John Edwards Acts Presidential After Benazir Bhutto Assassinated


The fact is that events such as the assassination of Benazir Bhutto will have an impact on the Iowa caucus.  International events have a direct impact on the voters, and the death of Bhutto shows the folly to Bush’s foreign policy in Pakistan and the Middle East.  So it was important to watch the various presidential candidates as they talked on Thursday after the news of the assassination became known.

While Hillary Clinton and others talked John Edwards acted, as CNN reported.

“I actually spoke to President Musharraf just a few minutes ago as I was about to come in here,” Edwards told an audience at Luther College here. “And he was in Islamabad. And I urged him to continue this democratization process … I also urged him to allow international investigators into Pakistan to determine the facts.”

Edwards told reporters after the event that the investigators are needed “for transparency purposes and credibility purposes to determine what happened.”

The former senator said he had put in a request with Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States earlier this morning to speak with Musharraf, and that Musharraf called him back before the town hall meeting.

“He called me because I told the ambassador I would like to speak to him,” Edwards said. “I met him a few years ago, which I think I told you earlier.”

Edwards would not reveal whether Musharraf welcomed the idea of an independent investigation into the Bhutto attack.

“I’m going to let him speak for himself. I don’t think it would be responsible to make an announcement on that,” he said.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

7 thoughts on “John Edwards Acts Presidential After Benazir Bhutto Assassinated

  1. Patrick

    Why does his demonstrate Edwards’ presidential qualities? He made a request that carries no weight. He got a courtesy call back. Wow.

    But more importantly, how does Bhutto’s death show the folly of the Bush administration’s policy in Pakistan? Did you want Bush to invade Pakistan to protect Bhutto? Or, was the diplomatic effort on Bush’s part to release her from house arrest the mistake? Or, is it that you can’t resist any opportunity to trash Bush even when there is little or nothing he could have done in this matter?

  2. Bush failed in that the policy he pushed in regards to Pakistan failed. There was no accountability for the billions of dollars that we sent to Pakistan to insure that a real fight was being waged in the hunt for terrorists and Bin Laden. Bush thought the Pakistan President was the only way to deal with Pakistan, and there were countless voices around the county and globe that said that idea was fatally flawed. We should have demanded his removal a long time ago. We are always behind the curve when it comes to these type of leaders.

    The Army in Pakistan is detested, and Musharraf is hated.

    Henry Kissinger upon the death of Leonid Brezhnev reminded a news anchor during an interview, that American foreign policy should never be tied to a personality. Our natioanl interests transcend any one leader of any nation. Bush disagreed. His swagger was more important to him than thoughtful discourse on Pakistan. The nation of Pakistan is larger than Russia, and yet from the way Bush has handled this matter for 8 years one would never know that.

  3. Yes Pakistan is larger than Russia. It has more people than Russia.
    Pakistan: 165 million people
    Russia: 143 million people

    For pete’s sake did you honestly think I was talking about land mass, dude?

  4. Patrick

    How do you know that Bush thought the Pakistani president was “the only way?” And we should have demanded his removal in favor of who? The terrorists?
    And while you’re right about the wasted billions we have given to pakistan for it eternal war with india, what other options were there? If Bush had abandoned Musharraf, Bhutto would still be imprisoned now. The terrorists would be operating even more freely in that country.

    And Edwards called Musharraf to echo the position of the Bush administration. Why is that so presidential?

  5. twr

    I think Patrick seems to feel that you are only talking about the removal of support for Musharraf since Bhutto returned to Pakistan. I get the impression he may not have been following the Pakistan story for the years that most of us have. Reading his comments makes me think he discovered the nation that day Bhutto died. The international voices have pleaded for years to end the cozy relationship with Musharraf, and Bush as you say in another post ‘swaggered’ instead of doing the hard work of laying the groundwork for a sound foreign policy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s