You are herecontent / HILLARY'S MUSHARRAF


Mrs. Clinton's forgotten fling with the Killer of Karachi
By Greg Palast

November 13th, 2007- He was the other man in Hillary's life. But it's over now. Or is it?

You've seen all those creepy photos of George Bush rubbing up against Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, the two of them grinning and giggling like they're going to the senior prom. So it's hard to remember that it was Hillary and Bill who brought Pervez to the dance in the first place.

How that happened, I'll tell you in a moment.

But first, let's get our facts straight about the man in the moustache. Musharraf, according to George Bush, The New York Times, NPR and the rest of press puppies is, "our ally in the War on Terror." That's like calling Carmine Gambino, "Our ally in the War on Crime."

Musharraf's the guy who helped the Taliban take power in Afghanistan in 1996. And, through his ISI, Pakistan's own KGB, he is still giving the Taliban secret protection.

And this is the same Musharraf who let Khalid Sheik Muhammed, Osama's operations chief for the September 11 attack, hang out in Quetta, Pakistan, in the open, until Khalid embarrassed his host by giving a boastful interview to Al Jazeera television from his Pakistan hang-out.

And this is the same Musharraf who permitted his nation's own Dr. Strangelove, A.Q. Khan, to sell nuclear do-it-yourself bomb kits to Libya and North Korea. When the story off the flea-market in fissionable materials was exposed, Musharraf (and Bush) both proclaimed their shock - shock! - over the bomb sales. Musharraf didn't know? Sure. Those tons of lethal hardware must have been shipped by flying pig.

But, unlike Saddam and Osama, creations of Ronald Reagan's and George Bush Sr.'s Frankenstein factories, Musharraf was a Clinton special.

And it all began with an unpaid electricity bill. In 1998, Pakistan wouldn't pay up millions, and they owed billions, to British and American electricity companies. And for good reason: the contracts called for paying insanely high prices. It smelled of payola - and ultimately, the government of Pakistan filed charges against power combine executives and canceled the contracts. That's the rule under international law: companies can't collect on contracts they obtained by pay-offs.

But these weren't just any companies. One was a Tony Blair favorite, Britain's National Power. The other was Entergy International, a sudden big-time player in the international power market based out of, oddly, Little Rock, Arkansas. Despite the Clinton Administration's claim to fight foreign corruption, this was an exception. Clinton and Blair voted to cut off Pakistan's funding from the IMF. Pay-up the power pirates, they told Pakistan, or starve.

Why was President Clinton so determined to crush Pakistan because of an unpaid bill to some Little Rock company. This was not just any company. But that wasn't much. More important, Entergy and its partners, the Riady Family of Indonesia had just paid about half a million dollars to Hillary's old Rose Law Firm partner Webster Hubbell. Odd that, hiring Hubbell. Why would Entergy pay big bucks to a Hubbell as a "consultant" when he was on his way to jail for a felony. Hubbell was doing time because he refused to testify against Ms. Rodham.

Did President Clinton know about the payment to Hubbell? Clinton denied it to the press,but under oath, to the FBI, Bill said he, "wouldn't be surprised" if the Riadys told him about the payoff to Hubbell in one of Bill's several private meetings with
them in the Oval Office.

Was there a connection between Entergy's kindness to Hillary and her law partner and the power company's extraordinary sway with the Administration? From inside information on energy policies to favor requested of Tony Blair's office by Hillary's office, Entergy could do no wrong. Certainly, their consortium's executives wouldn't have to stand trial in Pakistan.

And Entergy got its money. On December 22, 1998, Pakistan's military, at the direction of General Pervez Musharraf, sent thirty thousand troops into the nation's power stations. At the time, Entergy's partners told me, "A lot changed since the army moved in. Now we have a situation where we can be paid. They've found a way to collect from the man in the street." Yes: at gunpoint, according to Abdul Latif Nizamani, a labor union leader who spoke with me after Musharraf's gang had arrested him.

