The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

27 December 2007

Senator Russ Feingold Blames Bush, Iraq For Bhutto Killing

TAKING THE LOW ROAD

Senator Feingold Faults Bush, Iraq Over Bhutto Killing





*** NEW: Chris Dodd Unhinged Over Bhutto ***


Descending instantly into political partisanship at a particularly sensitive moment, US Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) used today's savage attack on Pakistan's Benazir Bhutto to blame President Bush and Iraq.

Given the emotional state of affairs in East Asia after an ambush that killed both a revered leader and dozens of others, isn't this a particularly reckless approach? By providing verbal ammunition for our enemies abroad, isn't Feingold pouring gasoline on an already- raging wildfire overseas?

In an interview on today's Ed Schultz Show, Feingold wasted no time taking the low road, folding his unfortunate words into what otherwise sounds like a calm and reasoned reaction.

It's one heck of a sneaky debate trick, especially how Feingold uses "in recent years" to refer to Bush, while cloaking the point slightly around the 2008 presidential race. But a close listen makes it clear he's going after Bush and Iraq.

After this many years as a senator, these kinds of rhetorical tricks are old hat to someone like Feingold.

From today's show:


FEINGOLD: The focus on Iraq has been a real disservice to focusing on this part of the world where a great, frankly somebody who had great leadership and following, has been killed.


And here's a YouTube clip of his full response, which will make it clear that his words are not being taken out of context. In fact, his rush to blame the Bush Administration, even if not by name, couldn't be more obvious:






Interestingly, his official statement in response to the attacks leaves out any such criticism:


Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On the Assassination of Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto


December 27, 2007

“The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is terrible news for those who support a stabilized democracy in Pakistan, both in that country and around the world. Bhutto was a brave leader who was beloved by millions in Pakistan. The questions surrounding her assassination should have direct bearing on both the future of democracy in Pakistan and the relationship we will have with a country that is so critical in the fight against global terrorism.”


Once again, we're seeing the difference between what an elected official wants the world to think he means, as opposed to his true feelings, which are revealed only in the "safe" setting of a liberal talk show interview.


FOR New England regional talk radio updates, see our other site.

Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately purchase, help to further this site's efforts.

Support this site! Please contribute at the Honor System box to the right. Thanks again!



Technorati tags:

11 Comments:

  • By Blogger Exurban Jon, at 27 December, 2007 16:10  

  • Senator Feingold is 100% correct.

    One of the few with anything resembling backbone these days...

    By Anonymous hashfanatic, at 27 December, 2007 17:11  

  • Of course Feingold is correct, not 100% but 1000%. The 7 years before this assination, the Pakistan-US policy was a closed policy run only by Dick Cheney.....


    not a partisan attack, simply the FACTS

    and on top of that, the Bush administration allowed Pakistan to build their nuclear weapons arsenal......... UNCHECKED


    Once more another example of failure of the Bush administration, allowing an unstable Islamic nation to build more and more and more nukes!!!! Good job cons, and you wonder why sane Americans, hate Limbaugh, and hate the right in general, they never tske responsiblity for their failures


    they failed with Pakistan, had no policy, NONE, except for Dick Cheney allowing them to do whatever they want for 7 years.

    and now an Islamic state in turmoil with nuclear weapons........ just wait, they will blame Clinton yet for this as well.


    We all understand the failures of Pakistani policy lies in the habds of Bush and his neo-con flunkies

    bu bu bu libs!!
    it ain't working anymore


    funny, if Bush had a "D" nect to his name, they would all agree with Feingold, party over country, party over their own eyes

    Pakistasn with nukes, nothing to do with Bush policy!!

    This is why we HATE the right, not because of different views, but because your sick, unhinged loyalty to a political party. Because of the "R", these sick freaks will never hold their party accountable for ANYTHING

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 28 December, 2007 11:35  

  • First Nuclear test May 28 1998

    Second Nuclear test may 30 1998

    Tested Ghauri-II surface-to-surface missile with 2000 km range April 14 1999

    Tested Shaheen 1, the first in a new series of surface-to-surface missiles April 15 1999

    So according to this deranged lib MOP, Bush should have stopped them after they had nuclear weapons.

    Truth Clinton should have stopped them before the test.

    Truth Clinton was too much of a wimp to do anything about it.

