 |
|
Add to My Group
|
December 28, 2007 at 00:44:03
Republicans and Democrats React to Bhutto Assassination; McCain, Biden Benefit by Rev. Robert Vinciguerra Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
|
On Thursday Americans came home from work, turned on the news, and learned about the tragic assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto. Bhutto returned to her country from a self-imposed exile in October to run for president of Pakistan. Within days, a suicide bombing was made against her. She lived, over one hundred did not. The second time around, she was not so lucky. This time, the 54 year old woman and sole hope for democracy, was pronounced dead, just one hour after the attack. A world away, in the United States, the crisis in Pakistan is beginning to reshape the political ground game in the upcoming elections. With the January 3rd Iowa caucuses less than a week away at this point, Bhutto’s assassination is having an effect, with both Republican and Democratic candidates attempting to take hold of the issue as an advantage moving into the election. Republican Response
Mike Huckabee, the Baptist minister and Governor from Arkansas, has come under the most fire recently for his lack of foreign policy knowledge. He made the biggest gaffe on the situation, when he apparently was unaware that that martial law had been lifted in Pakistan two weeks ago.
“But the most urgent thing to do is to offer our sincere sympathies and concerns to the family and to the people of Pakistan, and that’s the first thing we would be doing other than, again, trying to ascertain who’s behind it..” Huckabee said to a crowd of supporters. “…And what impact does it have on whether or not there’s going to be martial law continued in Pakistan, suspension of the constitution.”
Per his usual musings, Rudy Giuliani managed to squeeze in “9/11” into as many statements that he could make about Pakistan, and Mitt Romney downplayed Senator John McCain’s credentials, saying, “Frankly, being elected to the Senate doesn’t make one an expert in foreign affairs.” He went on to compare experience in international politics to “one of one thousand” people working in the State Department. “The ability to listen to data,” Romney argued, as he compared himself to Ronald Reagan, is the mark of a true leader.
John McCain dismissed Romney’s input as juvenile, and played up his service on the Senate Armed Services Committee. “I have been involved in every major policy decision for the past twenty years,” he reminded voters, “I have some experience.”
Democratic Reaction
On the Democratic side of events, things were not much better. Hillary Clinton’s campaign claims that recent events will make voters look at her “experience,” which she believes will help her. She then played up the concept that had a long personal relationship with the former Pakistani Prime Minister. “We talked about our children,” Sen. Clinton remarked.
John Edwards and Barack Obama, two of the most inexperienced candidates, got into the game as well. Uncomfortably, Edwards worked into a campaign speech that he spoke with President Musharraf only a few minutes before his event. Obama’s camp disingenuously suggested Hillary Clinton’s senate votes on Iraq are to blame for the “emerging crisis” in Pakistan.
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson perhaps made the most ignorant statement of the evening, perhaps except for Republican Congressman Ron Paul who blamed US foreign policy for Bhutto’s murder and proposed cutting off all aid to Pakistan.
Richardson said that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf should step down, and his government should be replaced by a coalition, to which Joe Biden responded, “What coalition? There isn’t any. What’s he talking about?”
Biden, the democratic senator from Delaware knew Bhutto since 1988. He held an impromptu press conference on the terrible assassination. Statesman-like as always, Biden refused to place blame on the Musharraf administration without knowing all of the facts, instead urging an investigation to move forward, and suggesting that the FBI lend its forensic expertise to the matter.
“I would be holding this press conference were I not a candidate for president,” Biden said. “I doubt there are any of the other candidates who would be holding press conferences were they not candidates.” Biden added, “That's not a criticism, it’s an observation.”
Joe is Right
1 | 2
www,revrob.com
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 5 comments |
|
Nothing to see here folks....
I'm quite concerned about the recent events in Pakistan. I'm more concerned with the the responses our politicians and pundits have put forth. We can try to make things very complicated, but sometimes less is more. You said that Ron Paul's statement ignorant, however, it seems Ron Paul is the only one that has it right. You can read an interview with Bhutto that is to be published Jan 6th. In the last paragraph she strips away all the rhetoric and says matter of fact: "Despite the corrosion of her reputation by corruption and compromise, Bhutto appears to be America's strongest anchor in the effort to turn back the extremist Islamic tide threatening to engulf Pakistan. What would you like to tell President Bush? I ask this riddle of a woman. She would tell him, she replies, that propping up Musharraf's government, which is infested with radical Islamists, is only hastening disaster. "I would say, 'Your policy of supporting dictatorship is breaking up my country.' I now think al-Qaeda can be marching on Islamabad in two to four years." http://www.parade.com/benazir_bhutto_interview.html by Michael Twain (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 1:51:08 AM  (0+)
|
|
Ron Paul's comment
He didn't say what everyone else says - he must be IGNORANT! No, 2+2 = 4 no matter HOW MANY PEOPLE want it to be 3. Thing is, no candidate can agree with Dr. Paul without repudiating the last 20 years of their life. If you really think you're better off now, with your house mortgaged out the yin-yang, four dollar gas and 5 dollar milk and people unable to eat in a healthy fashion because fresh veggies cost more than meat now, you'll probably want to vote for someone else. It doesn't really matter who it is, the result will be EXACTLY the same. by Louis Nardozi (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 10:05:30 AM (0+)
|
|
Omissions
Why has just about every media outlet I've read today left out this important statement from Dennis Kucinich? You should not dismiss this man, there is a growing progressive movement that may just make him a plausible candidate yet... KUCINICH: "This is a very dangerous moment for the world. Benazir Bhutto represented a courageous effort to bring principles of liberty to Pakistan. She was truly dedicated to the people of Pakistan. The United States must change its policy direction in the region. It must stop adding fuel to the fire. Kucinich met with Bhutto several times over the years in both Washington, D.C. and New York City." by Judy Ramsey (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 94 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 10:35:03 AM (0+)
|
|
Pakistan Crisis
I lived and worked in Pakistan for seven years, but would not attempt to predict what will happen now. It seems clear that our present administration understands very little about Pakistan, yet tries to dictate what they should do, as they do with too many countries. Although some of my Pakistani friends disagree with me, I believe that Musharraf has had the best interests of Pakistan at heart, and has been trying to pave the way for true democracy, which Pakistan has never had. Whether Benazir herself was corrupt is possibly debatable, but to a large extent she was controlled by her husband, Asif Zardari, who was about as corrupt a person as you could expect to find. But Nawaz Sharif was also corrupt, and was removed from office by Musharraf. But corruption is a way of life in Pakistan, finding someone who would establish a clean government would not be easy. Another thing most people seem not to understand is that Pakistan is a country of many different cultural and language groups, as well as those who came from India at the time of the partition. The Pashto people, where most of the Taliban are, speak their own language and live on both sides of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. They feel more allegiance to their own people than to either country. They, as well as the other tribes along the border are fiercely independent and have essentially been ungovernable, by the present government and by the British before. Also, there is very little love lost between a sizable percentage of the Pakistani population and the U.S. During the first Gulf War, the Pakistani lawyers association came out in the press against American involvement, and approximately 30,000 people volunteered to go to Iraq and fight the Americans. They were turned back at the border by Iran. Expecting Pakistan to establish a viable democracy at this point in time is unrealistic. I would not be surprised if the military were to take over again in an attempt to establish some measure of control. With the turmoil there now, I don't see any way that a person elected from one of the political parties could do it. I don't think the military would allow the religious extremists to take over, in spite of the power they have. I would have to agree with the author, that Joe Biden’s response is the most sensible. We need to take a look and see attitude, and support genuine efforts by the Pakistanis to solve the problems there. Stop trying to tell the world what to do! by Albert Wight (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 36 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 10:28:44 PM (0+)
|
|
Ron Paul words
the most ignorant statement of the evening, perhaps except for Republican Congressman Ron Paul who blamed US foreign policy for Bhutto’s murder and proposed cutting off all aid to Pakistan. This is what Ron Paul said before assacination: November 15, 2007 www.antiwar.com In the name of clamping down on “terrorist uprisings” in Pakistan, General Musharraf has declared a state of emergency and imposed martial law. The true motivations behind this action however, are astonishingly transparent, as the reports come in that mainly lawyers and opposition party members are being arrested and harassed. Supreme Court justices are held in house arrest after indicating some reluctance to certify the legitimacy of Musharraf’s recent re-election. Meanwhile, terrorist threats on US interests may be more likely to originate from Pakistan, a country to which we have sent $10 billion. Now we are placed in the difficult position of either continuing to support a military dictator who has taken some blatantly un-Democratic courses of action, or withdrawing support and angering this nuclear-capable country. The administration is carefully negotiating this tight-rope by “reviewing Pakistan’s foreign aid package” and asking Musharraf to relinquish his military title and schedule elections. By the time he complies with the requests of the White House sufficiently to continue to receive his “allowance,” courtesy of the American taxpayer, his mission will be accomplished. A more friendly Supreme Court will be installed and enough of the opposition party will be jailed or detained to assure an outcome of the elections that will meet with his approval. All the while, our administration lauds Musharraf as a trusted friend and ally. So much for a War on Terror. So much for making the world safe for democracy. Free trade means no sanctions against Iran, or Cuba or anyone else for that matter. Entangling alliances with no one means no foreign aid to Pakistan, or Egypt, or Israel, or anyone else for that matter. If an American citizen determines a foreign country or cause is worthy of their money, let them send it, and encourage their neighbors to send money too, but our government has no authority to use hard-earned American taxpayer dollars to mire us in these nightmarishly complicated, no-win entangling alliances. When we look at global situations today, the words of our founding fathers are becoming more relevant daily. We need to understand that a simple, humble foreign policy makes us less vulnerable and less targeted on the world stage. Pakistan should not be getting an “allowance” from us and we should not be propping up military dictators that oppress people. We should mind our own business and stop the oppressive taxation of Americans that makes this meddling possible. What's ignorant about it? He is saying you can send your money to Musharraf if you want to, but questions your right to send my money instead. by Zak Maymin (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments [8 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 5:36:28 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
