PDA

View Full Version : Hillary's Impressive Trip to Pakistan


Lyle
10-30-2009, 04:46 PM
Anybody else impressed with her in your face honesty with the Pakistani government and people? She's like Obama's Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld. I'm liking it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091030/ap_on_re_as/as_clinton

Go Hillary, go! Say the things Obama won't say, but should.

edit: Andrew Sullivan seems to concur (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/hillary-going-rogue.html)

bjkeefe
10-30-2009, 05:44 PM
Anybody else impressed with her in your face honesty with the Pakistani government and people? She's like Obama's Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld. I'm liking it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091030/ap_on_re_as/as_clinton

Go Hillary, go! Say the things Obama won't say, but should.

edit: Andrew Sullivan seems to concur (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/hillary-going-rogue.html)

According to Riley Waggaman (http://wonkette.com/411874/edward-brooke-does-not-care-for-wealth-old-white-man-club-that-he-accidentally-joined-many-years-ago), it appears that Hateway Pundit simply did not care for Sec. Clinton's behavior.

Glad to see the latter's view was not unanimous. Thanks for the links.

Lyle
10-30-2009, 06:15 PM
Gateway Pundit decided to focus in on a tree and not the forest. However, he's not wrong about what she said; it's a ludicrous statement and tells us how stupid and/or ignorant the Pakistani student audience was. Obama's policy with regards to Muslim terrorists in Pakistan is no different than Bush's policy (shall we count the bodies?). In fact Obama has spoken more belligerently about dealing with Muslim terrorists in Pakistan than Bush did. Remember he campaigned on a "get out of Iraq, but invade Pakistan" plank, or was it a "we should have invaded Pakistan, not Iraq" plank.

Irregardless, three cheers for Hillary Clinton!

bjkeefe
10-30-2009, 07:34 PM
... stupid and/or ignorant ...

Irregardless ...

Well put.

TwinSwords
10-30-2009, 07:38 PM
Remember he campaigned on a "get out of Iraq, but invade Pakistan" plank, or was it a "we should have invaded Pakistan, not Iraq" plank.

Link?

TwinSwords
10-30-2009, 07:42 PM
Go Hillary, go! Say the things Obama won't say, but should.
FYI: The Secretary of State is the President's representative in foreign affairs. She speaks for him.

Lyle
10-30-2009, 08:11 PM
True, but she's still the one speaking and not him.

TwinSwords
10-30-2009, 08:18 PM
True
Lyle,
I am genuinely impressed. Thank you for the honest dialogue.


but she's still the one speaking and not him.
I'll grant you that.

kezboard
10-30-2009, 09:09 PM
However, he's not wrong about what she said; it's a ludicrous statement and tells us how stupid and/or ignorant the Pakistani student audience was.

So you're saying you can't imagine why the people of Pakistan wouldn't be super excited about Bush's policies towards their country? Can I remind you that most of those policies were all about funneling money to a dictator to keep him on their side while he was taking that money and putting it towards building up the military in Kashmir? As far as I know, the aid the Obama administration is giving to Pakistan is for infrastructure and fighting terrorism, which I'm sure the students appreciate more.

Lyle
10-30-2009, 09:26 PM
Oh... I understand why they, in their ignorant wisdom, wouldn't appreciate the Bush administration policies with regards to Pakistan, but its funny that they think that Obama's policy is somehow different.

Bush didn't put Musharraf (sic?) in power. He had to work with him to get to Afghanistan (our planes have to fly through Pakistani airspace from the Indian Ocean) and to try and get Pakistan to help out with bin Laden and the Taliban. Obama likewise has to deal with the current Pakistani government and fundamentally his relationship with Pakistan is no different than the relationship Bush had with Pakistan. You can argue the minutiae of the different financial strings attached to money given to Pakistan, but the money is going to pay for the same thing Bush paid for.

... and don't forget all the aid and air support Bush sent to Kashmir when there was that horrific earthquake there. Like Bush didn't care... :)

kezboard
10-30-2009, 09:47 PM
Bush didn't put Musharraf (sic?) in power. He had to work with him to get to Afghanistan (our planes have to fly through Pakistani airspace from the Indian Ocean) and to try and get Pakistan to help out with bin Laden and the Taliban.

I went to a lecture where a Pakistani democracy activist was speaking last week and she kept making the point that liberal, pro-democracy Pakistanis felt really burned by American support for Musharraf, and have generally felt burned by the US approach to their country -- supporting dictators in the 80s, etc., turning a blind eye to the shenanigans going on with the Taliban after the Soviets left Afghanistan. I think that this is probably the feeling the Pakistani students were sharing with Clinton.

