Joe Biden: Dem Rivals "Not Making Sense" On Bhutto Murder

Council Bluffs, Iowa - Presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden took the occasion of the assassination of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto to chide his Democratic rivals as too inexperienced to be president and to tout his own foreign policy credentials.

"Observe what's been going on in Pakistan and you'll see not many candidates have spoken out," Biden said. "And those few who have spoken don't make a lot of sense."

Biden made his remarks Thursday night to an audience of about 150 supporters gathered at the Elks Lodge in this small city abutting Nebraska.

Biden didn't single out any of his rivals by name in deriding their statements on Pakistan. But calling "nuclear-riddled" Pakistan an "emerging, urgent crisis," the veteran Delaware senator suggested that among the Democratic contenders he alone was best suited to deal with dangerous global affairs.

In a post-event interview with The Huffington Post, Biden at first refused to specify which candidate he was referring to when he said they weren't making sense on Pakistan. He noted that front-runners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both of whom issued brief statements earlier in the day lamenting Bhutto's murder, were "both good people" but didn't have his breadth of foreign policy experience.

When further pressed on the issue, Biden singled out second-tier candidate Bill Richardson as an example of a candidate putting forth simplistic responses to the Pakistani crisis. "Richardson said that [Pakistani President] Musharraf should step down and make way for a coalition government," Biden said. "But what coalition? There isn't any. What's he talking about?"

The assassination of Bhutto, Biden told HuffPost, was one more symptom of what he called a "dyslexic" U.S. foreign policy. "We've got things backwards," he said. "Our policy in Afghanistan where we haven't devoted enough resources to fight Al Qaeda has only encouraged the same extremists in Pakistan."

Biden devoted most of his two-hour appearance to lengthy presentations of various "Biden plans" to solve thorny international issues.

"You know a lot of people make jokes about me running really running for Secretary of State," he told the crowd who peppered him with questions on foreign policy issues ranging from Russia to the Middle East to Afghanistan. "I'm not. I'm running for President. But I would ask you: 'How many of you are willing to vote for a candidate not able to be Secretary of State?'"

"I know many of the world leaders for the last 30 years. Not because I'm and important guy. But because I came up with them," he said referring to his long-time leadership position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "It's not hyperbole to suggest the rest of the world is waiting for an American president to be elected who can connect the dots. And I can."

Check out the rest of HuffPost's Iowa coverage.

Comments

[travis6cs]

Quoting Benazir Bhutto with David Frost, on Frost over the WorldNov 02, 07

Omar Sheikh the man who murdered Osama Bin Laden" 06.12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ

[williamg]

Now the Al Queda seems to be flourishing within the borders of Pakistan, maybe we should have a vote for a new war - in Finland. Why not? We haven't put a premium on making sense on foreign policy in quite a while. Al Queda attacks us, we in turn go after Iraq. Thanks Biden, Clinton and Edwards for voting for that war. Now that we have all of our forces tied up in Iraq along with a half trillion dollars, why not focus on the people who actually attacked us on 9/11? They seem to be in some way connected with the Bhutto assassination. But we don't do rational things when we have idiots voting along with Bush and the neocons.

[Dantana]

Biden cannot be elected president as long as voters are content to let CNN and Fox tell them who to vote for. i.e. the latest polls. If people would just vote for the candidate they like instead of who leading or 'electable', we'd all be alot better off.
I like it when Biden sticks his foot is his mouth, he's human-not a political hack.

[Imhotep]

Biden is a warmonger who is living in the state of confusion because the world has passed him and his neo-con thinking in the dust. Peace

[wmbear]

I THOUGHT MOST OF THE CANDIDATES' RESPONSES WERE PATHETIC...

They all basically twisted Bhutto's death into a "vote for me" rationale. I thought doing that was pretty sick, actually....

