The Assassination of Bhutto: Why It's Very Bad News

Posted by Quanster, Dec 27, 2007 1:24PM

It killing is tragic but Bhutto did fund and support Taliban for pursuing Pakistan's interest in dominating Afghanistan after Soviets left. She was also responsible for numerous extra judicial killings during her reign. Karma as they call it.

Regarding US interests, whether its new leader from Bhutto's party or Sharif, they will help US in anti terrorism efforts as you cannot say no to the only superpower. I think situation might improve as educated Pakistanis are sick of violence in the name of religion and Musharaf can crack more aggresivelly on hardliners than in the past.

Posted by Anal_yst, Dec 27, 2007 1:34PM

Interesting how Bhutto criticized Musharaf for not cracking down on (islamic) terrorism, and lo-and-behold she meets her maker proving the point... a martyr perhaps?

Posted by anon anon anon, Dec 27, 2007 1:38PM

Bhutto's death was a normal development in human behavior. Politicians are super egomaniacs and/or thieves. She had these behaviors in spades. Some people exhibit their outrage by killing politicians others just try to vote the bastards out.

Posted by , Dec 27, 2007 1:59PM

anyone who thinks that the world was a safe place before Bhutto's assasination is living in some sort of bubble. there are suicide bombings, genocide, assasinations occuring on a daily basis!! This is a tragic event and it goes to show that terrorism is alive and growing and becoming more violent by day. sad, sad event for humanity and especially women's rights.

Posted by , Dec 27, 2007 2:10PM

This was an inside job by Pakistan's President.

Posted by just me, Dec 27, 2007 2:14PM

with all this faux sympathy and geo-political insight, I have to ask -- has anyone seen her naked or topless?

Posted by Noonan, Dec 27, 2007 2:17PM

Things like this would never happen in a world where Ron Paul is President.

Posted by , Dec 27, 2007 2:19PM

Noon: was at the rents for Xmas, in the NJ burbs. More than a few Ron Paul signs and bumper stickers. Saw none for anyone else. Scary..

Posted by Random Banker, Dec 27, 2007 2:21PM

1) Musharaf probably did it

2) the only surprise is that this didn't happen sooner.

Posted by Some guy, Dec 27, 2007 2:25PM

It is a sad day whenever the voice of reason fades away in chaos and violence. '08 will be a hard year I predict.

Posted by Anal_yst, Dec 27, 2007 2:25PM

@ noon/2:19 - also back home in NJ burbs this past weekend and saw more than a few Ron Paul posters on overpasses, also nothing for any other candidate.

Doesn't mean anything other than that RP supporters are the most over-zealous. Its only scary if they start to gain any traction with the rest of the populace.

@ RB - agreed, surprised she wasn't offed weeks/months ago. Musharaf is classic egomanaical dictator masquerading as champion of "democracy", defender of the peace, etc. Funny he did the Daily Show a while back though.

Posted by just me, Dec 27, 2007 2:27PM

so.........maybe one of you can tell us the literacy rate in pakistan? I mean you're ALL such experts

Posted by Quantster, Dec 27, 2007 2:32PM

musharaf has nothing to gain by getting rid of bhutto as he himself is a big target and he barely comes in public. If he did not want Bhutto, he could have never let her in or given amnesty as her record was super criminal.

I think the literacy rate is around 30%?

Posted by Random Banker, Dec 27, 2007 2:39PM

@ Just me:

I listen to NPR asshole, i'm worldly baby.

Posted by Anal_yst, Dec 27, 2007 2:41PM

All i know is that they still throw rocks and riot constantly over there so the literacy rate can't be that high, whereas over here we're "civilized" enough in our protests to stand around with stupid signs singing koombayah

Posted by AnonyMouse, Dec 27, 2007 2:42PM

http://www.tvshows.de/alf/e-main.htm

Posted by Random Banker, Dec 27, 2007 2:45PM

He had to let her in because the Supreme court was threating to invalidate his Presidency. We was using Bhutto to make himself seem compromising. Now he's replaced the Supreme Court chief justice, secured 5 more years in office, installed an ally as head of the military. He doesn't need Bhutto to appear compromising anymore.

And yes he is a big target himself, he's survived several assignation attempts, that doesn't mean he wouldn't put out a hit on Bhutto.

