Responses To Bhutto Show Dems' Differences

Washington Post: Reactions By Clinton, Obama To Assassination In Pakistan Crystallize The Debate Between Them

(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Anne E. Kornblut and Shailagh Murray.

---

News of Benazir Bhutto's assassination came just hours before Sen. Barack Obama delivered what his campaign had billed as the "closing argument" in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination Thursday, forcing his campaign to scramble to incorporate the Pakistani opposition leader into his message of change.

For his chief rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Bhutto's death helped underscore the line she has been driving home for months -- about who is best suited to lead the nation at a time of international peril. In her comments Thursday, Clinton described Bhutto in terms Obama (D-Ill.) could not: as a fellow mother, a pioneering woman following in a man's footsteps, and a longtime peer on the world stage.

The differing reactions of Clinton and Obama to the assassination crystallized the debate between the two just a week before Iowans will decide the first contest in the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination.

While aides said Clinton was anxious not to appear to be politicizing Bhutto's death, they nonetheless saw it as a potential turning point in the race with Obama and former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.).

"I have known Benazir Bhutto for more than 12 years; she's someone whom I was honored to visit as first lady when she was prime minister," Clinton said at a campaign event in a firehouse in western Iowa. "Certainly on a personal level, for those of us who knew her, who were impressed by her commitment, her dedication, her willingness to pick up the mantle of her father, who was also assassinated, it is a terrible, terrible tragedy," she said.

Three hours after news of Bhutto's slaying broke, Obama delivered a withering rebuke of Clinton's experience, depicting her lengthy political resume as a hindrance to solving big problems, including crises abroad. In an especially charged moment, senior Obama adviser David Axelrod would later tie the killing to the Iraq war -- and Clinton's vote to approve it, which he argued diverted U.S resources from fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, both al-Qaeda hotbeds.

"You can't at once argue that you're the master of a broken system in Washington and offer yourself as the person to change it," Obama said. "You can't fall in line behind the conventional thinking on issues as profound as war and offer yourself as the leader who is best prepared to chart a new and better course for America."

His remarks came as part of the unveiling of a new stump speech meant to reinforce his change agenda to Iowa voters before the Jan. 3 caucuses. But at every stop Thursday, he started with a few words about the Bhutto assassination. "She was a respected and resilient advocate for the democratic aspirations of the Pakistani people," Obama said. "We join with them in mourning her loss, and stand with them in their quest for democracy and against the terrorists who threaten the common security of the world."

Aides said the senator from Illinois made several Pakistan-related phone calls between events, including to Anne W. Patterson, U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, and to Donald Kerr, deputy director of national intelligence. Obama also talked to Mahmud Ali Durrani, Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, and urged his country to proceed with democratic elections. But mainly the Bhutto assassination was an undercurrent. No one in Obama's audiences asked him about it, although when a man in Nevada, Iowa, asked about Obama's plan for ending the Iraq war, the senator used it as a segue to lambaste the war for detracting from other regional problems, namely defeating al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"I've been saying for some time that we've got a very big problem" in Pakistan, Obama said. "We were distracted from focusing on them." The phone calls put him behind schedule, and Obama apologized to a Marshalltown audience for showing up half an hour late, explaining that he had to check with U.S. officials involved in the crisis "to make sure that we knew what was going on."

Axelrod, a senior Obama strategist, was more direct, linking the Pakistani crisis to the different positions that Clinton and Obama took on the Iraq war in 2002, when Clinton voted to authorize it in the U.S. Senate, and Obama, then an Illinois state senator, spoke out against it.

"Obama opposed the war in Iraq explicitly because he feared it would divert our attention from al-Qaeda, Pakistan, the whole region," Axelrod said. "It underscores the fact that you have to have a president who understands the world, who is going to analyze these events, and who will chart the right course, counter to the conventional thinking."

"There's an issue of judgment," Axelrod said. Obama warned that the war could destabilize the region, "and that's come to pass. Certainly we see evidence of that even today."

Edwards said during an interview on Radio Iowa that he had spoken with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, encouraging him "to continue on the path to democratization, to allow international investigators to come in to determine what happened, what the facts were, so that there would be transparency and credibility about what actually occurred and also about the upcoming schedule of elections and that the important thing for America to do in this unstable environment is first of all focus on the tragedy that's occurred." (Read more about that call.)

Obama has broadly built his foreign policy agenda around his opposition to invading Iraq -- citing that position as evidence of better judgment than his rivals -- and around the tone he promises to bring to international diplomacy.

Clinton has attempted to straddle a difficult foreign policy line throughout the race, voicing sharp opposition to an Iraq war she voted to authorize while taking a hard line toward other countries, including Iran.

Her campaign advisers pounced on Obama's and Axelrod's comments. "This is a time to be focused on the tragedy of the situation, its implications for the U.S. and the world, and to be concerned for the people of Pakistan and the country's stability. No one should be politicizing this situation with baseless allegations," Clinton spokesman Jay Carson said.

At her first event of the day, in Lawton, Clinton delivered straightforward comments on the events in Pakistan. Several hours later, she grew more personal, recalling Bhutto as an acquaintance. Then Clinton tied the political turmoil in Pakistan to the elections in the United States. "When you think about democracy, you're reminded that, in our country, we are the longest-lasting democracy in the world," she said. "One of the great events in our democracy happens a week from tonight, right here in Iowa. And if anything, the terrible events of today are a stark reminder of how important it is for as many Iowans as possible to be part of the journey."

Clinton then added her latest signature theme: "It's time to pick a president."

Obama predicted that the climate will get ugly in the days ahead, starting with a television ad scheduled to begin airing in Iowa on Friday attacking Obama's health-care plan, paid for by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a Clinton labor ally.

"In seven days, what was improbable has the chance to beat what Washington said was inevitable," Obama said. "And that's why in these last weeks, Washington is fighting back with everything it has -- with attack ads and insults; with distractions and dishonesty; with millions of dollars from outside groups and undisclosed donors to try and block our path."

[forthepeopl1]

this is what you will get with missery hillary as PRESIDENT. she were the same traiter coat as bush/cheney

at all has to do with saudi''''s and the king with the help of bush/cheneny.9-11 was all bush/cheney/and the oil countrys


The U.S. military has returned 10 Saudi detainees from the Guantanamo Bay prison to their home country, a Pentagon spokesman said Friday.

The transfer cuts the number of men now held at the isolated U.S. Naval station in southeast Cuba to about 275, a decline of nearly a third in the last year.

About 136 of the 759 people detained at Guantanamo since 2002 have been Saudi, the second-largest group after Afghans. The vast majority have been repatriated - despite the fact that more than 90 percent are still considered a terrorist threat.

The U.S. agreed to return the men with the understanding that Saudi Arabia will mitigate that risk, partly through a state program to reintegrate former detainees into civilian life, said Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Defense Department spokesman.

Their detention has been a source of strain with Riyadh, a close U.S. ally.

[rowdytexan2]

I wish people would get off the radical Islamic kick and just call it radical evil MEN who are using jihad as their excuse to do evil things.

It''s all a bunch of bull!

These radicals had no interest whatsoever in the United States of America until we started meddling in their culture, their economics, and especially their oil resources. But mostly the infringement of western ideology on their culture has forced them back into fundamentalist dogma. When the west tried to colonize the Islamic states, instead of embracing and integrating with its people and attempting to educate them, it chose to embrace bigotry and keep separate. The Islamic states have no reason at all to be friendly with the west.

And then, you have the US who in its hypocrisy declares a war on terror, but who actively sponsors terrorists (the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, contras in Nicaragua, death squads in El Salvador, 200,000 Guademalans killed by US trained death squads) and expects to be trusted by the rest of the world. And commits an illegal war for oil resources in Iraq, that now involves the Turks.

Folks, this is not about RELIGION!

[mbcsmith]

You need to get straight about right and wrong - if you can.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by CBS_Oliver at 02:14 PM : Dec 28, 2007

So appeasement is your answer. Let''s not pursue them and they will leave us alone. That may work in a schoolyard playground, but let''s get real. Radical Islamists want to kill you. They WILL kill you given the opportunity. You apparently don''t realize that KILLING IS THEIR ONE AND ONLY GOAL. I am thankful that we don''t have you or your 60''s flowerchild ilk defending this country.

[randaids]

Psssst. McVet is a woman!

