|
||
Obama Camp in Disarray After Bhutto Assassination
by Taylor Marsh
Bhutto, Clinton and Chelsea in Pakistan in 1995.
Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images
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.
Bhutto's death will "call into issue the judgment: who's made the right judgments," Axelrod said. "Obviously, one of the reasons that Pakistan is in the distress that it's in is because al-Qaeda is resurgent, has become more powerful within that country and that's a consequence of us taking the eye off the ball and making the wrong judgment in going into Iraq. That's a serious difference between these candidates and I'm sure that people will take that into consideration." ... ..... .. "(Clinton) was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which we would submit, was one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaeda, who may have been players in this event today, so that's a judgment she'll have to defend," Axelrod said. "I know Woody Allen said that 80% of life is just showing up but there's actually more to being proficient in foreign policy than just having been around for a long time. You also have to have good judgment. Obama was willing to split with the conventional wisdom on Iraq and many of these other issues and I think events have borne out his judgment."
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."... I think there are elements within Pakistan right now--if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over, I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out, because I don't think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks." [Chicago Tribune, September 25, 2004]
Maybe Obama and Bill Richardson should have a conference call, since both want to eject Musharraf, then replace him with.... what, exactly? I guess Mr. Obama hasn't gotten that far in his thinking.
"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will. " - Senator Barack Obama
No thank you, I'll stick with the grown ups.
Zbig BRZEZINSKI: I think the United States should not get involved in Pakistani politics. I deplore the absence of democracy in Pakistan, but I think admonitions from outside, injecting exile politicians into Pakistan, telling the Pakistan president what he should or should not wear, that he should take off his uniform, I don't really think this is America's business and I don't think it helps to consolidate stability in Pakistan. As far as India's concerned, obviously it's very important that the Indians exercise restraint because any intensification of tensions between India and Pakistan might very well inflame conditions even within India which is about 160 to 170 million Muslims. And the state of Gujarat, which is India but is close to Pakistan is heavily Muslim and there are already very acute religious, ethnic tensions in Gujarat.
Too bad Mr. Obama isn't listening to Zbig. The ramifications of Mr. Obama's foreign policy ideas, especially on Pakistan send chills down my spine.
Once again, Barack Obama and his campaign not only prove that they are willing to say anything and take any opportunity to point a finger at a fellow Democrat, but they do so revealing their abject amateur status of their own national security thinking.
The politics of hope was always a mirage, but today it revealed what an unmitigated fraud the notion was from the start. It also reminds us all that hope in regions like Pakistan will only get people killed and make the world a more dangerous place through thinking of politicians like Barack Obama who obviously is offering no insight, while hoisting speculative solutions that are in their infancy of formation.
Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"ZBig" HAS ENDORSED OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!
Why is it that when Obama states foreign policy facts (Al-Q is in Pakistan and we have done nothing to them) he is accused of attacking Hillary....BUT...when Hillary has OTHER PEOPLE sling mud at Obama and then fires them, we accept it?
Taylor Marsh confuses two issues- is she claiming that pursuing terrorists who seek safe haven in Pakistan as Obama suggests is somehow tied to getting involved in Pakistani politics as Brezinski is advising against? So in she's saying pursuing international terrorists who flee to Pakistan is a solely Pakistani political issue and that no other nation/stateman has grounds to comment on it? In that case, with that sort of logic, it would be no wonder that Osama Bin Laden would seek safe haven in the lawless regions of Pakistan. And as a reminder, this is part of the same useless logic that Bill Clinton used in NOT pursuing Osama Bin Laden in Sudan and other nations in the late 1990s - the concern of sovereignty. What a whole lot of good that did us. Recycling poor arguments from the past that have cost us hundreds of lives? I think NOT!!
QUESTIONER: 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.
(August 15, 2007)
Taylor Marsh and fellow Clintonites can stuff it! RIP Benazir Bhutto, a REAL woman leader!!
Gee I wonder who Taylor Marsh is supporting?
There is a media supported image of "Hillary the tough and experienced choice" which has very little substance behind it.
Why is it wrong for the Obama campaign to point out that our focus on Iraq these last several years has done more to encourage terrorism in the Isalmist world than to heal the situation or address events in what were the true regions of trouble: Afghanistan and Pakistan? Why is it now a "panic" move to question the support that Senators Clinton and Edwards gave to the Bush administration for going to war with Iraq? No one doubted that was what the Bush Administration was going to do, so the claim that "I was just voting for the authorization, and didn't think it would be used recklessly"... is nonsense.
Most reports indicate that Bhutto's assassination was nearly a certain event since President Musharraf refused to do anything to help protect her.
Supporting Musharraf and his position as Dictator is a "judgment" call which our administration has made. He (Musharraf) is hated in his country and would have been removed by legal means had he not declared marshal law and illegally fired the Supreme Court Justices who were going to rule against him.
These decisions are judgment calls by our foreign policy "experts." So far, experience doesn't seem to be producing a lot of good results for the United States, or anyone other than the extremists. Oh I almost forgot, Halliburton's stock is way up.
Maybe the presidential polls are bullshit. Why does Kucinich trounce all others on the online polls, but doesn't break 10% in the "real" polls. What if it's all a media show. All the numbers made up based on back room payola. The best candidate money can buy.
Kucinich is the only candidate consistently working for the 98% of the American people. He has proven as mayor that he is not for sale.
Kucinich is so feared by the MSM that his impeachment of Cheney got zero headlines. Russert was tasked with "Moon beaming" Kucinich, and finally Kucinich was just excluded from the debates, since he was getting huge applause for impeaching Cheney.
Google Kucinich Wins
We can hope HRC will be different then the face she presents to win, but it rarely turns out that way.
Obama's eager choice for a "mentor" in the senate was Joe Lieberman, How can I possibly trust Obama, knowing that?
Strength Through Peace!
Kucinich!
Studs Terkel writes a great article about Kucinich:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020506/terkel
Actually everything Obama Camp said was correct. Al-Qaeda ascendancy in Pakistan came from experienced Musharraf, Bush, and Clinton policies.
Looks like they got it together and are way in front.
Does the term "feet of clay" ring any bells?
Gramma Rose
ALL THE PICTURE ABOVE SHOWS ME IS THAT hILLARY WAS IN HER ROLE AS FIRST LADY.I DON'T KNOW WHY MS MARSH IS ANGRY WITH OBAMA OVER THIS. HE COULD NOT CLAIM A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH BHUTTO SO HE READ A PREPARED STATEMENT TO AT LEAST ACKNOWLED HER DEATH AND SHOW RESPECT FOR WHO SHE WAS LIKE A LOT OF OTHERS. BASED ON HER CLAIM OF A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP AND KNOWING WHAT SHE WAS TRYING TO DO WHY DID HILLARY DO MORE INCONGRESS TO ENCOURAGE TO US TO BACK HER AND NOT THE OTHER GUY.IN MY OPINION THIS IS AND WAS ONE OF THE COUNTRIES WHERE THE REAL TERRORIST THREAT RESIDES NOT IRAQ OR IRAN.
Obama would be just as dangerous as Bush. Language like "we will take them out" and if "they don't act we will" is the same language the macho drugstore cowboy from Crawford Texas uses. We have already had seven years of that sort of reckless ineptitude . Threats are easy to make but difficult to retract.
I was never an Obama supporter. I do have inordinate respect for his intelligence and accomplishment and I was always convinced that if he were to get the nomination I would enthusiastically support his candidacy. I still will, if only because the Republicans offer nothing and they are all in lock-step league with the devil.
But statements like these, from Obama's campaign, so undermine his credibility to even be considered as viable, and should give everyone pause. Good judgment is inadequate without a solid framework from which to draw. And Obama's sole claim of good judgment, the Iraq war vote authorization, has had no meaningfully follow through in the Senate.
