The New York Times reports that Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf has been holding secret meetings with former opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. Musharraf has apparently invited Bhutto to return to Pakistan and run for prime minister. Musharraf intends to stay on as president and head of the army, and he would like to work with Bhutto's party in fighting the Islamic radicals, who have emerged as the most serious threat to Musharraf's rule.

Bhutto is a traditional Muslim whose demeanor reflects the modesty of Islamic culture, and yet she understands the importance of integrating traditonal Islam into the modern framework of capitalism and democracy. A few years ago, Bhutto explained the appeal of the Islamic radicals this way. "Within the Muslim world, there is a reaction against the sexual overtones that come across in American mass culture. America is viewed thorugh this prism as an immoral society." This argument seems directly lifted out of my book The Enemy at Home, but of course the truth is the other way around: the argument of that book is based on the informed observations of traditional Muslims like Bhutto.

Bhutto understands that while many radical Muslims reject free elections, religious toleration, and open markets, most Muslims in Pakistan and around the world do not. On the other hand, the radical Muslims and traditional Muslims are united in their opposition to what is perceived as Western permissiveness. Consequently the radicals have made this aspect of the West their propaganda target and their recruiting slogan among the traditional Muslims.

Whether a Bhutto-Musharraf pact can repel the radical Muslims remains an open question. But Musharaff, who is central to the success of America's war on terror in the region, needs all the help he can get. I'm glad he's shrewd enough to reach across the political divide and open a dialog with a sharp critic and former political rival.

In my book The Enemy at Home I quoted Benazir Bhutto saying, "Within the Muslim world, there is a reaction against the sexual overtones that come across in American mass culture. America is viewed through this prism as an immoral society." This was one of the most astute explanations of why the propaganda of the radical Muslims has been so successful in recruiting traditional Muslims to the anti-American cause.

Bhutto's words were echoed also by the West's leading historian of Islam, Bernard Lewis. Reviewing what he calls "the standard litany of American offenses recited in the lands of Islam," Lewis ends with this one. "Yet the most powerful accusation of all is the degeneracy and debauchery of the American way of life." Many Americans, both on the right and the left, don't want to hear this message. And so we have been subjected to the same tired nonsense about how the radical Muslims are against freedom, oppose the Iraq invasion, blah, blah, blah.

Yes, the radical Muslims are upset about Iraq, but that's because Iraq is a pro-American Muslim democracy. Such a thing has not previously existed in the Middle East. It provides a startling alternative to the two kinds of tyranny that are widespread in the region: Islamic tyranny of the Iran variety, and secular tyranny such as we find with Musharraf in Pakistan, Mubarak in Egypt, Abdullah in Jordan, Assad in Syria, and in the Gulf Kingdoms.

Who doesn't want democracy to succeed in the Muslim world? Not counting the cultural left in America, there are two groups that are working overtime to subvert the democratic idea. The first is our enemies, namely the radical Muslims. These Bin Laden types would have an obvious incentive to kill Benazir Bhutto, and not surprisingly Musharraf has accused them of being the perpetrators of Bhutto's assassination. If Musharraf is right, the radicals did it in order to subvert the January election, destabilize Musharraf, and sow the seeds of chaos from which an extremist takeover becomes possible. This would be a nightmare prospect for the United States.

A second possibility is that Musharraf is himself behind the murder. After all, there is a second group that doesn't want democracy to work for Muslims. These are the secular despots who are allied with the United States. These thugs appeal for U.S. support basically by saying, "We are corrupt goons, but what is the alternative? Would you rather have the Bin Laden guys in power?" And typically the Americans heave a sigh and continue supporting what is perceived as the lesser evil.

Although Musharraf is no friend of democracy, and is hardly above wiping out one of the main opposition leaders, in this case it seems rather unlikely that he would be the culprit. The reason is that Musharraf runs the obvious risk that he would be blamed for the assassination, and now there are rioting crowds in Pakistan who are pointing the finger precisely in his direction. Also Musharraf gains from national stability, which has in the past allowed him to repel his opponents both from the democratic camp (such as Nawaz Sharif and Bhutto) as well as the Islamic radicals who sometimes use the language of democracy but seek to establish a Taliban-style government in Islamabad.

Who, then, is most likely behind the Bhutto assassination? Somewhere, I suspect, the Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders are smiling, having done it again through the mechanism of their suicide squads. And once again America is in a very awkward situation, having no choice now but to support Musharraf while quietly preparing for the possibility that his reign may come to an abrupt end.

Jon Stewart sometimes interviews the most fascinating people, here is a long list of authors Jon has Interviewed. Last night he spoke with late Benazir Bhutto's close friend and speechwriter Mark Siegel about the latest Benazir Bhutto novel.

Bhutto's cause of death disputed - BBC - Dec 29th 2007

Benazir Bhutto's supporters say the Pakistani government's account of how she died is "dangerous nonsense". A government spokesman said her head was slammed against her vehicle by the blast from a bomb - but colleagues said she died from bullet wounds...Read More BBC...