    Truth that is why Libs are considered “soft” on foreign policy

    Truth mop continues his lies and half-truths. Hold your own party accountable loser.

    By Blogger pf1, at 28 December, 2007 13:02  

  • Hashfan and Minister of Poop probably get sexually aroused everytime they tell their bald-faced lies. That's the only explanation that can be made.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 28 December, 2007 13:15  

  • As is typical, PF1 you only tell half of the story:

    Pakistan's nuclear weapons program was established in 1972 by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (Benizir Bhutto's father, in case you didn't know), who founded the program while he was Minister for Fuel, Power and Natural Resources, and later became President and Prime Minister. Shortly after the loss of East Pakistan in the 1971 war with India, Bhutto initiated the program with a meeting of physicists and engineers at Multan in January 1972.

    India's 1974 testing of a nuclear "device" gave Pakistan's nuclear program new momentum. Through the late 1970s, Pakistan's program acquired sensitive uranium enrichment technology and expertise. The 1975 arrival of Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan considerably advanced these efforts. Dr. Khan is a German-trained metallurgist who brought with him knowledge of gas centrifuge technologies that he had acquired through his position at the classified URENCO uranium enrichment plant in the Netherlands. Dr. Khan also reportedly brought with him stolen uranium enrichment technologies from Europe. He was put in charge of building, equipping and operating Pakistan's Kahuta facility, which was established in 1976. Under Khan's direction, Pakistan employed an extensive clandestine network in order to obtain the necessary materials and technology for its developing uranium enrichment capabilities.

    In 1985, Pakistan crossed the threshold of weapons-grade uranium production, and by 1986 it is thought to have produced enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. Pakistan continued advancing its uranium enrichment program, and according to Pakistani sources, the nation acquired the ability to carry out a nuclear explosion in 1987.

    So, before you wag your finger of blame at Clinton, you likewise have to condemn the fecklessness of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush The Elder for doing notheing to halt their program.

    By Blogger Dave Carroll, at 28 December, 2007 14:51  

  • Pf1, unlike you, I do not take party over country. Clinton made a mistake, but after 9-11 you would think Bush would know better, he allowed them to expand their nuclear capibility....... Mentioning Clinton will not help you win this debate

    I stomped your bu bu Clinton crap out, with more recent events in 2006

    Now, be a man and admit I'm right

    By Blogger Minister of Propaganda, at 28 December, 2007 16:21  

  • Mark Steyn more or less agrees with Sen. Feingold:

    The State Department geniuses thought they had it all figured out. They'd arranged a shotgun marriage between the Bhutto and Sharif factions as a "united" "democratic" "movement" and were pushing Musharraf to reach a deal with them. That's what diplomats do: They find guys in suits and get 'em round a table. But none of those representatives represents the rapidly evolving reality of Pakistan. Miss Bhutto could never have been a viable leader of a post-Musharraf settlement, and the delusion that she could have been sent her to her death.

    By Blogger Derek, at 28 December, 2007 22:44  

  • Dave here is the history of Pakistan's nuclear program.

    http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Pakistan/PakOrigin.html

    As for the problems in the Middle East they go back to Carter.

    This is not my blog and I don't need the whole history to beat MOP’s lies into the ground.

    In MOP logic (what a laugh) he would have us get rid of France’s nuclear program because they could be a threat. I have stated many times the mistakes that Bush makes I can find mistakes in every president.

    Now you lying piece of crap show me were I took party over country one of your other lies.

    Now boy get back to the theater and start the movie loser.

    By Blogger pf1, at 29 December, 2007 07:45  

  • Go back to your trailer, pf1, and listen to your Montgomery Gentry CD.

    I don't see Mark Steyn's opinion as being in agreement with Feingold's.

    I would think the reason for Steyn ever pretending to "agree" with Feingold on any Middle East issue would be fairly obvious...

    Steyn, frankly, should have been disappeared years ago. Possibly no other neocon synchophant has had such a pernicious effect on the already warped thinking of America's wingnut rabble.


    Steyn should have been disappeared years ago. There is perhaps no other

    By Anonymous hashfanatic, at 29 December, 2007 13:44  

  • Hash you’re a good argument for abortion.

    By Blogger pf1, at 30 December, 2007 01:42  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger