Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

OBAMA ATTACKS: Gen. Wesley Clark calls it "insulting"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
DemKR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:06 PM
Original message
OBAMA ATTACKS: Gen. Wesley Clark calls it "insulting"
Edited on Fri Dec-28-07 05:07 PM by DemKR
Gen. Wesley Clark has Condemned the Obama campaign for Blaming Hillary Clinton for the Tragic Death of Benazir Bhutto:
"This is a time for leadership, not politics. Senator Obama's campaign seems to believe that Senator Clinton's actions led to the tragic events in Pakistan. This is an incredible and insulting charge. It politicizes a tragic event of enormous strategic consequence to the United States and the world, and it has no place in this campaign."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
no name no slogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. Pete, meet Repeat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xipe Totec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Can't
already on ignore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durrrty libby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #4
18. Please explain why you enter a thread and complain that you can't read
it because you have the OP on ignore? I would love to understand this phenomena
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. good question. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xipe Totec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #22
44. Indeed, it is a fair question

I entered the thread not knowing which thread was referenced.

I clicked on it, and got the locked warning.

I had no way of knowing that it would be locked,until I entered the thread.

I can't read it now, and have no desire to change things such that I can read it.

There things stand.

Clear enough for you?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaJones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. good explanation. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemKR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #44
70. true
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemKR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #18
59. lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemKR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #4
63. do u normally ignore ppl who diasgree with u
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xipe Totec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #63
74. Yes, is that a problem? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. What Obama Campaign Manager David Axelrod REALLY said in response in reporters' questioning....
Today after Barack Obama's closing argument speech in Iowa, Obama adviser David Axelrod parried questions from reporters who pressed him
on whether the killing could help Hillary.

Here's one key exchange:

REPORTER: But looking ahead, does the assassination put on the front burner foreign policy credentials in the closing days?

AXELROD: Well, it puts on the table foreign policy judgment, and that's a discussion we welcome. Barack Obama had the judgment to oppose the
war in Iraq, and he warned at the time it would divert us from Afghanistan and al Qaeda, and now we see the effect of that. Al Qaeda's resurgent,
they're a powerful force now in Pakistan, they may have been involved -- we've been here, so I don't know whether the news has been updated,
but there's a suspicion they may have been involved in this.

I think his judgment was good. Senator Clinton made a different judgment, so let's have that discussion.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/obama_adviser_bhutto_assassination_reminds_us_that_hillary_made_wrong_call_on_iraq_war.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. No facts please.
Its Obama bashing time. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #6
17. Hillaryworld must have scary pro-Obama internal poll data for them to manufacture apeshit like this
Edited on Fri Dec-28-07 05:31 PM by ClarkUSA
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #17
33. Its total bullshit.
And Im having a hard time processing the fact that these words came from Wes Clark. What a drag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. I hear ya.
Edited on Fri Dec-28-07 06:03 PM by ClarkUSA
Clinton surrogates seem to all sound alike inside and outside of DU, don't they? It's the same lies, repeated over and over again.

Sad. Very sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #39
43. So true.
Thats my experience exactly. Seems Hillary has her own breed of hardliners. Just what we need.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. Let's hope the Iowa Independent is right....
"Obama Tops Final Democratic Power Rankings, Edwards and Clinton Tie for Second"

Today, Iowa Independent releases its final round of power rankings, designed to answer the question, "If the caucuses were held tonight,
what would be the results?" The rankings are derived from impressions we received from activists, campaign officials, seasoned political
observers, and rank-and-file caucus-goers, but at the most basic level, they are based on the gut feelings and instincts of our writers,
who have watched the race unfold here from the beginning.

A lot can change in six days, and we expect that it will. But if the caucuses were held tonight, this is how we think they would turn out:

First Place

Barack Obama -- The Obama campaign's ability to build a crowd is its greatest asset. The Illinois senator consistently seems to draw larger
crowds than his opponents in the same places, which speaks both to the strength of his campaign's organization and the enthusiasm his
candidacy seems to generate. And his wave of small-town newspaper endorsements should enhance his second-choice support in rural
parts of the state where he has been perceived as weak. If the caucuses were held tonight, Obama would pull off a narrow victory.

Second Place

(tie) Hillary Clinton -- The Clinton campaign's ambitious "Every County Counts" tour the week before Christmas was not without errors, but
its lasting impact seems to be that it firmed up some of the campaign's softer support and drew new caucus-goers in to hear what Clinton
had to say. That, in combination with the Des Moines Register's endorsement and the extraordinary efforts of independent groups like
Emily's List and AFSCME, would put Clinton in second place if the caucuses were held tonight.

(tie) John Edwards -- Edwards's greatest asset is the foundation he began building over a year ago. He has lost some of the activists he
recruited early on to other campaigns, but in recent weeks his constant campaigning has firmed up his base. His supporters are likely to
caucus, and many of them are experienced activists who know what it takes to get out the vote. If the caucuses were held tonight, we
think he would finish second.


http://iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1732
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #45
53. Cheers to that my friend.
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #53
97. Cheers, bunnies.
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #39
68. I was just going to
post something simliar. It's like et tu, disingenuous, Wes?

Where do these scripts come from? Desperation Central?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #68
93. No doubt.
Edited on Fri Dec-28-07 09:01 PM by ClarkUSA
Too bad for Desperation Central that none of Clinton's surrogates have much credibility these days outside of the
Hillaryworld Echo Chamber of Obama Doom and Gloom.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #17
110. I love the goofy conspiracy theories the anti-Hillarites dream up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #110
115. No, it's a logical conclusion given how coordinated this latest Clintonian BS attack has been
Oh, and thanks for the "love".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #115
116. I especially like it when you read our minds.
Edited on Sat Dec-29-07 09:00 AM by Perry Logan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #116
119. I can't read your minds but I can deduce what drives Hillaryworld to constantly attack Obama
Thanks for your "like" too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #119
122. Only someone desperate or delusional
Edited on Sat Dec-29-07 02:55 PM by Jai4WKC08
Could turn an OBVIOUS attack on Hillary into an attack by Hillary. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Besides, I just came from four days in Iowa and it was pretty obvious who's the desperate one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #122
127. Thanks for your totally unbiased Clintonian opinions and the usual gratuitous insults.
Edited on Sat Dec-29-07 04:13 PM by ClarkUSA
As for "who's the desperate one," I know local Democratic activists who are longtime caucus goers in Iowa who disagree with
your "four day" impression. I'm not interested in engaging trash talk with you. However, your crass insults are representative
of Hillaryworld's approach to opponents in general, no pun intended, and there is the temptation to return fire but I don't want
to waste my ammunition on you. Don't bother next time; I'll ignore your meaningless and mean-spirited taunts. I guess that's
the "fun part" for some folks but not for me.

Now excuse me while I make myself a cup of tea...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #127
131. After the things you've written here about Clinton supporters
You have some gall complaining about "gratuitous insults."

I am so disappointed in how you've changed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #131
133. My MO hasn't changed since the 2003-4 primary wars. I give as good as I get.
Edited on Sat Dec-29-07 11:35 PM by ClarkUSA
As for disappointment, the feeling is - regretfully, wistfully - mutual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Exactly: "and he warned at the time it would divert us from Afghanistan and al Qaeda,
Edited on Fri Dec-28-07 05:11 PM by Evergreen Emerald
...and now we see the effect of that." He actually said the Clinton's vote helped to cause this. And he is ignoring history in order to make this distorted claim.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. Keep stretching - Pilates has nothing on Hillaryworld BS artists
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. I think Clark is representing it fairly
no, Axelrod didn't say "Hillary killed Benazir." He finessed it a little.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. You're a Hillary fan, so of course you'd say that. But Axelrod said nothing remotely of the kind.
Anyone reading the quote from Axelrod will see that.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. I bet you some non-Hillary fans will read it the same way
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Doubt it -- unless they're the fake kind who say they support another candidate...
But spend 99% of their time on DU defending Hillary and attacking Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
32. axelrod doesn't have to take bait. No one does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rageneau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #2
35. Axelrod's answer was a deliberate attack, no doubt about it.
First, let's boil this down by eliminating excess verbiage:

REPORTER: does the assassination bring up (the candidates') foreign policy credentials?

AXELROD: It brings up Obama's judgment to oppose the war in Iraq. He warned it would divert from
Al Qaeda. Now, resurgent Al Qaeda is a powerful force in Pakistan which may have been
involved in this.

In other words, Axelrod said:

AXELROD:`Hillary voted for the Iraq War. Obama didn't, and he warned that something like this might
happen, but Hillary and the others wouldn't listen. Hillary is therefore culpable in Bhutto's
death, which would never have happened had Obama been in charge.

Had Axelrod been working for Guiliani, his answer would have been more like:

AXELROD: Hillary voted for the Iraq War, so thank God Rudy was there when her chickens came home to
roost on 9-11. Bad Hillary, good Rudy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
61. How many times did Axelrod say "judgment" in one phrase???
Four times!!!!

Hey David, let me see how many times I can place the word "inexperience" in one phrase.

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto brings to the fore the inexperience of certain candidates, such as Barack Obama, who has only served in the senate since 2004 and has already demonstrated his inexperience in foreign affairs by suggesting this past summer that the president should meet with leaders of enemy countries without setting any preconditions. In light of this new international crisis, will people be persuaded to vote for such an inexperienced candidate? Then again, voters may overlook his inexperience and hope that change is what really is needed in these troubling times.

