Yes! What is most astounding is that Musharraf apparently expects people to believe it. If true, that says a lot about the culture.

It actually doesn't surprise me, seeing as how so many "reasons" for Bhutto's death have come out of Pakistan that it's obvious the Pakistani govt. is not being at all honest about it.

Musharraf is not helping himself or the image of his country.

Yeah, well, he told her to stay away before the election, and how stupid was she to stand up and wave to the crowd? Puke.

I know he's saying this to prove the government has nothing to do with it, but, uh, it's not really helping. Victim-blaming doesn't change the fact that she was shot and killed by--gasp--someone else.

Holy Crap! What a thing to say!
What's interesting though is that i just found an article about Musharraf surviving two assassination attempts in two weeks (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2003/12/25/musharraf031225.html)
The article is from 2003 so i don't know how many more attempts, if any, there have been. Anyone know?

Here's an excerpt from the article that i couldn't believe:

"Fourteen bystanders were killed when two suicide bombs exploded outside the mortorcade of Pakistan's President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the second attempt to assassinate him in two weeks.
Musharraf was not injured in the attack, but the windshield on his armoured limousine was damaged.

The blast injured 46 people. Musharraf's vehicle continued to drive following the attack."

Wow, this guy seems like a giant ass...

I love this reasoning! It could simplify history so much! Why was the Archduke Ferdinand in public that day? Didn't he know he could get himself killed? Why did Lincoln go to the theatre that night? How irresponsible of him! And Kennedy? In that open car? He was asking for it! Case closed.

It doesn't sound quite as good, but these kinds of arguments work so much better when the victim is a woman.

Since those photos have emerged of the guy with the sodding gun, it's been a little harder for Pervez to get away with that excuse. Citizen journalism.

Way to make people think you had absolutely nothing to do with it!

I'm sure this has been pointed out on this site before, and I think her assassination is awful, that Pakistan is a mess (and more of a supplier of terror than a "friend in the war" on terrorism, but this is worth nothing about Bhutto:)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/opinion/04dalrymple.html

About her own contributions to conflict and "jihadism"...

*headdesk*

I watched this interview last night and had the same reaction - and started yelling at the TV.

It's incredible that even an assasination gets blamed on the victim. Geez. I shouldn't be surprised, but these statements continue to outrage me.

I watched this interview last night and had the same reaction - and started yelling at the TV.

It's incredible that even an assasination gets blamed on the victim. Geez. I shouldn't be surprised, but these statements continue to outrage me.

Given the political situation there, I'm half inclined to think that Musharraf was behind the assassination... but in light of the assassination attempts against his own person, I also have a suspicion that his words are being slightly misinterpreted.

I'm seeing his likely thought process behind that comment as:

"Yeah, whenever political figures go out in this country, we can expect to be occasionally bombed. That's why we *don't stick our heads out of our armour-plating*, duh! I mean, heck, if you're not even going to *try* to protect yourself..."

That said, I'm actually also in agreement with Jessica -- it's pretty damn tasteless to leave the blame off of, you know, the actual *killers*.

Just, wow. Between this and the "she banged her head" theory, it's like Musharraf is *trying* to start a revolution or something.

My family's Pakistani. We think Musharraf had her killed. Our family in Pakistan says everyone there thinks he had her killed.

Assassination attempts are kind of par for the course over there, so previous attempts on Musharraf don't negate that theory. Remember how he came to power, and that the country was under martial law for a while.

While we're semi on the subject, did anyone see Parade magazine's article about Benazir Bhutto yesterday? Three full pages about her politics and what her win in the election would mean internationally and an interview with her. On the front cover they ask 'Is Benazir Bhutto America's best hope against al-Qaeda?' all with zero mention that she had been killed. I was seriously confused when I was reading it. Maybe they go to print really far ahead of time, but I couldn't believe my eyes.

Eh, it was kind of a stupid remark, but understandable and perhaps even justified in context. He is, after all, getting raked over the coals at home for having supposedly failed to provide her w/ adequate security, so I don't think he's totally out of line in pointing out that she didn't even take advantage of the security she did have.

As for blaming the actual killer--well, point taken, but he's responding to public criticism that's already premised on the notion that somebody other than the killer is to blame, no matter how tenuous the connection. So, yeah, it'd be great for him to lay the blame squarely on her killers every single time the issue comes up, but politically it probably is necessary for him to also respond to criticism within whatever admittedly dumb framework it was posed in the first place.

EmilyO, I noticed that too, and the thought of it nagged at me the entire day. I mean, everything in the article was in the present tense, and there were so many references to the threat of assassination. Finally I went to Parade's website, and there was a note attached to the article there, saying that the magazine had gone to print before she was killed:

http://www.parade.com/benazir_bhutto_interview.html

Ok, thanks for the update. Don't know why I didn't think to just check their website myself. Hopefully they'll have something in their next print issue as well