The M.O. is very much Al Quaeda.  I sincerely doubt Musharaff or the Pakistani military was behind this assasination.  He and they stand to gain nothing from it, as it is likely to make her a martyr and enhance the opposition vote next month.

Axelrod was responding to direct questions by reporters on whether the killing could help Hillary's campaign.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/ob ama_adviser_bhutto_assassination_reminds _us_that_hillary_made_wrong_call_on_iraq _war.php

And wasn't the killing a terrorist act, an act seeking to get chaos and terrorize the populace, whether done by jihadists or the government?  Just because Bush created the War on Terrorism does not somehow make terrorism meaningless or less real or the word suddenly unacceptable.

And even more problematic is CNN's repetition of this chimerical notion that terrorists assassinated Bhutto.  Notice the Republicans interpreted this as terrorist activity, while Democrats are highlighting the general instability of that country.  More interesting, however, is Obama's mindless embrace of the Republican response, while Hillary desires a full investigation into the assassination.  

CNN and other news organizations are thankfully discussing Axelrod's statement.  I hope their coverage of Axelrod's preposterous accusation will sink Obama's campaign.

Dude!

You'd better duck. When the feces-flinging Obama cultists get wind of this post they will be all over your racist, condescending ass.

BIg time.

Seriously?

This dangerous fool sounds more and more like Senator Joe Lieberman don't you think?

I imagine by the time he's elected, if that tragedy for America did happen, he'd sound exactly like...

Bush.

Now Axelrod will attempt to modify his statement.  I find his retroactive account wanting.

At a basic level, it requires Democrats to blame Democrats such as Clinton, Biden, Dodd and Edwards for the increasingly dangerous world we live in to an equal degree that we blame Bush, not a stance most Democrats are likely willing to take.

No, of course it doesn't.  It just invites them to make the more plausible judgment that the Bush Iraq adventure has been a wasteful diversion from more serious matters in the region, and that some Democrats were more useful to the Bush administration in launching the adventure than were other Democrats.  Nothing in the Axelrod statement, or other Obama campaign messages, implies that voters should blame any Democrats "to an equal degree" that they blame Bush.  That is a willful misreading of the message.

In this case, "terrorism" is a reasonably safe neutral term, which avoids pre-judgmental talk about "Al Qaeda", "Taliban" or any of the other usual suspects, and avoids leaping into the fray on some particular side in the Pakistan mess other than the side of "the Pakistani people"  Whoever was ultimately responsible for the killing, we know the killer was a suicide bomber who blew up a bunch of non-combattant civilians in the assassination, and so can be safely labelled a terrorist.

I don't know what to make of it, actually.

Hi, yeah, the guy shot her three times and blew himself up, killing 20 by the last count I saw.

You really want to argue that this ISN'T terrorism?

Seriously, how is this not a terrorist attack, no matter how you slice it?

Other than CNN, will any of the media really cover this Obama vs Clinton spat? I doubt it. But if they did, they would blame HRC for the "nastiness" of the campaign somehow, someway.

Obama can do no wrong, Hillary can do no right, especially with the MSNBC crowd.

I do find it interesting how Obama has kept up with the attack rhetoric from this weekend. I do wonder what his internal polls are saying. For a while there, he was doing the above the fray stuff. Why the change in strategy all of a sudden?

Anyone that straps a bomb to himself and blows up 20 people is considered a terrorist.

Obama is pointing out the obvious.. what ,do you think the killer was a pacifist?

As far as axelrod.. he was asked if this event would lend credence to the HRC claim of experience and he had to point out that we took our eye off the ball in afghanistan to invade iraq and HRC's vote to invade iraq does not look like a good case for her experience.

too much drama..not enough obama.

He seemed out of hid element.

He didn't look natural.

He looked light and unpresidential.

I think Todd is being unfair to Obama. Of course, Obama reacted to the assassination through a political frame. That's all he knows.

Each time he has been elected to office, he has immediately begun campaigning for the next rung up the ladder -- his unsuccessful House race in 2000, his Senate race in 2004, and his Presidential race starting in 2005. Political gain is all he knows about public life. He's never spent any time thinking about accomplishing things beyond the next election.

Attacking his fellow Democrats is simply an instinctive response. He can't help it and it's a little unfair to expect otherwise.

I've been hearing amorphous assertions about Hillary Clinton's foreign policy experience lately. Is Hillary claiming experience beyond just being a Senator for a few years? I know she was Bill's wife, but I'm unaware of whether she had any particular foreign policy duties during that time.

I get the feeling I'm missing something - because I haven't heard specifically what her experience is, and it's clearly ridiculous to think she gained foreign policy experience through osmosis.

Not to try and deflect this off-topic, but how exactly can you call Obama's description of this as terrorism "bizarre" and not even touch on Bill "I'm the International Expert and Badass Negotiator" Richardson's call for Musharaff to step down?

Talk about bizarre: a candidate who's running largely on his foreign policy expertise just called for a power vacuum in a country with nuclear weapons and a violent and growing extremist movement.

Earlier, I had suggested that Axelrod's initial comment on this stuff was within reason, the same old Obama mantra, and essentially directed at the general problems within Pakistan over the last few years (he mentioned "distress").

But...I saw Axelrod's second comment about this... on CNN...which Todd has quoted above, and his off-the-cuff remark includes these words:

She 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

This particular statement is inexcusable because it includes the words "who may have been players in this event" and is then followed with the demand that Hillary will have to defend herself.  May be responsible?  Don't you think you better answer that question before having the audacity to blame Hillary?  Talk about low ball politics.

The unmistakable impression the listener is left with is that IF al-Qaeda is responsible for this assassination, then Hillary will have to answer for this assassination. That is way too much.

When you couple this comment with what Todd has noted about Obama's conflation of all terrorists in his press release, I think it is safe to say that:

A) This is a low point for the Obama campaign; and
B) Axelrod must be restrained.

And now Axelrod is going to have to backpedal and explain himself. Not good for the Obama campaign.

For those who have suggested that this assassination had nothing to do with Musharraf, respectfully, I disagree.  Look at Biden's comment for goodness sakes. Musharaf failed to fully protect Bhutto.

The latest, breaking news, has Bhutto herself saying she felt that Musharaf was NOT doing enough to protect her.  Check it out. And, of course, Bhutto's advisors and supporters are also blaming Musharaf and the security forces, NOT al-Qaeda.

I liked Obama's statement. It fits my views perfectly.

We drew troops out of Afghanistan so we could attack Iraq. Because of that, Al Qaeda regained their strength and resumed attacks along the border. Now Al Qaeda assassinated a democratic leader in Pakistan.

The logical conclusion is that if we hadn't attacked Iraq, we would have finished the job in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda would have been a lot weaker than they are today, and they may not have had the strength or resources necessary to assassinate such a high-profile and powerful figure.

That's a hell of a lot better than wild conspiracy theories about Musharaf killing off the opposition.

I know Jerome is against going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but are you, too?

Obama's statement was logical and responsible. Two qualities I want in a President.

I see no reason why Axelrod's original statement is inappropriate or inaccurate.  Take whatever swings at Obama you like he has been trying to tell us for years that we are fighting the wrong war, making alliances with the wrong people and failing to confront our true enemies in any meaningful way.  In the meantime they grow stronger, bolder and more experienced.  And we have a bad track record of playing, predictably and disastrously, into their strategic plans.  Pakistan was always al-Qaeda's end-game objective and the call for jihad there in the wake of the Red Mosque siege was our wake-up call.  We missed it.

Take what partisan posture you like but win, lose or draw you can't blame Obama for this.  History will show him to be just as prescient on Pakistan as he was about the war in Iraq.  It is highly ironic but disconcerting that his consistent accuracy and willingness to speak the truth is used to decry his inexperience.  Go figure and good luck to us all.

Why wouldn't the Council of Islamic Conferences be a diplomatic ally in this impasse?  Are we not aligned with Iran in dreading a nuclear-capable Sunni jihadist state in Pakistan?  And Russia?  India?  What are we doing to utilise these natural common interests with other power brokers in Middle East?  We are having our own little spats with almost all of them.  We are behaving like arrogant fools.

I've said it before, Democrats OWN Iraq. We all do, because it happened while we were citizens. Of course we tried to stop it, but that doesn't mean it's still not our fault. That's what been a citizen is about, you can't just take credit for decisions of your country that turn out well or that you agree with because it's still our country.

I absolutely blame Dodd, and Clinton, and Richardson and Biden for the state of the world. They left us to face the fury of the right wing machine alone, to be called traitors and a fifth column. It is our fault, but it is there fault too.

i still dont see the connection between al queda and internal pakistani problems.

I would like Axelrod (Obama?) to make that connection before he can even try to make this somehow a Clinton foreign policy problem

Attacks on Axelrod looks like the Gotcha game of trivial pursuit played with such disastrous results for this country by Russert, CNN, the Washington Post and their supplicants in the Washington Democratic party.   His fundamental criticism is correct - the war in Iraq has fueled terrorism and Jihadism all over the world, including Pakistan, and has distracted from trying to manage the mountain of problems which existed before 2003. Hillary Clinton's liberal empire strategy of promising to manage Bush's crusade more effectively is flawed substantively and politically, but in the Gotcha world Axelrod's tactical error is more important than Washington's strategic fiasco?   It is this type of trivial pursuit which has given America George Bush.  That said, it was bad judgment and worse manners to seek political advantage out of Benizair Bhutto's death before she is buried.  As a nonsupporter of both Obama and Clinton, neither wins from this skirmish.  

is the seeming conviction that terrorists could not possibly have murdered Bhutto, when in fact it was almost certainly them. Todd, your analysis is bizarrely skeptical of the most likely scenario of who did the deed. I have a critique response post at Nation-Building explaining in more detail.