There, done it! :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HeraldSquare212 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
3. Similar words for Evan Bayh?
for politicizing it first?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluewisdom Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
48. Evan Bayh is supporter not adviser!!
AXELROD is adviser...get it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
5. his advisor should have retracted those words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #5
26. What exact words should he have retracted? The same ones many of us at DU have said since 2002?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rageneau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #26
37. Has DU been predicting Bhutto's assassination since 2002?
Shouldn't somebody here have notified Bhutto that Hillary was going to get her killed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:59 PM
Original message
What EXACT Axelrod quote are you referring to in your BS Mark Penn talking point?
Edited on Fri Dec-28-07 06:00 PM by ClarkUSA
C'mon, Swift Boater For Hillary, let us know WTF you're talking about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fridays Child Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
8. Oh, c'mon, Wes. Don't ratchet up the rhetoric.
Supporting a policy, the effect of which has, among other things, prevented the U.S. from more successfully confronting terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, comes with consequences. That is ALL Obama's campaign is saying, and you know it's true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
9. Clark?? Aw that's just so sad
Another one sells his soul for the Clinton machine. :cry:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemKR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
11. Wes Clark is a True Blue Progressive!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durrrty libby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
12. You tell him Wes. Obama and his team display very poor judgment
The fact that the poor judgment was displayed during such a tragedy is shameful
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemKR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #12
13.  k&r for wes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe the Revelator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
16. Hillary's whining again
She doesn't want to talk about her IWR vote anymore so she sends Wes out to stamp his feet for her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. lol!
Your turn of phrase is quite sardonically amusing. Well-said, as always, Wolsh. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemKR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. obama is the only one who keeps bringig it up. DESPERATION
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe the Revelator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Say what?
Bringig up what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemKR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. EVERYTHING is supposedly connected to the iraq war vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe the Revelator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Well I think that a lot of things clearly are. Her vote is easily the biggest mistake of her career.
Too bad so many had to die for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Onlooker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
28. Clever politics
Axelrod's comments were fine, and the Clinton campaign is exploiting them. Karl Rove would be proud. I honestly think that this reflects badly on Obama's experience. He should have apologized, as absurd as that would have been. In the sadistic world of national politics, Hillary's campaigning is getting the better of this spat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. if what he said was fine, he should DEFINITELY not apologize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Onlooker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #31
42. In an ideal world, maybe
But, the political world is inherently dishonest, and Obama plays the game pretty well. For instance, do you really think he's against gay marriage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemKR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #31
60. how is a vicious attack "fine"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
29. he's a fool. why is the hil campaign so inept! If he's gonna be her veep...
she needs to keep him out of it. Granted, he does have a habit of putting his foot in his mouth all by himself, so it may be nothing the hil camp has anything to do with, but it prob does. And while i agree that i think Obama shoulda watched it on what he said regarding the situation, i think wes should simmer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
30. Clark is aligned w/ Clinton.
Just a fact.

I've not yet chosen a horse.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auntie Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #30
49. Then chose the white one Clark rode in on!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
34. Are you the new Clinton hit(wo)man?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemKR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. the internet is an amaizng place
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BenDavid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
38. as long as obama has voted for funding this clusterfuck then
axelrod in effect blames obama too. Axelrod must be stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemKR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #38
51. hell at this point he might as well be workin for us
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
40. it`s time to play----->

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemKR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #40
50. nice one, but the media neds to hold bh obama accountable
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PakistaniDUer Donating Member (50 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
41. None of them care about Pakistan
For those of us with family there we all know how much most US politicians care about Pakistan: 0, or maybe negative numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemKR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #41
47. obama certainly doesnt. remember he wants to go to war with them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #47
56. and bomb Iran
remember his, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" remark?

sickening. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemKR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #56
64. i know it n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. of course you do
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemKR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #65
71. it sems obvious
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. it dos to som peple
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemKR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. obama just cant be trusted. sorry its a gut feeling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #73
76. of course it is
i expect no less from you. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #47
100. Obama said the U.S. must be willing to strike al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan if Musharraf refused.
Reuters News Story: "Tough Talk on Pakistan from Obama" Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801

If you haven't already read it, I highly recommend this memo from Power, a Harvard Professor and top foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama.
It is one of the best and potentially most important political documents I have read in some time: http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/memo_power_on_cw_v_cwn.php

America is plagued by a self-anointed, highly influential, and insular so-called Foreign Policy Community which spans both political parties.
They consider themselves Extremely Serious and have a whole litany of decades-old orthodoxies which one must embrace lest one be declared
irresponsible, naive and unserious. Most of these orthodoxies are ossified 50-year-old relics from the Cold War, and the rest are designed to
place off limits from debate the question of whether the U.S. should continue to act as an imperial force, ruling the world with its superior
military power.

Most of the recent "controversies" involving Barack Obama's foreign policy statements -- including his oh-so-shocking statement that it would
not make moral or political sense to use tactical nuclear weapons to bomb isolated terrorist camps as well as his willingness to attack Al Qaeda
elements inside Pakistan if the Musharraf government refuses (as they did for some time) -- were not "controversial" among the Establishment
on the merits. They were "controversial" (and "naive" and "irresponsible") because they breached the protocols and orthodoxies imposed by the
Foreign Policy Community governing how we are allowed to talk about these issues.

