Obama’s insane line on the Bhutto assassination

posted at 3:40 pm on December 28, 2007 by Bryan

See if you can follow this logic. Barack Obama and his surrogates have been attacking Hillary Clinton, using Benazir Bhutto’s assassination as the pretext, by arguing that the war in Iraq destabilized Pakistan. Pakistan has never, in its more than half century of existence, been stable. The Iraq war is just under 5 years old. Further, Team Obama argues that Clinton’s toleration for non-democratic Pervez Musharraf contributed to Bhutto’s death. This, in spite of the fact that the premature push to democracy certainly factored heavily in her return, which in turn contributed to her death. Connected to that, they also argue that putting realpolitik in front of democracy and human rights is contributing to Pakistan’s instability. Here’s part of the story.

“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.

She said Pakistan illustrates a difference between Obama and Clinton’s approaches to foreign policy. Clinton, in Rice’s view, is willing to tolerate authoritarian regimes – in this case the government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf – who might be useful to short-term U.S. goals. Obama, on the other hand, seeks a diplomacy that sees values and human rights than traditional realpolitik.

“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.”

So on 9-12-01, what would President Obama have done? Al Qaeda, harbored in Afghanistan in a symbiotic relationship with the Taliban, was behind the attack. The US needed access to Afghanistan, and happened to have a potential ally right next door in Pakistan. Pakistan had propped up the Taliban (under Bhutto’s regime, no less) but was also a longstanding strategic ally of the US. But that ally wasn’t led by a democratically elected leader. Would President Obama have demanded that Gen. Musharraf first hold an election before the US would consider requesting the use of Pakistani soil and airspace to conduct our war in Afghanistan? Obama’s line on the Bhutto assassination suggests that, yes, President Obama would have first made sure that Musharraf was democratically elected before the US would work with him. Which is insane.

Either that, or Team Obama is hopelessly naive about the world. That’s the way I’d bet.

Secondarily, Obama expresses his intolerance for the non-democratic ruler of Pakistan, who happens to be an imperfect ally of the US. But he would have left the non-democratic ruler of Iraq very much in place, though he had become nearly a perfect enemy of the US. Obama says he would have voted against the 2002 authorization to use force against Saddam, and constantly chides Clinton for voting for that authorization. But according to Obama’s formulation on Pakistan, his vote would have been a vote against human rights, no? He would be tolerating a non-democrat, no?

Barack Obama is an idealist, which is nice. It’s quaint and refreshing, even. But it ought to disqualify him from the presidency until he grows up a bit. His is the kind of thinking that fed the Clinton administration’s decision to ban CIA operatives from working with anyone who might have an unsavory past or negative associations: It pretty much tied the agents’ hands in the majority of countries around the world. But hey, it made the Clintonistas feel good about themselves at DC cocktail parties, and that’s…something.

The world doesn’t work according to the rules of the local community activist group, or the Illinois State Senate, or even the US Senate. Outside the US and especially in the region Obama is addressing here, there are a lot of very bad people, and many of them hold a great deal of power, and sometimes events and circumstances force us to work with them. We have no choice. It’s either work with them, or do absolutely nothing. The former was our only option when it came time to beat down the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The latter, though, seems to be closer to what a President Obama would do. That’s not acceptable.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Saying this guy is “naive” is being gracefully kind.

volsense on December 28, 2007 at 3:43 PM

Wow. Obama just raised Hillary in my opinion (of course, she had nowhere to go but up–but still).

aero on December 28, 2007 at 3:48 PM

One thing about Pakistan’s turmoil: it’s separating the men from the boys, so to speak.

baldilocks on December 28, 2007 at 3:51 PM

I am sure Obama is not ready for the hot seat…his balls have not dropped on international affairs…

jimwesty on December 28, 2007 at 3:51 PM

Well if Hillary fired a guy for calling Obama a Muslim, then Obama should fire this guy for saying that Hillary is responsible for Bhutto’s murder.

SoulGlo on December 28, 2007 at 3:51 PM

He’s not simply naive – he’s a flame throwing – died in the wool leftist liberal.

This election season is so full of ‘cult of personality’ rubbish – the real positions of these loons has been completely over looked.

Not to mention the lack of basic geopolitical knowledge.

And that goes for both parties.

jake-the-goose on December 28, 2007 at 3:51 PM

The very fact that this man can make me support Hillary on something…is saying something.

amerpundit on December 28, 2007 at 3:55 PM

I consider the Huckster a featherweight when it comes to international affairs. This politician, Sen. Obama, is a mosquito weight (if there is such a thing).

