…

It sounds interesting but I am not sure that I agree with you completely….

Both times that he (or his surrogate) said something upsetting, instead of immediately trying to defuse it, he defended it, escalating it.

http://1950democrat.livejournal.com

What I have been objecting to is the practice we have seen here lately of promoting Hillary by appearing to focus on Obama’s flaws. The reality is that Obama and Hillary have very similar records in regard to foreign policy, international law, and military policies, and I do not find one preferable to the other.

Hillary has a record of strongly supporting the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq in both word and deed.

Obama has an equivocal record on the invasion of Iraq, and has on every occasion voted the same as HRC has on other matters concerning Iraq.

Both have made it clear that they are in no hurry to withdraw from Iraq, and have no real intention of pulling out all the troops in the foreseeable future.

Both have demonstrated that they consider military action to be not purely a means of self defense, but primarily a tool to be used to dominate and enforce the will of the United States government on other countries.

Both have declared their intention to increase the size and budget of the military, which is only necessary if they intend to keep troops in Iraq while increasing the U.S. military presence – probably mostly by force – in other countries.

Both of them have made bellicose statements against countries that did not pose a threat to the United States.

Obama has some really goofily clueless and ideas about “why they hate us”, and a completely idiotic, Bush-like take on how to overcome that problem.

Hillary has never met a military action she didn’t enthusiastically support.

Hillary has for years been one of AIPAC’s favourite darlings.

Since becoming a presidential candidate Obama has quietly abandoned his support for Palestinian rights, and moved into AIPAC’s territory.

The bottom like is that when it comes to foreign policy there is very little difference between Hillary and Obama, and they are both much too close to the Bush regime for my comfort.

No to Hillary. No to Obama.

Nor does criticizing Obama validate Hillary

I am not a Hillary supporter–at all! As if that should matter. Obama’s Pakistan rhetoric is most alarming. Period. Why you can’t see that is beyond me. His policy would be disastrous; hell, just his rhetoric was cause for worry in Pakistan. And since his whole campaign is about “judgement” it destroys his validity as a candidate. I wasn’t a supporter of his before (nor was I against him), but this caused me to be certain, especially in light of Bhutto’s killing, that we cannot afford an Obama presidency.

It is also worth mentioning here that when it comes to bellicose statements, Hillary has done her share

And? There are other candidates beyond Obama and Clinton. Besides, Clinton’s rhetoric does not excuse Obama (By the way, when did Clinton make equally inflammatory rhetoric–launching preemptive strikes against a nuclear power or Muslim “ally”–when a country was on the brink of chaos?)

What I am suggesting is that this is not a time to be making statements against Pakistan’s head of state.

It is also worth mentioning here that when it comes to bellicose statements, Hillary has done her share, including stating her willingness to consider a nuclear first strike against a non-nuclear country that has no history at all of attacking or invading another country.

“What part of her criticism, shared by others, isn’t legitimate?”

Whether it is legitimate or not is irrelevant. It is ill-timed to say the least. Be sure that I am no fan of Musharraf (although not for the reasons Hillary is complaining about), but her making those sorts of comments is hardly helpful under the circumstances.

“And every candidate praised Bhutto, not just her. How does any of their praise for a recently assassinated politician translate into support for every policy enacted while she was PM…”

Pardon me for not being more clear. I was attempting to point to the irony (or hypocrisy?) of praising the person who helped bring the Taliban to power while condemning her successor for not crushing what she so carefully nurtured.

And by the way, it is not a matter of translating praise for her into support for every policy. It is, instead, a matter of praise that amounts to hagiography and that is virtually always 180 degrees from reality.

“What the hell is your point?”

See above.

“…in response to my criticism of Obama you just bizarrely went after her?…Criticizing Clinton doesn’t in itself validate Obama.”

Nor does criticizing Obama validate Hillary, and yet for days we have had a steady diet of criticism – even vilification at times – of Obama that has been accompanied virtually EVERY SINGLE TIME by some video, or quote, or remark, or even a photo of Hillary and Chelsea costumed up as rich Pakistani ladies. The intention of that could not be more blatant. Even when it seems to be about Obama, it is really about Hillary.

As I have made very clear here on numerous occasions, much to the annoyance of Susan and some others, based on their records and their statements I would not consider voting for either Hillary or Obama, and it disappoints me to see this site used to promote Hillary by bashing Obama.

