The Obama campaign is in a panic. Mr. Axelrod's reprehensible statement is meant to deflect the spotlight and rescue his candidate, because as people think about the implications of Benazir Bhutto's assassination one thing comes to mind and it isn't the leadership experience of Barack Obama. International tragedy has made Barack Obama and his campaign desperate for fear their paper thin experience in foreign policy will be weighed as voters ready for the Iowa primaries. It's in moments of crisis you find out what a candidate has and the strength of his character to respond to real dangers in the world. Another example of Mr. Obama's campaign of "hope," no doubt.
But Mr. Axelrod has stepped into it now. Blaming Clinton? This statement is not only beyond the pale, but it is made even more reprehensible, not to mention ridiculous, by Obama's campaign turning from the very serious subjects of Afghanistan-Pakistan-al Qaeda to the pop culture filmmaker Woody Allen, equating the two in a statement that is so ignorant you have to wonder if the Obama camp actually understands the possible ramifications of what happened today. I assure you, it does not come close to resembling or reflecting Woody Allen's wisdom on life. Seriously, the celebrity candidacy of Barack Obama, now threatened by a foreign policy emergency, has slipped into the nonsensical.
It reminds me of what Mr. Obama said himself about Pakistan in September, which now looks equally ignorant.
In 2004, Obama said that if president Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country: As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses. Musharraf's troops are battling hundreds of well-armed foreign militants and Pakistani tribesmen in increasingly violent confrontations.

Why Did Obama select David Axelrod as his chief political strategist. Obama is probably going to finish third or worst in every primary and Axelrod should take majority of the blame. When you have a huge media story involving Bhutto's death, it is important for the candidate to make his/her statement on the problems surrounding Pakistan and stay away from any personal criticisms of other candidates in relation to Bhutto.

hey jerry, way to steal that from a post on the huffington post. i believe what you just did is called plagiarism.

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. Sen. Clinton made a different judgment, so let's have that discussion.

per politico, the reporter asked a question.

It appears if terrorist were responsible for the killing of Bhutto , Obama was right. He said we must go after the terrorist there and like the Iraq war he is right on Pakistan

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” Obama

Ms. Bhutto Well, I wouldn't like the United States to violate Pakistan's sovereignty with unauthorized military operations. But the issue that I would like to stress is that Barack Obama also said, if Pakistan won't act. And that's the critical issue, that the government has to act. And the government has to act to protect Pakistan's own serenity and integrity, its own respect, and to understand that if it creates a vacuum, then others aren't going to just twiddle their thumbs while militants freely move across the border.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmRiNGJjODNmZWZiM2I2NzgwMjE2NGVmOTNlN2YwYjA

"The country is endangered by extremism...an organized minority had seized control of the levers of the state," including officials who had connections to extremists going way back to the Afghan mujahedin war against the Soviets, which boosted such radicals as Osama bin Laden."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/68826/page/1

"If Pakistan has no control in the tribal areas, then tomorrow foreign forces can come there," Bhutto said in the northwestern city of Peshawar, a stronghold of religious parties. She was apparently referring to U.S. and NATO forces operating on the Afghan side of the border.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314532,00.html

To Jerry Lansing-

Your argument is laughable.  As I see it, most Americans would want someone JUST like Barack Obama representing their interests in the face of a situation such as the tragedy in Pakistan.  He has excellent judgment and a calm, intelligent approach to the situation at hand.  In these times of hotheads and warmongers, a level headed approach is what is truly needed today.

Oh come on.  Axelrod never BLAMED Clinton, i.e. he never claimed nor did he ever come close to saying "Hillary caused Bhutto to die".  THAT is absurd.  He never said that, but expect Hillary to try and run with it anyway, she loves to relish in lies and dishonesty.

