Axelrod Amplifies His Remarks About Clinton and Pakistan

I just recieved a call from David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, who told me that "in no way" was his comment about Hillary Clinton "meant to be an unprovoked, sort of strategic foray."

"It was an answer to the question -- in no way was I implying that she was personally responsible for what happened."

I asked whether Axelrod meant to imply that her vote was in part responsible for creating the conditions that led to an Al Qaeda resurgance.

"All I’m implying is [about] the policy that the war in Iraq that Obama said in 2002 was going to distract us from Afghanistan and Pakistan and Al Qaeda, and that they would regenerate themselves and that they would become more powerful and influential. He exercised good judgment. She’ll have to explain her position."

Axelrod acknowledged it was fair to say that he was pointing out that votes have consequences, and that the Iraq vote Clinton took in 2002 had specific consequences that may have helped lead to an emboldened Al Qaeda.

"Everyone who was there understands the context. There were 20 reporters there and only one who wrote that. I know that [Clinton spokesman] Phil [Singer] and [communications director] Howard Wolfson are ...trying to stoke the meager, flickering embers, but there's just no fire there."

Comments

Obama aide was referring to Barack Obama's willingness to go after al qaeda in Pakistan if he had actionable intelligence. With Clinton's votes on Iraq, Iran, and no now al qaeda's success with Bhutto's assassination. It is about judgment where it counts. The real question is where was or is Hillary's today? Over 2007, Clinton has maintained several different foreign policy stances. She is not consistent.

Posted by Tommy Ates, Austin, TX | December 27, 2007 6:16 PM

Once again the media is trying to spin a tragedy into their own political story.

The facts are that Obama WAS right on Pakistan. The facts are that Hillary and the other candidates criticized him on it, and then after many foreign policy experts applauded his stance, each began using his very words as if they were their own. The facts are, once again, judgment is more important than 'experience' (keeping in mind that even positioning Hillary as an 'experience' candidate is a stretch in the first place).

If there is any subtext to the horrible tragedy of Bhutto's death, it is that it did not have to happen if the right leadership was in place. Bhutto herself agreed with Obama's position.

Posted by Terri | December 27, 2007 6:32 PM

I agree with Mr. Axelrod . Hillary is trying to spin this for her advantage. He answered a question that all. If the American people get twisted by Hillary's crap well I guess we deserve what we get.

Posted by Erik | December 27, 2007 6:35 PM

Thank you Mr. Ambinder for writing about this. I'm glad I can count on the Atlantic to give us the full story. Other journalists seem to prefer making news by taking bits and pieces of an answer out of context to create conflict or to promote another candidate's agenda.

Posted by Mary C. McVey Christian | December 27, 2007 6:36 PM

As an Obama supporter, I could have done without the specific reference to Clinton's campaign. I don't think Obama is trying to make hay out of this issue, but any reference to another campaign is just the sort of thing the media loves to seize on as evidence of "politics as usual" on these occasions.

Posted by seanwright | December 27, 2007 6:44 PM

Obama was right again. He gave a speech a couple of months ago the we should focus on Afghanistan, Pakistan and Al Qaeda and Hillary and Dodd went after him for saying that.
Now the so called experience candidates are now figering out what to do.

He told us so, for the second time. When are we going to stop and listen to this guy?

Posted by Jay | December 27, 2007 6:45 PM

Thanks Alex for writing and expressing your thoughts on it.I also agree with Erik saying that
Hillary is trying to spin this for her advantage.

Posted by Nathan Banks | December 27, 2007 6:50 PM

This is becoming all too familiar. Obama says something eminently reasonable - not finishing the job in Afghanistan allowed al Qaeda and the Taliban to regroup and gave them and other extremists a base of operations to carry out attacks such as today's - and Hillary pounces on his "naivete."

Only, he's right, and Hillary will be forced to dial back her "very serious" critique in the days to come and slink away, arguing that she's ALWAYS maintained that allowing al Qaeda to regroup led to tragedies like the one we saw today.

Sigh. I only hope the media picks up on this in time. There's only 5 days left to get it right. Wake up Dems!

