What We Know VS. What the World knows

Almost a month ago former Prime Minister Bhutto died, and there was a bit of a mess in the press as to what actually happened. In first reports I had heard that it was an assassination. But it wasn’t long before the US press began saying things like, she bumped her head when the explosion went off - and other such BS if you ask me. There was the ONE photo that was a still from video that surfaced for a moment, and even Fox reported on it. Then WHOOSH…the story seemed to disappear for the most part.

Less than 24 hours ago the AP broke the story that two of Bhutto’s assassins were arrested near the Afghani border when a terrorist attack was thwarted in Pakistan. A teenage boy was one of them, and he confessed to being one of five sent to kill her. The guys are said to be related to the very man that Bhutto herself had said was a threat to her too, a militant leader with strong ties to al-Qaida. Although it’s said they are waiting on more testimony from other suspects to collaborate the story before accepting it, the AP article said that both the CIA and the Pakistani administration had concluded shortly after her death that this was what happened and these were the people involved.

When I Google “Bhutto’s assassins” today 89% of all articles written on this new development are foreign periodicals – about three or four out of the first 30 listed. The first to appear is this article form the New York Times, where they are reporting the CIA’s conclusion as brand-new (as do ALL the other US publications I see), and the NYT seems to be questioning the CIA’s motives for such a conclusion more than anything else.

Another interesting report within the AP report was related to Bhutto saying many times that she was for a crack down on Islamic militants in the same region where the arrests took place; and in a small note towards the end of the article it’s said that the head of the Pakistani Intelligence (ISI) for that very region, was recently shot and killed.

The whole article is interesting in how it reports “success” in foiling terrorist plots, and yet also reports there is a great deal of unrest coupled with widespread doubts that the elections can actually be held three weeks from now when they are currently scheduled to happen.

On another note about stories that have seems to all but completely disappear….what about that so-called threatening naval incident in the Straights of Hormuz? Even as the story started to unravel, there were little to no US reports that it wasn’t what it was originally reported to be. Nor did the news that the Pentagon played a hand in spreading those false reports of an Iranian threat ever reach the surface.

It is easy to come to the conclusion that all the posturing against Iran by the Bush administration was for the purpose of starting another war, and I was one to have believed this for quite some time. The fact that it has yet to happen up until now does pose an interesting question though. I still suspect that it would have happened by now given the opportunity to justify it somehow. I have also been thinking that just maybe, members of Congress or other entities have somehow prevented it; or maybe the press did give the issue just enough exposure to rile the public up enough to let our officials and the administration know that we would not tolerate such a thing. MAYBE.

However…what if the real reason for all the posturing against Iran was motivated by something else entirely? What if the numerous false accusations had already accomplished the administration’s goals? This article explores that very question, and I think explains quite a bit. It essentially says that the political position it puts the US in, with allies and “enemies” alike, are the most beneficial things of all to the administration. It points out that it has indeed made for unlikely allies as well as bolstered our relationship with Israel, and there are other powers that are then almost handed over to the US under these circumstances. It makes me think of the fact that sanctions have already been placed on Iran three times now, and that alone could very well very soon another entire country under our thumb by way of desperation - amongst other things. Think about how the naval incident shaped the Middle Eastern tour that Bush took shortly thereafter. More later…