This was vividly illustrated by the sharpest exchange from last night's debate, where both Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd excoriated Obama for
his comments on Pakistan, not on the ground that Obama's statements were wrong on the merits (i.e, not that we should avoid military action
inside Pakistan under those circumstances), but instead on the ground that he committed the sin of actually discussing with the American people
what our foreign policy would be.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/08/powers/index.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemKR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #100
106. clark shud be VP n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodgd_yall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #41
54. Welcome!
Just noticed you're a new DUer. It's customary to say

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemKR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #54
67. ditto nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
52. Fact is, nobody blamed Clinton for the death....
Axelrod rightly pointed out that Iraq War destabilized the Middle East, including Pakistan. This, by the way, is a point that Wes Clark made when he ran for President in 03-04. Hillary voted for Iraq War, Obama opposed it and predicted that it would destabilize the Middle East. This was in response, by the way, to a question about Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemKR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. This is his HEAD ADVISOR, and ur telling me Billy Shaheen had to resign? Cry me a freakin river
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #55
137. What I said was....
Axelrod rightly pointed out that Iraq War destabilized the Middle East, including Pakistan. This, by the way, is a point that Wes Clark made when he ran for President in 03-04. Hillary voted for Iraq War, Obama opposed it and predicted that it would destabilize the Middle East. This was in response, by the way, to a question about Hillary.

No mention of Sheehan having to resign. But, now that you mention it, Sheehan's WAS a PERSONAL ATTACK as opposed to a policy difference.

Hillary chose to vote for the IWR. Invading Iraq had consequenses. It was the wrong vote for many reasons. Poor judgement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #52
57. Your attempt to be rational is not wanted here
Edited on Fri Dec-28-07 07:44 PM by BeyondGeography
Be gone, truth teller.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #52
66. The war in Iraq did not destabilize Pakistan.
They have a very long history of political upheaval and assassinations. Axelrod was just shilling for his candidate and he, amusingly enough, managed to use the word "judgment" four times in his response.

Obama seems to use "judgment" like a crutch as much as Giuliani uses "9/11". Then again, it's understandable since neither one has much experience in foreign relations.............
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemKR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #66
69. amen to that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #66
94. Oh my god! You actually BELIEVE Iraq didn't make the middle east more unstable? HUH?
Judgement, to a Hillary Herd member, is just a crutch. But it is a difference between Hillary who....get this!....used the word "experience" to EXPLAIN her vote for the IWR....and Obama whose judgement was good enough to see from the start that Iraq would further destabliize the Middle East.

Yes, the Middle East has been warring for centuries. But that does not mean that Iraq did not have an effect to make stability even more fleeting.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
58. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemKR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #58
62. much appreciated! ty keep up the good work :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
75. Love Barack....Love Wes.....
Edited on Fri Dec-28-07 08:19 PM by FrenchieCat
Bad quote coming from OBama's advisor...."Hillary is therefore culpable in Bhutto's
death
, which would never have happened had Obama been in charge."


and so Wes retorts...."Senator Obama's campaign seems to believe that Senator Clinton's actions led to the tragic events in Pakistan. This is an incredible and insulting charge. It politicizes a tragic event of enormous strategic consequence to the United States and the world, and it has no place in this campaign."

I believe all is fair in war and politics.....

Obama's campaign via Axelrod said something.
Clinton's campaign via surrogate Clark responded.

I'm not sure where the problem began, but I find no fault in Clark's response based on Axelrod's comment. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #75
78. Clark needs to take his head out his ass Frenchie, and you know it.
Edited on Fri Dec-28-07 08:24 PM by calteacherguy
It's a complete distortion. I thought Clark was a better man than that.

The truth hurts sometimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #78
85. I'm going to go and research what Axelrod actually said......
Edited on Fri Dec-28-07 08:33 PM by FrenchieCat
as the quote I quoted was not what Axelrod actually said...it appears.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #85
88. Do it!
I've got a link here myself somewhere.....He NEVER blamed her for murder! This is sick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #85
89. I actually just found this
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/does_axelrod_think_hills_vote.php

And to be honest I think both camps are saying somewhat far fetched things in this instance. Axelrod is asserting that had we focused on Al Qaeda instead of going into Iraq, there's a fairly good chance Bhutto might be alive. I'd say that's a bit of a stretch to try and prove that. Even if we had gone after Al Qaeda it is entirely possible Pakistan still would not have been stable enough for Bhutto to be safe there.

Likewise, Clark is stretching it a bit far to assert that Obama is saying Senator Clinton was responsible for Bhutto's death. If he had called out Axelrod like I just did above, he would've been spot on.

