Site Meter

He loves and she loves

Just Causes

Password required

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

« Apple-pie order | Main | "Boys need an arena" »

December 28, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518c7969e200e54fc9cda38834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "She was a splendid con":

» She was a splendid con from brave
Bookmarked your post over at Blog Bookmarker.com! [Read More]

» Saturday Morning Links from Maggie's Farm
(Our News Junkie is hunting this weekend.)Capital punishment and New Jersey's misplaced priorities. Malanga in City Journal Does my bomb look big in this? Mr. Free MarketBill Kristol to the NYT?Peggy Noonan only asks for a reasonable per [Read More]

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Let us cheer for the USA, the freest nation the world ever saw. Let us strive to keep her free.

"She was a splendid con, persuading otherwise cynical Western politicians and "hardheaded" journalists that she was not only a brave woman crusading in the Islamic wilderness..."

I find the remark above distinctly distasteful. He MUST be stating that she was a stupid woman - too dumb to understand that her life was in danger or too full of herself to understand... that is the only explanation I can contrive from such a sentence.

As she, like every other politician, rose to her place through strategy in a very cunning and deceit filled world, to call her stupid is very offensive and the same trick the left uses when it wants to denigrate an opponent. If he thought she was that full of herself - then why would she purposely put herself in danger if she thought she was that important? Neither scenario is sensible and both are insulting.

I may not like the politics she espoused, she may have been the darling of the left here in the US... she may even have been corrupt as all get out. But to walk into the lion's den knowing full well they could jump you at any time... I think he could have attributed bravery to her at the very least - even if he liked nothing else about her. (yes there are times when even the enemy could be accounted brave that doesn't make them less your enemy)

Just my take on it.

I admit I sort of--well, not "sort of," but definitely--resented her reintroduction into the circus that is Paki politics, simply because it rocked the boat. Like Musharraf needed it? Okay, so Musharraf is by no means perfect either, to say the least, but he's the best we can do right now. And by "we," yes, I do mean "the US." For that matter, the rest of the world. I think the idea of democracy is lovely, but in Pakistan...well, I don't have high expectations. I don't even see them getting to the level of India simply because of their tribal/Islamic population. The reappearance of Benazir Bhutto, brave as it was for her, just upset the delicate balance there, and for what? I think Peters pretty much nailed it.

And yes, I wonder if this is (again) the precursor to something much larger. I guess we'll see soon enough, depending on Musharraf's longevity. Frankly, I'm surprised he's lasted this long.

I can't help thinking about those other people who died in the attacks around Bhutto. The first one, when she first showed up, and the last one, the one that killed her.

After the first bomb (at least), it should've been obvious that an extraordinary level of caution was called for. Parades, people massing in the streets, standing out an open sunroof? Clearly not wise, and it doesn't take hindsight to realize it.

I hesitate to type the word, but her return strikes me as more selfish than brave.

The comments to this entry are closed.

The Cold Turkey Cookbook

Kudos

Blog powered by Typepad