Extremists Among Us: Obama Campaign Blames Clinton for Bhutto Murder

I cannot imagine Karl Rove doing this. I cannot see Lee Atwater going down this road. Heck, even Roy Cohn wouldn't go there. And yet there today was the top political adviser to Barack Obama pointing a finger for the tragic and truly horrific murder of Pakistani opposition leader, the former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto at...steady yourself, Democrats...

Senator Hillary Clinton.

Look, I thought it was an Onion post. But I was sadly wrong. Mark Halperin at Time has all the grimy details, and they're true. Just hours after Bhutto's death shocked the world and created a massive crisis in a grim, nuclear-powered powder-keg, there was David Axelrod tracing the bullets and suicide bomb of an assassin back to his client's political foe, days before the Iowa caucuses.

“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,” 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.”

Always great to use a Woody Allen line, I'll agree - but not in the hours after a brutal murder changes the fragile world of south Asia. And how nice that Axelrod laid blame for the murder of Bhutto on another political leader who considered the former Pakistani leader her personal friend - a symbol of modernism in a region where terrorists fight against rights for women, free speech, and democracy in all its forms. I understand that Bhutto's killing may be a dangerous political development for the thinly-experienced Obama, but that's a very poor excuse for the judgment Axelrod showed today.

There are still moments in this world, when other countries look to the United States for leadership. Today is one of those days. It's a day for seriousness of purpose, for careful statements, for quiet anger. In their strange and tortured attempt to link Hillary Clinton with the murder of her friend Benazir Bhutto, the Obama organization proves itself unworthy of leadership on the international stage.

In 1995, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton were Bhutto's guests in Islamabad and as Ben Smith points out today, she may have had the most personal connection with Bhutto of the presidential candidates. Along with being grouped together as female leaders, they had a warm meeting in Pakistan in 1995. As the Times reported:

After praising the uphill efforts of Ms. Bhutto (Radcliffe '73) to improve the lot of women and encourage family planning in a country where the average woman bears six children and is restricted to the role of wife and mother, Mrs. Clinton (Wellesley '69) added "a particular word of thanks for your emphasis on children."

Joe Biden was also close to Bhutto and is one of the most experienced foreign policy hands in the race. I like Biden and though I don't agree with him on everything (same with Clinton), I've always felt he was unfairly labeled "second tier" from the outset of the race. In any case, Biden showed how it's done - call it taking the junior Senator from Illinois to school:

"Like her father before her, Benazir Bhutto worked her whole life - and gave her life - to help Pakistan become a democratic, secular and modern Muslim country. She was a woman of extraordinary courage who returned to Pakistan in the face of death threats and even after an assassination attempt the day of her return, she did not flinch. It was a privilege to know her these many years and to call her a friend.

"I am convinced Ms. Bhutto would have won free and fair elections next week. The fact that she was by far Pakistan's most popular leader underscores the fact that there is a vast, moderate majority in Pakistan that must have a clear voice in the system....

"The way to honor Benazir Bhutto is to uphold the values for which she gave her life: democracy, moderation and social justice. I join with the Pakistani people in mourning the loss of a dear friend."

UPDATE: The Clinton campaign came out with a statement from spokesman Phil Singer: "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." Also, (generally horrified) reaction from TalkLeft, Taylor Marsh, Mark Ambinder, No Quarter

UPDATE II: Axelrod tries to back away but gets himself in deeper (via CNN). Meanwhile, Clinton gets personal in her memories of Bhutto.

UPDATE III: Here's a somber Clinton on Bhutto and what it means, and the risks involved in leadership.

Comments

[Slappy]

Obviously poor choice of word, poor opinion, poor judgement, etc. Doesn't shine a favorable light on Obama.

Now, how about as scathing a write-up on Clinton's poor opinion and judgement on Iraq? I know, I know, she's against the war now. But how about the admission of mistake a la Edwards.

Hillary Clinton is just as guilty of poor judgement. As is Edwards and _________ (fill in the blank). How soon after Obama's apology will we hear Clinton's?

[Tom W.]

