by John McCormick, updated at 5:36 p.m. Central
NEVADA, Iowa – During a campaign stop this afternoon, Sen. Barack Obama said he is not concerned about whether the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto changes the dynamics of the presidential race.
"I'm less concerned about the changing dynamics of the race, more concerned about stabilizing Pakistan, which is what I have been talking about on the phone this morning," he said in a brief response to a question from the Tribune.
Obama mentioned the situation in Pakistan during his campaign appearance here, seeking to draw a contrast with those who supported an invasion of Iraq by arguing it distracted the nation from fighting al Qaeda and terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"I've been saying for some time that we've got a very big problem there," he said. "We were distracted from focusing on them and they are causing us problems and they are still plotting to do harm to America."
Robert Gibbs, Obama's communications director, said the Illinois Democrat spoke to experts today to try to better assess the situation in Pakistan, including the security of nuclear weapons in that country and the effectiveness of its current government.
"He wanted to talk about the situation on the ground," Gibbs said, adding that the calls were made after Obama gave a speech this morning in Des Moines.
Gibbs said Obama spoke for about 20 minutes to Anne Patterson, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan. He said he also spoke with Donald Kerr, a deputy director of national intelligence, and to senior military official the campaign declined to name.
Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the senator also spoke with Muhammad Ali Durrani, the Pakistani ambassador to the United States. She said he gave his condolences and stressed his support for continued fair and free elections in Pakistan.
Political operatives, meanwhile, are still trying to figure out how to – or even whether to – recalibrate their messages in the wake of today's news.
"It's hard to judge the political significance at this point," Gibbs said in an interview. "If this ultimately turns back to a discussion of foreign policy, I think we are well-suited…The next commander and chief has to have the judgment to deal with it."
As his boss often does without naming them, Gibbs pointed to the votes made to support an invasion of Iraq by Obama's two leading opponents – Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards – that some have suggested turned attention away from attacking terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"Some people used their experience to make the wrong decision," Gibbs said.
Clinton's campaign responded to such suggestions after Obama's top strategist, David Axelrod, specifically mentioned Clinton in the context of Pakistan while talking to reporters earlier today.
"This is a time to be focused on the tragedy of the situation, its implications for the U.S. and the world, and to be concerned for the people of Pakistan and the country's stability," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said in a statement. "No one should be politicizing this situation with baseless allegations."
Axelrod denied that he was trying to politicize the situation when asked by reporters about his earlier mention of Clinton.
"Sen. Obama had the judgment, back when the decision was being made on Iraq to oppose the war, and in part, he said he thought that it would help al Qaeda and the Taliban regenerate themselves in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that's come to pass," Axelrod said. "Certainly, we see evidence of that even today of the strength of these extremists. I was no way, shape or form trying to assign blame for the tragedy of Mrs. Bhutto, and it's absurd to suggest that."
The campaign had pivoted away from foreign policy in recent weeks, as polls have showed health care and economic matters to be top concerns for voters.
"I don't think foreign policy is ever far from people's thinking," Gibbs said. "Whether today's events push it even further into the forefront, we'll see."
Earlier today in Des Moines, Obama addressed the situation in Pakistan, before making a speech billed as his closing argument for the final days of Iowa campaigning:
"I want to, obviously, state how shocked and saddened we all are with the death of the former prime minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto. She was a respected and resilient advocate for Democracy for the people of Pakistan. We mourn her loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with her family and her supporters. And want to make clear that we stand with the people of Pakistan in their quest for Democracy and against the terrorists who threaten the common security of the world. We will be finding out more information as the day and week unfolds about this difficult situation. But we have to make sure that we are clear as Americans that we stand for Democracy and that we will be steadfast in our desire to end the kinds of terrorist acts that have blighted not just Pakistan, but other parts of the world."
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Where is our esteemed Secretary of State during the aftermath of this international incident?
Is she out buying boots, or does Deadeye Dick have her bound and gagged in the WH basement?
Her invisibility is a puzzle, thought not necessarily a bad thing.
Posted by: Buck Cherry | December 27, 2007 4:24 PM
Don't think for a minute that Hillary/Bill is not going to tout her "experience" as the reason why we need to elect her in the light of the Pakistan situation. All the foreign affairs, anti-terror experience in the world would not have prevented the assassination of Bhutto and anybody with sense knows that. But watch all these strong on terror, "you gotta pick me cuz I'm tough" candidates pick this opportunity to goody two shoe.
The fact of the matter if the matter is "experienced" people got us involved in the mess in Iraq which totally took the momentum away from the Eastern region of Afghanistan. Musharaff has created his own jihad issues with his dictatorial policies and practices.
Posted by: GW | December 27, 2007 4:44 PM
Pakistan is also a country that, as a harbor for both Islamic extremism and nuclear arms knowhow, today more than ever poses one of the most dangerous threats to America and the West. Washington's strategy for stabilizing Pakistan had depended in great part on Bhutto, the exiled former prime minister whose pleas for democracy were once ignored by the Bush administration, but who in recent months was seen as a key to legitimizing the presidency of autocrat Pervez Musharraf by forming a political coalition with him. Bhutto was considering the idea, but she had grown increasingly leery of Musharraf, accusing him in recent weeks of failing to stop the spread of Islamic militancy. Now all those hopes, light and mind are gone.
Pakistan has moved 20 years behind.
Posted by: Ramesh Manghirmalani, Danville, California | December 27, 2007 4:54 PM
What happened in Pakistan today will just about eliminate any chances that Obama had to become president.
It's a dangerous world out there and Obama is a dove and too inexperienced...America can't take a chance with a weakling like Obama.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | December 27, 2007 6:49 PM
"I'm less concerned about the changing dynamics of the race, more concerned about stabilizing Pakistan,"
Since when has stabilizing Pakistan or any other country but our own been the responsibility of our President or any other of our elected officials.
We already tried to "stabilize" Pakistan by supporting its military dictator. This assassination and the turmoil that will follow are of our own making.
Posted by: Nunu | December 27, 2007 8:58 PM
Paulo, people said the same thing about Benazir before her first election. What would you have done back then - told them their 'obvious' choice would be to vote for the Taliban as the most experienced, least dove-like and least-weakling?
Posted by: Tom J | December 27, 2007 9:05 PM
"Don't think for a minute that Hillary/Bill is not going to tout her "experience" as the reason why we need to elect her in the light of the Pakistan situation." GW
Funny. Obama and his folks seem to be the only ones trying to politicize this by of all things blaming Hillary. Rather ineptly, lamely, and to borrow a word from Obama's campaign, desparately, I might add. Pathetic
Posted by: Biggdawg | December 27, 2007 9:39 PM
Paulo's right. We need a strong leader like Bush who will lead us in the wrong direction again.
NOT!
Had Bush had the wisdom that Obama has, we'd have focused our energies on Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Instead, we've been wandering in Iraq for the past 5 years.
It's time to set a more rational course and be resilient.
Bush has laid claim to the fact that rooting out terrorism will take years. He is correct about that. But it would likely have been resolved sooner had he focused his instruments of warfare on the Afghan/Pakistan border (with Musharraff's help or execution) rather than spreading the cancer into Iraq.
The war on terror was likely to be as difficult as the war on poverty and the war on drugs before it. But by attacking Iraq, we've only made it that much more difficult.
And make no mistake about Iraq. While the surge has dampened the violence, Iraq is still a powder keg of hatred and will continue to be so for years to come.
Posted by: Roger | December 27, 2007 9:53 PM
Paulo, I would agree with you if I were an android, but since I am not an android I would agree that the greatest enemy of ignorance is logic, something that the androids who fall prey to fear mongers are incapable of using. I encourage you to set aside your fears for a minute and ask yourself the question "what person purporting to be a foreign policy maven could have prevented the Bhutto assassination?" You are absolutely right, none of them, neither Rudy, Big John, or Hillary/Bill with all their vast and varied depth of experience could have saved Mrs Bhutto's life. Because, you must understand, that event was home grown terrorism that the Pakistani's are very familiar with.
Senator Obama is absolutely correct in claiming that the instability in Pakistan that can be associated with Al Qaeda stems directly from the hawkish actions of the Bush Admin, with help from McCain, Hillary/Bill and all the other legislators who did not prevent Bush from taking action in Iraq. But you know the story, don't you?
Posted by: GW | December 27, 2007 9:53 PM
Paulo,
Why?
