Civic Duty

O Canada,
what are you doing in Kandahar?

When you live in a pretend democracy, every now and then you have to go out and pretend to vote.

Best wishes to my Canadian friends on the occasion of their civic duty.

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

If It's Not Corporate TV, Then What Is It?

What is it, indeed? It's Not Corporate TV, a sharp new set of interlocking video blogs, with interesting entries in each of the following categories:

Project For The New American Century
911
Iran, Iraq, the Petrodollar
Bogus Terror Propaganda
John Pilger Documentaries
Mainstream Corporate Media and Propaganda
Electronic Voting

For instance, on the "Bogus Terror Propaganda" page, you can watch a piece called The Origin and Myth of 'Al Qaeda'. It's an excerpt from the BBC series The Power Of Nightmares, and it's well worth the ten minutes it will take you to watch it.

That's just one example, and there's much more, including links to some very fine blogs! It's nothing like the corporate TV you're used to, if you're used to corporate TV. And that's why it's Not Corporate TV -- bright, honest, and very well done!

Ha ha! One for the good guys!!

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

The Fix Is In!

Banana Republic North: In the past few days, John McCain has stopped campaigning in states which were once seen as toss-ups; Barack Obama has started campaigning in states which were once seen as safe for McCain; Obama has picked up a major endorsement and a huge funding increase; McCain's campaign has been caught trying to pull off perhaps the most despicable political dirty trick since 9/11; McCain has been pandering to the ultra-rich; and -- according to the latest polls -- support for Obama has been imploding!

Obama's lead over McCain has dropped from 12 points on Thursday to 10 points on Friday, 9 points on Saturday, and 5 points on Sunday.

That's a seven-point decrease in three days. How can that happen?

Consider this: It's far easier to rig the polls than it is to rig the election.

How? The pollsters talk to a small and carefully selected group of people. They can get whatever result they want, just by tweaking the sample. And they do. All the time.

Consider this, too: the election could never be stolen unless there were polls indicating it would be close. Then all they need is a last-minute gaffe, or surprise, or al Qaeda videotape; and the pundits can claim this was the difference in a race that was otherwise too close to call.

Can't happen here? Try again! It happened four years ago. It happened eight years ago. It has happened in countless congressional elections in the past decade, and you can already smell it happening again.

And so ... Election Day approaches, with all the appeal of a multi-train collision.

The police are ready for action, and so is the army. Are you?

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

My One And Only Post About Electoral Reform

It's brilliant and stupid at the same time. It's so practical, it's practically perfect; but it's also ludicrous, and it’s impossible to imagine that it could ever be implemented. Welcome to my one and only post about electoral reform.

Electoral reform is, of course, a chicken-and-egg problem. In order for us -- We The People, remember us? -- to reform the system, we would have to control it. But in order to control it, we would have to reform it.

And it's not only a chicken-and-egg problem, but it's also an impossible one, because we don't have any chickens or any eggs.

But who cares? We're knee-deep in campaign propaganda anyway, so we might as well fantasize about something else for a minute. And as I've promised, this will be my only post on the subject.

~~~

IF -- it's a huge IF -- it were my job to reform the electoral system, I would reinstate some of the time-honored details of democracy which we have lost. We would have paper ballots; they would be counted by hand in public; and anyone who wanted to watch could do so.

But I would discard one principle of ancient democracy which seems very dangerous to me in these modern times. Perhaps there was a reason for it in the old days, when the citizens were a privileged few, and all of them were active in politics. But today, as I see it, there is no justification for the notion that all the votes should be counted equally.

If you don't believe me, consider the exit polls from the 2004 presidential election. Huge proportions of the people who voted for George Bush thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and that Saddam Hussein had been responsible for the attacks of 9/11.

If they didn't know the difference between the accelerator and the brake, they wouldn't be allowed to drive a car. So why should they be allowed to drive our country?

If it were up to me, your ballot would start with a quiz. There would be questions about how the government is structured and how it is supposed to function. There would also be questions about recent history and current events. And the more questions you answered correctly, the more your vote would count.

I have no problem with voters expressing their opinions, as long as those opinions are based on knowledge. Under my system, if you knew what was going on, your vote would be fully counted. But if you knew nothing, your vote would count for nothing.

~~~

Some critics may charge that my idea for reform is too complicated. I agree. If punching a hole in a machine-readable card is too complicated, all thoughts of reform are ludicrous. And I've already said this was a ludicrous idea.

Some may say my plan is elitist and anti-democratic. I agree that it's elitist. But under my system, the "elite" would not be the very few whose families have too much money, but the unlimited numbers of voters who made an effort to educate themselves. In other words, anyone who wanted to join the "elite" could do so. And that's not so anti-democratic after all, is it?

So much for the critics. The benefits would start flowing immediately, in incentives working on the politicians, the media, and the voters themselves.

If deluding supporters meant their votes would become worthless, there would be no reason for any party or any politician to do it -- and those who did so would lose.

Any news provider that persisted in lying about the government and the world would effectively be disenfranchising its subscribers. So deceit would be counterproductive to the media as well.

