She has been martyred

[FOTD]

UH OH!!!!!
Pakistan on the Brink: At least three people were shot dead and several wounded at an election campaign rally for former Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif on Thursday, police said.  
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Three_shot_dead_at_Nawaz_Sharifs_poll_rally/articleshow/2655512.cms

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071227/ts_nm/pakistan1_dc_1


Mourning Benazir Bhutto, mourning democracy
http://www.attytood.com/2007/12/mourning_benazir_bhutto_mourni.html

[FOTD]

Pakistan Is 'Central Front,' Not Iraq

By Robert Parry
December 28, 2007
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/122707.html

"The chaos spreading across nuclear-armed Pakistan after the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto is part of the price for the Bush administration's duplicity about al-Qaeda's priorities, including the old canard that the terrorist group regards Iraq as the "central front" in its global war against the West.

Through repetition of this claim – often accompanied by George W. Bush's home-spun advice about the need to listen to what the enemy says – millions of Americans believe that Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders consider Iraq the key battlefield.

However, intelligence evidence, gathered from intercepted al-Qaeda communications, indicate that bin Laden's high command views Iraq as a valuable diversion for U.S. military strength, not the "central front."

For instance, as the Iraq War was heating up in 2005, a letter attributed to al-Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri asked if the embattled al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq might be able to spare $100,000 to relieve a cash squeeze facing the group's top leaders in hiding, presumably inside Pakistan near the Afghan border.

Instead of money going from Pakistan to Iraq, the cash was flowing the opposite way. U.S. intelligence analysts recognized that this was not the way one would normally treat a "central front." [See Consortiumnews.com's "Al-Qaeda's Fragile Foothold."]

In another captured letter sent to Jordanian terrorist Musab al-Zarqawi before his death in June 2006, a top aide to bin Laden known as "Atiyah" upbraided Zarqawi for his reckless, hasty actions inside Iraq.

The message from Atiyah, who is believed to be a Libyan named Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, emphasized the need for Zarqawi to operate more deliberately in order to build political strength and drag out the U.S. occupation. "Prolonging the war is in our interest," Atiyah told Zarqawi.

[To view this excerpt in a translation published by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, click here. To read the entire letter, click here. ]

So, instead of seeking a quick ouster of U.S. forces from Iraq and using it as a base for launching a global jihad – as Bush and his supporters claim – al-Qaeda actually saw its strategic goals advanced by keeping the United States bogged down in Iraq.

To some U.S. analysts, the logic was obvious: "prolonging" the Iraq War bought al-Qaeda time to rebuild its infrastructure in Pakistan, where the Islamic fundamentalist extremists have long had sympathizers inside the Pakistani intelligence services dating back to the CIA's war in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Charlie Wilson's Blowback

That CIA war, lionized in the new movie "Charlie Wilson's War," funneled billions of dollars in U.S. covert money and weapons through Pakistani intelligence to Afghan warlords and to Arab jihadists who had flocked to Afghanistan to drive out the Russian infidels. One of those young jihadists was a wealthy Saudi named Osama bin Laden.

While relying on Pakistani intelligence to assist the Afghan rebels, the Reagan administration also averted its eyes from Pakistan's clandestine development of nuclear weapons, an apparent trade-off for Pakistan's help in giving the Soviet bear a bloody nose in Afghanistan. [For details, see Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege.]

After the Soviets withdrew in 1989, the war dragged on, with a triumphant United States unwilling to broker a deal with the secular Afghan government that the Soviets left behind. George H.W. Bush's administration wanted these "Soviet puppets" dragged from their offices and killed (as some eventually were), replaced by the CIA-backed Islamic fundamentalists.

Then, in 1990, the alliances began to shift. U.S. military bases inside Saudi Arabia, which were established for driving Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, offended bin Laden and alienated him from his patrons in the Saudi royal family.

When the U.S. bases remained after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, bin Laden began to view his old American allies as another band of infidels encroaching on Muslim lands. So, bin Laden's fellow jihadists in Afghanistan shifted their sights onto a new enemy and developed a new organization known as "the base," or al-Qaeda.

For obvious reasons, the Bush administration has sought to blur this complicated history for the American people. It takes some of the shine off the glorious Cold War victories of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Dark Backdrop

But this shadow struggle at the end of the Cold War was the backdrop for the 9/11 attacks, which in turn led to Bush's invasion of Afghanistan, ousting bin Laden and his fundamentalist Taliban allies, but failing to catch bin Laden, Zawahiri and other key leaders.

