Bhutto Assassination: '08 Candidates React

AP:

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said Thursday the assassination of Benazir Bhutto underscores a need for the U.S. to increase its efforts to combat terrorism.

The former New York mayor, who was in charge of the city when terrorists struck on Sept. 11, 2001, called the assassination a "tragic event for Pakistan and for democracy in Pakistan."

Read the whole story: AP

Comments

[Tellmethetruth]

05:41 PM on 12/27/2007

Pakistan criticises Obama after warning on military strikes

Saturday August 4, 2007The Guardian
Pakistan criticised the Democratic election contender Barack Obama yesterday over his warning that as president he might order military strikes against al-Qaida targets in the country's border areas.
As protesters burned the US flag in Karachi, Khusheed Kasuri, Pakistan's foreign minister, said: "It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say. As the election campaign in America is heating up, we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."
The response from Pakistan was mirrored in criticism from Hillary Clinton and other Democratic rivals.
...He said he would not hesitate to use force to destroy those who posed a threat to the United States, and if the Pakistani president, Pervez Musharraf, would not act, he would.
That speech may have played well with Democratic activists and the public at large. But before any poll could be held to test reaction, Mr Obama showed uncertainty on Thursday in an interview with the Associated Press.
He appeared to be caught off guard when he was asked if he would use nuclear weapons against al-Qaida in Pakistan.
Mr Obama replied: "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance." He added: "... involving civilians".
Demonstrating a degree of unpreparedness, he went on to say: "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."
Ms Clinton pounced, portraying herself as more savvy and dependable on foreign affairs.
"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons," she said.
"Presidents, since the cold war, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."
Joe Biden, another Democratic rival, described Mr Obama as naive...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2141482,00.html

[Tellmethetruth]

04:22 PM on 12/27/2007

Joe Biden's remarks on 8/4/07 after Obama's threat to invade Pakistan and possibly use nuclear weapons against them caused rioting in Pakistan in August of 2007.

Joe Biden: "… in order to look tough, he's undermined his ability to be tough, were he president. Because if you're going to go into Pakistan -- which is already our policy by the way, if there's actionable intelligence -- you need actionable intelligence from moderates within Pakistan working with you. Now if you're already going to say I'm going to disregard whatever the country thinks and going to invade, the likelihood you're getting the cooperation you need evaporates. It's a well intended notion he has, but it's a very naïve way of figuring out how you're going to conduct foreign policy."
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/02/302031.aspx

[Tellmethetruth]

04:19 PM on 12/27/2007

Pakistan criticises Obama after warning on military strikes


Saturday August 4, 2007
The Guardian
"Pakistan criticised the Democratic election contender Barack Obama yesterday over his warning that as president he might order military strikes against al-Qaida targets in the country's border areas.
As protesters burned the US flag in Karachi, Khusheed Kasuri, Pakistan's foreign minister, said: "It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say. As the election campaign in America is heating up, we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."
The response from Pakistan was mirrored in criticism from Hillary Clinton and other Democratic rivals.

....Obama said he would not hesitate to use force to destroy those who posed a threat to the United States, and if the Pakistani president, Pervez Musharraf, would not act, he would.
That speech may have played well with Democratic activists and the public at large. But before any poll could be held to test reaction, Mr Obama showed uncertainty on Thursday in an interview with the Associated Press.
He appeared to be caught off guard when he was asked if he would use nuclear weapons against al-Qaida in Pakistan.
Mr Obama replied: "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance." He added: "... involving civilians".
Demonstrating a degree of unpreparedness, he went on to say: "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."
Ms Clinton pounced, portraying herself as more savvy and dependable on foreign affairs.
"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons," she said.
"Presidents, since the cold war, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."
Joe Biden, another Democratic rival, described Mr Obama as naive...." naive,http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2141482,00.html

[WilliamWallace]

04:17 PM on 12/27/2007

Here's the part where they leverage the FEAR, like good Bushies.

FEAR of the unknown
IGNORANCE of other nations and cultures

The two cornerstones and greatest tools of Neo-Conservatism.

[Tellmethetruth]

02:41 PM on 12/27/2007

Joe Biden was right about Pakistan for months now. He has also been weekly conversing with the President of Pakistan, who Joe Biden has sadly reported, many world leaders have stopped talking to Bush, so turn to Biden instead.

For those readers who want to refresh his/her memories of what Joe Biden posted on Huffington Post on November 6th and November 8th regarding Pakistan and the crisis there, here are the links. Joe Biden was right on the money and in many ways very prophetic in assessing the situation there. For months, Joe Biden has been saying Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world now. Pakistan is where Bin Laden is located and his terrorist organization and Pakistan is but one of eight countries in the world with nuclear weapsons.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-biden/a-new-approach-to-pakista_b_71733.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-biden/we-need-a-pakistan-policy_b_71399.html

[MNmommy]

02:11 PM on 12/27/2007

Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear
Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear
Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear
Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear
Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear
Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear
Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear Fear

[Aily]

01:02 PM on 12/27/2007

Sadly, the potential implication from this tragedy is that the Republican candidates like Gulliani will somehow paint themselves as the ONLY "tough, strong" leaders to deal with the terror threats faced in the world. And many voters will buy their logic..."I, Gulliani, was mayor of NYC on 9/11, and helped rally the troop, spirits of New Yorkers to face the problems afterward; therefore, I am the toughest, best, most experience person to lead this country." What experience? What strength? What a laugh!

The laugh will be on this republic should another IDIOT, TOUGH-GUY TALK/IMAGE LIKE BUSH be elected president.

Bush often tauts that he has helped kept us from another attack (more correctly, "retaliation") and has kept the world safer with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And YET we face this tragedy today.

I'll throw this out...Bush & Co. and others are so quick to connect this tragedy to some Islamic-extremists, BUT, what if it is an inside job--by the Pakistan govt, by "some US lead efforts? It's not like these things have never happen before? Vietnam, Panama, former Zaire....all in the name of democracy. Our leaders have acted to destabilize other governments to prop up ones we like...ones we think are more friendly to us despite their records. The Musharraf government...Mubuto in Zaire during the Reagan years...the list is long.

[YankeeCanuck]

12:48 PM on 12/27/2007

Yes, a person of peace is dead, and this is a great tragedy that will resonate across the globe.
Senator Joe Biden is the candidate who had a personal relationship with Mrs. Bhutto. He, not the president, is the one she called upon for counsel. Biden has been warning us about the situation in Pakistan on Sunday AM television for many months. Like so many of his ideas, they are ignored by the media until they show up as headlines on the front page.
We need to think this over seriously-- can we afford to elect as President anyone less prodigiously qualified in foreign relations?

Those in Pakistan who had high hopes for democracy are in mourning. We think of them today and hope that our country will soon be able to engage with theirs in ways that can help them in the striving for peace.

[cblcar]

12:36 PM on 12/27/2007

I am almost sixty years old and have experienced so many of these horrible killings in my lifetime. It is always people of peace who are murdered. I remember when Anwar Sadat was murdered, JFK, RFK, MLK. And yet the murderous warmongering Bushes and Cheneys of the world live on. What is God thinking? I like to believe that there is always some reason for what happens, but something like this really shakes my faith. I'm devastated.

[ladygreenslippers]

12:29 PM on 12/27/2007

yes, i know it sounds crass and tactless to consider how it will affect or own politics; but let's not pretend.
it sure is a shocker, my stomach and my heart aches.
if you find considering the election disgusting, check out Hillary Clinton's response, asking for votes on the dead body of Bhutto; that even on a sad day in Pakistan's history, and a tragic day for Bhutto's family, we get this: (Yahoo)

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."

Thanks Hillary, we are glad that you play into the stereotype that the rest of the world has of Americans, that we only think of ourselves!

[StephenSmoliar]

11:57 AM on 12/27/2007

Am I the only reader finding it grotesque that within hours another country's national tragedy is been turned into fodder for our would-be Presidential candidates? One aspect of "political judgment" is the good sense to keep your mouth shut until you know enough about the story to take sensible actions. All we have gained from this is another example of how the machinery of politics undermines political judgment!

[ibsteve2u]

11:34 AM on 12/27/2007

Ruh roh...if Rudi sees a need to increase efforts against terrorism because of what has happened in Pakistan, then if he's elected we'll be in Venezuala before you can shake a camera at him.

[4smartpeas]

11:30 AM on 12/27/2007

Biden is the candidate with the experience and knowledge to handle the world we live in. why isn't he even mentioned in this article? He is the chairman of the foreign relations committee. Bhutto called him, not bush for advice when she went back to Pakistan.
The press is running this our election and it is time we take it back. Joe Biden 08

[Podcast]

11:23 AM on 12/27/2007

Each candidate was asked by Katie Couric about which country posed the most danger and the only candidate that immediately said Pakistan, was Hillary Clinton. It seems that with the unfolding events surrounding the assassination of Bhutto, that Hillary's perceptions could not have been more accurate.

[theblueAmerican]

11:08 AM on 12/27/2007

Senator Joe Biden is the one to watch in all of this. He is a very smart man on issues of foreign policy. This will help him.