Slappy, I always thought the Edwards apology was pretty damned stupid. Why apologize for a vote made in good faith, based on what you knew at the time? Would I have cast the same vote? No. Do I admire Clinton and Edwards for their votes? No. I think they were gullible and frankly given to making a political calculation - we can be tough now, and move off it later. They didn't bank on the runaway Bush train. They've both basically copped to that much (well, not so much the political calculation!) - so yeah, I support Hillary, mistaken Iraq vote and all. I think she'll do the best job.

Axelrod - just incredibly stupid! I mean, suppose for moment you actually believe Clinton's votes led to Musharraf's crackdown and corrupt government and his toleration for the extremists in Pakistan; that you can blame the U.S. Senate for Bhutto's death in some weird fashion. Why say it? In a moment that requires leadership and calm, it makes you look incredibly opportunistic and shallow.

[Slappy]

I disagree. Clinton and every other politician who backed the war should be apologizing. I'd go as far as saying every citizen who backed the war and voted for Bush should be begging for forgiveness but I don't want to come off as extreme.

Axelrod = politician in midst of a fight looking for any advantage. Even hitting below the belt = Stupid.
Hillary = politician who voted for war because of the smell of blood in the air driving America crazy = Stupid.

Please don't insult Clinton's intelligence by pretending that she was suckered into the war. That defense makes her look worse than the truth. That same defense will be made by Republicans on Bush's behalf for generations to come: He acted on the best info had available and with the best intentions. Horse shit.

You want to be tough and move on? Admit your mistake, make amends and move on. Thats way tougher and far more honorable and truthful.

I wish Dean were running again. He saw all this coming and said so. Where is the call for getting the hell out of there like the citizens want? Republicans fear Clinton over national health care and abortion more than pulling out of Iraq. The Dems should be making 2008 a national vote on Iraq. Either IN or OUT. That wont be the case unless Edwards wins the nomination. Maybe. Sad.

Im probably off topic. Sorry. Venting.

[Tom W.]

Slappy, I think you and I have a legitimate difference on Iraq - not the getting in part (criminal) but the getting out part. I've thought a lot about it and have come to reject the Richardson position (go right now) in favor of a phased withdrawal, potential partition, and UN involvement. I think a pull-out will turn into a route, get a bunch of soldiers killed, and turn the country into an even-worse civil war. I've been influenced by some good reporting in the New Yorker this past year by Jon Lee Anderson, Hertzberg and others. We shouldn't be there, but we can only hurt ourselves more by leaving in the wrong fashion - not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who will die.

On the getting in, look, I think a lot of Democrats made a political calculation, absolutely. Blood in the water, you're right. But I also believe they didn't think Bush would literally race to war. I think they believed it would be a drawn-out affair. Stupid, you're right.

[Slappy]

I say make amends. Help rebuild the country. Get the U.N. involved. The world as a whole benefits from the Mid East being a stable place. The world will cooperate with an America wanting to make amends. But when politicians talk of staying in Iraq, they mean military bases and maintaining political and military control. Thats what they mean. If you think otherwise, you are kidding yourself. Richardson, I believe, doesn't talk of just leaving the country flat without holding up our responsibilities. The Dems are still proving themselves inept by supporting the war ($70 Billion more!?) and not making this vote a referendum on Iraq. I expect Clinton to be defending her "family values" and defending evolution as "only a theory" in the upcoming debates. Brilliant.

[Tom W.]

Yeah, and to the right she's to the left of Hugo Chavez - it's amazing how people paint their political fears on the canvas of Hillary Clinton. You say - "I say make amends. Help rebuild the country. Get the U.N. involved. The world as a whole benefits from the Mid East being a stable place. The world will cooperate with an America wanting to make amends." To me, that's what she's planning to do. She doesn't mean military/political control...

And don't get started on Congressional dems - blech!

[Ralph]

I hate to say this but, David Axelrod does have a point. As I have said from the beginning of Bush's war dance for Iraq: invading them will only inflame and embolden the most extremist elements of Muslim societies. Cheney said that liberating Iraq would help the forces of freedom and democracy in the Middle East, hogwash. Hillary Clinton should be taken to task for not questioning the motives for using force in Iraq while inspectors were on the ground and the smoking gun was hand-drawn sketches of mobile labs and drunken lies from 'curve ball'. I think the point is fair, I think the way he made it was in poor taste.

