Sunday, January 27, 2008




By Fahim A. Knight

This writer is sick and tired of African Americans reminding me of how noble and precious the right to vote is and yet they do not have the political savvy or the political ingenuity to take this so-called precious and alienable right and use it tactfully and strategically, which to broker the best political deal for black America—today and tomorrow. The majority of these advocates were involved in the 1950’s and 1960’s Civil Rights movement and they fought against disenfranchisement, segregation, racism, discrimination, injustice, etc. It was their struggles for social, political, and economic inclusion which without doubt the present day black Americans are the beneficiaries of these past struggles.

African Americans in 2008 have to be a little more political astute and not be charmed by Senator Barack Obama’s charisma and his pigmentation or by Senator Hillary Clinton so-called history of liberalism. Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have not done anything worthy of receiving the black vote. There is an urban talk show host named Michael Baisden, an African American host of a syndicated talk radio program that is aired in fifty-seven (57) cities across America and what stuck me was Basiden has proven himself to have some political influence over his predominate black listening audience. It was Baisden radio activism that helped galvanize over 50,000 African American during the Jena Six protest in Jena, Louisiana. But what has been interesting about Baisden is that he has remained politically non-committed and urged his listening audience to be patient and let’s hear the platforms of all the candidates prior to and just not endorse Obama because he is African American and a Democrat. This writer must commend Baisden on exercising intelligence.

This writer agrees that African Americans should be grateful and they do owe a debt of gratitude to the political pioneers and trailblazers that went before them giving their lives and made untold sacrifices in order to remind America of the language written in the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution and without a doubt the African American Senator Obama, in particular and all of black America in general, are truly standing on the shoulders of history incurred by their past ancestors. Many paid the ultimate price with their lives to ensure that America lived-up to its so-called creed of Democracy. The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Acts that were passed into law granted black Americans with the legal legislation which to ensure fairness and equity, as well as equal protection under the law. The literacy test and poll taxes, as well as other discriminatory barriers were struck down, which in theory gave blacks the equal accessibility to use the electorate free of intimidation and prejudice.

This writer could never forget the works of Fannie Lou Hamer, a Democrat of the Mississippi Democratic Freedom Party; I have this poster of Fannie Lou Hamer that hung in my home for over twenty (20) years, it stated, “As a Mississippi sharecropper thrown off her land because she tried to register to vote, Fannie Lou met this challenge by becoming a leader trying to get others to register. She worked the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the new militant Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, and helped set up a farm cooperative where poor people could own the land they worked on. This hard working courageous Sister, despite having been torturously beaten by the police and facing many other challenges, was one of the most powerful speakers, organizers, and fighters in the Civil Rights Movement. Her strong dedication to freedom continues to inspire us all.”

Organizations such as National Association for the Advancement Colored People, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Student Non Violent Coordinating Committee, Congress of Racial Equality, etc., did yeoman’s work in the area of voter’s education and registration in the deep segregated South. This writer comes from a family of Democrats and whether or not this partisan choice was out of mere tradition, more so than being adopted out political ignorance has always left this writer baffled and inquisitive at the same time. African Americans have this misperception that the Democratic party has always served their political interest and maybe this syndrome developed from four term Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945) and his New Deal programs that moved the United States beginning with his administration in 1932 from one of the worst economic recession known as the Great Depression into the beginning of economic prosperity.

Many blacks were giving jobs in the 1930s building bridges and highways, which provided a means to earning a living in spite of the nation’s economic hardships. Eleanor Roosevelt also was considered a friend of the African American race, which she extended her philanthropy and goodwill ambassadorship to the black community. Wikipedia stated, “During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Roosevelt created the New Deal to provide relief for the unemployed, recovery of the economy, and reform of the economic and banking systems. Although recovery of the economy was incomplete until almost 1940, many programs initiated in the Roosevelt administration continue to have instrumental roles in the nation's commerce, such as the FDIC, TVA, and the SEC. One of his most important legacies is the Social Security system.”
“Roosevelt won four presidential elections in a row, causing a realignment that political scientists call the Fifth Party System. His aggressive use of an active federal government re-energized the Democratic Party, creating a New Deal Coalition which dominated American politics until the late 1960s. He and his wife, Eleanor Roosevelt, remain touchstones for modern American liberalism. Conservatives vehemently fought back, but Roosevelt usually prevailed until he tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937. Thereafter, the new Conservative coalition successfully ended.”

Blacks perhaps associated liberalism with the Democratic Party because of the New Deal that was led by a Democratic president and to their long term detriment developed this unconditional affection and love for the Democratic Party that was based on un-reciprocated loyalty, which is steeped in a political psychology, that is unexplainable and only blacks as a culture and a race have found sanctity in this party’s history of betrayal and broken promises. They can not say no and let go of the Democratic Party because of the fear of not being the primary recipients of their so-called liberal government style of leadership. May be the dream of the “Great Society” and the war on poverty advocated by President Lyndon Baines Johnson left a people politically optimistic and forty (40) years later are still holding onto unfulfilled promises made by the Democratic Party.

They have been foolishly looking for another John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy to pacify them and since the 1930s casting their votes directionless (with a hit and miss intent) and often their vote has always been manipulated for the political interest of everyone else, but themselves. Black leadership on behalf of the Democratic Party has been responsible of herding the innocent sheep to the political slaughter in lieu of self-interest and the rewarding of bourgeoisie life styles.

Minister Malcolm X in his ‘The Ballot or the Bullet’ speech delivered April 1964 in Detroit, Michigan stated, “A Democrat. A Dixiecrat is nothing but a Democrat in disguise. The titular head of the Democrats is also the head of the Dixiecrats, because the Dixiecrats are a part of the Democratic Party. The Democrats have never kicked the Dixiecrats out of the party. The Dixiecrats bolted themselves once, but the Democrats didn't put them out. Imagine, these lowdown Southern segregationists put the Northern Democrats down. But the Northern Democrats have never put the Dixiecrats down. No, look at that thing the way it is. They have got a con game going on, a political con game, and you and I are in the middle. It's time for you and me to wake up and start looking at it like it is, and trying to understand it like it is; and then we can deal with it like it is.”

It was President John Kennedy that authorized the surveillance and illegal wiretaps on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., eavesdropping on King’s private conversations and initiated the Cointepro Counter intelligence program spearheaded by J. Edgar Hoover and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which eventually led to the assassination of Dr. King, as well as on Minister Malcolm X.

But this writer can vividly remember that in his mother’s home and grandmother’s home in the 1960s they each had pictures of President John Kennedy, Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., together on one portrait. The symbolism had far reaching political and psychological implications; this picture was above reproach and possessed sacred statue and was not open for criticism—the interpretation was that African Americans social, political and economic aspirations were tied too these threeAmerican Democrat icons who were so-called blessed to reach martyrdom status and in the back of their minds John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Dr. King was the next thing to the reincarnation of Jesus Christ.
If this writer could attempt to describe the relationship, it is slavish and unbeneficial to the masses of black Americans, but they do not know how to break the chains and the Democratic Party is smart enough to know that blacks do not have the moral courage to let Pharaoh go. Thus, the Democratic Party does not have to make any political concession because African Americans have not demonstrated political sanity.

Minister Malcolm X stated in a book written by Archie Epps titled, “Malcolm X and the American Negro Revolution: The Speeches of Malcolm X stated, “There were two kinds of slaves, the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negroes—they lived in the house with the master, they dresses pretty good, they ate good. . .They loved the master more than the master loved himself. . . If the master’s house got caught on fire, the house Negro would harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say, ‘What’s matter, boss, we sick? And if you came to the house Negro and said, “Let’s run away, let’s escape, let’s separate,’ the house Negro would look at you and say, ‘Man, you crazy. What you mean, separate? Where is there a better house than this?’

Minister Malcolm X further stated, “On that same plantation, there was the field Negro. The Field Negroes—those were the masses. The Negro in the field caught hell. He at leftovers. In the house they ate high on the hog. The field Negro was beaten from morning to night; he lived in a shack, in a hut. . .He hated his master. He was intelligent. When the house caught on fire, he didn’t try to put it out; that field Negro prayed for a wind, for a breeze. When the master got sick, the field Negro prayed that he’d die. If someone came to the field Negro and said, ‘Let’s separate, let’s run’ he didn’t say, ‘where are we going?’ He’d say, ‘Any place is better than here!’ You’ve got field Negroes in America today. I’m a field Negro. The masses are the field Negroes.”

However, the Republican Party do not know how to play political shrinks and administer mental health treatment and for over eighty (80) years have for the most part ignored the black electorate and hadn’t made any real appeals to tap into this traditional Democratic base, which in 2008 feel abandoned and ostracized by the Democratic party. This writer is by know means advocating the Republican conservative agenda nor is he suggesting that African Americans leave the Democratic Party, but what he is suggesting, is destroying the boogieman syndrome that has been associated with the Republican Party relative to African Americans, which allows the Democratic Party to continue to be in the best position election after election for receiving the African American vote. Yet at the same time the Democratic Party do not have to make any political concessions to 13% of the American population because of foolish and irresponsible leadership that possess an insane love for the Democratic Party.

Many blacks do not know why they are democrats, they often inherited the donkey as family political tradition or they heard some ignorant preachers, mis-educated teachers, and self-fulfilling politicians advised them that it was sinister to cast a ballot for a Republican candidate without ever hearing whether or not they agreed or disagreed with the message. This writer knows that the ghost of the Kennedy brothers and Dr. King haunts the political psyche of the African American. To continue give their vote to a party that has told you to kiss their-------is insane and ludicrous.

Barack Obama should not receive the black vote just because he is a Democrat and he happens to be black. Hillary Clinton should not receive the black vote, just because she is a Democrat and wife of former President Bill Clinton, which for some peculiar reasoning blacks have a love affair with the Clintons that is incomprehensible. Thus have black people presented Senator Obama with a black political agenda? and, if so what is his response or does he know that blacks have politically cornered themselves by being largely a one party (Democrat) affiliated ethic bloc with no counter-alternative and for that reason has weaken its own negotiating leverage when it comes to making demands on Democratic politicians.

The Democrats may even listen, but do not feel any external pressure to be responsive because in the long run this loyal black Democratic bloc will not deviate from the political norm and therefore the Democratic party do not have take any risk. The Republican Party has been perceived by blacks as being the party of the rich and the white economic elite; thus blacks historically haven’t been able to find an identifiable philosophical ideology with the Republican Party.

Claud Anderson in his book titled, “PowerNomics: The National Plan to Empower Black America” stated, “Though a divorce proceeding has yet to be announced, the marriage between the Democratic Party and Black America, which was consumed in the 1940s, is on the rocks. The Democratic Party has been unfaithful to Black America. Instead of taking care of its home base of loyal Black voters, the Democratic Party downgraded Black rights and took up with every ethnic, class, gender and language issue group, regardless of their party affiliations. The Democratic Party and the Black civil rights leaders brought down an array of minority and women upon the backs of Blacks before they had a chance to catch up from centuries of slavery and Jim Crow segregation. What can the Democrats or Republican parties do for Black people in the 21st century? Contrary to the advise of traditional civil rights liberals who encouraged Black voters to stay in a failed marriage and conservatives who advocate that Blacks divide themselves between the two national parties, thus diluting their voting power. Black voters should reject both options, Black voters must ethno-aggregate and become totally independent, forcing both parties to court them.”

This writer did not necessarily agree with Reverend T.D. Jakes and Reverend Creflo Dollar political dispositions, but for reasons other than their willingness to vote for a republican candidate. The likes of these black high profiles Christian Evangelist in 2000 and 2004 backing President George Bush and the so-called conservative agenda led this writer to be suspicious because Bush had confused them on what were Christian values, and imparted his interpretation of Christian ethics and morality versus the conversation focus being rooted in political expediency. The black Christian clergy as well, perhaps had their own ulterior motives viewed in the realm of prosperity ministry teachings and their sight were on Bush’s Faith-Based Initiatives—money and many black Christians were encouraged and somewhat deceived by these greed driven clergymen to cast votes for the republican presidential candidate George W. Bush.

The academician and scholar Stephen L. Carter in his book titled “The Culture of Disbelief” stated, “Since the emergence of Jerry Farwell’s Moral Majority as a short-lived political force in the 1980s, and with the burgeoning influence of Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition in the 1990s, the relationship between the Republican party and the religious right has been the subject of much vitriol, and much alarm. After the 1992 Convention, the alarms reached fever pitch. One political columnist warned. ‘Unless moderate Republicans understand the Houston convention as a wake-up call . . . they’ll find the GOP entirely in the hands not merely zealots.’(Moderate Republicans may be awake at last, for they have formed the Republican Majority Coalition with the avowed intention of saving their party from its right wing—just as the Democrats who formed the Democratic Leadership Council in the early 1980s sought to save their party from its left wing, and wound up electing a president.)

The motive of this strange relationship between the conservative black Christians and the predominately white Republican Party was intriguing to say the least, but this recent history has shown us that it was not grounded in any long term meaningful basis that would represent a new political dynamic of sustainability for African Americans in a two party system. However, although both groups had separate political agendas, Jakes, Dollar and Bishop Eddie Long did have enough courage to curtail ties with Democrats in the two said elections and from that perspective this was not only commendable but ground-breaking.

The majority of traditional black leadership has had many legitimate political reasons to sway black voters away from the Democratic Party based on neglect and their inadequate ability from time too time in addressing issues relevant to blacks in particular and the nation in general. The black religious right from that perspective has demonstrated more outwardly courage by their willingness to cut ties with the Democratic Party. Politics is not based on loyalty, yet loyalty has its place in politics, but expediency is ordinarily the glue that holds political coalitions together and by refusing to acknowledge this reality has entrapped blacks politically, which has render them politically inconsequential and politically ineffective. Although, blacks represent one of the largest “organized” voting blocs in America and still have very little power to alter change. Something is wrong with this political dynamic.

Blacks are a loyal people and the Democratic Party has made them the doormat for this very reason. Perhaps T. D. Jakes should have been applauded for his stance in 2000 and 2004, as opposed to being criticized by the old guard—black traditional liberal leadership and could have been lauded as a religious-political visionary. He at least advocated change from the political norm. But as stated above this writer know that in one sense, Jakes and the Bush republican conservatives made strange bed fellows. For example, how can you advocate pro life and kill over million innocent Iraqi citizens? And how could the black Christian right in good conscience justify supporting a regime that has demonstrated anti-Christian values since September 11, 2001? This type politics served as an antagonistic contradiction.

Jeffrey Toobin in his monumental book titled, “The Nine: Inside The Secret World of the Supreme Court” stated, “In 2000, Bush had campaigned as a ‘compassionate conservative’ and a ‘uniter not a divider,’ pledging to surmount the partisanship that had consumed Washington during the Clinton years. But in 2004 race, Bush shifted to more ideological priorities, hoping to motivate a conservative base, mostly evangelical Christians, that had felt slighted during the earlier contest. The issues that mattered most to them were all on the Supreme Court’s agenda, and so the Court played a more central role in Bush’s second campaign.”

Black Americans just do not understand the power in bloc voting and political leveraging, as well as, the importance of voting issues and not a candidate’s party affiliation. This writer has been trying to break this ineffective traditional cycle amongst blacks for over two decades. But parting ways with tradition is not always easy; it is a mindset that is inculcated in a set of perceived values that are not viewed from the lens of right and wrong, but social, political, economic components found compatible to a worldview.

This writer has had the pleasure to meet a young man online via MySpace named Kenny out of Tennessee who has post a sizable amount of my material on his Myspace page titled Kenny is a Caucasian who is committed to presenting alternative views on his Blog that is very seldom addressed by the mainstream medium. Moreover, Kenny posed a very interesting question to me relative to the possibility of African Americans considering supporting the visionary Texas Republican Dr. Ron Paul’s candidacy for president; although this writer knew that Kenny’s question was bit idealistic because many blacks do not know who Congressman Ron Paul is, and more so than that, he had the proverbial title of republican attached to his name. This does not say much about political literacy in a deep pool of presidential candidates jockeying to become the next U.S. president.

You would think assessing and evaluating all the candidates would be top priority in order to get an understanding where each candidate stands on the issues. This writer in many ways agrees with Kenny, why not Congressman Ron Paul? But blacks politically have been doomed by political tunnel vision; and their minds from the beginning have been set just on two candidates—Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, two liberal ghost from the John F. Kennedy political school of thought. They do not realize that since the 9-11 hoax and the establishment of United States Patriot Act that the United States Constitution has been under assault by both Democrats and Republicans.

Congressman Paul styles himself as a strict constitutionalist and as one who does understand that America and the world’s problems stems from the power granted to the Federal Reserve and the twelve privately owned central banks that serve as sovereign dictators over humanity. Blacks probably have more political commonality with Congressman Paul than they do with Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, but how can they know unless they have a teacher, and how can they have a teacher unless one be sent. Sadly to say Ron Paul will not get a fair look from blacks due the overwhelm suspicion they have of Republican candidates.

Lastly, this writer listened to an irate Bill Clinton right after the Iowa Caucuses refer to Senator Obama and his campaign as a “fairy tale”. The former president has been a bit divisive and this writer would be the first to admit that Obama should not be above critique, but President Clinton has demonstrated very little diplomacy in his comments relative to this election. He was even more irate when he appeared on the popular syndicated Tom Joyner Talk Show and in fact took over the show and did not allow a two-way conversation.

This writer was more disappointed at Tom Joyner for allowing this Council On Foreign Relations agent to dictate the political conversation to his loyal black listening based. Also, this writer sympathize and empathize with PBS reporter Tavis Smiley who offered some fair remarks of critiques toward Senator Obama on the Tom Joyner Morning Show and in turn received some harsh criticism from Joyner’s listening based. Moreover, may be they perceive Democrats as being above critical analysis, this writer surely does not.

Fahim A. Knight Chief Researcher for KEEPING IT REAL THINK TANK located in Durham, NC; our mission is to inform African Americans and all people of good will of the pending dangers that lie ahead; as well as decode the symbolisms and reinterpret the hidden meanings behind those who operate as invisible forces, but covertly rules the world. We are of the belief that an enlighten world will be better prepared to throw off the shackles of ignorance and not be willing participants for the slaughter. Our MOTTO is speaking truth to power. Fahim A. Knight can be reached at

Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,Fahim A. Knight

Monday, January 7, 2008

“Benazir Bhutto’s Assassination: The CIA and Musharraf, Who is Guilty?

Benazir Bhutto’s Assassination: The CIA and Musharraf, Who is Guilty?

By Fahim A. Knight

The assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto represents and is indicative of everything that is wrong with United States Foreign Policy and it relationship with Pakistan. President George Bush solicited the ruthless Pakistani dictator President Pervez Musharraf assistance in 2001 in his so-called war on terrorism. The war on terrorism has blinded the United States in its ability to make reasonable and competent foreign policy decisions. Bush rounded up a bunch of third world nations promising them International Monetary Fund and World Bank loans; if they signed and committed their irrelevant military forces to Iraq and Afghanistan as show of solidarity in his war on terrorism. Some Islamic countries sided with Bush against their Muslim brothers, but it only deepened the hatred for the West and has fueled so-called Islamic militants to declare Jihad (holy war), which is war that has no boundaries.

The backing of Musharraf was a case of choosing the lesser of three evils; behind door number one stood Osama bin Laden, a former United States operative who was the CIA top front man in Afghanistan during the Soviet conflict, behind door number two stood General Musharraf, a dictator and an the only Islamic nation with nuclear technology and behind door number three stood Benazir Bhutto another Central Intelligence Agent provocateur; thus, Bush chose the strongman Musharraf who came into power via a military coup d'├ętat in 1999. The CIA is only interested in what you can do for me today and right now Musharraf is their man; he even traded in his military dictator general uniform for western tailored made suits in order to look more presidential and less as an undemocratic dictator having ruthless political tendencies.

The assassination of the former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto as stated above represents everything that is wrong with the United States relationship with Pakistan. President George Bush implored Pakistan and General Musharraf assistance in 2001 in Bush’s so-called war on terrorism. The United States Government was bent on deceiving the American people that Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda movement was enemy number one and was a threat to world security. Musharraf gave his support to Bush who in turn legitimized a rogue nation such as Pakistan for geographic, political, and strategic positioning. Bush wanted to use the nation of Pakistan in order to control the movement of Al Qaeda militants and Islamic fundamentalist from being able to freely cross the boarders of Afghanistan and Pakistan and assimilating into Pakistan, which to build external foreign support bases for Al Qaeda recruitment.

The author Andy Stern in his book titled, “Oil From Rockefeller to Iraq and Beyond” stated, “The CIA, working with the Pakistani intelligence services (ISI), is widely believed to have encouraged some 35, 000 Muslim radicals form more than 40 countries to come to Afghanistan and join the fight against the Soviet army. CIA strategist also flooded into the country to help plan the Mujahideen’s military operations and train its soldiers. Mujahideen and volunteers-‘Arab Afghans’-were fed a mixture of American military knowledge and Islamic law. The U.S. however, did not divulge that its real objective was the overthrow of the USSR, not just the liberation of Afghanistan from the Soviet army. Among the recipients of US arms and training was Osama Bin Laden, the ‘black sheep’ of one of Saudi Arabia’s wealthiest families, who came to Afghanistan in 1979. By 1984 Bin Laden was the head of the Maktab al-Khidamar (MAK), an organization channeling money, arms and soldiers from outside Afghanistan into the war. The MAK received substantial help from the Pakistani ISI, through which the CIA carried out most of its covert operations in the country.”

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) knew that Musharraf was an international gangster and an international political crook who would sell his soul to the highest bidder. There is little doubt in this writer’s mind that Bhutto’s assassination was sanctioned and orchestrated from the highest level of the Pakistani Government—General Musharraf was either directly and/or indirectly involved in Bhutto’s assassination and as a puppet he takes his orders from Bush and the United States White House, which makes both governments culprits.

Musharraf is a criminal of the worst kind and there are perhaps two smoking guns either the United States Government—CIA., State Department and U.S. Intelligence apparatus were directly in complicit of giving the order to Musharraf and/or was Bhutto’s assassination just another indication of how lawless the state of Pakistan is, where the rules are made up by the various secular and sacred tribal and warlords factions. Did the CIA assassinate Bhutto in order to derail Pakistan’s elections process and/or did the potential, as well as the possibility exist as far as Bhutto unseating Masharraf as the new president of this volatile nation that was scheduled for democratic elections on January 8, 2008. Perhaps Musharraf had some unfinished business with the CIA and in lieu of the business Bhutto’s life became expendable.

Musharraf and the CIA had two viable culprits and star perpetrators which to point blame in the assassination—Al Qaeda and the Taliban, both organizations had the resources and expertise which to carryout such a well planned assassination attempt and the international community wouldn’t need much evidence or convincing based on the Western media portrayal and perception of these two so-called violent Islamic led and Jihad inspired organizations. Thus even, if the slightest notion of capitulation was implied relative to these two groups involvement in the assassination of Bhutto; very few from the West would question or doubt culpability and participation of these two so-called “radical” Islamic Muslim organizations and their ability to carryout an act of violence of this magnitude. They would be considered guilty by media deception.

But also those that have this type power to influence world thinking would find it equally and politically convenient to lay Bhutto’s death at the door step of Osama bin Laden because of above said sentiments and the real guilty parties and perpetrators are allowed to hide behind layers of deceptions. They then use the media (their propaganda machines) to reincarnate the likes of a Bhutto’s into innocent sainthood and at same time elevate her to martyrdom status with an objective of attracting an international following at death that she did not enjoy in life, which to further isolate Osama bin Laden, in particular and fundamentalist Islam in general, as culprits in this heinous crime. President Richard Nixon is book titled, “Seize The Moment: America’s Challenge in a One-Superpower World” has an interesting chapter titled, “The Muslim World”

Tricky Dick stated, “Only two common elements exist in the Muslim world: the faith of Islam and the problems of political turbulence. Islam is not on a religion but also the foundation of a major civilization. We speak of the ‘Muslim world’ as a single entity not because of any Islamic politburo guiding its policies but because individual nations share common political and cultural currents with the entire Muslim civilization. The same political rhythms are played throughout the Muslim world, regardless of the differences between the individual countries. Just as all Western countries have parties that advocate the free market, the welfare state, socialism, the Islamic countries have groups that subscribe to the main political currents of the Muslim world—fundamentalism, radicalism, and modernism. This commonality of faith and politics breeds a loose but real solidarity: when a major event occurs in one part of the Muslim world, it inevitability reverberates in the others”

This writer wholeheartedly agree with President Nixon in one sense; no one on the Islamic side had to issue the order to kill Bhutto her visible Islamic contradictions and western modernity ideology as a Muslim woman that alone could have been enough to seal Bhutto’s fate because of a religion that is steeped in assigned cultural ranking for women and the antagonistic relationship between Islam and the West.

This writer has always believed that Islam is a very complex religion and the leaders of this faith, the—Mullahs, Sheiks, Imams, Emirs, Ayatollahs, etc., are fully aware that the theology of Islam can be perceived as having a duality interpretation to the Muslim, in which two believers can hear the very same khutba (Friday Sermon) at Jummah Prayer coming from the Holy Qur’an, but depart the Masjid as a fundamentalist with radical and political inspired objectives and/or as a Muslim who believes in the common interest that Allah (God) has bestowed for all humanity and seek to live in peace with Muslims, Christians and Jews.

The long and short of this discussion is that in reality no one had to issue the assassination of Bhutto, the Islamic zealots could have just perceived her as an United States agent bent on corrupting the traditional Islamic role of women in their Islamic society, which this alone would have been enough to get her killed by an Islamic zealot(s) acting independently of and without sanction of a visible political entity. Bhutto was also seen in the Islamic world of being a bit too cozy to the Zionist State of Israel and its leaders; thus, any number of these variables and factors could have been considered a powder keg and a time bomb ready to explode. But this writer smells smoke and where there is smoke, there is fire.

However, its is going to be difficult for the international community to accept what ever explanation Musharraf gives because of his conditional ties to George Bush and the United States Government (CIA). Bhutto’s assassination is another U.S. Foreign Policy blunder for the Bush administration and its allegiance to reactionary despots like Musharraf and Pakistani Government; there is no doubt that President Musharraf is a valuable international asset and a key player in that region of the world, where the United States have few friends.

Nixon goes on to state, “Pakistan—the only major U.S. strategic partner situated between Turkey and Japan—has cooperated with the United States in recent decades to support the Afghan resistance, as well as to facilitate the rapprochement with China in 1972. Though Islamabad’s policies sometime clash with ours—especially regarding nuclear proliferation—no other country has shown comparable courage I serving as a frontline state against Soviet aggression.” Musharraf had also aided the Taliban and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan who had fought the Russians gallantly in a ten year (1979-1989) war and defeated one of the most technological war machines in the 20th Century in guerilla war tactics used in the mountainous terrain. Thus, make no mistake Afghan fighters were no match for the Russians because the Soviets had the ability to wipe Afghanistan off the map, but in a low level intensive conflict the rag tag Afghans were superior.

George Tenet, the former ex-CIA Director in his book titled, “At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA” stated, “The relationship was complicated further by mistrust and resentment. The dominant thinking within the Pakistani officer corps was that the United States had unstated ulterior motives in Afghanistan, specifically the desire to keep the nation unstable and chaotic to discourage construction of oil and gas pipelines through both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The goodwill we had won in Pakistan by helping to drive the Russians out of neighboring Afghanistan had also been evaporated over the last dozen years. The Pakistani leadership for the most part felt that the United States had abandoned them, especially when we imposed economic sanctions on both Pakistan and India in the wake of nuclear tests. Simultaneously, the military-to-military relationship that had once been so strong between our two nations had been allowed to wane over the years. Once senior Pakistani officers had been trained almost exclusively in the United States.”

The United States and Russia both desired to control the opium (heroin) trade coming out of South East Asia. Yes, the war between Afghanistan and Russia was over dope—drugs (the poppy seed plantations), as well as strategic and logistical tapping into oil in the Caspian and Siberian region that needed to run oil pipelines through Afghanistan and Pakistan. The United States backed the Afghan rebels in this conflict (used Pakistan sovereignty to transport weapons to the Afghan Rebels), but the United States ultimate interest was not its loyalty to the so-called Afghan Islamic freedom fighters, but their objective was of vital national security, which was to secure the financial interest of the seven oil sisters—Exxon, Mobile, Chevron, Royal, Dutch Shell, Gulf, and Texaco. These Seven Oil Sisters have merged in names and in corporate interest; THEY ARE THE SOVEREIGN DICTATORS OVER HUMANITY.

But in 2001 after the 911 hoax Bush promised Musharraf and the Pakistani Government more of the United States tax dollars in the form of international financial aid packages, if they would sign on to help the United States and the Western Governments fight so-called international terrorism. Musharraf signed his nation on to bring Bin Laden to justice who had set-up his militant infrastructure in the rugged mountainous regions of Afghanistan. Musharraf at that moment appeared to have betrayed his long standing allegiance to the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda freedom fighters, the soldiers he once supported against Russia in the name of a Pan-Islamic theocracy similar to Sharia Law and Wahabism found in Saudi Arabia.

But this writer believes that Musharraf is a double agent who enjoys the perks of being a United States puppet and at same time has taken a very passive position against Al Qaeda and the Taliban to the detriment of U.S. interest; thus, because many of his own Pakistani countrymen agrees with Bin Laden’s radical Islamic politics, and to oppose the Islamic Jihadist would possibly exacerbate a radical Islamic fervor in his own nation, which could compromise the stability of Pakistan. Musharraf in reality has no intentions of truly apprehending Bin Laden and he has to be very careful of the type of internal logistics he is providing to the West. He has already survived the Islamic bounty hunters in three prior assassination attempts.
Wikipedia on-line resource stated, “Bhutto was sworn in for the first time in 1988 at the age of 35, but was removed from office 20 months later under the order of then- president Ghulam Ishaq Khan on grounds of alleged corruption. In 1993 Bhutto was re-elected but was again removed in 1996 on similar charges, this time by President Farooq Leghari Bhutto went into self-imposed exile in Dubai in 1998.

Bhutto returned to Pakistan on October 18, 2007, after reaching an understanding with President Pervez Musharraf by which she was granted amnesty and all corruption charges were withdrawn. She was assassinated on December 27, 2007, after departing a PPP rally in the Pakistani city of Rawalpindi, two weeks before the scheduled Pakistani general election of 2008 where she was a leading opposition candidate”.

Bhutto returned to her native Pakistan after a nine year self-imposed exile in Dubai and the United Kingdom, but what information was she working with that assured her that she could come back to this violable nation without any political consequences? How were the conditions any different prior to her leaving and had she resolved the political conflicts that sent her into exile? These are the pressing questions that need to be assessed and evaluated in this Benazir Bhutto’s dilemma because most past political leaders from around world that were sent into exile voluntarily or involuntarily and had received political asylum, just did not walk back into their home country and resume normalcy. Thus, for the most part the players and the game were same and she had no new found powers to alter the eventual outcome, which was her untimely assassination.

Bhutto’s may have been a charming, charismatic and likable woman, but she had internal enemies that had not forgotten her corrupt and reactionary politics when she served as Prime Minister. This writer knows that her death is complex, but in many ways she sealed her own fate by trusting her security to the other CIA Agent—Musharraf and also her death can be seen as an act of betrayal by the United States Government and the Pakistani Government.

The Pakistani Government initially reported that Bhutto’s was shot in the head area, but for some strange reason they later recanted and reported that it were not the assassin bullets that killed Bhutto’, but she cracked her skull on the vehicle during the assassination commotion trying to escape the violence, as to minimize the role of the assassins and subconsciously imply that Bhutto’s cause of death was more self-inflicted. Moreover, in some delusional type reasoning this would absolve and exonerate the Pakistani Government of any official wrongdoing. But in accordance with Islamic burial and funeral customs only women are permitted to wash the body of a decease Muslim woman. It was reported by one of Bhutto’s closest companions that there were gun shot wounds to her head. This type conduct on behalf of the Pakistani Government clearly leads toward being suspicious of Musharraf’s behavior and the conflicting death reports.

According to Jeremy Page, South Asia Correspondent “TIMESONLINE” December 28, 2007 he stated, “Earlier that month two Pakistani militant warlords based in the country’s northwestern areas had threatened to kill her. One was Baitullah Mehsud, a top militant commander fighting the Pakistani Army in South Waziristan, who has ties to al-Qaeda and the Afghan Taleban. The other was Haji Omar, the leader of the Pakistani Taleban, who is also from South Waziristan and fought with the Afghan Mujahidin against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Ms Bhutto said after the attack that she had received a letter, signed by someone claiming to be a friend of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, threatening to slaughter her like a goat. But she also accused Pakistani authorities of not providing her with sufficient security, and hinted that they may have been complicit in the Karachi attack. She indicated that she had more to fear from unidentified members of a power structure that she described as allies of the ‘forces of militancy’.”

The United Nations is spearheading a so-called independent investigation into the murder of Bhutto, but to start at the premise that so-called Islamic extremist and terrorist were the villains in this assassination has already compromised the integrity of getting to the truth. The United Nations since September 11, 2001 has become a political arm of the United States and has lost its credibility to function as a neutral and sovereign non-aligned international body that works in the interest of all international governments.

The U.N. investigation will not be an objective criminal inquiry, but it will seek to cover-up both CIA and the Pakistani Government roles in Bhutto’s assassination. How can the Musharraf and CIA investigate themselves?—they both have the same alibi, it was Al Qaeda and the ignorant masses will not question the UN findings because we have been conditioned to believe that the so-called terrorist are the “Axil of Evil” and we have already presumed them guilty based on our ill informed perception of Islam.

Bhutto miscalculated the ingenuity of her enemies and their resolve to see her dead, she was betting on the religion of Islam’s moral and ethical teachings serving as restraints on Muslim men who would dare kill a so-called innocent Muslim woman. But supposed the HIT MEN were hired for murder and the sanctity of the teachings of Islam would be a non-factor in the assassination decision making process.

There is talk that Bhutto’s nineteen year old son Bilawal Bhutto Zardari will succeed his mother and represent the Pakistan People’s Party when elections are resumed. In an online article titled, “Bhutto’s Son will Succeed Her as Head of PPP” hosted on a Internet website Patterico’s Pontifications stated, “Bilawal, who enrolled as a student at Oxford University only this year, is scheduled to read the will himself at a party gathering on Sunday. There is little doubt that he will be accepted by the party rank and file; the PPP has been an all-family affair in Pakistan’s dynastic politics since Benazir Bhutto’s father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, founded it 40 years ago. Bhutto had given herself the title of “chairperson for life” and her only previous public signal as to who she wanted her political heir to be occurred when she sent Bilawal to register to vote for the first time earlier this year.”

This writer wonders has this young man already been recruited by the CIA and will he follow the footsteps of his mother who was nothing but a political prostitute who sold her sold to the devil. How will the various radical Islamic antagonists view this inexperience sheltered petit-bourgeoisie want-to-be Pakistani leader? Will they set a bounty on his head due to the sins of his mother.

Fahim A. Knight Chief Researcher for KEEPING IT REAL THINK TANK located in Durham, NC; our mission is to inform African Americans and all people of good will of the pending dangers that lie ahead; as well as decode the symbolisms and reinterpret the hidden meanings behind those who operate as invisible forces, but covertly rules the world. We are of the belief that an enlighten world will be better prepared to throw off the shackles of ignorance and not be willing participants for the slaughter. Our MOTTO is speaking truth to power. Fahim A. Knight can be reached at