Then, rather than finishing the job in Afghanistan, Bush made an abrupt detour into Iraq, a decision rife with settling old scores and other unspoken justifications, but which Bush sold to the American public as necessary because Iraq's secular dictator Saddam Hussein was in league with the fundamentalist bin Laden and might give him WMDs.

When that justification proved false and a stubborn Iraqi insurgency emerged to challenge the U.S. occupation, Bush initially presented the resistance as an al-Qaeda offshoot operating under bin Laden's control.

Again, U.S. intelligence saw a different problem: Sunni and Shiite Iraqis contesting the American presence and competing for dominance with each other, while a violent smattering of foreign jihadists like Zarqawi tried to insinuate themselves into the Sunni faction and spread havoc.

Though Bush eventually acknowledged that most of Iraqi resistance was homegrown, he still asserted that al-Qaeda planned to use Iraq as the launching pad for a global "caliphate" from Spain to Indonesia, another alarmist claim that scared some Americans into backing Bush's war policies.

"This caliphate would be a totalitarian Islamic empire encompassing all current and former Muslim lands, stretching from Europe to North Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia," Bush said in a typical reference to this claim in a Sept. 5, 2006, speech. "We know this because al-Qaeda has told us."

But many analysts saw Bush's nightmarish scenario as preposterous, given the deep divisions within the Islamic world and the hostility that many Muslims feel toward al-Qaeda, including its recent much-heralded rejection by more moderate Iraqi Sunnis in Anbar province.

Also, according to a National Intelligence Estimate representing the consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community in April 2006, "the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global strategy, and is becoming more diffuse." [Emphasis added.]

The NIE also concluded that the Iraq War – rather than weakening the cause of Islamic terrorism – had become a "cause celebre" that was "cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."

The grinding Iraq War – now nearing its fifth year – also prevented the United States from arraying sufficient military and intelligence resources against the reorganized al-Qaeda infrastructure in Pakistan and the rebuilt Taliban army reasserting itself in Afghanistan.

Hopes Dashed

So, when the Bush administration supported former Prime Minister Bhutto's return to Pakistan in October 2007, the wishful thinking was that she could somehow energize the more moderate elements of Pakistani politics and marginalize the Islamic extremists.

But the overstretched U.S. military and intelligence services could do little in helping to protect Bhutto beyond hectoring Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf to give his political rival more security. Musharraf, who himself has dodged multiple assassination attempts, either couldn't or wouldn't ensure Bhutto's safety.

Now, with Bhutto's death and with unrest sweeping Pakistan, Bush's Iraq War backers are sure to argue that these developments again prove the president right, that an even firmer hand is needed to combat terrorism and that the next president must be someone ready to press ahead with Bush's concept of a "long war" against Islamic extremism.

But the reality again appears different. Though rarely mentioned in the American press, the evidence is that bin Laden and other extremists have cleverly played off Bush's arrogance and belligerence to strengthen their strategic hand within the Muslim world.

By keeping Bush focused on Iraq, al-Qaeda and its allies also bought time to transform themselves into a more lethal threat in Pakistan, with the danger that the new turmoil could win al-Qaeda its ultimate prize, control of a nuclear bomb. [For more on this history, see our new book Neck Deep.]"

Inventing and believing that there is an enemy.
Hurry up 1-20-09.....

[FOTD]

And this....
"Osama Bin Laden, the Terrorist, is Safe in Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, the Democrat, was Not; Truly, Musharraf is Bush-Cheney's "Strong Ally" in the War IN, OF, BY & FOR Terror

By Richard Power

Osama Bin Laden is safe in Pakistan.

Benazir Bhutto was not.

Osama Bin Laden is alive and free in Pakistan.

Daniel Pearl is not.

Neither Iran nor Iraq have nuclear weapons.

But Pakistan does.

This is the poisoned fruit of Beltwayistan's decades of geopolitical folly in the Moslem world, and of the neo-con wet dreams and foolish military adventures of the last seven years in particular

I followed the story of Benazir Bhutto for many years.

She did not end up in exile because of corruption.

There is no head of state in the world, anywhere in the world, who could not be successfully stained with the broad brush of corruption.

Indeed, you cannot achieve power without exposing yourself to that charge.

In one way, she was the Don Siegelman of Pakistan; now, in another way, she has become the Robert F. Kennedy of Pakistan, we must pray she does not become the Archduke Ferdinand of the region.