It's a week before the Iowa Caucus and tensions are high, nothing really out of the ordinary here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #85
104. See #2 for actual quote of what Axelrod said in response to reporter's question (link):
Edited on Fri Dec-28-07 09:18 PM by ClarkUSA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #78
95. Unfortunately, as a Clark supporter, I agree
He was responding to a straw man. Axelrod didn't say what Wes was responding to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #95
102. Bhutto's assassination was turned into an opportunity to single out Clinton for an attack.
The words can be sliced and diced about what literally was said, and what may or may not have been suggested by them, but Obama's spokesperson brought Hillary into this to score political points against her over something that Kerry, Edwards, Biden, and Dodd did also, back in 2002. Why? To turn this news to Obama's political advantage over who he perceives to be his chief Democratic primary rival. Clinton was not named by the questioner. Politics was being played with that reply and Clark fired back because politics was being played over Bhutto's assassination. To expect anything less would be foolish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #102
134. No, Axelrod was responding to a question the reporter asked regarding Hillary.
Edited on Sat Dec-29-07 11:40 PM by ClarkUSA
See #2 and #105 for the context description, situational quote and video.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #75
79. Likewise.
And you're too reasonable for primary season.

:patriot:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #75
86. Frenchie do you have a link to the quote from Obama's campaign advisor
Because if the one you just stated is the actual quote from an Obama advisor I'd agree that it is way out of line. However, I was under the impression that the actual exchange was the one that ClarkUSA posted above. If that is the actual exchange, I think that General Clark is the one who is out of line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #86
87. Looks like I quoted a DUer instead of Axelrod by mistake....
I'm checking now what Axelrod's words actually were....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #87
90. I think someone posted the actual video of what Axlerod said.
I'll try and find it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #90
91. You need to find a video or transcript that includes the question as well. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #91
105. Video: Axelrod: US took eye off Pakistan (link)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #86
92. He is the one way out of line. I want my username off his fucking website!
Edited on Fri Dec-28-07 08:51 PM by calteacherguy
FYI this is coming from a hard-core Clark supporter going back to 04'

He's lost all my respect for this. It's sick, absolutely sick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #92
125. And next week you'll be singing his praises.
Face it, caltech, you are completely fickle and have no credibility for it.

You know Tom is right. Obama and Axelrod are playing politics with the tragedy of Bhutto's death and US strategic concerns in the region. Good lord, haven't we had enough of that for the last 7 years???

Once more, Clark cuts thru the political bullshit and speaks the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
77. Clark needs to take his head out his ass.
He's completely distorting what Axelrod said. Nobody blamed Hillary for Bhutto's murder.

It's outrageous he'd promote such a lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemKR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #77
80. that's a nice thing to saya bout a fellow progressive. What an attack dog
machine the Obama folks have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #80
82. Clark is promoting a lie against a fellow Democrat. That is wrong. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #80
84. Says the little pup still in training...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #80
96. I'm a real Clark fan, but he was wrong on this one! He distorted what Axelrod said!
I'm sure he was only following orders....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #77
81. Maybe you need to take your head out of Barack's ass.
I take it Clark's comment really burns you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #81
83. As someone who supporter Clark, it does. He's promoting a lie.
A sick, twisted lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #83
98. Obama's spokesperson injected Clinton into a discussion about Bhutto's assassination
Biden also voted for the IWR, Dodd also voted for the IWR, Edwards also voted for the IWR. But Obama is locked in a primary race with Clinton being the other recognized front runner - so Clinton's name was woven into the reply. That was pure politics and it was pretty crass politics under the circumstances. The question about what foreign policy experience an American President needs in the wake of this sad and disturbing assassination was turned into an opportunity to attack Hillary Clinton's voting record in 2002. That was a political attack on Clinton using Bhutto's assassination as ammunition. There is no other way to accurately describe it. That type of attack in politics does not go unanswered. It can't. If Obama does not disown that comment neither he nor his supporters should act shocked about a political backlash.

Pakistan has been unstable for decades. The reason Benazir Bhutto is in politics is because her father who had been Prime Minister was hung. The reason why Musharraf is President is because he led a military Coup in Pakistan. Pakistan had extremists aiding the Taliban before 9/11. Pakistan aided North Korea well before 9/11. Hillary Clinton is not singly responsible for extremists inside Pakistan. Suddenly though, to score political points, Obama's spokesperson was pointing a finger at Senator Clinton and her alone. He did not need to weave her name into his response - the question wasn't about Clinton. Clark responded to an attack - he did not originate it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #98
99. What was the question, Tom? Do you even know?
Edited on Fri Dec-28-07 09:05 PM by calteacherguy
You are promoting lies just like Clark and talking out of your ass! Axelrod was asked a question about if current events would benefit the Clinton campaign. Axelrod responded appropriatly.

Clark lost all my respect today, and that is very sad. He is an intelligent man in many ways, but it is pathetic that he would accuse a political opponent of blaming his girl for murder.

I'm disgusted. I need to just get out of here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mahina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #99
103. Agreed. Let's go for a walk.
Me and my big red dog are out of here. Hope everyone enjoys the foodfight. Do please take a look at the sources. Thanks Calteacher.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #98
109. Axelrod was responding to the question about whether Hillary would be helped by the violence
Edited on Sat Dec-29-07 08:10 AM by earthlover
The media was already spinning it that way, which is unfortunate. The media also spinned things when Wes was running, and as a clark supporter I hated that. This was a similar thing. Axelrod really didn't have much choice. He could have responded with the meme, thus basically endorsing the idea that Hillary was being helped by the event. That would be political suicide, because then anything Obama would have to say about Pakistan would be interpreted as desperation by the same media!

The question did relate to Hillary's policy decision, and Axelrod was totally appropriate to point out that Iraq had a destabilizing effect on the Middle East, including Pakistan. This is, by the way, a point that Biden made weeks ago, and also a point that Wes Clark warned us about before the Iraq war. Fact is, Axelrod did not BLAME anyone personally for the attack, not Hillary, not Edwards, not anyone. He was, however, drawing a contrast between Obama and Hillary on a POLICY ISSUE, showing that with regard to Pakistan and the Middle East, Obama had predicted a destabilizing effect of Iraq when he opposed Iraq, whereas Hillary basically went along with a destabilizing policy, using the word "experience" as a justification.

Now, maybe it would have been smarter for Axelrod to just throw the question back at the reporter and say that the question itself was putting someone's death in a political gain perspective, and to mention Bayh's obvious politicalization of the tragedy....but what Axelrod said was accurate, sound, appropriate and perhaps the last chance he had to get the issue of Iraq into the picture, without the media herd and the Hillary Herd just rolling it into a fear meme and needing a strong expeerienced leader like Hillary yadayada.

I find it really sad that Clark played along with the distortions and spoke as if Axelrod was personally BLAMING Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #109
121. You are correct about the question
i didn't have it in front of me when I wrote what I did above, and I apologize for not acknowledging that the questioner mentioned Clinton first. Still there were multiple choice answers Axelrod could have given. You point out one direction he could have taken, and had he taken that direction he would have come across as classy (which reinforces the image Obama tries to convey) and there would not have been any political blow back.

Or he could have shifted to a broader stroke commentary about the importance of good judgment in foreign policy trumping experience. For example Axelrod could have noted that few would deny that Vice President Dick Cheney had ample foreign policy and national security experience when he was elected, but he has been wrong on all of the critical issues facing America. From that Axelrod could have gone back to the IWR vote and said, unlike Senator Clinton and Senators Dodd, Biden, and Edwards also, Obama opposed it at the time. He could have then left the three dots mostly unspoken, simply saying what America needs in a President who has the right judgment in times of crisis.

Had Axelrod used the approach I outlined in the above paragraph, no one would have made any accusation about his comments being an attempt to place indirect blame on Senator Clinton for Bhutto's death. It was a deliberate choice on his part to frame his answer to invite speculation along the exact lines that speculation predictably followed. No he never said that Clinton was to blame, and ex Senator Bob Kerry never said Obama went to an Islamic school in Indonesia either. Politics is a game often played by inference. Axelrod played a deliberate anti-Clinton political card and as sure as day follows night he was going to get called on it by the Clinton campaign in a manner that they determined would be politically effective to do so - they put a spotlight on the inference aspect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #121
138. good post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indimuse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #98
114. THIS is why
YOU Tom Rinaldo are one of my favorite poster on DU! Sanity...meet with Fact.


:yourock::yourock::yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mahina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #81
108. Charmed
I'm sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mahina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
101. Obama. Did. Not. Blame. Hillary. For. Bhutto's. Death.
Edited on Fri Dec-28-07 09:06 PM by mahina
Do facts matter at all? Jaysus on the Cross!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-28-07 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
107. FACTCHECK: What David Axelrod REALLY said (quotes and video links):
Today after Barack Obama's closing argument speech in Iowa, Obama adviser David Axelrod parried questions from reporters who pressed him
on whether the killing could help Hillary.

Here's one key exchange:

REPORTER: But looking ahead, does the assassination put on the front burner foreign policy credentials in the closing days?

AXELROD: Well, it puts on the table foreign policy judgment, and that's a discussion we welcome. Barack Obama had the judgment to oppose the
war in Iraq, and he warned at the time it would divert us from Afghanistan and al Qaeda, and now we see the effect of that. Al Qaeda's resurgent,
they're a powerful force now in Pakistan, they may have been involved -- we've been here, so I don't know whether the news has been updated,
but there's a suspicion they may have been involved in this.

I think his judgment was good. Senator Clinton made a different judgment, so let's have that discussion.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/obama_adviser_bhutto_assassination_reminds_us_that_hillary_made_wrong_call_on_iraq_war.php


"Axelrod: US took eye off Pakistan" (video): http://video.aol.com/video-detail/axelrod-us-took-eye-off-pakistan/2137898736

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #107
132. I see what General Clark was responding to, then.
General Clark is saying Bhutto's assassination shouldn't be used as campaign leverage this way, linking it to Iraq and another candidate's judgment or actions ("now we see the effect of that").

