Lies, damn lies, and videotape

From Slate's "Today's Papers column:

Meanwhile, the New York Times all but states that the government is lying about how Bhutto died in order to deflect blame for lax security.

So that's why Musharraf's government is lying? Honestly, I never saw it that way since, whether it was by gunshot, bomb blast, or anything short of a massive heart attack, I knew the Pakiistan government was responsible in some way, shape, or form. The assassination took place in Rawalpindi -- a city less than 10 miles to the south of Islamabad, and the seat of military power in Pakistan. The first thing I read about Rawalpindi, in 2003 after the assassination attempts against Musharraf, is that "even a bird would not remain undetected or unchallenged" in a city with such a military clampdown on it. So to bicker over how Bhutto died is a moot point -- a point that everyone seems to have missed -- given the fact that it happened in Rawalpindi, which instantly makes the government responsible. Period.

But Musharraf's government is learning a lesson on how not to lie in the digital media age where everyone has a video camera in their pockets, and news broadcast in one nation can spread like a virus through the Internet. Fifteen, maybe even ten years ago, government's could participate in the kind of coverup tried by Musharraf's administration and succeed in duping most people, but not anymore. Truth trumps all.

And the truth came out in this video of a UK's Channel 4 news broadcast, which clearly shows the gunman shooting and Bhutto being shot. (Did I mention that it's not a pretty video?) Additionally -- and maybe most importantly -- it shows a lack of security and police around Bhutto's vehicle. The gunman fired at pracitically point blank range.

Dawn, Pakistan's leading English daily paper, published photographs of the gunman and suicide bomber before Channel 4's video came out. After looking at the photos, Dawn proclaims: "The fact that an armed assassin managed to get just a couple of metres away from Ms Bhutto clearly gives the lie to the government claim that she had received a VIP security cover."

So, what does Musharraf have to say now? I imagine he'll speak via actions. After his government's lies being exposed for the frauds they are, and realizing this will play against him in the elections, he'll probably attempt to postpone those elections. I'm sure we'll know what his response is soon.

[Crossposted from Sugar Land is Dreaming]

Quote of the Day

"Pakistanis from different walks of life here say that ever since President Pervez Musharraf imposed emergency rule two weeks ago, he's been the most unpopular figure in the country. But running a close second, many say, is his ally: President Bush."

Emily Wax and Imtiaz Ali, from their Washington Post article.

Bush's track record with sinking foreign leaders is impressive. Jose Maria Aznar and Tony Blair have both felt Bush's magical midas touch. It's no coincidence that neither of them are still in office.

"And the more I get to know President Putin, the more I get to see his heart and soul, and the more I know we can work together in a positive way," Bush said.

Putin's way of expressing his heart was allowing Russian weapons dealers to supply Saddam Hussein with weaponry. Putin was blamed for shuting down TV6. The station was critical of his policies.

Everything Bush touches turns to shit, including world leaders.

Comparing the ideologies of General Musharraf and Genre.. Err, excuse me, President Bush

Reading this blog post requires that you've paid attention to events in Central Asia over the weekend, but for those who haven't here's a quick overview: The Pakistani Supreme Court was set to rule on whether or not President Musharraf could run for reelection while still heading Pakistan's military. Additiionally, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who has recently returned to the country and wants a piece of the political pie (and has the clout to demand such) was out of the country, in Dubai on personal matters. General Musharraf then went apeshit, suspending the constitution and declaring martial law; also comparing himself to Abraham Lincoln, basically saying that he's a president trying to keep his country together. But unlike America's civil war, Musharraf claims that Pakistan is fighting terrorism.

Now, bringing us to my post, how exactly is terrorism defined? And where does a similariity between Bush and Musharraf's views come into play? The truth is scarier than you think:

Unlike Bush, Musharraf at least had the decency to announce to the whole world that he was placing the constitution "in abeyance" and arrogating all power to his sole person. The Bush administration prefers to promulgate shadowy memoranda, signing statements, and Humpty-Dumpty like amendments to the meaning of common words. Since the courts are instruments of terrorists (and can even be used to demoralize the security forces!) counter-terrorism logically requires the abolition of the rule of law.

Yeah, go you should read the whole thing.

[Crossposted from Sugar Land is Dreaming]