This guy is clueless as to the rough and tumble ways of the world. A President Obama would make Jimmy Carter look like a Great Leader.

No, he is definitely not ready to lead the free world. Not by a long shot.

Zorro on December 28, 2007 at 4:00 PM

Very “Carter-esque”……

TBinSTL on December 28, 2007 at 4:00 PM

I have been saying since the primary campaigns started that I would vote for Hillary against Obama, because she is far more serious about protecting this country than he is. So this revelation isn’t so much of a revelation.

Obama is an unproven state senator from the self-important University of Chicago neighborhood of Hyde Park, an ethically compromised Chicago politician, and a novelty race candidate without portfolio.

He is a non-entity as a U.S. Senator, having done exactly nothing. The very notion that he is running for President should leave most informed analysts laughing.

Jaibones on December 28, 2007 at 4:00 PM

Barack Obama is an idealist, which is nice. It’s quaint and refreshing, even. But it ought to disqualify him from the presidency until he grows up a bit. His is the kind of thinking that fed the Clinton administration’s decision to ban CIA operatives from working with anyone who might have an unsavory past or negative associations: It pretty much tied the agents’ hands in the majority of countries around the world. But hey, it made the Clintonistas feel good about themselves at DC cocktail parties, and that’s…something.

People don’t understand that sometimes other people have to get dirty to get things done. Unfortunate, but true in this world, which is why Mr. Obama is not qualified to be president even if he is a likeable and rather nice person.

Mommynator on December 28, 2007 at 4:01 PM

President Kindergartner, or Dreamer, in Chief Obama would have first made sure that Musharraf was democratically elected before the US would work with him

.

Same Obama who’d talk to Iran immediately…dreamer, indeed.

One thing about Pakistan’s turmoil: it’s separating the men from the boys, so to speak.

baldilocks on December 28, 2007 at 3:51 PM

Indeed. Chris Matthews, a commenter shared yesterday, stated that “this helps Hillary”. That’s a load of Bravo Sierra. Not even Hillary can claim hawkishness, having flopped like a chicken lately. What happened yesterday sharpened the senses of people. It benefits real men, those who have the fortitude to fight, any which way “fight” can be interpreted, and with any means. Not good for any liberals, and not good for a bunch of the rightie sissies either. And that’s the good news.

Entelechy on December 28, 2007 at 4:01 PM

When it comes down to kill or be killed, self-defense does not even seem to be on his palette of options. Idiots like this will get us all killed.

bbz123 on December 28, 2007 at 4:01 PM

Barack Obama is an idealist, which is nice.

No he’s not. He’s a two bit Chicago hack politician with a smooth delivery who will say anything that soothes the ears of idiotic Democratic primary voters.

He has no coherent world view and no apparent interest in developing one beyond what he needs to say and do to get nominated.

The very fact that this light weight fool is a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in times like these is a sad joke and a sign of how far that party has fallen in the last 30 years.

Drew on December 28, 2007 at 4:03 PM

In President Obama’s administration, dangerous situations with Iran, North Korea, et. al., will be handled with a powerful two-pronged approach. When things get bad, there will be Expressions of Grave Concern. If things get really bad, those will be followed up by Sternly-Worded Letters. It’ll all pass the International Test.

eeyore on December 28, 2007 at 4:11 PM

jake-the-goose on December 28, 2007 at 3:51 PM

Thankyou… had an epiphany when I read your post…

Religion… nuttiness… lack of coherent plans… Hillary trying to buy the election… America’s Mayor (who is nothin but a New York RINO)… McCain and his playing on being a prisoner…

Dam… now I am depressed… you are so right… none of these folks are promoting policies or coherent plans for America… just personality stuff…

Even FRED! who is the closest thing we have to a coherent Conservative in the race is a personality more than a Statesman…

Romeo13 on December 28, 2007 at 4:14 PM

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…

Just pointing out the fallacious liberal meme that when we invaded Iraq, suddenly Afghanistan was “forgotten.” The libs want Afghanistan to be the “good war,” but don’t realize the firepower and forces that would be needed to level the mountains in order to root out Osama.

If the US hadn’t gone into Iraq and focused all our resouces to Afghanistan, the libs would have screamed and complained about the injustice of decimating the mountain regions and that Bushitler should be impeached. You can bet the house on that proposition.

Oh, and AQ has been strengthened because we went into Iraq? There is the naivate showing itself front and center.

Mallard T. Drake on December 28, 2007 at 4:21 PM

I’m really surprised he/they are not blaming Bush more.
But then, rewriting history for votes.

Kini on December 28, 2007 at 4:27 PM

If the US hadn’t gone into Iraq and focused all our resources to Afghanistan, the libs would have screamed and complained about the injustice of decimating the mountain regions and that Bushitler should be impeached.

Mallard T. Drake on December 28, 2007 at 4:21 PM

Most definitely. Why? Because it would achieve the same end as the denigration of our efforts in Iraq: making Bush look bad. It’s their revenge for 1998 and for 2000. Yes, that’s what’s been the Left’s craw all these years.

baldilocks on December 28, 2007 at 4:32 PM

Barack Obama is an idealist, which is nice. It’s quaint and refreshing, even. But it ought to disqualify him from the presidency until he grows up a bit. His is the kind of thinking that fed the Clinton administration’s decision to ban CIA operatives from working with anyone who might have an unsavory past or negative associations: It pretty much tied the agents’ hands in the majority of countries around the world. His is also the kind of thinking that has lead George W. Bush to think that he can bring democracy, human rights and the rule of law to the moms and dads of Iraq.

Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barak Obama – The Three Amigos!

MB4 on December 28, 2007 at 4:32 PM

He’s an opportunist. No other word for it.

aengus on December 28, 2007 at 4:35 PM

Team Obama is hopelessly naive about the world

Preeeeeeeeeecisely.

thejackal on December 28, 2007 at 4:35 PM

What I’m left with is asking Obama just how in the hell he’d bring about democracy in Pakistan. It would be a natural follow-up to this statement from his spokesperson:

“Whereas Obama feels that democracy and human rights in the context of Pakistan are essential to our security.”

OK. So… How would Obama accomplish that exactly? Invade Pakistan à la Iraq? A country that has demonstrated it has nuclear weapons? In the most populous region in the world? Oki!

Seixon on December 28, 2007 at 4:49 PM

“But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. 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.” – Barack Obama, 2002… just before the invasion of Iraq.

I wish the President had had a bit more of Obama’s “naivete.”

Yoosaion on December 28, 2007 at 4:56 PM

Blind idealism and political correctness will destroy our freedoms, and kill us, faster than anything else.

Entelechy on December 28, 2007 at 5:01 PM

“toleration” ???

Labamigo on December 28, 2007 at 5:02 PM

I should also add that the enemy knows about/exploits idealism and PC to the utmost perfection. This is our Achilles’ heel. Wake up masses who’re still free!

Entelechy on December 28, 2007 at 5:04 PM

A black Jimmy Carter.

Naivite knows no bounderies.

N. O'Brain on December 28, 2007 at 5:31 PM

I wish the President had had a bit more of Obama’s “naivete.”

Yoosaion on December 28, 2007 at 4:56 PM

Thank God he doesn’t.

N. O'Brain on December 28, 2007 at 5:32 PM

Calling him naive is misleading. He is a 40+ year old man, and you can’t be intentionally stupid. You might as well say Hillary is naive. To believe that he has no clue is buying into his schtick. He is a racist (listen to what his pastor has to say), Marxist, with backing from the MSM. To try to say he has no grasp of Pakistan, nor Iraq is equally deceptive. He has a purpose, and goal to spread the liberal propaganda, primarily to appease those in the liberal party, and the MSM. He is spreading the liberal elite agenda and trying to tie any disaster with the Bush administration.

He has a college education, and is serving his second term as a senator. Willfully negligent, or a propagandist would more accurate. He despises freedom every bit as much as the rest of the liberal elites.

Do you actually believe that Obama believes in Global Warming? It is the get rich quick political expedient of the decade, and he knows it.

Rode Werk on December 28, 2007 at 5:33 PM

Rode Werk on December 28, 2007 at 5:33 PM

I could be wrong, but I don’t see Obama as the cold, calculating type like Hillary. I see someone who is completely out of his depth on foreign policy, similar to Huckabee but worse. He’s probably in fourth in the Dimwit Sweepstakes, behind Gravel, Kucinich and Paul. Remember, it wasn’t too long ago that Obama talked up invading Pakistan if Musharraf didn’t help us get al Qaeda terrorists. He got pushed back and shut the heck up about that. He’ll probably find this current line of attack going in the same direction. Hillary will knock his block off in the next day or two. Edwards already has — he called Obama’s line “ridiculous” earlier today. So I guess at bottom I don’t see him as evil, just naive and not terribly bright on foreign policy.

Bryan on December 28, 2007 at 5:49 PM

Naive, idealistic, developmentally disabled; call it whatever you want, Obama just ain’t Presidential material.

Sadly, as creatures of extremes, we tend to swing like a pendulum between naive and cynical, and thus an almost endless swing between the likes of Kennedy-Nixon-Carter-Clinton, with occasional stops inbetween. Bad habit, that.

Oh, well, back to the inane campaign season.

Merovign on December 28, 2007 at 5:49 PM

I don’t intend to belabor our differences, but Obama went through school the same time I did, and we were taught the history of Pakistan (fairly unrevised). We both were around for Benezair’s rise and subsequent fall from power. I mean this is fairly recent history that played out during our adulthood. He would have to of buried his head in the sand for 30 years to be that ignorant. I don’t think he can be that ignorant, which translates to me that he is spinning it to tie Bush to Iraq to Her assassination, which is typical of the liberal elites. Fact is disregarded for political gain.

Rode Werk on December 28, 2007 at 6:08 PM

The most telling thing about the whole Bhutto assasination is the exposure of the Democrats as weak on defense, or knowledge thereof, and the Republicans who are pretenders.

Out of the smoke, fire, posturing and commotion, Fred stand alone.

The differences are stark …

tarpon on December 28, 2007 at 6:50 PM

One word: Moron.

tickleddragon on December 28, 2007 at 6:50 PM

The world doesn’t work according to the rules of the local community activist group, or the Illinois State Senate, or even the US Senate. Outside the US and especially in the region Obama is addressing here, there are a lot of very bad people, and many of them hold a great deal of power, and sometimes events and circumstances force us to work with them. We have no choice. It’s either work with them, or do absolutely nothing. The former was our only option when it came time to beat down the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The latter, though, seems to be closer to what a President Obama would do. That’s not acceptable.

But by god Pelosi is a traitor for going to Syria!

crr6 on December 28, 2007 at 7:28 PM

Someone needs to access Obama’s schooling records
and check out his history marks,wait better yet,
check out the teachers daily plan to see even if
he was taught any history to begin with,there we
cut to the chase,and that’s if they will release them!

canopfor on December 28, 2007 at 8:37 PM

I’m excited about an Obama primary win. He would be such a little boy out there in the cold cruel world of a presidential campaign. Bring him on.

Mojave Mark on December 28, 2007 at 9:32 PM

Good Lord, I knew this guy was a dim bulb, but this just takes the cake.

jdsmith0021 on December 28, 2007 at 10:12 PM

He has ears like a gull-wing Delorean, and yet cannot hear.

It’s the jihad, Barry.

profitsbeard on December 28, 2007 at 11:33 PM

Is it time to be glad that we helped Pakistan get nuclear weapons?

Nonfactor on December 29, 2007 at 12:06 AM

Rode Werk on December 28, 2007 at 5:33 PM

Correction: first term Senator

Jaibones on December 29, 2007 at 3:54 AM

On the surface Obama is Edwards with short hair

Underneath are two possibilities

the intellect is hidden

Calling him naive is misleading. He is a 40+ year old man, and you can’t be intentionally stupid. You might as well say Hillary is naive. To believe that he has no clue is buying into his schtick – Rode Werk on December 28, 2007 at 5:33 PM

the intellect is missing

I could be wrong, but I don’t see Obama as the cold, calculating type like Hillary. I see someone who is completely out of his depth on foreign policy, similar to Huckabee but worse – Bryan on December 28, 2007 at 5:49 PM

He makes Biden and Schumer look like geniuses which they may be in comparison.

The real question, do we want someone with the problem solving abilities of Oprah in the White House? And mark my words, Oprah will be in the White House a lot if Obama is elected. Not to say Oprah cannot solve problems, but it usually involves Dr Phil and a lot of free gifts

entagor on December 29, 2007 at 12:15 PM

Give them time and they look like idiots. I’m glad they decided to throw the hat in early on campaining. Its giving us all time to see who really can lead and who can’t.

johnnyU on December 29, 2007 at 5:07 PM

It may be in our favor that the world is past due to explode into turmoil in ’08. Of course the average democrat will believe every word O’BamBam and the networks tell them. Or rather, not tell them.

Griz on December 29, 2007 at 9:50 PM