If learning about the basics of government and keeping an eye on the news of the world meant that their votes would become more valuable, some people would certainly start paying more attention. And those who prefer to sit back and slurp the propaganda would become irrelevant.

~~~

Does it sound too good to be true? That's because it is. We don't have any chickens, and we don't have any eggs. We can't reform the system without controlling it. And we can't control the system without reforming it. So I won’t say any more about reforming this broken system.

But I might suggest that this post be viewed not as a ludicrous proposal for reform, but as a serious comment on why our country's experiment with democratic government has failed so dismally: for decade after decade, the world's most powerful democracy has been driven by people who didn't know the gas from the brakes.

You can congratulate yourself if you weren't one of them. But don't get too carried away. Every single one of their votes counted just as much as yours did.

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Hypothetically Speaking ...

IF an "election" takes place next month as planned, and IF Barack Obama leads in the polls before the "election", and IF huge numbers of Democratic-leaning voters are illegally barred from voting, and IF exit polls show Obama winning anyway, and IF John McCain then gets "elected" "president" ...

THEN what do you think Obama will do about it?

A) The same thing as Al Gore?, or
B) The same thing as John Kerry?

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Frigged In The Rigging: What's Wrong With American Democracy

May I direct your attention to two powerful new reports, starting with Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane at Raw Story:

Republican IT consultant subpoenaed in case alleging tampering with 2004 election

A high-level Republican consultant has been subpoenaed in a case regarding alleged tampering with the 2004 election.

Michael L. Connell was served with a subpoena in Ohio on Sept. 22 in a case alleging that vote-tampering during the 2004 presidential election resulted in civil rights violations. Connell, president of GovTech Solutions and New Media Communications, is a website designer and IT professional who created a website for Ohio’s secretary of state that presented the results of the 2004 election in real time as they were tabulated.

At the time, Ohio’s Secretary of State, Kenneth J. Blackwell, was also chairman of Bush-Cheney 2004 reelection effort in Ohio.

I love this bit:

Connell is refusing to testify or to produce documents relating to the system used in the 2004 and 2006 elections, lawyers say. His motion to quash the subpoena asserts that the request for documents is burdensome because the information sought should be “readily ascertainable through public records request” – but also, paradoxically, because “it seeks confidential, trade secrets, and/or proprietary information” that “have independent economic value” and “are not known to the public, or even to non-designated personnel within or working for Mr. Connell’s business.”

The unbridled hypocrisy reminds me of something...

Please read the rest of the piece from Larisa and Muriel. Please also read the following, from Mark Crispin Miller:

SPOONAMORE REVEALS THE PLAN TO STEAL THE NEXT ELECTION

Here, in this shattering new interview, Stephen Spoonamore goes into harrowing detail about the Bush regime's election fraud, past, present and--if we don't spread the word right now--to come. Since he's the only whistle-blower out there who knows the perps themselves, and how they operate, we have to send this new piece far and wide.

Here Spoon tells us that McBush's team--i.e., Karl Rove and his henchpersons-- have their plan in place to steal this next election: by 51.2% of the popular vote, and three electoral votes.

He also talks about the major role played by the Christianist far right in the electronic rigging of the vote.

And he defines our electronic voting system as a major threat to US national security, calling for it to be junked ASAP, in favor of hand-counted paper ballots.

Since Spoon is a Republican and erstwhile McCain supporter, as well as a noted specialist in nosing out computer fraud, his testimony is essential--not only for its expertise, but, no less, for the impact that his views will surely have on those Republicans who have been loath to see what Bush & Co. has done to our election system.

That whole story's just about to break. In fact, tomorrow there will be a number of articles appearing, on a recent breakthrough in the lawsuit that Spoon's testimony has enabled, and on other aspects of that all-important case.

Miller quotes and links to a piece posted at Velvet Revolution last week.

9/26/08: New Spoonamore Interview - E-voting Machines are a National Security Threat

Last week, VR interviewed GOP Cyber security expert Stephen Spoonamore about the upcoming election and his testimony in the new Ohio litigation to take depositions of Karl Rove and others.

The video is posted in full below with ten short clips for You Tube viewing. This interview is so important and explosive that we urge everyone to watch it. Spoonamore says that the GOP wanted e-voting to steal elections but now foreign governments will be hacking and the winner will be determined by the best hackers. He says that if the GOP wins the hacking competition, McCain will win 51.2 percent with three electoral votes over Obama, and it will be a stolen election.

Spoon makes valid points about the people who have been implicated in much of the election thefts such as, “they are religious extremists.” He names those who know about stolen elections and he insists that the only way to protect this election is with paper ballots, hand counted. Check out this extraordinary interview here.

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/prosecute_rove/images/SpoonIntvw3.wmv

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyByZx5GEaw
It’s a network, people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YadsHqxid8I
Electronic voting machines are a national security threat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbxuXC4QlMk
The genie is out of the bottle….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOHkY7sJ4ZI
Fifty ways to steal an election.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1--KHOo8tkM
Mike Connell: Bush IT Guru

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJHmuG8d2bQ
The Rapp Family: Ohio election cover-up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z7DK3LgiOA
Evangelicals and voting machines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WTe8ppEIic
Paper ballots please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lrFkRHrRDI
McCain/Palin will win by theft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s07oi2G_K4c
People should doubt the vote, it’s being stolen.

Watch for that 51.2%. Watch for those three electoral votes. It'll be an "accountability moment" for the evil GOP and the bogus GWOT, and a "mandate" for McCain to drive us even further down the road to hell ... if it happens.

I understand that if it doesn't happen, if Obama wins, we'll go down that same road anyway, maybe at a different speed, definitely with a different driver.

So for me this is not about McBama/O'Cain.

It's about who actually controls our electoral system ... Is it the GOP? Or the Christianists? Or some foreign intelligence service?

I guess we'll find out in a few weeks.

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Spokesman Says Embattled Musharraf Will Soldier On; AP Twirls

[Updated below]

Pakistan's President, former General Pervez Musharraf, will address the nation very soon in the face of impeachment proceedings. Musharraf has reportedly been asked to step down, but through a spokesman he has declared his intention to soldier on.

Just a few minutes ago, China's news agency Xinhua reported:

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf will not resign while addressing the nation on Monday afternoon, said presidential spokesman Rashid Qureshi.

The reports on Musharraf's resignation "are nonsense," Qureshi told Xinhua via telephone.

"President Musharraf will address the nation, only two hours from now," Qureshi said. But Qureshi did not say what Musharraf would say at the address.

The Press Trust of India has a few more details:

Musharraf, who held consultations with his legal and political advisors this morning, will address the nation at 1 pm, presidential spokesman Maj Gen (retired) Rashid Qureshi said. Other sources said Musharraf is expected to make "some important announcements" during his speech.

Important announcements, indeed.

As AFP notes:

Musharraf, a key ally in the US-led "war on terror", has other options available apart from resignation, including his powers as president to dissolve parliament and even to declare a state of emergency.

AFP notes that such moves would require the support of the Army; it is not certain whether the Army would continue to support Musharraf if he were to declare martial law, dissolve the parliament and incarcerate all his political opposition, as I've suggested that he might.

Depending on where you stand, the situation is poised to get ugly in any number of ways.

As AFP mentions:

Western allies want Pakistan to resolve the crisis over Musharraf so it can deal with the fight against Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, where nearly 500 people have died in the past week.

It's not clear what moves might be taken to "resolve the crisis". The "options" range from a declaration of peace to full frontal bombardment. But guess who supports which option? And guess who's calling the shots?

The Associated Press has a report online at the moment which is illustrated by the three lower photos you see here; these photos all appear with the same caption, which reads:

Supporters of Pakistan's religious party, Jamat-i-Islami, or Party of Islam, shout slogans against Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf as they take part in a demonstration in Karachi, Pakistan, on Sunday, Aug. 17, 2008. President Pervez Musharraf will not resign, his spokesman said Sunday, even after Pakistan's coalition agreed a host of charges with which to impeach the former general. (AP Photo/Fareed Khan)

The twirl is subliminal; as if the only opposition to Musharraf's continued tenure in office were coming from Islamists.

How soon we ('re supposed to) forget: In the most recent elections, Pakistani voters overwhelmingly supported the moderate secular parties, especially PPP (the Pakistan Peoples Party, led by Asif Ali Zardari, husband of the assassinated former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto) and the PML-N (Pakistani Muslim League - Nawaz), former prime minister Nawaz Sharif's faction of the former PML.

The other PML faction, PML-Q, still supports Musharraf, and was obliterated at the polls; similarly the radical Islamist party found little or no support in most areas.

But the AP doesn't want you to know that, and the Bush administration doesn't want you to know that, either. I've been reading a few bloggers who suddenly want to talk about Pakistan, and they're not talking in these terms either -- they probably don't know it, themselves.

Fear sells so much better ...

... speaking of which, read Chris Floyd's newest: "Fear, Procurement, Profit: Permanent War and the American Way". Here's a taste:

"The threat always drives procurement. It doesn't matter what party is in office."

UPDATE: He resigned!

Care to comment on this post? If so, click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early

Enjoy this satire from The Onion.

Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early

Crushing Defeat For Musharraf: "The Myth Is Broken"; "Q Is Finished"; "They Couldn’t Have Rigged It Even If They Tried"

UPDATE: PML-Q concedes defeat

ISLAMABAD, Feb 19 (AFP) Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) conceded defeat Tuesday after elections. “We accept the verdict of the nation,” Tariq Azeem, PML-Q spokesman, told AFP. (Posted @ 14:20 PST)

Original post follows:

~~~

Early and unofficial results from the Pakistani parliamentary elections show a landslide for the opposition parties and a crushing defeat for pro-American terrorist general Pervez Musharraf and his party, the PML-Q. The Islamic extremists also appear to have lost ground.

Supporters of the party of Pakistan's former prime minister Nawaz Sharif celebrate the unofficial results of Pakistan's general elections in the street of Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

Carlotta Gall and Jane Perlez in The New York Times:

Pakistanis Deal Severe Defeat to Musharraf in Election

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan : Pakistanis dealt a crushing defeat to President Pervez Musharraf in parliamentary elections Monday, in what government and opposition politicians said was a firm rejection of his policies since 2001 and those of his close ally, the United States.

Almost all the leading figures in the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, the party that has governed for the last five years under Mr. Musharraf, lost their seats, including the leader of the party, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussein, the former speaker of parliament, Chaudhry Amir Hussein, and six ministers.

Though official results would not be announced until Tuesday, early returns indicated that the vote would usher in a prime minister from one of the opposition parties, and opened the prospect of a parliament that would move to undo many of Mr. Musharraf’s policies and that may even try to remove him.

Sharif supporters celebrate in Taxilas. In early, unofficial results, Pakistanis dealt a crushing defeat to President Pervez Musharraf, in what government and opposition politicians said was a firm rejection of his policies since 2001 and those of his close ally, the United States.

The early edge went to the opposition Pakistan Peoples Party, which seemed to benefit from a strong wave of sympathy in reaction to the assassination of its leader, Benazir Bhutto, eight weeks ago, and may be in a position to form the next government.

The results were interpreted here as a repudiation of Mr. Musharraf as well as the Bush administration, which has staunchly backed Mr. Musharraf for eight years as its best bet in the campaign against the Islamic militants in Pakistan. American officials will have little choice now but to seek alternative allies from among the new political forces emerging from the vote.

Politicians and party workers from Mr. Musharraf’s party said the vote was a protest against government policies and the rise in terrorism here, in particular against Mr. Musharraf’s heavy handed way of dealing with militancy and his use of the army against tribesmen in the border areas and against militants in a siege at the Red Mosque here in the capital last summer that left more than 100 dead.

Others said Mr. Musharraf’s dismissal last year of the Supreme Court chief justice, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, who remains under house arrest, was deeply unpopular with the voters.
...

By association, his party suffered badly. The two main opposition parties — the Pakistan Peoples Party and the Pakistan Muslim League-N of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif — surged into the gap.

Supporters of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif in Lahore. In Lahore, the political capital of Punjab province, lines were thin, and many voters complained they could not find their names on the voting lists.

By early Monday night, crowds of Sharif supporters had already begun celebrating as they paraded through the streets of Rawalpindi, the garrison town just outside the capital, Islamabad. Riding on motorbikes and clinging onto the back of minivans, they played music and waved green flags of Mr. Sharif’s party decorated with the party symbol, a tiger.

“The tiger has come!” shouted one man on a motorbike making a victory sign. “Long live Nawaz!”

From unofficial results the private news channel, Aaj Television, forecast that the Pakistan Peoples Party would win 110 seats in the 272-seat national assembly, with Mr. Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-N taking 100 seats.

Mr. Musharraf’s party, the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, was crushed, holding on to just 20 to 30 seats. Early results released by the state news agency, the Associated Press of Pakistan, also showed the Pakistan Peoples Party to be leading in the number of seats in the national assembly.

The Election Commission of Pakistan declared the elections free and fair and said the polling passed relatively peacefully, despite some irregularities and scattered violence. Ten people were killed and 70 injured in violence around the country, including one candidate who was shot in Lahore on the night before the vote, Pakistani news channels reported.

A voter is marked with ink after casting a ballot in Lahore. Fears of election fraud were stoked by the complaints, mostly from opposition parties, of bribery and the use of state resources for campaigns. Reports also included the production of thousands of counterfeit identity cards and of millions of names missing from voter rolls.

Fearful of violence and deterred by confusion at polling stations, voters did not turn out in large numbers. Yet fears from opposition parties that the government would attempt to rig the elections did not materialize, as the early losses showed.

Official results were not expected until Tuesday morning, but all the parties were already coming to terms with the anti-Musharraf trend in the voting.

Nosheen Saeed, information secretary of the women’s wing of Mr. Musharraf’s party, conceded the early losses. “Some big guns are going to lose,” she said.

At the headquarters of Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, the minister of railways and a close friend of the president, his supporters sat gloomily in chairs under an awning, listening to the cheers of their opponents. “Q is finished,” said Tahir Khan, 21, one of the party workers, referring to the pro-Musharraf party.

The party workers said Mr. Ahmed, who was among the ministers who lost their seats, was popular but had suffered from the overwhelming protest vote against Mr. Musharraf and his governing faction.
...

With Mr. Musharraf as both president and head of the Pakistani military — a post he relinquished last November — the administration poured about $1 billion a year in military assistance into Pakistan after 9/11.

After Mr. Musharraf stepped down from the army, the Bush administration still gave him unequivocal support. Last month, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, Richard Boucher, told Congress he considered the Pakistani leader as indispensable to American interests.

Such fidelity to Mr. Musharraf often raised the hackles of Pakistanis, and the newspapers here were filled with editorials that expressed despair about Washington’s close relationship with the unpopular leader.

Many educated Pakistanis said they were irritated that the Bush administration chose to ignore Mr. Musharraf’s dismissal in November of the Supreme Court chief justice.

The big swing against the Pakistan Muslim League-Q party that supported Mr. Musharraf appeared to bear out the position of the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, Sen. Joseph Biden, Jr, who has been a critic of the administration’s Pakistan policy.

On his arrival Sunday to observe the elections, Mr. Biden said: “I don’t buy into the argument that Musharraf is the only one. We have to have more than just a Musharraf policy.”

As a starting point for a new policy, Mr. Biden said that the United States needed to show Pakistanis that Washington was interested in more than the campaign on terror. “We have to give the vast majority of Pakistani people some reason to believe we are allies,” Mr. Biden said. To that end, he would propose that economic development aid be tripled to $1.5 billion annually.

But Washington could take some comfort in the losses of the Islamic religious parties in the North West Frontier Province that abut the tribal areas where the Taliban and Al Qaeda have carved out bases.

This is the standard liberal media lie, one of several places where it rears its head as "context" in this otherwise fine report. (Most of the others have been snipped.)

Washington needs the terrorists. Bush needs strong Islamic and Islamist parties which he can call "IslamoFascists"; the term itself is another Orwellian aspect to this war of spin and terror.

"The IslamoFascists want to create a global caliphate", says the twice unelected president, and all the bobbleheads nod along in unison.

But Islam and Fascism are utterly incompatible, so there cannot be any real IslamoFascists, although there are some seriously corrupt "Islamic" business-government combinations. Two of America's "firmest" Asian allies in the supposed Global War on Terror are Saudi Arabia, where the royal family does most of the business, makes most of the money, and runs one of the most repressive governments on the planet; and Pakistan, where the military is entwined in the "civilian" economy to an extent companies like SAIC, Halliburton and Blackwater can only dream of (at this point). The army produces and sells all manner of everyday "civilian" consumer items, from breakfast cereal on through the day.

These are the IslamoFascists, if such there are on Earth. Pseudo-Islamic fascists, to be accurate, and allies of our government.

On the other hand there's no doubt that pseudo-Christian fascists (so-called "Christo-Fascists") do exist in large numbers and have drafted plans -- published and publicly available for many years now -- according to which they will take over the American government (by stealth) and then the world (in the usual American way.)

In order for these imperialist dreamers to implement their evil schemes, the radical Islamic parties have to gain support, and perhaps the best news from this election -- news which probably won't make much of a dent in the mainstream account -- is confirmation that the radicals in Pakistan have virtually no support from the electorate.

The New York Times won't report certain aspects of the story, for fear of being called treasonous or for fear of lost advertising revenue, or simply because telling the truth about the GWOT is as unpalatable as telling any of the other ugliest truths about America, and the New York Times is not in the business of telling any of those stories.

But you've read it here: the administration is very unhappy with the collapses of both the PML-Q and the lunatic fringe.

The greatest blow [against] Mr. Musharraf came in the strong wave of support in Punjab province, the country’s most populous, for Mr. Sharif, who has been a bitter rival since his government was overthrown by Mr. Musharraf in a military coup in 1999 and he was arrested and sent into exile.

He returned in November last year and although banned from running for parliament himself, has campaigned for his party on an openly anti-Musharraf agenda, calling for the president’s resignation and for the reinstatement of the Chief Justice Chaudhry and other Supreme Court judges.

It's interesting how the NYT portrays Nawaz Sharif's reappearance at the center of Pakistani politics as a simple "return" in November. That was his second "return", actually. The first time, he was arrested and deported before he even got out of the airport! Some democracy!

Underscoring the reversal for Mr. Musharraf was the downfall of the powerful Chaudhry
family of Punjab province who had underwritten his political career by creating the political party, the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, for him.

“They myth is broken, it was a huge wave against Musharraf,” said Athar Minallah, a lawyer involved in the anti-Musharraf lawyers’ movement. “Right across the board his party was defeated, in the urban and rural areas. The margins are so big they couldn’t have rigged it even if they tried.”

A few hours after the size of the defeat became clear, the government eased up on the restrictions against Aitzaz Ahsan, leader of the lawyers’ movement that has opposed the president.

Mr. Ahsan, who has been under house arrest since last November when Mr. Musharraf imposed emergency rule for six weeks, found the phones in [his] house were suddenly reconnected.

“Musharraf should be preparing a C-130 for Turkey,” Mr. Ahsan said, referring to Mr. Musharraf’s statements that he might retire to Turkey where he spent his childhood.

Two politicians close to Mr. Musharraf have said in the last week that the president was well aware of the drift in the country against him and they suggested that he would not remain in office if the new government was in direct opposition to him. “He does not have the fire in the belly for another fight,” said one member of his party. He added that Mr. Musharraf was building a house for himself in Islamabad and would be ready soon to move.

Of course the official results are still to be released, and it could be that by this time tomorrow the PML-Q will have made a massive comeback. Or does that only happen in America?

It'll be pretty sad if "the greatest democracy in the history of the world" is shown up by a military dictatorship.

