Obama Adviser: Bhutto Assassination Reminds Us That Hillary Made Wrong Call On Iraq War
Okay, the battling among Dems over how the Bhutto assassination will affect the Dem primary is officially underway. Today after Barack Obama's closing argument speech in Iowa, Obama adviser David Axelrod parried questions from reporters who pressed him on whether the killing could help Hillary.
Here's one key exchange:
REPORTER: But looking ahead, does the assassination put on the front burner foreign policy credentials in the closing days?AXELROD: Well, it puts on the table foreign policy judgment, and that's a discussion we welcome. Barack Obama had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq, and he warned at the time it would divert us from Afghanistan and al Qaeda, and now we see the effect of that. Al Qaeda's resurgent, they're a powerful force now in Pakistan, they may have been involved -- we've been here, so I don't know whether the news has been updated, but there's a suspicion they may have been involved in this.
I think his judgment was good. Senator Clinton made a different judgment, so let's have that discussion.
Late Update: Ben Smith offers a bit of analysis of the exchange.
Late Late Update: The Hillary campaign has now responded, accusing Axelrod of "politicizing" the situation. From Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer:
"This is a time to be focused on the tragedy of the situation, its implications for the U.S. and the world, and to be concerned for the people of Pakistan and the country’s stability. No one should be politicizing this situation with baseless allegations."
Still Later Update: In light of today's events, take a look at this mindless episode of Hardball from last night, where the assembled pundits obsessed over Hillary's voice.
Comments (153)
freaktown wrote on December 27, 2007 2:57 PM:i think the header is a bit misleading.
He was respinding to a question about foreign policy. And you can't talk about foreign policy without talking about iraq.
mkolb wrote on December 27, 2007 2:58 PM:Well, that was a pretty tacky question and an even tackier response.
Keith wrote on December 27, 2007 2:59 PM:Greg:
Um, that's not analysis by Ben Smith; that's poor editorializing.
mkolb wrote on December 27, 2007 3:00 PM:I take it back - I misread the question, but it was still a tacky response.
Aimey Mays wrote on December 27, 2007 3:03 PM:AXELROD:
--- Does this many have an ounce of decency? He's taking advantage of the death of Bhutto? How has a vote against Iraq could have stopped her dealth? Axelrod, you should be ashame of yourself for this kind of political expediency.
BluePuppy wrote on December 27, 2007 3:06 PM:Pathetic. They know that this makes Obama look like a political pygmy. He's not up to the job.
YY wrote on December 27, 2007 3:08 PM:Oh come on, Axelrod -- that was really transparent.
Don't take advantage of Bhutto's death as an opportunity to criticize Clinton. I think that was a bit of a stretch, and in poor taste.
Tom wrote on December 27, 2007 3:08 PM:Obama's just trying to hide the fact that he was partially to blame for this when he started talking tough about invading Pakistan. That riled up the locals and directly led to today's sad events. Notice that Axelrod completely ignores the judgement Obama displayed in that instance.
Lis wrote on December 27, 2007 3:10 PM:This from AP this morning:
At a high school in Lawton, Iowa, on Thursday, Clinton said she had come to know Bhutto during the former prime minister's years in office and her time in exile and was "profoundly saddened and outraged" by the assassination.
In a world of such violence and threats, Clinton said, "it certainly raises the stakes high for what we expect from our next president. I know from a lifetime of working to make change."
Is she stumping, or sympathizing? And you call Obama craven?
"That riled up the locals and directly led to today's sad events."
Back it up with some evidence, you lying scumbag.
willyjsimmons wrote on December 27, 2007 3:12 PM:TPM on Clinton overload today huh?
Dayum!
Take a smoke break, or something.
LOL
bp wrote on December 27, 2007 3:14 PM:It says something about the stupid people who are in all campaign teams that the brutal death of a foreign politician is fodder for making a point. Axelrod is no better than Wolfson or Bonior. Seeing this through the US prism is the problem. Pakistanis don't give a toss what the candidates say. And, after taking our money, they know us for the gullible fools we are. We cannot buy our security by buying off foreign leaders.
Dawn wrote on December 27, 2007 3:14 PM:Clinton's team was the first to politicize this. Evan Bah said that today's events demonstrate the importance of having Hillary Clinton as President.
Tom wrote on December 27, 2007 3:14 PM:By the way, it looks like the Clinton campaign is also trying to argue that this helps them:
"Tragedies like this one are reminders that we need someone with the seasoning and the experience and strength to be Commander in Chief during uncertain times."
This appears to be what the media is trying to spin it as.
The only person not spinning is John Edwards, who was less focused on politics than on the fact that someone died today.
Michael A wrote on December 27, 2007 3:16 PM:Thanks lis, you knew she would say something like that. I'm surprised that she didn't throw in 9/11 as well.
willyjsimmons wrote on December 27, 2007 3:18 PM:'Seeing this through the US prism is the problem.'
American Exceptionalism.
Not going away either.
Arthur Silber has some excellent essays on that an various other related topics.
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/
Aimey Mays wrote on December 27, 2007 3:21 PM:It is totally legitimate to say this is a dangerous world out there. It is perfectly legitimate saying Mrs. Cliton knows Bhutto personally, which is a part of her foreign policy experience, like Obama's living in Indonesia as a six-year old. But somehow you manage to connect her death with Iraq vote? How much more you can stretch? A majority of Americans would have voted for war based on the information available. Obama does not need any of their votes?
frankly0 wrote on December 27, 2007 3:23 PM:Well, it's interesting to see what Hillary had to say to the following question from Katie Couric:
"Couric: What country frightens you the most, and what would you do about it as president?
Clinton: Well, right now I am most worried about Pakistan. I think Pakistan is very unstable. I believe President Musharraf has failed to deliver on either democracy or a rising standard of living for his people. You know, democracy has to be carefully nurtured, it has to be understood, and he hasn't done that. And, unfortunately, now he's a sort of basically one person rule, and [has] imprisoned his opposition and, basically, I think, turned his back on democracy."
When asked the same question by Couric, Obama answered that Iran was the country he feared most.
slb wrote on December 27, 2007 3:24 PM:Obama seems to be taking a page right out of the Republican play book: Whenever something bad happens, blame Clinton.
So much for a new kind of politics.
gawd wrote on December 27, 2007 3:34 PM:Go, Edwards!
Pete wrote on December 27, 2007 3:36 PM:YY and Tom
You guys have no idea what Axlerod talking about. If Hillry wasn't going to vote to for Iraq war, by this time Pakistan with not be in this kind of danger we're now seeing.Our focus gonna be in Aganistan.
roo_P wrote on December 27, 2007 3:38 PM:Aimey Mays,
I rather incredulously read your comment twice. Really, either one is "taking advantage" or neither is.
Whether either is in fact a valid line of reasoning is a separate matter and we should remember that at least Axelrod was specifically asked about the issue and from what I can tell, Bayh was in a similar situation.
If we consider the full premises of the question (it is rather disingenuous to pretend that these were asked in a vacuum), both answers are equally valid and the only differences between the two are the relative merits thereof.
Seriously, that headline has to be one of the most misleading TPM has posted during this campaign. Axelrod was asked if this brings foreign policy credentials back to the front burner, which is something Clinton's campaign already suggested. Axelrod responded that it brings foreign policy judgment back in front, and drew the same distinction between Obama and Clinton that Obama's campaign has been making over the past few months.
Anyone who reads the actual exchange and decides to sum it up as "Bhutto Assassination Reminds Us That Hillary Made Wrong Call On Iraq War" either has reading comprehension issues or an agenda.
roo_P wrote on December 27, 2007 3:41 PM:Tom,
Your assertion is ludicrous and, unsurprisingly, not backed by any proof on your side. To me, it appears that your grasp of the political situation in Pakistan is rather weak.
The assassination was most likely carried out with at least the blessing of Musharraf.
Aaron M wrote on December 27, 2007 3:46 PM:First, I agree with "freakout" above that the TPM EC's headline is a bit misleading. Axelrod was asked a specific policy-related question, and he answered it; and the point he raises regarding the Iraq War, who voted for it and who did not, and how that war has impacted the region (and Pakistan in particular) is a fair one.
I also think Sen. Clinton is acting fairly by making the argument that has the "experience" and "strength" that the country needs during dangerous times.
It is up to the individual voter to determine who has made the better argument.
