his earlier statements that he had no recollection about the existence or destruction of the tapes.
“It sounds pretty clear to me,” Mr. Bush said. “The first recollection is when Mike Hayden briefed me. That’s pretty clear.” Gen. Michael V. Hayden is the director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Nor would the president respond directly when asked whether he thought the C.I.A.’s 2005 destruction of the videotapes showing harsh questioning of two suspected terrorists was “the responsible thing to do.”
The president said he was confident that inquiries being started by Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, by the C.I.A.’s own inspector general’s office and in Congress “will end up enabling us all to find out what exactly happened.”
“And, therefore, over the course of these inquiries and oversight hearings, I’m going to reserve judgment until I find out the full facts,” Mr. Bush said. “I know I’m going to be asked about this question a lot as time goes by. I’m just going to prepare you. Until these inquiries are complete, until the oversight’s finished, then I will be rendering no opinion from podium.”
"There's a serious investigation," the president said. "I'm not going to prejudge the outcome of the investigation." He commented in response to reporters' questions during a meeting with Bulgaria's president, Georgi Parvanov. ...
Oh, it was Scooter??? Well I'll be damned! Okay, here's where Bush just gets downright embarrassing:
Only a few minutes went by at Thursday morning’s news conference before the subject of the tapes was raised again, this time by a questioner who asked the president whether he was concerned that the episode would raise “questions from people around the world” about how the United States treats terrorism suspects.
“You know, you’re trying to get me to prejudge the outcome of this inquiry,” Mr. Bush said. “Let’s wait and see what the facts are.”
As for America’s image in the world, Mr. Bush said, “I’m not surprised we get criticized on a variety of fronts. And you know, on the other hand, most people like to come to our country, and most people love what America stands for.
“And so, it’s like I said about the presidency,” Mr. Bush went on. “People in America, you know, like the presidency, and sometimes they like the president. Get it?”
Yeah, get it? What a shmuck. I wonder what that press conference would have sounded like in pre-war Iraq...?
So, Saddam, do you think that the disclosure that your government tortures people harms Iraq's image around the world?
"Well, infidel, people like to come to Iraq. This is where the Garden of Eden was, you know. ... and the Tower of Babel. People like that sort of thing. Get it?"
John McCain hits back at a Drudge bomb that he's pleading with the New York Times to spike a Friday piece alleging that he did favors for a lobbyist. Says The Politico:
On Thursday, John McCain responded to an unsubstantiated story on the Drudge Report about whether he did legislative favors for a lobbyist, and alleging his campaign was trying to convince The New York Times to spike a story on the topic.
At a press conference in Detroit, McCain defended his record of integrity, while confirming that his staff has been in contact with the newspaper, according to The Associated Press.
But, McCain said, "I have not been in talks with The New York Times."
However, Politico has confirmed that McCain himself had one conversation with Times Executive Editor Bill Keller, in which the senator expressed concerns with how the story was being reported.
And Washington power lawyer Bob Bennett has confirmed to Politico that he is providing counsel to McCain.
McCain's camp issued a statement attacking "gutter politics" and reiterating the senator’s record of integrity.
But the candidate hasn't exactly helped his own campaign.
On Thursday morning, McCain campaign officials, in an effort to not amplify the story, refused to respond on the record to the Drudge allegations.
But then McCain himself did not follow suit, instead choosing to respond to the allegations when asked about them by a reporter.
With his defense and partial explanation, McCain ensured that the charges would filter into the mainstream media.
McCain is calling the allegations "gutter politics." This guy's been around the block with George W. Bush, so I guess he should know. But that story will now get big play over the pre-holiday weekend, when (he hopes) no one will really be paying attention, but when (he should worry) no one will hear his defense, either.
Well, Tom, we'll miss you (sort of, I mean, you really didn't get much press attention, so it's not like we paid all that much attention to you, but, you know ...) So in your honor, let's rack up that dandy political advert of yours just one ... more ... time:
