Ariana Huffington proves once again that she thinks her readers are morons. Hufftards to be exact. Let’s take a look at what she writes here. 

 First, AH asserts that politicizing Benazir Bhutto’s death is good,

Of course questions about what happened in Pakistan, what factors contributed to it, and what should we do about it are politicized — as they should be.

Fine, she’s entitled to her opinion. But not only does Huffy think she’s entitled to her opinion, but she demands that others act in accordance with her will. If one declines to comment on a certain topic, or if one doesn’t blame Bush enough, the Huff will huff and puff and call you a “conventional wisdom zombie.” Just like she did Hillary for not wanting to politicize Bhutto’s death. See:

“This is a time to be focused on the tragedy of the situation, its implications for the U.S. and the world, and to be concerned for the people of Pakistan and the country’s stability. No one should be politicizing this situation with baseless allegations.”

Hazarding the opinion that the Iraq war had diverted us from Pakistan and Afghanistan and suggesting that Hillary Clinton should have to defend her judgment to support that war is “politicizing” the situation? She’s running for president, isn’t she? Of course questions about what happened in Pakistan, what factors contributed to it, and what should we do about it are politicized — as they should be.

Take a chill pill Huff, at the time that statement was made Bhutto’s body was still warm. (By the way, Huffy, weren’t you friends with Benazir? I seem to recall hearing something about her writing for your little Hufftards blog, no?)

Here’s what Clinton said:

“I have known Benazir Bhutto for more than 12 years; she’s someone whom I was honored to visit as first lady when she was prime minister,” Clinton said at a campaign event in a firehouse in western Iowa. “Certainly on a personal level, for those of us who knew her, who were impressed by her commitment, her dedication, her willingness to pick up the mantle of her father, who was also assassinated, it is a terrible, terrible tragedy,” she said.

This isn’t good enough for Huff. Huff want blood. Huff want guts. So when an Obama aid made a statement that tied Hillary’s position on Iraq to Bhutto’s death, namely:

In an especially charged moment, senior Obama adviser David Axelrod would later tie the killing to the Iraq war — and Clinton’s vote to approve it, which he argued diverted U.S resources from fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, both al-Qaeda hotbeds.

Huff likey!

Exhibit A came during Obama’s appearance yesterday on Meet the Press. Tim Russert, one of the temple guards of Conventional Wisdom, used one of the classic weapons in its defense: the straw man. So in asking Obama about Axelrod’s comments, Russert plays the dumb-dumb and twists the argument:

RUSSERT:The Washington Post has said in an editorial that Mr. Obama committed a foul in some of your comments and some of your staff comments to the situation in Pakistan, specifically — let me ask you a question — do you believe that Senator Clinton’s vote for, for the war in Iraq in any way, shape or form led to the events that transpired in Pakistan on Thursday?

Obama knocks the straw man down:

OBAMA:Of course not, and that’s never what any of my aides said…my staff said that I think candidates will be judged based on the judgments they have made, and they made then an indisputable, I believe, comment, although The Washington Post, I think, may disagree with this. And that is that, by going into Iraq, we got distracted from Afghanistan, we got distracted from hunting down bin Laden, we got distracted from dealing with the al-Qaeda havens that have been created in northwestern Pakistan…

Russert, the Conventional Wisdom Zombie, is having none of it:

Huff, that’s because Obama was not answering clearly. Sure, he started with a strong “Of course not,” but then he proceeded to argue that “by going into Iraq, we got distracted from Afghanistan, we got distracted from hunting down bin Laden, we got distracted from dealing with the al-Qaeda havens that have been created in northwestern Pakistan.” Hence, those who voted for the war in Iraq (and we all know Obama would have, had he been in the Senate at the time… please), based on Obama’s own logic, did indeed take actions that led (in a way, shape or form) to the events in Pakistan. But hey, Huffy no likey and she thinks her readers are stoopid.

The Russert interview continues:

RUSSERT: But a vote for the war in Iraq, in your mind, distracted us from Pakistan and that could have led to the situation?

Obama takes another stab:

OBAMA: I am not drawing a causal relationship between any single vote in the tragedy there. The, the tragedy resulted from a suicide bomber. But what I do believe is that, if we are going to take seriously the problem of Islamic terrorism and the stability of Pakistan, then we have to look at it in a wider context. What we do in Iraq matters, what we do with respect to Iran matters, what we do with respect to Musharraf matters and not giving him a blank check and conditioning military aid that’s not related to terrorism on him opening up the election so that there’s greater legitimacy and less anti-American sentiment in Pakistan. Those are all parts of a broader foreign policy, and I believe that I’m best equipped to chart that new direction in foreign policy that will ultimately make American safer.

Will Smith couldn’t have blown away that zombie any more effectively. But, make no mistake, it will be back.

The first thing I’ll say is that I’m not disputing the point that our actions in one part of the world have consequences in other parts of the world. That’s not even what Russert was asking. Even those who agree that the Iraq war was wrong, and that it contributed to the death of Benazir Bhutto, must see that Obama didn’t give a clear answer here. Russert didn’t ask about his wide range policy ideas, Russert didn’t ask about ways to fight Islamic terrorism. Even though those are certainly more important than the question he did ask, namely if Obama thought that Hillary’s support of the war in Iraq contributed to the death of Benazir Bhutto in any way shape or form.

That said, Huff seems to think her readers are dumber than Russert, because even he could tell that Obama was evading the question and refusing to own up to what he and his aid were implying.

Now, to come full circle, why is okay for Obama to evade and refuse to answer direct questions, but it’s not okay for Hillary to decline to make a political comment on the assassination of a Bhutto?

Is it ‘cuz Hillary didn’t Blame Bush™ ?

UPDATE:

HotAir has video of Obama’s weasel words!

You can see how hard Obama is trying to squirm his way out of this…

Pathetic.