I realize that only U.S. readers (and, apparently, not those U.S. citizens who are of South Asian descent) read Salon.com, but the tone of the letters is just offensive. Ignore Bush, the war on terror, the role of Pakistan...etc.

MOURN THE DEATH OF AN AMAZING WOMAN, a role model for South Asia, a daughter of the Subcontinent.

Wrap your brains around the fact that she was the first of many female heads of state in various Muslim nations. Read some articles about the life of this resilient woman before you post.

This is not about Islamic fundamentalism (remember, Indira and Rajiv Gandhis were also assassinated, as as Zia-ul Haque...and numerous others heads of state). THIS IS NOT ABOUT the United States.

Benazir's death is about our--South Asia's--loss of a beloved daughter.

Can most of you responding be less self-centered and mind-bogglingly myopic?

Benazir: We loved you. We love you.

My point was that Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nepal, and most of the world actually operate independently of the United States. I understand that your understanding of this situation is defined by your experiences, but if your experiences can only allow you to see the world through the prism of the U.S., then it is time to expand your experiences.

Most of the letters in response to this sad and dark episode in Pakistan's history are focused on George Bush and the war on terror. I find that deeply offensive, and the letters are typical of the way most U.S. citizens reduce other nations and its people to (self-serving) caricatures.

Pakistan's history--like that of many postcolonial nations throughout Africa and South Asia--has been bloody and brutal, especially as it, like many nations, has been trying to regain its national identity.

To reduce Benazir's death to the war on terror ignores 99% of South Asian politics, most of which has nothing to do with the United States or the current supposed war on terror (I know, isn't that a novel concept). For example, Indira Gandhi and her son were both assassinated (and they were HINDU and from India, killed by Sikh extremists).

Benazir's death is a brutal blow to those of us from the subcontinent because we are personally invested in the development and success of our nations, for our nations' sake. Benazir's legacy--like that of Jinnah (the founder of Pakistan in 1947) and of her father (Zulfikar Ali Bhutto), and like that of the Gandhi family (India), and like that of Mujibur Rahman (founder of Bangladesh, who was also assassinated)--exists above and beyond the war on terror. The States, quite honestly, is irrelevant to most of us, except for when it is trying to shock and awe us.

To ONLY see our rich subcontinent history from behind the lens of Islamic fundamentalism (a vacuous phrase) or the U.S. war on terror (which assumes that the world came into existence after 9/11--which for many Americans is true) demeans Benazir's life. It demeans our South Asian heritage. And it demonstrates the unbelievably arrogant ignorance that is the trademark of U.S. citizens.

jhudson, I appreciate your honesty: The issues and players are indeed muddled for those unfamiliar with South Asian history and politics.

In my original response, I attempted to point out the "Orientalist" approach inherent in many of the readers' comments here. Orientalism is a view point where an OTHER (Benazir, in this case) can only exist because of a SELF (the U.S., in this case). In my original post I was pointing out that the "Other" actually exists irrespective of the "Self."

I understand that information about other nations is limited in the States. But when you have access to the internet, you really are not bound by the U.S. media. Read newspapers online from Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, etc. Read about Benazir's life. Read about the history of the subcontinent.

Tonight I am weeping for my--and our South Asian--heritage. Tonight, I, like many, many others throughout the world, mourn all that Benazir represented for us. She existed and exists for us. As a global citizen, I ask that we mourn the loss of this amazing human being.

Let's not reduce her to a cardboard cutout.

Let's not respond to this dark episode with hackneyed (and not even half-baked) platitudes about "war on terror."

Benazir: May your soul rest in peace. You are now, at long last, reunited with your father.

Please read the entire article on NYT web page, everyone.

The main story is NOT about infidelity or romances (who cares about that) but is about McCain's long standing close ties to and with lobbyists. As early as last year he was enjoying perks from lobbyists.

What is terrifying is how he himself has gone around the very anti-special interest bill that he and Feingold crafted. I don't care if he romanced a blond 40-year old. I do care if he is this solidly in bed with lobbyists.

I find it distasteful that he has been strong arming NUT for over three months now into not pursuing or publishing this article. The article is well researched and is NOT an ordinary smear campaign.

Sigh. And I admired this man.

I think the NYT article is well written and with the RIGHT focus. It is NOT about McCain's possible romantic dalliance (God, did I just use that word; how 1920s). IT IS ABOUT THE FAVORS McCAIN DOES AND HAS BEEN DOING FOR SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS AND LOBBYISTS.

It is about what a sell out he is.

Here is McCain pushing the possible Democrat nominee for public funding campaign, while he takes favors and soft money under the table.

I am tired of these narcissistic politicians who are playing with our futures.

Btw, does anyone know how much AIPAC has given Hillary Clinton? There is so much "Israel for Hillary" posts on the web, blogs, and viral sites, I am wondering how many delegates Israel holds.

Hey, while you are at it, can you also explain what "is" is?