But it would be even sadder if that didn't happen.

~~~

(All photos for this piece are courtesy of the New York Times; please see this slideshow for more.)

37 Dead As Suicide Bomber Attacks Pakistani Political Rally

More horrible violence racks Pakistan in the final days before Monday's parliamentary election, as Jane Perlez of the New York Times reports from Lahore.

A suicide bomber rammed a car into a campaign rally in the tribal areas on Saturday, killing 37 people and wounding at least 90 others.

The attack in Parachinar, a town in Kurram, occurred two days before parliamentary elections on Monday and was apparently intended to deter voters from participating, said Brig. Javed Cheema, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry.

“It’s the same people who have been carrying out attacks, whose purpose is to create confusion and chaos and stop the polling process,” Brigadier Cheema said. The government of President Pervez Musharraf has blamed a Pakistani Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud, who is allied with Al Qaeda, for the steep rise in suicide attacks in the past year.

It seemed unlikely, however, that the attack on Saturday would have a significant effect on voter turnout because the tribal areas, which are semiautonomous and border Afghanistan, are considered remote and lawless by most Pakistanis.

Thus Perlez points out one aspect of the Interior Ministry's announcement that seems odd, but she doesn't mention the other: The government has no proof of anyone's complicity in anything.

She goes on to describe the scene of the attack:

The rally at Parachinar was organized by Syed Riaz Hussain, a candidate for the national Parliament who is affiliated with the Pakistan Peoples Party, the opposition party of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated in December. After the rally, supporters of Mr. Hussain gathered on a roof for food, and others stayed on the roadside below in a large group, Brigadier Cheema said.

The suicide bomber, driving a car filled with explosives, attacked the group on the side of the road, the brigadier said. Kurram is known for sectarian violence between Shiite and Sunni Muslims, although Saturday’s attack was aimed at a political rally. According to one account, the people at the rally had emerged from a Shiite shrine and were on their way to the headquarters of Mr. Hussain when the bomber drove into the crowd.

Hours later, two people were killed and eight wounded in a suicide attack outside an army media center in the northwestern Swat Valley, Agence France-Presse said.

The Parachinar attack was the first violent incident in the immediate prelude to the election that pits President Musharraf’s party, the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, against two main opposition parties, the Peoples Party and the faction of the Pakistan Muslim League led by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

The first violent incident in the immediate prelude to the election but not the first violent attack of the campaign and likely not the last either, sad to say.

Mr. Musharraf was re-elected late last year to a five-year term as president, but the parliamentary elections are viewed by many as a referendum on his rule, which has been marred in the last year by an increasingly aggressive insurgency of Islamists, the killing of Ms. Bhutto and the imposition of emergency rule.

It's very interesting to see what details are left out of this report.

For instance, Jane Perlez gives no indication that Musharraf's "re-election" (last October 6) was even more "marred" than his "rule" has been. As we have discussed here many times, Musharraf's "re-election" was a tragic farce, the conduct of which violated three distinct laws. The Supreme Court of Pakistan was about to strike down the "result" of that "election" when Musharraf imposed emergency rule on November 3.

Musharraf said he was going after the terrorists, but one of his first moves was to sack the Chief Justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, and the eight other justices who refused to go along with the program. Those nine judges are still under house arrest, more than three months after the emergency was declared. These facts are well known to anyone who cares to learn.

So when the Americans send observers to monitor Monday's election, they are not really interested in democracy; if democracy were the goal, the US would have cut ties with Musharraf a long time ago. He did take power in a military coup, after all.

Oh, no. What the Americans are interested in is the appearance of democracy.

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who will be an election observer, said Friday before leaving Washington for Pakistan that the United States should cut military aid to Pakistan if the elections were substantially rigged.

Guess what, Joe? The election last October was substantially rigged -- illegal three times over. The president could only maintain his power by arresting the Supreme Court and keeping them still and quiet, so that's what he did.

The rule of law is still suspended and the honest judges are still under house arrest and bombers are ravaging the opposition and the government keeps blaming it on "extremists".

But the fact remains that extremists are barely represented in Pakistani parliaments and have very little to lose in this election. Musharraf, whose hold on power grows increasingly tenuous, has much more to lose, should the election go ahead as scheduled and in peace. And therefore it is very difficult to dismiss the claims of those who say Musharraf and/or his security forces have been behind all this violence.

The American collaborators in this farce have said nothing about any of this; if they had any principles (other than maintenance of power) they wouldn't be sending observers at all -- they'd be denouncing the horrific Pakistani-American farce that pretends to be democracy.

Haunted House Of Mirrors

This series was intended to be about the twisted wreckage that America has become, and the trouble it has recognizing itself in the funhouse mirrors thrown up by the entertainment / news / trivia distribution system.

The thrust of the series was diverted somewhat, with several posts looking at the most transparent lies about 9/11 which still -- amazingly -- hold currency.
 
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Funhouse Mirror: Looking At America With The New York Times
false flag terror, rigged elections, and complicit media

Thursday, January 17, 2008
Beyond The Mirror: The 9/11 Funhouse, Part I
the fallacy: "No Conspiracy That Big Could Be Kept Quiet"

Thursday, January 17, 2008
Beyond The Mirror: The 9/11 Funhouse, Part II
more fallacies: "9/11 Couldn't Have Been An Inside Job Because Bush Is Too Stupid", "I Can't Believe It / I Won't Believe It", "I Don't Want To Talk About It", and "The 9/11 Truth Movement Has No Coherent Narrative"

Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Beyond The Mirror: The 9/11 Funhouse, Part III
truth: the United States has been pounding on a foreign country for six going on seven years now with no end in sight, and none of it is justified, even if the official story of 9/11 were true

Thursday, January 24, 2008
Beyond The Mirror -- The 9/11 Funhouse, Part IV
more fallacies: "Conspiracy Theorists Need Something To Believe In", "Conspiracy Theorists Find Their Bizarre Theories Comforting", "Conspiracy Theorists Hate America", and "Conspiracy Theorists Blame Bush For 9/11 Because They Hate Him"

Stupid Tuesday

... or maybe I should say "Stupid Dupid Tuesday".

I can't bear to watch, nor can I afford to.

I've already wasted a good part of my life watching part of the Stupid Bowl on Sunday night. And I definitely can't spend another part of it watching this. So I'll be working on other stuff.

But if anything interesting happens, please let me know.

Vintage Patriot For A Winter Day In Prague

I've been thinking about "Bob in Prague" a lot lately. I think of all my online friends now and then, but especially when somebody close to one of them passes away.

I was recalling how and where and when we "met": at the bradblog, around the time of the 2004 "election". Bob was watching it all -- aghast -- from Eastern Europe, and I was watching it all -- aghast -- from my undisclosed location. And we had the same sorts of reactions to virtually all of it, and we soon became friends, in an online way. In fact, Bob is one of the very few bradblog readers who has continued to read me, even after my services were no longer ... um ... anyway ...

In late 2004, as you may recall, there were huge crowds in the streets of Ukraine, and the American media were making a big deal about how the exit polls didn't match the announced results of the Ukranian election. But they wouldn't say a word about how the exit polls here in the US hadn't matched our announced results. The only nationally known reporter who even mentioned allegations of election fraud was Keith Olbermann, and it seemed all he wanted to do was smear the "conspiracy theorists".

In the only non-war news pertaining to Iraq, the oil-for-food scandal was breaking, and American oilmen were deeply complicit. So they were blaming Kofi Annan and the UN.

On December 27, 2004, "Freebird" posted a comment at bradblog, saying, among other things, "And you right-wingers are after Kofi Annan for oil scandals...shame...shame!" That got me going: I hammered on my keyboard for quite a while and then posted a long comment, excerpts from which you will find below.

It was my first stab at putting 2 and 2 and 2 and 2 together, and putting my thoughts into writing -- or to be more accurate, it was my first stab at doing this with geopolitics. I'd done it with math, but that was different, because everything was either clearly right or clearly wrong, and I could go back and verify every step. But in this case, I had no way to check my work, so to speak. I didn't know whether it was good or bad or what, and after I posted it, I forgot all about it for a while.

Then the memory of it came back to me one day, and I wanted to see it again, so I used the Google, and I found the comment. But it was in a different form, and a different place. Much to my surprise, my comment from the bradblog had been re-posted on a forum hosted in the Czech Republic, where it anchored a heavily commented thread of its own! And guess who had put it there?

I've always appreciated the vote of confidence, but I've never thanked Bob for it. Well, better late than never.

Not to be too self-referential or anything, but most of my current readers were not around at the time, and I thought you might like to see some "vintage WP". So here's a link to the comment in its original context, and the relevant excerpts follow:

Kofi Annan is getting raked over the coals based on entirely unproven allegations. Supposedly in America you are considered innocent until proven guilty. But in some quarters Annan is considered guilty based on discredited allegations, and charges that cannot possibly be proven. [...]

This is the newest example of a very old tactic. They've been doing it for decades. And they just keep getting better at it. By now it's so well-refined that it's almost an art form. A black art to be sure. "Shame" is right.

Here's how it works: They do something awful, make a big mess and blame it on somebody else -- usually the political opponent they fear the most. Then they use the inevitable backlash as a pretext to attack, without ever doing a proper investigation into what caused the mess in the first place. Of course they can't do a proper investigation -- they can't possibly allow a proper investigation -- because if the truth ever came out in a timely way, there would be royal hell to pay.

I'm reminded of this because I've recently been re-reading some of the best books written about the JFK assassination, and the parallels are all there, in spades, just sitting there waiting to be noticed. For those who are too young to remember the story, JFK was surely the most liberal President ever elected; he wanted to stop the Cold War and work toward 'peaceful coexistence' with the Soviet Union. In November of 1963, he was murdered in Dallas, one of the most conservative -- i.e. oil-soaked -- cities in the country. And the 'official' story -- issued on the day of the assassination and never retracted -- was that he was killed by a dememted communist named Lee Harvey Oswald.

The communists had no grudge with Kennedy. He was -- by their measure -- the most reasonable President ever to sit in the Oval Office. But there were some very powerful internal forces who hated him with a passion, such as CIA and organized crime, who were both ticked because JFK refused to assist CIA in their plan to overthrow Castro and give Havana back to the gamblers.

Virtually every detail of the official story has since been shown to be too absurd for any honest thinking person to believe. But this hasn't stopped the establishment echo-chamber from repeating it endlessly.

And like the official stories of so many other national tragedies, this story is absurd even on the face of it. You don't have to do any digging at all to see it as the farce that it is; all you have to do is think about it a bit. As if a communist would ever want to kill a President who was loved by the left and reviled by the right. As if a communist would prefer to see an oil-soaked Texan -- LBJ -- in the Oval Office, rather than a 'Massachusetts liberal' like JFK. As if you could even find a communist in Dallas in 1963. Yeah, right. Spin me another yarn, boys.

The deeper you dig the more absurd it gets. Kennedy wanted to disengage from Vietnam. Immediately after the assassination we were told that no national policies would be changed. But within three days LBJ had signed an executive order rescinding Kennedy's planned withdrawal. And the US was plunged into a foreign war of aggression, based entirely on transparent lies, without any realistic or reasonable reason or plan or exit strategy. Does any of this sound familiar? That war lasted for another 12 years!

Most of the so-called evidence against Oswald was very obviously fabricated. But the oil-soaked corporate media whores of the day bought it all up, and fed it into the establishment echo chamber, and the echoes still reverberate to this day. [...] These things are all connected. And very deeply so.

The official story of 9/11 has numerous and important parallels to the official story of the JFK assassination. Again the official story is absurd on the face of it, and even more ludicrous the deeper you dig into it. Again we're looking at a national tragedy that somehow happened to benefit an oil-soaked Texan. Again we're looking at a case where the official story came out on the day of the event, long before any reasonable investigation could possibly have been conducted. Again it's a case where no reasonable investigation was ever conducted -- just another oil-soaked whitewash or two.

In this case we are supposed to believe that 19 Islamic fundamentalists armed with cell phones and box cutters somehow managed to outfox the most sophisticated intelligence establishment ever built. Yeah, right. As if jet fuel burning near the 80th story of a 100-story tower could generate enough heat to produce pools of molten steel in the sub-basement. Yeah, right. As if these fires could reduce thousands of tons of concrete to toxic gray dust, while leaving the passport of the supposed ringleader [sic] not only virtually undamaged but just lying there in plain sight. As if a commercial airliner could slam into the Pentagon leaving a hole about 30 feet in diameter, while leaving no trace of its wings or tail or engines outside the building. Yeah, right. Spin me another yarn, boys.

Dig even deeper and the story gets even more ludicrous. But again the oil-soaked corporate media whores bought it hook line and sinker, and fed it to the world through the echo chamber. We were told that no national policies would be changed, because changing our way of life would be admitting that the 'terrorists' had won. But within seven weeks the so-called PATRIOT act was passed, and the shredding of the Bill of Rights had begun. Within a month the US was involved in another foreign war of aggression, against a country which had really never done anything to us, but this time they told us right from the start that the war may not end in our lifetimes. As if we need endless war with the rest of the world. Who does this help? Not us. Not the rest of the world. The only people it helps are a certain oil-soaked Texan and his obscenely wealthy backers. Excuse me for a moment while I puke. Spin me another yarn while I'm gone, will you, boys?

Back to the present national tragedy: an election so obviously fixed that a full 20% of Americans can see that it's rotten to the core, without any publicity from the current generation of oil-soaked media whores. As if the majority of Americans would vote for an oil-soaked Texan whose policies clearly work to their detriment. As if nobody notices, or cares, that we're in another foreign war without any plan or any exit strategy, nor any good reason for being there. As if we approve of a regime that seeks to 'legitimize' torture, and commit cold-blooded murder on an enormous scale, and turn our once-great nation into a pariah in the eyes of the world. As if the majority of Americans would ever want that. Give me a break. Spin me another yarn, boys.

How stupid do they think we are? How stupid are you? How stupid are your neighbors? How many of us do you think really bought into all that Bush-Cheney bullshit? Do we really think we're safer now, that we're waging war on a country that never did anything to us? Do you really think we're less likely to suffer a terrorist attack now, considering that we have the same so-called leadership in place that allowed the 9/11 attacks to succeed? How many Americans do you REALLY think are that stupid? [...]

Again it comes down to the organized criminals and the gamblers and an oil-soaked Texan and his obscenely wealthy friends. Again the country is in the hands of people who have shown quite clearly that they don't give a damn about the voice of the people, nor about policies that would help the people. All they care about is amassing as much power as possible, by any means possible, so they can use it to impoverish America while demolishing foreign countries and enriching their obscenely wealthy oil-soaked backers.

Follow the money; follow the oil; follow the electronic voting machines; follow the corrupt politicians -- they all lead to the same place. It's a place the oil-soaked corporate media whores will never even admit exists, but it's there, and we know about it, and this is one genie that can never be put back in the bottle. Too much is at stake.

No more dreaming. No more waiting for the miracle that never comes. No more hoping that Keith Olbermann will finally decide to stop smearing the people who are trying to tell the truth about these national tragedies. The oil-soaked corporate media whores are enemies of our democracy, as they have always been, and if we are going to do anything for the future of our country then we will have to do it without them.

Since 9/11 too many people have been too frightened to talk about anything that matters. That has to stop and it has to stop right now. We need to keep talking about all this stuff, not only here [...] but everywhere. Bring your friends up to speed; get your family there too. Spread the word in every way you can and don't stop. We the people have enormous untapped power, and most of it is economic. We hardly even have any idea how to use it. So we need to learn how velvet revolutions work in other countries. Look at what happened to Slobodan Milosevic. Look at what happened to Ferdinand Marcos. Look at what's happening in the Ukraine. Could we do something similar? Of course we could.

Thanks, Bob. And hang tough, too. Mysterious ways, my friend.

The Post-Democratic Process: Rupert Murdoch "Knew" NH Exit Polls Were "Wrong" About Hillary!

Gandhi, my Australian friend, wants to know how much Rupert Murdoch knew in advance about Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire surprise:

The editor of Rupert Murdoch's Sun newspaper, Rebekah Wade, yesterday told a House of Lords communications committee that Rupert Murdoch called her at 1.30am on the day of the New Hampshire primaries to warn her that the exit polls were wrong.

There has been heated speculation in the blogosphere that Hiliary Clinton's win in New Hampshire was rigged. And everybody is well aware that Murdoch favors Clinton in 2008.

So was Murdoch just (a) hanging on the wires, keeping a close eye on results, and checking that his UK morning editions didn't stuff up? Or was (b) he in on the vote rigging and controlling the story he wanted to see in print?

If you answered (c) we'll probably never know, you are probably right.

I was offline at the time and couldn't have rigged it for her even had I wanted to. I didn't participate in the exit poll, either, and I don't know what happened there.

If you know something, please share.

Funhouse Mirror: Looking At America With The New York Times

Ages ago -- Monday -- in a bizarre year-end editorial called "Looking At America", the New York Times listed some of the most egregious wrongs of the past seven years.

President Bush squandered America’s position of moral and political leadership, swept aside international institutions and treaties, sullied America’s global image, and trampled on the constitutional pillars that have supported our democracy through the most terrifying and challenging times. These policies have fed the world’s anger and alienation and have not made any of us safer.

