Via Glenn Reynolds, John Podhoretz reflects on the political implications of the Bhutto assassination:

American politics would dearly love to take a holiday from history, just as it did in the 1990s. But our enemies are not going to allow us to do so. The murder of Bhutto moves foreign policy, the war on terror, and the threat of Islamofascism back into the center of the 2008 campaign. How candidates respond to it, and issues like it that will come up in the next 10 months, will determine whether they are fit for the presidency.

Hey, I’d like to take a holiday from blogging, because there’s no way to keep up with the relentless pace of current events during the holiday crunch. Perhaps that means I should take a holiday from the holiday.
I’ve remarked before about the clever way the Democrats appeal to the voters’ desire to change the channel (from “war” to “peace”) — as if voting is like hitting a TV remote.
Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, such an approach might just work.
Infuriating as it is for me to admit this, blogging can, in its own way, operate as a TV remote. Yesterday, for example, I spent hours researching and attempting to analyze the fatal tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo. It seemed that I was at war with the facts, but the facts were at war with themselves, as they kept changing. First the wall was 18 feet high and impossible for a tiger to jump. Later, the same zoo director who said the wall was 18 feet high admitted it was just over 12 feet, and denied making other statements he was quoted making. There was a disappearing shoe, disappearing blood, conflicting accounts, allegations the tiger had been provoked, a possible “copycat” incident at another zoo, and an infuriating silence by the two survivors of the attack, who it now appears lied to the dead boy’s father and have police records. The zoo appears to have been negligent, and to have a lousy director. Beyond that, there’s still no way to know what happened. The “news” is a shifting pile of sand. (Just skim my humongous post and useless speculations and see.)
In terms of importance, a tiger attack in a zoo is nothing compared to the assassination of a major opposition figure in the most troublesome area of the world. Yet my uncontrollable need to know what happened took over, as I cannot stand it when the facts are murky. This is why I’m not inclined towards war blogging. I like to figure things out, and when I can’t, or when the facts change, I feel as if I am spinning my wheels.
Not that I can add anything to the innumerable observations which have already been made about the Bhutto assassination. That vicious Islamists killed her is no more surprising than the fact that a vicious tiger will attack.
Being prepared is what it’s all about, not changing to the peace channel.
That the tiger may have been provoked by juvenile delinquents is secondary to the inherent danger posed by poor zoo security which could have prevented even a vengeful tiger from attacking.
Letting down defenses against enemies has far worse consequences.
UPDATE: Ann Althouse has eased my guilt:

it is worth analyzing the campaign commercials — even on the day Benazir Bhutto died.

(But bear in mind that the campaign commercials may have a more lasting national effect than a tiger attack in a zoo.)