See I disagree.
Theres more credibility behind the idea that the:
1. the USA Knew pakistan was harboring OBL
2. Went in and killed UBL
3. Pakistan got MAD at the fact we killed their dude (if you remember)
4. We eventually get info saying that Paki leaders knew where OBL was
than to assert that Bhutto:
1. exposed that OBL was dead and was killed for exposing this.
Bhutto had a lot of reasons to be targeted...exposing the supposed death of a terrorist doesn't make much sense because then you're left filling in:
1. why would the USA simultaneously say they killed someone who pakistan claimed to be harboring when the USA is against what pakistan was doing???
That makes no sense.
So a story made up of men going into a compound killing OBL in Pakistan without no verification of a body or DNA samples or anything is more credible?
1. U.S. knew OBL was dead a long time ago. Man had a kidney disease and yet he survived with that for 11 years?
2. The going in was suspect from the get go. U.S. claim one of their helicopters was shot down by a RPG and yet there is no evidence of that but a piece of the tail end...

3. Pakistan got mad because U.S. had no authorization to be in Islamabad doing missions without approval from Pakistan.
4. You got info from the U.S. that they knew...not from Pakistan. Anyone can make that story-up
5A. What makes a better story-line... U.S. seeking revenge on OBL and they kill him or OBL dies by Omak Shiek or kidney disease in Bora Bora.?
You are smarter than this kid....Why would the U.S. kill an asset to the War on Terror? His family is connected to the Bush Family and the Caryle Group.