In the years since 9/11, we have seen American soldiers abuse, sexually humiliate, torment and murder prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq. A few have been punished, but their leaders have never been called to account. We have seen mercenaries gun down Iraqi civilians with no fear of prosecution. We have seen the president, sworn to defend the Constitution, turn his powers on his own citizens, authorizing the intelligence agencies to spy on Americans, wiretapping phones and intercepting international e-mail messages without a warrant.

We have read accounts of how the government’s top lawyers huddled in secret after the attacks in New York and Washington and plotted ways to circumvent the Geneva Conventions — and both American and international law — to hold anyone the president chose indefinitely without charges or judicial review.

Those same lawyers then twisted other laws beyond recognition to allow Mr. Bush to turn intelligence agents into torturers, to force doctors to abdicate their professional oaths and responsibilities to prepare prisoners for abuse, and then to monitor the torment to make sure it didn’t go just a bit too far and actually kill them.

The White House used the fear of terrorism and the sense of national unity to ram laws through Congress that gave law-enforcement agencies far more power than they truly needed to respond to the threat — and at the same time fulfilled the imperial fantasies of Vice President Dick Cheney and others determined to use the tragedy of 9/11 to arrogate as much power as they could.

Indeed. And that's not all.

Hundreds of men, swept up on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, were thrown into a prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, so that the White House could claim they were beyond the reach of American laws. Prisoners are held there with no hope of real justice, only the chance to face a kangaroo court where evidence and the names of their accusers are kept secret, and where they are not permitted to talk about the abuse they have suffered at the hands of American jailers.

In other foreign lands, the C.I.A. set up secret jails where “high-value detainees” were subjected to ever more barbaric acts, including simulated drowning. These crimes were videotaped, so that “experts” could watch them, and then the videotapes were destroyed, after consultation with the White House, in the hope that Americans would never know.

The C.I.A. contracted out its inhumanity to nations with no respect for life or law, sending prisoners — some of them innocents kidnapped on street corners and in airports — to be tortured into making false confessions, or until it was clear they had nothing to say and so were let go without any apology or hope of redress.

All this makes perfect sense, does it not?

It condemns the Bush administration -- Bush and Cheney particularly -- for egregious and obvious crimes: crimes against the Constitution, crimes against the people of America, crimes against the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, crimes against humanity itself..

So what's bizarre?

First, the "explanation" for all these crimes:

This sort of lawless behavior has become standard practice since Sept. 11, 2001.

The country and much of the world was rightly and profoundly frightened by the single-minded hatred and ingenuity displayed by this new enemy. But there is no excuse for how President Bush and his advisers panicked — how they forgot that it is their responsibility to protect American lives and American ideals, that there really is no safety for Americans or their country when those ideals are sacrificed.

Out of panic and ideology, President Bush squandered America’s position of moral and political leadership, swept aside international institutions and treaties, sullied America’s global image, and trampled on the constitutional pillars that have supported our democracy through the most terrifying and challenging times. These policies have fed the world’s anger and alienation and have not made any of us safer.

And second, the proposed solution:

These are not the only shocking abuses of President Bush’s two terms in office, made in the name of fighting terrorism. There is much more — so much that the next president will have a full agenda simply discovering all the wrongs that have been done and then righting them.

We can only hope that this time, unlike 2004, American voters will have the wisdom to grant the awesome powers of the presidency to someone who has the integrity, principle and decency to use them honorably. Then when we look in the mirror as a nation, we will see, once again, the reflection of the United States of America.

What kind of a mirror is the New York Times using?

Against all indications, the NYT attributes the actions of the Bush administration to "panic and ideology".

It's clear that neither Bush nor Cheney have panicked -- on 9/11 or ever since. They've been sitting quietly, watching the universe unfold -- right into their laps!

And it's even clearer that their ideology plays a heavy role in what they have done. So why talk about panic?

For that matter, why talk about "this new enemy" without trying to identify it?

The Bush administration took less than a day to decide who was to be held responsible for 9/11, less than a month to start bombing Afghanistan, less than two months to pass the enormous and egregious PATRIOT Act, and more than a year to empower a whitewash disguised as an investigation. What does that tell you?

The administration was (and still is) heavily populated by members of an extremist group which called for a cataclysmic attack on America, in order to enable their radical agenda, just before the 2000 election.

They wanted the catastrophic events of 9/11 to happen, they were ready for them to happen, and they took full advantage of them when they did happen. What does that tell you?

They were in position to make it happen, and they have done everything in their power to deceive us about the how and why of almost everything ever since! ... And we're supposed to believe they're telling us the truth about 9/11!

Alas, the official story of 9/11 is a shaky one, and our nation's leading paper could knock it down with one good investigative series -- but they won't. They'd prefer to enumerate the abuses we suffer at the hands of our own government and hope that we can vote our way out of trouble.

But the Times' prescription for healing America bears absolutely no resemblance to reality!

It's not the voters' fault that Bush got into the White House in the first place, and it's not their fault that he got to stay there for a second term. Both presidential elections were not only stolen by the Republicans but also given away by the Democrats, and the major American media -- led by the purportedly liberal New York Times -- played a huge role in legitimizing the theft, if not the giveaway.

Even now -- even though the illegitimacy of both "elections" is obvious, and even though the ideology of the "winners" has caused us enormous damage, the nation's "leading" newspaper will still not investigate or even acknowledge election fraud, unless it happens in a foreign country.

Even now -- with the official story of 9/11 in tatters -- the NYT will not investigate the events of that day, or even acknowledge that the official story is a crock of manure.

It's only fitting, I suppose, in a fun-house mirror kind of way, for the New York Times to say:

We can only hope that this time, unlike 2004, American voters will have the wisdom to grant the awesome powers of the presidency to someone who has the integrity, principle and decency to use them honorably.

In point of awful fact, the only people who have "the integrity, principle and decency" to use "the awesome powers of the presidency" "honorably" are ignored, if not denigrated, by the nation's corporate press as a whole and by the New York Times in particular.

The hypocrisy required for the New York Times to pontificate about the "wisdom" of the American voters is absolutely beyond measure.

So much for the "liberal media".

If you don't have symptoms resembling stomach flu, you haven't been paying attention.

Benazir Bhutto Plays A Cynical Hand After Karachi Bombing

Pakistan's President General Pervez Musharraf has intensified the military operation against militants in the northwest after the apparent suicide attack against Benazir Bhutto last week in Karachi which killed 138 people and injured 500 others (more or less; reports vary). The offensive is apparently aimed at the fundamentalist cleric Maulana Fazlullah [photo], known for his fiery radio speeches, who recently has been encouraging his followers to attack police and military targets.

According to one recent report, Pakistani troops have his compound surrounded and have been shelling the area. Meanwhile other reports indicate that he's probably not there, and that the shelling seems directed at the area, not the compound. On Thursday in Swat, an apparent suicide bomber struck a military truck loaded with ammunition, which detonated, and when the smoke had cleared, another 20 people were dead. Or 30, depending on whom you believe.

Meanwhile, in Karachi, police have released two photographs of reconstructed heads they say came from suicide bombers who attacked the procession of Benazir Bhutto.

Benazir Bhutto's family have a long and difficult history in Pakistani politics. Benazir herself has served as Prime Minister twice, returned after living abroad for eight years, apparently to avoid charges of corruption. But she had recently been granted amnesty and a chance to participate in the upcoming elections, in which she is expected to become Prime Minister once again.

This event-in-waiting combined with the presumed ratification by the Supreme Court of President General Musharraf's "election", would supposedly stabilize Pakistani politics. And when President General Musharraf resigns his commission as Army Chief of Staff, this will give Pakistan a "civilian democracy" according to Musharraf and Bhutto and their American "friends".

Even though the police have released photos of the men who allegedly the bombs last week, nobody seems to know anything about them. Who were they? Where did they come from? How were they connected? Or did they just happen to show up at the same time with the same idea?

The mystery has been treated as solved in the Western media; al Qaeda did it. Of course. And how do we know? The modus operandi was reminiscent of other al Qaeda incidents. Two bombs went off; multiple attack is a signature of al Qaeda, so therefore they did it. But two lines of questioning emerge.

First, if these are pictures of two different bombers why do they appear to show damage to the same parts of the face? News reports have made the point that one appears to be clean-shaven whereas the other does not. How hard would it be to take a picture, shave the face, and take another picture, with much different lighting? One cannot help but wonder.