[emerywood]

Biden sounds like another " Decider " who always decides that he is the best in everything. If experience is all that it takes to be a good President, why not vote for the oldest guy in the Senate ? We have had 8 years of a Presdient who is more than confident and arrogant and who depends on fear-mongering to manipulate his supporters, I think enough is enough. We don't want any more egomaniacs !

[Researchguy66]

Everybody loves Joe, no question about it. But there are multiple reasons he won't win Iowa in a few days, the nomination or the presidency...I'll list a few of them:

1) He's way too focused on what's going on outside of the US. Most Americans don't understand what's really going on outside the US, unless someone simplifies it for them. Joe's never going to do that...leading to point 2.

2) In addition to droning on and on about various tiny details which all require an immense amount of care in addressing, Biden has a habit of sticking his foot in his mouth once a day or more. In unscripted moments, he makes Bush look cogent. He's not dumb. He's so much smarter than the rest of us that he can't talk to us in a way that we understand him.

3) He's old and boring. Sad, but true...notice that the top three candidates are anything but old and boring. Now, look at the rest of the field.

4) He's a perennial fixture in the primary campaign season, so no one will take him seriously. Honestly, he's tried this unsuccessfully so many times, he's just wasting his bankroll betting on the pass line.

At this point, the three majors should be kissing his butt to try to win over his caucusers when he doesn't pass 15%. Why there not, I dunno...

[ChristopherLib]

Obama was frankly pathetic handling the situation. He sent his advisor out to say there's a connection between Hillary's votes and what happened to Bhutto. Of course Obama can't run on experience, so he has to change the subject. Richardson was a little out there as well saying Mucharef should step down. Hillary and Biden, and to some extent Edwards, acted more like true leaders, like people I want to be President. Obama is a very charismatic, likable individual, but I have a hard time visualizing him as a strong leader.

[TheSchul]

Dear Iowans (and New Hampshirites),

This is a plea to support Sen. Biden. Your support will not guarantee him the nomination, however, your lack of support will ensure his defeat.

As the first in the nation caucus, your job is to evaluate the qualifications of the candidates and, in effect, choose the finalists for the rest of the primary season. Edwards, Hillary and Obama are all very similar candidates; relatively fresh faces (combined, they have served less than half as many years in the US Senate as Joe Biden).

Please do not base your votes on your perceptions of organization or electoral strength (the rest of the country can better make that determination collectively on Feb. 5). Rather, please choose the candidate that is most qualified to be president, whom I believe you will find is Joe Biden.

If Joe Biden is the wrong candidate, there will be plenty of time between January 3rd and February 5th for the national press and your fellow Democrats to make that determination. However, if you do not support Joe Biden, realistically, he will never be given the closer look he clearly deserves.

Sincerely yours,
A dedicated Democrat

[Bocababs]

I love Senator Biden and why he is not higher in the polling in Iowa and N.H. is beyond me. I for one, would support him as President.

[WigWamWag]

There is so much hatred, anger, and derision on this site that is it often shameful, unprofessional, and embarrassing that any rational person could sink so low as to fall victim to such immense juvenile playground behavior. Spiteful, hateful, diminishing behavior that rattles around without any logical bearing is just emotional rabble rousing.

Granted some want their particular candidate to rise above the fray and thus eventually lead the free world while their personal interests are given sufficient attention.

Some supporters will settle for nothing less than their own version as expounded by a specific candidate but the world is far more complex than any philosophy expounded by any one candidate or even one political party.

When those so entrenched with bad behavior are allowed to spew so much hatred we all lose. Certainly, we all can agree that the candidates in either party are not ideal in representing the interests of the whole of America in the broader sense as a member of the international community.

IMHO, the best candidates on the Democratic side are (not any particular order)
Biden and Dodd, the rest are not qualified enough to give any serious consideration. The Democratic party does not have Al Gore to pull its bacon from the fire.

IMHO The best candidate on the Republican side is:
Ron Paul
The Republican party does not have another Eisenhower to pull its bacon from the fire.

IMHO the VP seats for both parties are going to be a mess to fill because many candidates are too ego driven to accept a VP spot. One thing for sure Billery, O-bomb-a, and Fred Thompson could be real deal killers on any ticket combination. Those three in particular are poison pills.

In the end the push and shove of hurtful words does not mend fences, make friends, promote democracy, or harbor the interests of the greater good. Think about that for a while.

[jeffwtux]

Joe's biggest problem is that he's from Delaware. A DEM from the East Cost North of Virginia simply isn't electable. It's a harsh cold fact, but he has to deal with it.

[Lazslo]

OK Sen. Biden...let's connect the dots. The US has been funneling money and weapons to Pakistan to support a dictator Musharrif. The person who assassinated Bhutto was surely a Musharrif supporter. So why is the US calling the assissination a terrorist act? To connect the dots would mean that the US is supporting terrorism. Additionally, it's most likely that the weapon used to murder Bhutto was supplied by the US to Pakistan. So, go ahead and connect the dots. I'm just speculating at this point, but I bet that there are US fingerprints all over this crisis in Pakistan. I'm not saying the US pulled the trigger of the gun, but it did create an anti-democratic environment for terrorist acts. Yet another US supported dictatorship has produced horrific results. The Shah, Hussien, Noriega, Mushharif, all anti-democractic leaders supported by the US, all with nasty consequences. I like Biden's fresh speaking style but he's all wet when it comes to Iraq and Pakistan. To "connect the dots" is to implicate the US in so many unethical policies abroad, and the US is never going to admit to that.
Another possible way to connect the dots is that the CIA has been behind Bhutto's return to Pakistan, in an attempt to stop supporting Musharrif because he has not pursued Bin Laden enough, and if a democratically elected Bhutto took power (which was likely) she would pursue Bin Laden and most likely would have given the US more access to the country. So, the CIA influence that allowed her to return her to her country led to her death. I find it interesting that the US immediately comes out with the claim that the assassination was a terrorist act. How do they know? The identity of the person is not known yet. This was a political coup, not a terrorist act.
Biden is correct about one thing - the story being told to the US by the media doesn't add up - yet.

[SoonerThought]

Sen. Clinton, with all due respect, is coasting on her husband's coattails. Obama? Are you kidding? I'm with Biden. The other candidates know next to nothing about foreign policy, particularly Pakistan. America has no room for mistakes. This horserace fetish that grips the media is going to end up hurting our country. The media needs to focus on experience and ideas, not the spouse, gender or skin color of the candidates. www.JoeBiden.com has his platforms--real ideas, intelligent answers to tough questions.

[egp]

It just kills me to read all these comments linking so-called experience to good judgement. We all know that is not the case. Experience should have led to the judgement to not vote on this endless war in Iraq. to know that we cannot/should not destabalize a nation/region in the hopes of bringing our own brand of democracy.
Barack Obama may not have the Washington experience that you all seem to deem necessary to have good judgement, but he has shown that judgement over and over again. Remember the debate in Philly where he stated that Pakistan has not been cooperating with us in rooting out Al Quada and the Taliban, and that he would work to get our forces out of Iraq so that we could once again focus on our real war on terror against Al Quada and the Taliban? And if pressure on Musharraf would not get him to act, then Obama would take the necessary steps based on actionable intelligence? Back then, the so-called "experienced" candidates lashed out at his inexperience. But now, folks like Joe Biden are saying the same thing, only acting like they are the first to arrive at this opinion. Indeed, if our current administration, and our current senate and house would have focused on our war in Afghanistan and its border with Pakistan, the Islamist extremists who are being blamed for this assasination would most likely have not remained in place, and as strong as they are currently. Pakistan is a most dangerous nation, because of how unstable they are, their possession of nukes, and their large and strong number of extremists. For me, I wish to forgo the "experience" in lieu of the "good judgement" candidate.