Wes Clark vs David Axelrod
Asked about top Obama adviser David Axelrod’s insinuation that her Iraq vote in 2002 may have had something to do with Benazir Bhutto’s assassination by distracting attention from the fight against al Qaeda, Hillary Clinton declined to respond — telling CNN, “I really regret that anybody would try to politicize this tragedy.”
But her surrogates aren’t biting their tongues. In a written statement, former Supreme Allied Commander and ex-presidential candidate Wesley Clark says “This is a time for leadership, not politics. Senator Obama’s campaign seems to believe that Senator Clinton’s actions led to the tragic events in Pakistan. This is an incredible and insulting charge. It politicizes a tragic event of enormous strategic consequence to the United States and the world, and it has no place in this campaign.”
The Clinton campaign is walking a fine line in dealing with the Bhutto assassination; it’s widely seen as politically helpful, since it reminds caucus goers of her foreign policy experience and strength against extremists. But she has to be careful not be seen as exploiting Bhutto’s death and her personal relationship with the former PM by playing her hand too aggressively.
Axelrod’s comments allow her to accuse Obama of being exploitative, and still keep the story (and her foreign policy credentials) in the news for another day.
Tags: barack obama, benazir bhutto, david axelrod, hillary clinton, iowa, pakistan, wesley clark
Share
Hillary bragged about hanging out with Bhutto implying how well connected she was internationally but…
It did not seem to confer to Hillary any great insight regarding the impact of the preemptive US invasion of Iraq.
Hillary voted for the US invasion of an oil rich Arab country that did not attack the USA and was no danger to the USA.Hillary did nothing to stop the march to a war that she had supported.
When Bhutto returned to Pakistan, she carried the baggage of the US Iraq occupation that was the result of Hillary’s support of GW Bush’s Iraq war.
Come on now, Sen Clinton will calculate her response , or lack thereof to be as “PC” as she can, but it is obvious that she has a lineup of surrogates standing in line ready to blow themselves up politically in order to get her real messages out, these are blatant Clintonian tactics designed to the politics of personal destruction… All the while she stands there proclaiming innocence and acting insulted that anyone could accuse her of such negative tactics…
Don, I think your sense of accountability is a little skewed. For any of us who aren’t Bush Republicans, we feel that BUSH lied and people (including Bhutto) died.
More than 80% of the American people believed Dick Cheney when he told us on Aug. 26, 2002, that he knew where Saddam’s wmd’s were located.
I don’t think 80% of the American people think that Clinton is the one who said she knew where the wmd’s were.
Instead, I think that 80% of the American people now realize that Cheney lied when he said he knew where the wmd’s were. And, I also think most Americans didn’t realize that the VP of the USA would actually lie to the American people about wmd’s.
Why don’t you hold the Bush administration accountable?
Why in the world would you hold ANY of the 535 representatives in Congress accountable for President Bush making the decision to invade Iraq???
He even proudly labelled HIS decision “The BUSH Doctrine”!
Clearly the Bush/Cheney administration is the most to blame for the Iraq fiasco
BUT Hillary and Edwards enabled the Iraq war and did nothing to stop it once it should have been apparent that Bush abused their trust and confidence.
Obama was not duped by Bush/Cheney and clearly opposed the Iraq invasion bevcause he had a better grasp of the impications of such a war and of international affairs.
Consider Obama’s prophetic words in Oct 2002 while Edwards and Hillary were being duped by Bush/Cheney.
” I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.”
Because of her lack of judgement in foreign affairs, Hillary helped enable a dumb war.
Don, Hillary Clinton do NOT “enable” Bush to invade Iraq.
When the Vice President of the United States says he KNOWS where wmd’s are located in Iraq, then the VP of the USA damn well better produce the wmd’s located in Iraq.
He didn’t.
Bush Republicans don’t care.
But the rest of America does. They hold the BUSH adminstration accountable for the BUSH Doctrine.
Bush pulled the inspectors OUT of Iraq when they weren’t finding wmd’s… SO HE COULD BOMB IRAQ OVER THEIR WMD’S that the inspectors WEREN’t finding!!!
Barack Obama is brilliant, and one of the most inspiring speakers I’ve ever heard. I’m with you on that 100%.
But blaming Hillary Clinton for George Bush making the choice to invade Iraq seems like you are not holding The Decider accountable for HIS decisions.
Hillary Clinton and more than 80% of America were lied to by Bush and Cheney.
That Barack Obama knew way back then that George W. Bush was a liar is absolutely to his credit, but it shouldn’t be to Clinton’s detriment.
Bush and his Loyal Bushies are the ones who should be held accountable.
And isn’t that what the Clintons do best?—Engage in the bad behavior themselves, then point their fingers at others. Hillary politicized the assasination when she spoke of her close relationship with Bhutto–no doubt another overstatement to benefit her campaign.
She’s working so hard at spinning an image that Americans will like and vote for that she’s lost touch with who and what she really is–merely an extension of Bill and lacking the qualifications she needs to lead this country.
I did not ask for 2-for-1 then, nor do I ask for it now. That’s just the life-long Clinton strategy that moves Hillary into a position for which she is not qualified.
Bill moves up (think Gov of Arkansas); Hillary moves up with him (think Attorney General of Arkansas). Bill moves up (think President of the US); Hillary moves up with him (think US Senate). See the pattern, women?
Consider what America got with the first Clinton co-Presidency:
• Abuse of the powers of the office of the President
• Granting Presidential pardons to buy Hillary’s election to the Senate. As a woman who made it on my own, Hillary’s need to ride Bill’s coattails and her sense of entitlement makes me doubt her capabilities.
• Hillary’s long-suffering marriage to Bill, enabling a lifetime of sexual trysts and trying to contain the Bimbo eruptions, gives me a President without the backbone to stand up to a man. Hillary claims to be tough enough to play with the boys when, in fact, she is unable to leave a cheating husband. How will she stand up to other male leaders who see this in “Mrs.” Clinton and walk all over her?
• Being married to a former President does not make one qualified to be President.
Hillary has less experience in elected office than Barack. She’s held elected office for one Senate term plus one year and has introduced no major legislation during that time. Is this the kind of experience we want in the Oval Office?
I am not a “Hillary hater;” I am an America lover. Please consider very carefully which candidate the Democratic Party puts on the ballot. The future of this country absolutely depends on it.
IS IT TRUE THAT FOX IS GONNA NOT INVITE RON PAUL TO THE NEXT FOX CANDIDATES EVENT IF FOX IS GONNA BOYCOT RON PAUL I’M GONNA BOYCOT FOX AND NEWSCORP
[...] Pakistan Argument by Aaron Bruns While her campaign spent much of the last two days seizing on an Obama aide’s comments linking her Iraq vote to the Bhutto assassination, Senator Clinton’s own remarks on Pakistan [...]