Remarks On The Administration's Efforts on HIV/AIDS
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Eisenhower Executive Office Building
Washington, DC
November 30, 2009
As Valerie Jarrett leaves, I want to thank her for her leadership on this and so many issues here in the White House and in the Administration, and for her personal testimony as to the importance of this issue for her, for President Obama, for all of us.
We are gathered on the eve of World AIDS Day to renew and recommit ourselves. It is obvious to those sitting in this audience, as I look out at you and see people who have been involved in this struggle for a long time, that you know that we have made progress, but we face an unending pandemic, one that spares no one, that unfortunately, disproportionately affects the most vulnerable, and which is the defining health challenge of our times. And we have to address it through a series of broad and cross-cutting global partnerships and a whole-of-government approach. And that is exactly what we are attempting to do.
We know the ravages and complexities of HIV/AIDS here in our own country, and we know, many of us, what it looks like around the world. But we can take some heart in the progress that has been made over the last two decades. Access to antiretroviral treatment in low- and middle-income countries has risen tenfold in the last five years. New HIV infections have fallen by 17 percent over the last eight years. And much of that progress has been due to the concerted efforts of the United States Government and our partners.
I want to applaud President Bush for making a serious commitment to American leadership in combating HIV/AIDS. His administration spearheaded the creation of PEPFAR – the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. And by supporting its implementation and activities, the United States has made the largest effort in history by any nation to combat a single disease. I remember well serving as a senator from New York how there was bipartisan support on behalf of this initiative, and the extraordinary commitment of dollars and technical assistance that backed it up.
PEPFAR has provided lifesaving antiretroviral treatment to over 2 million men, women, and children worldwide, through partnerships with other governments and NGOs. We’ve supported care for more than 10 million people, including 4 million orphans and vulnerable children. And PEPFAR’s efforts to prevent mother-to-child transmission have helped nearly 240,000 HIV-positive mothers give birth to children who are HIV-free. So it is clear that our nation’s investments are having an impact. And President Obama is dedicated to enhancing America’s leadership in the fight against global AIDS with PEPFAR serving as the cornerstone of our Global Health Initiative to promote better and more sustainable health outcomes.
Later this week, Ambassador Goosby will present the five-year strategy for the future of PEPFAR outlining the important role that PEPFAR will play in transitioning from emergency response to sustainable health systems that help meet the broad medical needs of people with HIV and the communities in which they live. In its next phase, PEPFAR programs will support a comprehensive, whole-of-government approach in many countries to increase awareness, reduce stigma, and get services to people at earlier stages.
Obviously, our efforts are hampered whenever discrimination or marginalization of certain populations results in less effective outreach and treatment. So we will work not only to ensure access for all who need it, but also to combat discrimination more broadly. We have to stand against any efforts to marginalize and criminalize and penalize members of the LGBT community worldwide. It is an unacceptable step backwards – (applause) – on behalf of human rights. But it is also a step that undermines the effectiveness of efforts to fight the disease worldwide.
We will also redouble our efforts to address the needs of women and girls who are disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS in many parts of the world. Promoting the health of women strengthens families and communities and has positive spillover effects in areas like poverty reduction and education. Since we know the most effective health programs are integrated with functioning local and national governments, we will work with partner governments to assess capacity, identify gaps, and make customized plans to meet each country’s needs.
Now, that means creating more programs like the ones that Ambassador Goosby and I visited in Africa over the summer. In Angola, for example, our PEPFAR Partnership Framework supports the country’s HIV National Strategic plan to strengthen the health care infrastructure there.
We visited a clinic in South Africa, which we co-sponsor with the South African Government, and heard from patients who not only receive care but also support as they face the stigma associated with HIV and AIDS.
Our investments in PEPFAR, the Global Fund, and overall global health have made a positive difference. And we will continue our support, but we have to do more. We have to make sure that our programs foster conditions that improve people’s lives and, in turn, promote stability, prosperity, and security.
In this time of very tight budgets in our own government and our own people suffering from unemployment, from other kinds of cutbacks in services, we have to do more even here at home. We’ve seen some of the results of the cutbacks that are happening at the state and local level. So while we are talking about our commitment internationally, let’s not forget our fellow citizens who are suffering right now.
And then we also have to make the case to our fellow citizens that our investment in dealing with the pandemic worldwide is in America’s interest. So we are committed to doing so. President Obama is implementing the repeal of the “HIV entry ban,” a longstanding policy that prevented people living with HIV/AIDS from entering our country. The repeal will take effect early in the new year, and will be vigorously enforcing it.
Today, I am pleased to announce that, with the repeal of the ban, the International AIDS Society will hold the 2012 International AIDS Conference in Washington, D.C. (Applause.) This conference will draw together an estimated 30,000 researchers, scientists, policymakers, healthcare providers, activists, and others from around the world.
So as we look to 2012, we have to continue to seek a global solution to this global problem. On World AIDS Day, let us renew our commitment to ensuring that those infected and affected by HIV—the woman on treatment who is supporting her family, the child who dropped out of school to care for sick parents, the doctors and nurses without adequate resources— that all those who have joined together to fight this pandemic will someday live in a world where HIV/AIDS can be prevented and treated as a disease of the past.
Thank you all very much. (Applause.)
Monday, November 30, 2009
WILL THE TRUE OBAMA STAND UP??
Will the true President Barack Obama stand up on Afghanistan?
Barack Obama must use his long-awaited announcement of more troops for Afghanistan to show the world who he really is, writes Toby Harnden in Washington
28 Nov 2009
TELEGRAPH.CO.UK
Ten months into his presidency, we all know the presidents Barack Obama is not, as well as the presidents he does not want to be.
It is clear that he is not a liberal mirror image of President Ronald Reagan, reshaping the political landscape. Neither is he, as he himself suggested immodestly, an Abraham Lincoln. He has a wonderful turn of phrase but any similarity ends there.
With unemployment rising to beyond 10 per cent, thus far he is proving to be no President Franklin Roosevelt.
Even Obama seems to have abandoned the grand historical comparisons he made before his inauguration. Instead, he appears intent on not being three presidents, especially with regard to foreign policy.
He still defines himself principally as the unBush, at every turn reflexively adding the caveat that his predecessor bequeathed him a "mess". By the time he finally reveals his decision on Afghanistan on Tuesday night, it will be just a day short of three months since General Stanley McChrystal requested 40,000 more troops to stave off American defeat.
This extraordinarily long process has been dubbed "dithering" by his critics, led by former vice-president Dick Cheney, and "deliberative" by his admirers. In fact, it is principally an ostentatious attempt to show that he is not President George W Bush, who once stated that he was "a gut player".
Alongside that, Obama wants to avoid being President Lyndon Johnson, whose "escalation" (a negative term that is now common currency in news reports) of the Vietnam war condemned him to a one-term presidency despite his Great Society domestic reforms.
At the moment, the most powerful player in Washington is probably Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi - she is a more skilled operator than the President and has a bigger Democratic majority than Harry Reid, her counterpart in the Senate. Obama is looking nervously at how she will view his increasing the American presence in Afghanistan from 68,000 to more than 100,000.
By taking his time, Obama hopes to signal to the sceptical Mrs Pelosi that he is deeply torn over his decision, but has no good options. Obama is also trying not to be President Bill Clinton, who was viewed as detached from and almost hostile to the United States armed forces and bored by the details of intelligence and military strategy.
None of these things, of course, has anything to do with deciding what's right for the West, for America or for the Afghan people - and the impression that Obama's primary concern is political positioning is deeply damaging.
Support for the war in Afghanistan now stands at barely a third of Americans, despite the reality that this was the country from which the 9/11 terrorist attacks were planned - quite a feat for a man who declared it the "good war" in his election campaign.
Although Obama revels in his approval ratings abroad - his senior aide David Axelrod helpfully noted in Asia that he was "demonstrably popular in all these countries and polling reflects that" - on Afghanistan he's been fixated with how his decision will play domestically.
In the meantime, American and British soldiers are both fighting and attempting to persuade ordinary Afghan who are on the fence to side with Nato forces rather than the Taliban.
They are inevitably struggling at the moment to make the case that America is in the fight for the long haul. Victory in Afghanistan - victory, that is, in the limited, achievable sense of preventing the Taliban winning - is dependant on both the enemy and the populace believing in American commitment as well as American might.
The 90-day "hiatus" - a plainly appropriate word for Bob Ainsworth, the British Defence Secretary to have used last week - in strategic direction from Washington has had a cost in terms of momentum and perception in Afghanistan that will not be easy to overcome.
For his speech to the American people on Tuesday, Obama has chosen the backdrop of West Point, the United States Amery's elite military academy. It's an appropriate choice - these are the men who the commander-in-chief will be sending to lead in battle - but also a risky one.
Republicans will smell a rat if Obama tries to use the cadets as cover for a half-hearted recommitment to Afghanistan, while Mrs Pelosi - who is key to healthcare reform - will not look on kindly if she spots an "escalation" wrapped in a military flag.
The troops in the field - not to mention Afghans - will not care about the venue. They will, however, hope that this will be the moment Obama discovers who he is, rather than who he is not - and puts political caution aside, finally, to do the right thing.
Barack Obama must use his long-awaited announcement of more troops for Afghanistan to show the world who he really is, writes Toby Harnden in Washington
28 Nov 2009
TELEGRAPH.CO.UK
Ten months into his presidency, we all know the presidents Barack Obama is not, as well as the presidents he does not want to be.
It is clear that he is not a liberal mirror image of President Ronald Reagan, reshaping the political landscape. Neither is he, as he himself suggested immodestly, an Abraham Lincoln. He has a wonderful turn of phrase but any similarity ends there.
With unemployment rising to beyond 10 per cent, thus far he is proving to be no President Franklin Roosevelt.
Even Obama seems to have abandoned the grand historical comparisons he made before his inauguration. Instead, he appears intent on not being three presidents, especially with regard to foreign policy.
He still defines himself principally as the unBush, at every turn reflexively adding the caveat that his predecessor bequeathed him a "mess". By the time he finally reveals his decision on Afghanistan on Tuesday night, it will be just a day short of three months since General Stanley McChrystal requested 40,000 more troops to stave off American defeat.
This extraordinarily long process has been dubbed "dithering" by his critics, led by former vice-president Dick Cheney, and "deliberative" by his admirers. In fact, it is principally an ostentatious attempt to show that he is not President George W Bush, who once stated that he was "a gut player".
Alongside that, Obama wants to avoid being President Lyndon Johnson, whose "escalation" (a negative term that is now common currency in news reports) of the Vietnam war condemned him to a one-term presidency despite his Great Society domestic reforms.
At the moment, the most powerful player in Washington is probably Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi - she is a more skilled operator than the President and has a bigger Democratic majority than Harry Reid, her counterpart in the Senate. Obama is looking nervously at how she will view his increasing the American presence in Afghanistan from 68,000 to more than 100,000.
By taking his time, Obama hopes to signal to the sceptical Mrs Pelosi that he is deeply torn over his decision, but has no good options. Obama is also trying not to be President Bill Clinton, who was viewed as detached from and almost hostile to the United States armed forces and bored by the details of intelligence and military strategy.
None of these things, of course, has anything to do with deciding what's right for the West, for America or for the Afghan people - and the impression that Obama's primary concern is political positioning is deeply damaging.
Support for the war in Afghanistan now stands at barely a third of Americans, despite the reality that this was the country from which the 9/11 terrorist attacks were planned - quite a feat for a man who declared it the "good war" in his election campaign.
Although Obama revels in his approval ratings abroad - his senior aide David Axelrod helpfully noted in Asia that he was "demonstrably popular in all these countries and polling reflects that" - on Afghanistan he's been fixated with how his decision will play domestically.
In the meantime, American and British soldiers are both fighting and attempting to persuade ordinary Afghan who are on the fence to side with Nato forces rather than the Taliban.
They are inevitably struggling at the moment to make the case that America is in the fight for the long haul. Victory in Afghanistan - victory, that is, in the limited, achievable sense of preventing the Taliban winning - is dependant on both the enemy and the populace believing in American commitment as well as American might.
The 90-day "hiatus" - a plainly appropriate word for Bob Ainsworth, the British Defence Secretary to have used last week - in strategic direction from Washington has had a cost in terms of momentum and perception in Afghanistan that will not be easy to overcome.
For his speech to the American people on Tuesday, Obama has chosen the backdrop of West Point, the United States Amery's elite military academy. It's an appropriate choice - these are the men who the commander-in-chief will be sending to lead in battle - but also a risky one.
Republicans will smell a rat if Obama tries to use the cadets as cover for a half-hearted recommitment to Afghanistan, while Mrs Pelosi - who is key to healthcare reform - will not look on kindly if she spots an "escalation" wrapped in a military flag.
The troops in the field - not to mention Afghans - will not care about the venue. They will, however, hope that this will be the moment Obama discovers who he is, rather than who he is not - and puts political caution aside, finally, to do the right thing.
HILLARY'S REMARKS WITH AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER
Remarks With Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd Before Their Meeting
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Treaty Room
Washington, DC
November 30, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it is wonderful to welcome such a good friend to the State Department back to Washington. Prime Minister Rudd just had an excellent comprehensive meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office where we discussed a wide range of issues from climate change to Afghanistan. And it is always a personal delight for me to have the chance to engage with the prime minister, who’s one of the real creative thinkers about so many of the issues that we are confronting. And we want to thank you, Prime Minister, and especially to thank the people of Australia for our years of friendship and alliance on so many important matters.
PRIME MINISTER RUDD: Thank you, Secretary of State. And it’s great to be back in Washington, and we did have a good discussion with the President this morning, covering our common challenges in Afghanistan for the future. Australia takes its alliance with the United States very seriously. That’s why we have been with America for a long time in Afghanistan, and why we will be with America for the long haul.
When it comes to climate change, the clock’s ticking for us all when it comes to Copenhagen. And we’re working closely with our American friends to secure the best possible outcome for an important deal for the planet, for our economies, for jobs, for the environment.
But Secretary of State, thank you for having me as your guest here in this marvelous building, the State Department, where I’ve been many times before, but always look forward to the opportunity of coming back.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. Thank you, Kevin.
PRIME MINISTER RUDD: Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much. Thank you all very much. Thank you.
TURNING POINT: COURIC RIPS OBAMA!!!!!!
Turning Point: Couric Rips Obama
NEWSMAX.COM
November 29, 2009
Katie Couric may be best known for her unflattering interview with Sarah Palin. But her nightly news broadcast this past Monday night may be an indicator that the big liberal media are now turning their guns on Obama.
Couric said on “CBS Evening News” that Americans are growing “disenchanted” with Obama and are openly questioning his credibility.
“Is the honeymoon over?” anchor Couric said at the beginning of her correspondent’s report.
“Although President Obama has been in office less than a year, many Americans are growing disenchanted with his handling of the enormous problems he and the country are facing, from healthcare to unemployment to Afghanistan.
“His poll numbers are sliding, and at least one poll shows his job approval rating has fallen, for the first time, below 50 percent.”
Correspondent Chris Reid chimed in: “The president is getting battered on everything from the economy to foreign policy. Some polls show Americans are increasingly questioning his credibility.”
The report asserted that while Obama talks about dealing with unemployment, which is over 10 percent and expected to rise, he has developed “no new ideas” for dealing with the problem.
CBS also cited a poll showing that only 14 percent of Americans believe Obama’s claim that healthcare reform won’t add to the budget deficit, and only 7 percent believe that the stimulus has created any jobs at all.
The report also criticized the president for being “indecisive” on Afghanistan, and for returning from his recent Asian trip “with little to show for it.”
An expert was quoted as describing his trip as the “amateur hour,” as he did not line up agreements with foreign countries before venturing abroad.
************************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
WOW! Obama must be losing sleep over the ObamaNetworks finding fault with him now!! Will he declare any news outlet who criticizes him as not a real news source like he did to FOX? I can't say I am not THRILLED with this revelation, but I am shocked. I didn't think the media would ever fall out of love with THE ONE.
We will know the honeymoon is REALLY OVER when MSNBC, especially Chris "thrills down my leg" Matthews starts criticizing his man-crush. Somehow I think that is a lasting love, at least on Matthews part anyway. LOL!! Whether or not this happens, surfice it to say if these ObamaNetworks had done their job during the primaries and general election, we would NOT be stuck with this INCOMPETENT, LYING FRAUD now.
NEWSMAX.COM
November 29, 2009
Katie Couric may be best known for her unflattering interview with Sarah Palin. But her nightly news broadcast this past Monday night may be an indicator that the big liberal media are now turning their guns on Obama.
Couric said on “CBS Evening News” that Americans are growing “disenchanted” with Obama and are openly questioning his credibility.
“Is the honeymoon over?” anchor Couric said at the beginning of her correspondent’s report.
“Although President Obama has been in office less than a year, many Americans are growing disenchanted with his handling of the enormous problems he and the country are facing, from healthcare to unemployment to Afghanistan.
“His poll numbers are sliding, and at least one poll shows his job approval rating has fallen, for the first time, below 50 percent.”
Correspondent Chris Reid chimed in: “The president is getting battered on everything from the economy to foreign policy. Some polls show Americans are increasingly questioning his credibility.”
The report asserted that while Obama talks about dealing with unemployment, which is over 10 percent and expected to rise, he has developed “no new ideas” for dealing with the problem.
CBS also cited a poll showing that only 14 percent of Americans believe Obama’s claim that healthcare reform won’t add to the budget deficit, and only 7 percent believe that the stimulus has created any jobs at all.
The report also criticized the president for being “indecisive” on Afghanistan, and for returning from his recent Asian trip “with little to show for it.”
An expert was quoted as describing his trip as the “amateur hour,” as he did not line up agreements with foreign countries before venturing abroad.
************************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
WOW! Obama must be losing sleep over the ObamaNetworks finding fault with him now!! Will he declare any news outlet who criticizes him as not a real news source like he did to FOX? I can't say I am not THRILLED with this revelation, but I am shocked. I didn't think the media would ever fall out of love with THE ONE.
We will know the honeymoon is REALLY OVER when MSNBC, especially Chris "thrills down my leg" Matthews starts criticizing his man-crush. Somehow I think that is a lasting love, at least on Matthews part anyway. LOL!! Whether or not this happens, surfice it to say if these ObamaNetworks had done their job during the primaries and general election, we would NOT be stuck with this INCOMPETENT, LYING FRAUD now.