I personally believe that "experience" means little if it does not help you make the right decisions; and Sen. Clinton's decision in 2002 to vote to give President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq was both a terrible and costly one. I also do not associate "strength" simply with one's willingness to use force. It also takes strength, and wisdom, to NOT use force when the best-available evidence and one's judgment both indicate that using force would be counter-productive (with the costs outweighing the benefits).
But again, it is up to the individual voter to listen to each candidate carefully, consider their respective legislative histories, and determine whose argument is the most valid (and persuasive).
'If Hillry wasn't going to vote to for Iraq war, by this time Pakistan with not be in this kind of danger we're now seeing.Our focus gonna be in Aganistan.'
Huh?
I would think Musharraf would still be in power even if we had not invaded Iraq.
He's our 'Partnah in teh war on terrah' afterall.
Let's not conflate the issues.
It in't much of a stretch to posit that Clinton't vote on Iraq went to divert this nation resources away from Afghanistan and Pakistan.
No stretch at all, unfortunately.
Keith wrote on December 27, 2007 3:47 PM:Greg (or someone at TPM):
Your front page link says that Iraq averted attention from Pakistan, which isn't what the quote says. Either the quote is wrong, or the headline is wrong.
"I rather incredulously read your comment twice. Really, either one is "taking advantage" or neither is.
Whether either is in fact a valid line of reasoning is a separate matter and we should remember that at least Axelrod was specifically asked about the issue and from what I can tell, Bayh was in a similar situation.
If we consider the full premises of the question (it is rather disingenuous to pretend that these were asked in a vacuum), both answers are equally valid and the only differences between the two are the relative merits thereof."
There you go, getting all reasonable on us. This is an opportunity to breathlessly slam Obama for either his naivete or his mean streak. Why would TPM pass up such a rich opportunity?
"baseless allegations"?
you mean that hillary was WRONG on Iraq. I think there's a legitimate basis for making that claim.
Hillary camp has been over-reacting to every little thing these days.
They must be worried.
Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 3:50 PM:Who was the reporter who asked the question?
EH wrote on December 27, 2007 3:50 PM:Another day, another TPM comment battle between Obama and Clinton's intern pools.
"Your assertion is ludicrous and, unsurprisingly, not backed by any proof on your side....The assassination was most likely carried out with at least the blessing of Musharraf."
It's been awhile since I've seen abject hypocrisy expressed in such few words. Got a cite for your measurement of Musharraf's involvement?
Melissa wrote on December 27, 2007 3:51 PM:Obama - Not ready for prime time!
roo_P wrote on December 27, 2007 3:55 PM:Greg,
I have to agree here, the headline is pretty bad.
As you probably already know, the entire Clinton blog force is hyperventilating about how Axelrod said that "Hillary killed Bhutto" which is rather far from the truth.
Reading the full transcript is pretty illuminating (as is its complete absence), let me see if I can find a link to it.
john wrote on December 27, 2007 3:55 PM:What Obama team was supposed to do. Stay quiet and let other campaigns with the MSM steamrolled on him with this subject. Joe Scarborough this morning was saying that Bhutto death could be fatal to the Obama Campaign, then it was Evan Bayh stressing the fact that her death highlight the need for someone "ready from day one". The republicans are banking on the return of National security in the presidential debate, with Mc Cain supporters, Rudy and Romney and Podhoretz singing the same old tune of be afraid. Where is the democratic alternative when Hillary is singing the same song. I think that in his speech this morning Senator Obama has laid out a real alternative and I'm than happy to see Alxerod reminds Iowan voters that it is Washington experience that led us to this mess. We are in Iraq fighting an unnecessary war, a war by choice when we should have been in Afghanistan fighting the real war that we have no choice but to fight.
For all those hammering Senator Obama for stating the obvious in the speech gave in August on the war that we must win.
Here is the reaction of the late Benazir Bhutto herself.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmRiNGJjODNmZWZiM2I2NzgwMjE2NGVmOTNlN2YwYjA=
frankly0 wrote on December 27, 2007 3:55 PM:If Obama said that Iran was the country he feared most, and Hillary said that Pakistan was the country she feared most, how does this assassination in Pakistan possibly support the greater vision and judgment of Obama, as opposed to Hillary?
Maybe by ten degrees of separation you can try to connect Hillary's AUMF vote to the assassination in Pakistan, but how do you connect Obama's claim that Iran is the more frightening country to a recognition that Pakistan represents the most volatile and dangerous country in the region?
Don't you think that on this issue, it's Hillary who seems to have been far more prescient?
DTM wrote on December 27, 2007 3:55 PM:Bhutto's assassination is not just a personal tragedy. It is also an event of geopolitical significance.
Accordingly, in my view it is perfectly appropriate for the campaigns to respond to this event.
Tom wrote on December 27, 2007 3:56 PM:- Does this many have an ounce of decency? He's taking advantage of the death of Bhutto? How has a vote against Iraq could have stopped her dealth? Axelrod, you should be ashame of yourself for this kind of political expediency.
Nope, no Blinton or Cush administration spokeswhore would EVER resort to such expediency, no sirrreeeee......
Charles wrote on December 27, 2007 3:56 PM:No need to parse. The US needs a very different foreign policy to protect its interests now and in the future.
There is very little evidence that Hillary Clinton (and those around her) believe that.
Case closed.
willyjsimmons wrote on December 27, 2007 4:00 PM:'It in't much of a stretch to posit that Clinton't vote on Iraq went to divert this nation resources away from Afghanistan and Pakistan.'
We are not running military operations inside Pakistan...
we would NOT be running military operations inside Pakistan had we not invaded Iraq.
So again, please explain how Bhutto's assassination could have been completely avoided had Clinton not placed her single vote on the Iraq AUMF???
Inquiring minds...
Jay wrote on December 27, 2007 4:05 PM:First of all, Axelrod is exploiting the situation -- imagine the media outcry if some local Clinton volunteer made a similar statement! It would be a lead story for a week! But this is the Obama campaign, so it probably won't even be noticed. And Axelrod is Obama's top campaign strategist. Jeesh....
Second: its an outrageous and ridiculous assertion on Axelrod's part, even irresponsible. We have no idea whether al Qaeda is responsible yet, and even if is, how does this show that Obama would have done anything different? How would he deal with Musharref? At least Hillary has long experience building relationships with global leaders, including Bhutto herself. That fact alone cuts through all of the Obama campaign's faulty, negative rhetoric.
freaktown wrote on December 27, 2007 4:05 PM:"So again, please explain how Bhutto's assassination could have been completely avoided had Clinton not placed her single vote on the Iraq AUMF"
It wouldnt have been. Axelrod isn't making that claim.
He's saying the assasination puts foreign policy on the front burner, and that he's perfectly comfortable having that conversation because they are right on foreign policy.
So stop with this "axelrod blames clinton for bhuttos death".
That's not what he said. And no reasonable interpretation can lead you to believe that.
DTM wrote on December 27, 2007 4:08 PM:willyjsimmons,
To improve your understanding of how events involving Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, and Pakistan are interrelated, I suggest you start by googling "Waziristan".
frankly0 wrote on December 27, 2007 4:10 PM:he's perfectly comfortable having that conversation because they are right on foreign policy.
So why did Obama say that he was more frightened of Iran than Pakistan? Why did Hillary say that she was more frightened of Pakistan than Iran?
Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 4:11 PM:from cbs news:
It's worth remembering that Clinton criticized Barack Obama when he suggested earlier this year that the U.S. should use military force to go into the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan if evidence demonstrated that it would aid in the capture of al Qaeda terrorist leaders like Osama bin Laden – with the permission of the current government or not. A position which may have sounded risky at the time may look better after today. Such an action may not have prevented the tragedy but it's clear that Pakistan is a growing problem – and that al Qaeda is a big part of it. Obama can remind voters that he recognized that earlier.
Kind of a BS headline. Also, I don't know if anyone reading this saw Hillary's response to the news this morning, but the self aggrandizement in her response kind of made me cringe.
Hilarious Hillary. wrote on December 27, 2007 4:12 PM:> So again, please explain how Bhutto's assassination could have been completely avoided had Clinton not placed her single vote on the Iraq AUMF???
> this wasn't the point being made. No one said "completely avoided."
roo_P wrote on December 27, 2007 4:13 PM:EH,
The likeliest group to have carried out the assassination is one of the islamic militias (who had previously threatened and attempted to do so) but there has long been talk of ISI being involved in supporting these groups as a part of the comprehensive appeasement approach. Strictly politically speaking this is likely to be a huge benefit to Musharraf (and of course the militant groups due to the policies of the current administration in contrast to what Bhutto's would likely have been.)
frankly0 wrote on December 27, 2007 4:15 PM:Such an action may not have prevented the tragedy but it's clear that Pakistan is a growing problem – and that al Qaeda is a big part of it. Obama can remind voters that he recognized that earlier.
So, again, why, when asked explicitly which country presented a more frightening potential, did Obama NOT choose Pakistan, but chose Iran instead? Why did Hillary choose Pakistan?
freaktown wrote on December 27, 2007 4:15 PM:frankly,
so what? i think its safe to say that just because obama is more worried about iran doesn't mean that he's also not worried about Pakistan.
the two aren't mutually exclusive. It's not one or the other. in a situation like this, i think its probably both.
And if hillary wasn't worried about Iran, why did she vote for Kyl-lieberman?
See....it can go both ways.
Aaron M wrote on December 27, 2007 4:15 PM:Keith:
You said that "front page link says that Iraq averted attention from Pakistan, which isn't what the quote says. Either the quote is wrong, or the headline is wrong."
But this is, I believe, what Mr. Axelrod essentially saying, as he was quoted:
"Barack Obama had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq, and he warned at the time IT WOULD DIVERT US from Afghanistan and al Qaeda, and now we see the effect of that. Al Qaeda's RESURGENT, they're a powerful force NOW IN PAKISTAN, they may have been involved -- we've been here, so I don't know whether the news has been updated, but there's a suspicion they may have been involved in this. (CAPS mine)
This is, I think, a very straightforward and valid argument to make; and it is actually just one part of a larger argument that Obama has been making over the past year regarding "judgment" versus "experience" and what kind of experience matters most.
One does not have to agree with the argument, but I think it is a legitimate one to make.
Sen. Clinton has been largely successful in getting people to look past her 2002 vote to give the President the authority to go to war with Iraq. However, that does not change the fact that that war has had (and continues to have) disasterous consequences; many of them predicted beforehand by people such as Jim Webb, Al Gore, Brent Scowcroft, and yes, Barack Obama.
The prediction that a war in Iraq would divert our resources away from our fight against Al Qaeda and other terror groups (that have used Pakistan as a hiding place and staging area to launch attacks into Afghanistan) was just one of the potential outcomes that should have been considered before any Senator voted to give the President the authority to go to war in Iraq.
frankly0,
I do not recall that exchange, please cite.
Hilarious Hillary. wrote on December 27, 2007 4:16 PM:"Hillary killed Bhutto"
Hahaha; this is kinda hilarious. Not a dull moment.
kozmik wrote on December 27, 2007 4:18 PM:Hillary is always good for a laugh, or perhaps a cackle at least.
She is accusing Obama of "politicizing" the assassination of the moderate democratic reformist leader of Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons that has become the main haven for AQ, that is currently run by a military dictator we're supporting, who has betrayed us repeatedly.
Right, I can't imagine why Obama might think our national security and Pakistan's relation to it, might be a legitimate political issue. It especially can;t be important considering Obama and Hillary already sparred over Pakistan policy once, which Obama won hands down.
For anyone who missed it:
Obama: if he had actionable intelligence on ObL's location in Pakistan's mountainous regions, and if Musharraf refused to cooperate, Obama would consider a precision strike as an option of last resort to get/kill ObL and top AQ leadership. He would not consider nuclear strikes for that purpose however.
Hillary: in the same scenario, she would not go after ObL in Pakistan under any circumstances, supposedly out of concern for stability, however, she would also keep the use of nuclear weapons "on the table" for the same scenario.
Foreign Policy experts:
Even limited use of American force in Pakistan would create political problems, but it has already been done with Musharraf's cooperation previously, and for such a high value target as ObL it could be worth it, though great caution is required.
Score a point for Obama.
Nuclear weapons are never "on the table" for such a scenario. The military would probably refuse her order if she was crazy enough to request a tactical nuclear strike on Pakistan for such a goal. And that a nuclear strike absolutely would destabilize not only Pakistan, and put it's nuclear arms in jeopardy of use, but the world, and result in massive and global nuclear proliferation.
Score -1,000,000 points for Hillary.
Experience? She's an experienced BS'er maybe.
frankly0 wrote on December 27, 2007 4:18 PM:What Countries do Candidates Fear Most?
csdiego wrote on December 27, 2007 4:19 PM:"Clinton said she had come to know Bhutto during the former prime minister's years in office and her time in exile"
Senator, you're no Benazir Bhutto.
It still cracks me up that Hillary tries to make her stint as First Lady count as political experience. Not only that, but she makes it a primary selling point.
As a Democratic woman, I'd love to vote for an inspiring Democratic female candidate. Hillary ain't it.
steve wrote on December 27, 2007 4:21 PM:Freaktown at 4:05 has it right. So does DTM.
Keith wrote on December 27, 2007 4:23 PM:Aaron M:
Um, I was just alerting TPM to the discrepancy between what the front page said and the quote they have posted above (which they've since corrected). I do understand the point Axelrod is making here, but thanks for restating it again for others.
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars."
Oh, and it's never been the policy to talk of keeping tactical nuclear strikes "on the table" except by Neocon and other wing nuts in the furthest right corner of vulcans.
In fact, the hub of our entire nuclear deterrence and anti-proliferation efforts is the promise that other countries don't need nukes becasue we don't, and never will, launch a tactical nuclear strike, and only have nukes for deterrence purpose.
Hillary even talking about keeping a tactical nuclear option "on the table" to go after AQ in Pakistan, just shows how clueless she is, and can't fake experience or judgemnt.
paDem wrote on December 27, 2007 4:28 PM:Obama's assertion a few months ago about going after bin Laden in the mountainous wilderness on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border did NOT lead directly to the assassination today of Bhutto.
" Tom wrote on December 27, 2007 3:08 PM:
Obama's just trying to hide the fact that he was partially to blame for this when he started talking tough about invading Pakistan. That riled up the locals and directly led to today's sad events. Notice that Axelrod completely ignores the judgement Obama displayed in that instance."
An assertion like this is not only ignorant, it's inflamatory and highly suspect.
In fact, the Taliban is resurrgent across the whole of the Northwest Frontier precisely because Bush took his eye off the ball and didnt' finish the job in Afghanastan, and Hillary and the others in Congress enabled this by voting to authorize the war on Iraq. It's clear as the nose on your face, unless, like your candidate, you want to fuzz over the facts to make them fit your prejudices.
There is heavy fighting going on right now in a wide area of the frontier provinces, and people are dying because they're fighting to keep the Taliban from taking over.
I don't suppose any of you would like to argue that this is Obama's fault, too, would you? I can make the argument that this is at least partly the fault of the Bush Neocons and their enablers in Congress, like Hillary, who walked away from finishing off the Taliban and allowing this to happen.
For some one the scene reporting from Pakistan, go read this report at the Frontier Post
http://www.thefrontierpost.com/News.aspx?ncat=ts&nid=696
Remember, English is not the writer's first language.
Bhutto's assassination was just another move in the deadly chess game, and had nothing to do with Obama.
kozmik wrote on December 27, 2007 4:30 PM:"It still cracks me up that Hillary tries to make her stint as First Lady count as political experience."
No kidding. Princess Di for President.
frankly0 wrote on December 27, 2007 4:33 PM:It's interesting that Biden, old foreign policy hand, likewise chose Pakistan as the country that he feared most.
It seems pretty fair to say that when it comes to making predictions about dangerous instability, Hillary and Biden got it right this time.
Others, not so much.
roo_P wrote on December 27, 2007 4:36 PM:frankly0,
Thanks for the link! The question did actually elicit some fairly good answers from the candidates and I had not seen it before. Biden and Clinton fell on Pakistan's side whereas Richardson and Obama went for Iran. Curiously, Obama's reasoning is more suited to a question of where he sees foreign policy focus should go rather than "fear." Only time will tell who was correct in their assessment.
I must mention, though, that Obama also said this right in that same query:
Now, I know you asked about one, but I actually think the situation in Pakistan right now, in some ways, may be even more volatile.CalD wrote on December 27, 2007 4:38 PM:
No surprises here. Axelrod must have all but shat himself when he saw the headlines this morning.
kozmik wrote on December 27, 2007 4:39 PM:paDem,
Tom is some kind of goof ball with no idea what he's talking about.
