I take issue with John f Weldon who points to Musharraf as responsible for Benazirs tragic death.

When he speaks of "allowing it to happen" he betrays a lack of understanding about what kind of society Pakistan is.
A significant portion of society and the prevailing religion there is homicidal, life is held cheap and the fanatics seek to turn back the clock to the seventh century. Apart from the Taleban and Al Qaeda militants, a large part of mainstream Islam in Pakistan is heavily influenced by Saudi Wahhabism. Benazir's main political rival Nawaz Sharif is a Wahhabi and during his time as prime minister ( he was unseated by Musharraf) tried to force Sharia law on Pakistan, which he narrowly failed to do.         

In short, terrorism in such a society is not down to the failure of the military or the police, rather of the Islamic "priesthood" the senior religious scholars and leaders who continually fail to issue binding fatwas against terror killings. In a fanatical climate like this violence then becomes endemic.

As to any posibility that Mushrraf was directly reponsible, in the first place he is himself the survivor of three fullscale terror attacks - he has arrested more al Qaeda suspects than in any other nation on earth; secondly nothing in his personal history would suggest he was or would in any way be complicit with cowardly assassination.Thirdly, as elected president he could have worked with Benazir as prime minister. It is highly unlikely that he could have any dealings with Nawaz Sharif whose main politiacl objective if elected would be to destroy Musharraf who deposed him eight years ago.

Musharraf with his instincts to modernise and secularise Pakistan, as Kemal Atataurk did ninety years ago in Turkey, remains the best hope for his nation, and remembering this is a nuclear armed nation,it involves the world.