Because you say so?
Get a grip.
Posted by: Doug Zook | December 27, 2007 9:59 PM
Like I've always said, Pakistan is one bullet away from chaos.
When we fail to look for the truth, we fail to see reality. Reality does not fail us.
Intentional ignorance of the truth is complicit approval of the lie.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | December 27, 2007 10:33 PM
What happened in Pakistan today will just about eliminate any chances that a republican had to become president.
It's a dangerous world out there and republicans are too stupid...
America can't take a chance with a moron like the republiweaks.
Paulo
Posted by: rncbs | December 27, 2007 11:26 PM
LOL. Two months ago you and your pals were saying Obama was too hawkish and reckless when he suggested going into Pakistan and killing al-Qaeda and the Taliban if Musharraf wouldn't. Get your talking points straight. You can't have it both ways...Or can you?....Nope, I checked, you can't.
Posted by: jethro | December 28, 2007 10:21 AM
Ms Bhutto was in many ways an admirable and accomplished leader, but her assassination is a far more complex event than simple jingo claims of anti-democratic forces.
Musharraf for most of the years since the American invasion of Afghanistan was an acceptable ally for the United States.
The U.S. needed Pakistan's help with Afghanistan, a land about which American politicians had almost no understanding.
Once Americans mired themselves in Afghanistan, it slowly dawned on them what a mess they had involved themselves in. This is particularly true regarding the almost non-existent border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, a huge area that forms almost a de facto third country of Pashtuns.
Intense pressure started to be applied to Musharraf to allow American special forces to conduct the kind of brutal and disruptive operations they have in the mountains of Afghanistan.
This has been the American approach: going from village to village, crashing down doors, using stun grenades, holding men at gunpoint in their own homes, separating the village's women from the men's protection, plus many other unforgivable insults in such a tradition-bound land.
All of this has really been getting them nowhere, but because the American government had no idea of what to do in Afghanistan when it invaded, they only knew they wanted to get the "bad guys."
In the last year or so, however, suddenly in the western press Musharraf's position as a military dictator has been emphasized.
The reason for this is that Musharraf has not been cooperative with some of Bush's demands to extend these brutal operations into Pakistan's territory.
He has launched various operations to please Bush, but it has not been enough to satisfy Bush’s gang.
Musharraf has, rather bravely, opposed some American demands. Moreover, on several occasions, he has been remarkably outspoken about American policies.
Suddenly he became an undemocratic pariah who needed to be replaced. Ms Bhutto was given a blessing, and undoubtedly the promise of lots of support, to return.
This happened mainly because the U.S. saw Ms Bhutto as more amenable to American demands in Pakistan. She had the double merit of being able to make the government seem more democratic, but democracy is not what the U.S. was really concerned with because Musharraf was just a fine ally so long as he served what they perceived as their needs.
The bottom line truth is that Musharraf has, in opposing America's excessive demands, been a rather brave representative of Pakistan's interests.
True democracy for a place like Pakistan is a long way off, not because of this or that leader, but because of the country's backward economic state. This is even more true for Afghanistan.
You cannot instantly create democracies out of lands living in centuries-old economies. The best thing the West could have done in this region is a generous program of economic development, but the U.S. has little genuine interest in that sort of thing.
The customs of centuries only melt away under the amazing power of economic development. Democracy follows almost automatically eventually.
The quick fix is what the U.S. demands, under the guise of supporting democracy and opposition to terror.
Posted by: John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada | December 28, 2007 11:45 AM
Chuckman,
I lack the time to refute your "analysis" point by point, but your overall thesis proves you have your finger on the pulse of nothing whatsoever.
Your analysis of the Israel/Palestine and Pakistan situations is the left-wing equivalent of Fox News.
It ain't black or white friend, and there are no choir boys or girls on either side.
Posted by: Jones | December 28, 2007 2:55 PM
[quote]
America can't take a chance with a weakling like Obama.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | December 27, 2007 6:49 PM
[/quote]
America took a chance with a lightweight in 2000 & 2004 - and it has cost us the lives of over 3000 civilians, 4000 soldiers and over $600 billion dollars (so far). America can't afford another Republic Party hack in the White House in 2008.
Posted by: BC | December 28, 2007 3:22 PM