With Pakistan's army in control of thenation's infrastructure, and acting as guarantor of payment to the US and UK power giants, General Musharraf's final takeover of the entire government nine months later - a "surprise" coup to the Western press - was, a forgone conclusion. And the Clintons, complicit, like Bush today, could say little.

Just months before he left office President Clinton paid a sudden visit to Musharraf. Congressional Democrats were stunned. Musharraf had quickly shown himself to be a Taliban-loving, unbalanced dictator who violated US treaty terms by exploding a nuke and threatening to incinerate our ally India. Notably, the Ambassador with Clinton made payments to the electric companies a top item on his

Favors done; favors repaid. Nothing new under the sun, but it's a dangerous game, Senator Clinton.

All right, maybe you can say that President Clinton's blessing of the radioactive dictator can't be blamed on Hillary despite the smelly money chain going from Arkansas to Karachi. But, be honest, the lady sure as heck ain't running on her record as a Senator; her whole pitch is, "Re-elect Clinton."

And I'd rather tell you this story before you hear it from President Giuliani.

Nevertheless, let's not lose sight of the current danger. While the Clinton's may have handed us the Lunatic of Lahore, it's George Bush who leaves mints on his pillow. I have no information that Clinton knew of the sales to North Korea. The Bush Administration did and, we discovered at BBC, blocked the CIA investigation that could have exposed it in 2001. And that, Mr. Bush, is a very, very dangerous game. The problem of creating Frankensteins, whether an Osama or a Saddam or a Musharraf, is that these creatures are often known to rise and turn on their creators.

But I'm sure we'll correct the error. Four years ago, as Bush was proclaiming victory over the Butcher of Baghdad, I wrote, "Given our experiences with Saddam and Osama, our monsters tend to get out of control after about 11 years. Therefore, we can expect, in the year 2013, that President Jeb Bush will have to order the 82d Airborne into Pakistan to remove Musharraf, the Killer of Karachi."

Unfortunately, we may not have that long.

Based on Greg Palast's investigations for the Guardian papers of Britain 1998-2001. Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, ARMED MADHOUSE: From Baghdad to New Orleans -- Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild. He is currently on assignment in Ecuador for BBC Television.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

All that is very interesting but do you work for the BBC? Is that the same BBC that reported the fall of World Trade Center 7 before it fell. Is that the same BBC that then "cocked-up" and lost the video archive of the report of the fall of WTC 7 before it fell?

I wonder how the BBC could have been so confused as to report the fall of a building while the building stood in the background? Very curious indeed.

You are right of course that Mr. Musharraf should be careful who he trusts in the US government. Old Saddam learned the hard way that the CIA gives and the CIA taken away. With al CIAda there is no honor among thieves.

These are the republican posting as democrats. I can not immagine how any democrat would believe the lies, BS and propaganda in which the republicans keep spewing out from the deceitful lips...

Cheney and Bush are worst deciders then the ones they talk about.

Looks as if Bill Clinton as usual visited Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf Telling him to restore peace and with drawn his troops back into his country. You have better believe Bush and Cheney would not venture on a peace meeting with any country, unless it was for the benefit of Saudi Arabia.
Where do the aritcles about Bill Clinton arise from, Rove and the republicans BS and Propaganda.
Clinton have developed a special force to try to capture or dead or alive Bin Landen, and Bush deleted that force along with all the rest of Clinton's programs as soon as he took office.
Bush and Cheney were maping their plans for their invasion of the middle east for their oil in January of 2001.
Where are all these republican-democrats coming from.

Maybe now you could concentrate your energy on finding out what was really happening on 9/11/2001. Did the 19 hijackers creep into three the buildings that exploded that day and lay the charges before they flew the planes? Who set them off? How did those three buildings explode/implode? How did the BBC and CNN know about the "fall" of WTC 7 before it happened?

Tell us more Greg. Maybe you can ask president-to-be Guiliani.