There is NO DOUBT however that Iraq DID distract from Pakistan and Afghanistan.  Bhutto's death is a direct result of terrorists, not of Clinton.  It is time for America to stop getting distracted by Iraq and go to fight the REAL enemies in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  

We could have aided democracy in Pakistan by getting it right the first time, and going to war THERE and in Afghanistan instead of in Iraq.  But instead, Hillary Clinton and others were 'tricked' by Republicans into voting for the "Authorization of the Use of Military Force against Iraq" 2002 legislation.  She claims she thought she was voting for "diplomacy"... I guess she didn't read the legislation's name...

http://thepage.time.com/axelrod-on-bhutto-assassination/

Barack got Iraq right.  
"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."- Obama, October, 2002

And once again, Barack got it right the first time with Pakistan.
"Remarks of Senator Obama: The War We Need to Win" - August 1, 2007
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php

While Clinton was calling Obama naive for saying he would bomb terrorists in Pakistan if the government failed to act, Clinton was IGNORING her "good friend" Bhutto's comments in August 2007, less than four months before she died:
"But the issue that I would like to stress is that Barack Obama also said, if Pakistan won't act. And that's the critical issue, that the government has to act. And the government has to act to protect Pakistan's own serenity and integrity, its own respect, and to understand that if it creates a vacuum, then others aren't going to just twiddle their thumbs while militants freely move across the border."

And THAT IS REALITY.  No games playing involved.  Someone REALLY DIED.  They were assassinated by terrorists, terrorists from Pakistan, not Iraq or Iran or North Korea.  Pakistan.

But it's true.

Imagine if, instead of the distraction of Iraq, we had continued focusing on Al Qaeda.  We would never have let their stronghold in Pakistan flourish, which would have had a large effect on the stability of the country.

How many times does Obama have to be right before people start getting it?

This is a quote of Bhutto agreeing with Obama's policy stance:

Bhutto's reaction to Obama's Pakistan policy: "But the issue that I would like to stress is that Barack Obama also said, if Pakistan won't act. And that's the critical issue, that the government has to act. And the government has to act to protect Pakistan's own serenity and integrity, its own respect, and to understand that if it creates a vacuum, then others aren't going to just twiddle their thumbs while militants freely move across the border." -- Benazir Bhutto, August, 2007 ....

David Axelrod should be fired right now. This is just as bad as Shaheen's comments about Obama and cocaine.

Axelrods comments smack of the same dingbatism currently affecting the whole lot with more muted tones coming from Edwards and for the moment,McCain.
           Such asinine,revisionist statements forget the fact that Islamic jihadists,using Kashmir as a foil with which to whip up anti-western and anti-Hindu fervour in the Muslim world,far predated even 9/11,let alone the Iraq War[culminating in the 1999 nuclear cookoff between the two regional powers,which the Clinton administration was helpless to prevent].
                 Axelrod imagines a vaccum in Pakistan whereby al Qaeda elements merely settled in. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed,it would be the very presidency of Bhutto and her administrations resultant corruption[again,far predating the Iraq War],that would do the most to strengthen hardline Islamics who were already a long-present force within the republic,and already existed in the nations Warizstan northern regions when Kipling was still writing about ''empire graveyards''along the Kyber Pass. All bin Laden accomplished was to find a readymade home among ideological and theological peers. He,nor Iraq,either invented Pakistans troubles nor brought them to the nations present pass.
               Like Clinton,she was gulled by a monster of creation that was benignly allowed to spread,throwing her weight as PM behind the Taliban,seeing it as a stabilizing influence in Afghan affairs and setting up trade missions[as did the Clinton administration],between her country and the organization now encamped within Pakistan. Then too,Axelrod fails to observe how one war can have a ''negative''effect[Iraq],but not the other,much closer one[Afghanistan].

 The insane rush to be Bhutto's "best friend" is not only demeaning,it is morally reprehensible.She was a tainted politico but did not deserve her fate.Let it go people.We have to face our own bad choice election with the leftovers from Iowa and N.H.

keep dreaming clintonies , Iowa voters are real astute . Do you guys actually believe they will forget the debate where obama called this dead on . musaruff and alqeda . Face it the guy knows his stuff.

LOL. Hill's trolls are out in full force, mate :)

For the record, this gerrymandering is not going to stick very well!

FACT:
We took our eyes off the ball when we launched the bloody war in Iraq. As a consequence, countries in the region become very unstable. Thanks for Hillary, she voted for the war with conviction!

