Edwards: Axelrod's Comments About Bhutto And Hillary "Ridiculous"

Comments (67)

CalD wrote on December 28, 2007 4:51 PM:

Thank you, John. My sentiments exactly.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 28, 2007 4:53 PM:

"It's ridiculous. It's a ridiculous stretch," said Edwards.

Indeed. No argument there (at least not from me).

Anonymous wrote on December 28, 2007 4:55 PM:

hmmm... why would Johnny think that? oh, that's right! nevermind.

LJ wrote on December 28, 2007 4:57 PM:

John voted for authorization too. As such it's not exactly shocking he would rebut criticism of "yes" votes for authorization.

Anonymous wrote on December 28, 2007 4:59 PM:

Sen Edwards..President Musharaff on line 1, Joe Trippi on line 2 hairdresser on line 3

brewmn wrote on December 28, 2007 4:59 PM:

John Edwards, running for President of Iowa. Good luck with all that, John, because smart money says you don't make it to February 5 whether you win or lose in Iowa.

vena wrote on December 28, 2007 5:02 PM:

Strength and calm? That's all you've got for us John. Let us not figure out why we things are the way they are; let's just stay calm, pretend it doesn't affect us, and refuse to realize our mistakes.

We are so screwed.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 28, 2007 5:04 PM:

John voted for authorization too. As such it's not exactly shocking he would rebut criticism of "yes" votes for authorization.

Sure, sure, Sen Edwards' statement is not entirely disinterested. He stands to lose just as much as Sen Clinton if folks buy into Mr Axelrod's argument. That said, the fact that Sen Edwards has a dog in this fight does not mean that his analysis is off base. To my mind, Mr Axelrod's claim is a stretch (and I am an Obama supporter, so this is hardly just my bias talking). He was arguing that if Bhutto was assasinated by Pakistani Taliban-affiliates and if these Talibanis were helped to regroup by our Iraq misadventure, then this means that those senators who voted to authorize the president to invade Iraq (Clinton & Edwards included) share a modest measure of the blame for her death. Neither of those "ifs" are wildly implausible, but neither of them is a dead certainty either. When your argument is built on an "if" premised on another "if," then it is a "stretch" and Sen Edwards is right to identify it as such.

Michael A wrote on December 28, 2007 5:09 PM:

Greg, I respectfully disagree that its a ridiculous stretch. Axelrod's point, which is getting drowned out by the spinning of the clinton II campaign, is that the iraq war has greatly increased instability in the region.

Here are the points,

1. Invading Iraq has increased anti-american sentiment in the muslim world.

2. By invading Iraq we diverted military and political resources from the afghanistan and pakistan areas.

3. By not committing enough military and political power in the area, we have permitted al qaeda and the taliban to regroup in pakistan.

We have either directly or indirectly increased the instability of pakistan by these acts. This instability and the radicals and jihadists that have developed are in part due to our diversion in iraq.

That was the point. Did he say clinton II did it? Nope. Did he say a + b = c? Nope. He said the instability in the region is the result of our policies. That instability may or may not have been part of the cause of the assasination. Why is that such a problem? I really don't see it, absent the ridiculous spinning that is going on.

BluePuppy wrote on December 28, 2007 5:10 PM:

Obama peaked too early. This is going to put him in third place behind Hillary and then Edwards.

DTM wrote on December 28, 2007 5:12 PM:

Greg DeLassus,

But that is not in fact what Axelrod argued. He did argue that the Iraq War was tied to Al Qaeda being resurgent and a force in Pakistan. He also suggested that Al Qaeda may have been involved in Bhutto's death, but his argument did not actually depend on that being true. Rather, his point was about the broader picture involving Al Qaeda and Pakistan and how it reflected on the judgment of those who supported the Iraq War.

colonpowwow wrote on December 28, 2007 5:17 PM:

Yeah, and it's a good thing that once he got into the Senate where he could put his high ideals into practice, Senator Obama distanced himself from Senator Clinton on the war by voting in lockstep with her on every issue surrounding it - except for that one time he didn't show up to register a vote.

But he said he disagreed with her (like he did once before famously), and that's the kind of show of strength that counts with American voters.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 28, 2007 5:25 PM:

But that is not in fact what Axelrod argued.

Hm, I find that claim rather unconvincing. Mr Axelrod was asked "does the assassination put on the front burner foreign policy credentials in the closing days?" He replied

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 in this.

Mr Axelrod's argument, then, for Sen Obama's superior judgement is that diverting our attention from Afghanistan allowed Al Qaeda to regain their footing (as it happens, I agree with Sen Obama and Mr Axelrod on this much). This only works as an answer to the question (concerning the assassination) if one grants the premise that Al Qaeda was at all involved in the murder (hence Mr Axelrod's suggestion of the premise at the end of his answer). Given that we do not know this to be the case, however, the answer is hopelessly speculative. Sen Edwards is right to call that a stretch.

To be very clear, I do believe that Mr Axelrod is right to claim that Sen Obama is possessed of demonstrably better judgement than either Sen Clinton or Sen Edwards. I simply do not think that his attempt to link this to PM Bhutto's murder is at all convincing. That said, for the record, I do not think that Clinton and Edwards folks' attempts to spin Mr Axelrod's (unconvincing) argument as a major "gaffe" is any more convincing than Mr Axelrod's original argument.

mkolb wrote on December 28, 2007 5:26 PM:

"...about the broader picture involving Al Qaeda and Pakistan and how it reflected on the judgment of those who supported the Iraq War."

Including those who have continued to vote for funding it? All the while saying they are anti-war? Hmmm. Apparently, talk is cheap.

seanwright wrote on December 28, 2007 5:27 PM:

I think you have it backwards Mr. Powwow. I think Senator Clinton has tried to make sure there isn't any light between her and Senator Obama since he's been in the Senate.

LJ wrote on December 28, 2007 5:28 PM:

Colon:

Once we send our troops into battle, shouldn't they be given the funding they need to perform their mission to the best of their ability? Once a bunch of morons vote in favor of an unnecessary invasion, shouldn't we give our troops every dime they need to be effective and win the war as fast and efficiently as possible so that they can return home safe and sound? That's what Obama's votes on the Iraq war have done. What's your problem with that?

willyjsimmons wrote on December 28, 2007 5:31 PM:

'Rather, his point was about the broader picture involving Al Qaeda and Pakistan and how it reflected on the judgment of those who supported the Iraq War.'

See Greg...

that's how it all started yesterday.

'By not committing enough military and political power in the area, we have permitted al qaeda and the taliban to regroup in pakistan.'

We don't have any 'political power' in the area...outside of supporting the military backed regime. Obviously we cannot dictate what Musharraf will do, other than cutting off funding, which Musharraf might well be willing to do without in order to avoid giving up power.

My guess is, the administration doesn't want an honest election without being able to ensure that the person they want to win, will actually win.

See Hamas.

And the PPP is a socialist party.

(nothing wrong with that, but Chavez is the boogie monster ya know!)

willyjsimmons wrote on December 28, 2007 5:34 PM:

'shouldn't we give our troops every dime they need to be effective and win the war as fast and efficiently as possible so that they can return home safe and sound?'

Karl?

LJ wrote on December 28, 2007 5:36 PM:

This only works as an answer to the question (concerning the assassination) if one grants the premise that Al Qaeda was at all involved in the murder

I'd argue that Al Quaida's presence in Pakistan is a destabilizing force in the country whether or not they are directly responsible for the assassination. I think their presence directly contributes to the political unrest there.

DTM wrote on December 28, 2007 5:37 PM:

Greg DeLassus,

Well, but consider the question Axelrod was answering. It was:

"But looking ahead, does the assassination put on the front burner foreign policy credentials in the closing days?"

Now that is a very vague question. It basically asks the respondent to tie the assassination into a much broader issue (the relevance of "foreign policy credentials" to the primaries), as opposed to asking for a specific statement on the assassination itself. So I actually think it makes perfect sense for Axelrod to respond by doing exactly what he did, namely by tying the assassination into a much broader context.

LJ wrote on December 28, 2007 5:37 PM:

willyjsimmons:

Please explain how depriving our troops of funds and equipment increases their chances of survival.

cms wrote on December 28, 2007 5:38 PM:

My understanding is that the question was more along the lines of: "Does this event help Clinton as the person purporting to have more experience?" (i.e., it WAS a political question and not a generic one.)

That said, it was a trap and Axelrod stepped right into it. Instead of making his case at that moment, he should have just said that he was confident Obama could stand up to any argument and he was not going to appear to politicize the event. But... woulda, coulda, shoulda. It happened and now they have to figure out how to get through it.

DTM wrote on December 28, 2007 5:39 PM:

By the way, Senator Obama did in fact introduce the Iraq De-escalation Act of 2007, which would have removed all combat troops from Iraq by March of 2008.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 28, 2007 5:45 PM:

'Please explain how depriving our troops of funds and equipment increases their chances of survival.'

strawman.

If the Dems had any courage, they wouldn't pass a thing until the DOD abandons Bush.

Hyper-partisanship baby!

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 28, 2007 5:47 PM:

[C]onsider the question Axelrod was answering. It was... a very vague question.

Sure, no argument there. Mr Axelrod was asked a stupid question (as Sen Obama rightly pointed out) and gave a silly answer in response. The campaign hardly covered itself in glory there, but this is why I think that the attempt on the part of the Clinton campaign to paint this as a serious gaffe is rather less than convincing. There is just no story here.

Senator Obama did in fact introduce the Iraq De-escalation Act of 2007, which would have removed all combat troops from Iraq by March of 2008.

Indeed he did, and thank you for pointing that out. Those critiquing Sen Obama's votes on funding might do well to remember that cutting off the funds does not necessarily bring home the troops. It simply leaves them stuck in an even worse situation.

LJ wrote on December 28, 2007 5:54 PM:

willyj:

Kucinich your guy?

nogo war wrote on December 28, 2007 5:55 PM:

C'mon folks Ax screwed up less than a week from Iowa. OF COURSE the other campaigns are going to jump on it..
This automatically not only puts Obama on the defensive when it should be all offense, but obviously does the same for his supporters as seen here..
As long as we are on the subject of Campaign Managers, anyone notice, that like Edwards, Trippi seems to have learned from 2003-4?

willyjsimmons wrote on December 28, 2007 5:57 PM:

'Those critiquing Sen Obama's votes on funding might do well to remember that cutting off the funds does not necessarily bring home the troops.'

There are various types of 'funds' to cut off...like those no bid contracts for example.

No one is talking about operational funds.

That's a right-wing talking point.

And like I said, I'd be perfectly happy with a government shutdown in the meantime.

If it's a matter of principle...

yesterday gone wrote on December 28, 2007 5:58 PM:

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 28, 2007 5:47 PM:

Those critiquing Sen Obama's votes on funding might do well to remember that cutting off the funds does not necessarily bring home the troops. It simply leaves them stuck in an even worse situation.

i can't believe people need this pointed out to them.

AJ wrote on December 28, 2007 5:59 PM:

Moments like this reveal the true character of a candidate. The instinct of Obama and his team was to play petty politics instead of supplying leadership and acting as a stabilizing force. While Clinton reacted with restraint and John Edwards was calling Musharraf to urge an independent investigation into the assassination, Obama was trying to pin the blame on one of his opponents. Obama just disqualified himself from consideration for the nomination, in my opinion.

kjoe wrote on December 28, 2007 6:00 PM:

BluePuppy wrote on December 28, 2007 5:10 PM:
Obama peaked too early. This is going to put him in third place behind Hillary and then Edwards.

I fear that has happened---but while McCain might seem like a rebel for a republican---independents and centrist democrats look at him as someone similar to Hillary. McCain's peaking this week could hurt --who knows? in the democrats. If the Pakistan issue calms down---or is joined by a new crisis in Iraq or Kosovo---it is hard to guess who will be peaking 6 days from now.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 28, 2007 6:01 PM:

'Kucinich your guy?'

I'm far crazier than that.

Gravel.

yesterday gone wrote on December 28, 2007 6:02 PM:

willyjsimmons wrote on December 28, 2007 5:57 PM:

There are various types of 'funds' to cut off...like those no bid contracts for example.

obama's "transparency in government spending" legislation seeks to highlight spending like that.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 28, 2007 6:04 PM:

C'mon folks Ax screwed up less than a week from Iowa. OF COURSE the other campaigns are going to jump on it.

Sure, but what does that say? There is no obvious leader in the Iowa battle, but clearly Obama is still in the running to win IA, which means that he is a mortal threat to both Clinton and Edwards (the latter especially). Obviously then, they have an interest in hitting him with whatever they've got in this last stretch, so when they are reduced to pouncing on this it belies a certain weakness on their own parts as well.

willyjsimmons wrote on December 28, 2007 6:08 PM:

'obama's "transparency in government spending" legislation seeks to highlight spending like that.'

ROFL

Where is it at?

Good luck getting it passed the republicans (and Harry Reid).

Have a nice weekend everyone!

dcshungu wrote on December 28, 2007 6:11 PM:

vena wrote on December 28, 2007 2:12 PM:

I think Obama has peaked and I don't think he'll win Iowa. I think Clinton is going to get the nomination anyway. It's very sad that this is the best the dems have to offer, you'd think that after 8 years they could gather up some better candidates.

Obama can count the votes as well as anyone. Since his 'yea' vote was not needed to pass any of the war funding bills, he could have voted his conscience...

Pandora wrote on December 28, 2007 6:21 PM:

Something that has always bothered me about Sen Obama's exploitation of "I was against the war in 2002 (when I was not in senate)" I am not sure if Sen Obama has ever answered this question. If he was so much against the Iraq war in 2002-03, if he felt so passionately about it then why did he vote for war funding (giving GWB a blank check to continue war) after he got in senate in 2005 and 2006. If he was so troubled by Hillary, Edwards, Biden and Dodd voting for giving GWB authorization for Iraq war why hasn't he provided any leadership to end the war. In fact his voting record on Iraq war has been identical to Sen Clinton except one vote to confirm Gen Casey.

May be one of his supporters can explain this.

I am attaching a link from the leftcoaster.com comparing positions of Sen Obama and Sen Clinton on varitey of issues including Iraq.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011470.php

yesterday gone wrote on December 28, 2007 6:22 PM:

willyjsimmons wrote on December 28, 2007 6:08 PM:

laugh if you must but he got the ethics reform bill passed.

he got tough stuff passed while he was in the state senate too. while his party was in the minority to boot.

Pandora wrote on December 28, 2007 6:26 PM:

One more thought. If we use Axelrod's logic then Doesn't Sen Obama bear some responsibility to Mrs Bhutto's death by his continued support to fund the Iraq war since 2005?

seanwright wrote on December 28, 2007 6:30 PM:

Pandora: the box was opened when the Iraq War Resolution was passed. We cannot go back in time and undo what was done in 2002. If every last individual in congress were to vote against funding, it would not undo any of the harm that was done by going into Iraq in the first place. So, I think your point is fairly spurious. Moments of truth (like the Iraq War Resolution) only come along once in a while and you either make the right call or you get steamrolled by the Bush administration.

Dave wrote on December 28, 2007 6:32 PM:

willyjsimmons -

ROFL

Where is it at?

Good luck getting it passed the republicans (and Harry Reid).

It passed last year.

yesterday gone wrote on December 28, 2007 6:38 PM:

willyjsimmons wrote on December 28, 2007 6:08 PM:

"'obama's "transparency in government spending" legislation seeks to highlight spending like that.'"

ROFL
Where is it at?
Good luck getting it passed the republicans (and Harry Reid).
Have a nice weekend everyone!

last laugh is on you, willy.

didn't realize obama already got this passed in 2006.

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/good_government_responsible_spending/

Restricting No-Bid Contracts
Senator Obama has been a leader in the fight to prevent the abuse of no-bid contracts.

while obama is rooting out wasteful spending, hillary is the earmark queen.

yesterday gone wrote on December 28, 2007 6:39 PM:

dave beat me to it.

Pandora wrote on December 28, 2007 6:40 PM:

Seanwright,

That is bunch of bull. Moments of truth came every time GWB asked for more and more money to continue the Iraq war. You know that and I think you are just trying to find a cop out for your guy. Here is another one. Sen Obama including Sen Clinton and Edwards won't vow for full with drawl of troops from Iraq until 2013.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/27/dems.debate.ap/

I am not arguing about Sen Obama's positions on Iraq war before got in the Senate and I think he should be proud of that but once he got in senate he has absolutely done 180 degrees turnaround and voted like everyone else. Thing that bothers me is him criticizing HRC and others about their war vote in 2002 but he voted exactly the same once he got in senate.

seanwright wrote on December 28, 2007 6:43 PM:

Nice try Dave! Nobody but nobody is that skilled a politician and that visionary a leader. And no one could possibly work across party lines to get something truly good accomplished. Yeah, I clicked on your link, but still, I'm not buying it.

Besides, Hillary has her own record of bipartisan accomplishment. She courageously reached across the aisle to sponsor an amendment to the Constitution to ban flag burning (go Hill). And she bravely stood shoulder to shoulder with George Bush to authorize spying on American (yay Sen. Clinton); and she boldly held the door open for George W Bush so he could lead the march to war.

Even if Barack Obama's little government transparency bill were real (and I'm not conceding it is) it is dwarfed by Senator Clinton's record of bi-partisan accomplishment.

roo_P wrote on December 28, 2007 6:51 PM:

Pandora,

I am not going to defend him too much but you are probably familiar with the term "Pandora's Box" :) It is a hard thing to close, apparently, once it has been opened.

Yeah, I would absolutely have wanted for him (and others) to have properly curtailed funding but I do not fault him -- or Clinton for that matter -- too much, the real failure has been the Democratic leadership. The only bills that are really getting to vote are the "bad" bills, there are no alternatives to vote for. So "voting one's conscience" happens much earlier in the process.

On the other hand, Obama successfully got the De-escalation Act passed which is a notch for him.

Tom wrote on December 28, 2007 6:54 PM:

Obama might have lost the election for good with this mistake by Axelrod. If the media did their job, Hillary would be exposed as a hypocrite and also lose the election, but they clearly prefer her over Edwards.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 28, 2007 7:13 PM:

Obama might have lost the election for good with this mistake by Axelrod.

Gosh, this strikes me as so much wishful thinking. I guess, however, that we will see in a few days time. I have been wrong before.

yesterday gone wrote on December 28, 2007 7:18 PM:

if anybody should punish the candidate for their campaign manager (how many voters are motivated by this?) it should be hillary for hiring union busting republican mark penn

DTM wrote on December 28, 2007 8:18 PM:

Again, I think it is useful to look at Obama's Iraq De-escalation Act of 2007. Obama has always maintained that the only responsible way to get out combat troops out of Iraq is a phased withdrawal, which is what the legislation he introduced would have achieved.

PA wrote on December 28, 2007 11:37 PM:

Wow, I read the comments and wonder which planet most of TPM readers inhabit?

"Invading Iraq has increased anti-american sentiment in the muslim world".

FYI, most of you perhaps do not realize that the clash of Muslim world and the West was and is inevitable.

Unless one has, or ones forbears has, lived under the sword of Islam, one will not understand this.

The liberal values we cherish has no place in Islam. To give you folks just one example - one is NOT a muslim if one is governed by non-muslim. As simple as that.

So Obama may talk and talk about talking with these folks and straighten out a few things.

While the true killer of Bhutto gets a free pass. I am talking about Islam - the real, true killer of Bhutto.

Anonymous wrote on December 28, 2007 11:44 PM:

Obama gets even more desperate, saying wife won't let him run again if he loses this time.

Pathetic.

CalD wrote on December 29, 2007 12:02 AM:

Anonymous: I imagine she'll come around. Give her a few years.

sharon wrote on December 29, 2007 2:29 AM:

The liberal values we cherish has no place in Islam.

So PA, can you tell me then why Bush thought it was such a great idea to go into Iraq and impose a western style democracy on the country? Or why Hillary and JE thought it was such a good idea they voted for it too?

CalD wrote on December 29, 2007 2:45 AM:

PA: There have been plenty of brutal dictatorships in Christian countries. I really don't think our own record on this side of the world is so clean that we need to be pointing a lot of fingers at others.

PA wrote on December 29, 2007 8:47 AM:

Sharon, If you go back and read some of the debates and writings at the time of Iraq adventure, you will find that one of the main agenda (of Bush, Chenney) was creating a new realty. They have the new realy, and we are stuck with it.

The pundits and the masses may believe that we are all screwed up in Iraq. I think Bush and Chenney considers what is happening in Iraq as exactly what they were wanting to happen. I do not think it was a good idea but now that it has been done (with or without HRC and JE) we need to make sure it comes out right for US. Obama cannot pull that off.

Cal, there were and there are brutal dictatorships in countries which are Christian. But hardly any, in the modern times, are based on Christianity and or are accepted as such. As a non Christian (and non Jew), I look at Islam as the greatest danger to our values. Once you understand that Islam killed Bhutto, you will understand a lot.

Kefa wrote on December 29, 2007 9:39 AM:

The mommy won't let me run ploy...lol my word. It's now or never. There will never be another capable black man/person/Dem who can never ever, never. Wow, and he's NOT a political person???? Wake up. I guess he'll leave the Senate next huh? Wow. Let me rethink me vote here.....lol.

MarkL wrote on December 29, 2007 9:42 AM:

Pandora,
Obama's passion about the war is phony.
He took down his 2002 speech from his website in 2003, explaining that the site needed "new content" now that the "formal phase" of the war was over.

There's another problem with Obama/Axelrod's position which hasn't gotten enough attention. Obama claims that Pakistan is unstable because the US didn't put enough troops in the region to hunt Al Qaeda. While I agree that capturing Bin Laden and taking down Al Qaeda is in our national interest, I find it ludicrous to imagine that the region would be more stable if more US troops were there. In fact, looking at Iraq, there is good reason to suspect the opposite.

Michael A wrote on December 29, 2007 10:19 AM:

Good point markl, however, if we went in with overwhelming force originally, as opposed to dummy's philosophy of minimal force, we could have cleared the area quickly, captured and killed the bad guys and got out as quickly as possible. Instead, we allowed them to escape to pakistan and regroup. Now we have a much bigger problem than we would have in the first instance.

I agree large numbers of us troops would not necessarily be good in the long term now. Maybe a short term clearing by a large number of troops and then pull out. The afghan army is coming around, unlike the iraqi army. Also, we might be able to get other muslim allies to contribute troops for stability once we took out the bad guys, so that we could get out. The problem now is noone wants to get their people killed in a meatgrinder, which is what both iraq and afghanistan are turning out to be because we didn't do the job right the first time.

Michael A wrote on December 29, 2007 10:58 AM:

PA, you need to do some research and stop listening to the right wing morons like insanity and lush. You are way, way off base.

Let's see, modern christian dictators. I guess that depends on your definition of modern and what a dictator is. I would submit that the latin american dictators over the last century where christian. They weren't muslim. The european dictators were all christian. They weren't muslim.

How on earth can islam "threaten our values"? That is truly an absurd and uninformed statement. The only actual threat to our values it the use of a phoney islam concocted by right-wing loons to actually threaten our values. That's not islam's fault. That's our fault and the "christian" leadership in the administration and in this country.

RuthieM wrote on December 29, 2007 12:51 PM:

Of course Edwards is saying this is ridiculous because he too voted for Bush to invade Iraq, so he tries to have a clear conscience here and this is the only way he can. He knows exactly what Obama and Axelrod are saying, that by THEM, he and Hillary, voting to authorize the invasion of Iraq, it diverted monies and military from Pakistan and Afghanistan, which is absolutely correct and which Obama stated in an earlier debate when they all laughed and called him naive, and now they are echoing and seeing come to pass exactly what Obama said back then but because they want to win this election they and the media are attacking Obama when it is Edwards and Hillary who should be attacked for their Iraq vote which diverted us away from Pakistan and Afghanistan.
OBAMA '08!!

CalD wrote on December 29, 2007 2:12 PM:

PA: There's a big difference between Islam and Islamism, just as there's a huge difference between Christianity and Christianism. All religions may contain the seeds of fascism but they can only take root and grow when mixed with extremism and intolerance. The overwhelming majority of the world's muslims are no more extremist about their religion than your average American Christian is about theirs.

Sure, there are guys like Osama Bin Laden and there are guys like the Timothy McVeigh. And for that matter, the catholics and protestants in Northern Ireland haven't always gotten along a lot better than the Sunnis and the Shia's in central Iraq. Fact is, you really never have to look too far to find examples of violent religious extremism. Organized religion in general has been responsible for evil and bloodshed in human history than any five or six of your seven deadly sins combined.

But extremism is dangerous in any form. Doesn't have to be religious. And it remains the vast majority of all religious people everywhere are in no way extremists. They're just people who say their prayers and try to get through their day as best they can, same as everybody else. In the middle east in particular, just getting through the day can often take everything a person's got. Not many people really go looking for trouble. If a lot of people were doing it, it wouldn't even be called "extremism," now would it.

Jeremy wrote on December 29, 2007 3:32 PM:

I thought that Edwards apologized for supporting the shift of focus from aQ and the Taliban to Iraq? Is he taking that back now? At least Hillary can say that she's stood by her support for shifting the focus to Iraq.

PA wrote on December 29, 2007 9:13 PM:

Mike, CalD -

Now why would you start with a lecture re whom I should or should not listen. At the risk of sounding defensive, I say that I have not watched one show of insanity and moron, ever. However I do confess that some of my views on the subjet are directly due to my reading of Steinbeck and Naipaul. Allow me to lead you a bit on that -

East of Eden, a classic, takes us back to the Hebrew bible and brings the word Timshel. You may want to read that book. Timshel. Roughly translated means, 'thou mayest'. This great book, the Hebrew bible, introduces the concept of Free will, roughly 3000 years ago.

A about 1000 years ago, man walks down from the mountain and declars need for submission. Islam means submission. To the will of god. Thats as simple as it gets. There exists no free will once you accept Islam. That one great (but necessary) flaw turns that religion into what it has been since last 1000 years and what it has become the past ten years.

Naipaul's two book and one lecture at the Manhattan Institure in early 1990s takes us to heart of issue.

My liberal, secular values are threatened by Islam. And Islam killed Bhutto. I would not accuse you of making "uninformed statements". Do read the two authors and world will look a little different. There is less gray and more black and white.

CalD - There is no difference between Islam and Islamism. When you submit, and give up free will (your soul, if you please), they become one. It is futile to bring out the same arguement over and over - McVeigh was against Govt tyranny. Bin Laden is FOR tyranny of God.

A flaming liberal I consider myself, I will not give up my freedom just to be politically correct and Islam is like any other religion. It is NOT.

Peggy McGilligan wrote on December 29, 2007 11:22 PM:

The Clintons trained as lawyers, Edwards is a lawyer; every lawyer knows, whatever the case may be, it's always about first causes. Period: http://theseedsof9-11.com

CalD wrote on December 29, 2007 11:28 PM:

PA: When you come right down to it, even in you believe everything you read about Muslims on NewsMax, FreeRepublic, or any other frothing-at-the-mouth, right-wing psychotic web site on the internet, they still pose no really vital threat to us in this country. Fundamentalist Muslim extremists (or fundamentalist Christianist extremists, for that matter) may blow up a few of our buildings, but as terrible a tragedy as those incidents may be, they pose no fundamental threat to our way of life unless they let them. We have a lot more buildings than the Muslim world has violent extremists.

If you want to worry about religious extremists who pose a very clear and present danger to our basic freedoms and out very way of life in this country, be afraid, very afraid, of the Christianist extremists who hold our very own Republican party in the Siberian ball grip. Those are the only religious extremists that that real Americans realistically need to fear.

CalD wrote on December 29, 2007 11:31 PM:

correction:

...they pose no fundamental threat to our way of life unless we let them...

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)