Armed Madhouse, ha! What has impressed me [about you] is your insistent denial that the WTC was demolished by a controlled demolition // you state your lack of expertise regarding physics and such and THEN go on to say that a controlled demolition just didn't happen. Give me (and others with some degree of common sense here) an F-ing break, will you please.

What has impressed me most about you, sir, is your skillful manipulation of the facts and resulting anger that most people have reasoned-out when it comes to GWB and his corrupt and drastically flawed administration, reasoned-out from the bullsh*t and general barrage of misinformation-disinformation such as you provide // give us a little bit of 'you're on our side of the argument' but THEN twist that into support of the 'official' version of events. Skillful, but no cigar in my opinion.

Many of us are on to you, sir, and which side of the argument you truly really do support.

Check out this interview and see for yourself, folks:

It's ironic that your sample of a Youtube has Palast labelled "as Leftist Gatekeeper" when this entire article on this page "outs" Hillary on Musharraf.

Also, why would someone like Palast who clearly is very anxious to "nail" Bush on anything for 9/11 contradict 9/11 truthers ? Because the facts DO matter to Greg Palast !

9/11 truthers, show us the evidence of the blasting material (no , not physics tests) but REAL evidence of blasting material, other than the obvious tons of airplane fuel that came out of the two towers and near WTC7. Show us the actual people who supposedly did the blasts after the airplanes hit.

True , we need to have another 9/11 Commission to replace the 9/11 Ommission, that IS a fact.

But in the meantime, I will side with Greg Palast that presentation of facts DO matter .

Personally I am from the school of thought of LIHOP (let it happen on purpose), but I unfortunately cannot prove it . I can only speculate as to why PNAC posted their manifesto "Rebuilding America's Defenses" site on the www almost a year to the day before 9/11/2001. I think the neocons were attempting to provoke the terrorists any way they possibly could, and still be able to try the old "deniability" .

Guilianni had the evidence hauled away to be melted down in Asia. I wonder why he did that to the world's biggest crime scene? Use your eyes mister a building does not burn and fall to the ground in 6.5 second like WTC 7 did. You can see it on video. They say the building is in flames and you can't see a spot of fire anywhere. I wonder why?

Unfortunately, this blackhole in the facts will go the way of the JFK Assassination, and we may never know the whole truth either way.

Was the WTC7 fire over by the time the filming started? Was the building demolished on purpose AFTER the catastrophe due to its precarious condition after the 9/11 incident? Was it part of a Bush insider demolition theory? What really happened and why? We don't know the facts.

But another OPEN & INDEPENDENT 9/11 Commission is definitely warranted. That would clear up some theories, but regrettably, not all.

Well, YANK, I must report that I am disappointed in your choice of friends and your attempt at justifying same // I was beginning to think you had your act together but sadly I was wrong about that. Mr. Palast is intelligent, no doubt, and a very good talker, again no doubt BUT one only has to step back and examine what it is he says and one will then come to the conclusion that the man is positioned to help enforce certain matters as comes to the confused picture the world has of the Bush crime family and their idiotic and corrupt ideals in this world. Sure he condems the man BUT THEN HE GOES SO to say there is no way under the sun that WTC was a controlled demolition. To that I have to question anything and everything the man says BECAUSE -- WTC was certainly a controlled demolition.

Mr. Palast claiming that a controlled demolition takes two (2) years to set into motion doesn't speak to his ignorance on the subject, it speaks to his willingness to twist the facts. Want to know how long it really takes a world-class controlled demolitions company (ie., CDI) to drop the [then] worlds tallest department store (JL Hudson building, 25 floors)?

-- then check out this website of theirs:

I'll help you out with a bit of the actual details of this happening //

(per their/CDI press release -- )
'In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system. As the implosion required the detonation of a total of 2,728 lb. of explosives'
\ etc etc

A far cry from the two years as stated by Mr. Palast. He is certainly ignorant of the facts and a LIHOP (let it happen) opinion ignores and trashes all the time and energy and cooperation that surely went into action to MIHOP (make it happen) //

The two hour stand down, the 'put' stock options, ignorning the warnings (in this they certainly did allow it to happen), the refusal to properly cooperate afterwards are only a few examples of actual involvement by key government officials. Wiring those buildings is another.

A rogue element in our government working with others pulled off 9/11 -- the evidence is overwhelming in this regard. All it takes is a legal system willing to prosecute those truly guilty of this horrific crime while all the others working as PsyOps agents (intentionally or otherwise) shut the F-up.

That's all Palast is saying. What I saw was airplane fuel on 9/11/01. Clear evidence. If you have more than airplane fuel , show us the facts. Until then, you are in theory territory. Which is ok , I have theories too, not necessarily the same ones as you or Greg Palast.

But you when you try to say speculation is a fact, then you are stepping on credibility territory.

Do I think I know Bush/Cheney are damned glad 9/11/2001 happened, no matter HOW it happened? Yes I think I know that. I sure as hell wish I could prove it !

What I saw was airplane fuel on 9/11/01
No, it isn't -- you saw alot more than that, you're just not inclined to accept it. That's it plain and simple. You (like all of us) saw one hell of a big initial explosion // a fireball // that may or may not have been entirely related to jet fuel (which for your information is basically kerosene) // one giantic fireball which was mainly consumed outside the building in the open air. Go back and look at the many video clips of the second airplane hitting the tower and you will see what I mean. A giantic fireball that was mostly consumed outside the building and into the open air.

When those fuel lines were ruptured the fuel was no longer a contained burn -- it became instantly uncontained and was burned nearly entirely into nothingness as one would expect. Not a slow long-lasting burn but a sudden explosion because of the massive amount of suddenly released fuel. Try dropping a match in an open can of 'explosive' fuel and see if it doesn't also pretty much burn all at one time, unlike a candle, unlike the controls of an automobile carburator which dispense fuel over time.

Sure the massive explosion left behind 'things' set on fire, but the majority of all that fuel you speak of kept right on going to the outside of the building -- the direction of travel -- you see it in the videos.

The buildings (nearly all steel, heavy, thick Nippon steel at that) stood for almost two hours in one case and one hour in the other case. And then when they came crashing down it was with the explosive force of man's hand -- sending the debris to the ground at near free fall speed as if there was nothing but air holding it all up as the mass above came down to meet the mass below (that's because it was moved out of the way beforehand, obviously) and not only that BUT those same massive thick heavy steel beams were sent flying out horizontally many MANY feet with such force that they in some cases impaled nearby structures. Airplane fuel (kerosene) didn't do that forum friend. Besides, the entire matter of fire is of no consequence when one comes to understand the fires simply could not have reached temperatures to do the damage that we see happen.

Damage happened, for sure. But much of it can be understood as a trick played upon the eye. Like a magician might pull a coin from mid-air // A real coin, perhaps, but the rest of it is simply a trick.

There is much to this evidence that I have read about -- obviously you havent -- but you should. Try David Ray Griffin's excellent books and forget about this Greg Palast supporter of the 'official' version of events.


more of tremendous flashfire, not technically an "explosion" per se. Unfortunately , it is a horribly sad human disaster to watch with ones eyes. The similarities to what I saw in real life from the Challenger space shuttle fireball, and what I saw on TV on 9/11/2001, were strikingly similar from the force of flashfires and fireballs.

Flashfires of that magnitude unleash a TREMENDOUS force. Remember, that force is what gets them to space and the moon under better conditions.

I saw planes and fuel on 9/11/01. I saw Challenger and fuel on 1/28/86.

Again , "evidence" is not watching demolitions of other buildings falling down, or physics lessons. When you have FACTUAL EVIDENTIAL PROOF to show of exploded/leftover demolition materials , ACTUAL WITNESSES affidavits , and WRITTEN CONFESSIONS of the perpetrators , then present it to a prosecuting attorney , instead of a blog forum.