In fact Obama's statement regarding a preemptive strike in Pakistan reflects the identical grounds that the Bush administration used in Iraq and uses in their first strike policy of preemption.
"... I think there are elements within Pakistan right now--if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over, I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out," in other words prevent terrorists from gaining access to WMD's/preemptive strike....Sound familiar?
Given this line of reasoning, there is a basis to believe that had Obama been in Congress and been given the pre-Iraq authorization intel he probably would have voted for the authorization. He has as much said so.
I think there were ample numbers of people outside the beltway loop who arrived at the same conclusion as Obama about Iraq. I for one thought it was a Bush scam. But I hated Bush before and after 9/11 with equal fervor. Never-the-less I just wanted to know what intel had been put together so as to be so compelling. And when it turned out to be false, I wanted Congress to go after Bush and his evil doing neocon asses. And Obama was in the Senate and did nothing. He didn't force an investigation. He didn't insist on impeachment. He didn't vote against funding this war. He just claims judgment when in fact it is adolescent magical thinking.
ms.marsh
i agree that these statements from the obama camp smack of political opportunism and i am disappointed about that
may i just say, however, that the overblown rhetoric contained within your response smacks of exactly the same kind of opportunism
I have never heard or seen anyone supporting Obama pin their hopes on sympathy votes like I have heard a lot of Hillary supporters do, from CNN to this Blogger.
There must be an inherit weakness in your Candidate if you are hoping for a sympathy vote. Remember when the scary guy hold here campaign workers hostage in New Hampshire. CNN was salivating about the eventually sympathy votes and non came in here way. And if that event did not generate ant sympathy for her this tragedy will not give her any sympathy their.
The fundamental assessment of Hillary is established by Obama.
- She is a second grade candidate, only viable because of her husband. If Edwards was as gifted of a candidate as Obama is. This would not even be a contest. You know this and I living in Sweden know this. This democratic nomination is no longer about Hillary it is about Obama.
- Can he?
- Is he?
- Would he?
- Even Bill seems to recognize it using the politics of fear to cast doubt on the nomination of Obama.
- Remember when it was about Hillary.
- The questions about Hillary were answered by Obama and I believe he killed her chances to be the democratic nominee and if by chance or fear votes or sympathy votes she becomes the democratic nominee he killed her chances to against any republican.
- Remember the Latest MSNBC debate when she was caught laying and Obama said
- : I don’t know weather she was for it or gains it- on DLS for illegal’s that was the moment she tanked as viable candidate against republicans.
- Remember when he said, that Hillary is claiming the entire presidency of her husband except for the things that went wrong that is when he pointed to the fact that emperor had no cloths
- Hillary was emasculated further as a viable candidate in the last debate. When she cackled to upstage Obama and he destroyed her.
Hillary died well before Bhutto; she died in that Philly debate,
Taylor Marsh says, "Once again, Barack Obama and his campaign . . . prove that they are willing to say anything and take any opportunity to point a finger at a fellow Democrat," in response to a statement by Barack's campaign spokesperson, David Axelrod, in reply to a question posed by a CNN journalist trying use Bhutto's assassination as a way to stir up conflict within the Democratic campaign. Now, Taylor Marsh, another journalist, is taking that response and trying to use it to criticize Barack Obama's entire campaign. Isn't Marsh doing exactly what she is condemning, saying "taking any opportunity to point a finger at a fellow Democrat"? If we were to use our own words to measure ourselves instead of others, how wise we would become!
Thank you Taylor Marsh for an excellent article. One can only imagine the bumping of heads that went on in Obama headquarters when news of Bhutto's assassination was made known and it was realized immediately that this international crisis would shed light on Obama's extremely thin international affairs resume. That is exactly why Axelrod tried to turn it into an attack on Hillary. God help us all if Barack Obama ever makes it to the Presidency.
Obama is the emptiest of empty suits.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
