I was watching CNN's coverage of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto just now.  They were talking live to a Pakistani journalist on the scene who told them people were rioting, not against al Qaida, but Musharraf.  CNN's talking head, Heidi, stopped him, told him to slow down, and said "let me get this straight.  You're saying that people are rioting against Musharraf, not against those who may have been responsible for the attack?"

Hmm.  Mightn't they still be rioting against who may have been responsible for the attack?

Surprisingly (I'm being sarcastic here), Musharraf is blaming Islamic extremists, too.  That's who he blamed when he placed his political opponent under house arrest for her own protection.  And who he blamed when declaring Martial Law, suspending the Constitution, and jailing all the lawyers.  I'm just sayin'.

It's unclear who Bush was blaming for the assassination.  In his statement he mentioned "murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan's democracy."  He didn't mention Musharraf by name. 

The mainstream media is following the script.  It's al Qaida.  It's the terrorists.  But whether it is or isn't, what happens when the interests of "the terrorists" so closely coincide with the interests of a party or regime?  We have seen terrorists pop up at opportune times for a politician in a close race here, and now we are seeing "terrorists" seemingly working in concert with another would-be dictator. 

What's that they say about the company you keep?

Of course, this assures Musharraf will be in power for the foreseeable future, as the only formidable opposition has been obliterated.  I can't help but reiterate how ironic that the "terrorists" he has vowed to fight have guaranteed him his hold on power.

As for ramifications at home.  My prediction for the early primaries and caucuses is that McCain and Clinton will get a bump from this. (Giuliani's going down like the Twin Towers he too readily invokes.  Romney has no relevant experience to speak of. Huckabee's a sideshow freak.  This is just where Clinton wants Obama, and Edwards has focused almost exclusively on a domestic agenda.)

Whatever the outcome, this is one of those days when the script veered off into David Lynch territory.  You've got to admire them all for sticking to it, though.  After all, the show must go on (or the terrorists have won).