Posted by waka waka | December 27, 2007 7:42 PM

Listen David Axelrod is part of a Freaky Muslim Plan to to approve Child Molester Worshipping as a normal American past time. Muslims ( which is what Barack Obama is) worship a guy named Muhammad. It is historical fact that they worhip Muhammad as a prophet. Muhammad the Child Molester is like god to them. Barack Freaky Deek Hussein Obama supports sexual molestation of 13 year old relatives and eight year olds because The Prophet Muhammad whom he worships done so. Merica be careful. Barack Freeky Deek Hussein Obama is no good.

Posted by jacquesjacques | December 27, 2007 8:13 PM

the only spinning i see being done here is by David axelrod and the obama campaign, how anyone with any common sense could try to link the iraqi resolution vote and Bhutto's assissination is absurd, we don't even know who is responsible for the assissination yet, and David Axelrod and the obama campaign are trying to "vaguely" lay blame on Hillary Clinton! give me a freaking break.

Posted by Grace | December 27, 2007 8:28 PM

Axelrod was clearly trying to blame Hillary in an around about way to the assissination of Benazir Bhutto. it is now clear that Barack's momentum has come to a dramatic hault and now he is the desperate one.

Posted by Richard | December 27, 2007 8:31 PM

Obama clearly had to transform this event into a referendum on the vote to authorize engagement in Iraq, as Obama has no foreign policy experience. And notice that these statements came from Axelrod, a political operative, not one of Obama's foreign policy advisors.

Because the Obama campaign is struggling in Iowa, they had to trasformation Bhutto's assassination into a political event that would distract voters from his complete and utter lack of foreign policy experience. Too bad the strategy has backfired, which is why Axelrod is contacting reporters in a vain attempt to revise his remarks.

Posted by sauvage | December 27, 2007 8:48 PM

what i find ironic is...Obama has said he would invade pakistan, and is now saying we should overthrow musharif.....so let me get this straight..let's invade a nation that didn't attack us and replace their president with someone of our choosing and create a democratic nation of our liking in pakistan ....and he was against doing this in iraq? get real this man has no business even running for president.

Posted by grace | December 27, 2007 8:49 PM

Sorry folks but for all the moral outrage being generated regarding Mr. Axelrods comments, the man is indeed making a valid point. The vote to send our troops into Iraq based not only on the assertion that Iraq had WMD's but more importantly based on the argument that the Iraqi government were supporters of Al Qaeda was a grieveous mis-step. Now lets not get into all the minutiae that surrounds the debate as it is practiced today. Lets simply go back to that moment in time and a apply the KISS theory (Keep It Simply Stupid).

We were attacked by Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda and their leader along with all of his top people were based in Afganistan.

We elicit the help of Pakistan knowing that this would put their leaders in a very sensitive situation.

They accept based on our promise that we would keep our focus and not allow the Al Qaeda problem to become their problem.

We attack Al Qaeda in Afganistan (Rightly so!!) BUT!!

After clearing Al Qeada and the Taliban out of the cities and installing a new leader (at which point we had the support of the entire world by the way) we then take our eye of the ball and start a war with a country that had no responsiblity with the attacks on 9/11 and moreover it is a PRE-EMPTIVE war (Something the U.S. has never done!!)

We then committ the bulk of our military away from the actual perpertrators and become mired in a war that never had to be fought thereby allowing Al Qaeda and Bin Laden to dissapear over the mountains and into Pakistan.

This fatal error then leads to the destabilization of Pakistan due to the now extreamist ideology of Al Qaeda being added to the political mix in that country.

I could go on but I believe most of you are intelligent enough to connect the dots from here. i.e. unrest in increased extremist activity in the frontier areas and cities marshall law, the obvious resentment those factions would have toward a leader returning who is openly pro U.S. and looks as if the will win the looming election etc.

Actions and decisions and yes VOTES do have an effect on what takes place thereafter. No one would argue that Chamberlains decision to persue a policy of appeasment contributed greatly to WWII. Likewise that vote to authorize the war in Iraq has contributed greatly to the instability that now exists in Pakistan. This is only one of many sad things that may be a fruit of that vote. We can only pray that worse does not occur.

Hillary and all others who made the decision to vote in the way they did must look at that vote and recognize that the two are linked even if it was not their intention that this be a by product.

However when one, with all the self proclaimed experience, does not read the NIE and then says "If I knew then what I know now" expects us to then trust their judgement over one who, without all the information available to those with experience, got it total and completely right and said so. Well ….. Lets just say that was the point Mr. Alexrod was making and I believe he is correct.

Posted by Reggie, Germany | December 27, 2007 9:04 PM

You would think people bearing the name "Grace" will have some sense and an ability to think

Posted by Onlooking Non-American | December 27, 2007 9:42 PM

Obama blew his response to the new event (too stiff and boring as if he were talking about parking), and axelrod came out and overplayed his heavy handed message: he overplanted an inference that is repugnant trying to make a point that doesn't make any sense on a day when its completely inappropriate to 'go there'. The obama campaign looks innept and like the old way they have claimed not to be.
And then Axelrod tries to blame it on the media just like will smith in recent days tries to blame stupid media statements on the media.

Obama's campaign needed to look presidential today and they were ugly and obvious

Posted by michael | December 27, 2007 9:45 PM

When David Axelrod, Obama's strategist says, "there's just no fire there." What's so hard to believe? I think Obama's take on things Hillary is right-on, but he also knows her vote was inevitable, due to her constituency. "The real question is where was or is Hillary's today? Over 2007, Clinton has maintained several different foreign policy stances. She is not consistent." Hillary's inconsistency is legend, an alarming fact. When Hillary helped found Paranormal State University, only the Clintons and a hand-full of others, it seems, had even heard of Al Qaeda. Its taken us all awhile to catchup: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | December 27, 2007 9:59 PM

Obama, once again is right about Pakistan and he is right about Hillary Clinton. If the Taliban and OSL are in Pakistan and are trying to destabilize the Pakistani government so that it will be a safe haven for more terror, then the U.S. Government, who has declared war on Al Queda, should do everything it its power to support democracy in Pakistan, and support any effort to root out the terrorists there. What ever happend to 'dead or alive'?

Oh, yeah. Obama has NEVER advocated overthrowing the Pakistani government, NEVER advocated stoping millitary aid to the Pakistani army and intelligence agencies. He is too smart for that, and he has never been said a dumb thing since he has been in office. He is very, very careful.

Its Richardson and other so-called 'experienced' politicions that say irresponsible things like that.

All Obama has said, and what he said again today, is that the job against al queda is not done, that the Iraq war is a diversion from our real fight against radical extremists who bombed Washington and the World Trade Center. He wants Osama Bin Laden captured and brought to justice. He is too smart to be fooled by George W. Bush and he thinks that Clinton has failed by trying to out-war-monger the Bushies just so she can look tough.

Obama is going to win the Presidency. So all you idiots who want to believe crap about his ancestry, his race, his religion or his experience, be my guest. You are wrong.

Posted by Ellen Hamm | December 27, 2007 10:20 PM

Newsflash to Ellen Hamm: Obama's voting record on Iraq during the months and years in the senate are the same as Hillary's: they've funded the same war- whatever the reason. Also, saying that Obama wants Osama captured implies that he's the only candidate who wants this and that is a silly argument: you simply like his rhetoric better than everyone else's even though they all want this, even George Bush. Lumping concerns about Obama's experience in with "crap" about his ancestry, race and religion implies that it's equally without merit for any voter not to think about his very thin experience at the national and international level AND YET all of us are weighing candidates experience in this and every race for office: it is okay to worry about experience where as the other three issues are most often red herrings or bait for discrimination. We are rightly concerned about a candidates perparation and experience and won't be bullied by Obama's supporters into thinking we shouldn't.
Today "his closing message" for iowa claims he will bring together the red voters and blue voters but he is all talk: how will he do this?
He's never done it before and he doesn't do it now. He is just another pretty face like Edwards who wrongly feels entitled.

Posted by Michael | December 27, 2007 10:40 PM

As an independent, I am amazed by how very little rational thought certain supporters have; as if they have never been educated.

It also suggests why these supporters follow the people they do who are able to lie so much and still get away with it because the supporters are almost a cult incapable of any rational analysis.

To accuse Mr. Axelrod (a Jew) of a "freaky Moslem" conspiracy (by JacquesJacques) beggars belief!

To claim that it is not known who assassinated Mrs Bhutto (by Grace) is clearly symptomatic of a lack of education or of its application by deduction.

Bhutto on retuning to Pakistan vowed to defeat the extremists. she is a staunch Western - US ally. Al Zawahiri, Al-Qaeda's number 2 issued an edict calling on all followers to GET RID of her because he stated that she was a desperate attempt by the US to hold on to power in Pakistan.

No doubt statements will surface as they always do in these sort of situations by Bhutto herself predicting her own death, by terrorists from Rwanpindi, Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and accusations about state agency complicity within Pakistan itself.

The only real conclusion is that Pakistan the second largest Moslem country, nuclear armed, bordering Afghanistan and infiltrated by the Taliban and Al Qaeda is in turmoil. The extremists Taleban Al Qaeda axis is in the ascendancy.

The question that intelligent men and women should be asking is why? ANSWER - The war on terror which should have focussed on the Taliban Al Qaeda axis in Afghanistan to ensure a stable nuclear Moslem Pakistan is being waged, misguidedly, in Iraq. Who voted for that war? All the current Democratic contenders including Hillary Clinton supported and voted for the war in Iraq. The sole exception was Barack Hussein Obama, he spoke out publicly against that war.

All those experienced foreign policy advisers could not tell Hillary not to vote for it. Bill Clinton ex President called it wrong too and did not tell Hillary not to vote to it. Hillary and her supporters have every reason to be very very worried. The consequences of her vote are now coming home to roost!

The stakes are indeed very high. But it is not about foreign policy experience. IT IS ABOUT JUDGMENT!!!

The US is now seen as having no plan C. Plan A– Musharraf failing but could be helped by the US committing resources away from Iraq to Afghanistan, something Obama has been calling for for over 4 years. Plan B – Bhutto has failed. Is Pakistan now destined to become the next failed state like Afghanistan? Pray that the answer to that question is NO!

Posted by Ricardo | December 27, 2007 11:12 PM

These are dangerous times. I'm fervently hoping for a Democratic White House, but I'd likely vote for McCain over Obama. He's simply not ready for prime time when it comes to foreign policy. The presidency is not the place for on the job training. The Vice Presidency, on the other hand...

Posted by Jack | December 27, 2007 11:27 PM

Obama's right- judgment is more important than Washington experience. The war in Iraq was a huge mistake. He was against the war from the start, and he had the guts to speak out. Bush and Clinton lead us into this war. Barack voted to fund the the war they started, because he doesn't believe in making our troops pay for their leaders bad judgment. David Axelrod was asked a question, and he said what he believed. In fact he said what a lot of us believe, judgment trumps Washington experience.

Posted by Tina | December 27, 2007 11:59 PM

Newsflash to Michael: Read what Tina said. All the dems in office ERRED on the Iraq vote and the resulting war is why Pakistan has been destabilized. and Bhutto is dead.

Judgement trumps experience!!!

Posted by MCJ | December 28, 2007 1:46 AM

lol amazing...the obama supporters have drank the koolaid,

first of all we have no idea how Obama would have voted had he been in the senate, if his history tells us anything he probably would have skipped the vote to avoid taking a stand on a controversial issue (since he couldn't vote "present" in the us senate) as he skipped the non binding resolution on iran.
and he has stated he would invade pakistan lol
the man's judgement is skewed and without any real knowledge of world affairs. he is all fluff and no substance. and David Axelrod should apologize asap!

Posted by grace | December 28, 2007 5:30 AM

Lest we forget, Senator Barack Obama suggested the bombing of Pakistan as his solution to the terrorists there and is that not even worse than the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Senator Barack Obama is the most naive and unrealistic presidential candidate in the history of America.

The political fallacies and hypocrisies of Senator Barack Obama on the war in Iraq and the war on terror show his incompetence. His records are there for all to see in the Senate.

Expereience apart, Senator Barack Hussein Obama lacks the competence and intelligence to lead America.

The fact that this so called Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, would even think of blaming Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for the tragic assassination of Benazir Bhutto, has confirmed the incompertence of Senator Barack Obama and his political jive turkeys online and offline.

Posted by Orikinla Osinachi | December 28, 2007 10:33 AM

Talk about running a dirty negative sick campaign…. Obamas chief strategist campaign advisor, mintes after the Bhutto murder tried to link Senator Clinton!!!…talk about desperation in a camp!!!! Later, Axelrod backed away from his earlier statements. This obamacamp is sick, great example of Obamas people skills in selecting a chief strategist.
DES MOINES – Sen. Barack Obama directed fierce shots at his two chief rivals, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), as he delivered his new stump speech at the Scottish Rite Masonic Temple. Obama’s criticisms were just another example of his reneging on his campaign promise of running a different kind of campaign. Obama campaign also spent Thursday continuing to criticize Edwards for a labor-backed 527 group that is running ads on his behalf. Obama campaign fired off emails to supporters entitled “What’s really happening in Iowa.”This guy looks pretty sad.
After The New York Times published a story Thursday reporting that Obama voted “present” — instead of yes or no — almost 130 times,
Major doubts over Barack Obama’s foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. they underlined this message by pointing to reports showing that Mr Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman. There was also strikingly robust criticism from an independent Washington think-tank about a 'disconcerting void' over transatlantic relations in Mr Obama’s foreign policy, as well as from a former British Minister for Europe. "Mr Obama’s advisers claim he has an 'intuitive grasp' of world affairs. Like G. Bush Obama as too raw for the presidency. Argument carries weight with voters, including Obama admirers.
"Denis MacShane, a Minister for Europe in Mr Blair’s Government, said he had been troubled by comments Mr Obama had made on the Middle East peace process and the prospect of military action in Pakistan. He added: 'A lot of people are concerned that international policy is not his strongest suit. Obama turned down requests from other visiting foreign dignitaries, such as an Italian opposition leader who was told that the senator was in 'presidential mode' and only seeing leaders of countries." Angry Chinese officials are taking aim at Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama over his statement that he would 'stop the import of all toys from China.'
"The Illinois senator’s remarks, which came at an Iowa campaign stop Wednesday, were 'unobjective, unreasonable and unfair,' Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang told reporters at a Thursday briefing. 'Imagine if the quality of American products was not 100 percent up to standard. Could we take that as a reason to totally ban U.S. products?' We need to avoid electing another president like Bush who is not experienced in foreign policy.
___

Posted by Dale | December 28, 2007 10:35 AM

Questions about Senator Obama's shocking dearth of international experience: doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed, after it emerged he had made only one brief official visit to London - and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. Obama failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."These facts are a sobering counterpoint to a Boston Globe editorial that endorsed Obama for having "an intuitive sense of the wider world with all its perils and opportunities." Intuition may be a laudable quality among psychics and palm readers, but for a professional American diplomat it has no relevance to serious discussion of foreign policy. In fact, Obama's supposed "intuitive sense" is no different from George W. Bush's "instincts" and "gut feeling" describing his own foreign policy decision-making. We have been down this road before. The Politico -- Obama's "rookie mistakes:" Sen. Barack Obama's Democratic senator from Illinois "has also shown a tendency toward seemingly minor contradictions and rhetorical slips that serve as reminders that he is still a newcomer to national politics." we originally found ourselves a bit miffed that Sen. Obama has improved his fortunes so much. After all, as far as we can determine, the junior Senator from Illinois has distinguished himself for only two things: Uttering mind-numbing platitudes that would make the average politician blush and speaking ill-advisedly on matters of foreign policy.This, for example, was the guy who claimed he would blithely chat up Iran with no preconditions, right after he bombed Pakistan into the Stone Age. Well, that sounds pretty reasonable, doesn’t it? Tell us more about your deep-seated political wisdom, Sen. Obama.A foul-up again by the Obama campaign in South Carolina causing bad publicity in the home stretch. ministers have come forward and said they did not endorse Obama, despite their inclusion on his list of endorsements that the campaign had put out, .It could be that on a list of over 100 endorsements. Associated Press

Posted by Obama is a joke | December 28, 2007 10:37 AM

Ms. Bhutto: Well, I wouldn't like the United States to violate Pakistan's sovereignty with unauthorized military operations. But the issue that I would like to stress is that Barack Obama also said, if Pakistan won't act. And that's the critical issue, that the government has to act. And the government has to act to protect Pakistan's own serenity and integrity, its own respect, and to understand that if it creates a vacuum, then others aren't going to just twiddle their thumbs while militants freely move across the border.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmRiNGJjODNmZWZiM2I2NzgwMjE2NGVmOTNlN2YwYjA

Obama prothetic naive speech on August 1, 2007
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php

Posted by Obama is such a joke that Bhutto agreed with him | December 28, 2007 10:42 AM

does anyone know where to find obama's voting record in the Illinois senate? i would like to see the 130 bills that he voted "present"on.

Posted by grace | December 28, 2007 12:37 PM

Top 10 Contradictions in Obama
1. [Obama on Not just change political party but change the game and players in Washington] Then why play the same game at all with the same players whose support he now seeks? Does he realize that while his rhetoric may be ideal, it's not the pragmatic necessary and urgent issue/call for America at this time?

2. [Obama on the right kind and wrong kind of experience] Obama does not realize that what he has is the POTENTIAL to have the right kind of experience. Unfortunately, now is not the time and the Oval Office is not the place to be earning and learning that experience.

3. [Obama on judgment] One judgment call on the Iraq issue does NOT mean Obama would have good judgments on a gamut of complex issues. From what's been reported he has avoided making a vote on crucial issues. And he only has very limited experience to showcase an array of judgment calls, which did not even do that except showcase tasks that he did just as he ought to. It's not a fair claim by Obama.

4. [Obama on the Iraq issue] America does not live by "Iraq" alone. It is not even a simple right or wrong issue. Lucky Obama - the present sentiment is just rendering him to seem right. If he has no concrete and significant experience in the world stage and security matters, it would indeed be a gamble to have him as president.

5. [Obama on the establishment] How can Obama posture to bring a new face and a new way in the establishment when he brings with him a circle of close advisers and staff from the Clinton administration? Employing “Clinton minds” around him means he embraces the Clinton policies.

6. [Obama on his policies] His policies are hybrids from policies that have been strongly initiated by and identified with his rivals. He talks of what’s wrong with past policies and other candidates’ policies but does not have an original policy of his own. He wants people to look only to the future because he has INsufficient past to substantiate the rhetoric he gives in the present.

7. [Obama on hope] It will be unfair to speak of hope that does NOT rest on substance and can NOT stand on a concrete relevant experience to make it happen. That would be tantamount to a manipulation of a people's desperation.

8. [Obama on triangulation] He is equally guilty of triangulating. Most of the time he draws the first snipe and criticism. Then he complains of negativity when his rivals counter his (and his campaign’s) attacks. And at worst, he speaks in abstracts and generalities which give him room to parse. But his motives remain equally questionable.

9. [Obama on character] Other candidates have been in public eye longer than he has. Naturally there is more to be played up about their faults and failings. But it does not mean Obama has a better character than the rest. He simply is an unknown character. Perhaps his eagerness to be elected now has much to do with that - for time might soon catch up with his closet and be found more lacking in character. If that happens, the presidency would be more difficult for him to win.

10. [Obama on family values] It is good that he has not yet gone through serious marital and family problems. It’s expected given that he’s young and his marriage is new. But there is much more that can be said about family values with Hillary – forgiving an unfaithful husband that mirrors her capacity to heal a nation’s wounds – raising a decent daughter that mirrors her capacity to restore respectability to America – showing personal strength and discipline that mirrors her capacity to be commander-in-chief – keeping generational bonds in the family that mirrors her capacity to inspire bipartisanship.

Obama may be good and experienced enough for Illinois but not yet for America.

Posted by MG | December 28, 2007 10:05 PM