Obama Advisor Axelrod Blames Hillary For Bhutto Assassination

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:30:04 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Axelrod disgustingly blames Hillary for the Bhutto assassination:

Bhutto’s death will “call into issue the judgment: who’s made the right judgments,” [Obama campaign manager David] Axelrod said. “Obviously, one of the reasons that Pakistan is in the distress that it’s in is because al-Qaeda is resurgent, has become more powerful within that country and that’s a consequence of us taking the eye off the ball and making the wrong judgment in going into Iraq. That’s a serious difference between these candidates and I’m sure that people will take that into consideration.” . . . “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.

Wow! I can not believe he said that. Beyond the fact that the problems of resources in Pakistan are not related to Iraq (indeed, the Bush Administration has given away resources that the Pakistanis diverted to issues other than fighting Al Qaida), where was Obama on funding of Iraq and Pakistan for his tenure in the Senate? What did He do? According to Axelrod, is Obama to blame for the Bhutto assassination too? Outrageous stuff from the Obama campaign.

< Candidates React to Bhutto Assassination | Evan Bayh's Stupid Remarks On Bhutto Assassination >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama Advisor Axelrod Blames Hillary For Bhutto Assassination | 40 comments (40 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I can't believe you said this: (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by tbetz on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:50:14 PM EST

the problems of resources in Pakistan are not related to Iraq

Are you kidding? The problems in Pakistan were heightened massively by Bush's refusal to finish the job in Afghanistan -- to capture Osama bin Forgotten and his merry band -- before invading Iraq. Allowing bin Laden to become a living icon around whom radical Wahabists from around the world (grown out of the Saudi-funded Wahabi madrassas, upon which Bhutto placed the blame for the destruction of freedoms she knew in her youth in Pakistan) could gather and on whom they could model themselves.

There is a very good reason to tie Bhutto's death to the insane invasion and occupation of Iraq. And Hillary Clinton has to take some of the blame for that insane invasion, whether she likes it or not.

Come again? (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 02:14:40 PM EST

How does Obama explain his votes sionce 2005 then on the issue if that is true?


Ask Obama, not me. (none / 0) (#5)
by tbetz on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 02:32:34 PM EST

My point was about the senselessness of trying to divorce Iraq from the situation in Pakistan, not a defense of anything Obama has done since becoming Senator.


: I would divorce Iraq from this assassnatio (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:03:30 PM EST

And I wonder that Aexlrod saw them as connected.
I do not.

Hillary Clinton agrees with Axelrod (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by joejoejoe on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 03:02:08 PM EST

Sen. Clinton:

[Hillary Clinton] said the administration has diverted resources and attention away from Afghanistan, ignored her suggestion to appoint an envoy to deal with border issues between it and Pakistan and has "sent mixed messages over several years now to President Musharraf that has rendered our policy toward Pakistan fundamentally incoherent."
"It's hard to know what to do right now, given the failures of the administration," she added.

Sen. Clinton agrees that resources were diverted from the region. Those resources weren't diverted to Iowa City, they were diverted to Iraq.

She agrees with Axelrod that she is to blame? (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 03:30:04 PM EST

Ok Joe. whatever you say.


Primary insanity (none / 0) (#16)
by joejoejoe on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 03:49:47 PM EST

You're the one making wild unsupported claims saying Axelrod blamed a murder on Clinton. Axelrod said the regional instability in Pakistan/Afghanistan was worse because of our Iraq policy. To me that's a vanilla statement.


Excuse me? (none / 0) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:02:16 PM EST

I read what they guy said. Maybe he meant something else but wha he said he said.

It was outrageous and you "reasonable" Obama supporters like you aqnd AL have to argue something different - to wit, Axelrod did not mean what he said.


I've read it and seen the video twice (none / 0) (#30)
by joejoejoe on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:29:49 PM EST

Time.com:

Bhutto's death will "call into issue the judgment: who's made the right judgments," Axelrod said. "Obviously, one of the reasons that Pakistan is in the distress that it's in is because al-Qaeda is resurgent, has become more powerful within that country and that's a consequence of us taking the eye off the ball and making the wrong judgment in going into Iraq. That's a serious difference between these candidates and I'm sure that people will take that into consideration."

