Roundup: Editorials on Candidates Response to Bhutto Assassination

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007 12/grading_the_candidates_on_paki.html

Democrats Receiving an "A"

Like McCain, Hillary Clinton highlighted her personal relationship with Bhutto and appeared "presidential" in her response. Her call for an investigation played well with Democrats.

Joe Biden has been stressing the problems in Pakistan for weeks and spoke intelligently about the consequences.

Democrats receiving a "B"

Bill Richardson has also been touting the unrest in Pakistan recently but sounded a little off key calling for Musharraf to step down.

Democrats receiving a "C"

Senator Obama sounded the right notes of regret and warning of the danger but then inexplicably tried to tie the assassination to Clinton's vote authorizing force against Iraq - something he was ridiculed for by some. Not a death blow to his campaign but it once again plays to Hillary's theme of experience.

John Edwards spoke well initially and then pulled the grandstanding stunt of calling Musharraf urging him not to crackdown. Why Musharraf took the call is a mystery and Edwards making it in the first place did not sit well with the White House and could be seen as injecting partisan politics into a dangerous situation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122802445. html

The Pakistan Test
Some presidential candidates show they can respond quickly to a foreign policy crisis. Some flunk or foul.

THE ASSASSINATION of Benazir Bhutto presented U.S. presidential candidates with a test: Could they respond cogently and clearly to a sudden foreign policy crisis? Within hours some revealing results were in. One candidate, Democrat John Edwards, passed with flying colors. Another, Republican Mike Huckabee, flunked abysmally. Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain were serious and substantive. And Barack Obama -- the Democratic candidate who claims to represent a new, more elevated brand of politics -- committed an ugly foul.

Ms. Clinton and Mr. McCain also endorsed Pakistan's continued democratization. Each cited an acquaintance with Ms. Bhutto or Mr. Musharraf and opportunistically trumpeted their foreign policy experience -- but both also offered some cogent analysis. Ms. Clinton rightly cited "the failure of the Musharraf regime either to deal with terrorism or to build democracy," adding that "it's time that the United States sided with civil society in Pakistan."

Mr. Obama similarly began by offering bland condolences to Pakistanis and noting that "I've been saying for some time that we've got a very big problem there."
Then Mr. Obama committed his foul -- a far-fetched attempt to connect the killing of Ms. Bhutto with Ms. Clinton's vote on the war in Iraq. After the candidate made the debatable assertion that the Iraq invasion strengthened al-Qaeda in Pakistan, his spokesman, David Axelrod, said Ms. 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 the event today."
When questioned later about his spokesman's remarks, Mr. Obama stiffly defended them -- while still failing to offer any substantive response to the ongoing crisis. Is this Mr. Obama's way of rejecting "the same Washington game" he lambasted earlier in the day? If so, his game doesn't look very new, or attractive.

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/p ost?q=YWE0OWZkZGMzMjJmOWY3MTU1YWE4YTA1M 2QxZDkzMzg

Team Obama Tussles With Team Hillary Over Bhutto

Evidence that Team Obama is losing their cool

If the U.S. had not invaded Iraq, Benazir Bhutto would be alive today? Please.

The threat of militant Islamist extremism in Pakistan predates the Iraq war by more than a decade; Axelrod ought to take in a screening of "Charlie Wilson's War." The threat grew, and developed, and incubated, independent of U.S. policy for decades. It is naive folly to believe that if the U.S. had just had the right foreign policy, we could prevent some extremist from conducting an assassination.

To the best of our knowledge, the U.S. has not taken military action in Pakistan, beyond the rare hellfire missile launched from an unmanned drone. It's not like our forces in Iraq would be fighting al-Qaeda in Pakistan if the U.S. had not invaded Iraq. (Right? Or would President Obama have announced the invasion of Pakistan in 2003?) We don't know the exact who and how and where on this asssassination plot, but the trail has yet to lead outside of Pakistan. I have yet to see any compelling evidence that there is anything the U.S. could have done to prevent this.

I find it odd to be out defending Hillary Clinton like this, but the Obama camp has deployed a desperate flailing argument that suggests they have absolutely no familiarity with threats from within Pakistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/29/us/pol itics/29memo.html

For the presidential candidates, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto has emerged as a ghoulish sort of test: a chance to project leadership and competence -- or not -- on a fast-moving and nuanced foreign policy issue.

Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, spent the day asserting their own personal expertise: their private conversations with Ms. Bhutto and Mr. Musharraf, their visits to Pakistan and their concerns about fallout affecting the nation's nuclear arsenal to the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

While there were some stabs at substance -- Mrs. Clinton called for an independent investigation into Ms. Bhutto's death, and Mr. Richardson called for cutting off all aid to Pakistan -- most of the candidates concentrated on projecting the aura of a steady hand in a crisis.

Senator Barack Obama tried to sound like both a leader and a candidate on Pakistan on Friday. At one point, he said he would suspend some military aid to Pakistan if the government did not hold free elections and clamp down on terrorist groups. At another point, though, he suggested that the war in Iraq -- which his rivals Mrs. Clinton, John Edwards and others had voted for -- had "resulted in us taking our eye off the ball" in pursuing Al Qaeda and bringing stability to the region.



Display:


HRC is my girl! (none / 0)

HRC receives an "A". Love it.


by lonnette33 on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 02:38:59 PM EST

Re: Roundup: Editorials on Candidates Response to (none / 0)

Obama is done!!!


by Louverture on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 02:42:14 PM EST

Re: Roundup: Editorials on Candidates Response to (none / 0)

Don't you have DMR poll numbers to make up?  Better hurry before the real one comes out tonight.


by FilbertSF on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 02:57:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Roundup: Editorials on Candidates Response to (none / 0)

Yeah....I hear Biden is within striking distance of 3rd place.


by Louverture on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 01:04:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Response to Bhutto Assassination (2.00 / 1)

The Washington Post editorial said Edwards had the best reaction to the crisis.  Very interesting that you left it out of your diary, yet interjected the Right Wing "American Thinker" viewpoint.

Hillary's response was "I met her, Musharraf bad, war on terror, fear."  Edwards' response was to call and strongly encourage Musharraf to allow an international investigation of the death and to proceed with democratic reforms.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 03:03:57 PM EST

Re: Response to Bhutto Assassination (2.00 / 1)

Vox, if you like, please write your own diary on how wonderful Edwards is.

Edwards, although he is my second choice, is not my candidate.  It is not my job to pimp him.

I never claimed to be impartial when it comes to the candidates.

I do not dislike Edward.  I do, however, wanted to point out the editorials assessment of Obama camp's assinine charge against Hillary.


by FilbertSF on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 03:08:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Response to Bhutto Assassination (2.00 / 1)

That wasn't my point.  My point was you edited your diary in a way to suggest the Washington Post thought Hillary handled the crisis the best, when in fact they said it was Edwards who "passed with flying colors."


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 04:39:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Response to Bhutto Assassination (none / 0)

You are the last person who should be talking about fairness.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 04:48:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Response to Bhutto Assassination (none / 0)

Where did I mention fairness?  I just thought it was funny she was trumpeting an editorial that actually thought Clinton had the second or third best response to the crisis. lol


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 04:54:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Response to Bhutto Assassination (2.00 / 1)

Didn't you already write a diary focusing only on praising Edwards?  I didn't post there to demand that you give Hillary equal space.  Unlike you, I made no editorializing of my own.  These are actual excerpts from the articles.

And, who said I was a "she?"  Do you always seem that the only supporters Hillary has are women?


by FilbertSF on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 05:05:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Response to Bhutto Assassination (none / 0)

Does it really matter what I assume you are?


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 05:07:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Response to Bhutto Assassination (none / 0)

So you already wrote up a full diary disregarding the comments made about Hillary, and only included glowing praise about Edwards, and you're here bitching about fairness to me?

In fact, not only did you not include the quotes praising Hillary, you went negative on both Hillary and Obama.

Go away, fly!


by FilbertSF on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 05:15:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Response to Bhutto Assassination (none / 0)

I went negative?  What thin skin you and your candidate must have.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 05:18:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Response to Bhutto Assassination (none / 0)

Oh come on, I'm not that stupid.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 05:41:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Response to Bhutto Assassination (none / 0)

If your diary reflects a lie by omission it's perfectly reasonable to critique you as such. You are on an open forum and that's to be expected. This isn't a site for you to do campaign publicity without criticism. Surprised I have to say that on a blog.


by bruh21 on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 05:42:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Response to Bhutto Assassination (none / 0)

Vox, where did it say "Edwards had the best reaction to the crisis?"


by FilbertSF on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 05:01:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Response to Bhutto Assassination (none / 0)

In the opening paragraph:

THE ASSASSINATION of Benazir Bhutto presented U.S. presidential candidates with a test: Could they respond cogently and clearly to a sudden foreign policy crisis? Within hours some revealing results were in. One candidate, Democrat John Edwards, passed with flying colors. Another, Republican Mike Huckabee, flunked abysmally. Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain were serious and substantive; Republicans Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani were thin. And Barack Obama -- the Democratic candidate who claims to represent a new, more elevated brand of politics -- committed an ugly foul.

It does say Hillary and McCain were serious and substantive, but clearly Edwards stands out above the field in their opinion.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 05:06:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Response to Bhutto Assassination (none / 0)

You read into that.  That is not what the article stated or implied.

Edwards, like Clinton and McCain all did an excellent job, but nowhere did it say "Edwards did the best."

Now who here is distorting the facts?


by FilbertSF on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 05:12:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Response to Bhutto Assassination (none / 0)

The editorial said "One candidate" meaning only one candidate.  But continue to read only what you want to see.  It suits you.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 05:18:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Response to Bhutto Assassination (none / 0)

It's called sentence structure.  One candidate... Another...


by FilbertSF on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 05:31:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Roundup: Editorials on Candidates Response to (none / 0)

I myself was a little troubled with Edwards injecting himself into the fray by calling Musharraf. If Edwards was still in the Senate and still on the Intelligence Committee, I would understand, but for him to try to play President did not go well with me. Nothing even came of it.

Having said that, despite my bias, I do like Clinton's personal response. Well spoken about Bhutto and the fight for Democracy. I liked the call for an International investigation. It is pretty clear Pakistan does not know what the hell happened or do not want to admit what happened. Three different scenarios and an official cause of death that baffled everyone and angered many in Pakistan.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 04:43:38 PM EST

Re: Roundup: Editorials on Candidates Response to (none / 0)

Injecting himself into the fray? Bizzare comments. ALl the candidates are injecting themselves in to the fray. Which one isn't?


by bruh21 on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 05:43:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Roundup: Editorials on Candidates Response to (none / 0)

Also, the othe reason why your coment is bizzare is that edwards called for an independent investigation- how is that in any shape or imagination a bad thi ng if one's goal is to get at the truth rather than spin for one's campaign?


by bruh21 on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 05:44:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Roundup: Editorials on Candidates Response to (none / 0)

HRC called for an independent investigation as well. What's your point bruh? I think both HRC and JRE handled themselves well.


by lonnette33 on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 06:03:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Roundup: Editorials on Candidates Response to (none / 0)

She was good except for the comments she made about Musharaf. She shouldn't have said anything about that because he is a world leader whether we like it or not. THe best and smartest move was like they all said for democratic reform. The worse move of all the candidates was obama and richardson. My point is that let's not pretend as here that Edwards has made a bad move here. HE's made mostly good one from what I ve read so far. I think CLintone xcept for her comment about Musharaf made good choices too. This isn't a question of her doing something horrible, but it wasn't a good move just for the purpose of maintaining good relationships toward reform.


by bruh21 on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 06:26:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Roundup: Editorials on Candidates Response to (none / 0)

I maybe wrong, but I think HRC was sending Musharaf a message. I think it was smart to do so. Bush appears to be standing by while Musharaf makes a mess in Pakistan, while taking our tax dollars. What happened to oversight?


by lonnette33 on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 10:12:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Roundup: Editorials on Candidates Response to (none / 0)

Also, let's not over state Bhutto who wasn't by any stretch a saint. THere are no easy choices fromw hat I understand of Pakistan. PEople need to understand that.


by bruh21 on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 06:27:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Roundup: Editorials on Candidates Response to (none / 0)

Oh no, she was no saint. But I think she would have been better then Musharraf as Prime Minister. She seemed to really care about her people.


by lonnette33 on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 10:17:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Roundup: Editorials on Candidates Response to (none / 0)

You know what I meant. He is essentially a private citizen doing government work who happens to be a former Senator running for President. I know he did it to impress people and I'm sure it did, but I don't think Edwards should play diplomat or President in an unofficial capacity.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 10:20:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Roundup: Editorials on Candidates Response to (none / 0)

And you know what I mean-t he idea that he did some great offense- or the over the topness of some of the responses here. Give me a break. It was phone call that Musharaf returned to him. And he said the right things. Clinton mostly said the right things accept the whole disparaging Musharaf part. I don't trust Musharaf either but as a Presidential candidate she shouldn't be saying that because she may have to rep the country with him  one day. I simply don't like double standards. Edwards wasn't perfect here, but the idea that he created some great offense is b.s.


by bruh21 on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 10:46:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.