Obama Camp Continues To Blame Hillary For Bhutto Assassination

This seems incredible to me. From The Politico's Ben Smith:

“Those who made the judgment that we ought to divert our attention from Afghanistan to invade Iraq and allow al-Qaeda to reconstitute and strengthen are now having to assess the wisdom of that judgment as we may be seeing yet another manifestation of al-Qaeda’s potency,” said Susan Rice, a top Obama foreign policy advisor who was an assistant secretary of State in the Clinton administration, in an interview with Politico. . . . “Senator Clinton’s view has been closer to Bush’s, which is to see Musharraf as the linchpin but democracy as something that is desirable, but not necessarily essential to our security interests,” said Rice, “Whereas Obama feels that democracy and human rights in the context of Pakistan are essential to our security.”

Wow! Beyond the offensive connection of Clinton to the Bhutto assassination, let me ask this question, is Obama ADVOCATING the overthrow of the Musharraf government? Otherwise, what is he talking about? The Obama campaign seems to be going down in flames.

< Friday Open Thread | Obama Advisors Disagree On Pakistan >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Democracy Essential? WTF? (none / 0) (#1)
    by BDB on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 12:07:22 PM EST
    One of the big problems I have with Bush's foreign policy is the idea that democracy is some sort of panacea.  While an admirable goal, democracy without stability is not necessarily better for the U.S.   It's not even necessarily better for the citizens of that country.  Look at Iraq.  Or the election of Hamas by the Palestinians.  Folks who want to kill each other or their neighbors do not necessarily change just because they get to vote.  The majority tends to elect folks who want to kill the minority or their neighbors or otherwise engage in terrible acts.

    While democracy can be a sign of a stable civilized society, it doesn't inherently lead to one.   This has been one of the biggest mistakes in the Bush Administration, to think it's job is done the minute an election is held.  An election isn't the beginning of democracy, it's the goal - once the civil institutions are in place or at least have taken root to support democracy, then you have an election.

    So, yeah, I don't know WTF Obama's people are talking about.  There's nothing inherently stabilizing about democracy and removing a strong man, no matter how terrible, doesn't necessarily lead to a more stable and peaceful world.  Obama, who opposed Iraq, should know that.

    going down in flames ... (none / 0) (#2)
    by chemoelectric on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 12:33:18 PM EST
    Going down in flames wrt BTD’s expectations, anyway.

    Don't Blame Hillary (none / 0) (#3)
    by supremecourtjester on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 02:31:04 PM EST
    How can they blame Hillary?  She's got an alibi!

    Burn baby burn (none / 0) (#4)
    by RalphB on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 03:20:51 PM EST
    Going down in flames is a good analogy.  Crash city for Saint Obama.

    Few Good Options (none / 0) (#5)
    by jarober on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 03:32:20 PM EST
    The jihadis seem to have finally figured out that Iraq is nothing but a killing ground for them, and they are bailing back to Afghanistan and Pakistan.  It's a whole lot harder to deal with them there, because they have safe haven in Pakistan.

    Few sane people are advocating taking on Pakistan - I don't think there are many good options for the world there.  The best we can probably do is prop up a lesser evil like Musharref.  

    As to stabilizing Afghanistan more than we have, what would you have the US do?  Send in a huge army like the Soviets did?  That didn't work for them, and is unlikely to work for us.  So long as Pakistan remains a jihadist hotbed, there's no easy answer here.  

    Meanwhile, we need to take a "careful what you wish for" approach to elections in Pakistan.  It's not at all clear that anyone friendly to the West would win a truly free election.