Bhutto was assassinated becasue she returned to the country and has been recently from exile, and has been campaigning for reform, and there has already been under house arrest and threatened.
The Taliban are thriving in Pakistan in large part becasue Musharraf is weak. Being a dictator, he lacks the political support of reformists and the educated moderates or the general public. And he's also hated by the fundamentalists in the hills. His military support is also unreliable, especially considering how weak he is elsewhere.
We should have given more support to moderates in Pakistan long ago, the only group which can govern effectively, and is in our interest. Or we should have just left it alone entirely. But continuing to back a weak dictator is the worst of all worlds in a real politik sense, and in regards to soft power and cultivating moderation.
freaktown wrote on December 27, 2007 4:42 PM:Frankly0,
i'm not sure i buy your premise.
bhutto gets assainatted and that makes pakistan the most dangerous country in the world?
What if the prime minister of Canada got whacked?
Would Canada then be the most dangerous country in the world?
Of course not.
Is pakistan a hot-spot. Yes. is it dangerous yes.
but i don't think its any more or any less dangerous today than it was yesterday.
And i don't think it in any way proves one candidate is more right than another.
Again, i ask my question that you either didn't see or didn't want to answer.
If hillary thought pakistan was more dangerous than Iran, why did she vote for Kyl-Lieberman??
But I stand by what i wrote earlier, in that just because one worries about iran doesn't mean they can't also worry about pakistan.
frankly0,
That said, I reject your premise that this somehow validates the predictions of the two versus the others (and I think that the candidates would agree.) This is, in the scale of things, a minor event although certainly illustrative of a trend. In the name of political expediency it would be fun to pretend otherwise but that type of assessment is not realistic.
Michael wrote on December 27, 2007 4:43 PM:Based on the majority of the comments posted here, I would guess that most posters are either Hilary or Obama supporters and so start with a totally skewed view of what the underlying issue, the death of Bhutto means for the U.S. The fact is, George Bush took the US's eye off the terrorist ball when he diverted our country's attention toweard Iraq. He continues to pore tens of billions of dollars into Pakistan that has been used to beef up against a future fight with India. This is no way helped beat down terrorism.
George Bush and his poorly executed planned and executed foreign policy need to be kept in focus through the dark days ahead for Pakistan.
If I had a choice between a candidate that helped to support Bush in these decisions, or one that wants a completely different course, I would chose the latter.
The Democrats do not need to be like Republicans, they need to be different.
Chainsaw wrote on December 27, 2007 4:44 PM:I don't get the notion that Hil is so experienced. She may have chatted it up with foreign leaders during Bill's tenure, worked on a failed healthcare program, and watched Bill in action, but how exactly is she so much more equipped to make crucial decisions than anyone else? When the onus is on you, it's a different ballgame. However, as the candidate, at least no one would question her military experience.
Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 4:51 PM:"The fact is, George Bush took the US's eye off the terrorist ball when he diverted our country's attention toweard Iraq. "
The fact is Hillary helped enable that, and has endorsed policies that echo Bush's Pakistan policy, which has been a disaster.
I think they both got their polices from "real politik for dummies" beltway cliffnotes edition.
Also, the fact is Hillary already attacked Obama once for pointing out the flaws in Bush's FP and pointing out how he'd do differently, as mentioned above, while Hillary echoed Bush's policy.
kozmik wrote on December 27, 2007 4:53 PM:"I don't get the notion that Hil is so experienced. She may have chatted it up with foreign leaders during Bill's tenure"
Right. I'm certainly not looking forward to trying to defend her "experience" against attacks from a Republican candidate, when she gave someone a wreath on a one day trip or something.
BernieO wrote on December 27, 2007 4:53 PM:I thought Obama's big appeal was that he was going to get away from the usual political carping and stay above the fray. Blaming Bhutto's assassination in part on Hillary is pretty slimy.
frankly0 wrote on December 27, 2007 4:54 PM:I reject your premise that this somehow validates the predictions of the two versus the others (and I think that the candidates would agree.) This is, in the scale of things, a minor event
roo_P,
I don't see why the candidates would agree to that. And I certainly don't see that this is a "minor event" -- remember, Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons. If the government in Pakistan is overthrown, perhaps due to repurcussions from this assassination, it's well known that some very ugly, vehemently anti-American forces might in principle rise to power.
THAT is a truly dangerous and frightening prospect. It's exactly what is feared only potentially with regard to Iran -- but many, many years down the line in the case of Iran.
patchwork wrote on December 27, 2007 4:58 PM:Yeah, Hillary Clinton has great vision on Pakistan. Just like she had the great vision on Iraq--not. 3,900 Americans now dead. Has she contemplated the results of her vote to invade Iraq? I doubt it. Spouting off on how she met Bhutto, is taking advantage of the assissination. She and she alone can determine because she had the "experience" of meeting Bhutto. I knew she would take that tack.
How about the Iraq war vote, Hillary? Bhutto's return was on the advice of Condi Rice. Have you also talked with Condi Rice? A woman, who some think has a bit of a shady past, returns to Pakistan to seek political office. She gets shot dead, and not the first time an assissination threat happened to her. Did you, Hillary, counsel this woman,with whom you established a friendship, warn her? Or did you warn Condi about the stupidity of her counsel to Bhutto>
Feh, Clinton is feeding off the assissination of Bhutto.
Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 4:59 PM:BernieO wrote on December 27, 2007 4:53 PM:
"Blaming Bhutto's assassination in part on Hillary is pretty slimy."
Which he never did. You claiming he did, is a simplistic smear, and that is slimy.
What his campaign did say is that different FP decisions could have increased the probability of preventing this. Also, Bush's Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq policies have been awful and taken thier eye off the ball, which has bogged us down in Iraq while neglecting Afghanistan and the Taliban in Pakistan.
Also, that Hillary has helped enable them by her votes and has even echoed Bush's existing Pakistan policies.
All of which is fair and precise crtiicism.
Metacomet wrote on December 27, 2007 5:02 PM:No surprise from the Clinton camp here.
Just as the Bush operatives have been doing this entire decade, sidestep responsibility for your errors and substiture some high sounding gibberish to avoid the consequences of yout stupidity.
Merely adds credence to the argument that a Clinton administration would merely continue the nonsense in a slightly different flavor.
willyjsimmons wrote on December 27, 2007 5:03 PM:'If Hillry wasn't going to vote to for Iraq war, by this time Pakistan with not be in this kind of danger we're now seeing.Our focus gonna be in Aganistan.'
That is what I was initially responding to...
the idea that somehow Clinton's Iraq AUMF vote has anything to do with the internal political situation inside Pakistan that resulted in Bhutto's assassination...
which it doesn't.
So again...anti-terrorism activities in Afghanistan (where our troops would be if not in Iraq) have little if nothing to do with the political realities in Pakistan.
willyjsimmons wrote on December 27, 2007 5:06 PM:'If I had a choice between a candidate that helped to support Bush in these decisions'
Which is why I'm for Gravel...
paDem wrote on December 27, 2007 5:08 PM:Foreign policy decisions and judgements have consequences. The events in Pakistan will bring the Iraq war back to the front burner in the closing days of the Iowa campaign, and it's important to keep pointing out that we have a very clear choice between two leading candidates (and some that aren't in the top tier) who actively supported Bush's boneheaded decision to invade Iraq and leave the Taliban to recover in Afghanistan. And one who didn't.
I wasn't an Obama supporter until I saw the quality of his judgement, especially compared with the abysmal judgement of Hillary and Edwards in this arena.
Pakistan is overwhelmingly moderate and secular, but it is being governed by a military dictator who is weak, as another poster said above. We've been pumping massive aid to prop him up, but according to friends who live in the Kurram agency, his weakness means that the government cannot, or will not, use all that aid to move in to support tribal and village leaders who are, this very moment, engaged in a shooting war with Taliban invaders sweeping down from their bases in teh border regions.
What we do next is unclear, but we are in danger of losing Pakistan, and it is my opinion that the blame for this can be laid mostly at Bush's feet, but also at those who helped him lead us off the cliffr.
kozmik wrote on December 27, 2007 5:09 PM:patchwork wrote on December 27, 2007 4:58 PM:
Bhutto's return could have been a good thing if Musharraff was heavily pressured to protect her by threatening his military aid.