She ended up in exile because she was too secular for the religious extremists and their backers in Saudi Arabia, and she was too democratic for the militarists and their backers in Beltwayistan.

She was also the first woman to rule in the modern Moslem world, and tragically, probably the last for some time.

When she returned to Pakistan a few weeks ago, I kept asking myself, "Why?"

She certainly knew she would most likely be killed.

I knew she would most likely be killed.

This morning, as I heard the news of her assassination, the answer struck me, and it came with a bitter twist of irony.

Every time you ask yourself why US political leaders will not stand up to the Bush-Cheney regime, why impeachment is off the table, why the betrayal of US secret agent Valerie Plame's covert identity goes unavenged, why those who looked the other way while 9/11 went down, then lied us into war with Iraq (and attempted to lie us into war with Iran) continue to occupy positions of power and privilege, why violations of FISA, FOIA, the Geneva Accords, the Bill of Rights, etc., have gone on unchecked, why no one is under criminal investigation for obstruction of justice in the firing of the US attorneys or the theft of elections in 2000, 2002 and 2004; remember the beautiful face, passionate heart and eloquent tongue of Benazir Bhutto, remember too Yitzhak Rabin, and Jack and Bobby Kennedy, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Omar Torrijos, and Anwar Sadat, and the answer will come to you.

They do not stand up because they are afraid.

She was not afraid."

http://words-of-power.blogspot.com/2007/12/osama-bin-laden-terrorist-is-safe-in.html

[FOTD]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/13/AR2007111301832.html?hpid=topnews

Editor's Note: Former Pakistani prime minister Bhutto was assassinated Dec. 27 as she was leaving a political rally. Bhutto wrote the following column, which was published Nov. 14, 2007.
Musharraf's Electoral Farce

By Benazir Bhutto
Wednesday, November 14, 2007; Page A19
LAHORE, Pakistan -- All through the years of the Soviet empire, its Politburo held "elections." Of course, calling something an election and actually having it be an election are different things.

I am under house arrest in Lahore, barricaded in by Pakistani police with bayonets. Despite Gen. Pervez Musharraf's announcement of a date for parliamentary elections, I doubt that we are in for a change.

I cautioned the general earlier this year that his election as president by the present parliament was illegal. He insisted otherwise.

We agreed to disagree and decided that we both would accept a ruling by the Supreme Court regarding eligibility.

Yet when the court was on the brink of deciding, Musharraf imposed martial law by suspending the constitution, and he removed several of the Supreme Court justices. Today the nation is paying for his mistake.


We are witnessing a farce in Pakistan: While an election schedule has been announced, the problem lies in what has not been announced. No indication has been given as to whether Musharraf will keep his previous commitment to retire as army chief on Thursday.

No date has been given for the lifting of emergency rule; the reconstitution of the election commission; the implementation of fair election practices; the removal of biased officials; or the suspension of the mayors, who control the guns and the funds -- that is, police and government resources -- to adversely influence elections.

Moreover, judges, lawyers, human rights activists and students across the country are in prison or under house arrest. The independent media have been shut down, television stations stopped from broadcasting news. Several foreign journalists have been expelled. Thousands of political activists, a majority from my Pakistan People's Party, have been arrested.

Police have erected barricades and deployed armored personnel carriers and trucks filled with sand to cut off access to my house and to prevent people from going from one city to another.

Musharraf knows how to crack down against pro-democracy forces. He is, however, unwilling or unable to track down and arrest Osama bin Laden or contain the extremists. This is the reality of Pakistan in November 2007.

The only terror that Musharraf's regime seems able to confront is the terror of his own illegitimacy. This is the second time Musharraf has imposed martial law and the second time he has sacked judges since taking over the country in a coup in 1999. It was then that he first promised "to bring true democracy."

The election commission has promulgated election rolls judged illegitimate by Pakistan's Supreme Court and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. Some polling sites have been kept secret. Musharraf's political opposition is banned from campaigning or organizing and has been denied access to state-controlled media. We cannot meet, we cannot rally, and when we try to bring the people to the streets they are gassed, beaten and shot at with rubber bullets. This is not only a military dictatorship, it is a classic police state.

On top of a litany of assaults on the rule of law, the general has unilaterally amended the Army Act of 1952 to grant the army the power to try civilians in military courts. Courts-martial will operate by military rules in secret, and defendants are not allowed legal representation.

No attempt has been made to differentiate between average citizens and terrorism suspects associated with militant groups. Many believe that these laws were passed to intimidate pro-democracy forces, not to try terrorism suspects. This is the "democracy" that Musharraf envisages.

While living in America when I attended Harvard in the early 1970s, I saw for myself the awesome, almost miraculous, power of a people to change policy through democratic means. Today I am seeing the power of the people coalescing once again. Journalists, judges, and political and civil activists have joined together against Musharraf's second declaration of martial law. They see him as the obstacle to the democratization of Pakistan.

This is why I have called upon Gen. Musharraf to resign as president and chief of army staff, and to pave the way for the composition of an interim government of national consensus that will oversee the transfer of power to duly elected representatives of the people.

The people of the Soviet Union knew that "elections" for the Politburo were fraudulent. The people of Pakistan know that elections under martial law are a similar sham.

Benazir Bhutto, head of the Pakistan People's Party, was twice elected prime minister of Pakistan. She is under house arrest in Lahore.

[Breadburner]

She was not smart........

[FOTD]

Yes she was. Was Lincoln smart? Kennedy's? King? We know our leader sure isn't. It's the smart one's who get murdered .....

[FOTD]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/29/wbhutto130.xml

A face in the crowd: Benazir Bhutto's assassin

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/243.html

Protected by Bush

CIA = ISI (Pakistani intelligence) = al Queda

"On October 1, 2001, did the FBI uncover evidence that Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed, the Director of the Pakistani Intelligence Service (the ISI) authorize the wiring of $100,000 to Florida to Mohammed Atta (supposed hijack ringleader of the 911 attack) through Omar Saeed Sheikh (an alleged ISI agent)?

Why did only a single US press outlet, the Wall Street Journal website, mention this connection in the editorial section (James Taranto writing) on October 10, 2001, saying it was an "internet only" story - when in fact it was a major story reported at great length in the main line Indian press?

Does this mean that Al-Queda was used as a tool by members of the American government in the same way that they used the Mujahdeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan? "


All over the world people are waking up to the effects of the Bush regime and their accomplices.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1auI5ewP53I

A really good link! Watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrv8CLyEPaA&feature=related

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Breadburner

She was not smart........

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2543550

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ


"While being interviewed by David Frost on Nov 02, 2007, Benazir Bhutto referred to "the man who killed
Osama bin Ladin." She was talking about warnings she'd received that her life was at risk. She also
named those who were reported to be threatening her.

"Yes, well one of them is a very key figure in security. He's a former military officer. He's someone who's had dealings... and he also had dealings with Omar Sheikh (Ahmad Omar Saeed Sheikh), the man who murdered Osama bin Laden." (6:00 or so in the tape)

DUer Gateley posted a thread in Political Videos. At that point,the discussion indicated tha it was probably a slip of the tongue.

That seems reasonable since nothing much has come of the statement since then.

HOWEVER, consider this. She made the statement, David Frost, no slouch as a reporter, failed to challenge it. This deserves follow up. I'm sure that Frost will weigh in on this. Could be nothing but the only alternative to that is, a stunning story.

Excellent interview. Quite a leader."

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Yes she was. Was Lincoln smart? Kennedy's? King? We know our leader sure isn't. It's the smart one's who get murdered .....

Yes it was brilliant of her to stick her head out of a vehicle in a hostile crowd like that....It's even more idiotic of her considering the way a few of those you mention were killed.....So I have to stick with my assertion that she was not very smart....She is a Darwin award winner for sure.....

[FOTD]

ok....Agreed. How many other trips around Pakistan did she go unharmed campaigning?
If democracy is to succeed, this must not happen.

Do you think she desired proving her multitude of supporters should the military fix the election. Maybe she felt it had to be that she remain in public to verify a true democracy.

[Breadburner]

How many other times did they try and get her.....You can accomplish all those political goals and be smart about your security and personal safety.....

[spoonbill]

I'm very uneasy about the multiple reports of cause of death.  

Now, after the announcement that an otherwise intelligent woman named her 19 year old son as her predecessor, when her current advisor (who's name escapes me) is more than qualified, and has exceptional political experience within the party.

Me thinks the puppets are dancing.  I need to look up and see who is holding the strings, but there are too many clouds.  Now they want to rush the election so that there is no time for the clouds to clear.  Wow!  they are not even being the least bit clever about it.

See what happens when the writers go on strike!

[FOTD]

Whoa! Bob "The Traitor" Novak pens a column accusing the Bush Administration of ignoring and even rebuffing Bhutto's concerns about her security and implying that the Pakistani Government killed her, NOT Al-Qaeda. Is Novak drinking truth serum for once?

Sacrificing Bhutto to prop up Musharraf?

http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/719606,CST-EDT-NOVAK31.article

December 31, 2007
BY ROBERT NOVAK Sun-Times Columnist
The assassination of Benazir Bhutto followed urgent pleas to the State Department for the last two months by her representatives for better security protection. The U.S. reaction was that she was worried over nothing, expressing assurance that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf would not let anything happen to her.

That attitude led Bhutto's agent to inform a high-ranking State Department official that her camp no longer viewed the backstage U.S. effort to broker power sharing between Musharraf and former Prime Minister Bhutto as a good-faith effort toward democracy. It was, according to the written complaint, an attempt to preserve the politically endangered Musharraf as President Bush's man in Islamabad.

Bush confirmed that judgment Thursday when he urged that the Jan. 8 election be held in furtherance of Pakistani ''democracy.'' That may be Musharraf's position, but it definitely is not that of his critics. They say an election would be a sham with Bhutto dead, no successor named to head her Pakistan People's Party, and Saudi-backed former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif boycotting the balloting.

The Bush administration months ago decided to broker power sharing with the deeply unpopular Musharraf and the popular Bhutto. That decision was based on Pakistan's strategic importance as a sanctuary for al-Qaida and Taliban fighters. Bush was in a quandary. Bhutto was much tougher than Musharraf on Islamist extremists, but Bush had heavily invested in Musharraf.

When I last saw Bhutto in August in Manhattan, she was deeply concerned about U.S. ambivalence but asked me not to write about it. She had not heard from Musharraf for three weeks after their secret July meeting in Abu Dhabi. She feared the Pakistani strongman was not being prodded from Washington.

Next came Musharraf's state of emergency and purge of Pakistan's Supreme Court to guarantee legality of his questionable election as president. According to Bhutto's advisers, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked Bhutto to go along with that process in return for concessions from Musharraf. Bhutto agreed but got nothing in return.

The unsuccessful Oct. 18 attempt on Bhutto's life followed the regime's rejection of her requested security protection when she returned from eight years in exile. The Pakistani government vetoed FBI assistance in investigating the attack. On Oct. 26, Bhutto sent an e-mail to Mark Siegel, her friend and Washington spokesman, to be made public only in the event of her death.

''I would hold Musharraf responsible,'' Bhutto said. ''I have been made to feel insecure by his minions.'' She listed obstruction to her ''taking private cars or using tinted windows,'' using jammers against roadside bombs and being surrounded by police cars. ''Without him [Musharraf],'' she said, those requests could not have been blocked.

In early December, a former Pakistani official supporting Bhutto visited a senior U.S. government official to renew her security requests. He got a brush-off, a mind-set reflected Dec. 6 in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

Richard Boucher, assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs, was asked to respond to fears by nonpartisan American observers of a rigged election. His reply: ''I do think they can have a good election. They can have a credible election. They can have a transparent and a fair election. It's not going to be a perfect election.'' Boucher's words echoed through corridors of power in Islamabad. The Americans' not demanding perfection signaled they would settle for less. Without Benazir Bhutto around, it is apt to be a lot less.

A more sinister fallout of a free hand from Washington for Pakistan might be Bhutto's murder. Neither her shooting last Thursday nor the attempt on her life Oct. 18 bore the classic al-Qaida trademark. After the carnage, government trucks used streams of water to clean up the blood and in the process destroy forensic evidence. If not too late, would an investigation by the FBI still be in order?

Musharraf's critics say an election would be a sham with Bhutto dead.

[FOTD]

SAD SAD SAD......Democracy started it's death march in Florida in 2000. Read it and weep for the democratic process.

Bhutto email named killers weeks before assassination...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=505152&in_page_id=1811


Benazir Bhutto claimed three senior allies of Pakistan's president General Musharraf were out to kill her in a secret email to Foreign Secretary David Miliband written weeks before her death.

Astonishingly, one of them is a leading intelligence officer who was officially responsible for protecting Miss Bhutto from an assassination.

Read on....

[FOTD]

Interesting journalism.....I can't say I find it compelling. Just weird stuff. No tin hat.  I struggled through this read and felt some might find it nuts.

http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2008/01/bhutto-knew-too-much-about-bin-laden.html

Monday, January 07, 2008
Bhutto Knew Too Much About Bin Laden, 911, the CIA


Bhutto's assassination by gun men was a pre-emptive strike! She might have exposed the CIA as the World's number one terrorist organization. Pakistan Dictator Pervez Musharraf, Bush's man in Pakistan, blames the victim. In some perverted sense, he may be right. Bhutto may have signed her own death warrant with the famous statement (censored by the BBC) that Bin Laden was murdered by Saeed Sheikh. [Her remarks found here]


Bhutto pulled the rug from under Bush's official 911 conspiracy theory. We must chalk up to official fraud and exploitation several "video tapes" that Bushies attributed to the world's arch fiend, Osama bin Laden, the Lex Luthor of terror. Bush critics are now confirmed; there is no reason to suppose that bin Laden ever stopped being a CIA asset. While alive, that is.
The assassination of Bhutto appears to have been anticipated. There were even reports of "chatter" among US officials about the possible assassinations of either Pervez Musharraf or Benazir Bhutto, well before the actual attempts took place.

As succinctly summarized in Jeremy Page's article, "Who Killed Benazir Bhutto? The Main Suspects", the main suspects are 1) "Pakistani and foreign Islamist militants who saw her as a heretic and an American stooge", and 2) the Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, a virtual branch of the CIA. Bhutto's husband Asif Ali Zardari directly accused the ISI of being involved in the October attack.

The assassination of Bhutto has predictably been blamed on "Al-Qaeda", without mention of fact that Al-Qaeda itself is an Anglo-American military-intelligence operation.

Page's piece was one of the first to name the man who has now been tagged as the main suspect: Baitullah Mehsud, a purported Taliban militant fighting the Pakistani army out of Waziristan. Conflicting reports link Mehsud to "Al-Qaeda", the Afghan Taliban, and Mullah Omar (also see here). Other analysis links him to the terrorist A.Q. Khan.
--Larry Chin, Anglo-American Ambitions behind the Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the Destabilization of Pakistan

A sub plot is equally interesting. A former MI6/SIS agent, Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad, supervised wired transfers of $100,000 to Mohammed Atta shortly before 9/11. Has anyone ever stopped to ask the obvious question: what the hell was a man who was going to die in a suicide Attack do with $100,000?

According to Turkish intelligence, Ahmad is a paid CIA informant who claims to have trained six 9/11 hijackers. Turkish intelligence charges that Al-Qaeda is merely the name of a secret service operation designed to stir up trouble and exploit tensions around the world.
While the pakistani inter services public relations claimed that former ISI Director-General Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad sought retirement after being superseded on monday, the truth is more shocking. top sources confirmed here on tuesday, that the general lost his job because of the "evidence" india produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Centre.

The US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker mohammed Atta from pakistan by ahmad Umarr Sheikh at the instance of gen mahumd. Senior government sources have confirmed that india contributed significantly to establishing the link between the money transfer and the role played by the dismissed ISI chief. while they did not provide details, they said that indian inputs, including sheikh's mobile phone number, helped the FBI in tracing and establishing the link. a direct link between the ISI and the WTC Attack could have enormous repercussions. the us cannot but suspect whether or not there were other senior pakistani army commanders who were in the know of things.

Evidence of a larger conspiracy could shake us confidence in pakistan's ability to participate in the anti-terrorism coalition. indian officials say they are vitally interested in the unravelling of the case since it could link the ISI directly to the hijacking of the indian airlines kathmandu-delhi flight to kandahar last december. ahmad umar sayeed sheikh is a british national and a london school of economics graduate who was arrested by the police in delhi following a bungled 1994 kidnapping of four westerners, including an american citizen.
--India helped FBI trace ISI-terrorist links

The London Times reports that from 1999-2000 Louai al-Sakka, incarcerated in a high-security Turkish prison 60 miles east of Istanbul, trained six 9/11 hijackers in a mountain camp near Istanbul. Sakka is said to have been captured by Turkish intelligence and ordered released. After moving to Germany, he assisted alleged 9/11 hijackers.

Shortly before 9/11, Sakka was allegedly hired by Syrian intelligence - to whom he gave a warning that the Attacks were coming on September 10th, 2001.

In the meantime, Wikipedia has this information about the man Bhutto claims murdered bin Laden.
" was arrested and served time in prison for the 1994 abduction of several British nationals in India, an act which he acknowledges, he was released from captivity in 1999 and provided safe passage into Pakistan, apparently with the support of Pakistan and the Taliban (the hijackers were Pakistanis) in an Indian Airlines plane hijacking. He is most well-known for his alleged role in the 2002 kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Sheikh Omar Saeed was arrested by Pakistani police on February 12, 2002, in Lahore, in conjunction with the Pearl kidnapping,[4] and was sentenced to death on July 15, 2002[5] for killing Pearl. His judicial appeal has not yet been heard. The delay has been alleged to be due to his reported links with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence.[6]

Pakistani President, Pervez Musharraf, in his book In the Line of Fire stated that Sheikh was originally recruited by British intelligence agency, MI6, while studying at the London School of Economics. He alleges Omar Sheikh was sent to the Balkans by MI6 to engage in jihadi operations. Musharraf later went on to state "At some point, he probably became a rogue or double agent".[7]

On October 6, 2001, a senior-level US government official told CNN that US investigators had discovered Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh (Sheik Syed), using the alias "Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad" had sent about $100,000 from the United Arab Emirates to Mohammed Atta. "Investigators said Atta then distributed the funds to conspirators in Florida in the weeks before the deadliest acts of terrorism on US soil that destroyed the World Trade Center, heavily damaged the Pentagon and left thousands dead. In addition, sources have said Atta sent thousands of dollars -- believed to be excess funds from the operation -- back to Saeed in the United Arab Emirates in the days before September 11. CNN later confirmed this. [1]"

-- Omar Saeed Sheikh
Much of this was known but little publicized by the MSM. Few journalists dared challenge official conspiracy theories. Among those daring to get at the truth was Gore Vidal.
Vidal argues that the real motive for the Afghanistan war was to control the gateway to Eurasia and Central Asia's energy riches. He quotes extensively from a 1997 analysis of the region by Zgibniew Brzezinski, formerly national security adviser to President Carter, in support of this theory. But, Vidal argues, US administrations, both Democrat and Republican, were aware that the American public would resist any war in Afghanistan without a truly massive and widely perceived external threat.

--Gore Vidal claims 'Bush junta' complicit in 9/11
It was not Bhutto who misspoke but Musharraf, whose comments may have already backfired. Indeed, Bhutto was murdered --not by terrorists as Musharraf would have you believe. She was murdered, gunned down, in fact, because she was the woman who knew too much and dared to reveal that Osama bin Laden had been murdered. She did not misspeak! She named names. She exposed the fraudulent nature of the Bush/Blair "war on terrorism". She stated --flat out --US policies cause world terrorism!

Musharraf just makes himself look worse with worse lies. As Bhutto's murderers were caught on video tape, the BBC was caught censoring a most important piece of the puzzle. If Osama is dead, Bush's war on terror is a treasonous fraud, a capital crime.
Was Afghanistan then turned to rubble in order to avenge the 3,000 Americans slaughtered by Osama? Hardly. The administration is convinced that Americans are so simple-minded that they can deal with no scenario more complex than the venerable lone, crazed killer (this time with zombie helpers) who does evil just for the fun of it 'cause he hates us, 'cause we're rich 'n free 'n he's not. Osama was chosen on aesthetic grounds to be the most frightening logo for our long contemplated invasion and conquest of Afghanistan, planning for which had been `contingency' some years before 9/11 and, again, from 20 December, 2000, when Clinton's out-going team devised a plan to strike at al-Qaeda in retaliation for the assault on the warship Cole.
--Gore Vidal, The Enemy Within


Two questions must be asked about the Bhutto assassination: 1) Who benefits from it? 2) Who is lying about it?

The most prominent liars are Pervez Musharraf who insists upon a ludicrous theory, easily disproven by widely distributed video tapes; and George W. Bush whose lies about "terrorism", bin Laden specifically, have been challenged as never before. If, as Bhutto charged, bin Laden is dead, the whole rotten edifice comes crashing down.

The beneficiaries are not suprisingly George W. Bush and Musharraf. Musharraf, like Bush, will now crack down on "terrorists" though the policies of both create it! Bhutto dared expose the fraud and paid with her life for having done so. The axis of Bush/CheneyMIC will prop up the dictator Musharraf, manipulating his apparatus of state to meet the demands of personal ambition and corporate greed. And, yes! All are oil and power mad!