[pakaal]

runningralph wrote: "Your estimate of 1% radicals among Muslims is way low. These people have caused trouble everywhere they are.... They do it because their religion tells them to do it."

You say it''s "way low" and yet you can''t back that up, can you? What''s your estimate? 2% 3%? Where do you get this informed opinion of yours? If you hate Muslims that''s one thing, but at least be open up front about it rather than try to hint at some ''truth'' you only think exists.

It''s always amazing to see how people can use a tragic story like this to vent their hatred. And sad.

[pakaal]

Hwy71So: "Dude, does the term "hypocracy" mean anything to you?"

Dude, the term "hypocracy" means nothing to anyone, since the word you''re actually looking for is "hypocrisy".

It''s a great tragedy to see this happening. Our intervention and enabling of Musharraf''s empire has led to equal parts fundamentalist rage and government ineptitude. It''s like we''re exporting our own bad governance by osmosis or something. The bad news is if we don''t prop up Musharraf now like we did Hussein so long ago, extremists destabilize the government and we have two Iraqs in the Middle East.

And I don''t know what the good news is....

[cbs_oliver]

Appeasement, throughout history, is a failed policy. If you believe radical islamists, who live to kill you, will stop because you withdraw, you are sadly mistaken. They view this as weakness and it emboldens them.

Posted by mbcsmith at 01:07 PM : Dec 28, 2007

You have your story about the people you want to kill.

Every killer has a story like that.

You seek to bully others by accusing them of being weak (OH SO VERY WEAK) if they don''t support your story and murderous designs.

But what you say is trash and what you wish to do is basically depraved.

You need to get straight about right and wrong - if you can.

[cbs_oliver]

PS: I''''m a Christian and proud AMerican. Cheers!

Posted by parrot2 at 01:56 PM : Dec 28, 2007

Too bad you needed to say that.

But you did.

[cbs_oliver]

Hillary''s rhetoric is always too much like George''s.

She may pander about the ideals of democracy and freedom but she displays passion about tools of coercion and murder.

We need to find better Democrats.

[ajaxtheleast]

No, we''re not weak. It''s just that it

hits below the belt for us to bring up the

proof of our toughness when in a matter

that we deemed worthy of dealing with.

[formrusmcsgt]

Appeasement, throughout history, is a failed policy. If you believe radical islamists, who live to kill you, will stop because you withdraw, you are sadly mistaken. They view this as weakness and it emboldens them.

Posted by mbcsmith at 01:07 PM : Dec 28, 2007

Funny thing history, no?

Anyone who takes an historical look at the success of employing a standing army against competent guerillas will find the following:

Colombia has been failing with this strategy for over 40 years on their own turf.

The Phillipines have been failing with this same strategy, as well, for over 40 years on their own turf.

Guatemala failed with it for 36 years.

We failed with it in Vietnam for 12 years.

The USSR failed with it in Afghanistan for 12 years.

We have failed with it in Afghanistan for over six years.

Funny thing, history.....

[runningralph]

clestes,
Your estimate of 1% radicals among Muslims is way low. These people have caused trouble everywhere they are. From the Phillipines to Russia to England, Spain, France, the US, and even in Western China. Bombings, riots, death threats, assassinations, hostages. They do it because their religion tells them to do it. As far as taking over our government, what''s going to stop them? There are some millions already living and voting in the US. One is now in the House of Representatives. One presidential candidate has roots in the Muslim community. We had a Muslim heavyweight boxing champion of the world at one time. Arguably the best of all time, by the way. US prisons have a lot of them. It is the fastest growing religion in the world. I see them in convenience stores and taxiis. Why can''t they take over the government? All they need is enough votes. They are not just in the mountains of foreign countries, they are all over. Here too.

[mbcsmith]

It is clear that having US troops there has not accomplished ANYTHING. Radicals are still recruiting foot soldiers who are willing to blow themselves up, they are still running free and causing the US to spend untold billions on them, which is great for them and not so great for us.

Think about it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by clestes at 12:29 PM : Dec 28, 2007

Appeasement, throughout history, is a failed policy. If you believe radical islamists, who live to kill you, will stop because you withdraw, you are sadly mistaken. They view this as weakness and it emboldens them.

[hwy71so]

I am always most fearful when the left censors thought, we expect it from the right.
I hope that is helpful.

Posted by ojama at 10:57 AM : Dec 28, 2007

You went through all of that just to make this comment? Dude, does the term "hypocracy" mean anything to you?

[canyoutellme-2009]

Headline: "Responses To Bhutto Show Dems'''' Differences"

Once again, the Democrats are trying to use a tragedy for political gain. The fact that each of them has reacted differently shows what total disarray that party is in.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by mike71067 at 12:40 PM : Dec 28, 2007
+ report abuse
========================================================

Uh... all politicians use this stuff for political gain... i hate all of it... just like GUilianni uses 09/11 to grow his personal wealth (check out his weath immediately before and then after 09/11) by giving high dollar speeches ''n doing other such things... and oh yeah, he uses 09/11 BIG TIME for personal gain during his candidacy. But, i don''t see you saying anything about that. Surprise surprise

[canyoutellme-2009]

Posted by realpatriot1 at 12:01 PM : Dec 28, 2007

Bill Clinton TARGETED OBL? That''''s a complete REWRITE OF HISTORY! BC let OBL slip THROUGH his hands on AT LEAST three occassions!

Spin-Meister realpatriot1 STRIKES OUT again.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by DemWatcher at 12:10 PM : Dec 28, 2007
+ report abuse
==============================================

You CON spin jockeys are ridiculous.. he didn''t rewrite history... Clinton DID target OBL and in fact wanted to go after him... however the REPUBLICAN controlled congress chastized him for doing so and effectively STOPPED it from happening. THis is just like Cheney''s rant about how going into Iraq would just end up in a quagmire and we''d be there forever... he said that in 1994 - you know, during CLINTON''s reign.

With that said, i am NOT for Hilary Clinton as i think she''s a stuck up wench who just changes her position to garner votes... what a panderer. Kuscinich is my choice even though he won''t win.

[mike71067]

Headline: "Responses To Bhutto Show Dems'' Differences"

Once again, the Democrats are trying to use a tragedy for political gain. The fact that each of them has reacted differently shows what total disarray that party is in.

[clestes-2009]

secundus2,

Have you paid ANY ATTENTION to what Osama or Zacharia or Reid have said???

All 3, all known radicals have stated clearly that their actions are the DIRECT RESULT of American infidels desecrating their holy lands.

They DO NOT WANT US troops running around their countries, interfering with their politics. That is their primary complaint. We should remove our troops and take away their primary justification for their radical actions.

It is clear that having US troops there has not accomplished ANYTHING. Radicals are still recruiting foot soldiers who are willing to blow themselves up, they are still running free and causing the US to spend untold billions on them, which is great for them and not so great for us.

Think about it.

[clestes-2009]

notblue

Don''t be absured! You really think the 1 + billion are silent because they are afraid??

No, they are just like us. They don''t pay attention or take action until it directly effects their lives. Otherwise, sure they know the radicals are out there, but they just go on with their lives, going to work, kids go to school, cook dinner and MAYBE have a family discussion about the radicals, but most likely not.

You are giving way more power than they deserve, which is what they want you to do. As long as you are afraid, you are helpless. I am not saying you personally, but people in general.

[hawksprings]

Clinton''s "don''t ask" policy
"As she races through Iowa in the days before next week''s caucuses, Hillary Clinton is taking few chances. She tells crowds that it%u2019s their turn to %u201Cpick a president,%u2019%u2019 but over the last two days she has not invited them to ask her any questions.

Before the brief Christmas break, the New York senator had been setting aside time after campaign speeches to hear from the audience. Now when she%u2019s done speaking, her theme songs blare from loudspeakers, preventing any kind of public Q&A.

She was no more inviting when a television reporter approached her after a rally on Thursday and asked if she was %u201Cmoved%u2019%u2019 by Benazir Bhutto%u2019s assassination. Clinton turned away without answering.

Her daughter, Chelsea, had the same reaction when a reporter approached her with a question.

Hillary Clinton%u2019s no-question policy didn%u2019t sit well with some of the Iowans who came to see her speak.

%u201CI was a little bit underwhelmed,%u2019%u2019 said Doug Rohde, 46, as he left her a rally in a fire station in Denison. %u201CThe message was very generic -- and no questions.%u2019%u2019

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/12/clintons-dont-a.html