Time.com said "Bhutto's death", NOT Axelrod. Axelrod never mentioned Bhutto's name or the assassination, only "distress" in Pakistan. CNN keeps cutting the question that Axelrod was responding to from clip but from what I can tell Axelrod is asked whether the Bhutto assassination will reinforce Sen. Clinton's argument that she has more experience and is more ready to be president. Axelrod gives the stock answer, something to the effect "that US efforts in the Pakistan/Afghanistan region are wanting because our focus was diverted to Iraq and Pakistan is in more distress because of US policy. That's Sen. Obama's view. You'll have to ask Sen. Clinton to explain her Iraq vote." That's the Obama 101 foreign policy soundbite, nothing sensational in the least.

Find where Axelrod mentions either 'Bhutto' or 'assassination' in his statement. HE NEVER SAYS IT! Yet your headline read 'Axelrod Blames Hillary For Bhutto Assassination'. There's no chance you've read too much into the Axelrod statement?


So Axelrod was NOt discussing (none / 0) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:33:09 PM EST

Bhutto's death?

Is that your final answer?

Because if he was, you agree with me?

Come on. you need a fallback position from that.

You KNOW he was talking about Bhutto's death right
?


See below (none / 0) (#34)
by joejoejoe on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:49:46 PM EST

I should have included the second half of Axelrod's statement above.

Axelrod is wrong to speculate on who is responsible for "this event" but he's speculating Al-Qaeda is responsible NOT Hillary Clinton. Axelrod is saying those who supported the Iraq War have shown poor judgement because it enabled Al-Qaeda -- which is also what I believe US intelligence says.

As for Pakistan "distress" it's not fair to say Axelrod could only be referring to the Bhutto assassination as the only "distress" in the region.

December 22: Suicide bombing kills 50 in Pakistan
December 14: 5 dead in suicide bombing in Pakistan
Nov. 4 - Dec. 16: Pakistan state of emergency declared by Musharraf

The Bhutto assassination is one part of a whole and it's a fair question to debate how the US role in the region effects the events in Pakistan.


: Whatever (none / 0) (#37)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 05:11:22 PM EST

I can only imagione what Obama supporters would have said if the shoe was on the other foot.

Second half of Axelrod's statement (none / 0) (#32)
by joejoejoe on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:38:00 PM EST

To be fair the 2nd half of Axelrod's statement:

"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 (and everyone else) is stupid to speculate without evidence on who is responsible in Pakistan but the critique of Sen. Clinton's Iraq vote and the regional consequences of that vote are fair game.


Huh? (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Anonymous Liberal on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 03:17:33 PM EST

At the risk of sounding like an Obama shill, this post strikes me as more than a little hyperbolic and unfair. Axelrod was obviously asked whether he thought this development would benefit Clinton--an inane reflexive talking point that I've already heard repeated several times on various news channels today--and he was trying to knock that talking point down. The adventure in Iraq absolutely has taken away resources and attention from the battle against Al Qaeda 1.0 in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And Hillary did vote in favor of that adventure. That's a perfectly fair point to make (as another commenter points out, it's a point the Clinton campaign is itself making--at least the distraction element of it).

If Axelrod had gone out of his way to spin this tragedy to help Obama, that would be one thing. But he's clearly reacting to the already widespread assertion that this somehow helps Hillary (because she's more "hawkish"). Is he just supposed to say nothing, even when asked if this helps Hillary?

Sorry (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 03:29:19 PM EST

that does put you on Obama shill gorunds.

WHY Axelrod was doing what he was doing is obvious. WHAT he did was offensive.

You seem to have some difficulty here separating the two.


Shill... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Rojas on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 03:50:49 PM EST

You've distorted the man's statement.
And justify it by your claim to be clairvoyant.
The shoe fits.


: Did I? (none / 0) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 03:59:35 PM EST

What did Axelrod mean then?
Seriously. Tell me what Axelrod meant?

really? (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous Liberal on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 03:41:22 PM EST

Whenever something bad happens during an election season, the spokesmen for the candidates are immediately asked whether this hurts their candidate or helps their opponents. It's a tough spot to be put in and there's really no good way to answer the question. Perhaps Axelrod should have just said nothing and allowed Hillary surrogates like Evan Bayh (not to mention any number of clownish pundits) to explain why this is good for Hillary and bad for Obama (because she's more hawkish). But I find it hard to blame the guy too much for trying to knock down that spin.

This is pretty run of the mill stuff in politics. Disgusting seems like quite an overstatement.


You find it run of the mill do you? (none / 0) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:01:01 PM EST

Top blame someone for an assassination?

Well, run of the mill means something else to me.

HJonedtly AL, say the guy misspoke and did not mean what he said if you like but what you are writing is well, BS to me.


he's not blaming Hillary for the assassination (none / 0) (#29)
by Anonymous Liberal on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:24:16 PM EST

He was clearly asked how this event will impact the presidential race. His spin (that's his job) was that it will bring increased attention on the problem of al Qaeda in Pakistan, a problem that has been neglected while we've focused on Iraq. And that in turn will remind the voters that Hillary voted for the Iraq war (and Obama opposed it). I'm not saying I buy that spin, but it seems like perfectly normal spin, no more objectionable or unexpected than the spin that Hillary supporters are putting on this (i.e. that it will remind voters that she is the "strong" candidate).


: His spin (none / 0) (#33)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:42:30 PM EST

was to connect Hillary's vote on Iraq to Butto's assassination.
It was OFFENSIVE AL.
I frankly am shocked that you do not find it so.

Wow! I can not believe he said that (1.00 / 0) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:07:36 PM EST

And why can't you?? Anything bad that happens in the ME is always attached to the war in Iraq and Bush.

The Left started the game, this is merely an extension. Enjoy.

I don't see how this helps Obama (none / 0) (#2)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 02:09:03 PM EST

It can only hurt. Even if there is a connection between Iraq and Bhutto's death, this can only hurt. You don't blame your opponent for a political murder for which there is no direct connection between the assassin and your opponent.

As for the Iraq invasion connection, that is tenuous. You cannot say but for the Iraq invasion, Bhutto would not have been killed. That is not the sole proximate cause of death. even HRC is not accountable for the supervening illegal acts of others.

And here I was wondering (none / 0) (#4)
by BDB on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 02:16:48 PM EST

who would be the first to blame Clinton. I figured that some rightwing smear-monger would suggest she had her offed to help Clinton electorally somehow (I don't think this helps anyone, it's a bad sign when two former PMs of Pakistan are attacked and one of them murdered).

Good to know the Obama campaign beat Rush to it. Stay classy, Axelrod.

Aside from the utter disgust I have for any comments like this, it also greatly over simplifies the internal problems of Pakistan and our ability to have prevented them. So it's contemptible and stupid.

Axelroad don't look too smart (none / 0) (#9)
by dannyinla on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 03:21:44 PM EST

By saying this:

Obviously, one of the reasons that Pakistan is in the distress that it's in is because al-Qaeda is resurgent, has become more powerful within that country and that's a consequence of us taking the eye off the ball.

One wonders if Axelroad is a political opportunist, or just plain dumb. I s'pose the coup d'etat in 1999 can also be blamed on Hilhary. Axelrod's attempt to grossly oversimplify the Pakistan problem - it's all al-Qaeda's fault and, by extension, the US's fault - makes him seem sophomoric. Using this assassination to score points against Hillary will backfire, imo.

But, the headline "...Axelroad Blames Hillary..." makes me think that BTD's thumb is pressing down a bit on the hyperbole scale. I wish it were so explicit, but it's not.

What word would use to describe it? (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 03:31:03 PM EST

I am cruious, what word would you pick Danny?


I don't have "a" word to describe it (none / 0) (#15)
by dannyinla on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 03:44:39 PM EST

Axelrod is clearly trying to lay some blame at HRC's feet for the al-Qaeda presence in Pakistan in an effort to minimize the coming flood of "Who is better equipped to deal with this - Obama or Hillary?" questions that our punditocracy will now spin. He can use this to highlight HRC's Authorization vote. And, I think as a typical campaign advisor (who I remember well from my life in Chicago), he has a policial responsibility to make that claim. I do not, however, see him blaming her for Bhutto's assassination although I think he is aware that some may use hyperbole to make that inference.


Wait up (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 03:56:29 PM EST

You just wrote:

Axelrod is clearly trying to lay some blame at HRC's feet for the al Qaida presence in Pakistan.

and then he says Al Qaida is likely to blame for the Bhutto assassination.

I think you agree with my title and jsut seem to find it a harsh thing to say.

I agree, but Axelrod said what he said.

Your title makes a connection (none / 0) (#24)
by dannyinla on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:04:22 PM EST

that Axelrod did not make. He may have subtly inferred it, but that's not the same thing.


Subtly? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:10:37 PM EST

You gotta be kidding me.

You do realizde Bhutto was assassinated today right?

WTF was subtle about the implication? Heck, the EXPRESS connection Axelrod made?

You guys have got to be kidding me.


: Us guys? (none / 0) (#28)
by dannyinla on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:23:24 PM EST

I said what I said - I think he used this for political capital in the Are You Experienced? game and tried to target HRC's Authorization vote. I do not think that he laid "blame" for the Bhutto assassination as you do.
Yes, I do realize Bhutto was assassinated to do. You don't score any points there.
Axelrod made an EXPRESS connection between HRC and al-Qaeda. You're stating this only proves my assertation that his connection was HRC-al Qaeda, not HRC-Bhutto. He doesn't need to say that - he knows that there are others in the media that will freely make such a hyperbolic connection.
I withdraw "subtly". There is nothing subtle about Axelrod.

Is this equally "disgusting"? (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous Liberal on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 03:33:20 PM EST

Hillary supporter Evan Bayh.

Read the quote yourself, but Bayh seems to be saying, essentially, that when events like this happen, Republicans will accuse Democrats of being weak. That's why we should vote for Hillary instead of her opponents (because they'll look weak).

: Let me read it (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 03:54:34 PM EST

And if it is, you can be sure I will condemn it in a post.
I'll get back to you.

: My reaction (none / 0) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:09:28 PM EST

in my new post.

Welcome to silly season (none / 0) (#35)
by mike in dc on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:57:22 PM EST

It's the last week before the first caucus. A major foreign policy crisis is looming. One side is trying to portray it as evidence in support of the superior fitness of their candidate for office, while the other side is trying to portray it as evidence in support of the superior fitness of their candidate for office. I am shocked and appalled.

I see Axelrod leveling serious criticism at Obama, (none / 0) (#38)
by MarkL on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 06:23:45 PM EST

although that's not his intention.
By blaming Clinton for what she has done in the Senate, he brings up the question of how much culpability Obama has for the continuation of the Iraq war and its effect on Pakistan.
Obama is apparently not to blame, and the only logical reason is that he is powerless in the Senate. So... Hillary could wield great power, and get our troops to the Pakistan border, but Obama has no such ability.
Is Axelrod trying to sabotage Obama with this kind of talk? Either that or he's plain incompetent.

now this, (none / 0) (#39)
by cpinva on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 06:39:29 PM EST

this was a stupid statement. blatantly so. but then, given the amatuerishness with which the obama campaign has been conducted, from day one, it comes as no surprise.

riddle me this!: how many feet can you shove into the mouth of one candidate? as many as are available.

yet another example of why sen. obama's push for the presidency was grossly premature, by at least 8 years.

Please Have Some Respect for the Dead (none / 0) (#40)
by Aaron on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 09:24:34 PM EST

One thing I will not do is engage in a political discussion on the same day that a human beings life was taken, while the blood and gore is still warm in the streets. This is a time for grieving, a time for showing respect.

I condemn anyone who uses the occasion of assassination as a rhetorical political tool to further their own agenda at this moment, and that includes those who run this blog. For shame, have you no sense of decency?

I will make no further comment on this issue until tomorrow.

I ask all of you to refrain from commenting on the politics involved until at least Friday, out of respect for Ms. Bhutto's family.

Thank you

: Tell it to the Obama campaign (none / 0) (#41)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 10:55:30 PM EST

hmm. (none / 0) (#42)
by yuhirocks on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 08:28:23 PM EST

it's an interesting story. why obama do that? is he frustated? --- treatment hypothyroidism web programmer