Worst of the Worst

A remarkable quantity of dumb stuff has been said since Benazir Bhutto's death. I think, though, that K-Lo's post on how this shows we should ban abortion may be the worst in terms of its substantive logic. David Ignatius, on the other, seems determined to humiliate every one of us out there who's been known to chafe at the "name-dropping Harvard asshole" stereotype as he seeks to substitute "we worked on the Crimson together!" for actual foreign policy analysis. Best part, "She believed in democracy, freedom and openness -- not as slogans but as a way of life. She wasn't perfect; the corruption charges that enveloped her second term as prime minister were all too real. But she remained the most potent Pakistani voice for liberalism, tolerance and change."

You might think that someone committed to liberalism, tolerance, and change would try to avoid undermining all of that with staggering levels of corruption. But nobody's perfect!

Comments

I think H.A.N.D. works better (Harvard asshole name dropper). Talk to the H.A.N.D.!

Posted by joejoejoe | December 28, 2007 3:25 PM

There's been a huge amount of Harvard Name Dropping Assholes in the Bhutto coverage, Ambinder included. It should be noted Bhutto's period of attendance was before Harvard made a serious move towards meritocracy in admissions. So her contemporaries are highlighting how well born they started, not how hard they worked in high school.

Posted by AJ | December 28, 2007 3:27 PM

Baby Boomer H.A.N.D. to boot. Off the charts...

Posted by rickhavoc | December 28, 2007 3:31 PM

I am suprised Ignatius didn't blast her for her spelling(as Jay Carney at Swampland has posted the email she sent her friend a few days ago). One thing is apparent, world leaders have the same crappy grammar as MY.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | December 28, 2007 3:34 PM

I agree with the points you make, but IMO you're missing one of her significant positive legacies: her unwillingness to let the more hawkish Pakistani generals move forward on insane anti-Indian military operations:

This rediff interview from 2003 gets at what I mean:

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/sep/03inter.htm

"General Musharraf is a pretty bright man, isn't he?

That's what people say, but from what I remember of him, I was quite disappointed by his analytical skills. He was my Director General Military Operations and he presented me with his plan in front of 50 officers about how the mujahideen would infiltrate an area similar to Kargil. How they would bring about a war and the Indians wouldn't be able to dislocate us and they would be forced to start a second front at which point the international community would intervene and we would take Srinagar.

I said to him, 'General, what would happen on the day after you took Srinagar.' He replied, 'I don't know what you mean, I don't understand your question.'

I think he personally doesn't like me because of that confrontation we had in GHQ on the Kargil issue. But believe me I had to have that confrontation because if I did not, the blood of 3,000 soldiers would be on my hands.

After I was overthrown they went ahead with their folly and 3,000 of our young boys, the best in our army, died, so many on the Indian side died, there was so much bitterness. The whole world had to intervene to stop it escalating into a nuclear war. . ."

This Tariq Ali piece in the Guardian is one of the better summing-ups of the situation, I think. Ali is honest and intelligent, though perhaps too anti-US and anti-capitalism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2232700,00.html

Posted by roublen | December 28, 2007 3:41 PM

Liberal democracy without staggering levels of corruption? That's just crazy talk. Politicians who are not stealing just aren't committed to liberalism, tolerance, and change.

Posted by abb1 | December 28, 2007 3:45 PM

It's unpleasant to admit this, but I actually found the coverage on Fox last night more objective and informative than the CNN coverage. CNN seemed bent on restricting the analyst pool to Bhutto's many friends in the US.

Posted by Dan Kervick | December 28, 2007 3:48 PM

Like I have always said, "If you're not lyin', you're not tryin'".

Yes, Virginia, the ends are, indeed, worth the means. If it means lying our teeth out to get more liberalism, then so be it.

Many here won't agree with me. Many will say this is underhanded. But wouldn't you rather live in a world where Al Gore is president? That is what we could have had if all the libs would have gotten together and done what comes naturally......lie, cheat....steal....whatever it takes.

Posted by litbrit | December 28, 2007 3:51 PM

Like I have always said, "If you're not lyin', you're not tryin'".

Yes, Virginia, the ends are, indeed, worth the means. If it means lying our teeth out to get more liberalism, then so be it.

Many here won't agree with me. Many will say this is underhanded. But wouldn't you rather live in a world where Al Gore is president? That is what we could have had if all the libs would have gotten together and done what comes naturally......lie, cheat....steal....whatever it takes.

Posted by litbrit | December 28, 2007 3:52 PM

Matt, you really should reread the corner post. Yes, it's fluff, but celebrating a recently dead person for adhering to a cause you hold is relatively common. Surely there have been five stupider things posted on the Corner just today.

Posted by Justin | December 28, 2007 3:57 PM

I know nothing about Bhutto.

So I have to ask.

Was her level of corruption unusual for the country/region in which she held office? I know she was corrupt and all that. But I guess I'm asking, how far was she over par?

Posted by Patrick | December 28, 2007 4:25 PM

You have to cut the ultra-fatuous K-Lo some slack. If it weren't for her, Dough Bob Load Pants would be BY FAR the stupidest motherfucker over there at K-Lo's House of Stupid.

Posted by calipygian | December 28, 2007 4:31 PM

One of my neighbors is an immigrant from Pakistan. He says Bhutto's husband was known as "Mr 10 Percent" in Pakistan for the kickbacks he allegedly demanded.

Posted by Don Williams | December 28, 2007 5:08 PM

Has K-Lo (Kathryn Jean Lopez) ever made any substantive comment or argument on any topic anywhere? Ever?

Posted by unsworth | December 28, 2007 5:42 PM

This Tariq Ali piece in the Guardian is one of the better summing-ups of the situation, I think. Ali is honest and intelligent, though perhaps too anti-US and anti-capitalism.

His long-form LRB piece, published a few weeks ago, is well worth reading. At very least, it's an insight into the murk of Pakistani politics.

But yes, CNN's coverage was a testament to how well Benazir cultivated her address-book in the US.

Was her level of corruption unusual for the country/region in which she held office? I know she was corrupt and all that. But I guess I'm asking, how far was she over par?

When there's no real history of uninterrupted civilian rule, and when that civilian rule is clannish, it's not unusual. And the military-industrial complex in Pakistan is not much better.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | December 28, 2007 5:46 PM

Has K-Lo (Kathryn Jean Lopez) ever made any substantive comment or argument on any topic anywhere? Ever?

You have to finely sift the shit to find the peanuts. One time, for the sake of civility, she posted a plea for civility by praying for Wonkette's shutdown and a cessation of comments at HuffPo.

A few weeks later, she linked approvingly to a New York Post Op-Ed on calling Hillary a bitch. (They were for.)

So there you have it - two stupid posts, taken together, demonstrating that she is a stupid, hypocritical asshole.

Pretty substantive to me.

Posted by calipygian | December 28, 2007 6:19 PM

Was her level of corruption unusual for the country/region in which she held office? I know she was corrupt and all that. But I guess I'm asking, how far was she over par?

Yes - she saw the traditional levels of corruption, and waved past them as she flew by. The levels of corruption were so staggering that no one even paid lip service to the idea of merit or the national interest. Her predecessor and successor, Nawaz Sharif wasn't anywhere near as corrupt when he was her predecessor, and spent more of his second term consolidating his power than in lining his pockets.

Posted by Sajid | December 28, 2007 6:34 PM

1) One interesting question is whether the US government PROMOTES endemic corruption abroad --by buying support from local powerbrokers.

2) I recall reports that the CIA bought the (temporary) support of Afghanistan warlords with money -- that CIA case officers were flying around the country with suitcases of $100 US bills.

3) The "surge" in Iraq has largely been a surge of bribes from the US Treasury.

4) I hear that Pakistan is currently awash in money from US Aid. If that aid is going to support the common citizen, then it's probably a good thing. If , on the other hand, it's going to build corrupt political machines that arouse popular anger and popular support for groups like
Al Qaeda, then I think the American people are entitled to know where their tax dollars are going.

4) Except that our citizens in the Intelligence Community can't report criminal activity -- cannot even file a complaint with their Congressmen -- if such activity is classified.

5) The new Democratic Congress has just passed a law giving much greater rights and protections to whistleblowers, but George Bush is threatening to veto the act. Note how the whoring news media is largely keeping quiet about this veto.
See http://federaltimes.com/index.php?S=3258623

Posted by Don Williams | December 28, 2007 6:52 PM

It's unpleasant to admit this, but I actually found the coverage on Fox last night more objective and informative than the CNN coverage. CNN seemed bent on restricting the analyst pool to Bhutto's many friends in the US.

I gave up on CNN's coverage well before they went to the interviews. It seemed that half of their initial coverage consisted of studio shots of their multiple newsdesks and video monitors with the anchor crowing "Look at our resources! We're bringing you the latest and most thorough coverage of the event!" The first time was annoying... the fifth or sixth time within an hour was total overkill.

Posted by David | December 28, 2007 6:55 PM

Note: When I referred to reports that "CIA case officers were flying around the country [Afghanistan] with suitcases of $100 US bills ", I was referring to the weeks after the Sept 11 attack , in the runup to the overthrow of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

However, the US ambassador to Afghanistan after that overthrow has an interesting background.

Posted by Don Williams | December 28, 2007 6:56 PM

"K-Lo's post on how this shows we should ban abortion may be the worst in terms of its substantive logic."

Uh, yeah, I read the link and didn't find any attempt at arguing the assassination meant abortion should be banned. The post just said Bhutto was pro-life and it quoted a speech she made on the subject. I had no idea as to Bhutto's abortion views, so for me this was useful information.

In short, MY's description of the post is fictional.

Posted by Kyle | December 28, 2007 7:40 PM

Reminds me of Alex Bennett, a morning radio talk show host we had here in San Francisco for a long while back in the 80's. He used to have the hots for Benazir (who admittedly was a good looking woman 20 years ago and seems to have held up well even today.)

Of course, maybe he just had the hots for the $12 billion she allegedly looted from Pakistan.

What bugs me is, if I had that kind of loot - or ten percent of that kind of loot - it wouldn't matter if Musharraf didn't provide good security for me - I'd HAVE good security anyway on my own dime. Nobody should have been able to get close to her, let alone a motorcyclist with guns and bombs.

The fact that she continued to wage a political war with the power structure in Pakistan despite being forced out of the country, then nearly blown up on her return, and was supposedly demanding better security from Musharraf and the Western governments, despite having that kind of money, tells me that she was either still hungry for power and profit or she "had a dream" as some of her supporters think.

My guess is the former - and she was too cheap to pay for her own security.

And she ended up paying for it in the ultimate coin.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 28, 2007 9:29 PM

was before Harvard made a serious move towards meritocracy in admissions.

When was that exactly?

BTW, if Bhutto was a "liberal" and all "liberals" are really Nazi-spawned fascists, shouldn't we be celebrating her murder? Just asking.

Posted by jim | December 28, 2007 9:57 PM

The posts about FOX being more substance-driven than CNN are correct. Their lineup is unwatchable. The vomit-inducing Larry King greets Ringo Starr as "George", Anderson Cooper makes Little Lord Fauntelroy seem like Che, and Matt Sanchez fawns over John Bolton. I don't even mind Alan Colmes anymore- he's feistier than Wolf "AIPAC flack" Blitzer.

Posted by Trevor | December 28, 2007 9:59 PM

K. Lo is as dumb as a box of hammers, but her post on Bhutto actually isn't all that bad. Ignatius's article, on the other hand, could have been written by a somewhat earnest and not terribly bright junior high school student. I can't believe he draws a paycheck for that level of work.

Posted by Jeff S. | December 28, 2007 10:06 PM

"I had no idea as to Bhutto's abortion views, so for me this was useful information.
In short, MY's description of the post is fictional."

KaLo, is this you trolling again, my naughty little fascist vixen.

Posted by Rich Lowrey | December 28, 2007 10:34 PM

Well, no. Just someone who read the post in question. Maybe Jeff S. is really K Lo.

Posted by Kyle | December 29, 2007 12:06 AM

I object to the notion that Bhutto's corruption is somehow region-specific.

The only difference between Bhutto's or Putin's corruption and, say, Bush's or Berlusconi's corruption is that corruption in Pakistan and Russia is not institutionalized yet, there's no legal framework to normalize it yet. It'll come in time; it'll be the same as the US, UK, France and Italy. That's all.

Posted by abb1 | December 29, 2007 5:37 AM

NOTE: THE DOUBLE-COMMENT ABOVE (at 3:51 and 3:52 respectively) WAS NOT MADE BY ME, LITBRIT.

I am unfortunately the victim of a sockpuppet troll who has been leaving offensive comments around the blogosphere using my name and blog address.

I am contacting Mr. Yglesias to remove it. In the meantime, please accept my apologies for any offensive things you may find posted under my name, litbrit, here and on any other blog.

Posted by litbrit | December 29, 2007 12:29 PM

K-Lo's post IS terrible. Basically, there are very good reasons why feminists in some developing countries may well be pro-life. The biggest one has to do with the use of sex selection abortions that result in a huge imbalance in the number of boys vs. girls that come into the world. This is endemic on the Indian subcontinent.

It also: (1) doesn't have anything to do with the abortion debate in America; and (2) doesn't accept the "personhood begins at conception" claim of American anti-feminist conservatives.

I am sure that many pro-choicers could imagine a society where, for reasons having nothing to do with the moral status of the fetus and which fully respect the harms to women of banning or restricting abortion, there nonetheless might be restrictions placed on the practice, either because of the sex selection problem or because men were forcing women to have abortions and controlling the decisionmaking process.

In contrast, American pro-life conservatives don't care about the harm to women of banning or restricting abortion, or actively want to harm women in order to induce a regression to prior gender roles Further, they make bogus claims about the moral status of the fetus.

To claim someone like Bhutto as a champion of the American pro-life movement is laughable.

Posted by Dilan Esper | December 30, 2007 5:35 AM

Nobody should have been able to get close to her, let alone a motorcyclist with guns and bombs,

You can't campaign like that in Pakistan though. Campaigns in Pakistan--and India--are the real deal. They speeches aren't for the benefit of the TV crews---they are for the benefit of the crowds. You are marching around trying to be seen, making speeches which are the local's biggest source of information about you. It's inherently dangerous. Look at the pictures from Bhutto's life on Slate---she was a veteran campaigner.

Posted by Saheli | December 30, 2007 4:13 PM