More politicization of Bhutto?

Jerry Lansing — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:34:20 GMT

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.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Mike, Oronoko, MI — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:44:08 GMT

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.

More politicization of Bhutto?

scott — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:45:18 GMT

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

More politicization of Bhutto?

Marbw — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:46:56 GMT

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.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Tenngurl — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:49:13 GMT

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

More politicization of Bhutto?

modernwoman, Anytown,USA — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:51:22 GMT

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.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Ron, TX — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:52:04 GMT

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.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Hobo, Hoboken, NJ — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:52:40 GMT

More politicization of Bhutto?

sonya, atlanta, ga — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:54:25 GMT

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 ....

More politicization of Bhutto?

Ernest, MIA, FL — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:55:58 GMT

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

More politicization of Bhutto?

Lee Holmes — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:57:55 GMT

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].

More politicization of Bhutto?

docrock,tx — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:58:34 GMT

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.

More politicization of Bhutto?

ki houston — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:02:38 GMT

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.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Wayne, Silver Spring, MD — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:07:49 GMT

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.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Rich Flatts — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:08:10 GMT

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

More politicization of Bhutto?

Harry Ross — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:09:56 GMT

"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?

More politicization of Bhutto?

sberman, agoura hills, calif — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:10:33 GMT

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.

More politicization of Bhutto?

diane — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:13:33 GMT

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.

More politicization of Bhutto?

NO TO OBAMA, la, ca — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:14:25 GMT

HILLARY IS A WINNER

More politicization of Bhutto?

Daniel — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:52:27 GMT

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

More politicization of Bhutto?

Nashville_fan — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:14:45 GMT

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.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Bill C. — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:16:39 GMT

Enough of this nonsence... hillaryclinton.com

More politicization of Bhutto?

Scott — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:24:11 GMT

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.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Will, California — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:27:23 GMT

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.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:30:44 GMT

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."

More politicization of Bhutto?

Kelly (from Pittsburgh) — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:16:34 GMT

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.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Jack Roses, Capitola, CA — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:20:53 GMT

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.

More politicization of Bhutto?

BarackOBAMAVOTEDYESTOTHEPATRIOTACT — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:21:38 GMT

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?

More politicization of Bhutto?

JD, CA — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:25:55 GMT

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....

More politicization of Bhutto?

Tim, New York, NY — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:30:19 GMT

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.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Simon, IA — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:44:54 GMT

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.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Simon, IA — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:56:55 GMT

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.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Simon, IA — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:59:46 GMT

More politicization of Bhutto?

Robert, Washinton DC — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:12:43 GMT

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?

More politicization of Bhutto?

OhioMom — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:16:53 GMT

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.

More politicization of Bhutto?

HMT-MI — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:35:34 GMT

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?

More politicization of Bhutto?

Tim, Naples, Fl — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:57:00 GMT

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.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Lynn McCoy, New Hampshire — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 04:05:48 GMT

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.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Guy chiko, Clinton, Iowa — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 04:18:45 GMT

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!

More politicization of Bhutto?

Anne N, NY, NY — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 04:20:12 GMT

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.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 04:45:34 GMT

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

More politicization of Bhutto?

Patricia Melton — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 04:53:52 GMT

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.

More politicization of Bhutto?

JohnC, SC — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 05:44:11 GMT

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.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Dan, TX — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 05:51:32 GMT

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.

More politicization of Bhutto?

ed craft, Grand Junction, Colorado — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 05:59:08 GMT

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

More politicization of Bhutto?

Dom, Vancouver, Washington — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:08:03 GMT

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?

More politicization of Bhutto?

stan — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:56:36 GMT

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

More politicization of Bhutto?

Nice, Houston Texas — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:34:54 GMT

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 ....

More politicization of Bhutto?

Nice, Houston Tx — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:35:29 GMT

More politicization of Bhutto?

cc — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:13:51 GMT

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.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:24:47 GMT

More politicization of Bhutto?

Debbie, Atlanta, GA — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:27:36 GMT

Obama was right AGAIN!!!! When are we going to stop playing "politics-as-usual" and realize that he has the vision and the drive that this country needs! I am very disappointed with Clinton and her attempt to score points because she knew Bhutto personally.

It was not her personal views that she wanted to give to the world but she wanted to present the people of Pakistan's view and their quest for democracy for a better life.

Obama was right...we have been on the wrong battlefied! We should never gone into Iraq!!!!!!! Let's be honest, he had to stand against the entire Congress and inject judgement and rationality which they continue to ignore to this day!

Obama was right...we need him in 2008!

More politicization of Bhutto?

csh, IL — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:18:14 GMT

Axelrod's comments tying Hillary's Iraq vote to Benizir Bhutto's death were reprhensible. Trying to expoliting a tradgedy for political gain. I hope the press will do their job and force the campaign and candidate to answer for this. Can you imagine if someone from Hillary's campaign had tried to score political points with some far fetched anaolgy? I have a feeling the press would be all over that....

More politicization of Bhutto?

Ron, IN — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:30:37 GMT

Mr. Obama was right, again. There is a real pattern of great judgment when people of the typical pundit/Washington insider said he was wrong. It would be a real shame if we don't put this leader in the White House. Obama's head and shoulders above compared to the other top tier dems!

More politicization of Bhutto?

Stopwatchingfoxnews, Rochester, NY — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:50:24 GMT

I love how the Obama fans refuse to believe their candidate slipped up. His statement on Bhutto yesterday was cold and unfeeling, compared to the people who knew her. Axlerod, should be fired. It's worst than Hillary's people saying Republicans will use his drug use against him. Hillary showed leadership and had that guy got fired. I wonder what Obama will do.

The fact is, Leaders in Pakistan have been getting assasinated long before the Iraq war and if any of you Obama people studied history, you would know this. Obviously, Axlerod doesn't.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Dee Anna Roberts , Green Bay Wisconsin ( Go Pac Go! ) — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:52:07 GMT

Hmmmmmm. I Notice The "Ultimate Rebuttal" to the spin Missing. Obama already addressed this.

Obama: Dustup over aide's remarks just DC 'spin'

by Mike Dorning

VINTON, Iowa—Barack Obama tonight defended comments made by his chief political strategist drawing a link between rival Hillary Clinton’s vote to authorize the Iraq War and the political tumult in Pakistan that today included the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.

In an interview with CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer moments before he walked into an evening rally at a high school here, Barack Obama called a controversy over the comment “spin” and said his adviser “in no way was suggesting that Hillary Clinton was somehow directly to blame for the situation.”

Throughout the day, the Clinton and Obama camps traded criticisms amid an ongoing battle on the campaign trail over her claims that Obama lacks the experience needed to be president. Obama has countered that Clinton's initial support for the Iraq war, which he opposed, raises questions about her experience and judgment.

Early in the day, the Illinois senator's top campaign strategist, David Axelrod, cited Clinton's vote to authorize the war in Iraq and argued that the war has stoked support in the Islamic world for Al Qaeda, which may be involved in Bhutto’s assassination.

"Barack Obama had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq. And he warned at the time that it would divert us from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, and now we see the effect of that," Axelrod said. "... Sen. Clinton made a different judgment. Let's have that discussion."

Phil Singer, a Clinton campaign spokesman, responded shortly afterward by contending Axelrod was "politicizing this situation with baseless allegations" when people should be focused on the implications for Pakistan, the U.S. and the world.

Obama said in the CNN interview that Axelrod’s comments were misinterpreted.

"I overheard it when he said it. And this is one of those situations where Washington is putting a spin on it. It makes no sense whatsoever," Obama said.

"He in no way was suggesting that Hillary Clinton was somehow directly to blame for the situation there," he said later in the interview.

Obama said that Axelrod was responding to a question about whether the assassination would move Iowa voters to be more sympathetic to arguments that the Clinton camp has made that Obama lacks the foreign policy experience to be president.

“His response was simply to say that if we are going to talk politics, then the question has to be, ‘Who has exercised the kind of judgment that would be more likely to lead to better outcomes in the Middle East and better outcomes in Pakistan?’ And his argument was simply that Iraq has fanned anti-American sentiment and it took our eye off the ball,” Obama said. "That’s part of the reason we are now in this circumstance."

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/obama_controversy_over_aides_r.html

More politicization of Bhutto?

Stopwatchingfoxnews, NY — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:55:05 GMT

Anyone notice Hillary hater, Chris Matthews, didn't bother to mention Axlerod's comments, but when Hillary's guy said the Republicans would use his drug use against Obama, Matthews blasted the Clinton campaign. The Hypocracy never ends!

More politicization of Bhutto?

Rick,ky — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:58:44 GMT

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)

With some of the candidates copying his campaign theme after seeing that his style was working, the only thing we've yet to hear is'I AGREE WITH BARACK Indeed,Hobo from hoboken, ,How many times does Obama have to be right before people start getting it?
Mrs. Bhutto herself agreed with the premise that Barack was talking about, which is, if Pakistan won't do something about it, outside forces should.Voter's won't forget that he was ahead of the curve, so to speak on this.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Amos Graber — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:05:02 GMT

General Musharrif is barely one rung up from the likes of Osama. It is very evident the "Dictator General" played a part in Bhutto's death; her remarks from the grave just make this more apparent. This is what happens when Bush made a pact with the devil, the likes of Musharrif. Ironically my personal belief that trying or even succeeding in creating a democracy in Iraq would destabilize the whole region seems to becoming a reality. Turkey is invading the Kurds in northern Iraq, Afghanistan is totally out of control, and soon al-Qaida will have its dream of controlling Pakistan, along with Pakistan's nukes. We owe all this not only to the idiot in the Whitehouse, but also for every dimwit that voted for him. Never underestimate stupid and misinformed people in mass numbers. Plato always believed a true democracy will always lead to a dictatorship. This is what happens when too many voters believe everything they hear from either talk radio, or the Murdoch group of news media outlets.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Amy B Portland, ME — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:15:21 GMT

Obama is right on the mark, otherwise, why would all the trolls be out today bashing him? Obama/Biden/Edwards are the first politicians I've heard in years who make any sense talking about foreign affairs. I'll be glad to see the last of the incompetent, blowhard CHeney/Bushites in charge of our policy in the Middle East.

More politicization of Bhutto?

squintz, philly, pa — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:26:35 GMT

First, Bhutto was a POLITICIAN. Her entire LIFE was politicized and she was assassinated (a, uh, political act) immediately prior to a US Presidential primary during a "War on Terror." In that a) reporters were ASKING all of the campaigns for their response and b) all of the major candidates were actively seeking information about the event, I'm a little confused as to why we are all so wide-eyed with shock and dismay that this topic might come up? The fact of the matter is, everyone else is talking about Pakistan NOW, AFTER THIS HAS HAPPENED, instead of BEFORE. Except for Obama. Who was talking about it before. And who was right. Nothing in Axelrod's statement implies that Clinton was somehow responsible, and the only reason anyone is saying Alexrod's comments were inappropriate is because Clinton's campaign said so.
She may jump and you all ask how high, but luckily I think Iowans are smarter than that.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Ron, TX — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:41:06 GMT

They always say "thanks to Clinton's vote to the Iraq war......." I never heard they say "thanks to Biden, Edwards vote for Iraq war...."
BECAUSE HILLARY IS A FRONT RUNNER, AHEAD. HILLARY WILL WIN IOWA. Media pushed Obama to the frontline, he himself NEVER walks to the front. HE WILL NEVER WIN.

More politicization of Bhutto?

ULB, NY — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:46:48 GMT

Obama had no say on the war he was not there to vote for the war and we do not know how he would have voted. Stop it already - this goes to show why the United States need to stay out of other countries affairs. The woman is dead because they try to broker a deal in our best interest. When are we going to learn.

More politicization of Bhutto?

mike oh — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:02:53 GMT

To put the blame for Bhutto's death on Hillary and 96 other U.S. Senators while he himself safely doesn't vote on every controsersial issue that comes his way is disgusting. I thought re-writing history was the republicans job. This is the slimiest tactic I've seen in an electon since GWB's people slimed McCain in SC in 2000.

Disgusting.

I've said on this blog during this whole run up that I am a Hillary supporter but would vote for whoever got the nomination. I'm not sure I can do that anymore. This is just disgusting, what a slimy rovian tactic.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Dot, Illinois — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:35:35 GMT

squintz, philly, pa

Just to set the record straight, I think we would have to add Senator Biden's name to the list of candidates who were talking about potential problems in Pakistan before this assassination occurred.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Steve, Hartford, CT — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:44:33 GMT

Now we see who pays attention to facts and who is just lapping up campaign spin. Obama said we should be paying more attention to Pakistan months ago, and everyone said he was a nitwit (EXCEPT for Bhutto herself). Now Obama's adviser, answering a QUESTION about how this affects the foreign policy discussion in the last days of the campaign, makes the SAME POINT that Obama's campaign has been making THE WHOLE TIME.

And Hillary's lapdogs consider it a "slimy, rovian tactic."

Obama was right on this, he was right on Iraq, and I say we give him the chance to show us how many other things he's right about. Obama in '08!

(And please, Democrats, DON'T get bitter about the primary! Seriously, if nothing else, Hillary IS right that it would be better under Dems than the GOP, so PLEASE VOTE DEMOCRAT in 08, no matter WHO the nominee is--our field is awesome compared to theirs!)

More politicization of Bhutto?

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:43:55 GMT

My girlfriend (a non-political junkie) caught the Presidential candidates talking about this on CNN last night. ALL of them, with the exception of Obama, really irritated her because they seemed to be melding the tragedy around their own self-ambition. Only Obama, in her words, "never pisses me off".

It's good, organic little anecdote to keep in mind between the endless mudslinging by campaign operatives and supporters on this thread, most of which could be predicted before even reading it.
Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Friday, December 28, 2007 7:24 AM)

Can you in good conscience say that Axelrod was not using the tragedy to his advantage? He used it to make the argument that those voting for the war in Iraq will have to face their judgment on that vote in light of Bhutto's assassination. How is that NOT politicizing her death?

More politicization of Bhutto?

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:30:18 GMT

Just out of curiosity, why are people who say negative things about Obama always called trolls, but people who say negative things about Hillary are not called anything?

Oh wait. I forgot, I'm not supposed to point out the overwhelming hypocrisy from many of the Obama supporters anymore. I'm supposed to be a good girl and stop speaking the truth.

Well, in the infamous words of Jack Nicholson, "You can't handle the truth." I suppose that's why they feel the need to attack anyone who comes close to stepping on Obama's toes. Once you look past the bright and shiny exterior, the picture is not nearly so pleasant.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Lance-SF — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:36:27 GMT

David Axelrod and Obama were right on target and said nothing that is incorrect. It is only the MSM, looking for "news" that can spin their comments into blaming Hillary Clinton for death of Bhutto. Such foolishness! And so desperate.... and worse: the people in here buying it!

You want someone with the wisdom and courage to say and do what needs to be done? Barack Obama 08. It is time... We can't afford more of the same; it's not working.... that's quite clear.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Amy B Portland, ME — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:43:31 GMT

I agree with Steve, Hartford, CT.

Believe me, I resisted Obama. I defended Hillary against some people's attacks. I even sent money to John Edwards. But now I've decided, Obama will be the next President of the United States. He's an original thinker, he has depth and courage, and he will always talk straight to the American people.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Suzette, Waynesville, Mo — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:28:08 GMT

Have we lost sight of who we are and what this (US) country needs? We are so busy policing the world, our needs are seriously lacking. Education, health care, proverty, and so forth. My thoughts and prayers are with PM Bhutto. The fact of the matter is these wars have deeply minimized our resources, we have had thousands of members of our Forces killed and seriously injured, the poor is getting poorer and the rich is getting richer.

What are we talking about anymore? To me, it's more alarming to me that the media is highlighting the death of PM Bhutto when our own Forces are constantly dying and in harms way in a war that never should have occurred.
***It's AMAZING to me that we can take our citizens, transform them into fighting forces in 8 weeks of boot camp and a FEW more weeks of learning their MOS' (jobs) and send them to fight wars in other countries. We have been in Iraq for years and these people are not capable of guarding the local convenient store.

Come on America, people have to want to change and take the necessary steps to make it happen. If I am wrong...this means, the US is hiding the fact that they are capable of handling their country and we should leave like...yesterday, not tomorrow. I'm sure that won't happen.

Our country is constantly funding these countries who are knowingly shady with their politics and are not doing enough to combat these terroristic actions. This funding or those 10 billion dollars sent to Pakistan could have bought plenty of books, materials for our children to learn and/ or to strengthen our own economy.

I often ever wonder where is the UN or the central figure to bring all nations together, why aren't they commented on these situations? Why are our noses always in other people's business? I know why, if we stop funding these countries and expect them to quid pro quo anything positive, we can get somewhere. We are supposed to be a superpower, not the supermuscle of the world to boss everyone around.
**IF THESE CANDIDATES BELIEVE I AM FOCUSING ON FOREIGN POLICY...THINK AGAIN!!!**

Another thing...many of the candidates claim they have spoken to the people of Pakistan and everywhere else, but what about the CITIZENS OF OUR COUNTRY who need things done here. Pakistan can't run their country, because they are tied up with calls from nosey politicians from the US. STAY OUT OF THOSE PEOPLE BUSINESS' AND TAKE CARE OF THE PEOPLE IN YOUR YOUR OWN COUNTRY! I AM NOT IMPRESSED BY YOU RUNNING SOMEONE ELSE'S BUSINESS, WHEN YOU CAN'T RUN THE BUSINESS OF THE PEOPLE OF OUR GREAT COUNTRY! WHO CARES IF YOU TOOK PICTURES WITH THEM YEARS AGO, VISITING WITH THEM, WHO CARES IF YOU TALKED TO THE PAKISTAN PRESIDENT WEEKS AGO AND GAVE HIM ADVISE! My advice to you...is mind the affairs of the US.

Americans must not take their eyes off the prize, we must focus on domestic issues. How can you clean the world, when your own country is lacking? I don't believe Amercans are that shallow to believe we need a war president, how can we tell other countries to get along, when we ourselves are filled with hate for our own bretheren.

These countries have been fighting for centuries and our blood shed is not going to change one thing for them. Especially, when our government get it wrong and still want us to support their actions to fight.

The funding for these countries can help with more intelligence, create more jobs to keep our own country safe by being able to investigate the people coming into our country, protect our borders, etc.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH...We don't need the same politicians from previous years SINGING THE SAME TUNE, we need newness, fresh faces, people who care more about us than what is going on elsewhere. We should be trying to move forward, not backwards. {To seek the past to me is like seeking trying to renew a failed relationship from the past, if it didn't work then, why try again?} They are going to come in on day one, with the same people from the past with the same ole' thoughts; who needs that baggage? I don't and the American people deserve better, if you don't think it for yourself, I do for myself and my family.

WAKE UP AMERICA!

More politicization of Bhutto?

Jeff, Portland, OR — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:49:58 GMT

Carrie from Iowa....."Obama said that Axelrod was responding to a question about whether the assassination would move Iowa voters to be more sympathetic to arguments that the Clinton camp has made that Obama lacks the foreign policy experience to be president."

He was responding to a question that politicized her assassination and gave favor to the opposing candidate. His response will inherently be political and in defense of his canidate.

Many of your attacks on Obama are baseless and irrational. The experience argument is getting pathetic. He has more elected experience than Hillary. And if experience is really what you are looking for than put your money where your mouth is and vote for Biden or Dodd. Otherwise you do sound like a.....dare I say troll.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Darrius, Arkansas — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:10:15 GMT

Obama got it right. He had it right at first.

The MSM media is going to get off of this topic (the discussion about Pakistan) fairly quickly, because Obama is going to win it. He was winning the argument when he brought it up last time, but the media just stopped talking about it, all of a sudden. If they start it up now he is going to win it.

Obama stands to gain quite few point in this fight. Last time he was simultaneously taking on everybody on both sides of the isle and winning. If this fight resumes, Obama is going to win it. Only now is just a few days ahead of the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. If Obama were to win a major policy debate now it will help him gain a few points in the caucus. I expect to MSM to stop these discussions in one or two days.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:04:04 GMT

Jeff:

I rarely make the experience argument in relation to Obama or Hillary, thank you very much. When I do, I make it for Biden, the candidate I am caucusing for on January 3.

I don't believe Obama is ready for the presidency, period. I am entitled to that opinion, and I dare say that there are an awful lot of people who feel the same way I do.

More politicization of Bhutto?

Jeff, Portland, OR — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:56:01 GMT

Carrie,

But what do you base this opinion on....this opinion that he is not ready for the presidency. He is extremely intelligent; has shown good judgment on many important issues; has legitimate experience as a legislature, a constitutional law professor, and a community organizer. He has more foreign policy experience than the last five presidents when they took office (with the exception of George HW Bush). He is the same age as Bill Clinton when he was elected. And listen to what Bill Clinton said when people questioned his lack of experience when he was running.

I see you on here a lot Carrie always criticizing Obama and never praising Biden. I will start calling you on it.