Do you think Pakistan's "Intelligence Intercepts" saying Al-Queda killed her are real or ficticious?

Question

"Two months before her death, former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto sent an e-mail to her U.S. adviser and longtime friend, saying that if she were killed, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf would bear some of the blame."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/27/bhutto.security/index.html

Answer 1

True Musharraf likely didn't do as much as he could have but I don't think he killed her. I think it was the extemists, Al Queda or others that opposed her (because she intended on cleaning up the tribal areas and flushing all the terrorists who flooded over from Afghanistan etc. out of those regions).

They knew that she was "siding with the west" and it was her intention to bring democracy and stability to Pakistan, something they don't want, because then all the warlords and terrorists won't be able to rule and bribe and threaten and corrupt and govern even the government and certainly the people, by fear, which is what they have always done.

So no doubt in my mind whatsoever.

What a huge loss to Pakistan which is very critical to everyone else in the world too, because this country has 15 nuclear warheads, which if they get into hands of terrorists, we are all doomed.

Musharraf is in danger himself don't forget. He is as much as target as Bhutto was.

I am certain Bhutto would have won the elections on the 8th, so it is a very sad, sad day indeed.

The US has HAD to work with Musharraf, but they were supportive of Bhutto and anxiously awaiting her entry into her rightful position (don't forget she WAS the PM at 35 to boot!) before she was ousted. She was also Harvard educated and studied at Oxford in England as well where she was living for the last 10 years or so. She had three children and was married too of course.

So three kids are without a mother too. My guess is at least one will follow in her shoes as well.

Answer 2

Considering that Musharraf is in control of the Pakistan Intelligence and the fact the he pulled at least 3/4 of the Security off Bhutto, I would say that he bears a large percentage of the blame. For all we know he could bear 100% of the blame. Al Qaeda may have had nothing to do with it because they usually lay claim to everything they do as they like to brag about it. And they have not accepted responsibility to this as of yet. The reason could be that it wasn't Al Qaeda at all. You know how they operate; they would be screaming it from the rooftops if they had done it.

Answer 3

This is a reasonable question. Will the public ever receive an accurate response to this question?Probably not.
I'd say Al-Queda probably (50%+) was responsible since maintaining a chaotic atmosphere in this region would be to their benefit; they also had the means to carry out such an attack. Musharraf probably knew that if any harm came to Bhutto he would be a "usual suspect" so better not do anything to harm her...but not offer much protection.
Whatever we hear in the news, to my mind, will be suspect.

Answer 4

Ficticious. These is not a democratic regime no matter what anyone says. Musharraf rules with an iron fist and has the US in his back pocket.

Answer 5

What's the difference really, Musharraf or terrorists...they're all in the same bag idealistically. He bears some of the blame anyway by not providing sufficient security.

Why not punish them both and let God decide.

Answer 6

of course its a lie. Al-Qaeda has become a scapegoat, whenever something happens, Al-Qaeda did it. sooner or later we will start blaming snow storms on them as well. I wouldn't be suprised if CIA has some hand in her killing. Because, lets be realistic, United States does not want a peaceful Muslim country. When Muslim countries are peaceful, US gets threatened by it. If Muslim countries were peaceful, there wouldn't be much for politicians to talk about on the campaign trail in the United States. God forbid, if that were to be the case, than the politicians have to start talking about "real" issues, like economy, education, health care, jobs, taxes, crime and drug traffic in the United States. But in reality, none of them want to talk about that in detail...so talking about Al-Qaeda and Muslim extremists is much easier and there is nothing like putting fear in US citizens minds to make them paranoid to win votes. Majority of the politicians and many world leaders know, for example, that Iran is not a great threat, in terms of violence. However, Iran is a threat to US economically. Iran has started selling natural gas to European countries thru Turkey; Iran started making automobiles, they are beginning to invest in pharmaceutical, and many other industries. Iran is slowly becoming an economic power and that is the only reason US is threatened; not by nuclear weapons. Pakistan is much greater threat, because they have the weapon, government is extremely unstable and Taliban/Al-Qaeda operate from there, so why isn't the US government putting the same and even greater pressure on Pakistan than that they put on Iran? Because US is trying to isolate Iran from the rest of the world. But thankfully that strategy is slowly failing thanks to Russia and China. Iranian leader that people see on TV running his mouth isn't the actual leader who is in charge of the country. He is a puppet, he has absolutely no control over military; if he were to say go do this, military would laugh at him. US and rest of the world knows it, but you won't hear US media reporting that minor fact.

Answer 7

If the challenge had failed, and US infantrymen ended up being taken hostage or killed, might the cons be saying that the failure exchange into Obama's fault? Obama (or any president for that count) merits not greater nor any much less credit for the fulfillment of any military operation, than the quantity of blame that he might acquire if the challenge had failed.

Answer 8

Most likely ficticious.

Answer 9

I don't think they're any less credible than that of the american intelligence agencies.

Answer 10

real