This part had always stuck in my mind. From the AP:
And:Two U.S. lawmakers cut short their visit to Pakistan in the wake of the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., had been scheduled to meet Thursday with former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and President Pervez Musharraf. They were advised to leave the country by the State Department after Bhutto's assassination.
Ever wonder what were they going to talk about? Now we know:Specter said in a telephone interview Thursday from his Islamabad hotel room that he and Kennedy were to dine with Musharraf and meet later in the night with Bhutto.
Considering the discredited story the Musharraf government is trying to sell about the assassination, this little piece of information doesn't bode well for Pakistan.The day she was assassinated last Thursday, Benazir Bhutto had planned to reveal new evidence alleging the involvement of Pakistan's intelligence agencies in rigging the country's upcoming elections, an aide said Monday.
Bhutto had been due to meet U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., to hand over a report charging that the military Inter-Services Intelligence agency was planning to fix the polls in the favor of President Pervez Musharraf.
Safraz Khan Lashari, a member of the Pakistan People's Party election monitoring unit, said the report was "very sensitive" and that the party wanted to initially share it with trusted American politicians rather than the Bush administration, which is seen here as strongly backing Musharraf.
I still don't know why she didn't want to give the report to the Bush White House, though. If anyone knows a thing or two about rigging elections, it's that crowd.
But I digress...A former GOP political operative who ran an illegal election-day scheme to jam the phone lines of New Hampshire Democrats during the state's tight 2002 U.S. Senate election said in a new book and an interview that he believes the scandal reaches higher into the Republican Party.
Allen Raymond of Bethesda, Md., whose book Simon & Schuster will publish next month, also accused the Republican Party of trying to hang all the blame for a scandal on him as part of an "old-school cover-up."
Raymond's book, "How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative," offers a raw, inside glimpse of the phone scandal as it unraveled and of a ruthless world in which political operatives seek to win at all costs.
27 comments:
John K. says: LMAO Oh man this one was funny. Has anyone seen Karl Rove lately? The day after this occurred we were predicting how long it would take you left wing loons to make this connection. Wow are you kooks predictable. LOL
"We" were predicting it, John? You mean you and Glenn Beck? I don't know who should be more embarrased, you for associating yourself with him, or him for being associated with you.
There's a reason that it was predictable that this connection would come up. See if you can figure out what it is. Hint: The 2000 presidential elections in the US.
Surely even you aren't deluded enough to think that the GOP isn't heavily into fixing elections, are you? You are? Whew!
And don't call me Shirley.
Surely even you aren't deluded enough to think that the GOP isn't heavily into fixing elections, are you? You are? Whew!
It seems that any election that a democrat loses is fixed to your side.
I heard your side screaming election fraud in 2000, 2002 and 2004. But for some reason not in 2006.
Of course the left is pure in this regard.
JAIL TIME FOR TIRE-SLASHERS
Investigation Proof That John McKay’s of Voter Fraud Was Woefully Inadequate
I Have a Dream...of a Nation Where the Sons of Former Slaves Practice Voting Fraud As Effectively As the Sons of Former Slave Owners
Voter Fraud in Kansas City
John K. says: Who was predicting it? People in this area with rational minds. LOL Hey did anyone see the picture of Bhutto with her upper torso sticking out of the sun roof. I swear, if you look close, you can see Rumsfield driving the SUV. LMAO LMAO
John K. says: Hey shitrock give me your address and $19.95 and I will send you two boxes of unmarked 2000 Presidential ballots. ( I got them when the DNC did some spring cleaning) Then you and your friends can have hours of fun marking them and counting them and proclaim Al Gore was the winner. You can even wave the ballot arounds and check for hanging chads. Think of the fun you can have in your delusional world of election fraud. LOL I am the Man!
John, you are just the best! Keep doing exactly what you're doing, and if you can, get all your Wacky Wingnut friends to join you. I never had this much fun reading nonesense -- but I haven't read Glenn Beck's book yet. BTW, how's Major Andre these days?
Mein Heir, I don't recall too much complaining about fixes in 2000 or 2002. The first Bush election, of course, wasn't a fixed election because it wasn't an election at all. As I'm sure you know, the full recounts showed that Gore won in Florida, which meant he had BOTH the electoral and popular votes and your boob was then, as now, just a boob. 2004 was, in fact, fixed in Ohio, and it wouldn't take much research to verify that. Of course, you won't do it. Hint: Mark Crispin Miller.