And even more pertinent, perhaps: How hard would it be for another terrorist organization to arrange for two bombs to go off in rapid succession? Nobody even wants to ask that question, let alone answer it. But then again in the Western media nobody wants to admit that there are many terrorist groups in the world and al Qaeda isn't even the most dangerous of them.

For example, a terrorist group bombed an air force base recently. Bombed as in dropped a bomb from an airplane. Did you know that? It was in Sri Lanka and the bombers were Tamil Tigers, aka LTTE, not aka al Qaeda, so you probably didn't even hear about it, did you?

How about this? LTTE are not considered to be connected to al Qaeda but they have been supported by the ISI, Pakistan's notorious intelligence agency. ISI was established by CIA to run covert ops in Pakistan. ISI were sponsors of the Taliban, who allegedly protected al Qaeda. ISI is tightly connected to the Pakistani military and General Pervez Musharraf is Chief of Staff and President and an ally of the US in the Global War on Terror.

Benazir Bhutto, who was apparently the target of the apparent suicide attack, has been making vague accusations against certain elements within the Pakistani government, suggesting that friends of President General Musharraf may have been behind the attack. Benazir Bhutto is a very clever politician.

Others are suggesting that Ms. Bhutto herself was responsible for the carnage. And they do seem to have a point, in more ways than one. What a tangled web.

The attack came after midnight. The procession had been moving since early in the afternoon, and they were only about halfway to their destination. Bhutto, who says she received multiple threats of suicide bombings, was offered a helicopter ride from the airport, but she chose have hundreds of thousands of people walking across the city together for eighteen hours.

Her party, the PPP, had brought people in from elsewhere in the country, as reported by Andrew Buncombe in The Independent:

The crowds were large and enthusiastic. Having bussed in supporters from all parts of Pakistan, officials from Ms Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party had ensured hundreds of thousands were waiting for her. Some might have been there simply because they were told to go, others simply because they were curious. Some had been paid £4 a day – a lot of money to a poor person in Pakistan – to attend. It did not matter. What was essential was that the television cameras that evening would reveal large, noisy crowds and a waving Ms Bhutto making her way through them.

The people were brought in to provide a show of support as well as "security", which not surprisingly turned into a human shield, and an ineffective one at that. Some observers have remarked that Bhutto didn't seem too worried about security. She was provided an armored truck, with a bulletproof shield on top. She had the shield removed and rode on top of the truck, with some of her supporters. Her security forces are said to have apprehended somebody with weapons and another somebody with a suicide vest; those stories have dropped from the horizon as far as I know.

Victoria Schofield was atop the truck when the explosions happened, and she wrote a piece for The Telegraph which begins like this:

It was just after midnight when the first explosion went off, with such force that I was blown out of my seat.

I had been dozing on the upper deck of Benazir Bhutto's open-air bus nine hours after it set off from Karachi's airport, images of the ecstatic crowds that had earlier greeted her in the heat of the day still flashing through my mind.

By now a half-moon was shining, but on the dimly lit streets the crowds roared with excitement as we approached.

Then came the bang. I opened my eyes to find I had been thrown to the floor, surrounded by a dozen others including some of Benazir's relatives, friends and party workers.

My first thought was that it had been an unusually large firework. But Benazir's cousin, just beside me, said: "No, that was a bomb." Our instinct was to get out of the vehicle but in the darkness another voice urged: "Wait, there could be another explosion."

Within the same breath, as we lay huddled together, another, more deafening blast shook the bus and we were showered with what felt like heavy rose petals. Then I realised the chilling truth: they were flakes of human flesh.

Some 139 people among the crowd had been killed, it emerged over the next few hours.

The common line -- delivered by everyone from Pervez Musharraf to Benazir Bhutto to Richard Boucher to John Negroponte to Condoleeza Rice to Dear Leader himself -- goes like this: It must have been fundamentalist Muslim extremist militants who did this because they hate hate hate women and they hate hate hate freedom and they hate hate hate democracy.

Aside from the standard Western line (al Qaeda did it), there's the alternative theory (the Taliban also hate hate hate democracy, you know!) and then perhaps once again the ISI might sneak into the picture, and then perhaps certain unnamed friends of President General Musharraf come into the picture, or at least that's the way Benazir Bhutto is trying to lead us. She's a very clever politician.

More from Victoria Schofield:

Benazir said that she did not believe that her political opponents in the immigrant MQM party were responsible. But she knows that she has other enemies: the religious Right who have never accepted a woman leading a Muslim state; al-Qaeda and Taliban supporters who oppose her Western liberal ideals; rogue elements of the intelligence agencies with no heed for government policy.

And yes, she reminded us, she had received a "friendly" warning that she should not return because an attack would be made. "It was the human shield of the boys walking by the side of the bus who protected us," she said. "And the fact that it was armour-plated. Otherwise we might all have died."

She told how she had managed to escape. Sitting at the back of the lower deck when the first explosion came, "I ducked because my husband had always told me if anything happens to duck."

She had also recalled that attacks often come in twos or threes, so only after the second explosion did she escape to the security Jeep trailing her.

Benazir Bhutto paints herself as a paragon of democracy. But the deal she made with Musharraf -- allowing her to return, probably to a position of power, and granting her amnesty -- is nothing if not anti-democratic. Bhutto always stood as an opponent of the military, but now she's joining with a General, in a "democratic election process" that excludes Nawaz Sharif, another former Prime Minister, who was arrested and deported immediately upon his attempted return to Pakistan in September. What a tangled web!

Benazir Bhutto continues to style herself the victim of the attack, despite the rather glaring fact that she retired from the roof and went inside the armored truck just a few minutes before the bombs went off. She was unhurt but her human shield suffered grievous damage -- the bloodiest terrorist attack in Pakistan's history, or "Pakistan's 9/11", as some have described it.

But "Benazir Bhutto, champion of democracy and victim of terror in Karachi" doesn't quite ring for her, and her support among the people of the country -- which some analysts thought would skyrocket in the aftermath of the attack -- has fallen.

The most cogent critics of Benazir Bhutto have been her neice Fatima and the former captain of the national cricket team, Imran Khan, who is now an opposition politician.

To introduce Imran Khan, here's a quick biography from Business Week: Keeping it Cricket

After a remarkable career as captain of Pakistan's national cricket team, Imran Khan parlayed his fame and fortune into a successful career as one of Pakistan's most prominent politicians.

Following his retirement from international cricket in 1992, Khan founded the Shaukat Khanum Cancer Hospital & Research Center.

Four years later, Khan founded the Movement for Justice, a sociopolitical movement with the intent to expose the supposed corruption of Pakistan's ruling elite.

Khan eventually won a place in Parliament in 2002 and has been a popular, albeit controversial member ever since.

The piece from Business Week is a bit understated. Imran Khan was a fantastic cricketer. This matters more than you might think.

Here are some comments from Imran Khan regarding the Karachi bombings, from AFP : Bhutto 'to blame' for attack: Imran Khan

Former Pakistani premier Benazir Bhutto has "only herself to blame" for the deadly suicide attack on her homecoming parade, opposition politician Imran Khan said.

The former Pakistan cricket captain said Bhutto had made herself an assassination target by striking a deal with President Pervez Musharraf which "deliberately sabotaged the democratic process."

"The bombing of Benazir Bhutto's cavalcade as she paraded through Karachi on Thursday night was a tragedy almost waiting to happen. You could argue it was inevitable," he wrote in the Sunday Telegraph.

"Everyone here knew there was going to be a huge crowd turning up to see her return after eight years in self-imposed exile. Everyone also knows that there has been a spate of suicide bombings in Pakistan lately."

"This may sound equally harsh, but she has only herself to blame," he said.

Bhutto has condemned the blasts, which killed 139 people Thursday night hours after Bhutto returned from eight years in self-imposed exile, as an "attack on democracy."

But Khan said Bhutto's deal with Musharraf, which gave her an amnesty from corruption charges, undermined democracy.

"The sad thing is, she didn't need to do it. Musharraf was sinking and isolated. He was on the point of declaring a state of emergency. Just when it looked as if he had no lifelines left, Benazir came back and bailed him out.

"Worse, by publicly siding with a dictator, she has deliberately sabotaged the democratic process.

Khan said Musharraf has "dismantled state institutions, such as an independent judiciary and an election commission, and has introduced a controlled assembly, a controlled prime minister and a controlled media.

"The polls show he can only win this next election if he massively rigs it. That is what he did in 2002, as confirmed by the EU monitoring team.

"Given the way that she has undermined democracy by siding with Musharraf, I don't know how Benazir has the nerve to say that the 130 people killed in those bomb blasts sacrificed their lives for the sake of democracy in Pakistan."

Benazir's neice Fatima has a slightly different understanding of the situation.

From Singapore's Electric New Paper : Bhutto vs Bhutto: Niece blames aunt for Pakistan suicide bomb deaths: 'They died for Benazir's grand show' (with my emphasis, here and elsewhere):

Ms Fatima, a 25-year-old poet and newspaper columnist, said the former Pakistan prime minister had endangered the victims for the sake of personal theatre.
...

She accused her aunt of protecting herself with an armoured truck, while bringing in hundreds of thousands of supporters by bus, despite warnings of an attack.

'They died for this personal theatre of hers, they died for this personal show,' she said.

Ms Fatima is the daughter of Ms Benazir's late brother, Murtaza, who was killed by police in Karachi in 1996 amid murky circumstances that led to the collapse of Benazir's second term in government.

Mr Murtaza led a left-wing extremist group after military ruler Zia-ul-Haq executed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in 1979 and then fell out with his sister over what he felt was her betrayal of their father's political legacy.

Ms Benazir has blamed Islamic extremists, possibly with links to rogue or former intelligence agents, for the attack.

Her Pakistan People's Party (PPP) dismissed Ms Fatima's accusation as 'senseless'.

Reacting to the comments made by Ms Benazir's enstranged niece, Ms Benazir's key aide, fellow PPP leader Sherry Rehman has angrily retorted to Fatima's comments dismissing them as 'inappropriate'.

She told a private television channel: 'Fatima Bhutto is young and emotional, she does not even know what she is saying and is also unaware of the reality and politics of the country.

On the contrary, clearly...

'Benazir Bhutto had come to Pakistan with a message of peace, and it is inappropriate for Fatima to give such a statement against her family.'

Authorities are questioning three people from the south of Punjab province over the attack.

Meanwhile, the PPP has also vowed to defy a planned ban on political rallies in the run-up to general elections. It is seen as a key step to restoring civilian rule here.

To clarify: it's the election that's seen -- by some -- as restoring civilian rule and democracy, not the ban on political rallies or the pledge to defy that ban, which now has apparently been canceled.

Others see through the subterfuge, of course, and of these people it is often said, "They don't understand..."

But this Radio Australia interview with Fatima Bhutto seems to belie that notion:

Barely a week back in Pakistan, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto continues to generate controversy with her decision to return from eight years of self-imposed exile. The government is now proposing banning large rallies ahead of January's parliamentary elections, to avoid a repeat of last week's deadly suicide bombings in Karachi, which killed 139 people. To discourage similar attacks, Ms Bhutto is now proposing taking her campaign online, after being accused by opponents and even members of her family, of ignoring death threats, putting her supporters at risk. Critics include Ms Bhutto's 25-year-old niece, Fatima Bhutto. Her father is Benazir's late brother Murtaza, who was killed in 1996 amid murky circumstances that led to the collapse of Ms Bhutto's second government.

BHUTTO: What I do feel, not as a niece, what a do feel as a member of the media in Pakistan, as a member of the press and as a citizen of Karachi. I think that the whole performance of her return was very dangerous to the city and to these people and she bears responsibility for these 140 lives that have been lost.

LOPRESTI: There has been a lot of talk about that homecoming parade last Thursday and the suicide bombings that ripped through the procession. So are you saying that you believe that she is to blame for that carnage, given that she was warned?

BHUTTO: Well, I'll tell you, there was a massive campaign on behalf of the party regarding her return. The first part of that was in the television spot every half-an-hour, full-page ads in newspapers and the second part is that every party officer, every party bearer, every member of assembly from a district level through a national level was told to fill buses, to fill trucks, to fill rickshaws, to fill taxis, and bring them to Karachi for her arrival, so they could create disruption at this time.

Now these 200,000 people that were bused, their transport was paid for by Benazir's party, their accommodation in Karachi was taken care of by Benazir's party and their meals were taken care of. They were here on her behalf at her invitation. And for her to come out after the fact and say I knew there was a danger of a suicide bombing and I was warned that an attack would take place - well, it's very irresponsible of her to place all these peoples' lives at risk, while she herself was very protected. She had a bulletproof car and she spoke behind fortified steel containers, but these people were out in the open.

LOPRESTI: Do you think she's an opportunist?

BHUTTO: Politically, Benazir is a machine that thrives on the fear of victimisation. The chaos that follows this kind of violence has always proved very, very convenient for her and she's always trying to portray herself as a prime minister wrongly accused on corruption charges, a former leader in exile. And that's what's she doing now as well, is that she's saying this attack was an attack on democracy. Absolutely not. We have been fighting for democracy for the last eight years, while she was in exile. This attack was not an attack on democracy, it was an attack on her.

LOPRESTI: Well, if I could just take up that point that you make about democracy in Pakistan. I mean she is able to return to Pakistan after General Musharraf dropped the corruption charges against her. In return, he has an ally and has secured his position for now. Given that she has effectively bailed President Musharraf out, because he was sinking politically and was on the verge of declaring a state of emergency, has she - in your view - derailed the democratic political process?

BHUTTO: Yes, absolutely. I'll tell you why. First of all, the deal under which she came back, the terms that were set, including Musharraf dropping her corruption charges, I mean this has proved very dangerous for this country, because first of all, not only will it wipe out 20 years' worth of corruption charges and violence from various politicians, bureaucrats and bankers, but it also includes a provision that will make it virtually impossible for citizens of this country to file charges against a sitting parliamentarian. These are very dangerous precedents first of all. And then secondly, Benazir's return and this violence that followed her has now led people to say well, we had been planning for elections for January 2008, but in light of this silence, maybe public rallies should be banned.

LOPRESTI: And she is saying she's suggesting to hold virtual rallies and campaign by telephone?

BHUTTO: Well, you know what, unfortunately for Ms Bhutto we live in a very poor country, we live in a developing country and the majority of our citizens do not have access to the internet, the majority of our citizens are illiterate, so how does she propose to embark on an internet campaign. That's ridiculous and it shows how out of touch she is with the political reality in Pakistan.

LOPRESTI: Do you think that Benazir Bhutto is also making herself a target for assassination, given that she is siding with the president, who is hugely unpopular in Pakistan and viewed as a stooge for the Americans?

BHUTTO: It's not allying herself with Musharraf that has caused this violence. The reason that there is a danger towards her life is because she's allied herself to neoconservatives in the Bush White House. For example before her return, she gave statements saying that once elected prime minister for the third time, which she assumes is going to be a given, she would then allow America to come in and hunt for Osama in Pakistan proper and bring the war to our cities, to Karachi, to Islamabad, to Lahore. Now this dug very sharply amongst Pakistanis for someone to come in and say almost giddily that they would allow American troops within our country. This is a great betrayal.

LOPRESTI: Are these the reasons why you've been quoted as saying I'm scared for what this means for the country, meaning her return. Is it repulsive?

BHUTTO: Absolutely, I mean first of all the ordinance that she's come back under is unbelievable. I mean it actively disempowers the people. Benazir herself is accused of taking an estimated amount of $US2.5 billion out of this country, and that's one person and to just give the general amnesty and wipe the slate clean, that is a very dangerous precedent for this country. And her alliance with the pro-neocon agenda is very frightening for us, because her advancement to power through the Bush White House and through these statements comes at the cost of our lives.

I disagree with Fatima Bhutto and Imran Khan to the extent that they disagree with each other. It's not a question of whether Benazir Bhutto has allied herself with Pervez Musharraf or George Bush or the neoconservatives in Washington. The combination is more powerful than any single issue, in my most humble estimation.

UPDATE: BBC News reports another public appearance by Benazir Bhutto, with much different security arrangements: Bhutto visits ancestral village

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has visited her ancestral village near Larkana in southern Sindh province, amid heavy security.

It was her first public trip outside Karachi since nearly 140 people were killed in an assassination attempt.
...

At her home village, Ms Bhutto prayed at the tomb of her executed father, former PM Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.

At her home village of Garhi Khuda Baksh, Ms Bhutto was greeted by about 4,000 supporters who chanted "Long Live Bhutto" and cheered as Ms Bhutto arrived in a bullet-proof vehicle.

Earlier, her convoy to Karachi airport, from where she flew to Sukkur, had a strong police escort. Side roads along the route were sealed off.

"It's a long time since I've been here and I thank God for giving me the opportunity to put my feet on my homeland once again, to see the love of my people," Bhutto said aboard the plane before it landed in Sukkur, Reuters said.

"This has strengthened me to do what I can to save Pakistan by saving democracy, which is so essential to giving people safety, security and better prospects," she said.

Dozens of activists from the PPP, armed with AK-47s, have been guarding her father's tomb.

The activists cordoned off the area near the tomb and refused access even to police, the Associated Press (AP) reported.

The BBC has more but this is the gist of it, I think.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf granted Ms Bhutto an amnesty from corruption charges that allowed her to return to Pakistan.

She has been negotiating with Gen Musharraf over a possible power-sharing deal.
...

"People are just being butchered and it has to stop, somebody has to find a solution and my solution is let's restore democracy," she told a news conference before leaving Karachi.

Ah yes! What must the Pakistani people be thinking?

Ah yes! Lets work out another backroom deal to save Pakistan by restoring democracy! Maybe the Americans can help us. I hear they're trying to get rid of their democracy!

What a tangled web indeed.