Friendly advice to Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee: The proper place for your foot is either on the ground or a few inches above it as you walk, not in your mouth. You don’t want to see a story a day about you making some silly gaffe or statement your opponents can use against you. Something like this:

Mike Huckabee used the volatile situation in Pakistan Friday to make an argument for building a fence on the American border with Mexico and found himself trying to explain a series of remarks about Pakistanis and their nation.

On Thursday night he told reporters in Orlando, Fla.: “We ought to have an immediate, very clear monitoring of our borders and particularly to make sure if there’s any unusual activity of Pakistanis coming into the country.”

So now there is a NEW THREAT: Pakistanis secretly streaming across American borders.

You can tell when a campaign assertion goes over like a lead balloon and the candidate and staff scramble to do damage control. You see something like this:

On Friday, in Pella, Iowa, he expanded on those remarks.

“When I say single them out I am making the observation that we have more Pakistani illegals coming across our border than all other nationalities except those immediately south of the border,” he told reporters in Pella. “And in light of what is happening in Pakistan it ought to give us pause as to why are so many illegals coming across these borders.”

Well, then, THAT explains it. Right?

Wellllllllllllll:

In fact, far more illegal immigrants come from the Philippines, Korea, China and Vietnam, according to recent estimates from the Department of Homeland Security.

Asked how a border fence would help keep out Pakistani immigrants, Mr. Huckabee argued that airplane security was already strong, but that security at the southern United States border was dangerously weak.

“The fact is that the immigration issue is not so much about people coming to pick lettuce or make beds, it’s about someone coming with a shoulder-fired missile,” he said.

Huckabee should know better. He and several other candidates came across as looking inept, unthoughtful or cravenly political yesterday upon hearing about the turmoil in Pakistan. See our post HERE.

TWO STORIES in two days that contained comments a candidate needed to clarify should be red flag to GOPers for several reasons:

(1) if Huckabee is making gaffes like this at the rate of one a day it shows he has a tin ear to how the media operates or how important words are in a campaign, (2) his inaccuracy about Pakistani immigrants will be the beginning of a credibility problem if he makes more inaccurate assertions, (3) David Letterman has settled with his writers so candidates who have been spared the poll-influencing, conventional-wisdom setting influence of topical TV comedians will find very soon that their respite has come to an end (other TV comedians are expected to settle with their writers).

If yours truly was uncharitable, we would run this “switched” joke that we just revamped for Huckabee on TMV. But we would never run this:

Reporter: Governor Huckabee, what is your position on the Mexican border?
Huckabee: Is he paying his rent?

But we won’t do that..

In pure political terms, Huckabee’s comments suggest someone who is Not Ready For Primetime as a national candidate. Or someone who needs better “handlers.”

On the other hand, the guy does have a high caliber sense of humor…

SOME VIEWS FROM OTHER WEBLOGS:
Read the rest of this entry »

Will Benazir Bhutto’s murder impact US presidential election? If President Pervez Musharraf had nurtured any illusions that with the removal of his arch rival Benazir Bhutto he would live/rule happily ever after, the Pakistani dictator better get prepared for a gathering storm ahead. The recent assassination is likely to become a major issue in the US presidential election campaign with Hillary Clinton on Friday calling for an independent, international probe into Benazir Bhutto’s murder.

“The assassination of the former Pakistani premier was the kind of sudden, outside event with the potential to quickly roil presidential campaign plans, and revived the issues of national security and experience in the 2008 race,” reports AFP. “An unanswered question was how the shockwaves would play out in the minds of voters in Iowa, which kicks off the party nominating season with caucuses next Thursday, and New Hampshire, which has primary elections on January 8.

” ‘It is also clear the Bush policy of giving Musharraf a blank check has failed,’ Clinton said, adding a Bhutto death probe could mirror the UN inquiry into the killing of Lebanese ex-prime minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005.”

Will this Clinton stand force her rivals to spell out in clearer terms their take on Pakistan? Would this development also push the Bush administration to take some dramatic steps to quell the rising crescendo of allegations and counter-allegations related to the recent assassination? Or, would all this noise die out in a few days when the hysteria subsides? The next 10 days could be crucial for…?

The Telegraph of Britain states that “with less than a week before the Iowa caucus, the crucial first round of state-by-state voting that will decide the nominees for the November 2008 US presidential election, the former Pakistan prime minister’s death is being treated as the sort of event that could sway the result.

“US presidential candidates from both parties have been competing to exploit Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, using it to advertise their foreign policy experience and personal contacts with Pakistan.

“Some candidates were left embarrassed by their reactions. Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, expressed ‘our sincere concern and apologies for what has happened in Pakistan’. His campaign later issued a statement saying he meant ’sympathies’ not ‘apologies’.”

The Bhutto assassination has all the potential to snowball into a major controversy if one reads the recent media reports. “It was a story CNN’s Wolf Blitzer hoped he’d never have to report – an e-mail sent to him through an intermediary by Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto complaining about her security. Conditions of use: only if she were killed.

“Bhutto, who was assassinated on Thursday, wrote to Blitzer that if anything happened to her, ‘I would hold (Pakistani President Pervez) Musharraf responsible’.” Read the full AP story here… And the CNN report here… Was she shot dead?…Read a sensational story here… And a tribute…“The Lioness Fallen”.

The media reports are clear that Bhutto assassination has shocked the world and threatens to destabilise an entire region. Rageh Omaar, who last month spent two days with the former leader of Pakistan in her home town, assesses what her death means for the future of her country, and the war on terror. Read the ‘final interview’ here…

There is another topical story “Row breaks out over Benazir Bhutto’s death” by Isambard Wilkinson, Pakistan Correspondent, and Bonnie Malkin in The Telegraph…please click here to read…

(Photo: courtesy Reuters)

(EDITOR’S NOTE: The author of this story is veteran journalist Swaraaj Chauhan who writes from India for TMV.)

It is understandable that in the aftermath of the killing of Pakistan’s opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, the needle of suspicion would swerve in several directions, including Islamic militants and the ruling Pakistani establishment led by President Pervez Musharraf himself. The US administration’s role in this tragic and barbaric episode would also come under the spotlight for a variety of reasons.

I am indeed impressed by the original coverage in the media and the blogosphere on the recent events in Pakistan. My guide is, of course, the Memeorandum for providing a variety of opinions and excellent reportage from the media and the blogs. Let me begin with the CNN story that says the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security issued a bulletin Thursday citing an alleged claim of responsibility by al Qaeda for former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s assassination.

Memeorandum then quotes Firedoglake weblog: “In the face of suspicions about possible complicity by the Musharraf regime, and without knowing what happened, our FBI and DHS are giving unverified reports to US media in which al Qaeda takes responsibility. It may be true or false, but we have been conditioned to believe it…

” The Bush Administration did not kill Benazir Bhutto; someone else did that. But it appears the Administration convinced her to go back to Pakistan to save a risky policy foolishly built on a despised, repressive military dictator to fight the US ‘war on terror.’ Now a courageous woman is dead, another nation is in chaos, the US is further discredited, it can’t account for billions in military aid, and we still have an administration that remains a menace to everyone’s security as long as they remain in office. But the Administration wants us to believe that only al Qaeda is responsible.”

The Washington Post states: “With a vital stake in preserving the stability of a country that harbors both a nuclear arsenal and the top leaders of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, the United States must urgently press Mr. Musharraf, Mr. Sharif, and other key Pakistani actors to take steps that will alleviate rather than further inflame the situation.

“Perhaps most urgent is the capture of those who committed the murder and a full and credible investigation. In the absence of such a clear accounting, conspiracy theories blaming Mr. Musharraf or the military for Ms. Bhutto’s death will probably proliferate, to the further benefit of the Islamists. ”

If we look at the history of assassination in the world, it is rare that the motive of killing is ever established or the real culprits identified. Even in the modern world the event is soon relegated from burning newspaper headlines and TV’s ‘breaking news’ to conspiracy theories in books.

Assassination is one of the oldest tools of power politics, dating back at least as far as recorded history. Philip II of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great, and Julius Caesar can be noted as famous examples. Emperors of Rome often met their end in this way, as did many of the Shia Imams. The practice was also well-known in ancient China like Jing Ke’s failed assassination of Qin Shi Huang. The ancient Indian military advisor Chanakya wrote about assassinations in detail in his political treatise Arthashastra. More here…

Meanwhile the question is who would be Benazir Bhutto’s successor in the Pakistan People’s Party? According to the AFP report: “US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Thursday telephoned the successor (Amin Fahim) to slain opposition leader Benazir Bhutto to express US support for Pakistan’s upcoming elections, a spokesman said.”

The Hindu reports: “With the assassination of its charismatic leader Benazir Bhutto, the PPP is in a quandary as to who would lead the country’s largest political party which has traditionally banked on her family. The names of Bhutto’s trusted aide Makhdoom Amin Fahim, her husband Asif Ali Zardari and senior lawyer Aitzaz Ahsan as her successor are doing the rounds.

“Zardari wields considerable influence in the party but lacks popularity among the masses, mainly due to the charges of corruption that dogged him during Bhutto’s two terms as prime minister in the 1980s and 1990s. Fahim, on the other hand, is a low key leader and lacks the charisma of Bhutto, who was her party’s only star campaigner during the recent electioneering.
Party sources suggested that the PPP could look at other leaders like Ahsan, who is also the Supreme Court Bar Association President.”

To complicate matters further in Pakistan, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif announced Thursday his party was boycotting next month’s elections following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. He demanded that President Pervez Musharraf resign immediately. More here…

” ‘I demand that Musharraf should quit immediately,’ he said. ‘Musharraf is the cause of all the problems. The federation of Pakistan cannot remain intact in the presence of President Musharraf’.”

And, finally, Pakistan government reveals (or does not reveal) how Benazir was killed…Please click here for more… “Mystery shrouds the death of former Pakistan prime minister Benazir Bhutto. In an explosive revelation, Pakistan’s Interior Minister Hamid Nawaz on Friday said that Bhutto did not die of bullet wounds. The doctors have submitted a report to the Pakistan government in which they say that no post-mortem was performed on Bhutto’s body and they had not received any instructions to perform one.”

Having given President Bush a kick in the chops yesterday for being complicitous in the Benazir Bhutto assassination because of how he has coddled his favorite dictator and her implacable enemy, let’s take a half a step back and address one of the administration’s serial failures – its chronic inability to use diplomacy to advance America’s interests abroad.

The White House has been at sea when it comes to talking to friends and foes alike and has drearily resorted to threats of using the stick over the carrot time and again, its embarrassingly ineffectual Iran policy being a signal example.

Or, in the case of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, it has dithered while pouring tens of billions of dollars down a rat hole that has become a safe haven for terrorists while claiming that great strides are being made in heartland of the Global War on Terror.

The White House’s stroking of Musharraf aside, there isn’t a whole lot it could have done short of invading Pakistan (not an option) or walking away and making a bad situation even worse (also not an option).

Which in fairness to the Bush administration points up the difficulties that the U.S. has faced all the way back to the administration of President Teddy “Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick” Roosevelt in balancing its interests – benign or too often otherwise — with nations whose way of seeing things don’t coincide with Washington’s.

That noted, the Bush administration’s hard-wired default to bellicosity, the preferred means of the thuggish Dick Cheney, paired with it being the only global superpower of the moment, has exacerbated those historic difficulties. As has being played the fool by Nouri Al-Maliki in Iraq and Musharraf in Pakistan, two leaders who know that the U.S. needs them more than they need the U.S. in an era where presidential politics reliably trumps national policy.

With the exception of North Korea, the U.S. has precious little to show by way of diplomacy over the last seven years, and it has not helped that the un-Cheney — Condoleezza Rice — is a resume without a woman and the most ineffectual secretary of state in recent memory.

Beyond its blowhard approach toward Tehran, which took an embarrassing turn earlier this month when it was revealed that Iran apparently had shuttered its nuclear weapons program four years ago, there has been no bigger diplomatic failure on Bush’s watch than his quest to bring democracy to the Muslim world while forcing out the militants who are the gasoline of the jihad against the West.

As Helene Cooper and Steven Lee Meyers write today in The New York Times, the Bhutto assassination “highlighted in spectacular fashion” these twin failures.

An upshot of which is that in the wake of Bhutto’s death the U.S. is now forced to reach out to allies of former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif who have close ties to the very militants that Islamabad and Washington have been so ineffectual in marginalizing. Ironically, that may turn out to be not a bad thing as unaccustomed as the U.S. is to entering into dialogue with its foes.

The Bush administration (including Rice) get props for trying to broker a power sharing agreement between Musharraf and Bhutto.

But with its regional and world standing at low ebb and Musharraf more interested into holding onto power than sharing it, the deal was stillborn from the moment the opposition leader returned home to face a series of assassination attempts that in retrospect inevitably would lead to her death. No matter who actually pulled the trigger (my supposition is militants aided by Musharraf’s military), the Pakistani president bears responsibility for her death and, as I noted yesterday, Bush’s hands are anything but clean.

Juan Cole sums up the sitch thusly at Salon :

“Pakistan’s future is now murky, and to the extent that this nation of 160 million buttresses the eastern flank of American security in the greater Middle East, its fate is profoundly intertwined with America’s own. . . . If Pakistani politics finds its footing, if a successor to Benazir Bhutto is elected in short order by the PPP and the party can remain united, and if elections are held soon, the crisis could pass. If there is substantial and ongoing turmoil, however, Muslim radicals will certainly take advantage of it.”

To get through the crisis, Cole says, Bush must insist that the Pakistani Supreme Court be reinstated by Musharraf, the PPP must be allowed to elect a successor to Bhutto without the interference of the military, early elections must be held, and the country must return to civilian rule.

Scarecrow at Firedoglake lowers the hammer, asserting that the Bush administration convinced Bhutto to return to Pakistan “to save a risky policy foolishly built on a despised, repressive military dictator.”

“U.S. policy is in tatters. The administration was relying on Benazir Bhutto’s participation in elections to legitimate Musharraf’s continued power as president. Now Musharraf is finished,” says Barnett R. Rubin of New York University.

Maybe so or maybe not.

But it will take a newfound appreciation of the powers of patient diplomacy to begin to salvage the mess that an administration, more or less led by a president so deficient in the qualities of leadership, has made of its Pakistan policy. A good start would be to lock the vice president in a closet and throw away the key.

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani has launched yet another ad linking himself to 911 (relating it to World War II) but now some political analysts and Giuliani supporters wonder whether his camp made a fatal political mistake that makes it seem as if his candidacy is shrinking with each passing day.

The mistake: bowing out of both the Iowa AND the New Hampshire primary early vote competitions — votes that provide lots of free air time and ink to candidates and cement the idea in voters’ heads that the candidates in those races are running for President.

No one is yet accusing Giuliani of pulling a Fred “Freddy Come Lately” Thompson by getting into the race too soon or being so laid back during some appearances that he could be mistaken for a meditation instructor. (A more favorable impression of Thompson can be found HERE with videos.)

But there is a lot of second guessing going on now, due to the fact that Giuliani’s poll numbers have slipped badly and the media focus is largely on the candidates sparring for votes in Iowa and New Hampshire…which do not include Rudy. The New York Observer;

What was Rudy Giuliani thinking when he decided not to contest the primary all-out in New Hampshire?

That’s a question a lot of political observers, and some of Giuliani’s own New Hampshire supporters, have been asking lately as the former mayor slides steadily off the national media’s radar.

The Giuliani campaign has said that it is a media misperception that Giuliani hasn’t been fully engaged in New Hampshire, even as he has spent a lot more time than the other candidates campaigning in February 5 states. (Yesterday, today and part of tomorrow, he’s in Florida.) The Giuliani campaign also insists that the former mayor does not need early-voting-state victories because he is so popular in the delegate-rich states that come further down the road.

And, to be sure, that statement shouldn’t be totally dismissed. There is a tendency in both media and blog coverage to look at what existing reportage and commentary and use that as the framework for further comment and reportage (just like this post is doing). So there could indeed be other factors that are being ignored by the media.

Still, the poll trending, timing of the primaries and recent bad stories do not paint a portrait of a candidate on the political ascent:

Now, Giuliani now has to watch the main primary contests essentially from the sidelines and hope that either Mike Huckabee can damage Mitt Romney in Iowa, or that John McCain can muddle the picture in New Hampshire. Even then, Giuliani will most likely have to compete in the February 5 states from the disadvantaged, inert position of a non-player in the early voting states.

The Observer then quotes a highly respected political expert who has an excellent track record in analyzing and predicting elections:

Most of the experienced neutral observers I’ve talked to have been, to say the least, skeptical of the strategy. “He never had a chance in Iowa, because of the special nature of their electorate and this tiny caucus turnout, but there is no reason in the world why Rudy Giuliani could not have won New Hampshire,” said Larry Sabato, a political science professor at the University of Virginia. “Giuliani completely miscalculated. He assumed that Romney could not be dislodged and both Huckabee and McCain have proven him wrong. If he had focused on New Hampshire and won New Hampshire, even come in second, his Florida Super Duper Tuesday strategy could have been vindicated.”

Mark Blumenthal, the editor and publisher of Pollster.com, called the Giuliani campaign’s decisions “somewhat mystifying decision.”

“The story for the first week in January has been loser, and that’s not a good story,” he said.

And Blumenthal pointed out that there’s lots more of it to come.

“If you are the winner, the coverage says your campaign was effective, and for the losers it’s the reverse,” he said, adding, “When you are out of the story it can’t be good.”