That said, I pretty much do agree with you that Bush didn't have much of a choice in supporting Musharraf. He had to have a good working relationship with him. I'm not faulting him for that. We had to pursue our national interest in that case. Unfortunately, it didn't concur with the interests of the people of Pakistan. It's true that the relationship the US has with Pakistan is fundamentally still the same, but the leaders of both countries have changed, and the fact that the guy the US is supporting is not Musharraf means a lot. All I'm saying is that the Pakistani students aren't "stupid" or "ignorant" for not having a lot of love for Bush, not that George Bush doesn't care about Pakistan or whatever.

ETA: Also, from the Yahoo article, it seems like the questions Clinton was asked were along the lines of "How are you going to help us more than the other guy did?" which are, again, totally reasonable.

Lyle
10-30-2009, 09:55 PM
Probably so, probably so... and I don't mean to be too harsh on the students. However, they've got to own up for their own predicament. Blaming America or Bush doesn't get them very far, I think.

PreppyMcPrepperson
10-31-2009, 12:36 PM
Link?

He said it during the first presidential debate (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/first-presidential-debate.html). It created huge shock waves throughout the region; for a few months, his poll numbers there were worse than Bush's and in some parts, still are.

bjkeefe
10-31-2009, 05:35 PM
He said it during the first presidential debate (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/first-presidential-debate.html).

Quote? I don't see where he called for an invasion of Pakistan in your source. (I remind you this is what Lyle asserted and Twin challenged.)

By contrast, here is part of what he did say:

OBAMA: Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. Here's what I said.

And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has Al Qaida, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.

Now, I think that's the right strategy; I think that's the right policy.

And, John, I -- you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know, you know, how credible that is. I think this is the right strategy.

Now, Senator McCain is also right that it's difficult. This is not an easy situation. You've got cross-border attacks against U.S. troops.

And we've got a choice. We could allow our troops to just be on the defensive and absorb those blows again and again and again, if Pakistan is unwilling to cooperate, or we have to start making some decisions.

And the problem, John, with the strategy that's been pursued was that, for 10 years, we coddled Musharraf, we alienated the Pakistani population, because we were anti-democratic. We had a 20th-century mindset that basically said, "Well, you know, he may be a dictator, but he's our dictator."

And as a consequence, we lost legitimacy in Pakistan. We spent $10 billion. And in the meantime, they weren't going after Al Qaida, and they are more powerful now than at any time since we began the war in Afghanistan.

That's going to change when I'm president of the United States.

I grant that a cross-border pursuit or targeted attack on a small group could technically be called an invasion, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to just bandy about the term the way Lyle did.

Lyle
10-31-2009, 06:57 PM
No it's not. Talking about going over the border with an armed force to take out al Qaeda and the Taliban is talking about an invasion, and that is exactly what Obama belligerently asserted during his campaign at some point.

bjkeefe
10-31-2009, 07:01 PM
No it's not. Talking about going over the border with an armed force is talking about an invasion, and that is exactly what Obama belligerently asserted during his campaign at some point. :)

Link?

Lyle
10-31-2009, 07:07 PM
Didn't you just read Preppy's link? Why did Preppy link in the first place?

Obama willing to invade Pakistan in al-Qaeda hunt (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2182955.ece)

bjkeefe
10-31-2009, 07:19 PM
Didn't you just read Preppy's link? Why did Preppy link in the first place?

Seriously, Lyle, do you ever read anyone's post before responding to it? Are you capable of retaining anything you read for longer than five seconds? Because if so, you sure hide it well.

Obama willing to invade Pakistan in al-Qaeda hunt (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2182955.ece)

I already addressed the substance of that article in my response to PMP, because Obama said the same things in the first debate as he had earlier in the campaign. Try doing a little more work than Googling a keyword and picking the most likely-sounding headline.

If you want to insist upon your definition of invasion as "any crossing of a national boundary by members of another nation's armed forces, no matter how limited the mission's scope," fine. Your choice. But I stand by what I said earlier: for you to have said ...

Remember he [Obama] campaigned on a "get out of Iraq, but invade Pakistan" plank, or was it a "we should have invaded Pakistan, not Iraq" plank.

... is in my view so misleading as to be inaccurate. So far, what you have offered does not back up the breadth of your claim. Not even close.

I will not discuss this with you further.

Lyle
10-31-2009, 07:26 PM
Keefe... my words were hyperbole, not exact quotes. Get a clue. It was to drive home the point that Obama has spoken belligerently about Pakistan in the past. Which he did.

Here's Obama talking about "waging" war... in Pakistan. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101233.html)

bjkeefe
10-31-2009, 07:45 PM
Keefe... my words were hyperbole, not exact quotes.

Thanks for that concession.

See, that wasn't so hard, was it?

Lyle
10-31-2009, 07:50 PM
A concession? It was plain as day to any politically literate reader bjkeefe.

bjkeefe
10-31-2009, 08:00 PM
A concession? It was plain as day to any politically literate reader bjkeefe.

Left unanswered is how you would be able to perform this assessment.

Lyle
10-31-2009, 08:11 PM
Haha :) ... you actually believe that.

bjkeefe
10-31-2009, 08:13 PM
Haha :) ... you actually believe that.

Time for me to start spelling your name with an I and an A again.

Later.

TwinSwords
11-01-2009, 10:55 AM
I grant that a cross-border pursuit or targeted attack on a small group could technically be called an invasion, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to just bandy about the term the way Lyle did.

Thank you for following up on this. It's been a year, but here's my memory of the origin of the wingnut "he said he was going to invade Pakistan" meme: There was some point, maybe a primary debate, when Obama said that if, as president, he knew the position of Osama bin Laden within Pakistan, he would authorize a strike to take him out or a mission to capture him. The wingnut/loon brigade immediately responded by saying Obama said he would "invade Pakistan."

I think Lyle and PMP have taken even greater liberties with the truth than the original wingnuts did last year, as the two of them have now twisted it into "[Obama] campaigned on a 'get out of Iraq, but invade Pakistan' plank, or was it a 'we should have invaded Pakistan, not Iraq' plank." Which, as far as I know (and I followed the election very closely), is entirely manufactured.

PreppyMcPrepperson
11-01-2009, 03:08 PM
There was some point, maybe a primary debate, when Obama said that if, as president, he knew the position of Osama bin Laden within Pakistan, he would authorize a strike to take him out or a mission to capture him. The wingnut/loon brigade immediately responded by saying Obama said he would "invade Pakistan."

I cover Pakistan and security issues on occasion. And I'm no wingnut, Twin. The issue is that the comments were widely received in the PAKISTANI press (which I can't link to, because the search functions on most of those websites are crap and the better papers aren't in English) as authorizing an invasion.

Yes, BJ, what was meant by 'invasion' was a targeted cross-border attack, but to be frank, I'd say that's accurate. Any military incursion into another country without that country's permission is technically an invasion. Which is not to say it's not sometimes justified, but that is what it is.

Anyway, at the time, the government of Pakistan was staking its domestic political future on saying it would defend Pakistani sovereignty against specifically that kind of attack. So Obama saying he would go ahead with such an attack was construed in the press THERE as Obama threatening to invade a sovereign nation. Which, to the folks THERE, seemed odd given his opposition to the Iraq war. You may find that critique of his policies absurd, but if you look at McCain's response in the debate, his point is that it will be badly received in Pakistan and is therefore imprudent.

And prior to Hillary's trip, Obama's reputation in Pakistan was appalling. It seems to have gotten better in the last few days, as far as I can tell from phone calls I've made this weekend. So McCain was right about the reputational cost. Again, that's not to say there aren't security justifications for what Obama said--I'm not sure; it's one thing I'd like to suss out in my next trip there--but is to say that in both a technical sense and in a perception sense, Obama was the candidate being more hawkish on Pakistan.

TwinSwords
11-01-2009, 03:52 PM
I cover Pakistan and security issues on occasion. And I'm no wingnut, Twin.
I didn't call you a wingnut. The only thing I said about wingnuts was that last year they turned Obama's suggestion that he would enter Pakistan to capture or kill bin Laden into "a threat to invade Pakistan." Even if you are included in the group of people who made that claim last year, it does not follow that you are a wingnut.



The issue is that the comments were widely received in the PAKISTANI press (which I can't link to, because the search functions on most of those websites are crap and the better papers aren't in English) as authorizing an invasion.
Understand. And I appreciate the information about how the comments were received in Pakistan. But how Pakistan reacted is actually a different question than what Obama said.

I still have not seen evidence for the assertion that "[Obama] campaigned on a 'get out of Iraq, but invade Pakistan' plank, or [maybe] a 'we should have invaded Pakistan, not Iraq' plank." These statements contain the implication of involvement inside Pakistan far greater than cross border incursions, and far greater than anything Obama actually said. In other words, they are a deliberate and willful misconstrual of Obama's actual remarks, designed to inflame the anti-war left (and the anti-war Ron Paul types), and to just generally mislead and confuse voters.



Yes, BJ, what was meant by 'invasion' was a targeted cross-border attack, but to be frank, I'd say that's accurate. Any military incursion into another country without that country's permission is technically an invasion.
This is absolutely true. But the US had already been doing these kinds of cross border pursuits for years under Bush. The wingnuts' suggestions were twofold: (a) That Obama had promised to dramatically increase US military action inside Pakistan, and (b) that Obama was going to declare war against Pakistan itself, turning an ally in the war on terror into an enemy, and pitting our forces against Pakistan's national military.

If The Drudge Report blasts a 180 point headline saying "OBAMA TO INVADE PAKISTAN!" no one is going to think it means "OBAMA TO CONTINUE POLICY THAT HAS BEEN IN EFFECT FOR YEARS ALREADY." Wouldn't you agree that the way the right attempted to play this talking point was designed to imply something far more serious and of a much larger scale than simple continuation of existing cross-border pursuits?



Anyway, at the time, the government of Pakistan was staking its domestic political future on saying it would defend Pakistani sovereignty against specifically that kind of attack. So Obama saying he would go ahead with such an attack was construed in the press THERE as Obama threatening to invade a sovereign nation. Which, to the folks THERE, seemed odd given his opposition to the Iraq war. You may find that critique of his policies absurd, but if you look at McCain's response in the debate, his point is that it will be badly received in Pakistan and is therefore imprudent.
This is quite interesting; thank you again for the information about how these debates played in Pakistan.

Perhaps the reason for this misunderstanding (in this thread) is that Lyle was spreading a wingnut meme/lie, and you saw in it shades of the legitimate concerns felt and expressed inside Pakistan. In attempting to comment on those legitimate fears and concerns, you actually helped Lyle transmit the dishonest Rush Limbaugh line of attack. While the internal Pakistani political view is important and interesting, it's not actually what Lyle was talking about; Lyle was simply re-transmitting the lies he remembers from his 2008 Republican talking points.


And prior to Hillary's trip, Obama's reputation in Pakistan was appalling. It seems to have gotten better in the last few days, as far as I can tell from phone calls I've made this weekend. So McCain was right about the reputational cost. Again, that's not to say there aren't security justifications for what Obama said--I'm not sure; it's one thing I'd like to suss out in my next trip there--but is to say that in both a technical sense and in a perception sense, Obama was the candidate being more hawkish on Pakistan.
Once again, very interesting information; thank you for sharing it. I look forward to hearing what you learn on your trip.

Wonderment
11-01-2009, 04:13 PM
Speaking of Obama FP blunders, Hillary's lastest comments about her love for Netanyahu's "concessions" on settlements is sure to infuriate the Arab-Muslim world.

Caving in to Israeli right-wing extremists is "change" all right, but it's change that's worse than Bush's policy of not-so-benign neglect.

Meanwhile, Obama is generally distrusted by Israelis (in spite of this bit of Clinton pandering). So he's managed to alienate both sides while doing zip for the peace process.

The real test will come when Netanyahu decides to bomb Iran. Let me take a moment to thank George W. Bush for forbidding the Israelis to do this under Olmert (the "moderate"). Bush has not a very high bar for Mid East success, Barack (understatement of the century). You can do better.

PreppyMcPrepperson
11-01-2009, 11:14 PM
Hi Twin,

I didn't mean you'd called me a wingnut; just that you seemed to be saying the argument I was making a wingnut one and I wanted to point out that wingnuts weren't the only ones saying it.

It may be that by pointing out the nuggets of truth in Lyle's hyperbole, I am abetting his broader political goals. Not sure. Sometimes I can't see the political forest for the news-nugget trees. I had an editor once who called this reporters' myopia.

But one thing: It's not the case that what Obama was saying was a dramatic expansion of US military involvement in Pakistan, but it WAS an expansion. Here's why:

The Bush administration had already been conducting those raids, but they had done so during the Musharraf regime. When Mush (as he was 'affectionately' referred to by locals) fell from power in August 2008, the Bush admin tried to continue that policy arguing that they had an agreement with Mush to authorize it (ie that it wasn't an 'invasion,' just authorized use of Pak airspace).

But the new democratically elected regime made the argument, which was sanctioned by the Supreme Court there, that because the Mush regime was a martial law dictatorship, all of its agreements with other powers were extraconstitutional and immediately invalidated. So Islamabad told Washington that they had to stop, and for a time in September/October, they HAD stopped.

So what Obama was saying was that he wanted to restart the Bush policy, and that unlike Bush, who was arguing that he was acting with Pakistani approval (albeit from a sham government), Obama was arguing for pursuing that policy sans Pak approval. From a military perspective, Obama and Bush were pushing the same strategy; but from a legal perspective, Obama was advocating invasion. McCain was in fact, at the time, arguing for a less hawkish position on Pakistan than either Obama or Bush.

rationalist griggsy
11-02-2009, 06:23 PM
Yes,like her husband, that competent president, she knows how to handle diplomacy and war. He justly got that statue of him for stopping the cleansing in Kosovo, and he regrets failing to act in Burundi.
Both know reality much, much better than Cheney or Rumsfeld!
I favor the A.G. indicting Cheney for violating FISA , renditions torture and possible other unconstitutional matters. The more he bleats, the more he condemns himself.
Gates is one responsible Republican and bureaucrat!
Hillary might get tougher with Iran and North Korea. Let us all help her by encouraging her to do so! And let us help the nation also by putting pressure on the president also. Thanks to my fellow Hillary enthusiasts!