I don't have a problem with him saying that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #132
136. I don't have a problem with anything Axelrod said. He spoke truth to power re: judgment.
The coordinated talking points coming from Clinton surrogate are meant to distract from the effects of the blank check IWR vote Hillary approved
without reading the NIE and ignoring the advice of her anti-IWR colleagues who did read the NIE because she "trusted" what Bush and Condi Rice
told her.

I agree with Axelrod when he said, "I think his judgment was good. Senator Clinton made a different judgment, so let's have that discussion."
Guess what? Hillaryworld does NOT want to have an honest discussion, so they are making up this BS accusation so as to play their umpteenth
victim card.

Won't work.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #136
139. It's simpler than that.
I know the IWR vote is a cornerstone of Obama's campaign, but dragging it into a question about an assassination in Pakistan is reaching to score a point by placing blame on Clinton.

I understand why Axelrod said what he did. I also understand what General Clark was saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #139
140. Axelrod spoke of Obama's v. Hillary's "judgment" only and his words ring absolutely true..
Edited on Sun Dec-30-07 09:29 AM by ClarkUSA
Anything else is a Mark Penn talking point used to score partisan points. Clinton surrogates don't ever say anything that's NOT a Mark Penn
talking point at this stage of the game. To believe anything else is naïve.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #140
141. Judgment about the war in Iraq. How is this not about the IWR?
"Barack Obama had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq, and he warned at the time it would divert us from Afghanistan and al Qaeda, and now we see the effect of that. Al Qaeda's resurgent, they're a powerful force now in Pakistan, they may have been involved -- we've been here, so I don't know whether the news has been updated,
but there's a suspicion they may have been involved in this.

I think his judgment was good. Senator Clinton made a different judgment..."

I don't think there's any question he's talking about Clinton's vote for the IWR, and doing so in order to help Obama. That's not new. What's different here is doing so in the context of Bhutto's assassination, and linking that to Clinton's vote. The General is saying he thinks that goes too far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #141
142. It is not about IWR because AXELROD WAS TALKING ABOUT JUDGMENT IN HIS QUOTED COMMENTS.
Edited on Sun Dec-30-07 12:29 PM by ClarkUSA
You and other Clintonians can try to twist what he said into "Obama Said Hillary Killed Bhutto" but it's plain ridiculous and everyone outside
of the Hillary camp knows or suspects it's purely partisan speculation for political spin war gain.

I think it's quite fair to bring up the "experience" v. "judgment" question as that is what the reporter's question invited. I applaud his attempt
to discuss the differences in Obama v. Hillary's JUDGMENT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #142
143. I'm not a "Clintonian" (whatever that means)
I'm saying I understand what General Clark was saying, that's all.

Was it not judgment about Iraq?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
111. General Clark, welcome to the Obamites' ever-growing "Scumbag List."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #111
112. Who called him a "scumbag"?
What I read are some people, myself included, who greatly admire Wes Clark and are disappointed that he took this position. That does not make him a scumbag.

It seems to be the modus operendi of the hillary campaign to call people who disagree on policy issues "Hillary Haters" and now a similar logic is being employed to say that Obamites are calling Clark a skumbag. It is not about personalities, it should be about issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #112
113. Partial list of smears against General Clark in this thread, so far...
Edited on Sat Dec-29-07 08:27 AM by Perry Logan
Take heed, my friends. Here's what happens when you dare to cross an Obamite:

Clark needs to "take his head out his ass."
What Clark said is "total bullshit."
Clark is "disingenuous."
Hillary "sent out Wes to stamp his feet for her."
Clark is "inept."
Clark was "only following orders."
Clark is "promoting a sick, twisted lie."
Clark has "lost all my respect."

And then--just like wingers--the Obamites accuse us of doing what they're doing. It's some weird form of projection or something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #113
117. Nice isn't it?
Typical of people who resort to phrases like the "Hillary Herd."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #113
118. So you admit nobody called Clark a "skumbag" or put him on a list....I see
Making out of context partial quotes does not strengthen your case.

I have total respect for Clark, worked for him in 04, and still wish he had run this year. However, the "following orders" was NOT part of a post making Clark on a skumbag list, because the quote was mine. It is obvious to me that this speech of his about Axelrod was part of campaign orders. So even though I really disagree with him falsely bringing up the issue of BLAME, Wes is not on my skumbag list. In fact, most of the quotes you brought up were referring to disagreeing with Wes' speech, not calling him personally a skumbag.

As to projection, I have noticed a lot of this from the Hillary Herd too. Some actually BELIEVE they have not been making personal attacks against Obama! Imagine that, but it is true!

