Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton came to mind as I read Ralph Peters’ most recent column (“Not What She Seemed To Be,” PostOpinion, Dec. 28).
Could it be that she and Pakistan’s Benazir Bhutto are so much alike?
Joy Kanarick
Brooklyn
Without disagreeing with a single word of Peters’ article about Bhutto’s failings, faults and vices, it does seem to be rather untimely – published when the woman was hardly in her grave.
Whether flawed or not, the US government was backing her, and that policy is now in ruins.
Not only is Peters’ article unseemly in its timing, but it may even be detrimental to US interests if seized by extremist politicians in Pakistan as evidence that their country benefited from Bhutto’s murder.
Sorry, Peters. To this faithful reader, it seems that you shot too soon.
Gerald McMorrow
Hicksville
Peters is correct in characterizing Bhutto by saying: “The scion of a thieving political dynasty, she was always more concerned with power than with the well-being of the average Pakistani.”
But, Peters is incorrect to state that: “In Pakistan, the military has its own forms of graft; nonetheless, it remains the least corrupt institution in the country and the only force holding an unnatural state together.”
Actually, since Yahya Khan’s regime, the military has been as corrupt as civilian administrations, with each succeeding one worsening in its degree.
As far as “holding an unnatural state together,” does Peters remember 1971, when, by sheer stupidity, the military actually split the nation apart?
S. Varadarajan
Washington, DC
My thanks to Peters and Linda Stasi (“Her Saga’s Eerie Echo of Bhutto,” Dec. 30) for jolting Americans into recognizing the remarkable and hazardous similarities between Clinton and Bhutto.
Both women took credit for the success of the powerful men in their lives while they, themselves, spent decades desperately clamoring for personal power and profit at the expense of assumed causes and other human beings.
As a result, both wasted years marred in scandal and shame.
Sadly, not even their shared Ivy League beginnings could save them from their failure. Bhutto governed poorly in her first two terms, while Clinton relegated herself to become the most famous victim of a womanizer.
For America’s sake, let the similarities of these two women stop there.
Tish Ferguson
Point Pleasant, NJ
Leave it to Peters to be as graceless as ever.
Ever the consummate cynic, Peters cannot even give Bhutto credit for bravery.
Peters obviously hasn’t learned that there are times when it is best to keep one’s mouth shut. In his case, this was one of them.
Arthur LaMirande
The Bronx
In Friday’s Post- Opinion section, there’s a complete contradiction regarding Bhutto.
Peters states that Bhutto was a corrupt and hopeless leader, with an agenda of her own and no interest in helping the Pakitani people.
On the opposite end, Amir Taheri paints a lovely portrait of a saint whose mission was one of benevolence for her people (“Democracy Must Go On,” PostOpinion, Dec. 28).
So, where are your writers getting their information?
What makes this Pakistani dilemma most interesting is that the whole world is now waiting for the next crisis to happen.
Salvatore Pedi
Eastchester
Hooray for Peters.
He’s the first person I’ve seen in the press who has written the truth about Bhutto.
Chuck Mercer
Ipswich, Mass.
Let us make no mistake about it: Bhutto died a heroine in the name of democracy.
When asked why she would face possible assassination with three children at home, her reply was: “What about the children of Pakistan? They are all my children.”
Long live the spirit of democracy and the spirit and courage of Bhutto.
Frank Detko
Yonkers