But what about unforeseen events — such as the murder of Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto? As the Los Angeles Times notes, this could shift the focus of the Presidential race away from domestic issues to foreign affairs and security issues — a shift that would help Arizona Senator John McCain and Giuliani.

Read the rest of this entry »

Daryl Cagle, MSNBC.com

An unforeseen event is the test of a President — and an opportunity for a presidential candidate. But in responding to Pakistan opposition leader leader Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, some candidates and their operatives displayed more foot-in-mouth and sheer ambition than thoughtful, policy-making brain power.

To be sure, there were some thoughtful comments. But some flubbed, others used it as a chance to try and lash out at opponents and suggest they were somehow (even remotely) responsible for Pakistan’s turmoil and others showed a shoot-from-the-lip trait that might give more thoughtful voters pause.

What’s at stake? A poor choice of words can be (a) used against a candidate in debates, (b) used by late night comedians to make a candidate the subject of ridicule (and the late night talk shows will resume with fresh comedy writing next month), (c) be used by opponents as video in campaign ads, (d) be used in debates or held up for all and sundry by Tim Russert on Meet The Press. The ill-chosen words are like boomerangs.

In the case of the Democratic candidates, a seemingly-stunned Josh Marshall writes:

The leading Dem candidates for president appear to be in a pitched battle to make the most craven and insipid uses of the Bhutto assassination for immediate political advantage. A true horse race.

But the Foot In Mouth Award truly goes to Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee who — already under fire from some GOPers for both lacking foreign policy experience and DARING to criticize President George Bush’s approach to foreign policy (i.e., The Lone Ranger) — gave his foes and balking voters a noose with which he could be politically hung.

Commenting on the Bhutto assassination, Republican Mike Huckabee said in Orlando today that the United States should be “trying to ascertain who’s behind it, and what impact does it have on whether or not there’s going to be martial law continued in Pakistan.”

Martial law was lifted about two weeks ago, leading some to wonder if Huckabee knew that. CNN reports on the incident and reaction to it under the headline “Critics jump on Huckabee Pakistan gaffe.” CBS News says it was “A minor slip, maybe, but not a subject he wants to mess up on when he is already considered weak in the area of foreign policy.”

Huckabee’s remark seems akin to the career-destroying remark of former President Gerald Ford who in a debate with Jimmy Carter declared: “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford Administration.” It’s a comment that could be exploited by his foes.

Writes The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder:

It’s not the mistake itself that will raise eyebrows — it’s Huckabee’s lack of intellectual ease, his lack of felicity, with foreign policy at a critical moment when everyone is paying attention.

Mitt Romney, for example, may have the same degree of experience, but he’s boned up and is much more comfortable answering complicated questions about foreign policy.

Smart politicians (and their staffs) would realize that any words they utter at a time like this could prove to enhance their images. Huckabee and his staff apparently forgot that — and the opening that he gave his critics. CNN reports:

Conservative critics immediately pointed out that Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf lifted the country’s state of martial law roughly two weeks ago. The slip “ought to be really bad news for Huckabee,” said the National Review’s Jim Geraghty, writing on the magazine’s Web site. “…I’m not sure how big assassination-related news will play in the first primary states. Still, I think those misstatements will exacerbate the Huck/Not Huck divide in GOP circles.” The National Review has endorsed Huckabee’s Republican rival Mitt Romney.

UPDATE: In a statement Thursday night, the Huckabee campaign said: “Gov. Huckabee firmly believes that emergency rule/martial law in Pakistan, as a practical matter, should not be viewed as having been completely lifted until the restrictions imposed during that period on the press and judges are removed.

“Although General Musharraf let the pendulum swing a little more freely in the last few weeks, the overall policy, which is what the Governor was addressing in his comments, has been, and continues to be, repressive.”

The explanation above is as poor politics as Mitt Romney insisting he really didn’t MEAN to suggest he actually SAW his father march with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It could cost Huckabee votes, not help him maintain what he has (but he is already ahead in most polls) or gain votes. Basically, he and his staff can’t admit he gave an inadequate answer. Most voters will see it as such and the parsing of words could stiffen conservative (and GOP establishment) opposition to him.

The New York Time’s Paul Krugman listened to the comments yesterday and had this to say:

To all the presidential campaigns trying to claim that the atrocity in Pakistan somehow proves that they have the right candidate — please stop.

This isn’t about you; in fact, as far as I can tell, it isn’t about America. It’s about the fact that Pakistan is a very messed-up place. This has very bad consequences for us, but it’s hard to see what, if anything, it says about US policy.

If you’re a tough guy (or gal) who believes in exerting US power — never mind, there are just too many heavily armed people in Pakistan for anyone but Norman Podhoretz to believe that we could throw our weight around. If you believe you can bring new understanding to the world through your enlightened outlook — sorry, there are too many people in Pakistan who don’t want to be enlightened. If you believe that we’d have more influence in the world if we hadn’t squandered our resources and good will in Iraq (which I do) — well, sorry, that influence wouldn’t extend to being able to bring peace and light to Pakistan.

Meanwhile, the Craven Statement Of The News Event Award belongs to a member of Democratic Senator Barack Obama’s staff. The Politico gives this comment by Obama advisor David Axelrod:

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. Sen. Clinton made a different judgment, so let’s have that discussion.

So somehow Clinton’s judgment on the war is tied in with the problems in Pakistan - a comment that will be viewed by many as transparent political opportunism and evasion of the MAIN policy question.

Obama better hope that many Democratic voters don’t react the way Tom Watson did to Axelrod’s innuendo:

I cannot imagine Karl Rove doing this. I cannot see Lee Atwater going down this road. Heck, even Roy Cohn wouldn’t go there. And yet there today was the top political adviser to Barack Obama pointing a finger for the tragic and truly horrific murder of Pakistani opposition leader, the former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto at…steady yourself, Democrats…

Senator Hillary Clinton.

Look, I thought it was an Onion post. But I was sadly wrong

The Most Shrill Comment From A Supposed Thinker Award goes to New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, a candidate who always had great potential but has a huge TV problem (the TV cameras hate him) and seems to working hard on his doctorate for a PhD in verbal flubs. This was a big one:

Alone among the White House contenders, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson called on President Bush to pressure Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to step aside in favor of a coalition government.

“Until this happens, we should suspend military aid to the Pakistani government,” he said in a statement. “Free and fair elections must also be held as soon as possible,” added Richardson, who served as ambassador to the United Nations for a portion of the Clinton administration.

Serious foreign policy thinkers might ask how the United States could suspend aid to a country so pivotal in the war on terrorism — a country that has nukes. And what would the consequences be if the United States did?

Republican Rep. Ron Paul criticized support for Musharraf but said the U.S. should not been supporting him in the first place.

John Edwards had a statesmanlike response: he said he talked with Musharraf by phone after the assassination and urged other candidates not to politicize it (which some see as a zinger aimed at the Obama camp).

The other candidates offered statements touting their experience (no problem) or raising questions about Pakistan security and other issues. See the link above and read Ed Morrissey for lots of details.

Responding to a crisis like this helps build imagery. And Hillary Clinton came out looking QUITE Presidential in her dignified, measured reaction to the assassination. Judge for yourself:

HERE’S A CROSS SECTION OF WEBLOG REACTION TO THE CANDIDATES’ COMMENTS (these are excerpts so click on links to read full posts):

Read the rest of this entry »

Paresh Nath, National Herald, India

THE MODERATE VOICE EDITOR’S SPECIAL NOTE:

Just as words matter - people matter.

Think about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Yes, it did change things: the removal of a personality, that personality’s thoughts, words, physical presence and ability to shape things on the world stage and behind the scenes were all removed from the scene. In an instant.

Think about the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. What would have things been like if he had lived in terms of the leadership he would have provided for black Americans, the inspiration his words would provide for all Americans and the impact his stature would have had in promoting his values on the nation?

From January - May 1972 I interned on The Hindustan Times in New Delhi, India, as part of an independent study program at Colgate University. I returned there in October 1973 after getting my masters in journalism from the Medill School of Journalism and wrote for the old Chicago Daily News as their highly-prolific stringer. Because I was the youngest accredited member of the press corps, I was first in line at a reception and met Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. She was later assassinated by her bodyguards…and her son was murdered as well, too. What impacts would they have had on their nations?

While in India I visited Dacca and did some reporting from there and and met the “father” of Bangladesh, President Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. He was murdered in a 1975 coup (the government official who replaced him after the coup had earlier invited me months before out to his village for lunch and according to a political scientist friend asked him as Bangladesh’s top official where Joe Gandelman was). Mujib and many of his family members were murdered. It changed the course of Bangladesh.

People can argue over whether a murdered public figure could have positive or negative impacts — but the existence of the spirit, the physical being, and the political intellect MATTER in the lives of nation states. And the world.

That’s why public officials of all kinds in all countries need to be on special alert. Are we moving in the 21st century to an era when traditional press-the-flesh politics could eventually be too risky for politicians all over the world?

No one is arguing that Benazir Bhutto was a saint.

But she had proved to be a highly courageous woman who clearly knew the physical risks and inspired a huge portion of her nation.

And now she has been violently removed from the scene by foes who FEARED her influence and wanted to ensure she was gone from the scene.

We should all be grieving over ALL of these fallen leaders who, no matter what their merits or flaws, gave of themselves to try to do something for their nations.

Weep for her; weep for them; weep for us all.

–Joe Gandelman

SOME NEWS STORIES OF INTEREST:
–Bhutto killing an assault on Pakistani democracy - world leaders
–A Career of Personal, National Tragedy
--Bhutto Campaigned Despite Risk of Attack
–What’s next for Pakistan?
–U.S. Reactions to Bhutto Assassination
–Online, Emotion Palpable After Bhutto Death
– Together we’ll save Pakistan, Benazir said at last rally
–CHRONOLOGY-Attacks in Pakistan since July 2007
–Bhutto: Standing up for beliefs
–Pan-Islamic body condemns Bhutto assassination
–European Union condemns Bhutto assassination
–Global outrage over assassination
–Benazir Bhutto killing: Reaction in quotes

Today’s MUST READ.

Why in the face of a tragedy does silliness still rear its warty head? Benazir Bhutto is assassinated and some yahoos at MSNBC and Fox News start talking how Rudy Giuliani can benefit from this politically…

Sickening.

According to some punditry, “America’s Mayor” will show Americans how dangerous the world is because of this assassination which will translate into solid political capital aka votes for Rudy. As Charlie Brown says:

I can’t stand it. I just can’t stand it.

I submit that no one in American politics could have stopped what happened today. Sure, the Bush Administration has been showering all sorts of love on President/General Pervez Musharraf’s shaky rule. And they are looking quite soiled because of Bhutto’s assassination. But this is an issue that the Pakistanis will have to continue to grapple with. They will ultimately decide if the human misery machine known as Al-Qaeda and Company gains solid control of their country. But Giuliani benefiting from this tragedy because he’s a tough talker against terrorism is full of fresh manure. Tough talking, hard walking, and big stick swinging hasn’t stopped terrorism so far. It takes a mindset change. A mindset change that Giuliani and the rest of the presidential candidates have little to no influence over.

Unless they are going to force Musharraf out of power. And that is another topic altogether with its own galaxy of issues.

Let’s put a few things in perspective before we mourn the passing of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated by a gunman prior to a suicide bombing today that took upwards of 20 lives at a campaign rally in Rawalpindi. An earlier attempt on her life killed 140 people in October shortly after she returned from exile.

It speaks volumes that:

* Bhutto, who herself was duplicitous and corrupt as the leader of this troubled nation, nevertheless was seen as a vast improvement over President Pervez Musharaff.

* The Bush administration not only has thrown in its lot with Musharaff as its key regional ally, but has repeatedly helped prop up his repressive regime, pouring billions of dollars into a rat hole that has become a safe haven for the very terrorists both nations profess to want to eradicate, while claiming that great strides are being made in heartland of the Global War on Terror.

* Other than obligatory tut-tutting, the assassination will have no impact on the U.S. presidential race. Foreign policy generally and the U.S.’s deeply troubled relationship with Pakistan specifically are pretty much non starters in this topsy-turvy campaign season.

The immediate upshot of Bhutto’s assassination will be that it gives Musharaff a convenient excuse to postpone parliamentary elections scheduled for next month.

Her death comes just days after Musharraf lifted a state of emergency that he had used to suspend the Constitution and arrest thousands of political opponents on the largely spurious claim that they were terrorist threats.

Bhutto, warts and all, was widely seen as an appealing alternative to Musharraf and eight years of military rule in a supposed democracy, but her tragic passing will have little effect.

It will continue to be business as usual in Islamabad and Washington. You can bet on it.

More here.

It is a sad day in the history of Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto, former prime minister and the opposition leader, was assassinated Thursday in a suicide bombing that also killed at least 20 others at a campaign rally, reports AP and BBC.

Bhutto is survived by her husband Asif Ali Zardari and their three children: Bilawal, Bakhtwar, and Aseefa.

Benazir Bhutto was born in Karachi, Dominion of Pakistan on June 21, 1953. She attended the Lady Jennings Nursery School and then the Convent of Jesus and Mary in Karachi.

After two years of schooling at the Rawalpindi Presentation Convent, she was sent to the Jesus and Mary Convent at Murree . She passed her O-level examination at the age of 15. She then went on to complete her A-Levels from the Karachi Grammar School.

After completing her early education in Pakistan, she pursued her higher education in the United States. From 1969 to 1973 she attended Radcliffe College, and then Harvard University, where she obtained a B.A. degree cum laude in comparative government. She was also elected to Phi Beta Kappa.

The next phase of her education took place in the United Kingdom. Between 1973 and 1977 Bhutto studied Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford . She completed a course in International Law and Diplomacy while at Oxford. ] In December 1976 she was elected president of the Oxford Union, becoming the first Asian woman to head the prestigious debating society.

Benazir Bhutto’s father, former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was dismissed as Prime Minister in 1975, on charges similar to those Benazir Bhutto would later face. Later, in a 1977 trial on charges of conspiracy to murder the father of dissident politician Ahmed Raza Kasuri, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was sentenced to death.

Despite the accusation being “widely doubted by the public”, and despite many clemency appeals from foreign leaders, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was hanged on 4 April 1979. Appeals for clemency were dismissed by acting President General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq. Benazir Bhutto and her mother were held in a “police camp” until the end of May, after the execution.

More here.

I just got to my computer to find that former Pakistani PM Benazir Bhutto has been killed in a suicide attack (along with 15 others) while speaking at an election rally.

BBC:

Pakistani former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has been killed in a presumed suicide attack.

News of her death was confirmed by a military spokesman and members of her Pakistan People’s Party (PPP).

Ms Bhutto had just addressed an election rally in Rawalpindi when gunfire and an explosion occurred.

At least 15 other people are reported killed in the attack and several more were injured. Ms Bhutto had twice been the country’s prime minister.

She had been campaigning ahead of elections due in January.

My spot analysis? Bad, sad news.

Ami Isseroff’s Analysis at MideastWeb: Bhutto Assassinated - Hope for democracy mortally wounded

Former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated during a campaign rally, Thursday, December 27. A Jihadist terrorist shot her in the neck and chest as she was getting into her car to leave a rally in Rawalpindi, and then blew himself up, killing 20 others. Her supporters shouted “Dog Musharraf,” blaming the Pakistani leader for the assassination, rather than the Islamists.

Two days ago, Bhutto had pledged again, perhaps too insistently, that she would fight extremists. In Pakistan as in Afghanistan, as in Iraq as in Lebanon as in the Palestinian territories, it seems that in Islamist “democracy,” comrade Kalashnikov’s invention (the AK-47 assault rifle), the suicide bombers and the their allies are winning the “war for hearts and minds” by murdering people.

Thus far, nobody has outlined a realistic policy for dealing with the spreading problem of Islamist extremism, though it should be becoming clear that it threatens to engulf all of us. On the one hand, repressive regimes like that of Pervez Musharraf disallow all manner of legitimate protest or democratic dissent. The only opposition that can survive takes refuge in the mosques and is defended as “religion.” Indeed, in countries such as Syria and Egypt, Islamist extremism is virtually the only tolerated form of dissent, provided that the terror tactics and hate are not turned against the government itself. It is very likely that Pervez Musharraf will now reinstate the state of emergency that was lifted under Western pressure. Pakistan will see many more sad days - repression and violence beget more repression and more violence. No doubt, the suspicion will grow that Musharraf engineered this assassination as an excuse to perpetuate his own rule. The possibility cannot be ruled out. But Musharraf did not invent the Islamists and he could not have conjured them from nowhere. The blame must be put where it belongs.

MORE

Ami ends with the following:

All those “decent” folk of whatever creed, wherever they are, who apologize for Islamist terror, who insist on “engaging” and “coopting” and justifying these murderers, should understand that Benazir Bhutto was a martyr for them, for us, for our freedom. If we do not wake up and fight this menace together, we shall all meet her fate or be enslaved by them. The Islamist extremists declare that they are not interested in compromise or mercy or democracy in the terms that ordinary people understand it. Democracy for them means that you will be convinced, by the barrel of a gun, that their way is right, and then you will vote for it by consensus. You can have a choice of which Islamist candidate to support. There is nothing to discuss with these people except disarming and re-educating them.

It is time to understand. The apologists for terror and those who look the other way, and those who fund “educational charities” that teach hatred and perpetuate ignorance and xenophobia are not friends of Islam or friends of the poor people of Asia. They are not fighting to end any occupation or oppose any tyranny, but rather to impose a dark tyranny on all of us.

Jerusalem Post - Analysis: The killings of Bhutto

Ultimately, main question is what will happen in Pakistan after it comes to term with her death.

If you wanted to get an idea of the ruthlessness of the enemy that the United States and countries battling terrorists are facing, just read this:

The bomb that ravaged Benazir Bhutto’s homecoming processional in October appears to have been rigged to the clothes of a baby who was held up for the former prime minister to embrace, Mrs. Bhutto said.

A man approached her armored truck, Mrs. Bhutto recounted, and was trying to hand across a small child as her motorcade inched through the thronged streets of Karachi. She remembers gesturing for the man to come closer.

“It was about 1 or 2 years old, and I think it was a girl,” Mrs. Bhutto told The Washington Times in her first public remarks about the baby.

“We feel it was a baby, kidnapped, and its clothes were rigged with explosives. He kept trying to hand it to people to hand to me. I’m a mother, I love babies, but the [streetlights] had already gone out, and I was worried about the baby getting dropped or hurt.”

Between the snuff films that masked as politically-motivated decapitations of terrorized (mostly Western) prisoners and this, you get an idea: there IS NO LINE. The Washington Times piece goes on:

Mrs. Bhutto would have been killed, she said, if she hadn’t stepped back to loosen the shoes on her swollen feet.

“The baby, the bomb, it went off only feet from me; there was nothing between us but the wall of the truck,” she said.

And, so, a little baby never got a chance to live because it was held by someone whose hatred overcame any semblance of humanity.

For President George W. Bush it may now becoming down to “eeney meeney miney moe…”

So whom does he decide to back in the tempestuous developments and political upheaval in Pakistan in South Asia? And how does he frame it?

And now there’s a sign: He’s backing Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as not just a bulwark against terrorism but as a champion of…..democracy:

President Bush yesterday offered his strongest support of embattled Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying the general “hasn’t crossed the line” and “truly is somebody who believes in democracy.”

Bush spoke nearly three weeks after Musharraf declared emergency rule, sacked members of the Supreme Court and began a roundup of journalists, lawyers and human rights activists. Musharraf’s government yesterday released about 3,000 political prisoners, although 2,000 remain in custody, according to the Interior Ministry.

In this instance, the facts would suggest that saying that Musharraf — who recently removed pesky Supreme Court justices and packed it with supporters so they could issue a key decision which they did saying his election was legal — is as respectful of democracy would be as accurate as Bush administration officials who say the administration works to protect the environment.

The Washington Post goes on:

The comments, delivered in an interview with ABC News anchor Charles Gibson, contrasted with previous administration statements — including by Bush himself — expressing grave concern over Musharraf’s actions. In his first public comments on the crisis two weeks ago, Bush said his aides bluntly warned Musharraf that his emergency measures “would undermine democracy.”

According to reports, this is all part-and-parcel of an effort to defuse the Pakistan ticking political time bomb. Last weekend Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte personally delivered a message asking Musharraf to step down as army chief. In this context, Bush’s statement should be seen as providing the Pakistan President a durable fig-leaf so that he can take off his Army uniform soon — a key concession to opposition leaders.

But Bush’s comments have caused consternation in some quarters: Read the rest of this entry »

Pakistani liberal opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, after being released from house arrest on Friday, rejected the caretaker government appointed by President Pervez Musharraf to hold general elections in January, says NDTV.

” ‘We do not accept this government. It has committed treason by taking oath under Provincial Constitutional Order (PCO),’ she told reporters hours after she was freed from three days of house arrest in Lahore.

Following the dissolution of the lower house of parliament at the end of its five-year term late on Thursday, Musharraf on Friday swore in a new cabinet headed by the chairman of the upper house, Mohammedmian Soomro. Regarded as a loyal supporter of the military ruler, Soomro will oversee scheduled polls that Musharraf says will be held in the first week of January.

” ‘We demand that Musharraf take off his uniform. We want to see a neutral caretaker government which is acceptable for all opposition parties,’ Bhutto said, adding that only such a government could ensure fair elections.

“The PCO is the decree through which Musharraf, an army general who took power in a 1999 coup, imposed the state of emergency, suspending the constitution and taking several news channels off the air.”

Meanwhile hundreds of lawyers in Washington participated in a march in support of their colleagues in Pakistan on Wednesday, condemning President Pervez Musharraf’s suspension of the constitution, reports The Washingon Post.

” ‘We have witnessed a brutal attack on the rule of law,’ William Neukom, president of the American Bar Association, told the crowd, which marched two blocks from Independence Avenue to the Supreme Court. ‘We are here because we cannot forget the images of hundreds of our brave colleagues assaulted in the streets, carried off in police trucks’.”

If you wish to know how Pakistan elects its President please click here…

Is opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, a self-declared champion of democracy, in cahoots with General Musharraf, a military dictator who came to power by deposing an elected government? Some believe this. More here…

Time Magazine notes: “Musharraf’s closest foreign allies have long feared that those same military and intelligence bodies still include officials sympathetic to the militants Islamabad is supposed to be fighting. In the meantime, as Musharraf and Bhutto maneuver for advantage, the extremists in the mountains continue to expand their influence, day by day becoming a more realistic, if fearsome, option to ineffective Pakistani politics-as-usual.”

Meanwhile former premier Nawaz Sharif, now in exile in Saudi Arabia, has again begun to woo Pakistan People’s Party leader Benazir Bhutto. Sharif asked Bhutto to sever all contacts with President Pervez Musharraf to strengthen their (opposition parties) movement against imposition of emergency (in Pakistan). More here…

While this theatre of the absurd goes on in Pakistan, Bush continues to support the military dictator unmindful of what the opinion polls have to say about Bush’s actions. “Last weekend a new Washington Post-ABC News poll found that the Democratic-controlled Congress and Mr. Bush are both roundly despised throughout the land, and that only 24 percent of Americans believe their country is on the right track. That’s almost as low as the United States’ rock-bottom approval ratings in the latest Pew surveys of Pakistan (15 percent) and Turkey (9 percent).

“Wrong track is a euphemism. We are a people in clinical depression. Americans know that the ideals that once set our nation apart from the world have been vandalized, and no matter which party they belong to, they do not see a restoration anytime soon,” writes Frank Rich in The New York Times.

If Musharraf is trying to demonstrate how well he supports a democracy wherein other candidates are free to campaign regarding forthcoming elections, he is failing in full public sight.

An order for the house arrest of Benazir Bhutto was given and executed Friday (the middle of the night, here in the USA).

To many, Bhutto is attempting to run a campaign. But, to others, Bhutto is said to be by her very presence, purposely inflammatory, and is trying to rouse an insurrection to overthrow Musharraf. If the latter is true, that is no democracy either.

Bhutto is no Aung San Suu Kyi, as in Burma, the legally and democratically elected woman chosen by the Burmese people to lead them… at least until the bilious Senior General Than Schwe misused his military to overthrow the democratic elections, seating himself as leader.

But there are increasingly revulsive similarities between Than Scwe in Burma, who like Musharraf in Pakistan, is not only the leader of the country, but also the head of the army. One of Than Schwe’s first acts of ‘leadership’ after his power grab of Burma, was to banish the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Aung San Suu Kyi, to full house arrest …which has continued for these last dozen years.

Bhutto is far more aggressive than Aung San Suu Kyi, no doubt thinking such is necessary. But still, some see her return to Pakistan as one which has already caused mayhem immediately, a mayhem she ought have expected some say… as when her entourage was bombed last week. Bhutto was fine, but 140 Pakistanis were killed in the blast and more maimed.

Bhutto and Aung San Suu Kyi are not doppelgangers, but as time unfolds, it is startling to see that Than Schwe, the Butcher of Burma, and Musharraf, seem to be pulling pages out of a similar play book.

THAT, is a disaster for the people in both countries. Democracy: A governance elected freely and honestly by the people, rather a fiat seized by a single person who then causes the people to live in fear.

Dictatorship: suspension of civil liberties; imprisonment of perceived ‘enemies,’ silencing of radio, television, internet access and output, arbitrary rules made up on the spot by one personality instead of a reliable rule of law with case precedents; no legal recourse for wrongful arrest, abuse or intrusion; disappearances of persons while claiming no knowledge of what happened to them, confiscation of goods. Worse.

Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto has tried to breach a police cordon surrounding her Islamabad residence, hours after being placed under house arrest.

‘Get out of the way. We are your sisters,’ Ms Bhutto appealed by megaphone to police as her bulletproof car tried to break through their ranks.

“My father laid down his life for you and this nation.”

Fehmida Mirza, a close aide accompanying Ms Bhutto, told Reuters that Ms Bhutto’s vehicle, surrounded by supporters had crossed one obstacle, but a police bus blocked the narrow road at the back of the house.

Miss Bhutto’s comment about her father can surely be understood by those who know that fathers are often beloved by their adult children.

However, the similarity of calling for justice because of what happened to one’s father– or what someone threatened to do to one’s father– can make it seem that unleashing a personal retaliation is the stronger motive.

The world alreeady has enough of that kind of retaliation to last, since forever.

It’s not exactly clear how she’s done it, but Benazir Bhutto has effectively recast herself as Pakistan’s “democratic savior.”

Interestingly, as The Hill reported not long ago, Bhutto has invested in a major PR campaign to give her image a makeover. To the tune of a quarter million dollars, she has hired the lobbying firm BKSH & Associates to obscure her poor record and build up her reputation as Pakistan’s leading democrat.

But Bhutto is no democratic savior. Her tenures in office were riddled by corruption and human rights abuses and her possible re-ascent to power promises more of the same. It’s no surprise, then, that Bhutto’s PR effort is in large part designed to cover up her miserable history.

The result of her efforts (which have primarily consisted of a positive media-blitz), unfortunately, is that many Americans have come to badly misunderstand the history and character of Pakistan’s two-time former prime minister. The responses to Bhutto’s recent article in the Huffington Post, “Why I’m returning to Pakistan,” exemplifies this. One commentor, whose view was by no means an anomaly, had this to say:

Ms Bhutto, I am in awe and respect of your convictions. Your deep devotion to your country is glaringly absent in the United States. Godspeed and all gods be with you on your journey.

Another respondent had a similar comment:

You will bring hope to your nation. God speed and best luck.

In fact, almost all of the comments praised Bhutto as some sort of democratic beacon. Nor has the American media (mostly out of laziness) helped to clarify the record. In many of the reports on Pakistan these days, there is a tacit acceptance of Bhutto’s new image. No quotes from Bhutto’s opponents are given, rarely are the long list of corruption charges detailed, and even more infrequently do we hear any account of her dismal relationship with human rights.

The laziness on the part of the American media, as well as the work of some skilled lobbyists and PR experts has resulted in a full image makeover for the former Pakistani prime minister here in the States. One student at Brown University wrote an op-ed for the university newspaper that hints at the success of Bhutto’s PR campaign:

…I am excited and optimistic to see Bhutto returning to the country to contest elections in January. Her success will require a lot of behind-the-scenes pressure from the international community, especially the United States (given its links to the power centers of Pakistan, including the military and intelligence), but democracy is now closer in Pakistan than it has been in many years.

With all respect to my colleague here at Brown, I think she may have overstated her case. Indeed, if history is a guide, Bhutto is far from a democratic savior. Her record, which includes two separate stints as prime minister, was marred by broad human rights abuses and efforts to personally enrich herself through high-level corruption. As Ali Eteraz notes, Bhutto has done her job well: “Most of the Western audience Bhutto has been targeting in her media blitz – a blitz that somehow panders equally well to the Western left-wing and right wing – is unaware of Bhutto’s vast legacy of mayhem, corruption, criminality, and violence.”

Paresh Nath, National Herald, India