I watched the Palast Youtube and I do not see him "supporting" the so-called official version at all.

I am totally open to another 9/11 Commission that is INDEPENDENT & PUBLIC, but especially, with full SUBPOENA powers this time. In other words, if Bush and Cheney don't show up from a subpoena, they are arrested . I think our lessons learned is that NOONE is above the law when investigating anything of such a grave national security risk to us all.

I think you and I and Palast and most Americans agree on that.

You mention the Challenger disaster (speaking of seeing a fireball) as if THAT SOMEHOW is related to the controlled demolition that took place at the WTC // I just don't get your connection between the two.

I too saw the Challenger 'explosion' on TV // so what that has to do with the price of tea in China or your follow up remarks is beyond my understanding. There is some remote connection with the Challenger incident and the 9/11 Commission in that both were funded for investigation // if I'm not mistaken, the Challenger incident was allotted over 50 Million $$; the 9/11 Commission somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 Million $$. Which tells me that some people just don't understand the importance of this do they. Either that or they intended to sabotage the project from the very start // oh wait, GWB did delay (from the very start) any such investigation into 9/11 -- it took devoted surviving family members to put a boot up his ass to get the project kick-started; and when it finally was the $$ allotted to 9/11 (in comparison with other matters of importance) was nothing close.

My point is -- YOU SIR watch the Palast video and see nothing that would indicate the man to be in support of the 'official' narrative // that's my point exactly. You don't see.

Present material to an attorney, you say, and not discuss in a forum, you say -- I say (no, I best keep my thoughts under control and let you go quietly into the night with what it is you say).

FYI -- an attorney was contacted not too many months ago and GWB and associates in crime were to be prosecuted for 9/11 matters -- but that was sadly dismissed by the judge in view of some remote law that protects a sitting President from prosecution in a court of law for any crime. Go figure.

9/11 was an inside job -- even if YOU and Mr. Palast think otherwise.

Again , "evidence" is not watching demolitions of other buildings falling down, or physics lessons. When you have FACTUAL EVIDENTIAL PROOF to show of exploded/leftover demolition materials , ACTUAL WITNESSES affidavits , and WRITTEN CONFESSIONS of the perpetrators , then present it to a prosecuting attorney , instead of a blog forum.
Ever hear of Stanley Hilton?

A legal case was attempted in a court of law a few months ago and a judge dismissed the matter without so much as looking at any of the 'evidence' -- seems there's a remote law on the books that protects a sitting President from prosecution from any wrongdoing.

I only bring this up because you seem to suggest that a forum isn't the best place to discuss important matters (such as 9/11) when it is quite obvious a major contributor to the many THOUSANDS of folks that have woke to the truth thanks to blogs. Of course the person sound asleep to truth will not hear (listen) nor will they see the truth for what it is. Greg Palast (to bring this back to topic) is one that will not hear (listen) nor will he see. Are you one too, apparently you are.

9/11 was an inside job -- that's quite clear when weighing everything as we have come to know it. The 'official' narrative is a pack of lies and stands in start contrast to the truth -- AND THAT'S THE TRUTH.

You mentioned Challenger and 9/11 as if the two have some connection. Fireball, yes, for sure, but other than that -- nothing that I can relate. Our government saw fit to allot more $$ towards investigating the Challenger incident (@ 50 Million) and for the 9/11 happening (@ 3 Million -- if I'm not mistaken) // certainly far apart in appearance and far apart in the seriousness of the situation (if $$ means anything).

Certain folks would rather 9/11 would just go away, that people would stop speaking of it as if our government had anything at all to do with the event -- they sure don't like to discuss the possibility of the WTC being a controlled demolition, only because that opens up a can of worms w/o a lid. Palast seem quite content to keep a lid on matters, if you get my understanding here.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.



Find the perfect Purple Bridesmaid Dresses for your bridesmaids from




Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.