Posted by: ryuge ||
01/04/2008 11:39 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
Unfortunately, Huntington was absolutely clairvoyant on this issue, as was Fallaci. Voices in the wilderness at the time. Wise men and women forseeing the future, which is now. So, based on the interval since they first spoke out, I would guess their visions are likely to be played out. They are being played out in Europe now. The population advantage is not yet on their side in US, but growing thanks to our stupidity in allowing their hordes free entry and the building of of unlimited mosks, their hdqtrs. and armories.
In an interesting twist, I attended one of Hill's campaign events in Iowa and hung around until she circled the ropes for handshakes and photos. When she finally got to me, I told her I was glad she came, then said I was very glad she was reconsidering globalization and free trade which were the biggest mistakes Bill made. The smile evaporated. She got dead serious and stared intently at me. Then I said, I just want to know one thing about you. She said what is that. I said I want to know if you'll have the guts to pull the big trigger on the Muslims when the time comes. She just about swallowed her tongue, then, in a lowered voice, said that's the biggest issue of our time, isn't it. Then someone tapped her shoulder and put a camera in her face and my time with her was done. I could tell she was eager to move on.
#2
Huntington was absolutely wrong: it's not a "War of Civilizations" cause Islam is not, never was, and (IMO) incapable of becoming a Civilization. At best it takes over other civilizations and runs them down---kinda like a virus taking over a cell.
#5
Good question about a civilization. So if something is uncivilized what should it be called? Did the Aztecs have a civilization or something else? I think the term, however imperfect, is what we're stuck with.
I think Huntington was right and the End of History guy was totally off. We are at war with Islam. Perhaps there are moderate eliminates that will stand up and reclaim their religion but until that happens they are the equivalent of the Vichy French.
The Clintons' leadership of the Democratic Party was great for the Clintons, terrible for the Democratic Party: They lost the House, they lost the Senate, they lost state legislatures and governors' mansions, and in the end Clinton couldn't even bequeath the White House to his Vice-President in a time of peace and prosperity. Yet his First Lady wound up with a Senate seat. After a decade and a half of his neo-monarchical stewardship, you get a real (if discreetly expressed) sense of frustration from a big chunk of Dems that the first woman candidate should happen to be this particular woman.
And yet it's doubtful anyone other than Barack Obama could have inflicted this defeat on her. Take him out of the race and who wins Iowa? Up against Edwards, Biden and Richardson, she'd have been leaning even more heavily on the identity-politics card. Obama trumped the one thing she had going for her. He's a reminder that this system rewards those who see their opportunity and seize it. In that sense, if no other, he's this season's Bill Clinton.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/04/2008 09:48 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I think she is doing poorly for the same reason that another Bush running would do poorly. We have had 20 years of Bush/Clinton rule. People are suspicious of Hillary like they would be if Jeb was running. People want change. The top office is starting to look like a family monarchy and it makes Americans nervous.
Of course the fact that the Clintons are power hungry elitists and Hillary is a complete bitch don't help her either ;)
#2
Darth: I think anti-dynastism is a factor, but not the only one, explaining Hillary!'s problems.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/04/2008 11:58 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Losing might be the best thing Hillary Clinton could do for herself. She's got a LOT of really serious enemies--some hers, some her husband's. If she ever got elected I'd bet she was Bhutto'd early in her first term. I wouldn't approve of that, mind you, but there are lots of things I don't approve of that it doesn't take genius to realize are all but inevitable.
#4
Jomosing Bluetooth8431, if such is your name, I do not believe HRC is at any greater risk than any other President. I would also trust the professionalism and competence of the Secret Service to safeguard her and the office she would hold.
#5
...One columnist this morning said that from now on, Hillary is going to be 'The Terminator candidate" - if she thinks she's going to lose, she's going to behave just like Arnie did in the first movie.
Down here in SC - where the REAL frontrunners will be decided - the attack ads are already loose. It's gonna be fun...
