2007-12-31 05:39:05 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
if Bush really wanted peace in the middle east, freedom, democracy, and all that, he would have been providing better security for the people than he does the oil wells, from the start.
2007-12-31 05:43:32 · answer #1 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
driveran is right. She asked for private security from outside Pakistan but President Musharaf denied the permission.
2007-12-31 08:28:34 · answer #2 · answered by VK 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why would she ask the U.S. to provide protection? This sounds like another desperate attempt to blame the U.S.A. and President Bush for something that they had no part in but unfortunately there are people who will believe a story like this.
2007-12-31 06:06:28 · answer #3 · answered by hdean45 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
She asked the U.S. for better security? pardon my ignorance but, wasn't she in Pakistan? we have no authority or jurisdiction to provide security in a sovereign country... She knew the risks of going back to Pakistan, she knew about all the death threats against her..she boldy stated "They (Al ' Queida) will not kill me because I am a woman and Islam forbids the killing of women." I guess she underestimated that one. After the killing Al ' Queida came out on their official website and claimed responsibility for the action...so Musharraf, Bush or Elvis did not kill her..the same cold hearted killers that killed 3,000 innocent people on 9/11 are responsible.
And, do not bring up the Iraq question, it is a little old and tired, we are there now, no use crying about it...let's finish the job and get out.
2007-12-31 06:02:11 · answer #4 · answered by Son of Liberty! 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The request was denied by Pakistan. So how do you do that contract?
2007-12-31 05:51:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Butto should have left Pakistan. We have no right to send in our military to protect a politician of another country. She knew her life was in danger from the minute she stepped back int the country.
2007-12-31 05:49:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
It's not up to the US to protect her while she is in Pakistan. The fact that 140 people were killed when she returned to that country a couple of months ago shows that she should have beefed up security on her own and not relied on anyone else.
2007-12-31 05:48:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Why the hell would we supply security in Pakistan? We are up to our @sses trying to accomplish that in Iraq.
2007-12-31 05:48:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
It really is pathetic that liberal hatred has grown to the proportion that it has. And to think all of this grew from a close election in 2000 amazes me. Kind of the epitome of a sore loser.
2007-12-31 05:45:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
Bush was busy enjoying his vacation staying away from a possible re-emergence of his own potential suicide bomber Cindy Sheehan..in Crawford
sorry but she was the one out in public in an environment that spawns religious zealots..maybe she should have signed a deal with Blackwater..subcontractors killed Sadat in Egypt
2007-12-31 05:45:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Bhutto was a Paki, in Pakistan. She had her own security and should have gotten more if she did not feel safe.
The US government had no role, no involvement, no right to be in Pakistan. Mr. Bush is a good Christian. For you to suggest he is a murder is sinful.
2007-12-31 05:44:19 · answer #11 · answered by regerugged 7 · 5⤊ 4⤋