I have to disagree (mildly) with the author and Mark Steyn, and lean toward John Bolton's remarks on Bhutto. I consider myself an American chauvinist and have no problem with assassination as a tool of foreign policy when it serves American interests...I would not shed a single tear if the likes of Chavez, Castro, etc. met an untimely demise. The point is, while Bhutto may not have been a saint, or fit perfectly with what we may have wanted or needed, she was certainly the "lesser," of a multitude of evils. When I look at the current slate of presidential candidates in our own upcoming election, I don't see a perfect fit for what America needs, just some that come a lot closer than others. Frankly, Bhutto may have been corrupt, but I suspect that in their system, those that aren't have no hope of making any impact whatsoever. I think I can say with a fair degree of certainty that the islamofascists were further from the nuclear trigger while she was alive, and in that regard, her death is not a good thing.
It would have been foolish for our government leaders to not have considered what Bhutto’s return to Pakistan and her eventual assassination would do to the region. I can’t think that the powers that be did not consider it. To me, Bhutto’s assassination was like a “given” in a geometry problem. It was bound to happen. When was the question.