Posted on 12/27/2007 12:40:29 PM PST by 3AngelaD
Compare and contrast. Whose judgment do you trust?
THOMPSON: Thompson, said he suspected al-Qaida was responsible for the attack. "The chance that a secular woman had a possibility of ascending to power in Pakistan drove the more radical Islamic elements in the country to violence," Thompson said.
The former Tennessee senator said the Bhutto assassination was "part of a much larger picture. This is an international war we are engaged in," he emphasized.
"Bhutto's assassination is not a law enforcement matter. This is a global conflict, and al-Qaida wants to bring Western civilization to its knees." Thompson said he hopes the Bhutto assassination won't bring the democracy process to a halt in Pakistan.
"We have seen progress in Pakistan with Musharraf taking off the uniform, declaring an end to martial law and calling for elections early next year," he said. "Now, there will be a temptation for the Pakistani government to declare an emergency and put back martial law, just to retain stability."
Thompson stressed the urgency of retaining stability in Pakistan, because the nation has nuclear weapons.
"It could be a lot worse if those nukes fall into the wrong hands," he said. "Right now, the question of stability is paramount in the short run in Pakistan."
GIULIANI: He called the terrorist attack that took Bhutto's life tragic and jarring for the people of Pakistan, and said it reminds Americans that President Bush made the "right decision to go on offense" against Islamic terrorism.
The former mayor also suggested "doubling our forces" in and around the region.
Giuliani invoked September 11th when mentioning this morning's carnage in which at least two dozen were killed, saying both events show a different kind of world he says we live in under current terrorist threats. When asked about his new campaign ad that emphasizes his role on 9/11, he said it provides "proportionate emphasis" on an event "that was an important part of my life."
He also justified its political appropriateness by saying that Hillary Clinton and President Bush have used images and references to 9/11 while campaigning for office.
In regards to a national security response to the assasination of Bhutto, Giuliani said "We should take a look at what we have in Afghanistan...and see if our efforts there are as effective as they should be. I have a feeling...we should increase our efforts in Afghanistan, which is on the border of Pakistan."
Giuliani made the statements after meeting with Florida veterans, and listened to their concerns about everything from insurance paperwork the size of the military
"There's no question that we need to increase the Marines to at least 200,000," said Giuliani, who has continuously said he will increase the size of the U.S. Military if elected president.
McCAIN: "I think we all can appreciate why this is so important to America. Pakistan is our ally in our war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. I think you know that Pakistan is a nuclear armed state... I think you also know that there has been a lot of domestic upheaval going on in that country. And apparently it was proceeding to a situation where Musharraf would step down as the leader of the military and was running for president. He very likely was going to succeed there, and Benazir Bhutto was probably going to be the prime minister. An uneasy relationship between Benazir Bhutto and Musharraf."
"It probably would have been a different situation, but the democratic process would have moved forward. Her opponent, an individual named Sharif, is probably a person that has a history in Pakistan that, at least in my person opinion was not the most admirable."
"I don’t know all the circumstances surrounding her death and it’s not really important right now except that it was a great tragedy. And, of course, whenever something like this happens you figure out who are the winners and losers."
"Right now there is significant unrest in Pakistan as we speak. There are people who are blaming Musharraf for it. That’s why I say, 'who are the winners and losers?' It seems to me that the winners are the radical Islamic extremists. Benazir Bhutto had dedicated herself and had said on several occasions that she would fight a battle against jihadists and radical Islamic extremists. And she promised the people of Pakistan that.
"Obviously when something like this happens who is it that gains, and that is the elements of unrest, disorder and revolution. So I don’t know what’s going to happen in Pakistan right now. I do know that since they are a nuclear-armed state, since they are our key ally in Afghanistan where we have been having difficulties that this is a very tense and difficult time. I hope that we can see the unrest subsided. I hope that we can see the commitment again of Musharraf for fair and free elections. And obviously one of the keys to this is going to be law and order. Whether law and order will be able to be maintained or not. I hope that will be the case. But it’s going to be a significant time of unrest."
"What can the United States of America do? The United States of America can express our advocacy for the rule of law, express our willingness to help in what every way we can with the democratic and economic needs of the country, and that we recognize this is a very difficult time for Pakistan and the Middle East. I’d like to tell you I can wave a magic wand or have some elixir that would cure this problem. It’s going to be a very tense and unsteady time in Pakistan and the United States does care for the reason I’ve mentioned to you before.
ROMNEY: "We have all heard with great alarm and concern the reports of additional tragedy in Pakistan,” Romney said. “At this stage, there are conflicting reports about whether Madame Bhutto has been killed or not. But there is of course the very risk that she has been killed.”
