I am so irritated listening to the mainstream media discuss the impact of the Benizir Bhutto assassination on the campaign I want to scream. Somehow it obviously helps Guliani, says Morning Joe, obviously, grinning. That's obvious. When the world is scared, and we are scared. Then we want someone who scares us to death. they say. I can see why. If Democracy is punched in the gut in Pakistan, let's punch it in the gut here! Let's put on a bulldog face to Al Qaeda and what? What is the end of this sentence? We know the end of the strategy. Nothing.
Then: It helps Hillary, says Craig Crawford. She knew Bhutto. So that means, she's ..what? cool? qualified? In the girl's club? I want to point out tragically that she's dead, and knowing her is no longer helpful: press delete. Is it her husband or her rivals in her party who will lead it? Whom do you know in the new crowd of leaders who can rise up and take her place, Hill? Who does?
Then: It helps McCain, says Howard FIneman. He makes us feel secure, a variation of Giuliani. He's been there done that ("I had Musharaff on the phone three times today" -- a busy man - in the middle of an epic national crisis, on the phone with Biden and Edwards too). Very reassuring, until we remember him singing Bomb, Bomb Iran, to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann," and realize he will call only those over 60 he trusts, and that means Musharaff, the old ally who has gamed us to the hilt, and whose fake alliance almost tainted Bhutto will make him his boy toy too. There's no finding Osama in this whack-a-mole-sinkhole-of-cash strategy, as we've learned the hard way.
Then, Biden, (who the pundits forget to mention in their infinite punditry), whom it should help, but because being ready day one doesn't really count, the truly-ready-day-one guy, the brain trust of the democrats, who knows his foreign relations, isn't really in the running. I like Biden but he talks too much. This time, when he could be really helpful with some ideas, his name drops on Hardball, and kind of blows it, tells us an I told you so -- he'd personally warned Musharaff on her security, he'd warned him this could happen -- spoke to him three times last week -- she was a personal friend, he knows just what should happen, they should have elections in eleven days, even without a candidate. Rush elections in a state of panic without a candidate? That could just solidify and legitimize Musharraf! Oh dear. Think this through, Joe.
And Bill Richardson. He is the undiplomatic diplomat. Says the right thing wrong, afraid they won't hear. Musharraf must go. Of course this may be right. Do we say this today? Tomorrow! Maybe the Pakistanis should say this, at the ballot box, when they have someone to replace him.
Everything we touch in Pakistan we taint. Which is why we need unconventional wisdom. We almost tainted Bhutto trying to ally her with our boy, Musharraf. We talk with our money. Like you can't have anymore, until you let the head of the Supreme Court out of jail.
Watching the pundits talk and the candidates spin, makes me realize that Pakistan is like the movie business: a real pro admits nobody knows anything.
So having a worldview not based on fear of the other, having wisdom and the ability to look at a situation with fresh eyes -- the very things Obama has run on, are his advantages here, yet the pundits run from him at the first call of international turmoil. When as a new event threatens to frighten us, Obama feels to me to be exactly what America needs at a time like this; hopefully our voters are smarter than our pundits.
The Bush-Cheney response of meeting fear with greater fear, to meet anarchy with belligerence and control, the delusion that we can control the outcomes of elections in countries we refuse to understand, have taught us the deepest meaning of unintended consequences. Because fear is not a reason to create more fear, but to create more understanding.
Our experience of and in Pakistan has been all wrong. To rely on past patterns would be to show we have learned nothing as a nation these past eight years, and do not know how to begin anew, and are bound, like the Flying Dutchman, to reach for the stars, but be tied to the ground by our baser instincts.
Read more reactions from HuffPost bloggers on Benazir Bhutto's assassination
And looking at how Obama and Hillary responded it makes that gap even more apparent. Obama politicized it, Hillary looked like a leader.
Ohg.
http://thefiresidepost.com/2007/12/28/fear-must-not-choose-a-president/
But we know he never really had a shot, that was decided by whomever the deciders are in these matters.
He was in the wrong fraternity, or somesuch.
The most knowledgeable about the problems in Pakistan (America's involvement) is Ron Paul.
http://economicspolitics.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-paul-is-right-us-to-blame-for.html
For a quick read and link to the WPO, go here:
http://katalusis.blogspot.com/2007/12/washington-post-calls-foul-on-obama.html
Very early in this race, Obama stated in one of the first debates that Pakistan was a serious problem, and that Iraq was a distraction from the more crucial issues of both Pakistan and Afganistan, which is where Al Qaeda is actually based.