But regardless, as tragic as Bhutto's death is, she'll certainly become a martyr for her moderate reformist party, and giving them more support is in our interest. We should make our military aid contingent on continued reform, as the moderates are the only group capable of popular rule, and capable of cracking down on the Taliban, so long as the military can also be controlled by carrots and sticks.
But backing a dictator so universally unpopular is just making us enemies of both the Pakistani left, moderates and the fundamentalists. And for what? To prop up a dictator so unstable? How foolish.
Actually willy, it arguably does. Since we didn't commit enough troops in afghanistan to finish off al queda and the taliban and started a new war of election in Iraq, we took our eye off the ball in afghanistan and pakistan and allowed them to regroup in pakistan. If we commited the resources, both political and militarily, to afghanistan and dealt with the terrorist bases in pakistan, possibly this situation might not have occurred. Clinton II aided and abbetted the king's policies by getting on that band wagon for war in iraq. So the argument is not totally off base.
However, it is slimy to be arguing about politics concerning this situation when the poor woman was just killed. I actually don't think any campaigns should be trying to spin this politically. It's pathetic.
DTM wrote on December 27, 2007 5:11 PM:willyjsimmons,
Seriously, I think you need to study up on the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan before making claims like "anti-terrorism activities in Afghanistan (where our troops would be if not in Iraq) have little if nothing to do with the political realities in Pakistan".
Volum wrote on December 27, 2007 5:12 PM:The assassination of Bhutto has zero to do with the AUMF vote on Iraq.
If anyone conflates the two, they have no grasp of the political history of Pakistan, or the OVP's involvement in the crisis we have there today.
For anyone to think it would be a good idea for the US military to invade Pakistan to root-out Al Qaeda, is unimaginably wrong on so many levels it makes my head spin.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 27, 2007 5:12 PM:anti-terrorism activities in Afghanistan (where our troops would be if not in Iraq) have little if nothing to do with the political realities in Pakistan.
How do you figure? Everyone agrees that the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is porous to the point of being virtually nonexistant, and that the Taliban have been able, in large measure, to regroup because we turned our attention away from them in order to invade Iraq. Axelrod's (admittedly baseless albeit plausible) suggestion is that Bhutto was assasinated by Taliban-affliates in Pakistan. If this turns out to be the case (a big if, that), then his argument that our misadventure in Iraq was a contributing factor to the Bhutto assasination is sound.
In other words, anti-terrorism activities (or the lack thereof) in Afghanistan might have had something to do with the Bhutto assasination, or they might not. Hard to say at present. It is just as inaccurate, however, to assert strongly that they are not relevant as it is to assert (à la Axelrod) that they are relevant.
frankly0 wrote on December 27, 2007 5:12 PM:In fairness to Biden, it's pretty illuminating to see his response to the question of which country he fears most.
His insight into the peril Pakistan poses is well worth reading. I'd say I'd give him the best grade of the bunch on this issue. I'd put Hillary second.
The other candidates, almost all of whom chose Iran instead, just seem to have gone for the obvious, rather than the correct choice.
It's like the difference between a medical student on his first rotation as opposed to an attending physician.
DTM wrote on December 27, 2007 5:19 PM:By the way, it is inherently silly to ask a Presidential candidate which country he or she fears the most--it is not like Presidents are only allowed to be concerned about the situation in one country at a time.
Greg Jones wrote on December 27, 2007 5:21 PM:Obama Was Right....Hillary Wrong Re: PAKISTAN
With todays terrible announcement of Benazir Bhutto's assasination in Pakistan, one can't help but be reminded of a recent Democratic debate in which Hillary Clinton literally laughed at Barack Obama's statement that the United States should concentrate on the unrest in Pakistan even if it meant sending U.S. troops to the Afghan/Pakistan border where the Taliban, al-queda and other terrorists are camped. Hillary did her pompous, smirky laugh stating that Obama wants to 'talk to our enemies (Iran) and attack our allies' (Pakistan border). But as events unfold in the region we are learning more and more of just how disasterously wrong she and our foreign policy have been. We are supporting a crazy dictator (Musharraf) who we have given millions of dollars to....who has point blank told us that he will not go to the Pakistan border to address the true terrorists because they 'made a deal'. It doesn't matter that crazy Mu has weapons of mass destruction and is probably hiding Bin Laden in the border region. And to Hillary.....this is all just fine. Is this the great 'experience' that she boasts having ? Now, as we watch the turmoil increase in the Pakistan region Hillary will surely state that we need her 'experience' to handle the situation when in fact, it is this very mindset or experience that is leading America and the entire world toward catastrophe. Face it Hillary.....You are wrong...Obama was right. Oh.....and need I mention that the recent findings show that our 'enemy' hasn't had a weapons program for years ? But Hillary voted to basically crush Iran........wrong again Hill. And to top things off....you'll probably stay supportive of Crazy Mu along with the other Bushites and regime controlled media 'experts' ! With 'experience' like yours.....who needs enemies ?
Greg 'Peace Song' Jones
Keith,
My apologies, as I misread your initial post.
Thanks for posting the excerpt from Obama's 2002 speech in Chicago in which he made his case, now prescient, as to why it was not in our (or the region's) interest to go to war in Iraq.
The quote not only displays Obama's good judgment but also his understanding that opposing this particular war, despite great political pressure for marching to war, was in the best interests of our country.
And as I said earlier, this was not a closely held secret, as the CIA warned* that a war in Iraq would serve as a boon to the recruitment efforts of terror groups throughout the region. It was clear at the time that our mission in Afghanistan was not completed, and that Bin Laden had not yet been captured or killed.
* http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0114-01.htm
John Edwards had the political courage (and character) to admit that his 2002 vote to give the President the authority to go to war in Iraq was a mistake. We have not heard a similar admission from Sen. Clinton; and in light of the disastrous consequences that have resulted (a resurgent Al Qaeda, hundreds of thousands civilians killed, two million Iraqi refugees, continued violence and instability in Afghanistan) her refusal to admit that mistake is troubling.
And for Sen. Clinton to now put out a campaign commercial that seeks to remind Americans (and Iowa voters) that we are at war, when it was her vote (among others) that made the ongoing war in Iraq (and it’s consequences) possible, is incredibly disappointing.
Axelrod: "Now we see the effect of that."
Disgusting. Axelrod's 'instinct' is to blame Hillary Clinton for Prime Minister Bhutto's assassination. This is the most soulless, warped and disgraceful campaign tactic I've ever seen.
john mccutchen wrote on December 27, 2007 5:31 PM:Greatest Campaign Speech of 2008 - DEMAND THE VIDEO
GREG GIVE US THE VIDEO
The Change Agent Greg Sargent doesn't want you to see -http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/12/25/PH2007122501200.jpg
willyjsimmons wrote on December 27, 2007 5:33 PM:'Axelrod's (admittedly baseless albeit plausible) suggestion is that Bhutto was assasinated by Taliban-affliates in Pakistan.'
1.) You acknowledge there is no basis for believing it, so it's just a hunch.
2.) Taliban have popular support along the border. What were we gonna do, cross over the border and get them all Obama style?
'In other words, anti-terrorism activities (or the lack thereof) in Afghanistan might have had something to do with the Bhutto assasination, or they might not.'
In other words, a wild guess.
Okay...
now tell me next week's lotto numbers. Got a Ferrari to buy. Not a lot of loot on hand.
@DTM
'Seriously, I think you need to study up on the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan'
*sigh*
Again, the Taliban have safe haven in Pakistan...so even IF they're responsible...you're saying that if not in Iraq, our troops would be crossing the border with the consent of the Pakistani government to fight them?
john mccutchen wrote on December 27, 2007 5:35 PM:Looks like WhoFramed doesn't want to have a discussion of Mrs. Bill's experience
Well, the collapse of Pakistan didn't just emerge as a serious possibility today. Indeed astute observers have been warning us for years of this but one consequence of Bush and Clinton's Iraq War
The Greatest Strategic Disaster in US History
The more I hear Clinton tout the importance of experience and readiness, the more I'm convinced that she's stumping for Joe Biden.
Edwards is wise to lay low. Of all the candidates, he's the least experienced of them all.
Keith wrote on December 27, 2007 5:42 PM:Greg:
What's the connection between Hardball last night and Axelrod's statement?
