Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 60

Thread: Obama advisor links Clinton vote and Bhutto death?

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like

    Obama advisor links Clinton vote and Bhutto death?

    desperate people resorting to desperate tactics.....

    [QUOTE]Obama advisor links Clinton vote and Bhutto death?
    Posted: 10:10 AM ET

    DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) — In comments to reporters after Barack Obama's first speech Thursday, his chief strategist David Axelrod seemed to link Hillary Clinton’s vote on Iraq and the death of Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan's former prime minister.

    "Barack Obama had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq. And he warned at the time that it would divert us from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, and now we see the effect of that,” said Axelrod. “Al Qaeda is resurgent. They’re a powerful force now in Pakistan….There’s a suspicion they may have been involved in this. I think his judgment was good. Sen. Clinton made a different judgment. Let’s have that discussion.”Axelrod was responding to reporters' questions whether Bhutto's assassination enhances claims that Clinton's foreign policy experience may make her more fit to serve as commander-in-chief.

    “I think people need to judge where these candidates were and what they’ve said and what they’ve done on these issues,” said Axelrod. “I mean, she was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which we would submit is 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.”

    Later, Axelrod seemed to back away from his earlier statements. "I believe our policies in Iraq have had a direct impact on events in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but I would not suggest there is a straight line relationship between the events of today in Pakistan and anyone’s particular vote,” he said. “What I was pointing out was the difference in judgment at the time. Obama thought that the war would have a negative impact in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that seems relevant right now."

    He also told CNN that he "certainly wasn’t suggesting Sen. Clinton was complicit. She made a bad judgment on this war, and the war helped exacerbate problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And that’s certainly something I would stand by."

    Clinton spokesman Jay Carson criticized Axelrod’s remarks. “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,” he said.

    UPDATE: [B]When asked about Axelrod's remarks late Thursday, Obama told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that “This is one of those situations where Washington is putting a spin on it. … He in no way was suggesting Hillary Clinton was somehow directly to blame for this situation.”

    The Illinois senator added that “it’s important for us to not look at this in terms of short-term political points scoring.”[/B] [I]sure hussien...but you'll be the first to do as much[/I]

    [/QUOTE]

    [url]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/28/obama-advisor-links-clinton-vote-and-bhutto-death/[/url]

  2. #2
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,725
    Post Thanks / Like
    I love Clinton's "Mark McGwuire" answer though....

    "Now is not the time to look back at the things I ****ed up, now is the time to look forward, to the things I have yet to **** up".

    Priceless. Move On indeed.

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE]"Barack Obama had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq. And he warned at the time that it would divert us from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, and now we see the effect of that,” said Axelrod. “Al Qaeda is resurgent. They’re a powerful force now in Pakistan….There’s a suspicion they may have been involved in this. I think his judgment was good. Sen. Clinton made a different judgment. Let’s have that discussion.”[/QUOTE]

    Please point out the error --any error-- in David Axelrod's quote above.

  4. #4
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,725
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2286706]Please point out the error --any error-- in David Axelrod's quote above.[/QUOTE]

    Sure.

    AQ In Pakistan is "resurgent" because Pakistan has nto stomped them as we would like them to. And we cannot/will not invade Pakistan to MAKE them do it (and please, dont try to say the Left would support THAT action, because we both know better).

    Had the assassination happened in Afganistan, perhaps the point would be valid, as clearly the Iraq War has diverted us from tthat front, but it did not.

    Pakistan is not Afganistan, and no matter the Iraq War or not, odds were we were NEVER invading Pakistan, AQ there or not. Thats reality with a Nuclear Capable "ally" State.

    So sorry, I know me defending Ms. Clinton is funny, but he's wrong. There is only ONE responsable party for this action.

    AQ.

    Anything else is finger pointing (or conspiracy theories, which for once, I might buy if it's Mushy being blamed).

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2286706]Please point out the error --any error-- in David Axelrod's quote above.[/QUOTE]

    the fact we were never bombing Pakistan and by all accounts the assasin did not come from Afgahnistan makes axelrod look like a moron and your question even more foolish....

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2286718]Sure.

    AQ In Pakistan is "resurgent" because Pakistan has nto stomped them as we would like them to. And we cannot/will not invade Pakistan to MAKE them do it (and please, dont try to say the Left would support THAT action, because we both know better).

    Had the assassination happened in Afganistan, perhaps the point would be valid, as clearly the Iraq War has diverted us from tthat front, but it did not.

    Pakistan is not Afganistan, and no matter the Iraq War or not, odds were we were NEVER invading Pakistan, AQ there or not. Thats reality with a Nuclear Capable "ally" State.

    So sorry, I know me defending Ms. Clinton is funny, but he's wrong. There is only ONE responsable party for this action.

    AQ.

    Anything else is finger pointing (or conspiracy theories, which for once, I might buy if it's Mushy being blamed).[/QUOTE]


    Our enemy is Al Qaeda. We were fighting them in Afghanistan, and chased them into Pakistan. Then we went to Iraq and basically left them alone. They regenerated and now they are wreaking havoc in the one Islamic state with a nuke.

    This talk about how powerless we were to do anything about it is complete and utter nonsense. Had we not been distracted by Iraq, we could have taken any number of steps that could have resonated in Pakistan: Cut aid to Musharaf, threatened to give more support to India, threatened to back Bhutto or some opposition to Musharaf.

    Iraq was a diversion from the fight against the people who attacked us on 9/11. To pretend otherwise is fantasy, considering how strong those attackers are now relative to before the Iraq war.

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2286720]the fact we were never bombing Pakistan and by all accounts the assasin did not come from Afgahnistan makes axelrod look like a moron and your question even more foolish....[/QUOTE]

    The nationality of the attacker is beyond irrelevent. How many of the 9/11 hijackers were from Afghanistan?

    The AQ that was based in Afghanistan is now based in Pakistan and, apparently, carrying out attacks counter to U.S. interests there.

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,874
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ok nuu should the US attack Al Quida in Pakistan now. That seems what Obama wants or has he changed his mind?

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2286756]The nationality of the attacker is beyond irrelevent. How many of the 9/11 hijackers were from Afghanistan?

    The AQ that was based in Afghanistan is now based in Pakistan and, apparently, carrying out attacks counter to U.S. interests there.[/QUOTE]

    the only thing irrelevant, as pointed out in the answer to your posts, is the idiot comment by Axelrod and the justification by the hussien obama minions like yourself....

    what does fighting AQ in Afgahnistan have to do Bhutto being assasintated in Pakistan....

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    obama is leading in iowa and tied in Nh, how exactly is he desperate?

  11. #11
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,725
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2286734]Our enemy is Al Qaeda. We were fighting them in Afghanistan, and chased them into Pakistan. Then we went to Iraq and basically left them alone. They regenerated and now they are wreaking havoc in the one Islamic state with a nuke.

    This talk about how powerless we were to do anything about it is complete and utter nonsense. Had we not been distracted by Iraq, we could have taken any number of steps that could have resonated in Pakistan: Cut aid to Musharaf, threatened to give more support to India, threatened to back Bhutto or some opposition to Musharaf.

    Iraq was a diversion from the fight against the people who attacked us on 9/11. To pretend otherwise is fantasy, considering how strong those attackers are now relative to before the Iraq war.[/QUOTE]

    Unless you say "I supported invading nuclear capable and sovreign ally Pakistan to kill/catch AQ we knew was there based on the SAME US intelligence service who ****ed up Iraq", you really don't have an argument to stand on my friend.

    That would have been the [U]only[/U] action to definitly "get AQ" in Pakistan with any surety, if they are there.

    And we both know you do not and did not support that action any more than you did or do support Iraq. Cutting aid, and cutting the throat of our "ally" would lead to one thing, a worse situation in a nation with Nukes.

    The Devil you know vs. the Devil Unknown. Mushy sucks, no question. But there are worse options too.

  12. #12
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,725
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2286756]The nationality of the attacker is beyond irrelevent. How many of the 9/11 hijackers were from Afghanistan?

    The AQ that was based in Afghanistan is now based in Pakistan and, apparently, carrying out attacks counter to U.S. interests there.[/QUOTE]

    So I assume you're in the camp that think there are no AQ whatsoever in Iraq either?

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2286773]obama is leading in iowa and tied in Nh, how exactly is he desperate?[/QUOTE]

    maybe if you invert some numbers hussien is leading....

    [url]http://enewsreference.wordpress.com/2007/12/28/polls-clinton-and-huckabee-winning-iowa/[/url]

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,451
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;2286759]...should the US attack Al Quida in Pakistan now...[/QUOTE]

    No.

    Pakistan is peaceful. They have no weapons.

    You would prefer another target? A military target? Then name
    the country!

    I grow tired of asking this. So it'll be the last time. Where
    is the AQ base?

  15. #15
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,725
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2286788]No.

    Pakistan is peaceful. They have no weapons.

    You would prefer another target? A military target? Then name
    the country!

    I grow tired of asking this. So it'll be the last time. Where
    is the AQ base?[/QUOTE]

    :D:D:D

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2286783]So I assume you're in the camp that think there are no AQ whatsoever in Iraq either?[/QUOTE]

    Al Qaeda had no official presence in Iraq --and absolutely no relationship to the government-- during the Hussein era. There may have been a few guys scurrying around, but certainly far less than in other countries (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia).

    Al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist before the invasion. It basically is a collection of foreign extremists who came into the country to fight the U.S. post invasion and banded together with disaffected ex-Baathists and other Sunni militants.

    It is certainly a real terrorist organization now --and there is evidence that it has begun to plot outside Iraq-- but it is an organization that was created by our invasion.

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2286781]Unless you say "I supported invading nuclear capable and sovreign ally Pakistan to kill/catch AQ we knew was there based on the SAME US intelligence service who ****ed up Iraq", you really don't have an argument to stand on my friend.

    [/QUOTE]


    If you had reasonably concrete intel (the hypothetical Obama was referring to when he made his original statement), you could use a cruise missile or a small strike force to take out a terrorist camp. We tried the same thing in Afghanistan in the 1990s and missed Bin Laden by an hour.

    No one is advocating a full-fledged invasion.

    And, theoretically, at least, haven;t our intelligence capabilities been upgraded in that part of the world? Bush has said doing so was a priority.

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2286770]the only thing irrelevant, as pointed out in the answer to your posts, is the idiot comment by Axelrod and the justification by the hussien obama minions like yourself....

    what does fighting AQ in Afgahnistan have to do Bhutto being assasintated in Pakistan....[/QUOTE]

    Well, for starters, she was apparently killed by AQ, which relocated to Pakistan after we didn't finish the job against it in Afghanistan.

    Why, one should ask, does this merry band of cave dwellers still have the strength to foil our agenda in the region?

  19. #19
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Atkins, Arkansas
    Posts
    2,263
    Post Thanks / Like

    Duh!

    [QUOTE=bitonti;2286773]obama is leading in iowa and tied in Nh, how exactly is he desperate?[/QUOTE]
    You've obviously not paid a bit of attention to the nationwide numbers. If O'bama isn't desperate then he has thrown in the towel. He doesn't have a chance in hell. To many people think that he fits the age old description of the Anti-christ to even give him a listen.(Multi-race, multi-cultural,Extemely Charasmatic) Fact is that no matter what they stand for now, the Dems. already know what they're pushing the next term. The two party system will always fail but it is better than what the rest of the world has. On a lighter note, I hope the Jets front office and Mangini are going after McFadden on draft day. Now that is important stuff. Go hogs, go J-E-T-S jets jets jets, Oh yeah, Hillary 4 Pres.

  20. #20
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,725
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=RazorJet;2286822] To many people think that (Obama) fits the age old description of the Anti-christ to even give him a listen...Multi-race, multi-cultural,Extemely Charasmatic.[/quote]

    [QUOTE=RazorJet;2286822] Oh yeah, Hillary 4 Pres.[/QUOTE]

    Wow.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us