". . . But the past does not exist independently from the present. Indeed, the past is only past because there is a present, just as I can point to something over there only because I am here. But nothing is inherently over there or here. In that sense, the past has no content. The past -- or more accurately, pastness -- is a position. Thus, in no way can we identify the past as past." p. 15

". . . But we may want to keep in mind that deeds and words are not as distinguishable as often we presume. History does not belong only to its narrators, professional or amateur. While some of us debate what history is or was, others take it into their own hands." p. 153

Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History (1995) by Michel-Rolph Trouillot

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Fisk On Bhutto

If, as seems likely, Bhutto was wrong, either on purpose or by mistake, about Osama bin Laden's death (which she referred to in an interview early in November by David Frost -- it's on YouTube), it seeems she wouldn't have been a more credible leader than Mussharaf as time went on, at least judging on her past record of corruption and other wrongs. We want to believe in saviors so badly, it's sending this nation, at least, into a death spiral.

In the meantime, Robert Fisk, in The UK Independent, has this to say;

in The UK Guardian, this;

and in the previous issue of The London Review of Books (count on Fisk to be on the game), this.

This is how Fisk ends the first article (in The UK Independent):

[ But back to the official narrative. George Bush announced on Thursday he was "looking forward" to talking to his old friend Musharraf. Of course, they would talk about Benazir. They certainly would not talk about the fact that Musharraf continues to protect his old acquaintance – a certain Mr Khan – who supplied all Pakistan's nuclear secrets to Libya and Iran. No, let's not bring that bit of the "axis of evil" into this. So, of course, we were asked to concentrate once more on all those "extremists" and "terrorists", not on the logic of questioning which many Pakistanis were feeling their way through in the aftermath of Benazir's assassination.
It doesn't, after all, take much to comprehend that the hated elections looming over Musharraf would probably be postponed indefinitely if his principal political opponent happened to be liquidated before polling day.

So let's run through this logic in the way that Inspector Ian Blair might have done in his policeman's notebook before he became the top cop in London.

Question: Who forced Benazir Bhutto to stay in London and tried to prevent her return to Pakistan?

Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who ordered the arrest of thousands of Benazir's supporters this month?
Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who placed Benazir under temporary house arrest this month?
Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who declared martial law this month?
Answer General Musharraf.

Question: who killed Benazir Bhutto?
Er. Yes. Well quite.


Renegade Eye said...

When the government reported she hit her head when she died, and wasn't shot, that was to deny her martyrdom.

I have no doubt Benazir Bhutto is a corrupt, bourgeoise politician. Her party the PPP, was formed by her father, as a socialist party representing workers and students. Her following is much based on memories of her father.

My comrades hold seats in parliment, representing the Marxist wing of her party. We fight against privatizations etc.

Foxessa said...

Of course! (slaps head because why didn't Fox think of that? -- can't blame everything on the stupidity inflicted by this bug that caught me at Christmas, whatever it is). Denying her martyrdom! Thanks for that. It was so obvious, once you pointed it out. In any case, her secretary who was there when the body was prepared denies that Bhutto wasn't killed by bullets.

And now her 19-year-old son is the 'head' of the PPP; his father the regent. Once again, this illustrates that a one-family political party or opposition cannot survive -- and if it does, it becomes like to a monarchy with heirs to the leadership. This is another reason so many of us loathe the idea of another Clinton in the wh -- between the clintons and the bushes they would then have held the who for how many administrations in a row? This is NOT good for democracy.

Love, C.