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 27, 2007 5:43 PM:You acknowledge there is no basis for believing it, so it's just a hunch... In other words, a wild guess.
Yes, I "acknowledge" as much (whatever that is supposed to mean). In case it was not entirely clear, I think rather little of the spin which Mr Axelrod is attempting to put on this event. I find his claim to speculative to be persuasive. My only point is that you are offering just as much pseudo-certainty as he is; you are making a point which is equally unpersuasive, albeit in the opposite direction.
willyjsimmons wrote on December 27, 2007 5:43 PM:'indeed astute observers have been warning us for years of this but one consequence of Bush and Clinton's Iraq War'
Please cite.
yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 5:45 PM:willyjsimmons wrote on December 27, 2007 5:33 PM:
'Axelrod's (admittedly baseless albeit plausible) suggestion is that Bhutto was assasinated by Taliban-affliates in Pakistan.'
cspan ran footage of bhutto's visit to washington from sept. she accused musharraf of harboring officials in his regime who are sympathetic to al qaeda.
willyjsimmons wrote on December 27, 2007 5:48 PM:'you are making a point which is equally unpersuasive'
Then google is your friend.
Educate yourself, like DTM says. LOL
Seriously *snark* - it's a wild assumption to suggest that if we did not invade Iraq, this woman would still be alive or safe from harm...
Pakistan has it's own internal political problems.
Iraq ain't got nuthin to do with any of that.
Is it that hard?
DonnaG wrote on December 27, 2007 5:49 PM:frankly0,
You seem to want to stress the importance of how the candidates responded to the question of which country that candidate most fears.
First of all, Obama said that Iran could pose the most danger to the situation in the middle east, but that Iran did not pose the most danger to the USA.
Then Obama went on to say:
" Now, I know you asked about one, but I actually think the situation in Pakistan right now, in some ways, may be even more volatile. That's where Osama Bin Laden is and much of al Qaeda is hiding. We've got General Musharraf, who is in a weakened position. We have Benazir Bhutto, who's just gone back. There are a lot of divisions there, and they already possess a lot of nuclear weapons and so we've got to really do our best to strengthen the democratic impulses inside of Pakistan while at the same time insisting that they take seriously the al Qaeda operations inside Pakistan and at the same time that there are safeguards around those nuclear weapons and working with the Pakistan military to assure that those don't fall in the hands of terrorists. That is going to be a difficult and messy and complex task, but we will actually be aided in that process if we send a strong signal that we're getting out of Iraq. That is part of what has fanned anti-American sentiment inside Pakistan."
I offer the more complete answer Obama gave to that question, because I suspect that you wanted to cherry pick in order to unfairly categorize him.
You are welcome to revise your original criticism.
Dear Yesterday gone,
You are attributing to willyjsimmons a quote which is actually from one of my posts. With that in mind, I think that you are really responding to me, not him, and as such I would like to ask you to expand a little on your reply to my point. I am afraid that I do not quite follow the point that you are trying to make. How, as you see it, is Bhutto's accusation relevant to the matter at hand?
roo_P wrote on December 27, 2007 5:52 PM:willyjsimmons,
The assassination is being pinned on the islamist groups who all mostly operate from the border by most early analysis (Google News) and by and large sympathise with the Taliban cause even if they are not directly involved in it. The role of the ISI is still unclear.
willyjsimmons wrote on December 27, 2007 5:56 PM:'she accused musharraf of harboring officials in his regime who are sympathetic to al qaeda.'
al-qaeda is not Taliban.
Taliban denied an earlier attempt this year.
In short, we have no idea who killer her.
Keith wrote on December 27, 2007 5:57 PM:Wilyjsimmons:
1. Here's a TPM article which points to some evidence that al Qaeda may have been involved (some affiliate is claiming credit).
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004990.php
We were tracking Osama in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan when we pulled our resources to focus on Iraq--at least that's the argument.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1126-10.htm
2. Apparently we've been making cross border excursions into Pakistan for some time now.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/may2002/uspa-m09.shtml
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DEFD81630F935A35756C0A9649C8B63
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/12/musharrafs_woes_have_opened_a.html?nav=rss_blog
Here--it's pretty goddamn simple, you dumbass Hillary supporters. I'll vote for her in the general election should she get the nod. However, I'll do so knowing that I'll be throwing my vote away in a goddamn lost cause that you goddamn idiots led us down, while the Repukes laugh all the way to the WH AGAIN. If their nominee happens to be McCain, you can BET the farm that he will wipe Billary all over the electoral map.
But, hey, thanks for fucking America for your own little ego games, you shitheads.
roo_P wrote on December 27, 2007 6:00 PM:frankly0 said:
I don't see why the candidates would agree to that. And I certainly don't see that this is a "minor event" -- remember, Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons. If the government in Pakistan is overthrown, perhaps due to repurcussions from this assassination, it's well known that some very ugly, vehemently anti-American forces might in principle rise to power.
Personal tragedies and short-term changes aside, it is a minor event in the scale of things and I think the candidates would agree with that statement. It does not really change anything--in fact, it pretty much puts Pakistan back where it was about six months ago albeit with probably a bit of encouragement to the islamist groups.
I feel it is terribly short-sighted to attempt the "contest" resolved. I am not faulting you for it but I feel that foreign affairs analysis is not a regular focus for you.
frankly0 wrote on December 27, 2007 6:00 PM:DonnaG,
The basic fact I was pointing to was: which country did the candidates single out as the most dangerous? Priorities in foreign policy are, one would think, absolutely key to correct conduct of such policy.
Whatever else Obama may have said about Pakistan, he chose Iran as the most dangerous. Biden and Hillary chose instead Pakistan. Biden's justification of that choice was particularly sharp, showing his work well. Hillary came in second, I'd think.
Given that Iran won't have nuclear weapons, if at all, for many, many years, why would Iran deserve to be chosen first, before Pakistan?
That's the question neither Obama nor you seems to want have asked, or be required to answer.
willyjsimmons wrote on December 27, 2007 6:04 PM:@roo_P
'even if they are not directly involved in it. '
Okay.
In other words, you don't know.
joejoejoe wrote on December 27, 2007 6:04 PM:Obama, 2002 on the Iraq War:
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars."
- - -
"a US occupation of undetermined length" = 5 years and counting
"at undetermined cost" = est. 1 trillion dollars
"with undetermined consequences" = Bin Laden at large, US supporting a dictator in Pakistan
"an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East [check], and encourage the worst [check], rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda [check]."
willyjsimmons wrote on December 27, 2007 6:06 PM:@keith
enough with the echo chamber...
you have no idea who killed her.
frankly0 wrote on December 27, 2007 6:07 PM:Personal tragedies and short-term changes aside, it is a minor event in the scale of things and I think the candidates would agree with that statement.
I don't know how you can possibly claim this. Yes, in principle, this event might blow over -- Musharraf might maintain his mostly America friendly rule, and things might go on as before.
Alternatively, this event -- the assassination of a major political figure in Pakistan -- might lead to a total destabilization of Musharraf's regime, his eventual downfall, and the rise of a virulently anti-American regime, with ready access to nuclear weapons deployable by means of long range missiles. Nobody, including you, knows which of these two outcomes may come about.
If it is the second case, then we are already in the precisely situation we most fear from Iran, but perhaps a decade a more down the line at earliest.
willyjsimmons wrote on December 27, 2007 6:07 PM:'"with undetermined consequences" = Bin Laden at large, US supporting a dictator in Pakistan'
Again...
we were supporting Musharraf prior to the Iraq war?
Explain how that dynamic would have changed had we not invaded Iraq?
Keith wrote on December 27, 2007 6:11 PM:Frankly0:
Perhaps Iran was single out because, at this point, it's the one on the receiving end of our (US) evil-empire/regime change rhetoric, the country we know the least about (of the two) and thus more likely to strike out against US interest. Whereas, at least nominally, Pakistan is an ally, much like Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, all of which are sitting on veritable powder kegs (in the form of the Muslim Street), but with whom we have more intelligence/information (hence less unknowns and thus less risk). Moreover, Pakistan's military has control over their nuclear weapons and essentially control the country. Oh, and we are helping protect the nukes as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/washington/18nuke.html
In short, given our lack of information about Iran and its intentions, it actually may be a (relatively) more dangerous place (vis-a-vis US interests).
yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 6:12 PM:freaktown wrote on December 27, 2007 4:42 PM:
Frankly0,
i'm not sure i buy your premise.
bhutto gets assainatted and that makes pakistan the most dangerous country in the world?
pakistan has been caught selling nuclear technology to libya, iran and north korea. we are supposed to believe they stopped on their word alone? who knows what pakistan has sold to smaller players.
yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 6:15 PM:who was the one faulting obama for citing iran as biggest threat?
you are omitting an important qualifer. he said a nuclear armed iran is the biggest threat.
joejoejoe wrote on December 27, 2007 6:18 PM:willyjsimmons - The US had placed severe limits on most aid to Pakistan after they successfully tested a nuclear weapon.
