Archive for October, 2009

On Facebook, I encountered some negative comments regarding this particular stop on the Secretary of State’s tour of Pakistan.  With Foreign Minister Qureshi, she visited the Badshahi Masjid and the grave of the poet  Muhammad Iqbal in Lahore.  Some comments suggested that she should not have worn the veil, a few went as far as to suggest that she should have staged a protest by insisting on entering these venues bareheaded.  I disagree strongly and think the Secretary of State did exactly the correct thing by covering her head in these venues.

First and foremost, we should remember that one of the primary goals of this visit was to change the direction in which Pakistani media was taking its portrayal of the United States.  Wherever she has traveled as Secretary of State, our Head Homegirl has staged outreaches to the populace in addition to her ministerial meetings.  She set this out as one of her priorities back in February soon after assuming her post.   In Pakistan these press availabilities and TV and radio interviews were part of what one commenter at another of my blogs dubbed a “charm offensive.” Yes, I agree.  That is what she was doing there, using her charm to try to win the Pakistani people over to us and away from the Taliban.

I am wondering exactly how refusing to cover her head would have accomplished what the Secretary had set out to do. How would that have helped her image and ours in Pakistan?

I would perhaps have had misgivings had she circulated throughout the country wearing a veil, but she did not. She wore the veil exclusively in the religious setting showing the great respect she has shown in other locations for this and other world religions. She was in a house of worship, and , as always, followed the prescribed behavior for that particular religion. To have done otherwise would have been counterproductive and negative.

That last picture at the Wailing Wall was taken when she was Senator from NY in 2005.  Other pictures show her visiting a shrine in Japan and the shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico where the Monsignor blessed her.

Read Full Post »

Yoaní Sanchez, this years’s winner of  the Maria Moors Cabot Prize special citation, administered by Columbia University School of Journalism,  and who was not allowed by the Cuban government to come and receive it, posted this:

Mail boxes look like ballot boxes, they have a slot to insert the paper and its contents, it could be a letter or a ballot, which receive similar respect on this Island. Despite the limitations on correspondence, it turns out that it is easier to get one to its destination than it is to influence the course of the country with our vote. Hence, one of the most popular sports for my fellow countrymen is that of writing their complaints to the higher authorities, addressed precisely to those most responsible for our problems.

A woman writes a long lament about the sewer ditch that flows into the nearby school yard; the pizza seller denounces in writing the inspector who demands a percentage of revenues in exchange for not shutting down his kiosk; one patient needing surgery deposited his letter recounting the year he had been waiting to get into the operating room. The complaints are so numerous that in many ministries there is a department with several employees for the receipt of the letters. A true flood of sheets that repeat – over and over – the familiar heading, “By this means I turn to you…”

What? Am I watching a previously outtaken episode of The Sopranos? There’s protectionism going on in Communist Cuba? Wasn’t that one of the objectives of this long revolution? From July 26, 1953 to January 1, 1959 and Batista’s departure,  was the ouster of the Mafia not part of the platform? And now, as Yoaní reports, Mafia tactics are the order of the day. Well, hello progress!

Oh wait – there’s a comment there about the socilaized medical program that Michael Moore seems to think is so good. Maybe for foreigners, but Cubans might be having a problem with it.

See the rest of Yoaní’s post here: The new Chartism. She’s a wonder, immensely courageous and informative.

Love ya, Yoaní! You go, Homegirl!

Read Full Post »

INDIA-USA/CLINTONSecretary of State Hillary Clinton will be traveling to Pakistan in the near future according P.J. Crowley,  Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public Affairs.  The announcement came  during a press briefing yesterday by Special Envoy to the AfPak Region, Richard Holbrooke.  For security reasons, the dates of this trip are not being made public.

Well, I knew that sooner or later she would be going there, but after the story that came out of Nairobi (which has never been verified to my knowledge),  I have intense trepidations about Pakistan’s ability to keep her safe.

They were unable to protect Benazir Bhutto.  If anyone were ever a walking target in that country, Bhutto was.  I do not want to see my beloved Secretary of State cut down as Bhutto was.

One morning soon, I will awaken to the news that she is in Pakistan – just as I did the morning she landed in Iraq.  I know, I know!  It’s part of the job she signed on for.  That does not, however, make it any easier to see her go to dangerous places.

So I guess the best all of us can do is to continue to pray for her safety and success, and continue lighting candles for her.

The transcript of the briefing is below.

On-the-Record Briefing

Richard Holbrooke
Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan
Washington, DC
October 23, 2009

MR. CROWLEY: Well, it is true, when Ambassador Richard Holbrooke comes to visit us, we have a packed house.

Welcome to the Department of State. And the Secretary of State has indicated many, many times that she looks forward to traveling to Pakistan this fall. We are not going to announce specific dates for her travel for security reasons. But in light of her desire to travel to Pakistan soon, we thought it was appropriate to bring Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, our Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, down to just kind of give an update in terms of what’s happening within Pakistan. Obviously, the important Kerry-Lugar-Berman legislation that was passed by the Congress recently, and I suspect you’ll probably ask him a question or two about Afghanistan as well.

So we’ll turn it over to Ambassador Holbrooke.

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Thanks, P.J. It’s good to be back. I’ll take your questions.

QUESTION: Daniel Dombey, Financial Times. Daniel Dombey, Financial Times – two, if I may. First of all, in August you said that the election and the delay of the election, because of the Bush Administration’s choices, meant that you were unable to make the progress focus – keep a focus that you wanted to issues like governance and amnesty for insurgents and battling corruption. Have you made much progress on those dossiers since, or does the election and its complications continue that difficulty?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: I did say that. I did say that, and I – first, in answer to your question, we’re still in the election. The second round is going to take place on November 7th, and so we’re still in that phase. Then the winner has to form a government. But I did say that. And for those of you who haven’t followed this as carefully as you did, I want to be very clear: There were different kinds of programs we have in Afghanistan, and some of them – excuse me, do you have some water – oh, here – some of them have proceeded without any effect. A good example of a very successful change has been our upgrading of agriculture. This is a huge event in this country. It wasn’t controversial. We talked to all the candidates about it, the government. We have upgraded the number of American civilians working on agriculture from about twelve to over a hundred by the end of this year. They’re going out into the provinces.

We have asked Congress for a tremendous increase in our efforts. And this is very simple, it’s an agricultural country. Until the Soviet invasion, it had exported food, wheat, raisins, pomegranates, pistachios, almonds, and now it imports. And that’s what the people do. And the last eight years, we spent more money in eradicating poppies than we did in building agriculture. That made no sense to Secretary Clinton or myself or our colleagues at the White House or Tom Vilsack, and so we upgraded that. It had nothing to do with the elections. Same on some other major programs in our civilian buildup.

But in the programs you specified, which had a much closer direction – relationship to the political process, it was unavoidable they would be affected. And that’s just a fact of life, and I want to clarify that. But we have been planning – the civilian growth has been continuous. I think Jack Lew has been down here to discuss that.

MR. CROWLEY: He’ll brief on Monday.

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Jack will be here Monday, and he will give you all the figures on the personnel buildup, which he and I oversee together. And we have our programs ready to go.

Another area where there has not been enough action because of the relationships of the election has been what some people call reintegration, others call amnesty, others call reach out to those among the Taliban who are not ideologically attracted to al-Qaida. And in this regard, I would draw your attention again to the Secretary of State’s speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington on July 15th, where she laid out extremely clearly what our view was on the terms under which people should be welcomed back. And that issue has to be reinvigorated after the results of the election are known.

QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador, knowing what you know now about the fraud that was the problem in the first round of the elections, what are the prospects of avoiding similar problems in the runoff election? What is being done?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: First of all, let’s start with the clear recognition of what happened between August 20th and Monday of this week. A lot of people went out to vote. Millions of people risked their lives, in the face of an overt threat against them if they voted, by the Taliban. They deserve great credit. As my boss, Secretary Clinton, said frequently, she can’t think of a country in that stage of development, in those conditions of warfare, which had ever attempted an election under more difficult circumstances.

From the beginning, and you know this because we traveled together, I said publicly that this election would be imperfect. I said it on the record. And there were many irregularities. But in the end, the process worked, and I want to stress that. The Election Complaints Commission declared that neither candidate got 50 percent, although one came very close, and that the top two candidates were President Karzai and Dr. Abdullah and they should have a runoff. We had a very dramatic last few days, as you all know, in which we in Washington and working with Ambassador Eikenberry, with the UN, and with Senator Kerry, encouraged the leadership on all sides in Afghanistan to accept that outcome. As you all know, they did.

And therefore, it is my view that although the drama since August 20th is very substantial, and you witnessed part of it yourself – although the drama was very substantial, where we are is right where the process dictated it should be.

So now to your question. Excuse the long windup, but I really want to make clear how we got to where we are.

There’s going to be an election in just a few days. It is reasonable to hope that there will be less irregularities this time for several reasons. One, there are only two candidates; two, there’s the experience factor; three, the international community, including the forces under General McChrystal’s command, are going to go all out to help make this a success. Now, they did so on August 20th, but there are more forces in the country today and they’re ready to be deployed. Not all of the 21,000 troops authorized by President Obama were in place on August 20th. They are all there now.

So we’re hopeful. We invite international observers again. I’ve been in touch with the NDI and the IRI to see if they’re going to participate. They’re trying to gear up new observer missions. And we expect a lot of you to be there on election day. And – but I’m not going to predict what’s going to happen. I don’t think predicting things in Afghanistan is such a great idea.

But I really do want to underscore something which has not been adequately reported. In the end, the system worked. It was difficult, it was complicated, it took longer than people expected, but we came out of it with an acknowledgement that no one got 50 percent. And then, the constitution and the laws of the country were respected, and I think that deserves acknowledgment.

QUESTION: Ambassador, Mark Landler with The New York Times. Earlier today in Bratislava, the Defense Secretary Gates along with General McChrystal briefed NATO ministers about the counterinsurgency plans. And they received what people are characterizing as a broad endorsement of a counterinsurgency plan. Are you concerned that this narrows the options for President Obama as he considers options that range from what’s commonly thought of as Vice President Biden’s approach to a more ambitious counterinsurgency approach?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: I haven’t seen the detailed reports from Bratislava, just the news reports, and I hesitate to comment based on those. We are in the middle of a very intense review of policy. We have not changed our strategic goal at all. Our core goal was articulated by President Obama on March 27th. There’s been some misunderstandings about that, but let me be clear, and I don’t think any of us who are participating in that process should comment on it, but in no way, shape, or form are the President’s options constrained by anything you’re alluding to, whatever it was. He is the President, he’s our Commander in Chief, and he will decide.

Before I call on anyone else, I’m happy to answer these questions, but we’re also ready to talk about Pakistan, and that’s why I’m going to call on Sammy, because I —

QUESTION: Thank you, Ambassador. Thank you, Ambassador. Ambassador, would you tell us what Secretary Clinton will be focusing in Pakistan during her visit? And secondly, yesterday, Congress imposed some new restriction on military aid to Pakistan, and many in Pakistan believe that it is an expression of mistrust over Pakistani security forces even after successful operation in Islam – in Swat. So what is your response to that, too?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Say the – Sammy, what was the last part of your question about Swat?

QUESTION: There was a very successful military operation, but still, U.S. Congress yesterday imposed new restriction —


QUESTION: — on military aid to Pakistan.

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: First of all, on the trip, as P.J. already said, there are security constraints on how we discuss this. And you’re reading – there are already some reports out of Islamabad about what the Secretary’s going to do and when she’s arriving. That’s all speculation. And I’ll – I can tell you honestly that if the speculation is too well-informed, it will affect the content of the trip. And we – so I’m not going to talk about timing, details, or who she’s going to see except to say that she will see the leadership of the country, the leading members of the opposition, civic society, businessmen, and as many people as she can in a limited period of time within the limits of a very, very dramatic situation going on in your home country.

Now in – to get to the second part of this on the defense authorization bill, this bill was passed yesterday. And it is not in any way similar to Kerry-Lugar-Berman except in one core thing. It is part of the Congress’s statement that they share the Executive Branch’s view that Pakistan is a treasured friend and ally which is in a situation where American assistance is called for. And the fact that the Congress is doing this should be understood in Pakistan, as it is in the United States, as a sign of the high importance we attach to Pakistan.

Now, in regard to the – what you called – did you use the C-word as in “conditions” a minute ago, Sammy?

QUESTION: Yeah, I did.

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Did I hear you use that word?


AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Well, then let me tell you there are no conditions in this bill. There are no conditions. I don’t want to get into legalisms here, but there are requirements on us. The Congress wants the Secretary of Defense, in the case of this bill, and the Secretary of State, in the case of Kerry-Lugar-Berman, to report to them on certain issues before and during the process of releasing the funds.

But this is a pro-Pakistan bill, and I pray that your colleagues in Islamabad report it accurately so that we don’t have another misunderstanding. I know most of the people here are probably bored with the details of this, but Kerry-Lugar-Berman was a great piece of legislation passed by unanimous consent, and then Foreign Minister Qureshi came back here for clarifications which he was provided by Senator Lugar and Chairman Berman, and then Senator Kerry went to Islamabad. And when Secretary Clinton is there, we know it’ll come up, but let’s proceed from the facts.

Now, let me just ask my colleague, David, is there anything else I should add on this, on this question?

STAFF: There’s no conditions on Pakistan.

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: There are no – okay, thank you. I just want to be unambiguous; there are no conditions on Pakistan. There are reporting requirements on us. If you read the legislation, all – almost all legislation now, and for the last 30 years since the 1970s, Congress began putting reporting requirements on the Executive Branch. This began in the Nixon-Kissinger era. That’s how it works. And there’s been a total, and I believe willful distortion of this among some people in Pakistan.

Those are the facts, and (State Department Official) is here from the congressional and he will be available to talk to you on background afterwards about more of this if you want to, but we really want to get this off the agenda. (Laughter.)


QUESTION: Paul Richter with LA Times. Ambassador, can you give us your view of how well the Pakistani army offensive in South Waziristan is going? And do you think that that military action has much potential to damage al-Qaida?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Well, I can’t give you an answer because the offensive is just underway. I asked that question of my intelligence advisors this morning. They did not have definitive information. We know where the troops are going; they’re in the early phase. But it’ll take a while before we know whether the enemy they’re fighting has been dispersed or destroyed or some mixture of the two. But there’s – but this is obviously a question of very great importance, and we’ll look at it closely during the trip.

QUESTION: And on al-Qaida, may I – can I ask you about that? How much potential does this action have to set back al-Qaida, in your view?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: I don’t know, Paul, because the target was not al-Qaida per se, because al-Qaida is a shadowy group of people who are moving around. And since – and we don’t – you know very well how difficult it’s been to locate them over the last eight years. But I would leave those issues for the Pakistani military spokesman to address.

Way in the back.

QUESTION: Ambassador, Nadia Bilbassy with MBC Television. Just —


QUESTION: MBC Television – Middle East Broadcasting.


QUESTION: Just to follow up on the NATO question, I know you don’t want to talk about the report, but surely you have an idea of what the United States wants from NATO, specifically, when the – this coming election on November 7th in terms of civilian or military help. And secondly, President Obama always stressed that the war in Afghanistan is a war of necessity. Do you agree and you still see it as such?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Do I agree with the President?

QUESTION: No, do you see it as —

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Yeah, I agree with the President.



QUESTION: You would like the President to help. But is this assessment still valid today?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: On your first question, NATO is the greatest alliance – peacetime alliance in history, now engaged in its most important test in its history. And it was designed for one purpose, and from Bosnia and Kosovo on, it’s had evolving purposes.

We take it with the utmost seriousness. We spend an enormous amount of time. My senior deputy Paul Jones was at the North Atlantic Council the day before yesterday briefing them. I’ve been over there twice since I took this job. We will keep in close touch with them. We have 41 nations in this coalition, including all the NATO countries to one degree or another – some very small – plus other countries like Australia, and other non-NATO countries that participate.

And on your second question, I really do agree with the President, and that’s all I need to say on that subject.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador, Jonathan Landay with McClatchy newspapers. Today was another attack in Pakistan on a military-related facility, this one the Kamra air defense – complex. We’ve had assassination of a brigadier general yesterday, and then there was the attack on GHQ in Rawalpindi. There have been other attacks on the military.

I’m wondering if you could talk about to what extent you believe the Pakistani military is infiltrated by allies of the extremists? These appear to have been inside jobs, at least several of them, and how that – and whether or not there seems to be coordination between them, other extremist groups, and the fighting in Waziristan?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: I’m sure there’s a connection between the offensive and this – these attempts. It’s a pretty obvious tactic of people when they’re under pressure to try to infiltrate and attack you from the rear. I can’t answer your – it’s pure speculation as to how much of this is an inside job or not. I have no information on that, and I’d direct you to the Pakistanis themselves for a judgment.

But we are very impressed with the Pakistani resolve, the support the Pakistani’s army has had since Swat, and the fact that they’ve put so many troops into this battle. They know what the stakes are. And having spent a lot of time with General Kayani and his colleagues, I know how determined they are.

QUESTION: Has this – have the attacks on the military facilities increased in any way concerns about security of the nuclear – of nuclear facilities in Pakistan?


Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Yes, Ambassador. Charley Keyes, CNN. Please, sir, if we can just briefly go back to Afghanistan and your role? There was a lot of reporting about – in the intensive consultations with President Karzai that you were not present and your role was eclipsed by Senator Kerry. What are you comments about this? And can you bring us up to date about your personal relationship with President Karzai? Is it too strained to continue?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: I’m not sure how to answer that. I’d like to make a joke and say I’m always happy to be eclipsed by John Kerry, but then you’ll take it seriously, and then I’ll cause more problems. (Laughter.) So let me address it on a more serious basis.

I go to Pakistan and Afghanistan about once every two months. I was there less than two months ago. I will be back in both countries within a short period of time. I can’t go into details because of the Secretary’s plans. The period since I was last in Afghanistan has been, as I already said, the most intense policy review period I have ever experienced in my government career. And my job was to be here to help staff Secretary Clinton, and prepare for these extensive meetings in which she and I both participate.

And I want to make a footnote here, because I noticed that somebody said that there was a meeting we were excluded from yesterday. I want to be very clear on that. The President had a television conference with Ambassador Eikenberry and Ambassador Ricciardone yesterday with some of his inner staff. Secretary Clinton and I knew about it in advance. We thought it was a great idea. He’s the President’s Ambassador and we – and he’s a great ambassador and we encourage him to have that. And we talked about it with him afterwards. I’m online and on the phone to Ambassadors Eikenberry and Ricciardone several times a day, as is my colleagues. And none of this affects any of our processes. In regard to – so that’s why I didn’t go back. And I will be back right on schedule. And when I left in August, I said I’ll come back after the elections.

In terms of my relationships with President Karzai, they’re fine, they’re correct, they’re appropriate. I speak to him on behalf of my government and he speaks as president of the country. I respect him. And if he is the – if he’s reelected as president on November 7th, we all look forward to working closely with him in pursuit of mutual goals. I personally look forward to seeing him in a few days, and I have absolutely no problems with him, and it’s as simple as that.

Let me try to get somebody way in the back just for —

QUESTION: This is Laura Rozen from Politico. I know your team has been meeting with USAID contractors and NGOs and others in the past week to try to communicate your ideas for assistance to Pakistan. Can you talk a little bit about what you all are trying to communicate?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: I’m not sure what you mean by the last week. I meet with NGOs every few days. We are the only office in this building with a full-time NGO person assigned to us who has joined us recently. He – we have a list of close to a thousand NGOs that we have now compiled and doing databasing on. NGOs are a hugely important part of this process. And the Secretary of State herself is deeply involved in outreach to the NGOs. She cares about the NGOs. I ran three NGOs myself until January 19th and have served on many boards. And so yesterday, we met with some of them. We support the NGOs.

At the same time, we’re trying to improve the operations of entities – NGOs and contract employees – who serve – who carry out part of American foreign policy in the region. And this is a very delicate balance, and some people have expressed concerns about this, but we have a very clear image of speeding up the flow of American taxpayer dollars to the people and the governments of the two countries. So if it’s a government contract, we want to speed it up.

Now, of the NGOs I met with yesterday, they all pointed out that only a certain percentage of their funds come from the U.S. Government, and that that percentage is going down. So we encourage them to work with us, and we’ll continue. And I don’t believe you’ll ever find in this building, in its past or currently, any office which spends more time with NGOs —


AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: — because it’s what we believe in. Hillary Clinton and I believe in it, and because they’re important.


QUESTION: Back to the Kerry-Lugar bill and the whole flap in Pakistan, it really has sparked a lot of anti-Americanism in the press, in public opinion. What do you think is at the root of that? I mean, you talk about how Pakistan is a great friend and ally of the United States. And how does that factor into Secretary Clinton’s trip? How much of a concern is it? What does she want to do to try to address that? Does she think she can?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: If I could quibble with a word, because I used to be an editor, I don’t think it sparked anything. I think it was just an excuse for a certain group of people who were looking for an excuse to take a great piece of legislation, shepherded through the Congress by Senator Kerry – and I didn’t sufficiently – in answer to the question from the gentleman from CNN, I did not sufficiently pay tribute to what John Kerry did, and – but I’ve done that elsewhere and I’m on the record. I think he did a phenomenal job in both countries on this trip. He got more attention for Afghanistan, of course, and I’ve never seen better collaboration between a member of the Congress and the Executive Branch.

Now back to your question —

QUESTION: If I could just add, but it wasn’t just what people were saying in op-eds, it was the public opinion that got reflected back.

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: I’m not sure it was public opinion. The – in the end, it got caught up in domestic Pakistani politics, on which I don’t intend to comment. The parliament wants the Kerry-Lugar-Berman authorization. And it was misunderstood, and perhaps it wasn’t adequately explained. But as far as I’m concerned, that issue is over.

MR. CROWLEY: We’ll take about two more.


QUESTION: Hi, Camille Elhassani–

QUESTION: Oh, me or —

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Well, why don’t you – both of you.

QUESTION: Okay. First, I’m Steve Centanni from Fox News. Mr. Ambassador, with that decision-making process underway – on the way forward in Afghanistan, how much could that impact the election in Afghanistan, if at all? And conversely, how could the outcome or any problems with the election influence the decision-making process?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: The – I don’t think that – on the first half of your question, how much can the decision affect the election, I would think – I don’t see much connection. On the second one, I will – other people have addressed that in other forums recently and I’ll leave it to them.

QUESTION: Thank you. Camille Elhassani with Al Jazeera English Television. I wanted to ask – you were talking about the reporting requirements in the defense authorization bill. Some of those reporting requirements include what Pakistan can do in regards to the money with – and not spending it to – on its – on the India side of their issues, and it’s more to fight terrorism and insurgency. I wondered, have you gotten a sense from Pakistani authorities that they are on board with that? And what are you doing to convince them that that is the – that fighting that insurgency is the best way to —

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: I’m not sure I follow your question, exactly. Try again.

QUESTION: Sure. (Laughter.)

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Just so I can be sure I focus on it.

QUESTION: Sure. Well, in the defense authorization bill, it says that the money may not be spent on operations against India, that it should be spent on counterinsurgency, et cetera. So I wondered, do you get a sense in your conversations with Pakistani authorities if they feel that they’re on board with that and what they can spend the money on, and are they really committed to – that that is the focus of their military operations?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: There is a clause on that issue, but I have not had personal discussions with them about it. I look forward to it when I get there. The Congress can speak for itself. But I want to stress again these are not conditions on Pakistan. They’re reporting requirements on us.

One last question.

QUESTION: Yes, sir.


QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Raghubir Goyal from India Globe and Asia Today. My question is that for the last seven years, two presidents who are now running Afghanistan and Pakistan, Mr. Karzai in Afghanistan and General Musharraf in Pakistan – now General Musharraf still hanging around in the U.S. and he’s trying to get back and he’s defending his administration, but criticizing the U.S. that he can do better job again.

And one, if you think that he can come back in any way? And second, as far as President Karzai is concerned, do you still have trust and faith in him as far as his seven years in the past? Because many Afghans are not really in favor of him. What is the future ahead?

AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Well, former President Musharraf is former President Musharraf. He can say anything he wants. He doesn’t speak for the government. He’s free to do what he wants both here and in Pakistan, and we will not interfere in the issues concerning him and his status. I want to stress that.

On the second issue, we have an election going on. If the second round reelects Hamid Karzai as president of Afghanistan, we look forward to working with him. It’s as simple as that. And second terms are second terms in the United States and in Afghanistan. I don’t see – you can’t erase the past, you can’t change it, but you can build on it. We have very high hopes that after the election, the Government of Afghanistan will work closely with the international community to institute the very programs that we discussed in answer to the much earlier question that came from somebody concerning the issues that have been stalled because of the election process – very high hopes.

And Ambassador Eikenberry, under direct instructions from Hillary Clinton, has been having an – and I did this when I was there two months ago, by the way – this was the major topic of my conversations with President Karzai, was what would happen in the future. And Karl Eikenberry has continued that, and we look forward to continuing it after the elections.

Thank you very much.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

Read Full Post »

Having been through a long year when many of us have witnessed otherwise bright and reasonable people take the inexplicable turn to faith in tabloid rot, I have decided to attack this  now, since I may find myself attacking it often, as I have with the other toxic memes.  A friend sent me this ridiculous and completely unfounded story today from the Globe: Hillary Health Crisis! The blurb reads as follows:

HILLARY Clinton is battling a secret illness, say insiders who reveal the Secretary of State suffers from blackouts, crippling headaches and breathing problems. In this blockbuster world exclusive, sources bare the former First Lady’s agony and her shocking plans for the future. Don’t miss a single word!

This is the same rag that ran a story about a month and a half back saying that Bill Clinton has Parkinson’s disease, equally asinine since President Clinton had already raised the subject in an appearance on Larry King Live with Sanjay Gupta, explained that he had been tested and was found not to be suffering from Parkinson’s.

But here we have the Globe once again raising its nasty head with a new outright lie. How can I be so bold as to call it out as a lie? Easily, since on the same day, Preeti Aroon at Foreign Policy magazine’s Hillary Clinton blog, Madam Secretary provided a glimpse into an article to run in Parade Magazine on October 25: 24 Hours With Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by Leslie H. Gelb. His article begins thus:

“We’re going to work you to death,” Hillary Clinton promised me with a laugh. She was taking me—and PARADE’s readers—along on a typical day in the life of the U.S. Secretary of State. Our 24 hours together would prove both grueling and inspirational, full of diplomatic pageantry, big meetings with policy brainiacs, small sessions with trusted aides, a stream of time-consuming formal duties, and, of course, phone calls and more phone calls. The Secretary allowed me to be a fly on the wall for almost every minute, under the constantly watchful eyes of the Diplomatic Security Service. Having known her since her husband began his first run for the White House in 1991, I couldn’t stop myself from calling her Hillary. To everyone else, however, she was always Madame Secretary.

Gelb goes on to log the next 24 waking hours in the Secretary of State’s schedule commencing with the September 15 Iftar Dinner which began at 6:45 p.m., and continuing through the following day which began with an 8:30 a.m. small staff meeting and ended with a 7:30 p.m. policy dinner on Iran. Gelb has (thank you!) chronicled the day in pictures which are available at the Parade website as a 21 photo slideshow.

No one with as crippling a “secret illness” as Globe describes could sustain this kind of schedule day in and day out.  The photos show that she moves through these busy days smiling and energetic.  Have I ever seen the Secretary rub her forehead?  Sure!  Many of us get headaches, she probably is not immune, but to take any gesture or isolated incident as a marker of the catastrophic is irresponsible and misleading.

One more thing about that Globe article:  They use this photo of Hillary emerging from a car in my favorite hot pink jacket.

I believe this was taken on one of her trips, and at first I thought it was when she arrived in Germany and was greeted by Angela Merkle, but no.  I remember that she was wearing sunglasses then.  These trips are also packed with meetings and activities , and, again, through those busy days she maintains her beautiful smile and energy – even if the American media does not cover her.  I happen to like this picture and think she looks adorable.  So I just thought I would share it.

The photos speak for themselves.  So what am I to believe?  The innuendo of hidden source at Globe, or a day-long photoshoot at Parade?  I encourage you to check out Parade’s slideshow and then tell me, is this a woman who is battling a secret illness?  Nope, I don’t think so. I see my gorgeous, healthy, vibrant, brilliant Secretary of State.

(For the record: The fact that this Parade article is online will not prevent me from running to the corner store Sunday morning to get my hard copy.)


Read Full Post »

When Iraq, under the orders of the late Saddam Hussein,  invaded and annexed Kuwait on August 2, 1990, the United States and allies were galvanized into action that was christened accrding to its two stages, Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. Iraqi forces were expelled from Kuwait,  and its sovereignty was restored.

One of the reasons for the swift and strong action was that Kuwait is an ally in an important location in a critical region. Another reason Americans were especially supportive of the war was that video coming out of Kuwait showed us an unusually free and open Arab state where young people dressed as they pleased, many spoke English, and young women appeared to be uncommonly equal to young men in their ability to circulate, speak out, and obtain an education without being segregated by sex.

So in recognition of Kuwait’s forward secular vision and enlightened treatment of women, today we can celebrate yet a new breakthrough by Kuwait. Today, according to the BBC, the Kuwaiti constitutional court ruled that the women of Kuwait have a constitutional right to obtain a passport without the permission of their husbands. This is enormous, and Kuwait stands as a shining example of gender equity, not just for its Middle Eastern neighbors, but for many countries outside that region as well.

When I arrived in Haiti, a married woman could have neither a passport nor a bank account without her husband’s permission. I do not know whether that law has been changed. Spousal permission is still required in many countries for the ordinary business of life. This must change. (I can almost hear our Secretary of State saying those words.)

Here is an excerpt from the BBC article: Kuwaiti women win passport rights

Kuwaiti women will be able to obtain their own passport without the consent of their husbands, following a ruling by the country’s constitutional court.

The court, whose decisions are final, said the previous requirement was in violation of guarantees of freedom and gender equality in the constitution.

The decision came about when a woman complained her husband had prevented her from leaving the country.

The country’s first female MPs were elected in May 2009.

The article abolished by the court dated back to Kuwait’s 1962 passport law which required a husband’s signature on a woman’s passport application.

Aseel al-Awadhi, one of the new MPs, welcomed the passport law ruling as a “victory for constitutional principles that puts an end to this injustice against Kuwaiti women”.


So today the Homegirls applaud the Kuwaiti Constitutional Court,  and congratulate our Kuwaiti sisters AND our enlightened brothers over there for taking the right step for women, for human rights, and for further Kuwaiti participation in the global economy.

Read Full Post »

In the run-up to today’s unveiling of the administration’s revised policy on Sudan, there was a great deal of dust raised regarding what the policy might consist of and how it would be explained. I posted the joint announcement by Secretary Clinton, Ambassador Rice, and Special Envoy Gration at Still4Hill, and I encourage you to take the time to watch and listen.

Perhaps the most notable earmark of the morning’s presentation was what we did not hear. We did not hear details about incentives or disincentives, and we did not hear any betrayal of disagreement among the players – which, as I said in the prior post was a huge concern of mine. In the end, though, I am not unhappy about the way this played out for a few reasons:

First and foremost, the characterization of the genocide in Darfur as ongoing: It is not over, and we are not saying it is over. Hillary referred to conditions “on the ground” as a prime indicator of progress toward the goals. That is a condition that must stop, and I think the policy is firm on that.

Although I was very apprehensive about Hillary making this “unity” demonstration, she was masterful in doing it to the point that I almost think it was her idea. She showed authority, determination, and collegiality. It was not an empty gesture, and Hillary emerged whole.

Are there gaps and gray areas? Yup! Did she explain why the vagueness? Sure did. And reading it is nothing like hearing her say why. The Head Homegirl has a very authoritative way of delivering even that message that makes it somehow acceptable. Was there transparency? Not a lot. On the whole, though, I think they did a good job – especially the Homegirls – I always root for the Homegirls.

Read Full Post »

This story, White House changing policy on Sudan; new incentives to be unveiled Monday by Clinton is flying around the interwebs today, and I must say that, if this is the transparent administration, I see right through it. The White House is changing the policy and the Secretary of State will do the unveiling. Well actually The Secretary of State along with our ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, and special envoy to Sudan, Scott Gration. And the reason for the triumvirate? (Can you still use that word when two members are women? I don’t know.)  The reason is here in this paragraph of the story:

The announcement is planned to show unity within the Obama administration. Rice and Gration have notoriously clashed over engaging with the Sudanese government of President Omar al-Bashir, who has been charged by the International Criminal Court with crimes against humanity and war crimes for allegedly masterminding deadly attacks throughout Darfur.

Well, by all means let’s not let any daylight show between the White House and the cabinet.

Of course we all have to wait until Monday to hear exactly how our Homegirl will explain the rationale behind this policy reversal. It just seems to be so opposed to everything I have seen Hillary stand for.   In every interview, Hillary mentions the unity issue within this administration, and now I am beginning to wonder whether the only policy is unity for unity’s sake to the extent that whomever we are reaching out to or whomever we are isolating, the most important issue is not what behavior we may see or have seen from that entity, no that is not the issue. Who is killing, raping, starving, throwing acid at whom is not the issue. That the administration remains in lock step, that the image projected is one of unity,  that is the most important issue.

Here’s another cute little trick:

However, the officials said the new policy will not make major concessions to Bashir, whose government is designated a “state sponsor of terrorism” by the State Department.

Instead, the new policy is designed to bring Khartoum into the fold by offering incentives for improved relations for improvements in the situation in Darfur as well as in southern Sudan, which will hold a referendum on succession scheduled to take place in 2011, they said.

So it’s not Bashir to whom we are reaching out, it’s Khartoum. I don’t think so, though.  It is Bashir, and playing with the words will not change that.   After all of Hillary’s explanations of smart power, it seems the real foreign policy of this administration is image over substance and Hillary has allowed herself to get sucked into the smoke and mirrors.   It saddens me because I can see right through it.    I hope Hillary’s explanation of this on Monday makes sense.  Convince me, Hillary, please, that being Obama’s conjoined twin –  or anyone else’s – has not become your mission in life.


Thanks to stacyx of Secretary Clinton blog for passing along this WaPo article: A Cold War Man, a Hot War and a Legal Gray Area.  The subject, Robert McFarlane,  gained notoriety during the Iran-Contra hearings, and he is a wheeler-dealer  who has insinuated himself into this process of reassessing our policy toward Sudan.  MY particular concern here is where Hillary stands (really – as Hillary – not as part of this administration) on this issue.  We know that Susan Rice opposed Scott Gration and his “incentives” plan.  Well the WaPo article states the following:

His involvement, however, presents another serious complication for the Obama administration, which is struggling to formulate a coherent policy on Sudan amid disputes between the State Department and Sudan envoy J. Scott Gration, who has signaled support for easing sanctions against the Khartoum regime.

Whew!  *Sigh of relief *  Our Hillary is still our Hillary, and there is unity Between Hillary and Susan Rice evidently, but we still do not know what the new policy will be.  Here is what I found in Wikipedia on Gration:

Political activity

In 2006, he traveled to Africa on a five-nation, fifteen-day, fact-finding tour, accompanying Senator Barack Obama as an “African expert“.[5] He later endorsed Obama’s presidential campaign, citing that Obama had the “judgment, wisdom, courage, experience, and leadership capability that we desperately need”.[6]

In light of this,  I have to wonder whose expertise will have the strong impact on Obama,  Hillary’s and Susan’s or Scott’s – the “Africa expert” who has met with McFarlane.

