Attack of the Political Ghouls

Listen, I'm as big a fan of political chattering and nattering and horse-race-handicapping as anyone, but there are moments when you really do need to give it a rest. You would think that at times like this, people could break out of their own little worlds for just a moment. Just one. But according to the logic of the American political establishment, a tragedy left unexploited is a tragedy compounded.

As you've no doubt seen splashed across the airwaves, Benazir Bhutto was killed on Thursday. Her assassination has basically thrown an already volatile nation into even deeper turmoil -- it wouldn't be much of an exaggeration to say it's the worst crisis Pakistan has faced, and given the situation in the rest of the region, it couldn't come at a worse time. Digby explains why.

So if you're a candidate for the most powerful political office in the world, how do you react? Well, if you're Rudy Giuliani, you remind everyone that everything that happens in the world is all about YOU!

"Her death is a reminder that terrorism anywhere - whether in New York, London, Tel-Aviv or Rawalpindi - is an enemy of freedom. We must redouble our efforts to win the terrorists' war on us."

Silly me, I thought the attack happened in Pakistan. But to hear Rudy tell it, it's all about America, and Terrorism in America is always all about Rudy "noun-verb-9/11" Giuliani (thanks to Joe Biden for the Rudester's nickname).

Now keep in mind that at this point there's no clear idea of exactly who was behind this, whether it was "terrorists" in the al-Qaeda sense of the term or whether it was political warfare of a kind tragically common in Pakistan. But Giuliani apparently has no need for such fripperies as "facts" and "analysis" where terrorism is concerned.

So if our political leaders can't break out of their own self-absorption for five minutes, we can always turn to the press for sanity, analysis, and equilibrium, right? Right! It's the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza to the rescue!

But, with the Bhutto's death and the broader implications of the fight against terrorism worldwide likely to dominate the coverage for the next day or two (at a minimum), Giuliani immediately becomes relevant again.

Why? Well, in Cillizza's universe, nothing matters but the Presidential horse race, and as we all know, Giuliani is the most qualified candidate to deal with terrorism because... because... um... He happened to be in a city that was attacked by terrorists.

Seriously. Think about it. Other than being the guy who happened to be Mayor of NYC on 9/11, Rudy's qualifications for being the Great Anti-Terrorist Savior are pretty much nil. By his "I was there when it happened" logic, there are 1.5 million people in Manhattan alone who are just as qualified as he is. And we won't even get into his actions as Mayor that may very well have compounded the 9/11 tragedy.

But Cillizza insists on his "conventional wisdom" -- Bhutto's death helps Giuliani. Why? Because Giuliani is the strongest anti-terrorist candidate. Why? Because Chris Cillizza read it in someone else's column sometime, that's why. Don't ask so many questions. And ignore the fact that analyzing how a woman's death affects a political campaign half a world away when her body isn't even cold is ghoulish beyond redemption.

By the way, as Josh Marshall points out, the Democrats aren't any better.

And in the meantime, Pakistan is burning. In order to find out what's really happening, you have to break out of the American media bubble and get it straight from the source.

I sigh a lot these days. Is that okay?