But you make a good general point when you claim "It seems that any election that a democrat loses is fixed..." Although I would dispute that they're ALL fixed (for example, Texas keeps electing Republicans), enough are to make you correct. Don't get a big head about being right this once, it's probably a statistical fluke.
BTW, I love the way you Wingnuts hold onto a position until it's completely discredited, then just disappear. Then you come back later with another inane position, which...well, you get the idea.
Dayvoe --
How reliable is this McClatchy, "Truth to Power" newspaper?
Bram
PS John K and Schmuck Shitrock et al: we should be talking about how to fix Pakistan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS6-7DeS6Is
Now I'm not making any accusations here...
But please tell me that you people don't believe that the Republican party or President Musharraf has anything to do with Bhutto's killing.
Like I said, I'm not saying you actually think that, I just want to make absolutely sure...
If you do think that, you leftists have officially lost touch with any shred of reality you still recognize.
If you start believing crap like that, the next thing you know you'll be nodding your head in agreement with Charlie Sheen and Rosie O'Donnell when they suggest that 9/11 was an inside job.
Let me say (since I'm the guy who wrote the blog posting) that I do NOT think that anyone here in the US (and that would include the Republican party) had anything to do with the killing of Benazir Bhutto.
If that's what you read - even a hint of that - in what I wrote, then I have to be much much more careful in the future.
I'm very glad to hear that Dayvoe,
Please do be more careful...when you bring up "rigged" elections here in America and the crisis in Pakistan in the same post, people might ask questions...
thanks for taking my advice
John K. says: Ahh the left. All elections are rigged except for the 2006 election. Get those unmarked 2000 ballots while they still are available lefties. LOL
you leftists have officially lost touch with any shred of reality
Funny, isn't it, the way that "reality" works?
For example, reality in the USA consists of a rapidly-shrinking middle class, a disastrous war, vanishing civil liberties and respect for the Constitution, a totally corrupt government, a depleted military, massive deficits, and falling median wages. Some people look at this reality and see it as the result of a very successful 8-year run by a wonderful president.
Some people look at the reality of a coddled, drunken playboy cheerleader deserter and see a hero. They also look at a series of true war heros and see cheats and liars.
Some people listen to clowns on the radio every day. They hear lies from the clowns, they hear the truth on the other side, and they decide that the lies are reality.
Some people look at the reality of a government killing our soldiers for no good reason and call it "supporting the troops." They also look at people who point this out and call it treason.
Speaking of treason, some people look at a person who is actually convicted of covering up treasonous activity at the highest levels of the Executive Branch and see a persecuted saint.
Some people look at the reality of an assassination in Pakistan and know instantly who was responsible because of a press release from a military dictator and thereupon close their minds to any other explanation.
The nature of reality certainly is strange to some people. Maybe if they took it a little easy on the peyote....
C.H.
Of course Bush had nothing to do with the assassination. But Musharraf?
If he was not directly responsible, the amount of security he allocated to his nation's Prime Minister was negligent and borderline criminal. Especially in comparison to HIS OWN attache.
In addition, it is known that Bhutto was assembling and distributing evidence of election-rigging at the time of her assassination.
Another clip:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IRBz8l1mjM0
John K. says: Isn't that Karl Rove stuffing that ballot box? LMAO
Bram, shitrock,
Your accusations against Musharraf don't make any sense if you look at the facts.
First of all, musharraf is a secular ruler despised in the extremist world, and its laughable to suggest he would employ al-qaeda style suicide bombings in an attempt to silence benazir.
Second of all, why are Musharraf and his aides being targeted as well? A week before benazir was killed, one of musharraf's aides Aftab Sherpao barely escaped a suicide attack inside of a mosque packed with holiday worshippers. Sixty people died, and the attack bore the same hallmarks as the one on benazir bhutto. Is musharraf targeting his own people too?
Not to mention, Musharraf has been the target of two assassination attempts last year. In october a bomber attempted to slip into his army office but set off his bomb prematurely when spotted by security forces.
Doesn't make much sense does it?
In the weeks leading up to Benazir's assassination, the Pakistani government repeatedly warned her that would-be suicide bombers had infiltrated rwalpindi, but she instead took it as nothing more than an attempt to silence her message. Sadly, she was wrong.
I'm sorry C.H., I guess I missed the place where I accused Musharraf of being behind the Bhutto assassination. Would you mind pointing that out for me? Thanks. I just hate it when I can't find something I wrote.
C.H. said:
"First of all, musharraf is a secular ruler despised in the extremist world, and its laughable to suggest he would employ al-qaeda style suicide bombings in an attempt to silence benazir."
Okay, this is so deeply flawed.
Benazir did not fall to an al-qaeda style suicide boming. Benazir succumbed to an assassin's bullet. You know, like from a gangster thug Putin-wannabe strongman.
Not saying Pervez did it. Impossible to rule him out as a suspect. (I trust Scotland Yard will realize this).
Given all this, the whole "I know Musharraf is secular!" thing is particularly useless. FYI, Saddam Hussein was secular, we sure went after him with great enthusiasm.
[Easy, Bram, you weren't going to get angry...]
Bram, you only picked out one of the flaws in C.H.'s post.
Most basically, he seems to imply that there could be only one set of assassins in Pakistan.
He also ignores the fact that each of those attacks "failed" except the one on Bhutto. Wouldn't it make good cover for a sponsor of Bhutto's assassins to stage a few "unsuccessful" attacks on himself and others?
Among other misstatements, he also claimed that both of us accused Musharraf of responsiblity for Bhutto's death, which of course neither of us did.
Neither his "facts" nor his "logic" hold any water. Unusual for a Wingnut, huh?
I'm going to need a second to stop laughing here...
Okay, I'm ready...
Schmuck, you said
"He also ignores the fact that each of those attacks "failed" except the one on Bhutto. Wouldn't it make good cover for a sponsor of Bhutto's assassins to stage a few "unsuccessful" attacks on himself and others?"
If you really believe what you wrote in that comment, then you are officially right up there with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the the people who say that the Jews are really in control of American foriegn policy.
By the way, at 10:59, Bram did subtly suggest that Musharraf COULD have been involved in the killing. I'd also like to point out that Benazir was not the prime minister of Pakistan when she was killed.
I see. In your peculiar little world, C.H., the words "could have been involved" constitute an accusation. I have good news for you: That makes you a potential nominee for Dubya's Supreme Court!
If you really believe what you wrote in that comment, then you are officially right up there with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the the people who say that the Jews are really in control of American foriegn policy.
Well, beliefs are the purview of people who can't handle reality, so you are wrong once again. (Certainly you must get tired of that?) But when your reading skills improve or when you have had more therapy for your learning disability, you may realize that I made no claim that such was the case. I was speculating and labeled it as such. In the reality-based world, we neither accept press releases from military dicators as truth nor dismiss strong possibilities as impossible. How about in your delusion-based world?
Let's just finish destroying your precious little treatise, shall we? Yes, we shall.
I have no reason to believe that Jews are in control of American foreign policy. I know that the current Administration isn't, and I know there is nothing any more wrong with Jews than there is with any of you folks who believe in some version of an Invisible Superman in the Clouds.
This is a niggling little point, but since you brought it up: It is customary and courteous to refer to a person by the highest title they have held, so referring to Ms. Bhutto as Prime Minister is just as appropriate as referring to you as Ass Kisser.
As for conspiracy theorists, they can be a wacky bunch, all right, but they can't compare to the right-wing loonies that dreamed up Hillary's murder of Vince Foster. Now THAT was well over the edge.
Now that your credibility (and perhaps your faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or your entire world for all I know) has been completely dismantled, perhaps you would like to scurry back to some Wingnut blog where everyone thinks Dick "Other Priorities" Cheney is a hero and George "Misunderestimated" Bush is eloquent.
Hey, this is none of my business, but you've been doing a lot of laughing and crying here lately. You Wingnuts are only supposed to laugh -- mostly at American soldiers coming home in body bags. Maybe you should seek some professional attention. Just a suggestion. As I said, it's none of my business.
Speaking of laughing, do YOU know who Major Andre was? The Laughing Chickenhawk has been deperately trying to find out.
It's funny how the word "IF" can make the difference between a well thought out rebuttal and an ideological rant drawn invoking talking points from the daily kos and moveon.org that have nothing to do with the original debate.
For one thing, I never officially stated that you believe the crazed conspiracy theory you thought up earlier about Musharraf attacking himself with suicide bombers. You did think it up though, do you dispute that? I stated that "IF" you believe that, you are right up there with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
I can picture you scowering through Keith Olbermann's website desperately trying to find a rebuttal to the facts I pointed out, and when you fail to do so, you lash out violently, attacking with rather ferocious and mean spirited character assassinations.
...and what's with these vile accusations of "laughing" at dead soldiers? Where do you come up with that. I've read a lot of hateful, bitter things from the left, but that despicable lie might just be the most terrible one I have ever heard.
Normally, I would respond by saying it is your team that laughs at death and destruction. After all, it is the far-left that delights in seeing carnage in Baghdad. Every car bombing carried out by terrorists over there gives you points, helping you feed the "Bush lied people died
" rhetoric into the homes of millions of viewers.
People on your team, like Jack Murtha, John Kerry, and Dick Durbin accuse our soldiers of being murderes, rapists, and torturers while pressing for the rights of terrorists.
I'm sure you'll respond by saying that Murtha and Kerry were war heroes and what not, and I'm not discrediting their service to this country at all. However, their actions today are a disgrace and have inflicted just as much harm on the military and the people of Iraq than anyone who has ever strapped a bomb to their chest and screamed Allah Akbar.
Oh yes...
I almost let this one get away
You said its "customary and courteous to refer to a person by the highest title they held"
This coming from a movement that launched a character smear campaign on General Petraeus because he had good news to report in Iraq.
By the way, I deeply admire Mrs. Bhutto and believe that a Muslim woman promoting peace and freedom in the world is one of the best ways to fight terrorism.
Okay. I hate being wrong. If Bhutto was not PM when she was assassinated, I did not know that.
Benazir Bhutto should have had more security because she was Benazir Bhutto. Pervez has control over all that; Pervez has control over everything. Pervez looks out for Pervez.
Looking forward to tracking the Scotland Yard story closely.
it is your team that laughs at death and destruction. After all, it is the far-left that delights in seeing carnage in Baghdad.
What a sorry, sad, angry fantasy world you must live in, C.H. -- full of hate, full of demons. I'm afraid I'm going to have to challenge these phantasmagorical assertions. Please show me one example of anyone on the progressive side in this blog laughing at dead soldiers. Just one. Otherwise I will have to assume that your accusation is simply a projection of you own pathology.
...and what's with these vile accusations of "laughing" at dead soldiers? Where do you come up with that. I've read a lot of hateful, bitter things from the left, but that despicable lie might just be the most terrible one I have ever heard.
Come now. Haven't you been around here long enough to read just a few of John K's maniacal postings? Why do you think I call him the Laughing Chickenhawk? He even gloats that "only" 22 GI's got killed in December. Gloats about dead American soldiers. I certainly hope you don't side with him in rejoicing over the deaths of our soldiers.
People on your team, like Jack Murtha, John Kerry, and Dick Durbin accuse our soldiers of being murderes, rapists, and torturers while pressing for the rights of terrorists.
See, this is a good example of the way Wingnuts refuse to face reality. The FACT is that SOME SMALL NUMBER of soldiers ARE "murderes, rapists, and torturers". If they are committing crimes in our name, they should be hunted down and prosecuted so as not to tarnish the reputations of the vast majority of the troops who fight so valiantly and honorably. Don't you agree? Or does the idea of besmirching the character of our soldiers fall under your idea of "supporting the troops?"
OTOH, you guys have been duped by the Bushies to think that everyone that they have tossed into jail without access to legal representation is a terrorist. If this is so, why have they sent home so many of the Guantanamo prisoners without charging them -- after illegal detention for four or five years? Does the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" ring any bells? How about "Geneva Conventions?"
This coming from a movement that launched a character smear campaign on General Petraeus because he had good news to report in Iraq.
You deserve some congratulations for this brief screed, C.H., having wedged at least four falacies into a mere 23 words:
-- I am not a member of MoveOn, although I do admire their work. If you paid just a little attention -- I know that's tough to do with all those voices shouting in your head -- you would see that I am a participant in no "movement."
-- The MoveOn ad was not a character smear against the General, as anyone knows who read it. (You DID read the ad before mischaracterizing it, didn't you? If so, please quote the part that attacked the General's character.) That headline was offering him the option of telling the truth or betraying us.
-- Unfortunately, the news he had from Iraq was "good" only in contrast to the complete 3-1/2 year debacle that preceeded it. It was rather like someone giving us the good news that Harry Hawk's acting in "Our American Cousin" was delightful in spite of an unfortunate interruption during the third act.
-- It is a complete change of subject and not a bit responsive to my original statement.
I'm sure you'll respond by saying that Murtha and Kerry were war heroes and what not, and I'm not discrediting their service to this country at all.
Right. You're not discrediting them by calling them "heroes and what not." You are not discrediting them when you call their behavior a disgrace. You are not discrediting them when you equate them with suicide bombers. I can only imagine what you might say when you actually INTEND to discredit someone. Maybe you'd really go below the belt and call him "Shitrock," huh?
We're waiting for an example of a lefty laughing at dead soldiers on this blog, so come on back when you have some game. So far, you are neither reflecting any reality nor giving us the kind of amusement we have come to expect from you Wingnuts.
mmmmm...
Where do I start here. So many lies, so many misunderstandings, so little time to respond.
I suppose I'll start by saying I never accused you of laughing at dead soldiers, like you have said of me. I said that you get enjoyment from the carnage in Bgahdad, meaning you people rejoice over the violence there. If you don't believe me, scroll down the posts on this blog and you'll see overwhelming empasis on the bad things happening over there-suicide attacks, car bombings, and other heinous acts. The fact is, you guys aren;t happy with the good news coming out of Iraq, good news that has been there all along but is shoved aside in the media because it hurts their liberal cause.
I highly doubt that John K. or any true American is delighted to hear that 22 americans died last month. He's merely pointing out a statistic that shows the situation has improved. Is it still horrible to hear these things? Yes, every time I turn on MSNBC or the Today Show and listen to their derranged obsession about how bad things are in Iraq I get sick.
The best way to win this war is to overcome the bad with the good, meaning we should put less emphasise and terrorism in Iraq and instead focus on the good news happening over there. Why doesn't NBC send richard engal into Irbil to do a morning report. Every time they get up close footage of car bombs, they are playing right into the terrorists hands.
So as you can see, I never accused you of "laughing at dead soldiers" as you did to me.
You said I was "discrediting" Kerry and Murtha by condemning their ideological-driven views. So are you saying that these people can say whatever the hell they want just because they were in the military? I have said nothing to discredit their military service, just their careers in politics. By the way, shouldn't "innocent until proven guilty" apply to our soldiers as well? Shouldn't they have a fair trial before Murtha appoints himself judge and jury and convicts them of murder? What do you say to that?
I never said you were a member of moveon.org, although you seem to make a prime candidate. When I said movement I was talking about the extreme kook left as a whole. By the way, that ad was created to try and discredit the general because he had a message of hope that was getting in the way of your hateful ideology. If he had come in to deliver a speech about how hopeless things were in Iraq, the left would have praised him.
You can try and twist my words around and put new ones in my mouth, but I think its safe to say the debate is over.
So far the score is...
Neocon wingnuts: 1
kook-fringe leftists:0
I agree that the debate is over, inasmuch as you have been unwilling or unable to answer even one of several challenges where I asked you to back up your infantile rhetoric with, say, one fact.
I asked you to point out where I accused Musharaff of running the Bhutto assassination. No response.
I asked you to show one instance where we laughed at dead American soldiers. No response.
I asked you to quote the passage in the MoveOn ad that disrespected General Petraeus. No response.
So I find your scorekeeping interesting. Apparently "no response" is how you guys think you score points. Well, it worked for Bush when they asked him about his drug use. It worked for him again when they asked him about deserting from his cushy National Guard post. And it worked for him a third time when they asked about treason in Dick Cheney's office. I'm just not sure it works that well for you.
Post a Comment