I am not an Obama fan as my first choice. But the Hillary Herd has totally turned me away from supporting Hillary in the primaries and just might push me to support the one I think has the best chance of stopping her. At this point, that would be Obama. I keep hoping Biden or Kucinich move up in the polls. But Obama will do, if he can stop the blind followers of the Hillary Herd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #118
126. Having a problem with reading comprehension?
Maybe nobody used the word "skumbag," but you were given a recap of what has been said and it amounts to the exact same thing. JUST LIKE the Obama spokesman's statement amounts to the same thing as blaming Clinton. And just like calling anyone who comes to Clark or Clinton's defense part of a "Hillary Herd" is the same as saying we aren't thinking for ourselves. Can you honestly read what Tom has posted and say, he doesnt' think for himself? Puh-lease.

Personally, I don't believe you and others defending Axelrod are that naive. It's either rationalizing on a grand scale, or just flat-out lying. I can only imagine the response if the show were on the other foot. What hypocrisy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #126
129. "JUST LIKE the Obama spokesman's statement amounts to the same thing as blaming Clinton"
That's bunk and you know it! Axelrod did not BLAME anyone. He talked about Policy Issues. The Iraq War had consequenses. It was not just a vote. Not only did hundreds of thousand people needlessly die, including more Americans than died on 9/11, but Iraq further destabilized the region while causing us to take the "eye off the ball", ie, the real terrorists which were not in Iraq but in Afghanistan/Pakistan region. Iraq strengthened al queda, gave it a rally cry for recruits. Yes, Pakistan was unstable anyhow but that should have been ALL THE MORE REASON NOT TO do something stupid that would FURTHER DESTABILIZE Pakistan, such as invading an Arab country that had not attacked the US.

This is not to BLAME anyone. It is not to BLAME Clinton. IT IS to question her JUDGEMENT, however. Her judgement was piss poor in voting for the IWR. Every sensible person knew that Bush's crap about Iraq was just that, crap. Hillary didn't even read the intelligence report....I guess she had other things to do... She voted against every compromise resolution that would have bought time in our rush to war. And she used her "experience" in the White House to explain her voting for the IWR, which itself lended even more credibility to the Bush cabal.

What is dishonest is trying to assert that Axelrod BLAMED Clinton for her death. That is so bogus that anyone with access to a dictionary should know better. However true she is not to blame, the POLICIES she supported had consequenses that led to increased destabilization. And Bhutto was not the only one killed as a result of this destabilization. She is only the most recent and more famous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #129
130. You're talking in circles
Edited on Sat Dec-29-07 06:31 PM by Jai4WKC08
If you say "the policies she supported... led to increased destabilization" and in turn Bhutto (and others) were "killed as a result of this destabilization," you are in fact blaming her. Maybe not blaming her alone, but DEFINITELY blaming her. And for what? To make a political point. It certainly doesn't add anything to the situation.

What part of that is hard to understand?

The answer is nothing at all. If you really believe what you're writing, you're not being honest with yourself.

Personally, I think anyone who votes to fund this war has the same responsibility. I'm not saying that they shouldn't -- I realize there are good reasons not to just pull funding out from under the troops, altho I also think there are ways to get around the funding issue by directing how the funds must be spent. But the point is, the IWR vote was 5 years ago. It's history. The important question is, what are you doing now to stop the war and redirect the effort? In that regard, Obama's record is NO different from Clinton's. They share any and ALL blame equally.

Edit to add: And I notice you still do not respond to the list of "skumbag" comments found in this thread. Nice diversionary tactic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarolNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #113
120. DU cetainly has become....
...a bizarre and ugly place. It's way too much like the Free Republic boards now for my taste. Sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tokenlib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
123. This is nuts!
Edited on Sat Dec-29-07 03:09 PM by tokenlib
The Iraq policy has helped destabilize the middle east! To say that is not to blame Clinton for the death of Bhutto. Taking the words out of context and issuing a political "holier than thou" comment is something beneath Wes Clark. And as someone who has admired and supported Wes, I find these comments insulting. Debate is one thing, but this is another... If A creates an environment for B And B does C. That is not to say that A does C!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CyberPieHole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
124. Kick and recommend for Hillary Clinton 44th President of the U.S. of A...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
128. The MSM have neglected to report the question that elicited Axelrod's statement.
Edited on Sat Dec-29-07 04:03 PM by AtomicKitten
That is an extrapolation of what Axelrod actually said in response to a question. This is typical of the set 'em up, knock 'em down Media Heathers framing the debate by reporting only part of the story.

The MSM fails to mention in any of the reporting that Axelrod's statement was in direct response to a question posed by the reporter regarding the Clinton's campaign immediate response to this tragedy which is that it will benefit her campaign.

It is clear from the record that the Clinton campaign has politicized this tragedy and is trying to smear her opponents with it. Thanks for pointing out her jaded strategy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-29-07 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #128
135. it's just desperate screeching
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC