Obama Foreign Policy in a Tailspin

First one of Obama’s top foreign policy advisors, Susan Rice, criticizes Hillary Clinton for not being tough enough in regard to the Musharraf dictatorship in Pakistan. Then, another Obama advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said that “the United States should not get involved in Pakistani politics.” And then, to put the proverbial icing on the proverbial cake, after Clinton called for an independent, international investigation into Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, Obama himself disagreed with her (H/T: TalkLeft):

Clinton also called for an independent, international investigation into Bhutto’s death, “perhaps along the lines of what the United Nations have been doing with respect to the assassination of Prime Minister Hariri in Lebanon.” Obama said he doesn’t share that view. “It is important to us to not give the idea that Pakistan is unable to handle its own affairs,” he said.

Could Obama’s foreign policy be any less consistent? It seems that it is based simply on disagreeing with Hillary Clinton. This is the kind of reckless politicizing that one might expect from someone who has virtually no foreign policy experience, and it seems that Obama is proving everyone who has mentioned his lack of experience as a concern exactly right.

More beneath the fold…

Edwards Chastises Obama

John Edwards is chastising Barack Obama for politicizing Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. Asked about the Obama campaign’s attack on Hillary Clinton, in which they implied that her vote for the Iraq War made her indirectly responsible for Bhutto’s death (twice!), Edwards said:

“It’s ridiculous,” Edwards said. “It’s a ridiculous stretch. I think in times of international crisis — which this clearly is — what America needs to be doing and serious presidential candidates need to be doing is providing an atmosphere of strength and calm. We need to be a calming influence and not stoking the fire and certainly not be talking about the politics of this.”

Edwards’ criticism of Obama is much more valid than Clinton’s, since her campaign too has been guilty of politicizing Bhutto’s assassination. John Edwards is the only candidate who has risen above the temptation to politicize this assassination, as Obama has done, or worse yet, to use this assassination to terrorize the American people into voting for them – as all of the Republicans and Clinton, in her own way, have done. Edwards is right that we need strength and calm in times of crises, and he’s the only one who hasn’t been running around like Chicken Little since Bhutto’s assassination.

Thanks for the Reminder

From CNN:

A senior aide to Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee admitted Friday that the former Arkansas governor had “no foreign policy credentials” after his comments reacting to the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto raised questions.

During an event Friday in Pella, Iowa, Huckabee said the crisis sparked by Bhutto’s death should lead to a crackdown on illegal immigrants from Pakistan.

The Huckabee official told CNN that when he said that, Huckabee was trying to turn attention away from scrutiny of his foreign policy knowledge.

If Huckabee was really trying to divert attention away from his lack of foreign policy experience, he’s failed miserably. The absurdity of his comments yesterday have only renewed scrutiny of his foreign policy capabilities, and I would say that Huckabee is the candidate most hurt by the Bhutto assassination from either party.

And Again

Just in case you weren’t sure, Obama foreign policy advisor Susan Rice says that Hillary Clinton is indeed indirectly to blame for Benazir Bhutto’s assassination (H/T: TalkLeft):

“Those who made the judgment that we ought to divert our attention from Afghanistan to invade Iraq and allow al-Qaeda to reconstitute and strengthen are now having to assess the wisdom of that judgment as we may be seeing yet another manifestation of al-Qaeda’s potency,” said Susan Rice . . .

Rice also hints that the Obama campaign is in favor of regime change in Pakistan, contradicting Obama advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski who has said that “the United States should not get involved in Pakistani politics.” Well, that’s as clear as mud.

Evan Bayh, Loading the Gun for Them

Not to be outdone, the Clinton campaign* has decided that they too must use Benazir Bhutto’s assassination to attack other presidential candidates, just as the Obama campaign did. Clinton supporter Sen. Evan Bayh had this to say about the Bhutto assassination (H/T: TPM Election Central, TalkLeft):

“When there are unfortunate calamities like this, the Republicans [will say], ‘See. See what we told you? We have to have someone who’s strong to defend America at a time of concern.’ Well, Senator Clinton is strong,” he said. “And she’s experienced. And she’s tough enough to defend this country and do it in a way that’s true to our values, the civil liberties we cherish, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m supporting her.”

The Politics of Hope!

Most of the presidential candidates have been shamelessly capitalizing on Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, but Barack Obama moves beyond the realm of shameless self-promotion and into the category of despicable. This, from Time (H/T: TalkLeft):

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

Bhutto Assassinated

Former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated today in Rawalpindi, after leaving a campaign rally for the upcoming parliamentary elections. Pajamas Media has a roundup of reactions. And don’t miss analysis of the situation by Juan Cole (Informed Comment).

The Torture Tapes

The big news is that the CIA has destroyed tapes that may show intelligence gatherers engaged in unlawful interrogation techniques (i.e., torture). To make matters worse, CIA Director Michael Hayden lied and said that the destruction of the tapes was reported to the appropriate congressional committees. Both the chairman and ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee have said that the committee was never informed.

What’s to say? The Bush administration has lied and covered something up. Is this really still news at eleven? Y’know, I think I’ll just give the last word to Republican Ed Morrissey (Captain’s Quarters), who writes:

Those who are inclined to shrug this off should rethink their positions. The action of the CIA not only shows disrespect to Congress, the only real check on potential abuse, it may have provided the basis for overturning an important conviction in the war on terror. In a nation based on the rule of law, we cannot allow government officials in positions of power to make up their own rules as they go along. We certainly cannot abide them disseminating false information as Hayden apparently has.

Exactly. Hopefully more Republicans will arrive at this point of view, and hopefully there can be some sort of bipartisan congressional effort to finally check the unprecedented seizure of power by the executive branch. It’s well past time.

President for a Year

If you were president for a year, what would you do? Apparently believing that he is faced with the same question, President Bush plans to negotiate a treaty with Iraq that would lead to the withdrawal of approximately 2/3 of U.S. forces by the end of 2008 (H/T: Captain’s Quarters). He also expects the Israelis and Palestinians to sign a peace treaty by the end of 2008. One does wonder why Bush has decided to wait until the last year of his presidency to actually govern.

Losing Afghanistan

As the right continues to insist that we are winning in Iraq despite little supporting evidence, we are quietly losing the war against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Matthew Yglesias and Think Progress both provide commentary on a National Security Council report which admits that we are not meeting our strategic goals in Afghanistan, and that the Taliban is getting stronger even as the Karzai government is weakening.

Why are we losing? There are several reasons. Chief among them is our distraction in Iraq, a distraction that should never have occurred. It’s hard to win one war when the entire nation from the government to the average joe is focused on another. Another reason we’re losing is because – I know this may come as a surprise – the Bush administration is inept. The administration either can’t or won’t deal with the underlying problems in Afghanistan, most of which lead back to Pakistan and President Musharraf’s failed policies.

Until we wrap up in Iraq and redouble our efforts in Afghanistan, and until national attention turns back to winning the real war on terror, we can expect that more of Afghanistan will end up back under the control of the Taliban. This is the real national security issue of our day and it’s one that politicians on both the left and the right need to start focusing on.