Biden highlights Clinton Pakistan gaffe

[875000]

(CNN) — Democrat Joe Biden suggested Tuesday that presidential rival Hillary Clinton doesn't adequately understand recent events in Pakistan.

The Delaware senator was responding to news that Clinton suggested in two recent interviews that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is up for reelection this month.

Musharraf was actually reelected in October, and the upcoming Pakistani elections are parliamentary, not presidential.

"We have a number of candidates who are well-intentioned but don't understand Pakistan," Biden said at a campaign event Tuesday. "One of the leading candidates — God love her."

"There are good people running," continued the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who has made his foreign policy credentials a centerpiece of his long shot presidential bid. "But to say Musharraf is up for election! Musharraf was elected — fairly or unfairly — president six months ago. It's about a parliamentary election!"

Clinton's comments came in an interview with ABC Sunday, in which she said, "[Musharraf] could be the only person on the ballot. I don't think that's a real election."

The New York senator also made similar comments during an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer last week, saying then, ""If President Musharraf wishes to stand for election, then he should abide by the same rules that every other candidate will have to follow."

Both gaffes were first noted by conservative Thomas Houlahan, writing for the Middle East Times.

The Clinton campaign has not yet returned a request for comment on Biden's comments, but said yesterday the New York Democrat was referring to Musharraf's party, not himself in particular.

Republican Mike Huckabee took heat last week for also getting key facts about Pakistan wrong in the aftermath of Benazir Bhutto's death. He first suggested the country remained under martial law (it was lifted a few weeks ago) and later said that Pakistan shares its eastern border with Afghanistan (it shares its western border.)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/02/biden-highlights-clinton-pakistan-gaffe/

[Gan]

Foot in mouth season has officially opened.

Cheers to whats going to be a very entertaining election year.

:cheers:

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I wouldn't know, but it's not my job to know.

Personally I think it's going to be a sad year for politics. My apathy towards what looks to be an election of the best of a ton of very weak candidates has me pretty bummed.

[Tsa`ah]

I wonder how Clinton supporters will defend this.

First, Pakistan is a crucial piece to us in concerns to the middle east.
Second ... she made the "mistake" twice.

If she doesn't know the basics of such a crucial country ... her foreign policy cred is garbage.

[Parkbandit]

I wouldn't know, but it's not my job to know.

Personally I think it's going to be a sad year for politics. My apathy towards what looks to be an election of the best of a ton of very weak candidates has me pretty bummed.

I agree. I look at both party candidates and just wonder why we can't get at least ONE candidate I believe in and want to be President.

[Keller]

I wouldn't know, but it's not my job to know.

Personally I think it's going to be a sad year for politics. My apathy towards what looks to be an election of the best of a ton of very weak candidates has me pretty bummed.

How is it different than 2004? I think Romney or Obama would make great figure heads and both have the network to construct great administrations.

[Ilvane]

Okay, so here I am trying to explain this.

Bhutto would not have been on the ballot--but her party would be--she would have been the figurehead of the Pakistan's People's Party(PPP)

Mushareff, while not on the ballot--is also the figurehead of his party--The Pakistan's Muslim League. Without the votes in Parliment to secure his power, he would not be able to accomplish much, without the votes.

So while neither of them were actually on the ballot, they are heads of the respective parties that are being voted on in this election.

Musharaf is on the ballot maybe not literally, but in a power struggle..as in the parlimentary elections.

She had more to say on Pakistan that made sense to get picky about this kind of stuff, including saying that they should have an independent investigation into Bhutto's death, long before Bush and the administration came out about it(she was on CNN).

Most people who knew the election was going on thought of it as "Bhutto" vs "Musharref"..and this is really what is was.

Anyway, that's all I have to say on it.

[Tsa`ah]

Okay, so here I am trying to explain this.

Bhutto would not have been on the ballot--but her party would be--she would have been the figurehead of the Pakistan's People's Party(PPP)

Mushareff, while not on the ballot--is also the figurehead of his party--The Pakistan's Muslim League. Without the votes in Parliment to secure his power, he would not be able to accomplish much, without the votes.

So while neither of them were actually on the ballot, they are heads of the respective parties that are being voted on in this election.

Musharaf is on the ballot maybe not literally, but in a power struggle..as in the parlimentary elections.

She had more to say on Pakistan that made sense to get picky about this kind of stuff, including saying that they should have an independent investigation into Bhutto's death, long before Bush and the administration came out about it(she was on CNN).

Most people who knew the election was going on thought of it as "Bhutto" vs "Musharref"..and this is really what is was.

Anyway, that's all I have to say on it.

That's all well and good, but has nothing to do with her statement ... which indicated he would be on the ballot and up for re-election in the parliamentary election.

[Clove]

Most people who knew the election was going on thought of it as "Bhutto" vs "Musharref"..and this is really what is was.

Anyway, that's all I have to say on it.

O rly.

[Sean of the Thread]

Okay, so here I am trying to explain this.

Bhutto would not have been on the ballot--but her party would be--she would have been the figurehead of the Pakistan's People's Party(PPP)

Mushareff, while not on the ballot--is also the figurehead of his party--The Pakistan's Muslim League. Without the votes in Parliment to secure his power, he would not be able to accomplish much, without the votes.

So while neither of them were actually on the ballot, they are heads of the respective parties that are being voted on in this election.

Musharaf is on the ballot maybe not literally, but in a power struggle..as in the parlimentary elections.

She had more to say on Pakistan that made sense to get picky about this kind of stuff, including saying that they should have an independent investigation into Bhutto's death, long before Bush and the administration came out about it(she was on CNN).

Most people who knew the election was going on thought of it as "Bhutto" vs "Musharref"..and this is really what is was.

Anyway, that's all I have to say on it.


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Bobmuhthol]

Toss in a ROFL for me.

[ClydeR]

There is a pattern with Hillary Clinton of trying to cover up problems with clever words. When her husband was president, he committed adultery and lied under oath. She tried to cover it up by blaming it on a vast conspiracy. Same thing now. I can't imagine why anybody would want to vote for her after what her husband did.

[CrystalTears]

I wonder how Clinton supporters will defend this.

|
V


Okay, so here I am trying to explain this.

Bhutto would not have been on the ballot--but her party would be--she would have been the figurehead of the Pakistan's People's Party(PPP)

Mushareff, while not on the ballot--is also the figurehead of his party--The Pakistan's Muslim League. Without the votes in Parliment to secure his power, he would not be able to accomplish much, without the votes.

So while neither of them were actually on the ballot, they are heads of the respective parties that are being voted on in this election.

Musharaf is on the ballot maybe not literally, but in a power struggle..as in the parlimentary elections.

She had more to say on Pakistan that made sense to get picky about this kind of stuff, including saying that they should have an independent investigation into Bhutto's death, long before Bush and the administration came out about it(she was on CNN).

Most people who knew the election was going on thought of it as "Bhutto" vs "Musharref"..and this is really what is was.

Anyway, that's all I have to say on it.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v412/Jemah/lolcats/lolcats-funny-pictures-questionmark.jpg

[Methais]

I don't even pay attention or give a shit about politics and Ilvane's post made even me go

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/8468a5a1-1.gif

[Tsa`ah]

There is a pattern with Hillary Clinton of trying to cover up problems with clever words. When her husband was president, he committed adultery and lied under oath. She tried to cover it up by blaming it on a vast conspiracy. Same thing now. I can't imagine why anybody would want to vote for her after what her husband did.

I don't think getting blowjobs while in office has any impact on one's ability to lead.

Also ... even though I'm highly anti-Hillary ... her husband is really irrelevant, or should be.

Then again, this is your fourth post and only one has made any kind of stride out of the realm of complete idiocy. That and your sig is identical to another member's.

[Bobmuhthol]

There is a pattern with Hillary Clinton of trying to cover up problems with clever words. When her husband was president, he committed adultery and lied under oath. She tried to cover it up by blaming it on a vast conspiracy. Same thing now. I can't imagine why anybody would want to vote for her after what her husband did.

I wouldn't vote for her because she sucks, but Bill Clinton OWNZ under any condition.

[Ilvane]

Oh come on, you know I had to play Devil's advocate.

Out of curiousity, though..How many of you knew the difference in the elections?

I sure as hell didn't know the difference. Do you think Bush really did? They were pushing Bhutto..weren't they? They weren't pushing her party, they were push Bhutto..

Angela

[Sean of the Thread]

OH stop please.. my sides are hurting.

[Tsa`ah]

Oh come on, you know I had to play Devil's advocate.

Out of curiousity, though..How many of you knew the difference in the elections?

I sure as hell didn't know the difference. Do you think Bush really did? They were pushing Bhutto..weren't they? They weren't pushing her party, they were push Bhutto..

Angela

I think anyone able to hear or read knew the difference in titles ... president and prime minister. This wasn't a misstep on her part, it was a display of sheer ignorance.

[Methais]

Hillary Clinton insulted Khaladon once.

[Clove]

Oh come on, you know I had to play Devil's advocate.
...

Yeah but does the Devil's Advocate need to be a water head?

[ClydeR]

That and your sig is identical to another member's.

I didn't realize someone else was using the same Reagan quote in their signature. I've fixed my signature by quoting my second favorite president.

[Gan]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

x3

[Gan]

This thread just went to 5 stars.

[Drew]

I didn't realize someone else was using the same Reagan quote in their signature. I've fixed my signature by quoting my second favorite president.


What was the quote?

[Parkbandit]

Okay, so here I am trying to explain this.

Bhutto would not have been on the ballot--but her party would be--she would have been the figurehead of the Pakistan's People's Party(PPP)

Mushareff, while not on the ballot--is also the figurehead of his party--The Pakistan's Muslim League. Without the votes in Parliment to secure his power, he would not be able to accomplish much, without the votes.

So while neither of them were actually on the ballot, they are heads of the respective parties that are being voted on in this election.

Musharaf is on the ballot maybe not literally, but in a power struggle..as in the parlimentary elections.

She had more to say on Pakistan that made sense to get picky about this kind of stuff, including saying that they should have an independent investigation into Bhutto's death, long before Bush and the administration came out about it(she was on CNN).

Most people who knew the election was going on thought of it as "Bhutto" vs "Musharref"..and this is really what is was.

Anyway, that's all I have to say on it.




I really detest getting called [stupid] all the time.

Yet.. you continue to give reason for this. Great post... I also like how you brush your ignorance off by misusing the term "devil's advocate".

[Gan]

That and your sig is identical to another member's.


I didn't realize someone else was using the same Reagan quote in their signature. I've fixed my signature by quoting my second favorite president.


What was the quote?

Your Ronald Reagan quote in your sig was the same as ClydeR's in his sig before he changed it.

[Kembal]

Uh, yeah, no, Ilvane. Clinton got owned on this, and it's something she should have known.

Biden's making a pretty damned good case for Sec'y of State in a Dem administration though.

[Ilvane]

I know, she was wrong in stating that he was on the ballot, because he wasn't..though his party is.

I hate the attacks that go on lately, though. I dislike the ones on Huckabee, I dislike the ones on Romney, and so forth.

If any of these guys(and gal) were perfect, we'd have already picked a candidate and moved on, right?

Angela

[Parkbandit]

:rofl:

[Gelston]

Oh come on, you know I had to play Devil's advocate.

Out of curiousity, though..How many of you knew the difference in the elections?

I sure as hell didn't know the difference. Do you think Bush really did? They were pushing Bhutto..weren't they? They weren't pushing her party, they were push Bhutto..

Angela

I knew the difference, just out of reading a few articles. That being said, its not really my "Job" to know. I don't have a highly paid staff of political advisors either, that should have caught a mistake like that the first time.