Presidential hopefuls focus their debate on Pakistan turmoil

Hillary Clinton called for an international probe.

MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS

DES MOINES, Iowa — The presidential campaign erupted Friday into a full-blown debate over how best to stabilize Pakistan as candidates vied in the few days before the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses to show who was best prepared to lead the war on terror.

In the wake of Thursday’s assassination of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, Republican and Democratic presidential candidates spent much of Friday laying out specific policies they’d follow now — or, for Democratic Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and two former Republican governors, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, trying to convince voters that they’re qualified to play in that league.

The rivals with thicker foreign-policy resumes offered detailed blueprints of how they would deal with Pakistan. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a former United Nations ambassador, struck first, telling a Des Moines audience that the United States should give Pakistan “not one penny more until [President Pervez] Musharraf is gone and the rule of law is restored.”

He told 125 supporters at the Des Moines Botanical Garden that “some of my Democratic opponents have misplaced faith in Musharraf. Like the Bush administration, they cling to a misguided notion that Musharraf can be trusted as an ally to fight terrorism or change his despotic ways.”

Most Democratic candidates wouldn’t go that far; New York Sen. Hillary Clinton offered a multipart plan to restore stability but did not call for Musharraf’s ouster.

“I don’t think the Pakistani government at this time under President Musharraf has any credibility at all,” Clinton said as she visited Story City. “They have disbanded an independent judiciary. They have oppressed a free press.”

She called for a “full, independent, international investigation, perhaps along the lines of what the United Nations has been doing with respect to the assassination of Prime Minister Hariri in Lebanon.” (Former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al Hariri was killed in an explosion in 2005.)

Clinton also called for appointment of a high-level presidential envoy, perhaps a retired general, to work with Musharraf; Pakistan elections with international monitors “as soon as practicable;” and an effort to “speak directly to the people of Pakistan, particularly the middle class.”

Other candidates joined the fray. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, D-Del., urged putting new pressure on Musharraf to hold “fair elections as soon as possible,” while Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., a senior Foreign Relations member, urged that Pakistan’s elections be postponed.

The fight was not just over ideas — it was over foreign policy pedigree, too. Dodd took aim at Clinton, questioning her experience.

“It isn’t enough to be sitting on the sidelines, watching your husband deal with these problems over the years,” Dodd said. And he termed Richardson’s call for Musharraf to resign “a dangerous idea. Tell me who’s going to be controlling the keys to the nuclear weapons in Pakistan.”

Also throwing jabs was Obama — though the third-year U.S. senator did not offer any specific blueprint to stabilize Pakistan. At a morning stop in Williamsburg he said that as president he’d reassess U.S. policy toward Pakistan and push for democratic elections.

The Republican debate had a different tone. Most candidates were more willing to tolerate, and in some cases even praise, Musharraf, while they painted Democrats as unsteady and weak.

“I don’t think it would be a good idea to call for him [Musharraf] to step down now,” ex-Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson told CNN Friday.