The Associated Press and other news sources had already confirmed that Bhutto had been killed at the time Romney made his statement, but earlier reports had indicated that Bhutto was in surgery.
“This points out again the extraordinary reality of global violent radical jihadism,” Romney continued. “We don't know who is responsible for this attack, but there is no question that the violence we see throughout the world is violence which is not limited to Iran—excuse me, Iraq—and Afghanistan but is more global in nature.”
Romney was asked whether the U.S. has placed too much trust in General Musharraf. “I don't know that we can assess the political process that has been underway in Pakistan to determine exactly where we put our greatest support,” Romney said. “Obviously we have also encouraged a political process which included Madam Bhutto and Mr. Sharif, and we have had interest in seeing a progression towards more democratic leadership and governance in Pakistan. Our nation was disappointed with the declaration of martial law.” HUCKABEE: I am deeply troubled by the news accounts this morning of Pakistani opposition leader and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's assassination in a suicide attack. This is devastating news for the people of Pakistan, and my prayers go out to them as we follow developments regarding this dire situation.
"The terrible violence surrounding Pakistan's upcoming election stands in stark contrast to the peaceful transition of power that we embrace in our country through our Constitution. On this sad day, we are reminded that while our democracy has flaws, it stands as a shining beacon of hope for nations and people around the world who seek peace and opportunity through self-government."
Who is peddling hatred?
I certainly did not mean to imply any hatred in my post, which consists of quotes from presidential candidates that I found on the Internet. I can’t image why you said this to me.
Worse, Huckabee APOLOGIZED for it.
The man is 9/10 Jimmah Carter and 1/10 pigmy marmoset.
“Washington faces charges it didn’t do enough to protect the slain Pakistani leader.”
Look at what Yahoo is posting on their main page. Apparently the MSM thinks it’s our fault.
I’m not sure Huckabee meant that, but it would be mighty bad if he did.
Yup...MCCAIN!
Huckabee has the Jimmah Carter “blame America first” reflex.
We all know it.
I am a fundamentalist Christian, and I say Huckabee is an idiot.
I would not vote for McCain based on one issue about which he is right. He has a violent temper ala Hillary. That is not a Presidential temperament. He votes for gun control, high taxes, and open borders.
Thanks, but no thanks.
FYI - McCain supports the 2nd Amendment, and has NEVER voted for a tax increase.
FMI - How do you know he has a “violent” temper??
(He seemed pretty calm & collected on all the debates, etc. so far).
McCain was for the "assault weapons" ban and other dubious legislation.
McCain's temper is a matter of public record.
I also add as that a member of the Senate's group of 14 compromisers, he effectively blocked many Bush judges who would be on the bench now. They were not considered because the Constitutional option was blocked by Bush's own party members.
Do some research on your candidate. Two of many articles on his temper:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/19991031/aponline183823_000.htm
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/9/211152.shtml?s=ic
John Lott, the famous pro-gun researcher and the GOA on McCain:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjIwYjQyOGQ4OWNhN2I0Nzc1MTE4NmVmZWRmMGJjMWE=
http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm
McCain brags about voting against the Bush tax cuts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUDBV6RhQho
Hugh Hewitt on his 'Gang of 14' blocking of judges:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1944947/posts
Summary on McCain:
http://www.rightwingnews.com/category.php?ent=5365
Thank you for taking the time to post all that “info”. I have examined all of it. Some of it is old news rehashed from 1999 and some of it is “spin” from people who are in other camps.
Do I have to explain why the tax cuts ARE a bad idea if spending continues thru the roof?
Most of the other stuff McCain gets taken to task for is from his trying to put the “needs of the nation” over the “needs of his party”. Is it so important that Republicans “win” on every single issue that we diminish the effectiveness of our government?
I submit that every time McCain has strayed from the “Party Line” has been in the interest of actually getting something DONE - isn’t that what we elect & pay these guys to do?? So he has to compromise sometimes - and make some concessions in order to secure cooperation on other things. That’s just PRAGMATISM. And STATESMANSHIP.
There are certain things on which McCain will not budge - Right-to-Life, and Support for the Troops. He understands the Global Issues & knows the world leaders. That sits well w/ me. What does “amnesty” for hard-working immigrants matter if Terrorists are at the door? (Not that I favor amnesty, but the WOT is a much bigger priority). Sometimes you have to give up some things in order to get others - that’s compromise & that’s what I was told in my very first Civics class - “Government often means compromise”. Should we hamstring our legislators over every single issue? Given that the dems now have the majority, to never budge means we’d lose on EVERY issue EVERY time - how productive is that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.