Posted on 12/28/2007 9:20:14 AM PST by Abathar
FOR the next several days, you're going to read and hear a great deal of pious nonsense in the wake of the assassination of Pakistan's former prime minister, Benazir. Her country's better off without her. She may serve Pakistan better after her death than she did in life.
We need have no sympathy with her Islamist assassin and the extremists behind him to recognize that Bhutto was corrupt, divisive, dishonest and utterly devoid of genuine concern for her country.
She was a splendid con, persuading otherwise cynical Western politicians and "hardheaded" journalists that she was not only a brave woman crusading in the Islamic wilderness, but also a thoroughbred democrat.
In fact, Bhutto was a frivolously wealthy feudal landlord amid bleak poverty. The scion of a thieving political dynasty, she was always more concerned with power than with the wellbeing of the average Pakistani. Her program remained one of old-school patronage, not increased productivity or social decency.
Educated in expensive Western schools, she permitted Pakistan's feeble education system to rot - opening the door to Islamists and their religious schools.
During her years as prime minister, Pakistan went backward, not forward. Her husband looted shamelessly and ended up fleeing the country, pursued by the courts. The Islamist threat - which she artfully played both ways - spread like cancer.
But she always knew how to work Westerners - unlike the hapless Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who sought the best for his tormented country but never knew how to package himself.
Military regimes are never appealing to Western sensibilities. Yet, there are desperate hours when they provide the only, slim hope for a country nearing collapse. Democracy is certainly preferable - but, unfortunately, it's not always immediately possible. Like spoiled children, we have to have it now - and damn the consequences.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
“In fact, Bhutto was a frivolously wealthy feudal landlord amid bleak poverty. The scion of a thieving political dynasty, she was always more concerned with power than with the wellbeing of the average Pakistani. Her program remained one of old-school patronage, not increased productivity or social decency.”
Wow...pretty much an expose on our own idiot politicians inside the beltway.
Corruption in the Bhutto family was endemic.
Chalk it up to another f’up in determining who should lead other countries.
Matter of fact, this is pretty much what I think. I hate to speak ill of the dead, which is why I didn’t say it earlier, but she was a corrupt member of a corrupt family.
Why did she stand up in her armored limo when she knew she was a target of assassins? Because she was brave? Or because she was stupid and couldn’t resist a moment of adulation by the crowd? It’s anyone’s guess, but I lean toward the second explanation.
Yep, it is harsh to have to say it a day after her death, but he nailed it here.
At last: the “real” Bhutto?
I believe “lesser of two evils” applies here.
Hillary was always more concerned with power than with the wellbeing of the average American. Her program remained one of old-school patronage, not increased productivity or social decency.
He did. And both men are correct.
Between the Bhutto’s and the Ghandi’s and others like them, they succeeded in keeping S. Asia a hell hole. Only the reforms in India..free enterprise have helped it turn around. The Bhutto family was currupt and did help to keep their country in poverty and allow the madrass’s to spread their culture.
I agree with the writer.
I agree it is harsh but given the rush to canonize Bhutto, someone must speak truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.