At that time, Hillary slammed Obama for being "naive," (even though a later examination of previous statements made by her showed that she'd gone on the record as having agreed with him!)
Obama took a serious hit in the polls from that "naive" statement, with people believing Clintonian spin rather than substance.
However time has shown Barack to be vindicated in his position. He has been consistent from the very beginning.
Obama has demonstrated that he has both the foresight and judgment to tell the truth about what needs to be done internationally.
Here is a substantive interview of Obama on foreign policy from Iowa's Quad City Times, no glitz, no soundbites.
http://videos.qctimes.com/p/video?id=1609167
By: Greg Jones
With the terrible announcement of Benazir Bhutto's assassination in Pakistan, one can't help but be reminded of a recent Democratic debate in which Hillary Clinton literally laughed at Barack Obama's statement that the United States should concentrate on the unrest in Pakistan even if it meant sending U.S. troops to the Afghan/Pakistan border where the Taliban, Al-queda and other terrorists are camped. Hillary did her pompous, smirky laugh stating that Obama wants to 'talk to our enemies (Iran) and attack our allies' (Pakistan border). But as events unfold in the region we are learning more and more of just how disasterously wrong she and our foreign policy have been. We are supporting a crazy dictator (Musharaf) who we have given millions of dollars to....who has point blank told us that he will not go to the Pakistan border to address the true terrorists because they 'made a deal'. It doesn't matter that crazy Mu has weapons of mass destruction and is probably hiding Bin Laden in the border region. And to Hillary.....this is all just fine. Is this the great 'experience' that she boasts having ? Now, as we watch the turmoil increase in the Pakistan region Hillary will surely state that we need her 'experience' to handle the situation when in fact, it is this very mindset or experience that is leading America and the entire world toward catastrophe. Face it Hillary.....You are wrong...Obama was right. Oh..and need I mention that the recent findings show that our 'enemy' hasn't had a weapons program for years ? But Hillary voted to basically crush Iran........wrong again Hill. To top things off....you'll probably stay supportive of Crazy Mu along with the other Bushites and regime controlled media 'experts' ! With 'experience' like yours.....who needs enemies ?
NOTE: CNN's Wolf Blitzer just released an email to be read in the event of Bhutto's death naming Musharraf as responsible! ANYONE (politicians, media, etc.) who is still supportive of Musharraf is dangerous for America .
Greg Jones
MANCHESTER, NH - Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich issued the following statement this morning after hearing the news of the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto:
"This is a very dangerous moment for the world. Prime Minister Bhutto represented the forces of reform and the hope for an end to repression in a troubled region, and her death is a major loss to those efforts."
"This terrible tragedy also underscores the need for the United States to adopt a new foreign policy toward the entire region because our current policy is all wrong. Our interference in the internal affairs of Pakistan has opened wide the doors of repression and violence. At this very moment, we should be working with leaders of the region to convene a meeting at the highest levels to begin a new effort towards stabilization and peace."
"The United States must take a new direction in Pakistan and throughout the region. I met her several times, both in Washington and New York. She was deeply and genuinely dedicated to Pakistan. This is a tragic loss."
Kucinich also ripped the Huckster:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-28-2007/0004728630&EDATE=
The media is doing its best to promote the Clinton-Guiliani candidacies, for the sake of their Nielsens. Just as BEFORE the war, the media ignores the issues and people they should be doing as the the People's Fourth Estate, rather than as the Pimps for their media pawns and supplicants.
Biden and Richardson, on the Dems side, and Mc
Cain (and Thompson) on the GOP-side are grudgingly given lip service recognition for their foreign policy credibility. Even with these gentlemen's experience, generic CONVENTIONAL experience in foreign policy IS the problem. The extent to which these gentlemen or any others can break out of the tar-baby entanglements done nominally for pragmatism, but operationally have exacerbated and incited the present mess.
Like the new lucky player at the poker table, people like Obama, Edwards, Paul, Kucinich (or even a Damascus Road converted experienced pol) could approach the issues from a better perspective than the lingering patronizing and paternalistic covert and neo-con overt intervention that has characterized the failed foreign policies of the past.
Did you not read what Axelrod said? Not exactly cautious or smart. Did you see how Obama responded? Horrible.
Biden may talk too much to some, but at least he knows what the hell he's talking about.