GLOBAL WARMING CONSENSUS: GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT
Global warming consensus: garbage in, garbage out
By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
WASHINGTON EXAMINER.COM
November 29, 2009
As Air Force One heads to Copenhagen for the climate summit Dec. 9, it will presumably not make a U-turn while flying over the Climate Research Unit at University of East Anglia near Norwich, England. But perhaps it should. The 61 megabytes of CRU e-mails and documents made public by a hacker cast serious doubt on the ballyhooed consensus on man-made global warming that the Copenhagen summit was called to address.
The CRU has been a major source of data on global temperatures, relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the e-mails suggest that CRU scientists have been suppressing and misstating data and working to prevent the publication of conflicting views in peer-reviewed science periodicals. Some of the more pungent e-mails:
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
"Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4?"
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can't."
"I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU temperature station data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"
You get the idea. The most charitable plausible explanation I have seen comes from the Atlantic's Megan McArdle. "The CRU's main computer model may be, to put it bluntly, complete rubbish."
Australian geologist Ian Plimer, a global warming skeptic, is more blunt. The e-mails "show that data was massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased, there was destruction of data after freedom of information requests, and there was refusal to submit taxpayer-funded date for independent examination."
Global warming alarmist George Monbiot of the Guardian concedes that the e-mails "could scarcely be more damaging," adding, "I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them." He has called for the resignation of the CRU director.
All of which brings to mind the old computer geek's phrase: Garbage in, garbage out.
The Copenhagen climate summit was convened to get the leaders of nations to commit to sharp reductions in carbon dioxide emissions -- and thus sharp reductions in almost all energy usage, at huge economic cost -- in order to prevent disasters that supposedly were predicted with absolute certainty by a scientific consensus.
But that consensus was based in large part on CRU data that was, to take the charitable explanation, "complete rubbish" or, to take the more dire view, the product of deliberate fraud.
Quite possibly the CRU e-mailers were sincere in their belief that they were saving the planet. Like Al Gore, they wanted to convince the world's elites that the time for argument is over, the scientific consensus is clear and those who disagree can be dismissed as cranks (and should be disqualified from receiving research grants). If they had to cut a few corners, well, you have to break eggs to make an omelette.
For those of us who have long suspected that constructing scientific models of climate and weather is an enormously complex undertaking quite possibly beyond the capacity of current computer technology, the CRU e-mails are not so surprising.
Do we really suppose that anyone can construct a database of weather observations for the entire planet and its atmosphere adequate to make confident predictions of weather and climate 60 years from now? Predictions in which we have enough confidence to impose enormous costs on the American and world economies?
Copenhagen, despite Barack Obama's presence, seems sure to be a bust; there will be no agreement on mandatory limits on carbon emissions. Even if there were, it would probably turn out to be no more effective than the limits others agreed to in Kyoto in 1997. In any case, China and India are not going to choke off their dazzling economic growth to please Western global warming alarmists.
The more interesting question going forward is whether European and American governmental, academic and corporate elites, having embraced global warming alarmism with religious fervor, will be shaken by the scandalous CRU e-mails. They should be.
By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
WASHINGTON EXAMINER.COM
November 29, 2009
As Air Force One heads to Copenhagen for the climate summit Dec. 9, it will presumably not make a U-turn while flying over the Climate Research Unit at University of East Anglia near Norwich, England. But perhaps it should. The 61 megabytes of CRU e-mails and documents made public by a hacker cast serious doubt on the ballyhooed consensus on man-made global warming that the Copenhagen summit was called to address.
The CRU has been a major source of data on global temperatures, relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the e-mails suggest that CRU scientists have been suppressing and misstating data and working to prevent the publication of conflicting views in peer-reviewed science periodicals. Some of the more pungent e-mails:
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
"Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4?"
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can't."
"I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU temperature station data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"
You get the idea. The most charitable plausible explanation I have seen comes from the Atlantic's Megan McArdle. "The CRU's main computer model may be, to put it bluntly, complete rubbish."
Australian geologist Ian Plimer, a global warming skeptic, is more blunt. The e-mails "show that data was massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased, there was destruction of data after freedom of information requests, and there was refusal to submit taxpayer-funded date for independent examination."
Global warming alarmist George Monbiot of the Guardian concedes that the e-mails "could scarcely be more damaging," adding, "I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them." He has called for the resignation of the CRU director.
All of which brings to mind the old computer geek's phrase: Garbage in, garbage out.
The Copenhagen climate summit was convened to get the leaders of nations to commit to sharp reductions in carbon dioxide emissions -- and thus sharp reductions in almost all energy usage, at huge economic cost -- in order to prevent disasters that supposedly were predicted with absolute certainty by a scientific consensus.
But that consensus was based in large part on CRU data that was, to take the charitable explanation, "complete rubbish" or, to take the more dire view, the product of deliberate fraud.
Quite possibly the CRU e-mailers were sincere in their belief that they were saving the planet. Like Al Gore, they wanted to convince the world's elites that the time for argument is over, the scientific consensus is clear and those who disagree can be dismissed as cranks (and should be disqualified from receiving research grants). If they had to cut a few corners, well, you have to break eggs to make an omelette.
For those of us who have long suspected that constructing scientific models of climate and weather is an enormously complex undertaking quite possibly beyond the capacity of current computer technology, the CRU e-mails are not so surprising.
Do we really suppose that anyone can construct a database of weather observations for the entire planet and its atmosphere adequate to make confident predictions of weather and climate 60 years from now? Predictions in which we have enough confidence to impose enormous costs on the American and world economies?
Copenhagen, despite Barack Obama's presence, seems sure to be a bust; there will be no agreement on mandatory limits on carbon emissions. Even if there were, it would probably turn out to be no more effective than the limits others agreed to in Kyoto in 1997. In any case, China and India are not going to choke off their dazzling economic growth to please Western global warming alarmists.
The more interesting question going forward is whether European and American governmental, academic and corporate elites, having embraced global warming alarmism with religious fervor, will be shaken by the scandalous CRU e-mails. They should be.
MOST VOTERS WOULD URGE REPS TO VOTE AGAINST HEALTH CARE REFORM
Most Would Urge Their Representatives to Vote Against Health Care Reform
By Bruce Drake
POLITICS DAILY
11/30/09
As the Senate starts debate today on health care reform legislation, a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Nov. 20-22 finds 49 percent of Americans saying they would advise their representative to vote against a bill while 44 percent would urge a vote for it. These figures count "leaners" as well as those who have decided their position.
That figure is little changed from a Gallup survey earlier in the month, when the margin against the legislation was 48 percent to 43 percent. But it is a swing from early October, when 51 percent said they would want their representative to support reform legislation and 41 percent said they were against it.
But Gallup says that "opinion on the issue is far from settled." The 49-percent-to-44-percent margin against reform legislation is achieved when Gallup asked those who were initially undecided what their leaning was.
When leaners are stripped away, the result is 42 percent who would urge a "no" vote on reform legislation, 35 percent who would advise a "yes" vote and 22 percent undecided.
The poll also found that Americans disapprove of the way President Obama has handled health care policy by 53 percent to 40 percent, slightly more negative than his numbers were from July through September.
By Bruce Drake
POLITICS DAILY
11/30/09
As the Senate starts debate today on health care reform legislation, a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Nov. 20-22 finds 49 percent of Americans saying they would advise their representative to vote against a bill while 44 percent would urge a vote for it. These figures count "leaners" as well as those who have decided their position.
That figure is little changed from a Gallup survey earlier in the month, when the margin against the legislation was 48 percent to 43 percent. But it is a swing from early October, when 51 percent said they would want their representative to support reform legislation and 41 percent said they were against it.
But Gallup says that "opinion on the issue is far from settled." The 49-percent-to-44-percent margin against reform legislation is achieved when Gallup asked those who were initially undecided what their leaning was.
When leaners are stripped away, the result is 42 percent who would urge a "no" vote on reform legislation, 35 percent who would advise a "yes" vote and 22 percent undecided.
The poll also found that Americans disapprove of the way President Obama has handled health care policy by 53 percent to 40 percent, slightly more negative than his numbers were from July through September.
7 STORIES OBAMA DOESN'T WANT TOLD!!!!
7 stories Obama doesn't want told
By John F. Harris – Mon Nov 30, 2009
POLITICO
Presidential politics is about storytelling. Presented with a vivid storyline, voters naturally tend to fit every new event or piece of information into a picture that is already neatly framed in their minds.
No one understands this better than Barack Obama and his team, who won the 2008 election in part because they were better storytellers than the opposition. The pro-Obama narrative featured an almost mystically talented young idealist who stood for change in a disciplined and thoughtful way. This easily outpowered the anti-Obama narrative, featuring an opportunistic Chicago pol with dubious relationships who was more liberal than he was letting on.
A year into his presidency, however, Obama’s gift for controlling his image shows signs of faltering. As Washington returns to work from the Thanksgiving holiday, there are several anti-Obama storylines gaining momentum.
The Obama White House argues that all of these storylines are inaccurate or unfair. In some cases these anti-Obama narratives are fanned by Republicans, in some cases by reporters and commentators.
But they all are serious threats to Obama, if they gain enough currency to become the dominant frame through which people interpret the president’s actions and motives.
Here are seven storylines Obama needs to worry about:
He thinks he’s playing with Monopoly money
Economists and business leaders from across the ideological spectrum were urging the new president on last winter when he signed onto more than a trillion in stimulus spending and bank and auto bailouts during his first weeks in office. Many, though far from all, of these same people now agree that these actions helped avert an even worse financial catastrophe.
Along the way, however, it is clear Obama underestimated the political consequences that flow from the perception that he is a profligate spender. He also misjudged the anger in middle America about bailouts with weak and sporadic public explanations of why he believed they were necessary.
The flight of independents away from Democrats last summer — the trend that recently hammered Democrats in off-year elections in Virginia — coincided with what polls show was alarm among these voters about undisciplined big government and runaway spending. The likely passage of a health care reform package criticized as weak on cost-control will compound the problem.
Obama understands the political peril, and his team is signaling that he will use the 2010 State of the Union address to emphasize fiscal discipline. The political challenge, however, is an even bigger substantive challenge—since the most convincing way to project fiscal discipline would be actually to impose spending reductions that would cramp his own agenda and that of congressional Democrats.
Too much Leonard Nimoy
People used to make fun of Bill Clinton’s misty-eyed, raspy-voiced claims that, “I feel your pain.”
The reality, however, is that Clinton’s dozen years as governor before becoming president really did leave him with a vivid sense of the concrete human dimensions of policy. He did not view programs as abstractions — he viewed them in terms of actual people he knew by name.
Obama, a legislator and law professor, is fluent in describing the nuances of problems. But his intellectuality has contributed to a growing critique that decisions are detached from rock-bottom principles.
Both Maureen Dowd in The New York Times and Joel Achenbach of The Washington Post have likened him to Star Trek’s Mr. Spock.
The Spock imagery has been especially strong during the extended review Obama has undertaken of Afghanistan policy. He’ll announce the results on Tuesday. The speech’s success will be judged not only on the logic of the presentation but on whether Obama communicates in a more visceral way what progress looks like and why it is worth achieving. No soldier wants to take a bullet in the name of nuance.
That’s the Chicago Way
This is a storyline that’s likely taken root more firmly in Washington than around the country. The rap is that his West Wing is dominated by brass-knuckled pols.
It does not help that many West Wing aides seem to relish an image of themselves as shrewd, brass-knuckled political types. In a Washington Post story this month, White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, referring to most of Obama’s team, said, “We are all campaign hacks.”
The problem is that many voters took Obama seriously in 2008 when he talked about wanting to create a more reasoned, non-partisan style of governance in Washington. When Republicans showed scant interest in cooperating with Obama at the start, the Obama West Wing gladly reverted to campaign hack mode.
The examples of Chicago-style politics include their delight in public battles with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. (There was also a semi-public campaign of leaks aimed at Greg Craig, the White House counsel who fell out of favor.) In private, the Obama team cut an early deal — to the distaste of many congressional Democrats — that gave favorable terms to the pharmaceutical lobby in exchange for their backing his health care plans.
The lesson that many Washington insiders have drawn is that Obama wants to buy off the people he can and bowl over those he can’t. If that perception spreads beyond Washington this will scuff Obama’s brand as a new style of political leader.
He’s a pushover
If you are going to be known as a fighter, you might as well reap the benefits. But some of the same insider circles that are starting to view Obama as a bully are also starting to whisper that he’s a patsy.
It seems a bit contradictory, to be sure. But it’s a perception that began when Obama several times laid down lines — then let people cross them with seeming impunity. Last summer he told Democrats they better not go home for recess until a critical health care vote but they blew him off. He told the Israeli government he wanted a freeze in settlements but no one took him seriously. Even Fox News — which his aides prominently said should not be treated like a real news organization — then got interview time for its White House correspondent.
In truth, most of these episodes do not amount to much. But this unflattering storyline would take a more serious turn if Obama is seen as unable to deliver on his stern warnings in the escalating conflict with Iran over its nuclear program.
He sees America as another pleasant country on the U.N. roll call, somewhere between Albania and Zimbabwe
That line belonged to George H.W. Bush, excoriating Democrat Michael Dukakis in 1988. But it highlights a continuing reality: In presidential politics the safe ground has always been to be an American exceptionalist.
Politicians of both parties have embraced the idea that this country — because of its power and/or the hand of Providence — should be a singular force in the world. It would be hugely unwelcome for Obama if the perception took root that he is comfortable with a relative decline in U.S. influence or position in the world.
On this score, the reviews of Obama’s recent Asia trip were harsh.
His peculiar bow to the emperor of Japan was symbolic. But his lots-of-velvet, not-much-iron approach to China had substantive implications.
On the left, the budding storyline is that Obama has retreated from human rights in the name of cynical realism. On the right, it is that he is more interested in being President of the World than President of the United States, a critique that will be heard more in December as he stops in Oslo to pick up his Nobel Prize and then in Copenhagen for an international summit on curbing greenhouse gases.
President Pelosi
No figure in Barack Obama’s Washington, including Obama, has had more success in advancing his will than the speaker of the House, despite public approval ratings that hover in the range of Dick Cheney’s. With a mix of tough party discipline and shrewd vote-counting, she passed a version of the stimulus bill largely written by congressional Democrats, passed climate legislation, and passed her chamber’s version of health care reform. She and anti-war liberals in her caucus are clearly affecting the White House’s Afghanistan calculations.
The great hazard for Obama is if Republicans or journalists conclude — as some already have — that Pelosi’s achievements are more impressive than Obama’s or come at his expense.
This conclusion seems premature, especially with the final chapter of the health care drama yet to be written.
But it is clear that Obama has allowed the speaker to become more nearly an equal — and far from a subordinate — than many of his predecessors of both parties would have thought wise.
He’s in love with the man in the mirror
No one becomes president without a fair share of what the French call amour propre. Does Obama have more than his share of self-regard?
It’s a common theme of Washington buzz that Obama is over-exposed. He gives interviews on his sports obsessions to ESPN, cracks wise with Leno and Letterman, discusses his fitness with Men’s Health, discusses his marriage in a joint interview with first lady Michelle Obama for The New York Times. A photo the other day caught him leaving the White House clutching a copy of GQ featuring himself.
White House aides say making Obama widely available is the right strategy for communicating with Americans in an era of highly fragmented media.
But, as the novelty of a new president wears off, the Obama cult of personality risks coming off as mere vanity unless it is harnessed to tangible achievements.
That is why the next couple of months — with health care and Afghanistan jostling at center stage — will likely carry a long echo. Obama’s best hope of nipping bad storylines is to replace them with good ones rooted in public perceptions of his effectiveness.
By John F. Harris – Mon Nov 30, 2009
POLITICO
Presidential politics is about storytelling. Presented with a vivid storyline, voters naturally tend to fit every new event or piece of information into a picture that is already neatly framed in their minds.
No one understands this better than Barack Obama and his team, who won the 2008 election in part because they were better storytellers than the opposition. The pro-Obama narrative featured an almost mystically talented young idealist who stood for change in a disciplined and thoughtful way. This easily outpowered the anti-Obama narrative, featuring an opportunistic Chicago pol with dubious relationships who was more liberal than he was letting on.
A year into his presidency, however, Obama’s gift for controlling his image shows signs of faltering. As Washington returns to work from the Thanksgiving holiday, there are several anti-Obama storylines gaining momentum.
The Obama White House argues that all of these storylines are inaccurate or unfair. In some cases these anti-Obama narratives are fanned by Republicans, in some cases by reporters and commentators.
But they all are serious threats to Obama, if they gain enough currency to become the dominant frame through which people interpret the president’s actions and motives.
Here are seven storylines Obama needs to worry about:
He thinks he’s playing with Monopoly money
Economists and business leaders from across the ideological spectrum were urging the new president on last winter when he signed onto more than a trillion in stimulus spending and bank and auto bailouts during his first weeks in office. Many, though far from all, of these same people now agree that these actions helped avert an even worse financial catastrophe.
Along the way, however, it is clear Obama underestimated the political consequences that flow from the perception that he is a profligate spender. He also misjudged the anger in middle America about bailouts with weak and sporadic public explanations of why he believed they were necessary.
The flight of independents away from Democrats last summer — the trend that recently hammered Democrats in off-year elections in Virginia — coincided with what polls show was alarm among these voters about undisciplined big government and runaway spending. The likely passage of a health care reform package criticized as weak on cost-control will compound the problem.
Obama understands the political peril, and his team is signaling that he will use the 2010 State of the Union address to emphasize fiscal discipline. The political challenge, however, is an even bigger substantive challenge—since the most convincing way to project fiscal discipline would be actually to impose spending reductions that would cramp his own agenda and that of congressional Democrats.
Too much Leonard Nimoy
People used to make fun of Bill Clinton’s misty-eyed, raspy-voiced claims that, “I feel your pain.”
The reality, however, is that Clinton’s dozen years as governor before becoming president really did leave him with a vivid sense of the concrete human dimensions of policy. He did not view programs as abstractions — he viewed them in terms of actual people he knew by name.
Obama, a legislator and law professor, is fluent in describing the nuances of problems. But his intellectuality has contributed to a growing critique that decisions are detached from rock-bottom principles.
Both Maureen Dowd in The New York Times and Joel Achenbach of The Washington Post have likened him to Star Trek’s Mr. Spock.
The Spock imagery has been especially strong during the extended review Obama has undertaken of Afghanistan policy. He’ll announce the results on Tuesday. The speech’s success will be judged not only on the logic of the presentation but on whether Obama communicates in a more visceral way what progress looks like and why it is worth achieving. No soldier wants to take a bullet in the name of nuance.