If they doesn't equate to bad judegement (bad experience) I dont know what would.

Even on the attack the Obama campaign looks weak, passive.   They lack the toughness required.

"Seasoning"? What the heck is this now, a cooking class? And what is it about the fact that Hillary met Bhutto? Hey, I met Mickey Mantle once, does that make me "seasoned" enough to run Major League Baseball?

Obama knows nothing about Pakistan and allowed Musharrif to use his comments about invading Pakistan to justify marshal law.  That and the accusation that Mrs Clinton had any hand whatsoever in Mrs Bhuto's death are enough to make this campaign hang its head in shame and this man must resign.

Axelrod is right.  HRC voted for the war that took our eyes off the ball and led us into a foreign policy disaster.  As a result, the taliban and co. were allowed to go into the mountains and grown and make deals with Pakistan.
I would rather have the judgment of Obama in the white house than HRC with her track record of awful judgment in regard to foreign policy.
Does anyone remember how Bill floundered with it in the 90s.  He never learned to make the right calls.

HILLARY IS A WINNER

Two new Iowa polls were just released from LA Times and from Strategic Vision, and both show a completely toss-up game for Democrats. Among GOP, the polls disagree on how tight it is getting at the top: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/12/la-times-polls-ia-nh-tight-democratic.html

I think it is amazing that people actually believe that we should select our next President based on the erroneous idea somehow the horrible events of today change the realities we are facing in America and around the world. Nothing has really changed.

The choice is more fear and fearmongering or making a positive change for our nation's future.

Although it is tempting to bury our heads in the sand and say that now that this terrible thing has happened in Pakistan, we must continue to stick with the same old policy makers and policies we have had in the past, because this is what we are used to. But how will this help things get better?

Based on the decisions that have already been made by our current President, no one is going to waltz into the White House and fix the world. It's going to take time and judgment, not memories of the way we were.

Enough of this nonsence... hillaryclinton.com

There's nothing incorrect about what Axelrod said; it's just that conventional wisdom and the traditional media doesn't want to grapple with the cold hard facts of the numerous disastrous repercussions our adventure in Iraq has spawned.  Unfortunately, even though Axelrod is factually correct, I'm afraid Obama is going to take a 3-5 point hit for this in Iowa, a hit he can't sustain at this point and still win.  Even independent of the Obama campaign's reaction, there are unfortunately Americans for whom fear plays a big role in their vote.  As a result, they may just go with the "safe" candidate.  Even though the "safe" candidate is really Biden on the Dem side, HRC has been effective in commandeering (stealing??) that position in many Dem voters' minds.

Jerry Lansing,
Your statement is the one that's ignorant.  What a joke.  On Meet the Press last year, HRC said essentially the same thing about Pakistan as Obama said last fall.  It's typical of the HRC campaign (and unfortunately many of her supporters) to choose to ignore the facts if they don't help the cause.  Only Romney plays faster and looser with the facts than HRC.

Now would be an excellent time for Barry Obama to tell us all how his playing stick ball in Indonesia at age 10 has especially prepared him to be President of the United States.

We are all ears Barry.

Do tell.

If Barry is "different", as he says he is, he will walk the talk and fire Axelrod for his cheap political attack.   But Barry isn't "different."

Clinton and the establishment are trying to use this woman's tragic death to try and reassert her candicacy.  Axelrod's comments are just telling it like it is.  That Obama has proven to have better judgement about foreign policy than Clinton.  Hand holding and state dinners do not make her more experienced in foreign policy.  It's about decisions, not who you've had dinner with.

Obama was right about Iraq and he was right about Pakistan.  Bhutto agreed with him.  So he must not let the media and the Clinton's distort the truth about what is happening here.  He's a strong candidate and will be a strong leader of our country.

Evan Bayh tried to use her Death as a political tool for Hillary's benefit.

A reporter asked Axelrod if this would actually benefit Hillary.
Axelrod pointed out the hypocrisy in this notion by mentioning the IWR and its consequences.

I agree with sberman, Obama recently suggested we increae troop prescense in afganistan as well..

Obama fails to understand we don't have the economic & military power to accomplish this or invade Pakistan when they possess nukes.

AND ONE VERY IMPORTANT THING.. People who are saying terrorists are responsible for this.. How do you know that.. what proof do you have? nothing has been confirmed yet and think about it elections were only a few days a way for Pakistan and she conviently gets killed now?

To: sonya, atlanta, ga

Shame on you for not presenting the very first sentence from the text where Bhutto criticizses Obama. Bhutto ridicules Obama's childish threat of sending US- forces to Pakistan. See belew the first sentence of the text you deliberately left out to mislead readers.

BHUTTO: Well, I wouldn't like the United States to violate Pakistan's sovereignty with unauthorized military operations. But the issue....

Yet again, the media gives Obama a pass.  Had Axelrod been working for Clinton, the Obama folks would have whipped themselves into a hysterical frenzy over these comments and a demand would have been made for him to resign from the campaign.  Obama should do the right thing and condemn Axelrod's comments and make it clear that he does not believe Hillary caused the death of Benazir Bhutto.  If he does not, then this just reinforces the fact (there's a report out today that proves it) that Hillary indeed is treated extremely harsh by the media, while Obama is given a pass on every ridiculous comment he or his team makes.  

But it's true.

Imagine if, instead of the distraction of Iraq, we had continued focusing on Al Qaeda.  We would never have let their stronghold in Pakistan flourish, which would have had a large effect on the stability of the country.

How many times does Obama have to be right before people start getting it?
Hobo, Hoboken, NJ (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 5:52 PM)


Two times at least! Because one time sometimes get called fluke. And it was proved right by the ineptness of Rumsfeld and Bush in not managing the wars properly.

Removing Saddam doesnt mean ignoring Afghanistan. Removing Saddam with wrong tactical moves was the problem. And lastly, US has always been wrong about Pakistan but our cold war blinded eyes can not see it.

Removing Putin or Castro or Chavez or Ahmedijinad (sp?) instead of cleaning Pakistan will be the biggest test of American foreign policy knowledge.

And THAT IS REALITY.  No games playing involved.  Someone REALLY DIED.  They were assassinated by terrorists, terrorists from Pakistan, not Iraq or Iran or North Korea.  Pakistan.
Ron, TX (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 5:52 PM)


You know nothing about Pakistan if you think terrorists assasinated Bhutto. Pakistan is made up of different factions and each group hate each other to the extent of killing each other. All we have done so far is give them arms and channelize them against Russia (via Afghanistan/Taliban  - yes we helped in creation of Taliban by giving them arms) and India (via Islamo Facists in Kashmir) to an extent. There are Pathans, there are Mohajirs, there Baluchistan Warwazis or whatever they are called. They all were propped up by us to control USSR and India during cold war.

As the cold war died, we left them to be on their own mostly. Now the arms started getting into the control of some select few factions and they started their infighting.

So to say that we shouldn't have left Pakistan is wrong. We had left it long back and Pakistanis hate Americans because of that. If we had pursued attacks in Pakistan, then Pakistanis would have used the same nuclear weapons which we helped them build.

It's a chaos out there and to blame it on one Iraq vote shows the dumbness and lack knowledge of Pakistan from an average American.

And THAT IS REALITY.  No games playing involved.  Someone REALLY DIED.  They were assassinated by terrorists, terrorists from Pakistan, not Iraq or Iran or North Korea.  Pakistan.
Ron, TX (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 5:52 PM)


You know nothing about Pakistan if you think terrorists assasinated Bhutto. Pakistan is made up of different factions and each group hate each other to the extent of killing each other. All we have done so far is give them arms and channelize them against Russia (via Afghanistan/Taliban  - yes we helped in creation of Taliban by giving them arms) and India (via Islamo Facists in Kashmir) to an extent. There are Pathans, there are Mohajirs, there Baluchistan Warwazis or whatever they are called. They all were propped up by us to control USSR and India during cold war.

As the cold war died, we left them to be on their own mostly. Now the arms started getting into the control of some select few factions and they started their infighting.

So to say that we shouldn't have left Pakistan is wrong. We had left it long back and Pakistanis hate Americans because of that. If we had pursued attacks in Pakistan, then Pakistanis would have used the same nuclear weapons which we helped them build.

It's a chaos out there and to blame it on one Iraq vote shows the dumbness and lack knowledge of Pakistan from an average American.

Wow.  It is evident that the Obama folks drank the kool-aid!!  The Obama for president movement has become more of a cult than a political movement.  Facts are irrelevant.  These poor people have faith and hope.  And that will make the world a good and safe place.  To try to second guess the Byzantine world of Pakistani politics and intrigue, and tie that to a vote in the US senate takes the cake!!  When Barack Obama said that the USA could take unilateral action in the Pakistani Northwest territories in order to chase Al Qaeda, he should have been laugh out of the presidential race.  That was a clear indication that he had not idea what he was talking about.  To think that Chris Matthews, yes that useful idiot, is in the tank for this guy, and carries water for him everyday, along with the MSNBC news staff, is an indication of the lunacy that has taken over the punditry.  The triumph of stile over substance.  We get another GW Bush, only difference is that he is black and comes from the loony left.  What has happened to the center in this country?

While other candidates were talking (and Giuliani and Romney were rushing to judgment) about Bhutto's assassination, John Edwards actually did something.  His urging of Musharraf to allow an independent, international investigation into the murder was exactly the right course to take, according to a former Nat'l Security expert who appeared on CNN later in the day. Edwards really showed something today. The "experience v. change" dichotomy promoted by Clinton and Obama is a false choice: in Edwards, we've got both.

it is going to be difficult to pick one person to be president after listening to the bs that comes out of this bunch of misfits.Are any to be trusted with the leadership of this country?After Bush and his bunch of nitwits have stumbled around in blindness for 8 years of painful agony to this country what is left to lead?Lets just draw names out of a paper bag---it will make no difference whose name is picked they all suck and can anyone clean the great trail of sh-- that Bush and his cronies left to smell?

How quickly those on the right forget what OUR President said his mission was! He took his eye off the prize and made Pakistan a safe haven for al Queda.
This safe haven allowed the murderous thugs that carried out todays tragedy the ability to plan, and sadly, execute their warped ideas.

The timing and transparency of Axelrod's comments are despicable.

I beseech the voters of Iowa and NH to think long and hard before caucusing for, or voting for, Barack Obama.  

God help us.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with what Axelrod said, that is the plain truth. We left al-queda to regroup and the consequences of that are the problems we have in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Those who voted to authorise this misadventure must accept their responsibilities. Look at the right wing media trying to dodge the shameful cheerleading of the events leading to the war in Iraq!

Foreign policies are complex and subtle and one or two comments aren't going to make anyone into an instant foreign policy expert.

If voters are going to judge presidential candidates on their knowledge of foreign policies and world politics, those voters should read some history first instead of relying on some sound bites and misguided comments by Obama's minder as gospel or a gotcha from his opponents.

Further, Pakistan's political history has not been exactly a model of stability and democracy, to put it mildly.  Bhutto had been targeted by the radical extremists on the day she returned to Pakistan when the suicide bomb killed some 140 people as a warning.  These radical extremists borne from the madrassas that existed well over two decades.  Fact is Osama bin Laden denounces both Musharruf and Bhutto for being the western agents.  

 

Seems to me Axelrod is right. Its part of the reasoning behind those who opposed the invasion of Iraq from the start.

Barack Hussein Obama shall be the next president of the United States, of this I am certain. I believe he was sent here by Allah, as a gift to the world. I see now that the West will never win in its ideological struggle with Islam. We are the new Rome. We must all accept our dhimmihood, and Barack Hussein Obama, with his moderate muslim heritage, is the leader we need to transition this nation into Islam. Barack Hussein Obama inspired me to read the Koran, and I now realize that his youth spent in Indonesia and the influence of his muslim father and stepfather are what we need to welcome American into the expanding muslim world.

That's really bad when dems accuse other dems for the war in Iraq, especially when someone was killed by people in her own country.

Obama is going to have to respond to this.

Also, most Americans supported the president going to war because Bush lied about WMD.

The point is that if we had never attacked Iraq until after we finished the job in Afghanistan Pakistan would be much more stable than it is now.  Anyone ever play the game callled RISK?  If you fight on too many fronts, you will go down. We are falling into that trap.  

That's all, it is common sense.  Don't attack another country while you are already at war with another one unless you absolutely have to.  A 12 year old should know the answer.  Don't attack Iraq until we have secured Afghanistan.

I will vote for Obama for many reasons.  This is just one reason.  He has common sense that seems to elude the Washington insiders.

Plain and simple: "OBOMBA." He's toast!

Iraq = Terroist recrutment/trainning zone. Trained terroists = weapon. Weapon = Assaination. Tell me again what Obama got wrong? I wonder how those Pakistan terrorist acquired the trainning to do their bombing?

Bhutto's Reaction To Obama's Comment on Military Force

Benazir Bhutto, when asked about Barack Obama's statement that he would use military force on Pakistani soil without authorization from that government, at a Council on Foreign Relations event in August:

   QUESTIONER: You may have covered that, what I was going to ask you next, but let me try it anyhow.

   We had quite an interesting, and indeed still are, mini-debate here politically between two — initially two of the Democratic aspirants for presidents, and it spread now across party lines. And Barack Obama kicked it off by saying, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." That's a direct quote from a recent speech of his. What is your reaction to that?

   BHUTTO: Well, I wouldn't like the United States to violate Pakistan's sovereignty with unauthorized military operations. But the issue that I would like to stress is that Barack Obama also said, if Pakistan won't act. And that's the critical issue, that the government has to act. And the government has to act to protect Pakistan's own serenity and integrity, its own respect, and to understand that if it creates a vacuum, then others aren't going to just twiddle their thumbs while militants freely move across the border.

   I think General Musharraf did the right thing recently in admitting that militants are using our soil, but he said the army has nothing to do with it. But nonetheless, the issue for me is that we cannot cede parts of Pakistani territory to anybody; not just the Taliban, to anybody. That in Pakistan we have one army, one police, one constitution, one government. We cannot allow parallel armies, parallel militias, parallel laws and parallel command structures. Today it's not just the intelligence services, who were previously called a state within a state. Today it's the militants who are becoming yet another little state within the state, and this is leading some people to say that Pakistan is on the slippery slope of being called a failed state. But this is a crisis for Pakistan, that unless we deal with the extremists and the terrorists, our entire state could founder.

Terrorism is loathsome everywhere it strikes, but today's bombing really sticks in the craw. Someone evil in that region just silenced a voice that could have done a lot of good for that country.

12/27 09:52 AM

Hillary is the most confused candidate on foriegn policy

EVEN BHUTTO AGREED WITH OBAMA;

Bhutto's reaction to Obama's Pakistan policy: "But the issue that I would like to stress is that Barack Obama also said, if Pakistan won't act. And that's the critical issue, that the government has to act. And the government has to act to protect Pakistan's own serenity and integrity, its own respect, and to understand that if it creates a vacuum, then others aren't going to just twiddle their thumbs while militants freely move across the border." -- Benazir Bhutto, August, 2007 ....

Hillary is the most confused candidate on foriegn policy

EVEN BHUTTO AGREED WITH OBAMA;

Bhutto's reaction to Obama's Pakistan policy: "But the issue that I would like to stress is that Barack Obama also said, if Pakistan won't act. And that's the critical issue, that the government has to act. And the government has to act to protect Pakistan's own serenity and integrity, its own respect, and to understand that if it creates a vacuum, then others aren't going to just twiddle their thumbs while militants freely move across the border." -- Benazir Bhutto, August, 2007 ....

It is funny how we want a person to lead us and when someone calls for invading Pakistan to take out Bin Laden if there is signs that he is there, we can't take it.
At least he said it. Oh, sberman, if you did not hear, all the canidates are hanging their hats on Her death. I think you should check in on who also help pushed Mrs. Bhutto to return.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):