McFarlane met with Gration and national security adviser James L. Jones earlier this year about the Sudan conflict, but White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said neither official approved of McFarlane’s consulting plans.

We will learn tomorrow at 9 EDT when Hillary unveils the new policy accompanied by Ambassador Rice and Special Envoy Gration.  When I first encountered the story that triggered this post, I wondered who chose Gration for this position.  It appears to me he was Obama’s pick and not Hillary’s.  This joint announcement with all three players present will do nothing to fool me into believing there is unity on this issue. It does seem that I am right – it is all about the appearance of unity.

*UPDATE* 10-18-09  8 p.m.EDT

This just came up on a news feed from the UK Sunday Mail:

Hillary Clinton vows fresh start for Darfur breakthrough

Oct 18 2009

HILLARY CLINTON has promised a new relationship with Sudan if the Khartoum regime end violence and humanitarian abuses in Darfur.

The US secretary of state will tomorrow unveil her proposals to stop the six-year war in the region.

The conflict began in February 2003 when ethnic African rebels took up arms against the Arab-dominated Sudanese government in Khartoum.

United Nations officials say the war has claimed at least 300,000 lives. Some 2.7million people were driven from their homes and, from 2003 to2005, it was called the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

They are calling the policy hers.

Read Full Post »

Run for your lives!!!!!!

Just weeks before Halloween, the deadly Vampire Tales rise from their coffins providing me with my costume for this year: Buffy, The Vampire Tale Slayer!

In her interview with Head Homegirl, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the Today Show this morning,  Ann Curry demonstrated her ignorance of current affairs by referring to the toxic memes circulating in June just after Hillary broke her elbow (and she WAS at work the whole time, by the way).  She asked about that old marginalization story, that “Hillary in the Shadows” rumor that was circulating back in June.

In fact the seed was planted in The Hill on May 26, 2009 before Hillary’s accident by Dick(head) Morris in his risible (if you were watching the events of September 18-30 in New York City and on TV this year) The Incredible Shrinking Clintons.   This effluent piece of fiction was pretty rapidly imbibed by Ben Smith at Politico who published on June 23, 2009,  Hillary Toils in the Shadows an article that implied incredulity that Hillary exhibited loyalty to the administration that she had accepted to join.  The article also alluded to her “diminished star power” – I don’t think so.  Why does the MSM plug her interviews a week in advance?  And what are the ratings?

But the icing on the cake was Tina Brown’s July 13, 2009, Obama’s Other Wife where Brown stated that it was time for Obama to let Hillary take off her burqa.  Brown, who purportedly supported Hillary’s presidential candidacy began to show the cracks in her loyalty there.  Hillary loyalists know that Hillary would not put on a burqa – physically (God forbid!) or figuratively because, well, nobody puts Baby in a corner.

These memes were addressed here , here, here, here, here, (This is getting boring, isn’t it? Sorry!),  and (one more time) here on this blog.  Ann Curry should have known how old and irrelevant the questions about Hillary’s fictional marginalization are.  I watched Hillary with Susan Rice and Rahm Emmauel at the Genaral Assembly and Security Council events  and had no doubt that I was looking at, not only a team player, but an MVP!  What were you watching that day, Ann?  Any of those days of UNGA and CGI?  I was seeing a Clintonville Spectacular!

Oh, but then the plot thickens  – really thick!  Homegirl stacyx of  Secretary Clinton blog dug up some very interesting, and incriminating filth tonight.  Ya gotta love this!  Here is The Daily Beast (read Tina Brown) on the Ann Curry interview: Hillary: Maybe It’s a Woman Thing. Yeah, right!  It’s the same Tina Brown but IS it?

Well, maybe not!  Take a look at this: Hillary Not Running For President, Unless You’re Asking Tina Brown and then there’s this from The Daily Loaf:

Madame Secretary was interviewed by Curry, who asked her expected questions on Afghanistan, the Middle East, etc. But then came “Do you still want to run for President?” Mind you, this question was set up by Curry, who claimed that there have been rumblings that Clinton has been “marginalized” in the Obama White House.

Clinton called that assessment “absurd.”

She also said she does not want to run for President, but is actually looking forward to retirement.

Hillary’s purportedly lingering presidential ambition has become somewhat of a theme promulgated by media heavyweights, none bigger than Tina Brown, now with the Daily Beast website. In fact, the folks at the site immediately put up that interview on their site today.

Brown is writing a book on Hillary (and Bill) called The Clinton Chronicles, due out next year. I’m not the first person to speculate that Brown is using the power of her website to perpetuate this drama about the Secretary of State somehow being frustrated by a lack of power in the administration. (Didn’t Brown write earlier this year something about “It’s time to let Hillary take off her burqa?” Yes, she did).

The theory (which some hardcore Hillary supporters still believe) goes that a disgruntled Hillary will end up taking on Obama for the Democratic nomination in 2012.

When asked point blank if she was thinking of running for president (not against Obama, but just at some point in her lifetime after coming close to winning the Democratic nomination in 2008), Clinton responded, ” I’m looking forward to retirement at some point.”

One would think this would end the speculation, and we could get on to all of the issues that Clinton herself is working on internationally as the chief diplomat in this crazy world. But nah, it’s more fun to think she’s still bitter at losing the nomination, when in fact her job gives her an incredible amount of power.

So I have to ask why I am sitting up (AGAIN) at one in the morning in effing OCTOBER with my shield still raised against this meme along with its corollary that an angry Hillary will raise a party revolt?  (She’s not angry, folks!  She’s working too hard, FOR US,  to entertain that emotion in that quadrant).  The hidden answer emerges: because Tina Brown has a book to hawk.

Yes.  That’s it.  That’s the reason.  Cheap, isn’t it?

-Love to all and have a Happy and Safe Halloween,


P.S. You seriously did not believe that was was going to end this without a picture of the Head Homegirl looking happy, gorgeous, and effective, did you?


P.P.S. Given the huge pre-release fanfare Today gave (for a week in advance of release) to Dan Brown’s The Lost Symbol, two questions:
1. Who is publishing Tina Brown’s book? Dan Brown’s is Doubleday.
2. What is the connection between Doubleday and G.E. or NBC?

It will be interesting to see what kind of publicity Today gives Tina’s opus!

Read Full Post »

Lately, this blog has been addressing busily what the Homegirls perceive as transgressions against the public image of our Head Homegirl, Hillary Rodham Clinton, diplomat extraordinaire.  Today, however, we take a moment to spotlight her own remarks regarding the deplorable war against free speech being waged in Russia against the press.  Today marks the third anniversary of the death of Anna Politkovskaya.

Born in New York City of Soviet Ukrainian parents assigned to the U.N., she was a dual citizen of the U.S. and the Russian Federation and an indefatiguable champion of human rights.  She was shot to death in the elevator of her apartment house on this day three years ago, one of,  as Hillary states, 18 journalists murdered in Russia since the year 2000.

The government of Russia has been less than assiduous in tracking down the assassins in these cases much less bringing them to justice.


Anna Politkovskaya

Along with our Homegirl, DeHoS calls on Russia.  Bring the perps to justice!  Not another journalist dead!  Not another one!

Here are Hillary’s remarks on the occasion of the sad and intolerable anniversary.

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
October 7, 2009

Today we mark with sadness the third anniversary of the tragic slaying of journalist Anna Politkovskaya. To date, no one has been brought to justice in this case, similar to other cases involving violent crimes against journalists in Russia, including Paul Klebnikov and more recently Natalya Estemirova. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 18 journalists have been killed in Russia since 2000 in retaliation for their work. In only one case have the killers been convicted.

While we welcome calls by Russian officials defending the necessity of a free press, the failure to bring to justice the killers of these journalists undermines efforts to strengthen the rule of law, improve government accountability, and combat corruption.


Paul Klebnikov


Natalya Estemirova

Read Full Post »

…and Hillary had nothing to do with any of this, I found these entries in sequence under JFK in Wikipedia:


Further information: The Ireland Funds

President Kennedy in motorcade in the Republic of Ireland on June 27, 1963

On the occasion of his visit to the Republic of Ireland in 1963, President Kennedy joined with Irish President Éamon de Valera to form The American Irish Foundation. The mission of this organization was to foster connections between Americans of Irish descent and the country of their ancestry. Kennedy furthered these connections of cultural solidarity by accepting a grant of armorial bearings from the Chief Herald of Ireland. Kennedy had near-legendary status in Ireland, due to his ancestral ties to the country. Irish citizens who were alive in 1963 often have very strong memories of Kennedy’s momentous visit.[41] He also visited the original cottage at Dunganstown, near New Ross, where previous Kennedys had lived before emigrating to America, and said: “This is where it all began …” On December 22, 2006, the Irish Department of Justice released declassified police documents that indicated that Kennedy was the subject of three death threats during this visit. Though these threats were determined to be hoaxes, security was heightened.[42]


In 1963, the Kennedy administration backed a coup against the government of Iraq headed by General Abdel Karim Kassem, who five years earlier had deposed the Western-allied Iraqi monarchy. The CIA helped the new Ba’ath Party government led by Abdul Salam Arif in ridding the country of suspected leftists and Communists. In a Baathist bloodbath, the government used lists of suspected Communists and other leftists provided by the CIA, to systematically murder untold numbers of Iraq’s educated elite—killings in which Saddam Hussein himself is said to have participated. The victims included hundreds of doctors, teachers, technicians, lawyers, and other professionals as well as military and political figures.[43][44][45] According to an op-ed in the New York Times, the U.S. sent arms to the new regime, weapons later used against the same Kurdish insurgents the U.S. supported against Kassem and then abandoned him. American and UK oil and other interests, including Mobil, Bechtel, and British Petroleum, were conducting business in Iraq.[43]

So, number one, lets get this out of the way right now, I descend from (among other nationalities) Northern Irish – one side Catholic and one side Protestant. They married, they got along, case closed except for the fact that my dad and his sibs always went to the St. Patrick’s Day Parade in NYC and ALWAYS cheered for the signs “England Get Out Of Ireland” (even though we’re about equally English).   I always felt that gave me the right to side with the Provos way back. And, no, terrorism is not “right,” but in my grandfather’s Hungary, people acting similarly were called “Freedom Fighters.”

My Hillary is going to my beloved Ireland to try to do some healing. God bless her. We needed an end to the fighting. But my relatives, still there, need their equal rights. We may never be “A Nation Once Again,” but I pray for peace there – for my family and for everyone.  (How odd – I left it unedited.  I said “we”).

Last note on this, I just had no memory whatsoever that Eamon de Valera was still alive in my lifetime. DUH!

The entry on Iraq is interesting in that most people think that the only “regime” in Iraq from the early 1950s through the coup that routed Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979 was that of the Shah.  Apparently not.  Note the implication of Saddam Hussein.  This was all Cold War stuff to be sure.   We were heavily involved all along the path.

I add all of this in response to my Sinhalese readers.  You see,  my folks are “northerners” too.  They would like to be part of the free independent Irish State, but they are not.  So if you think I bear a certain sympathy with the Tamil, I do.

That was not really the point of my previous post.  And I interject Iraq here only because it came up alphabetically and is yet another example of ethinc or religious differences causing civil division.  I post it to demonstrate that I truly am thinking about what you said, David UK.

But I still do not see where you have extended a hand to the Tamil.  Everything I have read from you simply condemns them.

I am sure there are crimes on both sides – sure!  Certain!  It’s always true.  But while you ask me “Where’s the beef?”  I ask you,  if prior to 2006 there were claims, where’s the refutation?

As I have said, Hillary Clinton did not pull the names of countries out of a hat,  There was a basis for what she said.  If you can see where I am coming from,  there is room for talk.  If you are going to deal in inattributed absolutes like “Never.”  Well then you show me the beef.

And I should NEVER get in the middle of a civil dispute again!  Really!   But I might.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »