About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 12:29pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
From Hitchens in Slate

She would have been in a good position to know about this connection, because when she was prime minister, she pursued a very active pro-Taliban policy, designed to extend and entrench Pakistani control over Afghanistan and to give Pakistan strategic depth in its long confrontation with India over Kashmir...

This is what makes her murder such a disaster. There is at least some reason to think that she had truly changed her mind, at least on the Taliban and al-Qaida, and was willing to help lead a battle against them. She had, according to some reports, severed the connection with her rather questionable husband...


(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/27, 9:14pm)




Post 1

Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 9:31pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Well, there is a lot to sort out.  Benazir Bhutto was nowhere near being a classical liberal, but then, neither is President Bush.  That she was elected prime minister of Pakistan (twice) offered some hope for cultural change within Islamic states.[1]  Of course, that alone is not enough to whitewash her political agenda -- whatever it might actually be... 
...  chaired the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), a centre-left political party in Pakistan affiliated to the Socialist International. Bhutto was the first woman elected to lead a Muslim state, having been twice elected Prime Minister of Pakistan. She was sworn in for the first time in 1988 at the age of 35, but was removed from office 20 months later under the order of then-president Ghulam Ishaq Khan on grounds of alleged corruption. In 1993 Bhutto was re-elected but was again removed in 1996 on similar charges, this time by President Farooq Leghari.
Bhutto went into self-imposed exile in Dubai in 1998, where she remained until she returned to Pakistan on 18 October 2007, after reaching an understanding with President Musharraf by which she was granted amnesty and all corruption charges were withdrawn.
                                                                                                                                      --- wikipedia

Seldom does a leader actually come to power to change a nation.  In fact, I say "never."  If anyone can think of an example, I'm open to it.  As a leader, you always work with the cultural context.  In theory, she might have been the kind of "socialist" as Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.  Now, we will never know.  It would be interesting to read her autobiography Destiny's Daughter

The news -- CNN, anyway; my homepage is cnn.com -- carps about whether Pakistan's nuclear weapons might fall into the hands of Islamists or other extremists.  I would say that is already the case.   
1988--Hedrick Smith article in New York Times reports US government sources believe Pakistan has produced enough highly enriched uranium for 4-6 bombs.
1990--French magazine publishes photo of West German government document citing claim by UK official that British government believes Pakistan already possesses `a few small' nuclear weapons;
1998 -- 28 May 1998: Pakistan detonates five nuclear devices. Pakistan claimed that the five nuclear tests measured up to 5.0 on the Richter scale, with a reported yield of up to 40 KT (equivalent TNT).
1998 -- 30 May 1998 Pakistan tested one more nuclear warheads, with a yield of 12 kilotons, bringing the total number of claimed tests to six.
Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/chron.htm

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) estimates that Pakistan has built 24-48 HEU-based nuclear warheads, and Carnegie reports that they have produced 585-800 kg of HEU, enough for 30-55 weapons. Pakistan's nuclear warheads are based on an implosion design that uses a solid core of highly enriched uranium and requires an estimated 15-20 kg of material per warhead. According to Carnegie, Pakistan has also produced a small but unknown quantity of weapons grade plutonium, which is sufficient for an estimated 3-5 nuclear weapons.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/index.html

Though India has not made any official statements about the size of it nuclear arsenal, the NRDC estimates that India has a stockpile of approximately 30-35 nuclear warheads and claims that India is producing additional nuclear materials. Joseph Cirincione at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (3) estimates that India has produced enough weapons-grade plutonium for 50-90 nuclear weapons and a smaller but unknown quantity of weapons-grade uranium. Weapons-grade plutonium production takes place at the Bhabha Atomic Research Center, which is home to the Cirus reactor acquired from Canada, to the indigenous Dhruva reactor, and to a plutonium separation facility.
Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuke/index.html

>> Do you think that 40 or 50 atom bombs are enough to let you sleep at night, you know, sort of like a Glock under the pillow? How's your stock of potassium iodide?--- MEM <<

Pakistan's nuclear weapons program was established in 1972 by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who founded the program while he was Minister for Fuel, Power and Natural Resources.
 
[1]I find it somewhat galling, actually, that India, Israel, Pakistan, the Philippines and many others have elected women to executive governmental office, but that the USA has not found a woman with the political stature of Gerald Ford, Calvin Coolidge or Franklin Pierce.




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 10:14pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Michael, two points.

According to my Pakistani friend, and in accord with Hitchens' comments, Bhutto was nominally socialist, but ideologically pragmatic, and in fact, as corrupt as the next PM. People do mature. She was the soul charismatic "torch carrier" for secularist hopes - that is why Al Qaida killed her. She might indeed have failed, but they knew she could not be allowed the chance to succeed.

Second, what do you mean "the USA has not found a woman with the political stature of Gerald Ford, Calvin Coolidge or Franklin Pierce?" We do not find politicians. They put themselves forth. I don't find it galling that we haven't found a homosexual with the wisdom of Lincoln, a cripple with the fortitude of FDR, a Catholic with the charisma of JFK, or a divorcé with the moral courage of Reagan. I don't care if our next president is a cross-dressing three-timing bully of Latin descent, so long as he neither raises spending nor taxes and so long as he does stand up for our country on the world stage with articulate passion. I don't even care if he has prostate cancer.

Ted Keer




Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.