[Tom K]

*when politicians talk of staying in Iraq, they mean military bases and maintaining political and military control. Thats what they mean. If you think otherwise, you are kidding yourself.*

Slappy:

When it comes to HRC's intentions in Iraq, Tom W is definitely kidding somebody. It may be that he is kiddding himself; that is, in any case, to put it in the most favorable light, and I try to be charitable in assessing other people's motives, so I'll assume it is so.

He is deeply invested in kidding himself on this.

[bruce b.]

I'm with TW on this on several points:

1) I don't really believe there is a big difference between Obama, Edwards, and Clinton on what to do in Iraq NOW. And I don't think Richardson could get us out appreciably faster. They would all get us out in a year or so. If any of them get elected and we are not for all practical purposes out by 2010, the Democrats will get massacred in that election. And I will cheer loudly for that massacre.

2) Axelrod said a stupid thing. The Clintonistas are turning it smartly to political advantage.

3) Hillary Clinton has a legitimate and prescient track record in pressing for democratic and economic reform in the Middle East and South Asia. Benezir Bhutto (who had many, many faults) was a co-conspirator on issues of importance to women and children in this region. Sen. Clinton is a hero to many women in India, Pakistan, and other countries in the region, for years as First Lady pushing for things like equal education for women and pre-natal health. This is another case where she was ahead of the curve, and doesn't get the credit.

[Slappy]

"...it's amazing how people paint their political fears on the canvas of Hillary Clinton."

I fairly paint my fears on her. Vegas odds probably have her as our next Prez. I fear a President that really has no intention of truly leaving Iraq. Hillary Clinton is the de-facto face and leader of the Dem party at this point. She commands the most attention and is the front runner. Where is the outcry on Iraq? Where is her taking her party to task for continuing to fund this war? She has no interest in leaving Iraq. Truly leaving Iraq. She is not the only one guilty of this but if you want to take the lead, be a fucking leader and do whats right. Or maybe she doesn't feel its right. If thats the case, I hope the press uncovers her 25 abortions and harem of lesbian lovers.

The Dems have an opportunity to dominate D.C. and actually make some real changes for the better. If I wanted to "stay the course" ($70 Billion more) and believed that "this is hard work" ("...a pull-out will turn into a route, get a bunch of soldiers killed, and turn the country into an even-worse civil war."), I'd vote Republican.

If making a real change and getting out of Iraq means voting for the one with least experience, the one whose help makes stupid statements, the one who relies on self-help pop icons for major support, pays too much for a haircut and is a bit too polished, well then sign me up.

I'm pissed. I see the opportunity of a lifetime being wasted on playing it safe. Or what the Dems perceive as safe. If there is no outcry on Iraq, and thats the safest bet going with the voters, what are the odds of getting national health care?

[bruce b.]

TK, what is your impression of HRC's intentions on Iraq? Do you think she would establish permanent bases there? Do you perceive significant distinctions on this issue among Edwards, Obama, and Clinton?

This is not a leading question. I am interested in what your perception is. My perception, as stated above, is that there is not much difference among the three on this issue, at this point. (If there IS a significant difference regarding the path forward, Obama and Edwards are doing a really, really bad job of highlighting it.)

Finally, what about my argument that it would be political suicide for ANY Democrat to get in and not have the US, for all intents and purposes, out of Iraq by mid 2010?

[bruce b.]

I agree with Slappy that the Democratic voters MUST demand that our candidate GET US OUT OF IRAQ within a reasonably short period of time, say, a year or 18 months at most. (A year would probably do it.)

I challenge Slappy and TK to present evidence that HRC is not equally as committed as John Edwards and Barack Obama to doing so. Are there real, discernible differences here? And if so, why are the Edwards and Obama campaigns not highlighting them?

I hear the argument that Slappy is making some of my friends. "HRC will not really get us out." I would like to see evidence. If someone can prove this to me, I will not vote for HRC. I will not vote for a candidate who I believe will not get us out of Iraq.