This is breaking news, and I'm positive that the rolling news stations are all over it right now. Two bombs went off in the crowded streets of Karachi and the BBC reports that more than 100 people are certainly dead. Here is some of the early raw images of the disaster provided by the AP.

Just yesterday Sky News provided this report about Bemazir Bhutto's return to Pakistan, which offers a little bit of background and may go a long way in understanding the political climate in Pakistan.

It appears Muslim fundamentalists just assassinated Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan. It is not entirely clear they were responsible however. Not only was there a bombing (usual trademark of fundamentalist attacks), but Bhutto was also shot. So, it could be some other forces in Pakistan who were opposed to the former Prime Minister, including the government of Pervez Musharraf (after the assassination, Bhutto supporters were chanting, "Dog, Musharraf, Dog.").

If it was religious fundamentalists, it wouldn't be the first time. It would be about the one billionth time religious folks have resorted to violence to settle disputes. And they usually kill people trying to bring peace or empower others. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was killed by a Muslim fundamentalist for making peace with Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was killed by a Jewish fundamentalist for trying to make peace with the Palestinians. While Christian fundamentalists are busy trying to create the next Armageddon so we can all die. What a pleasant lot.

Why do they do this? Because they're supposed to. Read the Bible, the Torah and the Koran. They are all full of violent, bloody fantasies that teach you over and over to kill your enemies. Christians love to think they are the exception to this rule. They'll say the Old Testament doesn't really apply anymore because the New Testament overruled all the gory, masochists violence of the earlier book. So, then I guess Genesis isn't true either since that's in the Old Testament? Oops.

Then, you'll get the excuse that Jesus was the Prince of Peace. Yeah, I know, that's why in Matthew 10:34 he says, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Sounds down right Christian of him.

A woman wipes away tears while another holds a photo of Pakistan's former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto at an impromptu rally in a Pakistani neighborhood in New York, Thursday, Dec. 27, 2007. (Seth Wenig, AP)

%Gallery-2894%

A Pakistani man sorts potatoes at a market in Karachi Tuesday, Jan. 1, 2008. After days of violence following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, markets and shops have reopened across the city but the unrest has deepened fears that the economy in this deeply impoverished nation will not improve anytime soon. (David Guttenfelder, AP)

%Gallery-2894%

On the PBS NewsHour from Friday, December 28, the political round table discussion touched on the reaction of the Presidential candidates to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan. David Brooks, New York Times columnist and conservative political pundit, stated that four candidates "addressed" the difficult issue: Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Fred Thompson and John McCain. He then listed the candidates who handled the subject poorly, or "sidestepped" the issue: John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. "Most of the candidates," he said, "and most notably Clinton, have punted on [it]."

So what happened between Friday and Sunday?

Two injured men's limbs touch as they lie wounded in a hospital October 19, 2007 in Karachi, Pakistan. Over one hundred people are reported dead with many more injured after an apparent suicide car bomb blast was detonated near a vehicle carrying former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto during a homecoming parade. Hundreds of thousands of people turned out to greet the former Prime Minister after her return from eight years of self imposed exile. (Daniel Berehulak, Getty Images)

%Gallery-2894%

Abdel Bari Atwan, the editor of Al-Quds Al-Arabi, based in London, has reported extensively on Islam and Islamic radicalism. He is one of the few people who has actually interviewed Bin Laden. His new book The Secret History of Al Qaeda is, in the words of terrorism expert Peter Bergen, "deeply researched, well-reported, and full of interesting and surprising analyses."

Atwan writes that "to lessen the power and range of Al Qaeda it is necessary to dry the wellsrings of recruitment by tackling the root causes of disaffection, dissatisfaction and the massive amount of hatred the U.S. has managed to generate." The two reasons Atwan gives for this hatred: "military interventions" and "what Muslims often perceive as (America's) inherently corrupt, greedy and amoral way of life."

He's not the only one to say this. Former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto says, "Within the Muslim world, there is a reaction against the sexual overtones that come across in American mass culture. America is viewed through this prism as an immoral society."

And Bernard Lewis, perhaps the foremost Western authority on Islam, gives in his book The Crisis of Islam the "standard litany of American offenses recited in the lands of Islam" and ends with this one: "Yet the most powerful accusation of all is the degeneracy and debauchery of the American way of life." For Lewis this is not one charge among many that the radical Muslims make but the main one and the most persuasive one.

If I wasn't so modest, I'd say I told you so. For all the hoopla it generated, The Enemy at Home is continually corroborated by ongoing events. I realize of course that some people on the right and the left feel differently. The classical scholar Victor Hanson, author of a recent book on the Peloponnesian war, isn't persuaded. Neither is Alan Wolfe, author of a recent book on religious attitudes in America. By all means read these experts on the topics they actually know about. On Islam, however, it's better to consult the folks who have extensive first-hand experience with Islam or who have taken the trouble to really learn about it: Atwan, Bhutto, Lewis, and (just so you don't forget) me.