As for his statements regarding policies, there is little significant difference except that he thinks attacking Pakistan is a good idea if Musharraf does not effectively do what he wants him to do, and he apparently thinks they “hate us” merely because of bad P.R., and therefore the only thing that needs to change is the U.S. P.R. strategy, and not its foreign policy – and in that regard he sounds discouragingly like Bush with his slick Arabic youth magazine, and that propaganda channel called Al Hurra that has been such a rousing failure. Oh, yes, and that “Muslims in America” advertising campaign that was the laughing stock of the Arab world.

On image: Of course, Hillary is hated but she has been a successful senator (Hell, somehow she managed to neuter her once-sworn enemies). And the knives will be out in full force for any Democrat–unless they act like Joe Lieberman. There’s nothing about Obama that shows any history of using all that charm of his to pass substantial legislation against firm opposition, even on a state level. So somehow believing it’ll just magically happen as president is bull. Even as a minority, the GOP has been ruthless while the Democrats have been cowards.

Besides, we’re in a desperate state and we can’t afford just image. Worse, Obama combines image with a disturbing level of foreign policy inexperience. Nothing more cemented my fears of an Obama presidency than Bhutto’s assassination. His earlier inflammatory rhetoric about invading Pakistan disturbed me back in August in his complete disregard for the situation, but combining that with his campaigns response to Bhutto’s killing sealed it: He’s grossly irresponsible and ignorant (Putting aside Axelrod’s smearing of Clinton, his argument, defended by Obama, that al-Qaeda or “terrorists” inspired by Iraq played a role showed a fundamental misunderstanding of Pakistani political history).

On comparing candidates: the reason I looked at Obama alone was to see whether he qualified as a presidential candidate. In my eyes, he didn’t. We’re in a desperate state and we’re voting for what exactly? There’s no leadership experience or wise judgment/political courage when the chips were down. And his policies on major issues are either the worst of the top 3 (health care, social security, for ex.) or the same as others, which have questionable chance of passing anyways in Washington considering his quest for “bipartisanship.” His fundamental selling point (“I was right on Iraq!”) completely fails as well since his voting record (i.e. funding an unending war) and policies are the same as Clinton’s.

My candidate is Edwards–by far. And the best part, I’m voting for him–completely. Everything about his candidacy I support; he’s got it all: experience, policy, leadership, courage, and effectiveness. I’ve never met a candidate like that before. The man is the fighting leader we desperately need right now. And he’s the only one who has any chance of beating the GOP in Washington.

And every candidate praised Bhutto, not just her. How does any of their praise for a recently assassinated politician translate into support for every policy enacted while she was PM, especially considering the circumstances of Pakistan where the military and intelligence services run the show and that all the candidates have condemned the Taleban and al-Qaeda?

What the hell is your point?

I even said from the beginning that I didn’t care for Hillary and yet in response to my criticism of Obama you just bizarrely went after her? And let’s pretend their remarks on Pakistan are actually on par with each other, how does that excuse his? Criticizing Clinton doesn’t in itself validate Obama.

Aunt Benazir’s false promises…

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-bhutto14nov14,0,2482408.story?coll=la-opinion-center

Policy on Taliban
The Taliban took power in Kabul in September 1996. It was during Bhutto’s rule that the Taliban gained prominence in Afghanistan. She, like many leaders at the time, viewed the Taliban as a group that could stabilize Afghanistan and enable trade access to the Central Asian republics, according to author Stephen Coll.[11] He claims that like the U.S., her government provided military and financial support for the Taliban, even sending a small unit of the Pakistani army into Afghanistan.

More recently, she took an anti-Taliban stance, and condemned terrorist acts allegedly committed by the Taliban and their supporters.

Exile
Bhutto went into self-imposed exile in Dubai in 1998.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto#Policy_on_Taliban

Despite the Fadlallah fiasco, Casey remained an enthusiast for using urban terrorism to advance American goals, especially against the Soviets and their allies in Afghanistan. A year after the Bir El-Abed massacre, Casey won President Reagan’s approval for NSDD-166, a secret directive that, according to Steve Coll in Ghost Wars, inaugurated a “new era of direct infusions of advanced U.S. military technology into Afghanistan, intensified training of Islamist guerrillas in explosives and sabotage techniques, and targeted attacks on Soviet military officers.”

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/76824/mike_davis_return_to_sender_car_bombs_part_2_