[Tom W.]

Slappy - not sure where this is coming from: Obama and Edwards have basically the same policy as Clinton in Iraq. You'd have to have Richardson (who has moderated his out-now stance) or Kucinich as your nominee to get what you want. They've all said "gone in 18 months" over and over again. As Bruce points out, they'll be called on it big-time if they go much beyond that. To me, this means the bulk of U.S. troops out of the country. Will we still have a (much smaller) military presence there? Probably. If I had to guess as to what a President Edwards, Clinton or Obama (or Biden or Dodd for that matter) would go for, I'd put my money behind a mid-sized Air Force base with a couple thousand airmen and support staff. So - less than Germany, Korea, Italy, the UK, or Japan. Less than Turkey or Saudi Arabia. Think Greece, Diego Garcia, or Bahrain.

I don't think it's right to equate the infamous "this is hard work" crack of Bush's with my comment that "...a pull-out will turn into a route, get a bunch of soldiers killed, and turn the country into an even-worse civil war." I mean, we're there. It will be 2008 with 150,000 U.S. troops in country. It's not a game of Risk - you can't just grab the little plastic pices and put them back in the box, and go home.

You've just been sworn in as U.S. President - whaddya gonna do?

As far as Tom K's comment that "Tom W is definitely kidding somebody..." well....there he goes again on my imagined motivatations and psychology. I think I've been pretty upfront among liberal bloggers as to 1. who I support, 2. why I support her, and 3. what the limits of my expectations are.

[Ralph]

Bush's rush to invade Iraq was obvious to all those who heard Bush, Cheney and Rice talk about 'mushroom clouds' and 9/11-Iraq links without any credible evidence. And there were plenty of policy papers and resolutions calling for regime change in Iraq.

At first, these pro-invasion Dems just criticized Bush's war plan after things went sour, but they did not condemn the decision to invade until much later.

The argument that some Democrats make now about not realizing Bush would invade regardless of the inspection process and the UN are full of it. Clinton and Edwards both failed the most important test of their political careers. The consequences of the war have been enormous - including having to coddle Pakistan's military dictator.

Yes, Bhutto's death was not Clinton's fault. That's an outrageous thing to say (although I could see Rove saying it). But the decision to allow the President the authority to invade without evidence of a credible threat, is partly her fault. And along with that goes the fall-out of the war. You cannot forget that war in the most destructive form of foreign policy. In fact, it's a failure of foreign policy, period.

How can we trust Clinton to make the right decisions in the future if she couldn't stand up for the truth in 2002-2003? Although I support Edwards, he has to be taken to task as well.

[Tom W.]

BTW, that smallish air force base is in contrast to a South Korean size commitment (or much larger) from the likes of McCain, Giuliani, and Romney. So that's probably the realpolitick choice here on Iraq.

[Tom K]

Tom W:

Reread my post, and then reread yours. Do you really want to pick a post where I stipulate that your motives are to be viewed in the best available light to launch an argument that I am attacking your "imagined motivatations and psychology"?

Bruce:

I have no idea what Edwards or Obama would do. They have no track record to speak of, and their campaign-trail generalities don't shed much light.

If HRC wins, we will have no fewer than 40,000 troops in Iraq when she leaves office (even assuming 2 terms). I had said this before her now-famous refusal to say that she would withdraw US troops if elected, and I see no reason to change it now.

That may be true for the others as well (apart from Richardson and Kucinich), but as to her I feel certain. What little track record she has, personally, is very militant in the region, and her husband's administration carried on policies in Iraq that were not only terrible (a neutral characterization on my part of the bombings, embargo and calls for regime change, which were objectively terrible whether or not they were correct), but also mistaken (a critical characterization on my part).

[Slappy]

Im pissed at them all for not taking a stronger stance and not putting Iraq front and center. I'd like to see the Dems all attacking the Republicans for the war and trying to get my vote by telling me how fast they are willing to pull the troops out. The lack of focus on pulling the troops out in the campaign makes me worry about their true commitment to getting out of there.

I have nothing to base this on but 18 months seems like a long time to be saying your good byes.

bruce b.: Here is why some of your friends are saying such: Because Clinton is, or at least appears to be, your more typical insider D.C. politician. And Americans do not trust politicians. Obama is a fresh face and that represents change and leaving Iraq means change. Americans dont expect politicians to do much of anything. This is one aspect that still keeps Bush popular amongst the brain dead. He isn't afraid of change and shaking things up and the "fuck you if you dont like it" attitude. Does Clinton deserve this? Maybe, maybe not. Obama certainly represents change in as many ways Clinton represents status quo. Edwards is not a fresh face but he fessed up to his bad vote and he has spoken and does speak of class in this country like few politicians dare. And this may all be speculation and based on hunches but I bet many Americans take these factors into consideration. Perhaps far more than what P.R. driven policy stance they happen to take on their website.

I think any Dem will pull us out. To what degree is a fair question. Who is least likely to suffer a shocking loss to a Republican is paramount and not making Iraq priority no.1 makes such a disaster more likely. People really dont expect ANY politican to make a difference when it comes to their kids health care, education, environment, jobs, etc. Americans expectations are so low. But Iraq is binary to the voters. In or out? Reps = in. Dems = out. Reinforce that over and over. But they are not doing this. Not to my liking.

[Kathleen M]

So well demonstrated, Tom. No one else could put it the way Clinton did, and quite possibly, no one else would.
Now, if I learn of anyone criticizing the woman because she didn't weep for her friend...they better be prepared to weep themselves long and hard, days and nights, nights and days.

[Sheldon]

Obama must be desperate to allow his campaign to accuse Hillary Clinton of involvement in the murder of Ms. Bhutto.

[bruce b.]

TK said:

I have no idea what Edwards or Obama would do. They have no track record to speak of, and their campaign-trail generalities don't shed much light.

For me, the choice is Clinton, Obama, or Edwards. I have ruled out Kucinich, as i do not want to cast a vote that is purely a "protest vote", and while Richardson does indeed have a very good policy on Iraq, he has imho performed very poorly in the debates, thus I do not consider him a viable candidate. In any case, since I don't live in a state with a very early primary, I don't think he will even be a choice for me.

So, if I am to take the Iraq stance into consideration, there has to be a SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE among those three in policy going forward. I don't consider her past vote enough of a difference, although I will grant you, her failure to admit she was wrong troubles me more than it troubles TW.

TK says:

If HRC wins, we will have no fewer than 40,000 troops in Iraq when she leaves office (even assuming 2 terms). I had said this before her now-famous refusal to say that she would withdraw US troops if elected, and I see no reason to change it now.

In contrast, TW says:

To me, this means the bulk of U.S. troops out of the country. Will we still have a (much smaller) military presence there? Probably. If I had to guess as to what a President Edwards, Clinton or Obama (or Biden or Dodd for that matter) would go for, I'd put my money behind a mid-sized Air Force base with a couple thousand airmen and support staff. So - less than Germany, Korea, Italy, the UK, or Japan. Less than Turkey or Saudi Arabia. Think Greece, Diego Garcia, or Bahrain.

First of all, I believe it is a MISTAKE to leave even a "mid sized Air Force base" in Iraq. But.. that is very different than TK's prediction of 40,000 troops (!) after two terms, which would be very troubling to me and many other Democrats.

Can TK cite something from Clinton to justify this?

TK says:

What little track record she has, personally, is very militant in the region, and her husband's administration carried on policies in Iraq that were not only terrible (a neutral characterization on my part of the bombings, embargo and calls for regime change, which were objectively terrible whether or not they were correct), but also mistaken (a critical characterization on my part).

I tend to agree with this statement. Her militant track record in the region (the vote to authorize war, the recent vote on Iran) concerns me. And I consider her close association with Bill Clinton (a political advisor, as far as I can see) to be one of her weakest points. I trust Hillary a lot more than I trust Bill, and I trust Hillary "herself" more than I trust the combination of the two.

And my recollection is that TK's characterization of the Clinton administration's Iraq policy is correct, although it paled in its wrongheadedness next to that of Bush 43.

(On the other hand, according to Richard Clarke, Clinton had a pretty good track record on countering domestic terrorism.)

Slappy, your arguments are for the most part non-specific. But there is one argument that you make that I really like. Slappy said:

But Iraq is binary to the voters. In or out? Reps = in. Dems = out. Reinforce that over and over. But they are not doing this. Not to my liking.

Perhaps this is the strongest pro-Obama argument. He would "symbolically" represent opposition to the war, whereas Hillary would have a chance to "fudge" it in the general election. Obama could not do that.

We MUST get out of the Middle East. Just as Vietnam screwed up LBJ's domestic agenda, we will never achieve social and economic change in this country while we are spending billions and losing lives there.

[Tom K]

" . . . my recollection is that TK's characterization of the Clinton administration's Iraq policy is correct, although it paled in its wrongheadedness next to that of Bush 43."

Bruce:

I, in turn, agree with you, with one added note -- it is entirely possible to see the GWB policy as merely a later stage of the WJC policy. A more developed stage, and therefore more *clearly* wrongheaded (as the goal of military engagement became more visible), but of one piece.

It is, or course, possible to see it differently, as well, and I suppose HRC supporters will. In this, as in so many things, I cannot expect to persuade them, and must content myself with humble disagreement, to be followed by years of painful vindication, at the end of which Tom W will tell me that whatever happened that was bad was inevitable, so we shouldn't blame her.

As with all predictions, I may of course be wrong. But, if the rest comes to pass, I'm willing to go to the bank on the last bit.

[bruce b.]

TK said:

it is entirely possible to see the GWB policy as merely a later stage of the WJC policy. A more developed stage, and therefore more *clearly* wrongheaded (as the goal of military engagement became more visible), but of one piece.

I can't agree with you there. The Clinton adminstration wasn't driven by the neocons. And I can't imagine them using 9/11 to invade Iraq. That is not how they operated.

Further, they never had the delusion that they were going to "democratize" the middle east -- by taking over Iraq!!

The Times had an interesting summary on Sunday 12/30 of all of the candidates' positions. The way they summarized the Iraq position, Hillary came off as much more likely to "stay the course" than Edwards and Obama. I am going to spend time looking into this more closely. If it is true that her policy NOW is much different, neither Obama nor Edwards is doing a very good job in making the distinction.

So that BACKS UP your arguments, but here is a point that CONTRADICTS your anti-HRC arguments: her response to the Bhutto assassination. She very quickly called for an international (presumably, UN) investigation. This struck me as the correct response and was something the Bushies/neo-cons would never do.

One more note: even when TW has good points these days, he is expressing them in very inflammatory language. For example, the heading of this post. TW, do you really believe that Obama (or Axelrod) is an "extremist"? If Obama wins, TW, will you support him? What about Edwards? And your recent posting on Frank Rich was "over the top" in characterizing what was a very substantive column, one that gave HRC a few knocks but gave her some kudos as well, and knocked Obama on a few points.

When this is over -- and it might be over in as little as a month -- we are all going to have to unite behind the Democratic standard-bearer.

[Tom W.]

Bruce, yeah I thought Axelrod's comments were extremist.

I thought the Rich column was as wispy and thin as the faded, light-as-air petals of a dandelion. Simply awful, thumb-sucking excuse for a column - he's fallen on hard times in this race and doesn't know how to get up.

BTW, HRC's reaction to the murder was absolutely right on. No rush to blame al-Qaeda to score points, tough talk for Musharraf, who I'm sure she suspects of having a hand in it (as do most of us).

[bruce b.]

TW said:

yeah I thought Axelrod's comments were extremist.

that is an inflammatory characterization of what Axelrod said. and further, your headline implicitly calls Axelrod (and possibly Obama) "extremists", it doesn't say that they made extremist comments.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the Rich column.

You haven't answered the question I posed: will you support either Obama or Edwards, if one of them is the nominee?

[Tom K]

Bruce:

You should know better. The HRC pod-people are programed to reject the validity of that factual scenario.

Not that Tom isn't his own man: but his expression of self here is, I fear, limited to installing the HRC program into himself, by himself.