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
01/04/2008 16:15 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I could be wrong but the Presidential assassinations of the past all seem to be connected to whackos and not enemies (with the Lincoln exception). Enemies are somewhat known and the Secret Service does a wonderful job sorting them out and protecting against any of them (hi guys if your reading this). It's the crazy whacko who watched Taxi Driver that escapes this initial layer of defence.
#8
Hannity said today that the HRC campaign has drug stories to peddle on Obama, not sure if it was using, buying, selling, or what. I think if they do that, it'll be scorched-earth time in the Donk party, possibly blowing apart their libs/blacks/unions/youts coalition. Barb? Any popcorn left?
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/04/2008 17:56 Comments ||
Top||
#9
We've got a truckload on order, should be here by tomorrow.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/04/2008 18:50 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Would drug stories bother the average Dem primary voter? I mean video of Marian Berry smoking crack didn't make a dent in his publicity ratings did it?
Might hurt in the general election though so scorched Earth is right.
#13
The initial feeler of the drug story (from NH operative Shaheen, the husband of Jeanne Shaheen) cutely impugned BO while blaming it all on upcoming GOP attacks on the same lines.
The natural successor to this is a similar attack, but this time on race grounds - namely the evil GOP will encourage voters to not elect a black man, latent racism (or patent if they're really bold), and so on. Not that HRC's campaign thinks any of that - just that the mean opponents will use it.
I don't think this will happen, since the "first black POTUS" couldn't credibly use this criticism, and by the time HRC is so desperate to use it, it may be too late anyway. They may even set up an astroturf right-wing outfit to trot this out, hoping it wouldn't be discovered until too late.
Still, I'm looking for a whiff of the race card to be tossed out at somewhere, by someone, and for everyone to pounce on it, including the GOP candidates.
Mr.Bill gets sometimes too carried away for my taste with his own considerable writing talent, but this is some good stuff. The title in the original is "Forty Second Boyd and the Big Picture" Parts 1 and 2. This is the key section of Part 2:
General Petraeus -- just perhaps -- is in the process of winning such a victory i.e., a "swordless" victory in Iraq. By brilliant diplomacy, deep understanding of the culture and the judicious use of gunpowder and money, it appears he has severed most of the Sunni tribes from al Qaeda and used them as "Awakening" peacekeeping militias against their former allies. General Petraeus is not fighting the last war; he is fighting the next one. He did not arrive there and just hope for the best. He observed. He oriented. He decided. And he acted. And then he observed again to see what effect he had. And again. And again. To paraphrase the drill instructor in Forrest Gump, I'd support Petraeus for President if it wouldn't be a waste of such a damn fine general.
This is not firepower. This is not attrition. This is, rather, an intelligent, delicate, sophisticated, maneuver-based strategy. A light, but sometimes deadly touch. Fingertip control. Water flowing downhill, into the cracks which our enemy cannot fill.
If this continues, Gen. Petraeus will have walked into the camp of the enemy and used his own sword against him. That is a profound species of victory.
You can not put a value on the power of an idea such as the one that drives Gen. Petraeus' "Awakening" strategy. A man's ultimate motivation is to provide for his family. A man, when all is said and done, is powered by nothing more or less then the desire to make his family safe and proud of him.
"Awakening" is working because most Iraqis now have come to the conclusion that we are not there to steal their oil or their land and that the average man may cooperate with us without compromising his honor or the respect of his family. As our side of the scale rises, they are confronted with an ever more desperate al Qaeda whose decision loop lags further behind us every day. Desperate, they become more cruel. For American infidels to sail halfway across the world and win the hearts and minds of Muslims when they themselves cannot, is a tremendous shock to them. Why, I suppose someone like Katie Couric might even call it a Grim Milestone. Ouch, that's a twelve-stitch cut there.
When Osama bin Laden launched the terror attacks of September 11th, 2001, he explained in a video to his own followers that it was because America was a paper tiger too afraid to take casualties, and that defeating The Great Satan would be even easier than defeating the Soviets. "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse," he said. Screech: "I tole him not to say that. I tole him."
I wonder if our illegal, immoral, unilateral cowboy adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq may have tempered this view somewhat. This Great Saladin is now reduced to living in a cave, calling for the end of Global Warming and begging for recruits to fight in Iraq. Now available from Rantburg Books: "REMF: A Military Biography of Osama Bin Laden."
Posted by: Matt ||
01/04/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Iraqi Insurgency
#1
I'd support Petraeus for President if it wouldn't be a waste of such a damn fine general.
Yes, but great commanders know how to surround themselves with talent. It appears the 'call back' for the promotion board was such a event. A good man can put his business in order. A greater man is one who can leave it to work just as effectively in someone else's hands.
Desperate, they become more cruel.
Must've taken a page from the Clinton operative handbook.
he explained in a video to his own followers that it was because America was a paper tiger too afraid to take casualties...
Not afraid, just cost effective oriented. OBL just raised the stakes were it became cost effective. In democracy [note well the small 'd'], we value our fellow productive constructive contributory citizens and do not lightly believe in throwing their lives and futures away for things that dictators and autocrats think nothing about. You, OBL, confuse that respect for weakness while throwing away tens of thousands of your own submissives for whom you have no value. Our boys live to fight another day, as veterans who use their experience and tuned skills ever more effectively.
#2
Hopin Gen Petraus can get Col McMaster his well deserved star.
Passing McMaster over twice is political horseshit at its worst in the pentagon. McMaster understood how to win but made the previous generals look bad by showing them to be incompetebt while Col MacMaster did it his own way and won in Anbar.
#4
Nasty thought: what if a Democrat wins the White House? What will be Petraeus's fate?
And what will happen to the list of officers Petraeus selects for promotion once Congress gets hold of it? Will the approve it, or shitcan it?
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
01/04/2008 17:33 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Then it's time to start the: "The Democrats couldn't make them lose, so they'll make the quit/retire" meme? I would think that might cause some donk assholes (repetitious..... granted) to pucker
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/04/2008 19:16 Comments ||
Top||
#6
We've had at least one great General who became President, Eisenhower, (I suppose I should include Grant, but I'm Southern, so just a wee bit prejudiced.)
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
01/04/2008 21:42 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Oh Redneck Jim! - Ike was likely the better POTUS, with Grant being the better General, but dare I mention you-know-who who had a far more extensive non-military career than both, but listed several ifs to becoming chief executive?
There is a fresh and sordid postscript to Benazir Bhutto's assassination. Tainted by her husband Asif Ali Zardari's penchant for graft and corruption, Bhutto was twice fired as prime minister (1990 and 1996). Her closest friends now say she did not appoint Zardari to succeed her as party leader in case of death. The political testament Zardari read on television was his recent creation, not hers.
These friends of longstanding had never heard of such a document. Zardari is known as "Mr. 10 percent" and is widely reviled as one of the most corrupt political hacks of the past 30 years. As "minister of investment" in Bhutto's second cabinet, all government contracts passed through his hands. They were not approved until a kickback was deposited in a numbered foreign bank account. There are cases pending against him in three foreign jurisdictions, including Switzerland, for money-laundering.
Imagine how corrupt you have to be for the Swiss to charge you with money laundering
Never short a Swiss banker on his service fees ...
Pakistan's National Accountability Bureau lined up 62 witnesses and 18,000 pages of testimony against Zardari's corrupt practices. Typical was a case filed before the Lahore High Court that alleged Zardari, in collusion with others, had "obtained illegal gratification and undue pecuniary advantage in the form of commissions and kickbacks in the purchase of URSUS tractors from Poland."
Trials have been held in several Pakistani jurisdictions without any sentence being pronounced, but he has been imprisoned twice, the last time for 8 œ years, in a forbidding fortress prison near Peshawar. Released in 2004 because of poor health, which included a heart ailment, he has lived in New York for the past two years while undergoing treatment.
None of about 18 corruption and criminal cases against Zardari was proved in court over 10 years. Bhutto herself faced corruption charges in half a dozen cases, which she steadfastly denied and said were politically motivated.
It was Zardari's increasingly lucrative deals that prompted President Farooq Leghari to dismiss Bhutto and her government in 1996. Leghari was shown invoices for the purchase of French military aircraft padded several million dollars per plane beyond the agreed price. Leghari is one of the very few clean political leaders in the country and is now being touted as "Mr. Clean" to lead a coalition government after the next elections, now postponed until Feb. 18.
Bhutto told those closest to her she would never allow Zardari back into Pakistan's political process if she herself were to make it back for a third term as prime minister. He was damaged goods beyond political repair. In fact, he was now a political liability for the Pakistan People's Party.
The last thing on Bhutto's mind was to promote the political rehabilitation of her husband in an arranged marriage who had brought down her government, not once but twice. If something were to happen to her, she mentioned her 19-year-old son Bilawal, but felt he would not be ready for the rough and tumble world of Pakistan's dysfunctional politics until he finished his history degree at Oxford. Her e-mail messages to close friends in the United States and the United Kingdom mentioned the names of would-be assassins, but not who should succeed her in case of death.
PPP leaders accepted the husband's surprise proclamation of the hitherto unknown heir for the sake of party unity and to ensure victory in the forthcoming elections. These leaders are now conceding, albeit off the record, Zardari hijacked the party on television when he read her alleged will. That Bilawal Bhutto would accept his elevation to succeed his mother and then transfer the mantle in the next sentence to his father stretches credulity among those who knew Bhutto best.
When arrested the first time in 1990, after Bhutto was first dismissed as prime minister, Zardari was accused of tying a remote-controlled bomb to the leg of a U.K.-based Pakistani businessman, Murtaza Bukhari, and sending him into a bank to withdraw money from his account for a payoff he had been avoiding. In 1993, when Bhutto regained power, Zardari was plucked out of prison to be made the minister in charge of government investments (i.e., contracts).
No sooner was Bhutto deposed the second time than Zardari was charged with the murder of Mir Murtaza Bhutto, his wife's influential brother, who was expected to play the role of PPP leader. After the execution of their father Zulfikar Ali Bhutto by military dictator President Zia ul-Haq in 1979, Murtaza Bhutto fled to communist-controlled Afghanistan. From there and later in Middle Eastern capitals, Murtaza Bhutto mounted an insurgency against Pakistan's military regime, then won elections from exile in 1993, became a provincial legislator, came home -- only to be shot dead.
Benazir's other brother, Shahnawaz, was also politically active -- and was found dead of poisoning in his French Riviera apartment in 1985.
Zardari was the son of a Sindhi tribal chief who had opted for the lifestyle of the wealthy upperclassmen. Asif did most of his schooling at Karachi's St. Patrick's, as did President Musharraf. A polo-playing bachelor, he had a private disco at home and was known as a playboy. Benazir, a product of the establishment, became the icon of the anti-establishment -- and Zardari feigned to conform. He grew very wealthy, protected by her long shadow.
If the Bhutto dynasty holds, the legitimate heir of the PPP is Sanam Bhutto, Bhutto's younger sister and only daughter left among the children of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the prime minister who was hanged by the previous military dictator. Sanam is convinced the assassination of Benazir's brother, Murtaza, was ordered by Zardari. Murtaza's widow and children are also certain Zardari was involved. How long can such an ailing 54-year-old maintain the fiction he is now Pakistan's most prominent political leader? Stay tuned.
Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large with The Washington Times and with United Press International
Posted by: john frum ||
01/04/2008 06:42 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
this is hillarious "The last thing on Bhutto's mind was to promote the political rehabilitation of her husband in an arranged marriage who had brought down her government, not once but twice. If something were to happen to her, she mentioned her 19-year-old son Bilawal, but felt he would not be ready for the rough and tumble world of Pakistan's dysfunctional politics until he finished his history degree at Oxford.