Posted by , Dec 27, 2007 2:50PM

@ just me

49.9%
male 63%
female 36% (2005 estimate)

The intertubes - use it.

Posted by just me, Dec 27, 2007 2:51PM

wow...you can copy/paste from cia factbook - bravo!!!

Posted by , Dec 27, 2007 2:54PM

just me: Who so sour? You asked, anon responded. What's the problem with that? Shape up bud. You're not gonna go very far or get laid too often with that attitude.

Posted by Quantster, Dec 27, 2007 2:59PM

No, supereme court and he letting her in had nothing to do with each other. It was US pressure to let her in and she has been cooperating with him (except for public critisism). Also, Mushraf is President while bhutto wanted to be PM, so there wasnt a power clash.

Posted by Lew Dunbar, Dec 27, 2007 3:02PM

She was assasinated by the military.

Posted by just me, Dec 27, 2007 3:07PM

@ 2.59 -- If you read that into my comment, your job must be so unemployed with way too much free time. Have you considered working at walmart? Its kinda like being involved in the market - super markets that is!!

Posted by anonymous, Dec 27, 2007 3:08PM

Semi regular commenter posting anonymously for whatever reason. I live in Mount Laurel, and work in Princeton area, and can safely say that every sign around is for Ron Paul.

Very scary, but probably more a function of how Ron Paul has used his money.

Im sure in 6 months the neighbors will have Obama/Clinton/Huckabee/whoever signs.

Posted by K-Federal Reserve, Dec 27, 2007 3:12PM

Fear not the American RESILIENT CONSUMER is on the case!

Posted by Random Banker, Dec 27, 2007 3:12PM

Of course there's a power clash. The supreme court wanted him out. He wouldn't leave but he agreed to share power with Bhutto ( allowing her to be PM) to appease the court (and the US and his people), except he didn't want to actually share power. So once the supreme court issue was resolved there was no need to keep a rival around.

Musharaf is the military

Posted by Ahmadinenajab, Dec 27, 2007 3:13PM

Carney,

Quite possibly your gayest post ever. Spare the melodrama, Sally.

Posted by , Dec 27, 2007 3:14PM

More like Benizir Bhutt-hole. Or Bullet-hole, now, I guess.

Posted by no_slappz, Dec 27, 2007 3:19PM

Bhutto and Musharraf both wanted control of Pakistan.

Her father and brothers were assassinated, and she and her husband were driven from Pakistan to escape corruption charges.

In other words, she flew the coop, went on the lam, escaped to a place with no extradition to Pakistan, then waited till the storm blew over.

She and Musharraf are pretenders. They may show a friendly face to the US, but that's because they're smart enough to know it's better to maintain friendly relations with a country that can take away their power.

She might have appeared more threatening to muslim fundamentalist kooks than Musharraf, or she might have appeared to Musharraf as a threat to his own power.

Either way, she faced too much internal opposition to succeed. Clearly Musharraf benefits from her death, even if it means a period of unrest in the country. He controls the military, which means he can order his troops to shoot rioters.

The Paki army is large and able to suppress an uprising, and in a few months the impact of her death will pass.

Meanwhile, it will become a chief topic for US candidates for the next week or so. Her death is probably good for Republicans.

Posted by Ahmaneedenajob, Dec 27, 2007 3:28PM

I listen to NPR asshole, i'm worldly baby.

You Americans are too silly! Haha! I laugh at your funny!

Posted by , Dec 27, 2007 3:31PM

@3:28 Agree with you there. When I read the original post I thought for a sec that the comment was meant to be ironic.

Posted by Random Banker, Dec 27, 2007 3:40PM

@ no_slappz:

all true. except the pakistani army is a joke. The tribes have made a mockery out of them in Waziristan. The army is poorly trained, under motivated, and under equipped. Their enemy ll have AK-47's an grenade launchers (to the army's rifle), and not only are they unafraid to die, they want to die.

Musharaf is out matched, unless he nukes Waziristan. We could train an army for him to fight the Mujahideen... but then that's how we got the Mujahideen in the first place.

Posted by Random Banker, Dec 27, 2007 3:43PM

it was meant to be Ironic, smart guy

Question: so.........maybe one of you can tell us the literacy rate in pakistan? I mean you're ALL such experts

Response: I listen to NPR asshole, i'm worldly baby.

Posted by , Dec 27, 2007 3:57PM

RB: Irony does not always translate well on the net.

Posted by , Dec 27, 2007 4:09PM

thats funny because sometimes it seems like everyone on the net thinks they are masters of irony

Posted by anon, Dec 27, 2007 4:44PM

this has zero significance to US markets and all the knee-jerkers will figure this out tomorrow.

Posted by Dr. Strangelove, Dec 27, 2007 5:00PM

solution: Pakistan ->parking lot

Posted by , Dec 27, 2007 5:32PM

@4:44
The market's response probably does have more to do with generalized risk aversion - any assassination, coup, military skirmish or high-profile terrorist incident raises the uncertainty level thus sparking a temporary flight to safety.

Still, the conventional wisdom that Bhutto's killing leaves a less favorable total opportunity set for US policy makers is no doubt correct. Revulsion to Musharraf's rule has grown so intense among both US and Pakistani opinion-makers, that the Bush administration clearly was moving to ease him out. My guess is the only reason the US waited so long is that there was no other figure around with whom we'd have any real ties or mutual interests.

I haven't a clue whether Musharraf's army is sufficiently strong (and loyal) to keep him in power through thick and thin. But even if they are, the flow of news over the last several months strongly suggests that US authorities will be increasingly uncomfortable with supporting him unconditionally, while the pretense that he represents anything positive for Pakistan turns ever more flimsy. All the more so since we're in an election campaign of our own. Supporting Bhutto as leader - either fully, or in partnership with Musharraf - would have been far more palatable for both the Bush administration, and the next US administration, whoever it may be.

But does all this have any significance for US markets? At the margin, yes. A Pakistani government with zero constituency beyond the army is LESS stable, not MORE stable, than a government with some sort of constituency within civil society. And a less stable Pakistan has potential to generate more unpleasant incidents going forward - including even terrorist or military incidents directly touching the US or parties close to it (overthrow of Karzai, assassinations of Western diplomats in Afghan or Pakistan, etc).

Posted by no_slappz, Dec 27, 2007 5:38PM

Random Banker,

The Paki army may have its shortcomings, and they may appear if the army were to find itself fighting in Waziristan, but the activities in that lawless region have little effect on general stability in the bulk of the country.

Meanwhile, even though the mujhadeen and the tribal war lords and their followers in Waziristan may have AK-47s, the army won't face those guys and their guns in the cities and towns.

Bhutto was nailed with a handgun. And a bomb got those nearby. Undoubtedly that's the tactic to expect to see again.

Moreover, I don't think the fighters in Waziristan really want to risk bombing runs conducted by the US military. As tough and outdoorsy as those guys are, they might figure we'd get in a lucky shot and kill bin laden who is undoubtedly out there hiding in a cave. Actually, bin laden would rather we skipped the bombing runs.

Anyway, it's too early to let Musharraf off the hook for this assassination. He benefits from it, and though he may not have had a hand in it, he probably realized if Bhutto mixed with the crowds often enough, it would not take long before an assassin got her. Thus, he probably gave her limited security coverage.

Posted by sleight of hand, Dec 27, 2007 6:02PM

her last dying caveat to dealbreaker was: return to work or you're next.

Posted by , Dec 27, 2007 6:41PM

I didn't know it was possible to miss Bess this much.....

Posted by Anonymous, Dec 27, 2007 7:09PM

Has Joe Weisenthal and Dealbreaker endorsed Ron Paul for President?

Posted by It's been too long, bitches, Dec 27, 2007 7:15PM

By the by, I heard that Benazir was convicted of money laundering in Switzerland or something.

Also, while the Pakistani Army might be a joke when it comes to actually fighting in the mountains, they are no joke when it comes to protecting their interests. Their army owns a lot of assets from which their generals benefit. That is, living lives of luxury.

This military supremacy combined with a president who is in a quasi-regal position makes Pakistan look a lot like a feudal society.

Posted by , Dec 27, 2007 8:31PM

"I didn't know it was possible to miss Bess this much....."

agreed.

Posted by John, Dec 27, 2007 8:45PM

News breaks and the first thing traders are doing is emailing DB...ha, give me a break! Who are these charlatans? I thought day trading was dead!

Posted by , Dec 27, 2007 8:50PM

“Bhutto was nailed with a handgun.”

But what was Rosie Greer doing there?

Posted by R.P., Dec 27, 2007 9:05PM

Ron Paul is the only one that can save us now.

Posted by Anonymous, Dec 27, 2007 9:41PM

In all seriousness a Ron Paul presidency will stop the dollar from plunging.

Posted by Anal_yst, Dec 27, 2007 11:26PM

Anyone read the op-ed in the Journal today about unilateral Central Bank action from the EU, BoE, China, etc as a means of stabilizing the dollar? Interesting idea, but I think its a tad optimistic, no?

Posted by Anal_yst, Dec 27, 2007 11:31PM

fuck hit post by accident, just wanted to say Carney, Joe, etc: If there is no opening bell (jingle balls, whatever) when I walk into work I'm writing one myself, god dammit!

Posted by , Dec 27, 2007 11:41PM

fuck me i'm retarded unlateral supposed to be collective central bank action, arghhhh

Posted by Anonymous, Dec 27, 2007 11:52PM

Analy_st, a better plan to stabilize the dollar would be a Ron Paul presidency as advocated by Anonymous @ 9.41.

Posted by Dispassionate Observer, Dec 28, 2007 12:03AM

Amazing concern manifested over this sad assassination in Pakistan. Some posters know some history and have good insights into what's coming next. The points of view aren't all "me-centered," "market-centered," or even "American-centered."
People seem to care what's going to happen in Pakistan because what happens there will affect the world. This is not the safe Christmas story pushed by the sentimentalist media where all go to bed, wiser from their experiences, but contented and happy.

Posted by Thinking of Impact on India, Dec 28, 2007 12:14AM

What does everyone think the implications of this will be for Pakistan - India relations?

Posted by , Dec 28, 2007 1:39AM

Of all the superstar traders on Wall St I have ever met or worked with, NONE, I say ZERO, understand international relations. This conversation is pointless on this website. That being said, there are some interesting comments on here an if those people are traders, I may stand corrected in one or two cases. However, for the most part, they have zero intellectual capacity for these types of events.

Posted by , Dec 28, 2007 1:43AM

Hey no_slappz,

Nice use of racial slang in your message, you realize the word "paki" is a huge insult to those who come from Pakistan, it is the equivalent of the word "Nigg*r. Of course I wouldn't expect any banker or trader to know this, or they are just racist aholes.

Posted by , Dec 28, 2007 1:59AM

If people want to know about this, then ask Pakistanis who live there. I have heard they are not that concerned. Rioting and what not is the norm there. Geez, more people die there in riots when they lose to India in cricket. If you don't believe me look it up. The media blows everything outta proportion today. Remember bird flu. Most people in Asia said it was blown out of proportion. Of course any stock here with bird flu attached to it went throught the roof, for months. It was a simple short, but the media blew it up. Bhutto was a good woman, I find it interesting that no one talks about how she stole BILLIONS. Pakistani politics is always like this. You drive someone out then welcome them back 10 years later. To the person who quoted the lack of education in the country, they are in the ball park. The avg person in Pakistan does not care about politics, they are just trying to make ends meet, like most places. The Islamic fundamentalists, have control of land which is equivalent North Dakota. It is meaningless. These fundamentalists have always exhisted in Pakistan, its called Wahhidism, paid for by our friends in Saudi Arabia.

Posted by , Dec 28, 2007 2:00AM

If people want to know about this, then ask Pakistanis who live there. I have heard they are not that concerned. Rioting and what not is the norm there. Geez, more people die there in riots when they lose to India in cricket. If you don't believe me look it up. The media blows everything outta proportion today. Remember bird flu. Most people in Asia said it was blown out of proportion. Of course any stock here with bird flu attached to it went throught the roof, for months. It was a simple short, but the media blew it up. Bhutto was a good woman, I find it interesting that no one talks about how she stole BILLIONS. Pakistani politics is always like this. You drive someone out then welcome them back 10 years later. To the person who quoted the lack of education in the country, they are in the ball park. The avg person in Pakistan does not care about politics, they are just trying to make ends meet, like most places. The Islamic fundamentalists, have control of land which is equivalent North Dakota. It is meaningless. These fundamentalists have always exhisted in Pakistan, its called Wahhibsm, paid for by our friends in Saudi Arabia.

Posted by Anal_yst, Dec 28, 2007 9:31AM

Due to lack of DB activity, here we go, short and dirty:

1. Seimens - like many things in Greece, it seems their internal controls were pretty slippery at best. WSJ article leaves some pretty big questions unanswered, like above Marvidis (sp?) who else knew/let him get away with it. Combined with the Op/Ed piece about Subprime Conduct, really gets you thinking about how reliable, er legal, corporate statements really are.

2. Buffet/Berkshire to start Muni Bond Insurance business - Why they missed the chance to extend the Geico brand here is beyond me, I mean that Gekko is just so lovable who wouldn't want reptilian bond insurance?

3. US and EU banks are considering massive asset sales, the question is, who the f&ck is gonna buy?

4. Genesco/Finish line - The WSJ article seems to cut alot of corners as far as details go, but it seems that even though Genesco experienced a MAC, Finish line/UBS' contract with Genesco/GS was so iron-clad (touche Goldman) that Finish Line is still obligated to complete the transaction. Pending UBS' suit in NY court that they would be financing an "immediately insolvent" entity, looks like this deal should provide some guidance to future deals of border-line dubious nature.

5. outa time, someone else finish up, pz

Posted by , Dec 28, 2007 9:50AM

6. my dick in a box

Posted by GameOver, Dec 28, 2007 10:01AM

7. Cut a hole in the box

Posted by loving anal_yst, Dec 28, 2007 10:05AM

thank god someone is working...good job!!

carney/joe, you think you could get back to it? i know commenting on news is stressful, but it's been long enough...

wtf is going on w Bess? is she in rehab?

Posted by Anal_yst, Dec 28, 2007 10:44AM

Anyone know how UBS sees the combined entity as being "immediately insolvent"?

I'm short details on this deal butt I don't quite follow the logic how if such were in fact the case, the Chancery court judge would have ruled in Genesco's favor, hmm...

Posted by , Dec 28, 2007 10:47AM

I'm guessing that Bess is visiting her grandparents in Boca.

Posted by anon, Dec 28, 2007 11:05AM

zero effect on indian markets and india would be the first to suffer if things went sour in pakistan. on the other hand, hong kong lost its shit over it. that makes a lot of sense.

Posted by Bugs Meany, Dec 28, 2007 11:14AM

This whole situation flunks the Martian test. We know where (the Af-Pak border) some of the world's most dangerous people live. They are trying desperately to get their hands on a nearby nuclear arsenal. We can kill all of them pretty easily. Collateral damage won't be all that bad considering how rugged the terrain is. Hell, we can use our own nukes just to make damn sure. So why don't we?

Visitors from outer space would be pretty confused as to why we take the obvious solution.

Posted by Bugs Meany, Dec 28, 2007 11:16AM

Sorry, that's "DON'T take."

Posted by , Dec 28, 2007 1:26PM

ron paul will suffer the same fate as bhutto if he continues with this whole 'honesty' thing.

Posted by , Dec 28, 2007 2:08PM

Sounds like "Ron Paul" has taken a page from Howard Stern. Remember how Sternies used to hijack TV and radio call-in lines everywhere you looked? They got so bad with Larry King that his producers had to install some kind of special security to filter the Stern-trolls out before they actually made it on the air.

Hmm, maybe the "Ron Paul" trolls here (probably a single troll, actually) are actually the SAME INDIVIDUALS who used to ply their idiotic trade on behalf of Howard Stern?

Posted by , Dec 28, 2007 6:32PM

"thank god someone is working...good job!!

carney/joe, you think you could get back to it? i know commenting on news is stressful, but it's been long enough...

wtf is going on w Bess? is she in rehab?"

it's called taking a week vacation, once a year, Anal_yst fan. Ever heard of it? Of course you have, you probably take, if not consecutively, a total of 5 days off over the WHOLE YEAR. Unfortunately, Bess/Carney/Joe don't know when that occurs and can't shit all over you for it.