The New York Post has a different take on the Bhutto assassination than you're likely to see in most of the media.
While writer Ralph Peters makes it clear that he doesn't condone the assassination, Bhutto may not be as squeaky-clean as the media may portray her.
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.
The piece goes on to mention the corruption scandals that drove her from power, as well.
I didn't follow Bhutto's political career as closely as I have some other world leaders, so I don't feel confident offering an opinion of the level of veracity in the corruption claims.
But sometimes, unfortunately, when partnering with Third World countries against a greater evil, sometimes we have to choose the cleanest dirtbag of the lot. There's an unfortunate element of truth to the old saying: "Yeah, he's scum. But he's OUR scum."
Was she clean? I don't know. Was she dirty? I don't know. Was she cleaner than Musharraf? I don't know that, either.
But both she and Musharraf seemed inclined to work with the West in fighting terrorism. In addition to the regrettable loss of human life, Bhutto's assassination has robbed the people of Pakistan of much-needed stability, and much-needed choice in their democratic elections.
0 comments:
Post a Comment