USAID: "After a seven-year pause due to US-imposed nuclear non-proliferation sanctions, USAID reopened its Mission in Pakistan in July 2002. The new program focuses on four sectors: education, health, governance and economic growth."
Add in the absentee military aid we now give Musharaff because the US is focused on Iraq and it's not hard to imagine a situation where the US is aiding the Pakistani people and NOT playing a double game with Musharaff where he is our sometimes partner in fighting terrorism who somehow is cracking down on the free press and political opponents while making truce with those who harbor Bin Ladin in the tribal ungoverned Pakistani regions.
The US isn't focused enough on Pakistan to put any credible pressure on Musharraf or have a 'Pakistan policy' instead of a 'Musharraf policy'. Most of this is due to our involvement in Iraq.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 27, 2007 6:18 PM:you have no idea who killed her.
Well, Keith can answer for himself, but I will be the first to agree that I do not know who killed her. Come to that, neither does willyjsimmons, which rather makes one to wonder why he is so certain that said unknown killers were not helped to their end by the invasion of Iraq.
In any event, for what little my opinion is worth, I find Mr Axelrod's spin on the news event rather unpersuasive. There are a million good reasons to vote for Sen Obama, and perhaps as many not to vote for Sen Clinton, but from where I am standing the Bhutto assasination does not make an appearance among those millions on either list.
yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 6:21 PM:Greg DeLassus wrote on December 27, 2007 5:51 PM:
Dear Yesterday gone,
...I would like to ask you to expand a little on your reply to my point. I am afraid that I do not quite follow the point that you are trying to make. How, as you see it, is Bhutto's accusation relevant to the matter at hand?
bhutto, to go public with such an accusation, is probably one of the reasons why she was killed.
a msnbc pundit noted how pakistan is unable to account for $5 billion dollars we have given them in aid.
bhutto's accusation, if allowed to have gain traction, would have jeopardized such funding to pakistan.
yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 6:23 PM:frankly0 wrote on December 27, 2007 3:23 PM:
oh, it was you, frankly.
you omitted the qualifer on obama's iran answer.
Keith wrote on December 27, 2007 6:23 PM:I never ventured an answer as to who killed her, but provided some substance to the speculation that al Qaeda may have been involved. If you didn't want the information, why did you ask the question?
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 27, 2007 6:26 PM:bhutto's accusation, if allowed to have gain traction, would have jeopardized such funding to pakistan.
So you think that PM Bhutto was killed, not by Taliban- or Al-Qaeda-affliates, but by party operatives for Musharraf who were worried that her big mouth might endanger their graft? If so, does that mean that you find Mr Axelrod's take on the matter as implausible as I find it?
yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 6:34 PM:greg, bhutto accused of musharraf collusion. terrorists acting on behalf of musharraf or officals within his regime wouldn't be surprising.
you seem to be looking for either / or answer when it could be the case of both.
yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 6:36 PM:another challenger to musharref was targeted:
UPDATE: This happened at the same time as an attack on Musharraf’s other major rival for power, Nawaz al-Sharif (h/t Dakine01):
Also Thursday, a rooftop sniper opened fire on supporters of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif at a different pre-election rally in Rawalpindi, leaving four dead and at least five injured.
http://phoenixwoman.wordpress.com/2007/12/27/benazir-bhutto-killed/
from frankly's cbs cite:
Obama: I think Iran … poses a significant threat to stability in the Middle East
gee i wonder what was said before the ellipsis.
shoddy journalism. i can't believe you cited it.
Michael A wrote on December 27, 2007 6:43 PM:Hey willy, how's the gravel campaign going? Any press releases regarding this issue? Seems odd that gravel is supporting clinton II's policies on iraq, doesn't it. Could you explain the discrepency as you are a gravel supporter?
esles2000 wrote on December 27, 2007 6:50 PM:here's video of barack's speech today. you can berate him all you want; you look crazy, 'cause this man's got the goods.
http://iowa.barackobama.com/page/community/post/nickkimball/CgS5
mrs. clinton wishes she could write a speech this thoughtful, powerful and inspiring.
Charles wrote on December 27, 2007 7:02 PM:This conversation strikes me as a bit odd. We have seven or so years of Bush policies from Lebanon on the west to Afghanistan and Pakistan to the east. One major foreign policy issue is that - using technical language - Bush has mucked it up real bad. The policy has been, among other things, to destabilize the region (okay, I'm putting it kindly).
If we can agree that Bush policy is bad, let me ask:
How likely is HRC to reverse or reject or substantially alter these policies? Obama? Edwards? Same question.
I would like to see evidence that HRC meaningfully (!) rejects what Bush has done in the region.
yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 7:15 PM:from nov 16
bill scher analyzed candidates answers on pakistan from past debates:
Sen. Clinton is not alone among Dem candidates in supporting Musharraf.
Both Sen. John Edwards and Sen. Chris Dodd have expressed support for Musharraf to maintain "stability."
Whereas Obama, Gov. Bill Richardson and Sen. Joe Biden have been more consistent in supporting democratic principles.
http://www.liberaloasis.com/2007/11/clinton_on_pakistan.php
on msnbc this morning, both madeleine albright and wes clark provided cover for the undemocratic musharraf.
Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 7:20 PM:Tom wrote on December 27, 2007 3:14 PM:
By the way, it looks like the Clinton campaign is also trying to argue that this helps them:
"Tragedies like this one are reminders that we need someone with the seasoning and the experience and strength to be Commander in Chief during uncertain times."
This appears to be what the media is trying to spin it as.
The only person not spinning is John Edwards, who was less focused on politics than on the fact that someone died today.
******Are you not ashamed of your lies & scams on this board.Edwards is the joker who said Musharaff called him & informed him about the assasination.So your rant above holds no water.Edward is like the rest afterall,surprise,surprise.
Tom wrote on December 27, 2007 3:14 PM:
By the way, it looks like the Clinton campaign is also trying to argue that this helps them:
"Tragedies like this one are reminders that we need someone with the seasoning and the experience and strength to be Commander in Chief during uncertain times."
This appears to be what the media is trying to spin it as.
The only person not spinning is John Edwards, who was less focused on politics than on the fact that someone died today.
****Are you not ashamed of your lies & scams on this board ?Edwards for your edification said Musharaff called him to informed him about the assasination.So afterall your rant above does not hold up does it ?But you will be back selling some other angle shamless like you always do about your candidate.
Shameful.
By the way, how does Obama explain his voting record on Iraq which is identical to Senator Clinton?
Just like Clinton, Obama is not at all a vote for change we can "believe" in.
KRM wrote on December 27, 2007 7:39 PM:At least the HRC campaign didn't (yet) ask what Obama's promise to go into Pakistan with or without permission did to the stability of the region.
willyjsimmons wrote on December 27, 2007 7:39 PM:'which rather makes one to wonder why he is so certain that said unknown killers were not helped to their end by the invasion of Iraq.'
LOL...
Okay, Greg.
YES...
after years of trying to kill the woman...
(after having successfully killed two of her brothers and her father)
Iraq is what provided them with the opportunity to finally carry it out.
'Seems odd that gravel is supporting clinton II's policies on iraq, doesn't it.'
Michael A, continually not knowing what he's talking about.
Gravel is for closing down US installations inside Iraq...
the top three are not.
So what are you talking about exactly?
Michael A wrote on December 27, 2007 7:45 PM:What I am talking about is why are you defending clinton II's iraq votes and iraq policy, while you profess to support gravel? Out of all the candidates, clinton II is by far the most polar opposite of gravel and you constantly come to her defense? Aren't you hurting your candidate by propping up clinton II, willy?
Larre wrote on December 27, 2007 7:49 PM:This is becoming all too familiar. Obama says something eminently reasonable - not finishing the job in Afghanistan allowed al Qaeda and the Taliban to regroup and gave them and other extremists a base of operations to carry out attacks such as today's - and Hillary pounces on his "naivete."
Only, he's right, of course, and Hillary will be forced to dial back her "very serious" critique in the days to come and slink away, arguing that she's ALWAYS maintained that allowing al Qaeda to regroup led to tragedies like the one we saw today.
Sigh. I only hope the media picks up on this in time. There's only 5 days left to get it right. Wake up, fellow Democrats!
waka waka wrote on December 27, 2007 7:51 PM:Evan Bayh's spin that we need to nominate "very serious" people like Hillary or else be painted by the GOP as "weak" is about 100x more odious than Axelrod's statement, which was IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION.
Someone pass Hillary a paper bag. She's hyperventilating again.
Taylor Marsh has a good piece on Axelrod’s spin failure.
Ni Daye wrote on December 27, 2007 8:54 PM:It speaks volume that a fellow Senator from neighboring state supports strongly for Clinton against Obama. The facts that Obama did not show up for vote and his political mentor Durbin voted for the Kyl-Liberman Iran resolution should put anything about Obama-er's foreign experience into serious doubt. In a general election, can he claim he would have voted against Kyl-Lieberman had he shown up because the resolution could have been used for invading Iran? blooney!!!!
yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 9:19 PM:ni daye, obama's opposition to kyle-lieberman was known before, during and after that vote. it wasn't like he was dodging taking a position. he was told the vote wasn't going to take place that day.
DTM wrote on December 27, 2007 11:16 PM:willyjsimmons,
Others have more or less covered the question you directed to me above. I will just note explicitly that according to the reports I have seen, Al Qaeda did not regroup in Pakistan overnight, nor did the relevant events occur solely in Pakistan.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 27, 2007 11:44 PM:It speaks volume that a fellow Senator from neighboring state supports strongly for Clinton against Obama.
Huh? Sen Bayh is a good guy and all, but what "volumes" exactly does it speak that a democrat from a reliably red state endorses Sen Clinton instead of Sen Obama from (geographically-neighboring but politically-miles-away) Illinois?
CalD wrote on December 28, 2007 12:48 AM:I guess on the upside for Axelrod, the richly deserved beating he's taking for politicizing Bhutto's assassination is likely to distract people from giving him the beating he richly deserves for saying that Mrs. Clinton "was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq." What a sleaze.
Anonymous wrote on December 28, 2007 2:07 AM:Don't forget that Obama's statements on Pakistan---the promise to position more troops by Pakistan's border, and the threat to unilaterally invade Pakistan if necessary, created instability in Pakistan, and led to Musharraf saying that a state of emergency might be declared.
And so it happened, eventually.
There's at least a logical chain of reasoning that connects Obama with this event. One could say that Obama's poor judgment had some very small part to play in this tragedy; whereas blaming Clinton makes no sense at all.
From a David frost interview she says who was trying to kill her from Nov 3rd of 07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ
CalD,
Yes, Axelrod is a disgrace to Democratic politics. He probably is so used by now to get a free pass for his sleaze ball spin from mainstream media that he thinks he can say anything without consequences. Yesterday ought to have taught him a lesson though.
"REPORTER: But looking ahead, does the assassination put on the front burner foreign policy credentials in the closing days?"
Axelrod was responding to a 'foreign policy credentials' question not how he felt about the death of Bhutto with a link to Hillary's Iraq vote. Your framing of this issue is really misleading.
However, by having all of those troops and resources in Iraq, were there was no imminent threat, instead of Afghanistan were they are, has greatly lead to an increasing instability in Pakistan.
Obama supporters can't stoop low enough to find rationalizations for Obama's goofball responses to major issues, responses they would totally rant about if they came from Clinton.
Pathetic.
And hypocritical.
Hillary Haters become more delusional every day.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 28, 2007 12:21 PM:Axelrod is a disgrace to Democratic politics.
I do not really disagree with this statement, but to be fair it seems to me that the same thing could be said about James Carville, Joe Trippi and Marc Penn. That is to say, the political advisers for campaigns are almost always less-than-savory individuals, but they serve a necessary role nonetheless. It seems rather strange to single Mr Axelrod out, as he is neither more nor less slimy than any of his colleagues. He is simply the one in the spotlight right now (just as Penn was a little while back).
anonymous wrote on December 28, 2007 1:52 PM:Greg DeLassus: ". . . seems rather strange to single Mr Axelrod out . . ."
Not really, since Obama supporters have consistently insisted he and his campaign are above such things and promoted Obama as some kind of knight in shining armor who is all about the issues and not about politics.
But he's really no better than any of the other candidates other than giving better voice.
Like Kennedy, however, giving great voice doesn't necessarily translate into effective and correct leadership - for all his charisma, Kennedy's foreign policy was a disaster from a progressive or liberal perspective.
Obama may or may not be a similar disaster, but stamping him as great simply because he has a way with words is shallow thinking.
morris1030 wrote on December 28, 2007 9:27 PM:A rookie response that called for maturity and instead Axelrod sounds like Rasputin, and Obama sounds like Rove.
Very bad judgement. Defensive because he has no experience, so he lashes out at Hillary about a most serious matter calling for dignity and the good sense
to understand the gravitas inherent in the situation.
He's a boy.
Nathan wrote on December 28, 2007 11:39 PM:Please. Then Obama, too, is to blame since he continues to make the wrong call on Iraq in terms of votes and policies (the same as Clinton's).
Oh, and promising to attack the sovereignty of Pakistan this August if Musharraf failed to act against terrorists is the height of irresponsibility considering what a powder keg Pakistan is.
"The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php
Yes, Hillary would be a horrible candidate, but Obama is not the answer--at all.
wilson wrote on December 29, 2007 11:38 AM:Someone said John Edwards was the only one not spinning!!!
Edwards publicized a call to Musharraf, of all people!!! The bloody dictator whose rule has led to this disaster. Oh, I mean "the President", in the euphemism used by US media.
Edwards didn't spin this???? You've got to kidding.
Greg J. wrote on December 29, 2007 2:58 PM:Obama Was Right....Hillary Wrong Re: PAKISTAN
By: Greg 'Peace Song' Jones
With the terrible announcement of Benazir Bhutto's assassination in Pakistan, one can't help but be reminded of a recent Democratic debate in which Hillary Clinton literally laughed at Barack Obama's statement that the United States should concentrate on the unrest in Pakistan even if it meant sending U.S. troops to the Afghan/Pakistan border where the Taliban, Al-queda and other terrorists are camped. Hillary did her pompous, smirky laugh stating that Obama wants to 'talk to our enemies (Iran) and attack our allies' (Pakistan border). But as events unfold in the region we are learning more and more of just how disasterously wrong she and our foreign policy have been. We are supporting a crazy dictator (Musharaf) who we have given millions of dollars to....who has point blank told us that he will not go to the Pakistan border to address the true terrorists because they 'made a deal'. It doesn't matter that crazy Mu has weapons of mass destruction and is probably hiding Bin Laden in the border region. And to Hillary.....this is all just fine. Is this the great 'experience' that she boasts having ? Now, as we watch the turmoil increase in the Pakistan region Hillary will surely state that we need her 'experience' to handle the situation when in fact, it is this very mindset or experience that is leading America and the entire world toward catastrophe. Face it Hillary.....You are wrong...Obama was right. Oh.....and need I mention that the recent findings show that our 'enemy' hasn't had a weapons program for years ? But Hillary voted to basically crush Iran........wrong again Hill. And to top things off....you'll probably stay supportive of Crazy Mu along with the other Bushites and regime controlled media 'experts' ! With 'experience' like yours.....who needs enemies ?
NOTE: CNN's Wolf Blitzer just released an email to be read in the event of Bhutto's death. She names Musharraf as responsible. ANYONE (politicians, media, etc.) who is still supportive of Musharraf is dangerous for America and should be investigated. Also, be prepared for the standard 'fear' tactics to kick-in.
Greg 'Peace Song' Jones
Visit: www.Blacks4Barack.homestead.com
Hillary is a Republican. In her youth, she was a Goldwater girl. Later she supported Nixon. Bill was a Republican--the best Republican since Lincoln. In the Senate, she has voted straight Republican on national security issues. Hillary is a card carrying wingnut.