This is one of the great what ifs of history. But what if Partition had been avoided because the 1946 cabinet mission plan was jointly accepted by the Congress Party and the Muslim League or Mahatma Gandhis last minute offer of prime ministership to Mohammad Ali Jinnah had prevailed over Jawaharlal Nehrus personal ambition? With Jinnah dead of tuberculosis by September 1948, Nehru would have soon headed the government. But would he have enjoyed the same success in rooting liberal values and democratic norms in areas now constituting Pakistan?
Recall that the British during the previous 100-odd years had a terrible time pacifying the tribal militants and, in the wake of the somewhat farcical Afghan invasion of 1919, were engaged in almost continuous fighting with the armed tribesmen in Waziristan and on the North-West Frontier right up to Indias independence.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john frum ||
01/04/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
Demographics trump this dhimmi surrender rot. After Partition, Hindus have been reduced from 20% to 1% of Pakistan's population. Meanwhile, in India, the Muslim percentile increased from 8 to 15%. Even where Muslims are a tiny minority, they demand special privileges, that they oppose for their homeland minorities.
Islam is an evil, aggressive, and genocidal ideology. Indulgence of the cult does not advance human rights. Muslims are the enemy of liberty.
#2
The population of an undivided India would be 1.3 billion (larger than China) with 450 million Muslims. Without the state/elites support for the radical Islamists (as today exists in Pakistan and Bangladesh), it is interesting to speculate how radical the Muslim population would be...
Posted by: john frum ||
01/04/2008 6:34 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Without the state/elites support for the radical Islamists (as today exists in Pakistan and Bangladesh), it is interesting to speculate how radical the Muslim population would be...
Also unlike the westernized elites in some Arab countries (like Algeria and Lebanon), who oppose the Islamists, the Indian Muslim elite would have a vested interest in encouraging radical Islamism in the masses so that they could be used as a tool in a struggle for power with the other groups in Indian society.
Indian Islam is unique in this sense. It is the only variant of Islam that developed in a society where Muslims were not a majority. It has developed mechanisms to survive surrounded by kufr.
Posted by: john frum ||
01/04/2008 7:39 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The Nobel Literature Laureate VS Naipaul on a trip to Pakistan visited Karachi and wrote that partition was the amputation of a gangrene infected limb. Without it, all Indian cities would be Karachi.
Posted by: john frum ||
01/04/2008 7:43 Comments ||
Top||
#6
partition was the amputation of a gangrene infected limb
I'd say not "not done a very good job out of it", except "glass houses" etc...
#7
Compare wid NOSI.ORG > GEOPOLITICS - RECASTING THE LONG WAR AS A SINO-US JOINT VENTURE. The Chinese = CHiComs as Amer's natural allies; + FOURTH GENER WARFARE - JOHN ROBB:KEEPING UP WITH THE TERRORISTS.
ALso, ISRAEL > THE ASYMMETRY FACING PRESIDENT BUSH.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference, the largest voting bloc at the United Nations, has succeeded in pushing through the UN a resolution condemning the defamation of religions. Thats religions, not religion yet according to Cybercast News Service, although the resolution refers to defamation of religions, Islam is the only religion named in the text, which also takes a swipe at counter-terrorism security measures. The OIC has been pushing hard for such a measure ever since cartoons of the Islamic prophet Muhammad appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten late in 2005.
The resolution denounces laws that stigmatize groups of people belonging to certain religions and faiths under a variety of pretexts relating to security and illegal immigration. Muslims, it says, have suffered from ethnic and religious profiling...in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001. This is the fault, in part, of the negative projection of Islam in the media. The UN voices its deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.
Such statements betray the assumption that any association of Islam with violence and terrorism is entirely the fault of non-Muslims. The fact that Muslims themselves routinely commit violent acts and justify them with reference to Islamic teachings is a fact we are not supposed to notice -- and indeed, if the sponsors of this resolution had their way, we would not be allowed to notice.
This UN resolution is part of an ongoing effort. Several weeks ago, the OICs secretary-general, a Turkish historian named Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, was one of the speakers at the International Islamophobia Conference held in Istanbul. Ihsanoglu, according to CNS, denounced freedom of speech as a cover in the West to promote anti-Islam sentiment.
Some of the worlds leading lights on Islam, both Muslim and non-Muslim, also spoke at the conference: Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's Prime Minister and advocate of political Islam; Iqbal Sacranie of the CAIR-like Muslim Council of Britain; Saudi-funded academic John Esposito of Georgetown University; Karen Armstrong, the renowned dhimmi author; Louay Safi of the unindicted co-conspirator ISNA; Lord Nazim Ahmed, the British Muslim peer; Professor Norman Finkelstein, late of DePaul; the notoriously slick Muslim Martin Luther Tariq Ramadan, who is not allowed into the U.S.; the American neo-Nazi William Baker, who has addressed Muslim audiences in the U.S.; and many, many others.
Surprise of surprises, these assembled dignitaries discovered that Islamophobia is a serious, serious problem, that must be addressed at the government level. Of course, attacks on innocent civilians are never justified. Louts, thugs and vigilantes have no excuse, and anyone who targets random Muslims and commits violence against them deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law. Unfortunately, however, it doesnt seem to have occurred to Ihsanoglu or anyone else at this Conference that Muslims might done anything to provoke this rise in Islamophobia, if there has been such a rise, or that they can do anything themselves to eradicate it. No one seems to have realized how easy it would be to stamp out Islamophobia once and for all. Yet it could be done in a trice. If Muslims really wanted to end Islamophobia and the defamation of religions instantaneously, heres how they can do it:
1. Focus their indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.
2. Renounce definitively not just terrorism, as many Islamic groups in the U.S. and elsewhere have done many times in the past, but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means.
3. Teach Muslims the imperative of coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis.
4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.
5. Actively work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.
If Muslims did those five things, voila! There will be no more defamation of Islam. But instead, this UN resolution is just the latest example of the evasion of responsibility and finger-pointing that we have seen from Islamic groups since 9/11 and before that. If a Muslim commits an act of violence and justifies it by reference to Islamic texts and teachings, its the fault of non-Muslims either because they oppress Muslims, or because they dare to take note of the connection the perpetrator made between Islam and his act of violence.
This evasion and denial should end. Government and law enforcement officials in the West should make sure it ends, by demanding that Islamic groups in the West be transparent and cooperative with anti-terror efforts. But this UN resolution only emphasizes that the movement is all in the other direction. We may only hope that this latest iteration of the Islamic jihad can be defeated before it becomes a crime to do so.
Posted by: anonymous5089 ||
01/04/2008 11:29 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
I love listening to Muslims whine. It's like watching wrestling on TV...
#6
Oh and BTW...The annual resolution on "The Right of the Palestinian People to Self-determination" also passed by an overwhelming margin. Yep...you guessed it...once again it was absent any language condeming Paleo-Terrorism.
Hat tip, LGF
Israel's image in the international media deteriorated after the pullout from the Gaza Strip, despite Israeli expectations that the unilateral withdrawal would boost support for its policies, according to a study released Thursday.
Hebrew University researchers found that Israel was represented in a more negative light in both the United States and Britain media after the 2005 Gaza withdrawal, compared to the period that preceded it, and that the improvement in Israel's image occurred only during the disengagement itself.
"We found that one of the main reasons for this phenomenon is that Israel continues to be viewed by the world as a conquering state," said Hebrew University political scientist Dr. Tamir Sheafer, who carried out the study. "We also found that the demands from Israel for territorial concessions in the territories not only were not lessened following the disengagement, but actually became stronger." IMO, they should expand their research period to compare pre- to post Oslo.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru ||
01/04/2008 07:45 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
Ah, yes, Hebrew U. researchers, the folks that gave us the "Israeli non military rape as an anti-Palestinian political statement" report last week...
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
There is a fresh and sordid postscript to Benazir Bhutto's assassination. Tainted by her husband Asif Ali Zardari's penchant for graft and corruption, Bhutto was twice fired as prime minister (1990 and 1996). Her closest friends now say she did not appoint Zardari to succeed her as party leader in case of death. The political testament Zardari read on television was his recent creation, not hers.
By Bharat Karnad