That’s the Chicago Way
This is a storyline that’s likely taken root more firmly in Washington than around the country. The rap is that his West Wing is dominated by brass-knuckled pols.
It does not help that many West Wing aides seem to relish an image of themselves as shrewd, brass-knuckled political types. In a Washington Post story this month, White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, referring to most of Obama’s team, said, “We are all campaign hacks.”
The problem is that many voters took Obama seriously in 2008 when he talked about wanting to create a more reasoned, non-partisan style of governance in Washington. When Republicans showed scant interest in cooperating with Obama at the start, the Obama West Wing gladly reverted to campaign hack mode.
The examples of Chicago-style politics include their delight in public battles with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. (There was also a semi-public campaign of leaks aimed at Greg Craig, the White House counsel who fell out of favor.) In private, the Obama team cut an early deal — to the distaste of many congressional Democrats — that gave favorable terms to the pharmaceutical lobby in exchange for their backing his health care plans.
The lesson that many Washington insiders have drawn is that Obama wants to buy off the people he can and bowl over those he can’t. If that perception spreads beyond Washington this will scuff Obama’s brand as a new style of political leader.
He’s a pushover
If you are going to be known as a fighter, you might as well reap the benefits. But some of the same insider circles that are starting to view Obama as a bully are also starting to whisper that he’s a patsy.
It seems a bit contradictory, to be sure. But it’s a perception that began when Obama several times laid down lines — then let people cross them with seeming impunity. Last summer he told Democrats they better not go home for recess until a critical health care vote but they blew him off. He told the Israeli government he wanted a freeze in settlements but no one took him seriously. Even Fox News — which his aides prominently said should not be treated like a real news organization — then got interview time for its White House correspondent.
In truth, most of these episodes do not amount to much. But this unflattering storyline would take a more serious turn if Obama is seen as unable to deliver on his stern warnings in the escalating conflict with Iran over its nuclear program.
He sees America as another pleasant country on the U.N. roll call, somewhere between Albania and Zimbabwe
That line belonged to George H.W. Bush, excoriating Democrat Michael Dukakis in 1988. But it highlights a continuing reality: In presidential politics the safe ground has always been to be an American exceptionalist.
Politicians of both parties have embraced the idea that this country — because of its power and/or the hand of Providence — should be a singular force in the world. It would be hugely unwelcome for Obama if the perception took root that he is comfortable with a relative decline in U.S. influence or position in the world.
On this score, the reviews of Obama’s recent Asia trip were harsh.
His peculiar bow to the emperor of Japan was symbolic. But his lots-of-velvet, not-much-iron approach to China had substantive implications.
On the left, the budding storyline is that Obama has retreated from human rights in the name of cynical realism. On the right, it is that he is more interested in being President of the World than President of the United States, a critique that will be heard more in December as he stops in Oslo to pick up his Nobel Prize and then in Copenhagen for an international summit on curbing greenhouse gases.
President Pelosi
No figure in Barack Obama’s Washington, including Obama, has had more success in advancing his will than the speaker of the House, despite public approval ratings that hover in the range of Dick Cheney’s. With a mix of tough party discipline and shrewd vote-counting, she passed a version of the stimulus bill largely written by congressional Democrats, passed climate legislation, and passed her chamber’s version of health care reform. She and anti-war liberals in her caucus are clearly affecting the White House’s Afghanistan calculations.
The great hazard for Obama is if Republicans or journalists conclude — as some already have — that Pelosi’s achievements are more impressive than Obama’s or come at his expense.
This conclusion seems premature, especially with the final chapter of the health care drama yet to be written.
But it is clear that Obama has allowed the speaker to become more nearly an equal — and far from a subordinate — than many of his predecessors of both parties would have thought wise.
He’s in love with the man in the mirror
No one becomes president without a fair share of what the French call amour propre. Does Obama have more than his share of self-regard?
It’s a common theme of Washington buzz that Obama is over-exposed. He gives interviews on his sports obsessions to ESPN, cracks wise with Leno and Letterman, discusses his fitness with Men’s Health, discusses his marriage in a joint interview with first lady Michelle Obama for The New York Times. A photo the other day caught him leaving the White House clutching a copy of GQ featuring himself.
White House aides say making Obama widely available is the right strategy for communicating with Americans in an era of highly fragmented media.
But, as the novelty of a new president wears off, the Obama cult of personality risks coming off as mere vanity unless it is harnessed to tangible achievements.
That is why the next couple of months — with health care and Afghanistan jostling at center stage — will likely carry a long echo. Obama’s best hope of nipping bad storylines is to replace them with good ones rooted in public perceptions of his effectiveness.
OBAMA: 47% APPROVAL; 52% DISAPPROVAL!!!
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Monday, November 30, 2009
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14. Seventy-two percent (72%) believe the President is politically liberal, including 49% who say he is Very Liberal.
As the Senate begins formal debate on the proposed health care reform, 53% of Americans are opposed to the legislation, 56% believe it will increase the cost of care, and 50% believe it will hurt the quality of care.
Forty-nine percent (49%) rate the U.S. health care system as good or excellent. As the Congressional debate about reform has dominated the news, confidence in the current system has grown dramatically.
Fifty-three percent (53%) have a favorable opinion of the AARP, but the organization’s high profile support for the Congressional health care plan may be hurting its reputation.
-snip-
Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) disapprove. Last week, Rasmussen Reports ran three separate survey of 800 voters asking about the President’s Job Approval in slightly different manners. The results provide some insight into how question wording impacts reported approval ratings.
Monday, November 30, 2009
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14. Seventy-two percent (72%) believe the President is politically liberal, including 49% who say he is Very Liberal.
As the Senate begins formal debate on the proposed health care reform, 53% of Americans are opposed to the legislation, 56% believe it will increase the cost of care, and 50% believe it will hurt the quality of care.
Forty-nine percent (49%) rate the U.S. health care system as good or excellent. As the Congressional debate about reform has dominated the news, confidence in the current system has grown dramatically.
Fifty-three percent (53%) have a favorable opinion of the AARP, but the organization’s high profile support for the Congressional health care plan may be hurting its reputation.
-snip-
Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) disapprove. Last week, Rasmussen Reports ran three separate survey of 800 voters asking about the President’s Job Approval in slightly different manners. The results provide some insight into how question wording impacts reported approval ratings.
CHELSEA CLINTON AND MARC MEZVINSKY ARE ENGAGED - AND THIS TIME IT'S OFFICIAL!!!!
Chelsea Clinton Engaged to Longtime Boyfriend Marc Mezvinsky
By David Sessions,Contributor
POLITICS DAILY
11/30/09
Chelsea Clinton, the 29-year-old daughter of former president Bill Clinton and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is engaged to her longtime boyfriend, Marc Mezvinsky, the Associated Press reports. The couple announced their engagement in an e-mail to their friends, and a Clinton spokesman confirmed it Monday.
"We're sorry for the mass email but we wanted to wish everyone a belated Happy Thanksgiving! We also wanted to share that we are engaged! We didn't get married this past summer despite the stories to the contrary, but we are looking toward next summer and hope you all will be there to celebrate with us. Happy Holidays! Chelsea & Marc."
Like Clinton, Mezvinsky is the child of a political couple: his parents, Ed Mezvinsky and Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, were Democratic representatives from Iowa and Pennsylvania, respectively. The engaged couple also share a familiarity with political scandal. Mezvinsky's father spent five years in prison for defrauding investors of more than $10 million.
Clinton and Mezvinsky met as teenagers in Washington, and both later attended Stanford University. They currently live in New York, where Mezvinsky works at Goldman Sachs and Clinton attends Columbia University's School of Public Health.
**************************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
Congratulations to Chelsea and Marc on their engagement!! I'm sorry to say I did not receive one of the e-mails from the happy couple but just came across this article as I signed on this minute. I think we all knew it was coming sooner or later, right? I wish the best of everthing to this couple including a long, happy, and healthy life together!!!
Saturday, November 28, 2009
OBAMA STILL GIVING TAXPAYERS' MONEY TO HIS ACORN THUGS!!!
Republican blasts ACORN reprieve
by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor
BOSTON.COM
November 27, 2009
A top House Republican today blasted a ruling by the Justice Department that allows the Obama administration to pay ACORN for services provided under contracts signed before Congress passed a law banning the community advocacy group from receiving taxpayers money.
Republicans have been on the warpath against ACORN since its voter registration efforts came under scrutiny during the 2008 presidential campaign. After conservative activists, who posed as a prostitute and pimp, released videos appearing to show ACORN staffers advising them how to skirt the law, Democrats joined in the outrage, leading to the congressional funding ban that Obama signed on Oct. 1.
Since 1994, ACORN, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, has received about $53 million in federal aid, much of it in grants to help poor people obtain affordable housing. The Justice Department asked whether the funding ban applied to prior contracts. In a ruling first reported by the New York Times, a department lawyer said the payments under prior contracts should continue because the language of the law did not expressly wipe them out.
But Representative Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said "the bipartisan intent of Congress was clear -- no more federal dollars should flow to ACORN."
"It is telling that this administration continues to look for every excuse possible to circumvent the intent of Congress," Issa said in a statement. "Taxpayers should not have to continue subsidizing a criminal enterprise that helped Barack Obama get elected president. The politicization of the Justice Department to payback one of the president’s political allies is shameful and amounts to nothing more than old-fashioned cronyism."
************************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
With all the money Obama is spending like a drunken sailor, with our defict reaching over 12 TRILLION DOLLARS, Obama is STILL giving taxpayers' money to ACORN. How could he justify this to the American people? I mean PUMAS KNOW WHY he is doing this. After all ACORN did a lot of work for Obama. If it weren't for those ACORN THUGS LOCKING CLINTON SUPPORTERS OUT OF THE CAUCUSES, INTIMIDATING AND THREATENING THEM, THROWING AWAY THEIR VOTES IN THE GARBAGE, ETC., Obama would NEVER have won all those caucuses. He would still be an empty suit in the senate, a place that's too good for him even. But no thanks to ACORN he is living in the White House.
Obama bullshitted about changing Washington. About a transparent presidency. Yeah, right. BULLSHIT!!!! Obama is the MOST CORRUPT, LYING FRAUD EVER TO MAKE IT TO 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE!! He has no shame. He is so fucking arrogant and narcissistic that he felt he DESERVED the presidency, even if he needed bus loads of people to come from out-of-state to caucus in every precinct, in every state. Why didn't people listen to us when we told them the truth about this imposter? And he is an imposter, you know. Unless and until he shows a REAL, LEGITIMATE BIRTH CERTIFICATE PROVING HE WAS BORN IN THE USA (AND OPENING ALL HIS OTHER SEALED RECORDS TOO WHILE HE'S AT IT!!), Obama is just an USURPER. He is no better than those two people who crashed his state dinner the other night. At least they only got in for one evening. Obama is getting in for at least four years!!
by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor
BOSTON.COM
November 27, 2009
A top House Republican today blasted a ruling by the Justice Department that allows the Obama administration to pay ACORN for services provided under contracts signed before Congress passed a law banning the community advocacy group from receiving taxpayers money.
Republicans have been on the warpath against ACORN since its voter registration efforts came under scrutiny during the 2008 presidential campaign. After conservative activists, who posed as a prostitute and pimp, released videos appearing to show ACORN staffers advising them how to skirt the law, Democrats joined in the outrage, leading to the congressional funding ban that Obama signed on Oct. 1.
Since 1994, ACORN, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, has received about $53 million in federal aid, much of it in grants to help poor people obtain affordable housing. The Justice Department asked whether the funding ban applied to prior contracts. In a ruling first reported by the New York Times, a department lawyer said the payments under prior contracts should continue because the language of the law did not expressly wipe them out.
But Representative Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said "the bipartisan intent of Congress was clear -- no more federal dollars should flow to ACORN."
"It is telling that this administration continues to look for every excuse possible to circumvent the intent of Congress," Issa said in a statement. "Taxpayers should not have to continue subsidizing a criminal enterprise that helped Barack Obama get elected president. The politicization of the Justice Department to payback one of the president’s political allies is shameful and amounts to nothing more than old-fashioned cronyism."
************************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
With all the money Obama is spending like a drunken sailor, with our defict reaching over 12 TRILLION DOLLARS, Obama is STILL giving taxpayers' money to ACORN. How could he justify this to the American people? I mean PUMAS KNOW WHY he is doing this. After all ACORN did a lot of work for Obama. If it weren't for those ACORN THUGS LOCKING CLINTON SUPPORTERS OUT OF THE CAUCUSES, INTIMIDATING AND THREATENING THEM, THROWING AWAY THEIR VOTES IN THE GARBAGE, ETC., Obama would NEVER have won all those caucuses. He would still be an empty suit in the senate, a place that's too good for him even. But no thanks to ACORN he is living in the White House.
Obama bullshitted about changing Washington. About a transparent presidency. Yeah, right. BULLSHIT!!!! Obama is the MOST CORRUPT, LYING FRAUD EVER TO MAKE IT TO 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE!! He has no shame. He is so fucking arrogant and narcissistic that he felt he DESERVED the presidency, even if he needed bus loads of people to come from out-of-state to caucus in every precinct, in every state. Why didn't people listen to us when we told them the truth about this imposter? And he is an imposter, you know. Unless and until he shows a REAL, LEGITIMATE BIRTH CERTIFICATE PROVING HE WAS BORN IN THE USA (AND OPENING ALL HIS OTHER SEALED RECORDS TOO WHILE HE'S AT IT!!), Obama is just an USURPER. He is no better than those two people who crashed his state dinner the other night. At least they only got in for one evening. Obama is getting in for at least four years!!
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
SURPRISE! SURPRISE! FOX ONLY CHANNEL REPORTING ON CLIMATEGATE!!!
ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox
Posted by Peter on November 25, 2009
WESTERN JOURNALISM
The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.
Despite last Friday morning’s bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world’s leading global warming alarmists — many with direct ties to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.
Posted by Peter on November 25, 2009
WESTERN JOURNALISM
The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.
Despite last Friday morning’s bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world’s leading global warming alarmists — many with direct ties to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.
HEY, FINALLY I HAVE SOMETHING IN COMMON WITH ANGELINA JOLIE!!!
Angelina Jolie Can’t Stand Obama – Says He’s a Socialist
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
GATEWAY PUNDIT
By Jim Hoft
There is Hope for Hollywood after all…
Angelina Jolie “hates” Obama.
Angelina Jolie says Obama is a socialist.
US Magazine reported:
Barack Obama does not have Angelina Jolie’s seal of approval.
“She hates him,” a source close to the U.N. goodwill ambassador, 34, tells the new issue of Us Weekly (on newsstands now).
“She’s into education and rehabilitation and thinks Obama is all about welfare and handouts. She thinks Obama is really a socialist in disguise,” adds the source.
But don’t expect to see the Salt actress rally against Democrats on Fox News like her staunch Republican father, Jon Voight.
“Angie isn’t Republican, but she thinks Obama is all smoke and mirrors,” the source says.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
GATEWAY PUNDIT
By Jim Hoft
There is Hope for Hollywood after all…
Angelina Jolie “hates” Obama.
Angelina Jolie says Obama is a socialist.
US Magazine reported:
Barack Obama does not have Angelina Jolie’s seal of approval.
“She hates him,” a source close to the U.N. goodwill ambassador, 34, tells the new issue of Us Weekly (on newsstands now).
“She’s into education and rehabilitation and thinks Obama is all about welfare and handouts. She thinks Obama is really a socialist in disguise,” adds the source.
But don’t expect to see the Salt actress rally against Democrats on Fox News like her staunch Republican father, Jon Voight.
“Angie isn’t Republican, but she thinks Obama is all smoke and mirrors,” the source says.
PROTESTER WHO ADMITTED ACORN RAW POLITICAL AGENDA EXPOSED!!!
Meet ‘Bon Bon’ Hurd: Protester Who Admitted ACORN Raw Political Agenda Exposed
by Stage Right
BIG GOVERNMENT
Regular readers of Big Government should remember the woman pictured below as the delightfully forthcoming ACORN protestor from the fateful day Andrew Breitbart staged his one-man tea party in the midst of scores of “community organizers” who mistakenly protested in front of LA’s KTTV Fox 11 TV station thinking they were intimidating Fox News. Do you remember the delightful little nuggets of information we caught on taped on our handy-dandy recorder?
“We never declared because we have to be non-partisan – our national organization. But, it was sort of like under the grapevine we knew we were going to put in Obama.”
When asked if she worked for ACORN, our ever loquacious friend said “No, I am just a member, I am ACORN… No, I don’t work. I’m an organizer.” This suggests that she was just one of those “Rent-a-protestor” who ACORN famously pays less than minimum age for (often, ironically to protest in favor of a living wage). We captioned her picture at Big Government with the amusing phrase: “Have You Seen This Organizer?”
Well, we now know who she is. And we have a clearer understanding of her role with ACORN. And the truth is startling and disturbing, especially in light of her infamous boast: “We never declared because we have to be non-partisan – our national organization. But, it was sort of like under the grapevine we knew we were going to put in Obama.”
This memorable community organizer is named Alvivon Hurd, but she goes by the delightful nickname: “Bon Bon”. Ms. Hurd has been identified over the years as an ACORN Board Member, Chairwoman of ACORN’s Housing Commission, Head of ACORN’s Los Angeles Chapter, ACORN Volunteer, Wal-Mart Opponent.. you get the picture. But, that first title, ACORN Board Member raises some serious questions.
It’s one thing when a volunteer and random protestor says the odd and revealing things that Ms. Hurd said to us on November 12th, it’s another when it is a former Board Member. How much weight should be given to Ms. Hurd’s boast: “we didn’t never say who we were going to run for but it sort of undercover that we were going to put Obama in.”? A lot more, now that we know she has held various positions of influence at the troubled organization.
It seems Ms. Hurd is nothing if not active and influential in California. She has been at the table with the Mayor of Los Angeles when discussing plans for public housing projects. She has been in the forefront of protests in Sacramento blocking a housing auction of foreclosed properties. She has been quoted in major publications about affordable housing and zoning issues. She has been seen on Los Angeles Television protesting the Federal Bail-out bill. She was even honored by a Los Angeles charity with something called the “Faith Award”. “Bon Bon” gets around all right. And she is not short on opinions.
Ms. Hurd also has a disturbing tendency to make racially charged statements in the press, like this quote from the LA Weekly:
Hurd said outside a housing summit at UCLA. “Suddenly, everyone wants to live downtown. All these young white people want to be there instead of in the suburbs. They’re building all these new places, Medici, Orsini. Do you think any of us can afford to live there? These people” — she pointed to her companions in the yellow shirts — “they clean up after these rich people, they wash their cars and take care of their children. But when they go home, they don’t want us around. Now what would you call that? I don’t want to call it racist. But what would you call it?”
Then there is this little beauty:
Alvivon Hurd remembers when no one with means lived in downtown Los Angeles. Especially not white people. “For 30 years you only saw [white people] during the day in the week,” says the life-long L.A. resident, who can see downtown from her apartment.
Every time the subject seems to be about affordable housing she finds the need to take note of her opponents’ skin pigment. Interesting.
Alvivon Hurd lives in LA’s Pico Aliso housing project. One of the most gang-infested projects In LA. Yet I find nothing about her organizing or protesting the real plague of her neighborhood: the horrific and violent crime terrorizing the low-income families she purports to champion. No, it is all about the rich white real estate investors.
But as we know, housing is only part of ACORN’s mission. Remember, they also champion voter registration efforts. How does “Bon Bon” fit into that picture. You’ll be surprised.. maybe even shocked. “Bon Bon” told Big Government (caught on our SECRET TAPE) that “it was sort of like under the grapevine we knew we were going to put in Obama.” Remember, in that statement, “we” refers to ACORN. But that is just a silly meaningless boast, right. I mean ACORN is only responsible for voter registration efforts; they have no influence over actual voting practices and aren’t in any position to actually handle ballots or communicate with voters at the polling place, right?
Ladies and gentlemen, meet Alvivon “Bon Bon” Hurd, Precinct Inspector for the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder’s office:
The Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder describes a Precinct Inspector as: “supervising poll workers in charge at each voting location”. In various polling procedures detailed by the city and county, these inspectors are responsible for delivering ballot boxes to Central Precinct Inspectors, depositing voters’ ballots into ballot boxes, setting up polling locations, supervising the voting process including verifying each voter and their legitimate registration status. Yes, that was “Bon Bon’s” job on Election Day. Feel better now?
And, when Ms. Hurd is not protesting or organizing or receiving awards or serving on the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Committee or getting a “shout-out” from former Mayor of Los Angeles Jim Hahn during his State of the City Address in 2003, she has another impressive hobby: She wrote an op-ed piece for the LA Times with none other than ACORN apologist oops, Professor of Politics at Occidental College, Peter Dreier. Peter Dreier is the oft-cited, “objective” political analyst who has lately been critical of the news coverage of ACORN scandals. You might remember him best from his op-ed piece that the LA Times was forced to issue a correction and update for thanks to the tireless efforts of LA Times watchdog Patrick Frye (Patterico). How interesting to see “Bon Bon’s” name alongside “Objective Political Observer” Dreier’s right there in the LA Times. Our “Bon Bon” really gets around.
Who knew that auspicious day when Andrew Breitbart ventured into the thicket of that ACORN protest in West Los Angeles we’d be rubbing elbows and secretly taping one of ACORNS real movers and shakers? That’s what we love about Los Angeles, there are important celebrities everywhere. And you never know what you’re going to hear on the street. Maybe even a tacit admission of misuse of Federal Funds or Federal Election Commission violations? I love this town.
by Stage Right
BIG GOVERNMENT
Regular readers of Big Government should remember the woman pictured below as the delightfully forthcoming ACORN protestor from the fateful day Andrew Breitbart staged his one-man tea party in the midst of scores of “community organizers” who mistakenly protested in front of LA’s KTTV Fox 11 TV station thinking they were intimidating Fox News. Do you remember the delightful little nuggets of information we caught on taped on our handy-dandy recorder?
“We never declared because we have to be non-partisan – our national organization. But, it was sort of like under the grapevine we knew we were going to put in Obama.”
When asked if she worked for ACORN, our ever loquacious friend said “No, I am just a member, I am ACORN… No, I don’t work. I’m an organizer.” This suggests that she was just one of those “Rent-a-protestor” who ACORN famously pays less than minimum age for (often, ironically to protest in favor of a living wage). We captioned her picture at Big Government with the amusing phrase: “Have You Seen This Organizer?”
Well, we now know who she is. And we have a clearer understanding of her role with ACORN. And the truth is startling and disturbing, especially in light of her infamous boast: “We never declared because we have to be non-partisan – our national organization. But, it was sort of like under the grapevine we knew we were going to put in Obama.”
This memorable community organizer is named Alvivon Hurd, but she goes by the delightful nickname: “Bon Bon”. Ms. Hurd has been identified over the years as an ACORN Board Member, Chairwoman of ACORN’s Housing Commission, Head of ACORN’s Los Angeles Chapter, ACORN Volunteer, Wal-Mart Opponent.. you get the picture. But, that first title, ACORN Board Member raises some serious questions.
It’s one thing when a volunteer and random protestor says the odd and revealing things that Ms. Hurd said to us on November 12th, it’s another when it is a former Board Member. How much weight should be given to Ms. Hurd’s boast: “we didn’t never say who we were going to run for but it sort of undercover that we were going to put Obama in.”? A lot more, now that we know she has held various positions of influence at the troubled organization.
It seems Ms. Hurd is nothing if not active and influential in California. She has been at the table with the Mayor of Los Angeles when discussing plans for public housing projects. She has been in the forefront of protests in Sacramento blocking a housing auction of foreclosed properties. She has been quoted in major publications about affordable housing and zoning issues. She has been seen on Los Angeles Television protesting the Federal Bail-out bill. She was even honored by a Los Angeles charity with something called the “Faith Award”. “Bon Bon” gets around all right. And she is not short on opinions.
Ms. Hurd also has a disturbing tendency to make racially charged statements in the press, like this quote from the LA Weekly:
Hurd said outside a housing summit at UCLA. “Suddenly, everyone wants to live downtown. All these young white people want to be there instead of in the suburbs. They’re building all these new places, Medici, Orsini. Do you think any of us can afford to live there? These people” — she pointed to her companions in the yellow shirts — “they clean up after these rich people, they wash their cars and take care of their children. But when they go home, they don’t want us around. Now what would you call that? I don’t want to call it racist. But what would you call it?”
Then there is this little beauty:
Alvivon Hurd remembers when no one with means lived in downtown Los Angeles. Especially not white people. “For 30 years you only saw [white people] during the day in the week,” says the life-long L.A. resident, who can see downtown from her apartment.
Every time the subject seems to be about affordable housing she finds the need to take note of her opponents’ skin pigment. Interesting.
Alvivon Hurd lives in LA’s Pico Aliso housing project. One of the most gang-infested projects In LA. Yet I find nothing about her organizing or protesting the real plague of her neighborhood: the horrific and violent crime terrorizing the low-income families she purports to champion. No, it is all about the rich white real estate investors.
But as we know, housing is only part of ACORN’s mission. Remember, they also champion voter registration efforts. How does “Bon Bon” fit into that picture. You’ll be surprised.. maybe even shocked. “Bon Bon” told Big Government (caught on our SECRET TAPE) that “it was sort of like under the grapevine we knew we were going to put in Obama.” Remember, in that statement, “we” refers to ACORN. But that is just a silly meaningless boast, right. I mean ACORN is only responsible for voter registration efforts; they have no influence over actual voting practices and aren’t in any position to actually handle ballots or communicate with voters at the polling place, right?
Ladies and gentlemen, meet Alvivon “Bon Bon” Hurd, Precinct Inspector for the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder’s office:
The Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder describes a Precinct Inspector as: “supervising poll workers in charge at each voting location”. In various polling procedures detailed by the city and county, these inspectors are responsible for delivering ballot boxes to Central Precinct Inspectors, depositing voters’ ballots into ballot boxes, setting up polling locations, supervising the voting process including verifying each voter and their legitimate registration status. Yes, that was “Bon Bon’s” job on Election Day. Feel better now?
And, when Ms. Hurd is not protesting or organizing or receiving awards or serving on the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Committee or getting a “shout-out” from former Mayor of Los Angeles Jim Hahn during his State of the City Address in 2003, she has another impressive hobby: She wrote an op-ed piece for the LA Times with none other than ACORN apologist oops, Professor of Politics at Occidental College, Peter Dreier. Peter Dreier is the oft-cited, “objective” political analyst who has lately been critical of the news coverage of ACORN scandals. You might remember him best from his op-ed piece that the LA Times was forced to issue a correction and update for thanks to the tireless efforts of LA Times watchdog Patrick Frye (Patterico). How interesting to see “Bon Bon’s” name alongside “Objective Political Observer” Dreier’s right there in the LA Times. Our “Bon Bon” really gets around.
Who knew that auspicious day when Andrew Breitbart ventured into the thicket of that ACORN protest in West Los Angeles we’d be rubbing elbows and secretly taping one of ACORNS real movers and shakers? That’s what we love about Los Angeles, there are important celebrities everywhere. And you never know what you’re going to hear on the street. Maybe even a tacit admission of misuse of Federal Funds or Federal Election Commission violations? I love this town.
ROSEANNE BARR CONFIRMS ACORN GOT OBAMA ELECTED!!!!
Roseanne Barr Confirms Bon Bon Shock Admission:
ACORN Got Obama Elected
by Stage Right
BIG GOVERNMENT
Before Media Matters starts hurling childish invective about how we here at Big Government aren’t “real journalists” because we don’t follow the ridiculous guidelines they set up and then fail to adhere to themselves, it brings me great pleasure to back-up today’s post about “Bon Bon” Hurd with a second source: None other than Roseanne Barr.
Thanks to a tip from “Jim C,” a reader of Big Government, Rosanne’s interview from earlier this year at the Huffington Post reveals that it’s pretty common knowledge within the power structure of ACORN that they did, indeed, work to get President Obama elected:
But, the most impressive thing is that they elected Barack H. Obama through their fantastic organizing skills and knowledge.
I wonder how all of that organizing skill and knowledge to help elect President Obama coincides with ACORN’s use of Federal Funds and their status as a 501(c)3 non-profit.
While I’m sure that is an issue a REAL journalist will take up immediately, in the mean time, we’ll just keep using our pretend journalistic skills to find insignificant things like ACORN activists who boast about working on behalf a presidential candidate and also serve as Precinct Inspectors for the County of Los Angeles.
Howie Kurtz: Are you listening?
Bonus! Here is a video of Roseanne confirming her ACORN ties at a rally earlier this year in Watts, CA. Bask in the depth of her thoughts.
ACORN Got Obama Elected
by Stage Right
BIG GOVERNMENT
Before Media Matters starts hurling childish invective about how we here at Big Government aren’t “real journalists” because we don’t follow the ridiculous guidelines they set up and then fail to adhere to themselves, it brings me great pleasure to back-up today’s post about “Bon Bon” Hurd with a second source: None other than Roseanne Barr.
Thanks to a tip from “Jim C,” a reader of Big Government, Rosanne’s interview from earlier this year at the Huffington Post reveals that it’s pretty common knowledge within the power structure of ACORN that they did, indeed, work to get President Obama elected:
But, the most impressive thing is that they elected Barack H. Obama through their fantastic organizing skills and knowledge.
I wonder how all of that organizing skill and knowledge to help elect President Obama coincides with ACORN’s use of Federal Funds and their status as a 501(c)3 non-profit.
While I’m sure that is an issue a REAL journalist will take up immediately, in the mean time, we’ll just keep using our pretend journalistic skills to find insignificant things like ACORN activists who boast about working on behalf a presidential candidate and also serve as Precinct Inspectors for the County of Los Angeles.
Howie Kurtz: Are you listening?
Bonus! Here is a video of Roseanne confirming her ACORN ties at a rally earlier this year in Watts, CA. Bask in the depth of her thoughts.
HILLARY SIGNS A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Secretary Clinton Signs a Memorandum of Understanding
Nov. 24, 2009
Secretary Clinton signs a Memorandum of Understanding with His Excellency S. M. Krishna, Minister of External Affairs of the Republic of India, at the Department of State.
HILLARY'S REMARKS ON "ELIMINATION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN" DAY
"Elimination of Violence Against Women" Day
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
November 25, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Today, a woman somewhere in the United States will be physically assaulted by her husband. In a remote village on the other side of the world, traffickers will lure a young girl away from her family and sell her into sexual slavery. In towns in every region of the globe, groups of men will harass young women as they attempt to go to school. And in a conflict-ravaged land, armed men will brutally rape a mother and her daughter, part of a deliberate strategy of war. Today and every day, women and girls all over the world will face violence simply because they are female. This gender-based violence not only harms the victims and their families, it shreds the fabric that weaves us together as human beings.
"Violence against women cannot be accepted as 'cultural' -- it is criminal. Today, as we mark Elimination of Violence Against Women Day, let us recommit ourselves – men and women in every country – to work together to end these atrocities, to hold those who commit them accountable, and to support the survivors. No woman or girl anywhere in the world should have to walk in fear or live under the threat of violence.
"When women are accorded their rights and afforded equal opportunities in education, health care, employment, and political participation, they drive social and economic progress. They lift up themselves, their communities, and their nations. But none of these benefits is possible unless girls are able to learn without fear and women are able to have autonomy and decision-making over their own lives, and those are the very things that violence and the fear of violence take away.
"The United States will continue to stand with women around the world to ensure that their rights are protected and respected, and that they have the opportunity to pursue an education, find a good job, live in safety and fulfill their own God-given potential."
The Obama Administration has made women's empowerment a core pillar of American foreign policy. Earlier this year, the President appointed Melanne Verveer to be the first ever Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues. In August, Secretary Clinton traveled to the Democratic Republic of Congo to shine a spotlight on the use of rape as a tactic of war. And in September, she chaired a United Nations Security Council session that passed Resolution 1888 to prevent and respond to sexual violence in armed conflict.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
November 25, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Today, a woman somewhere in the United States will be physically assaulted by her husband. In a remote village on the other side of the world, traffickers will lure a young girl away from her family and sell her into sexual slavery. In towns in every region of the globe, groups of men will harass young women as they attempt to go to school. And in a conflict-ravaged land, armed men will brutally rape a mother and her daughter, part of a deliberate strategy of war. Today and every day, women and girls all over the world will face violence simply because they are female. This gender-based violence not only harms the victims and their families, it shreds the fabric that weaves us together as human beings.
"Violence against women cannot be accepted as 'cultural' -- it is criminal. Today, as we mark Elimination of Violence Against Women Day, let us recommit ourselves – men and women in every country – to work together to end these atrocities, to hold those who commit them accountable, and to support the survivors. No woman or girl anywhere in the world should have to walk in fear or live under the threat of violence.
"When women are accorded their rights and afforded equal opportunities in education, health care, employment, and political participation, they drive social and economic progress. They lift up themselves, their communities, and their nations. But none of these benefits is possible unless girls are able to learn without fear and women are able to have autonomy and decision-making over their own lives, and those are the very things that violence and the fear of violence take away.
"The United States will continue to stand with women around the world to ensure that their rights are protected and respected, and that they have the opportunity to pursue an education, find a good job, live in safety and fulfill their own God-given potential."
The Obama Administration has made women's empowerment a core pillar of American foreign policy. Earlier this year, the President appointed Melanne Verveer to be the first ever Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues. In August, Secretary Clinton traveled to the Democratic Republic of Congo to shine a spotlight on the use of rape as a tactic of war. And in September, she chaired a United Nations Security Council session that passed Resolution 1888 to prevent and respond to sexual violence in armed conflict.
MORE AND MORE AMERICANS ARE REALIZING OBAMA IS AN EMPTY SUIT!!!!
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15. This is the second straight day at -15, the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for President Obama.
Seventy-four percent (74%) of African-Americans Strongly Approve along with just 19% of white voters.
Among all voters, just 34% now give the President good or excellent marks on his handling of the economy while 47% say he is doing a poor job in that arena. On national security issues, 42% say good or excellent while 41% say poor.
Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters believe that political correctness kept the military from preventing the Fort Hood shootings.
-snip-
Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove. The President earns approval from 97% of African-American voters and disapproval from 61% of white voters.
Republicans now enjoy a seven-point lead on the Generic Congressional Ballot. If Rudy Giuliani decides to enter the New York Senate race against Kirsten Gillibrand, he will do so as the front-runner with a double digit lead.
Fifty-three percent (53%) of voters worry that the federal government will do too much when it comes to reacting to the nation’s financial problems. That’s up seven points since President Obama took office.
-snip-
Support for the health care plan proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low of 38%. Sixty percent (60%) of voters believe passage of the bill will lead to higher health care costs.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15. This is the second straight day at -15, the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for President Obama.
Seventy-four percent (74%) of African-Americans Strongly Approve along with just 19% of white voters.
Among all voters, just 34% now give the President good or excellent marks on his handling of the economy while 47% say he is doing a poor job in that arena. On national security issues, 42% say good or excellent while 41% say poor.
Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters believe that political correctness kept the military from preventing the Fort Hood shootings.
-snip-
Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove. The President earns approval from 97% of African-American voters and disapproval from 61% of white voters.
Republicans now enjoy a seven-point lead on the Generic Congressional Ballot. If Rudy Giuliani decides to enter the New York Senate race against Kirsten Gillibrand, he will do so as the front-runner with a double digit lead.
Fifty-three percent (53%) of voters worry that the federal government will do too much when it comes to reacting to the nation’s financial problems. That’s up seven points since President Obama took office.
-snip-
Support for the health care plan proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low of 38%. Sixty percent (60%) of voters believe passage of the bill will lead to higher health care costs.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
OBAMA SHATTERS SPENDING RECORD FOR FIRST-YEAR PRESIDENTS
Updated November 24, 2009
Obama Shatters Spending Record for First-Year Presidents
FOXNews.com
The federal government spent $3.5 trillion during President Obama's first year in office. This far exceeds the spending for any other first-year president.
President Obama has shattered the budget record for first-year presidents -- spending nearly double what his predecessor did when he came into office and far exceeding the first-year tabs for any other U.S. president in history.
In fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion -- $2.8 trillion in 2000 dollars, which sets a benchmark for comparison. That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush's term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama's.
That price tag came with a $1.4 trillion deficit, nearly $1 trillion more than last year. The overall budget was about a half-trillion more than Bush's for 2008, his final full fiscal year in office.
That's a big increase. But compared with other presidents' first years in office, Obama is running circles around them.
Bush spent $1.8 trillion in 2001, according to government budget figures that have been adjusted for inflation based on 2000 dollars. Using the same formula, former President Bill Clinton spent $1.6 trillion in 1993.
The last president to clock in under $1 trillion was Gerald Ford, who logged a $982 billion budget in 1975. Post-war Dwight Eisenhower even brought Uncle Sam's tab down to $556 billion in his first year, 1953.
Obama's first-year budget, adjusted for inflation, is about five times that. His 2009 budget is also close to 21 percent of that for Clinton's eight years in office -- Clinton's spending added up to $13.5 trillion over his two full terms. Bush spent $16.8 trillion from 2001-2008.
Obama Shatters Spending Record for First-Year Presidents
FOXNews.com
The federal government spent $3.5 trillion during President Obama's first year in office. This far exceeds the spending for any other first-year president.
President Obama has shattered the budget record for first-year presidents -- spending nearly double what his predecessor did when he came into office and far exceeding the first-year tabs for any other U.S. president in history.
In fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion -- $2.8 trillion in 2000 dollars, which sets a benchmark for comparison. That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush's term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama's.
That price tag came with a $1.4 trillion deficit, nearly $1 trillion more than last year. The overall budget was about a half-trillion more than Bush's for 2008, his final full fiscal year in office.
That's a big increase. But compared with other presidents' first years in office, Obama is running circles around them.
Bush spent $1.8 trillion in 2001, according to government budget figures that have been adjusted for inflation based on 2000 dollars. Using the same formula, former President Bill Clinton spent $1.6 trillion in 1993.
The last president to clock in under $1 trillion was Gerald Ford, who logged a $982 billion budget in 1975. Post-war Dwight Eisenhower even brought Uncle Sam's tab down to $556 billion in his first year, 1953.
Obama's first-year budget, adjusted for inflation, is about five times that. His 2009 budget is also close to 21 percent of that for Clinton's eight years in office -- Clinton's spending added up to $13.5 trillion over his two full terms. Bush spent $16.8 trillion from 2001-2008.
HILLARY'S REMARKS AT LUNCHEON FOR INDIAN PRIME MINISTER
Remarks at Luncheon for Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Ben Franklin Room
Washington, DC
November 24, 2009
Please be seated, and welcome to the State Department, to the ceremonial receiving rooms of the 8th floor. And it is a personal delight, as well as a high honor, to have so many of you gathered here, such a distinguished group, for this special occasion.
Prime Minister, Mrs. Kaur, we are so delighted and honored that you could be here and that you are the first official state visitors of the Obama Administration. And it’s a special pleasure to be here with my friends, Vice President Joe Biden and Dr. Jill Biden.
When the Vice President and I served together in the United States Senate, one of the many issues on which we shared a common view was the importance of building a strong and sustainable partnership with India. I co-founded and co-chaired the Friends of India Caucus, the first country-focused caucus in the history of the Senate. And Vice President Biden, who was then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was absolutely central to the passage of the landmark civilian nuclear agreement between our nations. He worked for months to craft the compromise that made this agreement possible. And we have seen how it has opened vital new avenues of cooperation between India and the United States.
The Vice President understood early what is now a core tenet of foreign policy in the Obama Administration, that the ability and the commitment of India and the United States to work together will be critical to our successes in both nations in addressing common challenges and achieving shared goals in the 21st century.
As the world’s largest democracy and the world’s oldest democracy, we are poised to collaborate on a number of fronts, from strengthening our security and confronting the threat of violent extremism, to fostering breakthroughs in science and technology, to increasing political, economic, and social opportunities for the world’s women.
India’s emergence as a political and economic leader gives us the chance to widen opportunity in places that have been left out of global progress for so long. And the many ties that connect us, many evidenced here in this room, between families and businesses, universities, cultural institutions, and civil society groups, create so much potential for us to work together to improve the lives of citizens in both our countries.
I am particularly impressed by Prime Minister Singh’s absolute determination to raise the standard of living and provide greater opportunity for the people that he represents. You cannot talk with him for more than 30 seconds without feeling that passion and that commitment. (Applause.)
And I have been privileged to have worked with and followed the affairs of India over a number of years, going back to my time as First Lady, and certainly as senator. But I was especially pleased to return to India this summer as Secretary of State, where Minister Krishna and I announced a new Strategic Dialogue between our countries covering a range of issues, including nonproliferation and counterterrorism, education and development, trade, and agriculture, science and technology, clean energy, and climate, and so much else.
And while I was in India, I had the chance to meet with people from across the spectrum, from university students to agricultural scientists, to women entrepreneurs from rural areas who are transforming their lives. And I was reminded of the extraordinary diversity and energy of India, not unlike that of the United States, another pluralistic, diverse, occasionally raucous democracy that invites the free expression of ideas, elects leaders peacefully through free and open elections, and continues to move forward into the future with momentum.
So we live in exciting times. And President Obama, Vice President Biden, and I are committed to making the most of this promising moment by deepening the areas of cooperation that exist between India and the United States. We will work together to help shape a future that really fulfills the dreams of our people. Both Indians and Americans want a better life. That’s why our people are such hard workers and so committed to a better future for their children. And the Indian American community represented here today has been an absolute engine of progress and change here in our country.
So, Mr. Prime Minister, this is a very auspicious occasion for us. And we work with you to achieve the goals that you have stood for throughout your entire public career. We are grateful for the history and friendship that already unites us, and we are committed to building on that in the years to come. And one of the people who will be leading the way is my friend and colleague, Vice President Joe Biden. (Applause.)
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Ben Franklin Room
Washington, DC
November 24, 2009
Please be seated, and welcome to the State Department, to the ceremonial receiving rooms of the 8th floor. And it is a personal delight, as well as a high honor, to have so many of you gathered here, such a distinguished group, for this special occasion.
Prime Minister, Mrs. Kaur, we are so delighted and honored that you could be here and that you are the first official state visitors of the Obama Administration. And it’s a special pleasure to be here with my friends, Vice President Joe Biden and Dr. Jill Biden.
When the Vice President and I served together in the United States Senate, one of the many issues on which we shared a common view was the importance of building a strong and sustainable partnership with India. I co-founded and co-chaired the Friends of India Caucus, the first country-focused caucus in the history of the Senate. And Vice President Biden, who was then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was absolutely central to the passage of the landmark civilian nuclear agreement between our nations. He worked for months to craft the compromise that made this agreement possible. And we have seen how it has opened vital new avenues of cooperation between India and the United States.
The Vice President understood early what is now a core tenet of foreign policy in the Obama Administration, that the ability and the commitment of India and the United States to work together will be critical to our successes in both nations in addressing common challenges and achieving shared goals in the 21st century.
As the world’s largest democracy and the world’s oldest democracy, we are poised to collaborate on a number of fronts, from strengthening our security and confronting the threat of violent extremism, to fostering breakthroughs in science and technology, to increasing political, economic, and social opportunities for the world’s women.
India’s emergence as a political and economic leader gives us the chance to widen opportunity in places that have been left out of global progress for so long. And the many ties that connect us, many evidenced here in this room, between families and businesses, universities, cultural institutions, and civil society groups, create so much potential for us to work together to improve the lives of citizens in both our countries.
I am particularly impressed by Prime Minister Singh’s absolute determination to raise the standard of living and provide greater opportunity for the people that he represents. You cannot talk with him for more than 30 seconds without feeling that passion and that commitment. (Applause.)
And I have been privileged to have worked with and followed the affairs of India over a number of years, going back to my time as First Lady, and certainly as senator. But I was especially pleased to return to India this summer as Secretary of State, where Minister Krishna and I announced a new Strategic Dialogue between our countries covering a range of issues, including nonproliferation and counterterrorism, education and development, trade, and agriculture, science and technology, clean energy, and climate, and so much else.
And while I was in India, I had the chance to meet with people from across the spectrum, from university students to agricultural scientists, to women entrepreneurs from rural areas who are transforming their lives. And I was reminded of the extraordinary diversity and energy of India, not unlike that of the United States, another pluralistic, diverse, occasionally raucous democracy that invites the free expression of ideas, elects leaders peacefully through free and open elections, and continues to move forward into the future with momentum.
So we live in exciting times. And President Obama, Vice President Biden, and I are committed to making the most of this promising moment by deepening the areas of cooperation that exist between India and the United States. We will work together to help shape a future that really fulfills the dreams of our people. Both Indians and Americans want a better life. That’s why our people are such hard workers and so committed to a better future for their children. And the Indian American community represented here today has been an absolute engine of progress and change here in our country.
So, Mr. Prime Minister, this is a very auspicious occasion for us. And we work with you to achieve the goals that you have stood for throughout your entire public career. We are grateful for the history and friendship that already unites us, and we are committed to building on that in the years to come. And one of the people who will be leading the way is my friend and colleague, Vice President Joe Biden. (Applause.)
OBAMA -15 APPROVAL INDEX - LOWEST YET!!!
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15. This is the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for President Obama.
Fifty-two percent (52%) of Democrats Strongly Approve while 68% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among those not affiliated with either major political party, just 16% Strongly Approve and 51% Strongly Disapprove.
Forty-five percent (45%) want U.S. troops home from Afghanistan either right away or within a year.Forty-three percent (43%) are opposed to such a firm timetable.
Fifty-three percent (53%) of voters worry that the federal government will do too much when it comes to reacting to the nation’s financial problems. That’s up seven points since President Obama took office.
-snip-
Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That matches the lowest level of total approval yet measured for this president. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Democrats approve as do 33% of unaffiliated voters. Eighty-three percent (83%) of Republicans disapprove.
Among all voters, 54% now disapprove.
Support for the health care plan proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low of 38%. Sixty percent (60%) of voters believe passage of the bill will lead to higher health care costs.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15. This is the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for President Obama.
Fifty-two percent (52%) of Democrats Strongly Approve while 68% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among those not affiliated with either major political party, just 16% Strongly Approve and 51% Strongly Disapprove.
Forty-five percent (45%) want U.S. troops home from Afghanistan either right away or within a year.Forty-three percent (43%) are opposed to such a firm timetable.
Fifty-three percent (53%) of voters worry that the federal government will do too much when it comes to reacting to the nation’s financial problems. That’s up seven points since President Obama took office.
-snip-
Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That matches the lowest level of total approval yet measured for this president. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Democrats approve as do 33% of unaffiliated voters. Eighty-three percent (83%) of Republicans disapprove.
Among all voters, 54% now disapprove.
Support for the health care plan proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low of 38%. Sixty percent (60%) of voters believe passage of the bill will lead to higher health care costs.
Monday, November 23, 2009
OBAMA'S APPROVAL NUMBERS STILL IN THE TOILET!!!
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Monday, November 23, 2009
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13.
For the first time in the Obama Administration, the Approval Index has been in negative double digits for nine straight days. Among men, the President’s Approval Index rating is -20. Among women, it is -7.
Support for the health care plan proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low of 38%. Sixty percent (60%) of voters believe passage of the bill will lead to higher health care costs.
-snip-
Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) now disapprove.
Monday, November 23, 2009
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13.
For the first time in the Obama Administration, the Approval Index has been in negative double digits for nine straight days. Among men, the President’s Approval Index rating is -20. Among women, it is -7.
Support for the health care plan proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low of 38%. Sixty percent (60%) of voters believe passage of the bill will lead to higher health care costs.
-snip-
Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) now disapprove.
56% OPPOSE HEALTH CARE PLAN; 38% SUPPORT IT - FALLS TO NEW LOW.
Support for Health Care Plan Falls to New Low
Monday, November 23, 2009
Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.
Half the survey was conducted before the Senate voted late Saturday to begin debate on its version of the legislation. Support for the plan was slightly lower in the half of the survey conducted after the Senate vote.
Prior to this, support for the plan had never fallen below 41%. Last week, support for the plan was at 47%. Two weeks ago, the effort was supported by 45% of voters.
Intensity remains stronger among those who oppose the push to change the nation’s health care system: 21% Strongly Favor the plan while 43% are Strongly Opposed.
-snip-
Only 16% now believe passage of the plan will lead to lower health care costs. Nearly four times as many (60%) believe the plan will increase health care costs. Most (54%) also believe passage of the plan will hurt the quality of care.
As has been the case for months, Democrats favor the plan while Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party are opposed. The latest numbers show support from 73% of those in the president’s party. The plan is opposed by 83% of Republicans and 70% of unaffiliated voters.
Other recent polling shows that Democrats consider health care reform to be the top priority for the president. Republicans and unaffiliated voters see deficit reduction as most important.
Among the nation’s senior citizens, 34% favor the health care plan and 60% are opposed. A majority of those under 30 favor the plan, but a majority of all other age groups are opposed.
Support for health care has declined along with President Obama's approval ratings. For the first time in the Obama era, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Approval Index has been in negative double digits for nine straight days.
Despite the decline in support for the health care plan, 50% still say it is at least somewhat likely to become law this year. That figure includes 17% who say passage is Very Likely.
While Senate Democrats this weekend assembled enough votes to begin debate on the plan, many challenges remain. All Republican Senators and several Democrats, for example, have expressed opposition to the so-called “public option.” Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters nationwide say guaranteeing that no one is forced to change their health insurance coverage is a higher priority than giving consumers the choice of a "public option" government-run health insurance company. Most liberal voters say giving people the choice of a "public option" is more important. But most moderates take the opposite view and say guaranteeing that no one is forced to change their health insurance is the top priority.
Overall, 46% favor the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan. However, if the plan encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers, support for the public option falls to 29%, and opposition rises to 58%.
As Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, wrote in the Wall Street Journal: “The most important fundamental is that 68% of American voters have health insurance coverage they rate good or excellent. … Most of these voters approach the health care reform debate fearing that they have more to lose than to gain.”
Other challenging issues in the Senate debate include abortion and illegal immigration. Ever since the House's passage of the Stupak Amendment which says the "public option" would not cover elective abortions and that recipients of federal insurance subsidies could not use them to buy abortion coverage, the divide among Democrats has been visible.
Earlier polling showed that 48% nationwide favored the abortion ban, but most supporters of health care reform didn’t want to address the issue. Just 13% of all voters wanted abortion coverage mandated in the legislation.
On immigration, 83% say that proof of citizenship should be required before anyone can get health care assistance from a government program. Most Democrats while claiming the plan will not cover illegal immigrants are opposed to including a proof-of-citizenship stipulation.
Other polling shows that 47% trust the private sector more than government to keep health care costs down and the quality of care up. Two-thirds (66%) say an increase in free market competition will do more than government regulation to reduce health care costs.
While voters are skeptical of the plan working its way through Congress, 54% say major changes are needed in the health care system. Sixty-one percent (61%) say it’s important for Congress to pass some reform.
Only 31% believe Congress has a good understanding of the proposed health care reform.
*********************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
Obama and the Democratic congress literally RAMMED THE HEALTH CARE BILL DOWN OUR THROATS Saturday night when bought senators agreed to proceed with debate. Of course, there still is a long road ahead of them, however, don't they give a damn that most Americans are AGAINST their awful plan? I thought the government worked for US. It seems the Democrats are the NEW MAFIA PARTY. I can't wait till 2010!!
Monday, November 23, 2009
Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.
Half the survey was conducted before the Senate voted late Saturday to begin debate on its version of the legislation. Support for the plan was slightly lower in the half of the survey conducted after the Senate vote.
Prior to this, support for the plan had never fallen below 41%. Last week, support for the plan was at 47%. Two weeks ago, the effort was supported by 45% of voters.
Intensity remains stronger among those who oppose the push to change the nation’s health care system: 21% Strongly Favor the plan while 43% are Strongly Opposed.
-snip-
Only 16% now believe passage of the plan will lead to lower health care costs. Nearly four times as many (60%) believe the plan will increase health care costs. Most (54%) also believe passage of the plan will hurt the quality of care.
As has been the case for months, Democrats favor the plan while Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party are opposed. The latest numbers show support from 73% of those in the president’s party. The plan is opposed by 83% of Republicans and 70% of unaffiliated voters.
Other recent polling shows that Democrats consider health care reform to be the top priority for the president. Republicans and unaffiliated voters see deficit reduction as most important.
Among the nation’s senior citizens, 34% favor the health care plan and 60% are opposed. A majority of those under 30 favor the plan, but a majority of all other age groups are opposed.
Support for health care has declined along with President Obama's approval ratings. For the first time in the Obama era, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Approval Index has been in negative double digits for nine straight days.
Despite the decline in support for the health care plan, 50% still say it is at least somewhat likely to become law this year. That figure includes 17% who say passage is Very Likely.
While Senate Democrats this weekend assembled enough votes to begin debate on the plan, many challenges remain. All Republican Senators and several Democrats, for example, have expressed opposition to the so-called “public option.” Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters nationwide say guaranteeing that no one is forced to change their health insurance coverage is a higher priority than giving consumers the choice of a "public option" government-run health insurance company. Most liberal voters say giving people the choice of a "public option" is more important. But most moderates take the opposite view and say guaranteeing that no one is forced to change their health insurance is the top priority.
Overall, 46% favor the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan. However, if the plan encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers, support for the public option falls to 29%, and opposition rises to 58%.
As Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, wrote in the Wall Street Journal: “The most important fundamental is that 68% of American voters have health insurance coverage they rate good or excellent. … Most of these voters approach the health care reform debate fearing that they have more to lose than to gain.”
Other challenging issues in the Senate debate include abortion and illegal immigration. Ever since the House's passage of the Stupak Amendment which says the "public option" would not cover elective abortions and that recipients of federal insurance subsidies could not use them to buy abortion coverage, the divide among Democrats has been visible.
Earlier polling showed that 48% nationwide favored the abortion ban, but most supporters of health care reform didn’t want to address the issue. Just 13% of all voters wanted abortion coverage mandated in the legislation.
On immigration, 83% say that proof of citizenship should be required before anyone can get health care assistance from a government program. Most Democrats while claiming the plan will not cover illegal immigrants are opposed to including a proof-of-citizenship stipulation.
Other polling shows that 47% trust the private sector more than government to keep health care costs down and the quality of care up. Two-thirds (66%) say an increase in free market competition will do more than government regulation to reduce health care costs.
While voters are skeptical of the plan working its way through Congress, 54% say major changes are needed in the health care system. Sixty-one percent (61%) say it’s important for Congress to pass some reform.
Only 31% believe Congress has a good understanding of the proposed health care reform.
*********************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
Obama and the Democratic congress literally RAMMED THE HEALTH CARE BILL DOWN OUR THROATS Saturday night when bought senators agreed to proceed with debate. Of course, there still is a long road ahead of them, however, don't they give a damn that most Americans are AGAINST their awful plan? I thought the government worked for US. It seems the Democrats are the NEW MAFIA PARTY. I can't wait till 2010!!
FORMER BRITISH POLICEMAN INVESTIGATES OBAMA'S ELIGIBILITY
Former British policeman Investigates Obama’s Eligibility
Posted by Caleb on November 23, 2009
WESTERN JOURNALISM
Neil Sankey, who has almost 20 years experience serving in Special Branch and the Bomb Squad, is now devoting his energies to proving that Mr Obama is not a natural born US citizen.
Neil Sankey is employing tactics learned at Scotland Yard to investigate Obama’s Eligibility
He joined the Birthers after meeting Orly Taitz, one of the leaders of the group, which disputes Mr Obama’s claim that he was born in Hawaii.
Over the past year, Mr Sankey has been integral in some of the most aggressive efforts to remove him from office by claiming that his presidency is illegitimate.
He tried to block Obama’s inauguration last year by contacting all 538 electoral college representatives who formally elect the president.
Mr Sankey has also carried out an investigation into Mr Obama’s personal identification history which he claims shows a suspicious number of social security numbers.
He has refuted allegations that his attempts are racially motivated, claiming that he disagrees with Mr Obama’s politics and is convinced that he is not genuine.
Mr Sankey, who moved to California in the 1980s to set up his own private detective agency, told the Guardian: “The objection is not Obama’s colour but his politics.
Posted by Caleb on November 23, 2009
WESTERN JOURNALISM
Neil Sankey, who has almost 20 years experience serving in Special Branch and the Bomb Squad, is now devoting his energies to proving that Mr Obama is not a natural born US citizen.
Neil Sankey is employing tactics learned at Scotland Yard to investigate Obama’s Eligibility
He joined the Birthers after meeting Orly Taitz, one of the leaders of the group, which disputes Mr Obama’s claim that he was born in Hawaii.
Over the past year, Mr Sankey has been integral in some of the most aggressive efforts to remove him from office by claiming that his presidency is illegitimate.
He tried to block Obama’s inauguration last year by contacting all 538 electoral college representatives who formally elect the president.
Mr Sankey has also carried out an investigation into Mr Obama’s personal identification history which he claims shows a suspicious number of social security numbers.
He has refuted allegations that his attempts are racially motivated, claiming that he disagrees with Mr Obama’s politics and is convinced that he is not genuine.
Mr Sankey, who moved to California in the 1980s to set up his own private detective agency, told the Guardian: “The objection is not Obama’s colour but his politics.
HILLARY'S REMARKS WITH BULGARIAN FOREIGN MINISTER
Remarks With Bulgarian Foreign Minister Rumiana Zheleva After their Meeting
Treaty Room
Washington, DC
November 23, 2009
SECRETARY CLINTON: Good morning. And it’s a particular delight for me to welcome the Bulgarian delegation and especially Foreign Minister Zheleva, who has come to this position with a great background in academia and a great commitment to democracy. And it’s such a historic time for Europe and for the Euro-Atlantic alliance.
This year we are commemorating the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Iron Curtain. And that helped put Bulgaria on the path toward democracy and a market economy, both of which were reaffirmed in their recent elections. There was no way to know in 1989 how this would work out. But the transition, which has not always been easy, has made it possible for so many millions of people in Central and Eastern Europe to really have a place in charting their own future and making a claim to a better future, and I am very impressed by the remarkable progress that has been made.
We are also especially pleased that Bulgaria is a member of NATO and part of an alliance that is the most successful in history on behalf of collective security and rooted in mutual respect. We understand how intertwined our futures happen to be.
Today Bulgarian and American troops serve side by side as part of the NATO mission in Afghanistan. We are greatly appreciative of the service of your soldiers and their sacrifice. And we know, too, that our bilateral relationship is one of strategic importance. We are committed to working bilaterally, as well as within NATO, and through the European Union, and with the important emphasis on all of the issues that are significant to both of us.
Today the foreign minister and I discussed how we can broaden and deepen our partnership. I commended Bulgaria’s efforts to root out corruption, to hold people accountable, to end impunity for public officials. I also congratulated the foreign minister on Bulgaria’s efforts to bring greater transparency to the energy sector. Our special envoy for Eurasian Energy Richard Morningstar will be going back for his second trip to Bulgaria in about 10 days.
We talked about some of the economic challenges and the commercial ties that we wish to deepen. There is just so much that we see for a positive relationship between the United States and Bulgaria. So I want again to thank the foreign minister for her leadership and for her friendship and the friendship of the Bulgarian people, and I look forward to working with you in the future.
FOREIGN MINISTER ZHELEVA: Thank you, Madame Secretary. Today, I had a very constructive meeting with Madame Secretary Clinton. Thank you for that. Once again, I reaffirmed our commitment to our strategic partnership with the United States, and our determination to work together on global and regional security, as well as energy-related issues.
I described the significant commitment we are making to the fight against terrorism, and the role played by our brave troops in Afghanistan. I furthermore informed the Secretary about the efforts and the successes of our new government led by Prime Minister Borissov during the first hundred days in office. In particular, I elaborated on our efforts to overcome the dual challenge of organized crime and corruption.
During the meeting, we furthermore discussed regional challenges and the role played by Bulgaria in NATO and in the European Union. That role, as I pointed out to the Secretary, aims to enhance regional security and cooperation, and is contributing to the further strengthening of our transatlantic alliance. We have a very positive and interesting meeting, and I am very grateful for the support given to Bulgaria by the Madame Secretary. Thank you once again.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much, Minister.
FOREIGN MINISTER ZHELEVA: Thank you.
MR. KELLY: The first question to Lachlan Carmichael from AFP.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, since we have an opportunity to talk to you, perhaps on another subject, Iraq? There’s a prospect of the electoral law being vetoed again. What kind of concerns do you have about that? And do you have any – can you use your influence to help get it passed, iron out the differences among the factions?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Lachlan, we support the Iraqi Government’s efforts to pass an election law so that they can proceed with planned elections. We know that there are some continuing concerns as expressed by the vice president that have to be addressed. We will continue working with all of the parties. Our Ambassador, Chris Hill, on the ground has been deeply involved in doing so already.
This morning, I met and heard a report about the way forward. There are a number of ideas that we will be presenting. There’s an interim period because the Council of Representatives will not be meeting for a number of days that we think provide the opportunity for all the parties to come together, and with the help of not just the United States, but UNAMI and others to work out these continuing differences.
We believe on balance that there will be elections. They might slip by some period of time until this is worked out, because at some point the law has to be in place for the planning to begin, and so there necessarily needs to be a period of time in which the planning can occur. But we have every reason to believe that elections will be held, which will be another milestone on the journey that Iraqis are taking toward full and comprehensive democracy.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MODERATOR: Second question, (inaudible).
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, my question is for you. What are Bulgaria’s chances to be included in the U.S. Visa Waiver Program by the end of next year? Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we discussed that. I must say your foreign minister was extremely strong and even passionate about the issue, and we share the concern. I told her that I would personally support efforts to have Bulgaria enter into the Visa Waiver Program as soon as the standards are met. We value Bulgaria as a close partner. The criteria for the program are established by countries, by – excuse me, the criteria for the program is established by Congress. Every country has to meet the same criteria. There’s no greater or lesser burden on Bulgaria than any other country.
And we offered to assist Bulgaria in doing what it must in order to qualify, because we encourage and welcome Bulgarians to come to the United States for business, for pleasure, for family reasons, because we want to not just have a good government-to-government relationship, but a good people-to-people relationship. So we’re going to do everything we can to assist Bulgaria in meeting the criteria.
MR. KELLY: Next question to Andy Quinn from Reuters.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Hi, Andy.
QUESTION: Hi, Madame Secretary. I have a double-barreled question about Afghanistan. I hope you will allow it. A spokesman for Afghan President Hamid Karzai said they’re considering inviting some members of the Taliban to take part in this loya jirga that they’re talking about. I’m wondering if they’ve run that idea past you and what you might think of it.
And secondly, the White House has announced a meeting tonight on Afghan policy. I’m wondering if you have any special expectations for this meeting and how many more you might think we’ll be seeing before the President rolls out his policy.
And for the foreign minister, I’d like to know what if – what Bulgaria is hoping to see in the U.S. policy on Afghanistan. Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Andy, first of all, the issue of how to reintegrate members of the Taliban who renounce violence, renounce ties with al-Qaida, are committed to participating peacefully in the political life of Afghanistan is something that has been discussed at length, both within the Afghan Government, within our own government, and between our governments. And obviously, we are going to ask questions about how it proceeds, but the general idea of exploring this is one that we have been open to.
With respect to the outcome of any such discussions, however, we have urged caution and real standards that are expected to be met by anyone who is engaged in these conversations, so that whatever process there is can actually further the stability and the peace of Afghanistan, not undermine it.
Regarding the meeting tonight, I will not preempt the President in any comments on the meeting. It is, as you pointed out, a meeting with his principal advisors on national security and will be focused on the issues leading up to the decision that he will be making and announcing with respect to Afghanistan.
FOREIGN MINISTER ZHELEVA: So, thank you for the question. And being both member of the European Union and NATO, my country is very much interested to contributing the process of developing Afghanistan on both tracks, military as well as civilian track. And my country is among the partners of NATO, of the coalition. We have a high contribution, so – to this coalition and to the efforts of the international community. That is why we are looking very much, and we appreciate the important role of United States in both – so from one side in enhancing the European Union-U.S. relations on this issue, and on the other side also within the NATO.
And what we hope to see is, of course, a more coordinated approach, more coordinated efforts of all the partners. And we will contribute and we will do our part, of course, as a member of – as I already mentioned, NATO and European Union, because this is very important issue, so – to contribute to the democratization process in Afghanistan.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much for that, Foreign Minister.
MODERATOR: Next question Nikola Miladinov, Bulgarian National Radio.
QUESTION: Hello, Madame Secretary. Let’s continue a bit about Afghanistan because Madame Zheleva said that we will do our part. So will the United States ask Bulgaria for further increasing of its military presence in Afghanistan and sending more troops? Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Let me start by saying that Minister Zheleva was absolutely right in describing the commitment that we have seen from Bulgaria to this NATO mission, and we greatly appreciate Bulgaria’s contributions to the multinational effort in Afghanistan. And we know also that Bulgaria made contributions and sacrifices in Iraq as well.
We believe we face a common threat and a common enemy that goes to the heart of what collective defense means in the 21st century. And I have been quite impressed by the understanding that the new members of NATO, primarily from Central and Eastern Europe, have exhibited with their understanding and their willingness to participate.
The Bulgarian troops have served with distinction. I’ve heard that time and time again. And we regularly work with them to determine what contributions are appropriate for them to make. We cannot put ourselves in the position of the Bulgarian Government and the Bulgarian people. We obviously value this relationship, both on a bilateral as well as a multilateral basis, and we’re going to work with our friends in Bulgaria going forward to learn what kind of contributions on both the military and the civilian side are possible, which is what the minister said, and I appreciate her explanation and her commitment.
MR. KELLY: Thank you very much.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you all. Always good to see you. See, none of the people who are here were on my long, never-ending trip. (Laughter.) I think everybody else is still recovering.
QUESTION: I’m the only one standing. (Laughter.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, my goodness. Thank you all very much, and thanks to our friends from the Bulgarian press as well.
Treaty Room
Washington, DC
November 23, 2009
SECRETARY CLINTON: Good morning. And it’s a particular delight for me to welcome the Bulgarian delegation and especially Foreign Minister Zheleva, who has come to this position with a great background in academia and a great commitment to democracy. And it’s such a historic time for Europe and for the Euro-Atlantic alliance.
This year we are commemorating the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Iron Curtain. And that helped put Bulgaria on the path toward democracy and a market economy, both of which were reaffirmed in their recent elections. There was no way to know in 1989 how this would work out. But the transition, which has not always been easy, has made it possible for so many millions of people in Central and Eastern Europe to really have a place in charting their own future and making a claim to a better future, and I am very impressed by the remarkable progress that has been made.
We are also especially pleased that Bulgaria is a member of NATO and part of an alliance that is the most successful in history on behalf of collective security and rooted in mutual respect. We understand how intertwined our futures happen to be.
Today Bulgarian and American troops serve side by side as part of the NATO mission in Afghanistan. We are greatly appreciative of the service of your soldiers and their sacrifice. And we know, too, that our bilateral relationship is one of strategic importance. We are committed to working bilaterally, as well as within NATO, and through the European Union, and with the important emphasis on all of the issues that are significant to both of us.
Today the foreign minister and I discussed how we can broaden and deepen our partnership. I commended Bulgaria’s efforts to root out corruption, to hold people accountable, to end impunity for public officials. I also congratulated the foreign minister on Bulgaria’s efforts to bring greater transparency to the energy sector. Our special envoy for Eurasian Energy Richard Morningstar will be going back for his second trip to Bulgaria in about 10 days.
We talked about some of the economic challenges and the commercial ties that we wish to deepen. There is just so much that we see for a positive relationship between the United States and Bulgaria. So I want again to thank the foreign minister for her leadership and for her friendship and the friendship of the Bulgarian people, and I look forward to working with you in the future.
FOREIGN MINISTER ZHELEVA: Thank you, Madame Secretary. Today, I had a very constructive meeting with Madame Secretary Clinton. Thank you for that. Once again, I reaffirmed our commitment to our strategic partnership with the United States, and our determination to work together on global and regional security, as well as energy-related issues.
I described the significant commitment we are making to the fight against terrorism, and the role played by our brave troops in Afghanistan. I furthermore informed the Secretary about the efforts and the successes of our new government led by Prime Minister Borissov during the first hundred days in office. In particular, I elaborated on our efforts to overcome the dual challenge of organized crime and corruption.
During the meeting, we furthermore discussed regional challenges and the role played by Bulgaria in NATO and in the European Union. That role, as I pointed out to the Secretary, aims to enhance regional security and cooperation, and is contributing to the further strengthening of our transatlantic alliance. We have a very positive and interesting meeting, and I am very grateful for the support given to Bulgaria by the Madame Secretary. Thank you once again.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much, Minister.
FOREIGN MINISTER ZHELEVA: Thank you.
MR. KELLY: The first question to Lachlan Carmichael from AFP.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, since we have an opportunity to talk to you, perhaps on another subject, Iraq? There’s a prospect of the electoral law being vetoed again. What kind of concerns do you have about that? And do you have any – can you use your influence to help get it passed, iron out the differences among the factions?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Lachlan, we support the Iraqi Government’s efforts to pass an election law so that they can proceed with planned elections. We know that there are some continuing concerns as expressed by the vice president that have to be addressed. We will continue working with all of the parties. Our Ambassador, Chris Hill, on the ground has been deeply involved in doing so already.
This morning, I met and heard a report about the way forward. There are a number of ideas that we will be presenting. There’s an interim period because the Council of Representatives will not be meeting for a number of days that we think provide the opportunity for all the parties to come together, and with the help of not just the United States, but UNAMI and others to work out these continuing differences.
We believe on balance that there will be elections. They might slip by some period of time until this is worked out, because at some point the law has to be in place for the planning to begin, and so there necessarily needs to be a period of time in which the planning can occur. But we have every reason to believe that elections will be held, which will be another milestone on the journey that Iraqis are taking toward full and comprehensive democracy.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MODERATOR: Second question, (inaudible).
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, my question is for you. What are Bulgaria’s chances to be included in the U.S. Visa Waiver Program by the end of next year? Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we discussed that. I must say your foreign minister was extremely strong and even passionate about the issue, and we share the concern. I told her that I would personally support efforts to have Bulgaria enter into the Visa Waiver Program as soon as the standards are met. We value Bulgaria as a close partner. The criteria for the program are established by countries, by – excuse me, the criteria for the program is established by Congress. Every country has to meet the same criteria. There’s no greater or lesser burden on Bulgaria than any other country.
And we offered to assist Bulgaria in doing what it must in order to qualify, because we encourage and welcome Bulgarians to come to the United States for business, for pleasure, for family reasons, because we want to not just have a good government-to-government relationship, but a good people-to-people relationship. So we’re going to do everything we can to assist Bulgaria in meeting the criteria.
MR. KELLY: Next question to Andy Quinn from Reuters.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Hi, Andy.
QUESTION: Hi, Madame Secretary. I have a double-barreled question about Afghanistan. I hope you will allow it. A spokesman for Afghan President Hamid Karzai said they’re considering inviting some members of the Taliban to take part in this loya jirga that they’re talking about. I’m wondering if they’ve run that idea past you and what you might think of it.
And secondly, the White House has announced a meeting tonight on Afghan policy. I’m wondering if you have any special expectations for this meeting and how many more you might think we’ll be seeing before the President rolls out his policy.
And for the foreign minister, I’d like to know what if – what Bulgaria is hoping to see in the U.S. policy on Afghanistan. Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Andy, first of all, the issue of how to reintegrate members of the Taliban who renounce violence, renounce ties with al-Qaida, are committed to participating peacefully in the political life of Afghanistan is something that has been discussed at length, both within the Afghan Government, within our own government, and between our governments. And obviously, we are going to ask questions about how it proceeds, but the general idea of exploring this is one that we have been open to.
With respect to the outcome of any such discussions, however, we have urged caution and real standards that are expected to be met by anyone who is engaged in these conversations, so that whatever process there is can actually further the stability and the peace of Afghanistan, not undermine it.
Regarding the meeting tonight, I will not preempt the President in any comments on the meeting. It is, as you pointed out, a meeting with his principal advisors on national security and will be focused on the issues leading up to the decision that he will be making and announcing with respect to Afghanistan.
FOREIGN MINISTER ZHELEVA: So, thank you for the question. And being both member of the European Union and NATO, my country is very much interested to contributing the process of developing Afghanistan on both tracks, military as well as civilian track. And my country is among the partners of NATO, of the coalition. We have a high contribution, so – to this coalition and to the efforts of the international community. That is why we are looking very much, and we appreciate the important role of United States in both – so from one side in enhancing the European Union-U.S. relations on this issue, and on the other side also within the NATO.
And what we hope to see is, of course, a more coordinated approach, more coordinated efforts of all the partners. And we will contribute and we will do our part, of course, as a member of – as I already mentioned, NATO and European Union, because this is very important issue, so – to contribute to the democratization process in Afghanistan.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much for that, Foreign Minister.
MODERATOR: Next question Nikola Miladinov, Bulgarian National Radio.
QUESTION: Hello, Madame Secretary. Let’s continue a bit about Afghanistan because Madame Zheleva said that we will do our part. So will the United States ask Bulgaria for further increasing of its military presence in Afghanistan and sending more troops? Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Let me start by saying that Minister Zheleva was absolutely right in describing the commitment that we have seen from Bulgaria to this NATO mission, and we greatly appreciate Bulgaria’s contributions to the multinational effort in Afghanistan. And we know also that Bulgaria made contributions and sacrifices in Iraq as well.
We believe we face a common threat and a common enemy that goes to the heart of what collective defense means in the 21st century. And I have been quite impressed by the understanding that the new members of NATO, primarily from Central and Eastern Europe, have exhibited with their understanding and their willingness to participate.
The Bulgarian troops have served with distinction. I’ve heard that time and time again. And we regularly work with them to determine what contributions are appropriate for them to make. We cannot put ourselves in the position of the Bulgarian Government and the Bulgarian people. We obviously value this relationship, both on a bilateral as well as a multilateral basis, and we’re going to work with our friends in Bulgaria going forward to learn what kind of contributions on both the military and the civilian side are possible, which is what the minister said, and I appreciate her explanation and her commitment.
MR. KELLY: Thank you very much.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you all. Always good to see you. See, none of the people who are here were on my long, never-ending trip. (Laughter.) I think everybody else is still recovering.
QUESTION: I’m the only one standing. (Laughter.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, my goodness. Thank you all very much, and thanks to our friends from the Bulgarian press as well.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Saturday, November 21, 2009
THE NEW 'COMEBACK' CLINTON: FROM RIVAL TO U.S. CABINET
The New 'Comeback' Clinton: From Rival to U.S. Cabinet
Vogue Article Details Hillary Clinton's Winding Road to Secretary of State; She Tells Magazine: 'I Do Make Some People Uncomfortable, Which I'm Well Aware Of'
By KRISTINA WONG
ABC.COM
Nov. 21, 2009
At the start of the Obama administration nearly one year ago, many wondered how Hillary Clinton -- former first lady and former Obama rival -- would adjust to her new role as secretary of state.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington April 23, 2009, before the House State and Foreign Operations subcommittee.
(Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP Photo)Just a few months ago, Clinton fended off whispers around Washington that she was being sidelined as secretary of state amid an administration full of foreign policy experts and a statesmanlike-president popular abroad.
But a close-up profile in Vogue magazine's forthcoming December issue portrays a content Clinton who seems to have come to terms with her role.
In a 10-page article by Jonathan Van Meter, Clinton talks candidly about how she came to accept her position as the secretary of state, the translation gaffe in Africa last summer, and her thoughts about being a woman and role model.
Since becoming secretary of state, Clinton has shied away from talking about her political future, shooting down any suggestions she is interested in running for the presidency in 2012, or for New York governor in 2010, or is otherwise unhappy working under her former 2008 presidential campaign arch-rival.
But in a Vogue interview, Clinton explains how she almost did not accept the secretary of state job offer: "I did not think it was the right thing to do. I didn't want to do it. I just really had a lot of doubts, and I kept suggesting other people: Well, how about this person! How about that person! This one would be really good! But then a friend of mine called me and basically said, 'How would you have felt if you'd been elected and you'd called him and asked him to do this?' And that really made a big impression on me. How do you say no? And so ... I said yes. And here I am."
Wavering Hillary Clinton Finally Said 'Yes' After Obama Stepped In
Her staffers tell a longer version of the story, Van Meter says. Over a span of about 10 days, Clinton wavered daily, with her male staffers encouraging Clinton to take the job and her female staffers urging her against it.
Advisers Philippe Reines and Andrew Shapiro grew so worried she wasn't going to accept, they lied that it was Vice President Biden's birthday in order to get Clinton to call him and discuss the offer.
In the end, it was President Obama who convinced her.
'That button got pushed, that we-need-you-to-serve-your-country-button,'" Van Meter quotes an aide as saying.
And as secretary of state, Van Meter writes, she is a rock star. Her mastery of the issues is "dazzling," and crowds meet her everywhere she goes, he says. Indeed, an October Gallup poll showed that Clinton's favorability ratings among Americans had actually surpassed President Obama's, at 62 to 56 percent.
"In Cape Town, she threw a party for the press and drank with the best of us, talking for more than two hours, into the night, with surprising off-the-record candor about everything from her husband to her disdain for certain world leaders. She's fun. She laughs at herself. And she is full of surprisingly sharp, pointy little retorts, barbs, and comebacks," Van Meter writes.
But that doesn't mean Clinton doesn't have her undiplomatic moments. In the Vogue article, Clinton discusses the infamous translation faux pas in Kinshasa, Congo, where she snapped at a student whose question about China and the World Bank was mistranslated to begin as, "What does Mr. Clinton think, through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton ...?"
"I'll tell you, it made me cringe," Van Meter quotes her as saying, "as you saw. And the actual text of the question was pretty clear in the way it was translated. But, you know, it was just one of those moments."
Van Meter describes Clinton as tough and "comfortable with war talk in a boys'-club environment," yet he also describes in detail her clothes, what she has in her makeup bag and what she looks like after a swim in the ocean -– "pretty."
Perhaps is it that type of scrutiny that has led so many women in America to admire and identify with her.
Hillary Clinton in 'Vogue': 'I Challenge Assumptions About Women'
"So many women feel like I'm on their side," Clinton says. "I somehow, through my life or their perception of me, give them courage to do things. And I think it's also that, whether I am meant to or not, I challenge assumptions about women. I do make some people uncomfortable, which I'm well aware of, but that's just part of coming to grips with what I believe is still one of the most important pieces of unfinished business in human history -- empowering women to be able to stand up for themselves."
Vogue Article Details Hillary Clinton's Winding Road to Secretary of State; She Tells Magazine: 'I Do Make Some People Uncomfortable, Which I'm Well Aware Of'
By KRISTINA WONG
ABC.COM
Nov. 21, 2009
At the start of the Obama administration nearly one year ago, many wondered how Hillary Clinton -- former first lady and former Obama rival -- would adjust to her new role as secretary of state.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington April 23, 2009, before the House State and Foreign Operations subcommittee.
(Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP Photo)Just a few months ago, Clinton fended off whispers around Washington that she was being sidelined as secretary of state amid an administration full of foreign policy experts and a statesmanlike-president popular abroad.
But a close-up profile in Vogue magazine's forthcoming December issue portrays a content Clinton who seems to have come to terms with her role.
In a 10-page article by Jonathan Van Meter, Clinton talks candidly about how she came to accept her position as the secretary of state, the translation gaffe in Africa last summer, and her thoughts about being a woman and role model.
Since becoming secretary of state, Clinton has shied away from talking about her political future, shooting down any suggestions she is interested in running for the presidency in 2012, or for New York governor in 2010, or is otherwise unhappy working under her former 2008 presidential campaign arch-rival.
But in a Vogue interview, Clinton explains how she almost did not accept the secretary of state job offer: "I did not think it was the right thing to do. I didn't want to do it. I just really had a lot of doubts, and I kept suggesting other people: Well, how about this person! How about that person! This one would be really good! But then a friend of mine called me and basically said, 'How would you have felt if you'd been elected and you'd called him and asked him to do this?' And that really made a big impression on me. How do you say no? And so ... I said yes. And here I am."
Wavering Hillary Clinton Finally Said 'Yes' After Obama Stepped In
Her staffers tell a longer version of the story, Van Meter says. Over a span of about 10 days, Clinton wavered daily, with her male staffers encouraging Clinton to take the job and her female staffers urging her against it.
Advisers Philippe Reines and Andrew Shapiro grew so worried she wasn't going to accept, they lied that it was Vice President Biden's birthday in order to get Clinton to call him and discuss the offer.
In the end, it was President Obama who convinced her.
'That button got pushed, that we-need-you-to-serve-your-country-button,'" Van Meter quotes an aide as saying.
And as secretary of state, Van Meter writes, she is a rock star. Her mastery of the issues is "dazzling," and crowds meet her everywhere she goes, he says. Indeed, an October Gallup poll showed that Clinton's favorability ratings among Americans had actually surpassed President Obama's, at 62 to 56 percent.
"In Cape Town, she threw a party for the press and drank with the best of us, talking for more than two hours, into the night, with surprising off-the-record candor about everything from her husband to her disdain for certain world leaders. She's fun. She laughs at herself. And she is full of surprisingly sharp, pointy little retorts, barbs, and comebacks," Van Meter writes.
But that doesn't mean Clinton doesn't have her undiplomatic moments. In the Vogue article, Clinton discusses the infamous translation faux pas in Kinshasa, Congo, where she snapped at a student whose question about China and the World Bank was mistranslated to begin as, "What does Mr. Clinton think, through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton ...?"
"I'll tell you, it made me cringe," Van Meter quotes her as saying, "as you saw. And the actual text of the question was pretty clear in the way it was translated. But, you know, it was just one of those moments."
Van Meter describes Clinton as tough and "comfortable with war talk in a boys'-club environment," yet he also describes in detail her clothes, what she has in her makeup bag and what she looks like after a swim in the ocean -– "pretty."
Perhaps is it that type of scrutiny that has led so many women in America to admire and identify with her.
Hillary Clinton in 'Vogue': 'I Challenge Assumptions About Women'
"So many women feel like I'm on their side," Clinton says. "I somehow, through my life or their perception of me, give them courage to do things. And I think it's also that, whether I am meant to or not, I challenge assumptions about women. I do make some people uncomfortable, which I'm well aware of, but that's just part of coming to grips with what I believe is still one of the most important pieces of unfinished business in human history -- empowering women to be able to stand up for themselves."
Friday, November 20, 2009
OBAMA BELOW 50 IN GALLUP FOR FIRST TIME!!!
November 20th, 2009
Obama Below 50 in Gallup, What it Means
Posted by David Paul Kuhn
REAL CLEAR POLITICS
For the first time, Barack Obama fell below 50 percent in the Gallup tracking poll.
Obama's decline comes at an historic pace. It ranks in the lower third of modern American presidents.
The fall below 50 is a fraught milestone for any president. In legislative terms, a president is only as powerful as he is popular. Public approval rating is the metric for that popularity.
Below 50, a president can no longer claim the majority's support. His political arsenal depletes. A president's political opposition has powerful, though nebulous, new ammunition.
Of the twelve presidents since World War II, Obama lost the majority at the fourth fastest rate. It nearly was worse. Ronald Reagan's fall-point came about a week sooner. That Reagan also fell below 50 during his first November, and would go on to languish below 50 for two years, illustrates that the milestone is not determinative.
But Friday's news—Obama at 49 percent—is indeed symbolically significant. It will immediately impact the health care debate, albeit intangibly and perhaps only slightly. It will be more difficult for the White House to pressure moderate Democrats.
Obama owes most of this year's decline to independents. But Obama's newly weak standing is also due to the loss of still-more Republicans and to a lesser extent, some Democrats.
-snip-
Clearly, Obama's greatest issue is with the fickle middle. Obama's fragile bond with independents has been visible throughout his young presidency. As early as mid March, this writer was wondering: Can Obama Hold the Center?
Other recent polls, like Quinnipiac, have also for the first time tracked Obama below 50. But Gallup has unrivaled historical reach. Its findings carry unique symbolism. Obama's RealClearPolitics average, the mean of major public polls, is at 50.6 percent.
The bulk of Obama's public opinion decline occurred over the summer. Democrats can largely blame the crawling health care legislation. But more recent issues have not helped, including double-digit unemployment and his unpopular decision to hold the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian criminal courts.
-snip-
The fall below 50 fluctuates for some presidents over a brief period but generally marks the beginning of an extended and unrelenting decline (Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter). Others presidents languish in the minority but eventually recover (Reagan). Some presidents fall below the threshold but quickly recover (Dwight Eisenhower).
Democrats need not panic. Most modern re-elected presidents fall below 50 at some point in their first term. But his early popularity (nearly at 70) means that few have, so quickly, fallen as much as Obama. Obama's public approval suffered the worst third quarter (July 20 to October 19) decline of any elected president in the post-war era, according to Gallup.
-snip-
Obama first saw 50 in late August, according to the Gallup tracking poll. We've known since then, with an eye on how other presidents dealt with that milestone, that: For Obama, The Fall Below 50% Looms.
Now Obama is here, a president without the majority. I've written before that public approval is the currency of political capital. Now we'll witness—as Democrats struggle to extricate health care from its legislative quagmire—how Obama governs without the riches of what was, last January, soaring public support. These are the periods that test presidents.
Obama Below 50 in Gallup, What it Means
Posted by David Paul Kuhn
REAL CLEAR POLITICS
For the first time, Barack Obama fell below 50 percent in the Gallup tracking poll.
Obama's decline comes at an historic pace. It ranks in the lower third of modern American presidents.
The fall below 50 is a fraught milestone for any president. In legislative terms, a president is only as powerful as he is popular. Public approval rating is the metric for that popularity.
Below 50, a president can no longer claim the majority's support. His political arsenal depletes. A president's political opposition has powerful, though nebulous, new ammunition.
Of the twelve presidents since World War II, Obama lost the majority at the fourth fastest rate. It nearly was worse. Ronald Reagan's fall-point came about a week sooner. That Reagan also fell below 50 during his first November, and would go on to languish below 50 for two years, illustrates that the milestone is not determinative.
But Friday's news—Obama at 49 percent—is indeed symbolically significant. It will immediately impact the health care debate, albeit intangibly and perhaps only slightly. It will be more difficult for the White House to pressure moderate Democrats.
Obama owes most of this year's decline to independents. But Obama's newly weak standing is also due to the loss of still-more Republicans and to a lesser extent, some Democrats.
-snip-
Clearly, Obama's greatest issue is with the fickle middle. Obama's fragile bond with independents has been visible throughout his young presidency. As early as mid March, this writer was wondering: Can Obama Hold the Center?
Other recent polls, like Quinnipiac, have also for the first time tracked Obama below 50. But Gallup has unrivaled historical reach. Its findings carry unique symbolism. Obama's RealClearPolitics average, the mean of major public polls, is at 50.6 percent.
The bulk of Obama's public opinion decline occurred over the summer. Democrats can largely blame the crawling health care legislation. But more recent issues have not helped, including double-digit unemployment and his unpopular decision to hold the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian criminal courts.
-snip-
The fall below 50 fluctuates for some presidents over a brief period but generally marks the beginning of an extended and unrelenting decline (Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter). Others presidents languish in the minority but eventually recover (Reagan). Some presidents fall below the threshold but quickly recover (Dwight Eisenhower).
Democrats need not panic. Most modern re-elected presidents fall below 50 at some point in their first term. But his early popularity (nearly at 70) means that few have, so quickly, fallen as much as Obama. Obama's public approval suffered the worst third quarter (July 20 to October 19) decline of any elected president in the post-war era, according to Gallup.
-snip-
Obama first saw 50 in late August, according to the Gallup tracking poll. We've known since then, with an eye on how other presidents dealt with that milestone, that: For Obama, The Fall Below 50% Looms.
Now Obama is here, a president without the majority. I've written before that public approval is the currency of political capital. Now we'll witness—as Democrats struggle to extricate health care from its legislative quagmire—how Obama governs without the riches of what was, last January, soaring public support. These are the periods that test presidents.
ON CAMERA GROUP INTERVIEW - HILLARY WITH DUNYA TV, AAJ TV, EXPRESS TV, GEO TV, DAWN NEWS, DUNYA TV AND PTV
On Camera Group Interview With Nasim Zehra of Dunya TV, Talat Husain of AAJ TV, Mubashir Luqman of Express TV, Hamid Mir of Geo TV, Naveen Naqvi of Dawn News, Moeed Pirzada of Dunya TV, and Anwar ul-Hassan of PTV
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Islamabad, Pakistan
October 28, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MR. PIRZADA: Today, this is an entrusting, an entrusting new chapter and entrusting new opening in U.S.-Pakistan relationship. And in evidence of the emphasis the new Obama Administration places on people-to-people contact, that I’m joined here by United States Secretary of State Ms. Hillary Clinton for an open and direct dialogue with the select opinion-makers of Pakistani media.
In this country, we do not know Secretary Clinton only as the United States Secretary of State. We also know her as a formidable politician, an astute politician, a very powerful ex-presidential candidate, a former First Lady. But I would also like to remind you that Secretary Clinton, even before she came into the political limelight, she was counted among the top hundred most influential lawyers that helped change the social and legal agenda within the United States.
Secretary Clinton is no stranger to Pakistan. She has been visiting this country since early ‘90s as the First Lady, and this is her fifth trip. Secretary Clinton, on behalf of my channel and all participating television channels and on behalf of the people of Pakistan, I extend to you a warm welcome into this discussion.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, and I feel warmly welcomed. It is a great personal pleasure for me to be back in Pakistan, as you say, for my fifth trip. And it is also a high honor to be representing the Obama Administration and the United States.
But I’m here not just to do the official diplomacy. I have already met with the foreign minister and the prime minister. I’ll be meeting with the president. I’ll meet with the opposition. I’ll meet with parliamentarians. And that’s very important. But it is especially critical that we do more of what you’re doing today with your colleagues so that I have a chance to answer the questions that are on the minds of the people of Pakistan, so that we can have more people-to-people diplomacy. Because we need to build stronger bonds of connection, of trust, of cooperation and partnership between our two countries, and that’s what I hope today will be able to help us do – turn the page and look for an even better future.
MR. PIRZADA: Thank you, Secretary Clinton. Now with your permission, let me introduce to you all of us. My name is Moeed Pirzada. I am director and editor of world affairs for Dunya News. I also present my own current affairs program, Dunya Today, and I also write for Dawn and for Khaleej Times.
To your right, the first person is Mr. Talat Husain. He is the director of news and current affairs for AAJ Television. Before joining the electronic media, he has been the editor of The News in Islamabad. And Talat presents one popular program, Live With Talat, and given his robust opinions and very strong positions, we often refer to him as the agenda-setting anchor in Pakistan.
SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Thank you very much.
MR. PIRZADA: Next to Talat is Mubashir Luqman. Mubashir is the lead anchor for Express News and the news network. He presents his own very hard-hitting political program called Point Blank. And Mubashir is also a columnist, and few people know that Mubashir is also a filmmaker.
Next to Mubashir is Anwar ul-Hassan. He is the lead anchor for Straight Broadcast of PTV, Pakistan television. He is also the diplomatic correspondent and Kabul is the diplomatic assignment. And he has the credit of running – of presenting the longest-running current affair programs and Straight Broadcast of PTV for the last seven years.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. PIRZADA: Here to my left is Ms. Nasim Zehra. She’s director of current affairs with Dunya News. She presents her own program, a popular political affairs program, Policy Matters. Nasim has been a columnist, a very prominent columnist, with the news and also Khaleej Times for almost 15 years now. And she has extensively covered the U.S.-Pakistan relationship.
Next to Nasim is Hamid Mir, and I must emphasize that Hamid Mir is a quintessential household name in Pakistan, and he is currently the editor at Geo News in Islamabad. He presents a very popular program, Capital Talk, took a very leading role in the loyalists’ movement, civil society movement against General Musharraf. He is also a columnist with the newspapers Jang and (inaudible).
Next to Hamid Mir is Naveen Naqvi. Naveen has been part of the launch team of the Dawn News, Pakistan’s first English television channel. Naveen is a senior anchorperson. She presents a morning news program as well.
And this is it, and we’ll just say charity begins at home.
SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.)
MR. PIRZADA: Let me ask the first overall question to you, that this is your exclusive trip to Pakistan, three-day exclusive --
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.
MR. PIRZADA: -- trip to Pakistan. And this is coming at the – almost just after a raging controversy around the Kerry-Lugar legislation in this country. That’s one aspect. So we would like to know how do you see yourself, the significance of your visit? What is on your plate in terms of the agenda?
Also, the second thing is just before coming here on Monday, you attended the sixth Situation Room meeting with President Obama on national security --
SECRETARY CLINTON: Mm-hmm, mm-hmm.
MR. PIRZADA: -- and on Afghanistan. And we would like to know what is the short-term and long-term vision of your Administration, the Obama Administration’s view on Afghanistan?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Moeed, I hope that my trip will send a very strong signal to the people of Pakistan of the sincerity and seriousness of our commitment to a long-term, durable relationship between our two countries. When I say I want to turn the page, I mean that our relationship should be much deeper and broader than our shared concern and fight against terrorism. I’m very impressed and admiring of the efforts that the government and the military are taking to root out the sources of so much anxiety and anguish and tragedy as those who attack innocents and attack the very institutions of the Pakistani Government.
We do share that very strong commitment to ending the reign of terror that has not just in Pakistan, but in many places in the world caused so much difficulty. But we also want to work together on economic development. Today, I was privileged to announce a big commitment worked out with the Pakistani Government between our experts on how we can assist in improving the energy sector toward more reliable, predictable energy, especially electricity. We want to work on education and healthcare. I announced, along with Foreign Minister Qureshi, the resumption of our strategic dialogue where we will consult and try to produce results that will benefit the people of our two countries.
So I am here hoping that I can speak directly to as many people as possible through the medium of the press, through town halls, through meetings with civil society. I’ll be doing that in both Lahore and Islamabad. And it would be presumptuous to say what will come out of a three-day trip, except I’ll have a wonderful time and get to see people that I’ve known for years as well as meet new people. But I hope it’s the start of this turning the page on our relationship.
As to your second question, the President is working very hard to determine the best way forward to achieve our strategic objectives. The objectives have not changed. We are determined to root out al-Qaida – which poses a threat to us, to you, to so many others around the world – their extremist allies, many of whom you are now fighting because they have thrown their lot in with al-Qaida, and to work to try to stabilize Afghanistan so that the people of Afghanistan have a better future and you don’t have threats coming to Pakistan or threats coming to the United States from Afghanistan’s territory.
And it is important for us to have a combined civilian and military strategy in Afghanistan, because so many of the problems that are feeding the presence of the Taliban are rooted in people not feeling secure, not feeling that they have a solid future for themselves and their children, the government not being able to really provide the kind of control and support that people expect. So this is an area where Pakistan and the United States have a lot in common. Our military-to-military relations are growing all the time. The Pakistani military has been very helpful in advising the American military of the best way forward in Pakistan.
So the President will be making an announcement when he’s ready, which will be most likely after the Afghan election. Last spring, he said that we would review our strategy after the Afghan election, but the Afghan election isn’t over yet. So it’s taking a little longer than perhaps we might have expected. But our strategic goals remain the same. We just want to be sure that we’re operationalizing them, that our tactics are the best for us to pursue.
MR. PIRZADA: Thank you, Secretary Clinton.
I think, Talat, you want to raise a question?
QUESTION: Yes. Thank you very much. Well, we welcome you here, but at the same time, we have to state the facts as we see them. You speak about turning the page. That’s a laudable goal. But you would agree that words do not turn the page; policies do. Words could have done the same job if words were drafted carefully, and that brings me to the Kerry-Lugar bill. I think the debate inside Pakistan probably would have been less ferocious if the drafting of the bill could have conveyed a different kind of an intent altogether.
The drafting left a lot of phrases that were humiliating – that’s how they were seen here – conditionalities that were very (inaudible), were described in a manner that spoke of arrogance. And on top of it, what really cut most of us to the quick in the mainstream media was the way this whole debate was characterized by somebody like Mr. Holbrooke, who is a responsible representative of the Obama Administration. And let me just quote what he said in his recent press conference, that the Kerry-Lugar bill, in his opinion, didn’t spark anything; it was just an excuse for a certain group of people who were looking for an excuse to take a great piece of legislation, then rub it to the ground.
I’m just trying to understand, when you talk about turning the page and then you look at the language of the Kerry-Lugar bill, the intent through the drafting and the language doesn’t come through as that. So either we have not been able to read the genius that is in the drafting of the Kerry-Lugar bill, or, frankly, we are looking at a public policy that is so fundamentally different from your actual policy towards Pakistan.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’m glad you raised that, because this is one of the examples of where we are not communicating well, and I think that’s a two-way problem, not just a one-way problem. The Kerry-Lugar bill has been in our Congress for a number of years. In fact, it started off as the Biden-Lugar bill before the Vice President was elevated from the Senate. And there has been a lot of coverage of it. There has been, certainly, a lot of attention paid to it. And I believe that the intent and the motivation was to do as stated by the United States, which was to have a visible, tangible commitment over a number of years to demonstrate that our concerns and our willingness and hopefulness about working with Pakistan was not some kind of one-off commitment, but instead a long-term commitment.
And yet on the other hand, apparently much of what was written, which to members of Congress – I used to be one – was very common language. That’s the kind of language we have in so many of our aid packages. It’s not at all specific to Pakistan. And that the conditions, if that’s the way to describe them, really apply to the United States. I mean, we know that we’re going to be held accountable, the Government of the United States, to our taxpayers.
So we want to make a very big commitment in the middle of a global recession totaling $7.5 billion to another country, and we’ve got somebody sitting in Columbus, Ohio who says, “I’m unemployed. Why is my money going to Pakistan?” And we want to say we want an important relationship with a very critical ally, and yes, we’re going to commit this money and then your government – namely, me and the Secretary of Defense and others – we will report to you. We will report to the Congress as to how the money’s being spent.
It had nothing to do, in our view, with the sovereignty of Pakistan. It imposed no conditions on Pakistan. And it was, as I said, very much in line with other aid packages. However, the fact is, as you point out, that was not the message that was coming across. So we clearly did not do our homework in trying to explain what it is we were trying to accomplish. And frankly, I think one of the problems is we did not have a program to reach out to the Pakistani press. That will never happen again, because if we’re going to have this partnership, then we need to be communicating through the mechanisms that the people in each of our countries will hear and listen to. So --
QUESTION: Well, let me interject here with your permission.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: There’s a follow-up as well. It’s not just the language itself. It’s not that you will have, you know, 10 programs done in favor of Kerry-Lugar bill and the nature of the bill is going to change. I mean, surely, Pakistani people do see it as a slight to their intelligence when somebody says that, “Well, you’re not exactly reading the real intent of the bill.” You’ve got 12 conditionalities related to security put into a bill that deals with economic aid and social sector development.
So clearly, there’s something happening through the bill that the U.S. is unwilling to acknowledge. I think your PR and charm offensive is fine, explaining your position is fine. But somewhere down the line, one has to examine the bill, and it has been examined in great detail in Pakistan by people who have some expert in these matters. And you know, we believe that the bill had a sort of, you know, a hidden agenda.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, you know what, I am very sorry you believe that, because that was not the intention. Nor, as someone who served in the Senate for eight years, would I read it that way. But I think your question raises the larger concern that when the United States – this is how we see it – when the United States says we want to try to remedy some of the problems of the past, which I have admitted, I have given speeches about that I don’t think that our relationship was always as constructive and solid as it needed to be.
So we say we want to remedy it, and we’re going to try to do that through an aid package which we think could be extremely beneficial to the people of Pakistan, but that as a matter of course, when we do aid legislation – you can read – the aid that goes to Israel, the aid that goes to Egypt – when we have big packages of aid, I think it is absolutely understandable that there would be a desire on the part of our members of Congress to have some accountability. That doesn’t affect your sovereignty; that’s accountability on us. We have to – I’m the one that has to go before the Congress and say, well, we think we’re making progress or not, we think the money is being used as we intended it or not.
Pakistan doesn’t have to take this money. Let me be very clear: You do not have to take this money. You do not have to take any aid from us. But we believe that we can turn the page. And what is regrettable is this misunderstanding, from my perspective, as to both the intent in the motivation of the legislation and the way that we draft legislation. So we’ll certainly do better. We’ll certainly try to explain better. But this is just an authorizing piece of legislation. The money has not been appropriated. And if Pakistan doesn’t want the money, we’re not going to impose it on you.
QUESTION: Let me just quickly ask, really quick. There is an impression in this country that once the President has authorized and the money starts to roll towards Pakistan, the Pakistani Government, either the ministry of finance or foreign affairs or the prime minister’s office, will have to sign a parallel instrument that will mention – that will automatically impose the conditions of Kerry-Lugar legislation and bill, which you say is on the U.S. executive upon the Government of Pakistan. Is something like that going to happen?
SECRETARY CLINTON: No. I mean, what happens usually – as I say, this is what we call authorizing legislation. So the President can sign this, but that doesn’t mean any money will flow. You have to go back to the Congress to get the money appropriated. So it’s a two-step process. And when the money is appropriated, we can take a hard look at what, if any, conditions will be expressed – again, I would just reiterate these are conditions on the United States Government – and then move forward with the money being appropriated.
But I want to make very clear, we believe that our relationship with Pakistan is in both of our interests. We believe that it is important for the United States, but we believe equally it’s important for Pakistan. We believe that the kind of assistance that we could provide to fulfill the needs that are identified by the people and Government of Pakistan could be useful.
QUESTION: But Pakistanis also have to believe that.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I agree with you.
QUESTION: It’s not enough for you to believe that.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, no, no, no. I agree with – I agree with you.
MR. PIRZADA: I think we have to move.
SECRETARY CLINTON: No, but I think – we’ll move on, but I think you don’t have to believe it. We don’t have to give you the money. I mean, this is like – this is not – nobody is saying you must take this money so that we can help you rebuild your energy sector or put more kids in school or provide better maternal and child health. You don’t have to take the money.
QUESTION: But there is another side to that.
MR. PIRZADA: Let’s move ahead. Are you going to raise the question, or should we?
QUESTION: Yes, yes.
MR. PIRZADA: Okay. You go ahead.
QUESTION: If you’ll allow me.
MR. PIRZADA: Okay.
QUESTION: Okay. Because – thank you very much and welcome to Pakistan. And we also believe that the United States and Pakistan, they need each other and we need friendship. But there are some questions in the mind of common people. I will start my question with Kerry-Lugar bill.
Our rule of law have been mentioned many times in Kerry-Lugar bill, which is a very good thing. But my question is about those U.S. officials who are breaking Pakistani law, again and again, in this federal capital of Pakistan, which is called Islamabad. And they have been caught many times by our police. They were carrying illegal weapons. Just last morning – in the morning of the 27th of October, four U.S. Marines were caught at three o’clock in the morning in Islamabad. They were arrested, and within one hour they were released.
So the common man is asking this question that why the U.S. officials are free to break Pakistani law, and who have ordered them to patrol on the streets of Islamabad? And will you allow Pakistani soldiers to patrol like this, carrying illegal weapons in their hands in the streets of Washington?
MR. PIRZADA: Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t have any of the specifics about that particular question. I can only say that there are rules which govern all countries. Diplomatic immunity applies in every country. So certain things that a Pakistani official in our capital of Washington might do would be diplomatically immune from arrest or from any kind of action. I have no idea whether that is what we’re talking about.
QUESTION: But no diplomat come on the road at three o’clock in the morning?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, yes. I mean, we have diplomats and people assigned to embassies in our country who have car accidents, who get into fights, who have all kinds of problems. And there are international rules about how to deal with that. I will certainly look into it to see whether what you’re talking about is within that kind of framework or there’s something else going on.
MR. PIRZADA: Secretary, again, thanks, but let me move ahead.
Mubashir.
QUESTION: I just have one thing at the outset. When a perception is reality, you may be very sincere and very serious in your endeavors to provide aid to Pakistan. But if the people of Pakistan do not perceive it as an aid, then there is a serious issue and one has to look beyond that.
Now, the fact of the matter is we – all of us, and I speak for every one of us – we have our hands on the pulse of the people. We talk to people on the roads, we talk to people on the streets, we talk to people who have invested over here. And they all ask one question, and I can’t answer that. When President George Bush made a statement, either you are with us or against us in Pakistan, at that time, the Government of Pakistan at that time choose to be an ally of the United States, without any conditions put anywhere, you know, with just one phone call. How come now, when Pakistan is in need of aid, the Government of the United States or the congressmen or the Secretary of State has to come up with certain conditions?
Now, I’ll dovetail this so that we can move on as well. If the United States Government is so sincere in helping Pakistan go through its problems, why is it that you are constantly using drone attacks inside Pakistan? Why not transfer that technology to the Pakistan military that you have praised yourself just now?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first let me say that one of the pages I’m turning is on the Bush Administration, because I think being for us or against was not the best way to build common purpose among other nations with our own. And we are grateful for the support that Pakistan has given in the fight against terrorism. It’s a mutual concern, and we have a common enemy. And I am very admiring of the sacrifice that the Pakistani people have had to endure in order to undertake this fight.
But I think that it is a different – I think the difference that we’re talking about here is not as great as it is perceived on the part of the people that you are referring to. But I will admit that clearly there is a lot of misperception, and perception is a reality, so therefore, it is up to us to try to set that straight. And we will certainly try to do a better job than we just haven’t apparently done, because it hasn’t been convincing to those of you who represent the media. But it’s not for any bad intent. It’s just, apparently, we were not as sensitive as we should have been in terms of presenting the legislation that was passed by the Congress.
And with respect to your second question, I don’t really talk about that. I think that’s something that the military-to-military relationship has to deal with.
QUESTION: But is there a possibility for that in the near future?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I’m not going to speculate on that.
QUESTION: If I may --
QUESTION: Let me – I want –
QUESTION: -- the Shura council hat has been coming up – sorry, if I may. And we’re talking about an expansion of drone strikes towards Balochistan. That’s been in the news as well. So how does that fit in with all of this?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t think that the discussions between our militaries and our intelligence agencies, which are in constant consultation, are really appropriate to be discussed. Those are something that goes to the very difficult decisions that your military has to make. And I think we should give them the support that they need in trying to root out the people who are our common enemies.
MR. PIRZADA: Both Nasim and Anwar are waiting for their questions. Nasim, you go ahead quickly and then Anwar.
QUESTION: Well, I would like to welcome you to Pakistan and say that I think it’s a very important point at which you’ve come, just for the reasons that you have mentioned – you yourself mentioned. When I hear you speak, Secretary of State, it again seems to be a situation where you think the issue is about lack of communication. I think the fact that you want to turn a page through more aggressive communication and the speech that you gave at USIP recently, where talked of needing to be more dealing with propaganda, disinformation, and misinformation in Pakistan.
I wonder how will we make the breakthrough, because while this bill is very crucial, very important and, I mean, we know this relationship is equally important for you as it is for us. And when you talk about take the money or don’t take the money, I think that we are obviously dealing with a more complex situation. Pakistan is an ally in war on terror, as far as the United States is concerned. And without Pakistan, you cannot move forward on that. There’s no doubt about it. Those are the facts. So obviously you need Pakistan. And for us, this relationship is important. But there is, as you’ve heard everybody talk just now, there is a fundamental issue of divergence in terms of policies also. Just the bill itself – it’s not a question of intent. You know, one of the portions in the bill, it talks about a comprehensive regional security strategy, where the President will develop an interagency regional strategy to eliminate terrorist threats and close safe havens in Pakistan, including by working with the Government of Pakistan and other relevant governments and organizations in the region, and as well as appropriate to best implement effective counterinsurgency and counterterrorism efforts in and near the border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, including FATA, NWFP, parts of Baluchistan, and parts of Punjab.
When I read this bill, it seems that the policy really is of the United States that Pakistan is really the hub of the problem. Although when you look at the issue of terrorism, and if the United States is serious about the problem, then there are issues inside Afghanistan beyond just the border. There are issues inside India, which your own president during his election campaign referred to. But when you actually moved towards policy, it’s like, you know, tightening the screws on Pakistan just looking at – it’s Pakistan specific. And when, you talk of the president talking of two countries, two governments in the region, certainly, we’re not talking of Colombia or Bolivia, we are talking of India and Afghanistan.
So the question is: To what extent does the government in the United States – Obama Administration – understand the issues of security that Pakistan is facing? I think this whole emphasis on what Pakistan can do and where Pakistan’s ISI is involved or not involved – do you see what’s happening in our own country? Today, we’ve had 70 people who’ve died. So I think that you need to really look at some of the policy issues that are involved. And when I hear you speak, it seems like just issues of perception.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, I am deeply sorry for the losses yet again today in the bombing and regret that the terrorists continue to target innocent people.
But I have to go back to this point, and I think this will probably require a much longer discussion than we have on this program. But in what you just read, it is also the policy of Pakistan, as it has been explained to us going back eight years now, that you, too, are worried about what’s happening on your border. You, too, are worried about what’s going on in Afghanistan.
But the bill only has money for Pakistan, so it’s – you see what I mean? That’s where the confusion, I think, lies. I mean, this is not a bill to provide civilian aid to offer services to a bunch of countries. This is a bill just for Pakistan. And when we gave money to Colombia, you would see the same kind of language when we give money to other countries.
So I regret that what we thought, and this has been going on for years – I mean, the Pakistani press has covered this before, we have worked on this for years, we’ve had consultation for years – and I regret that somehow in all that time, these problems were not recognized by any of us, because that was certainly not the intent.
With respect to what I said about the media, which, in a democracy, those of us in public office, it’s – we get to criticize you and you get to criticize us. That’s part of how it works.
QUESTION: Sure. Yeah, fair enough.
SECRETARY CLINTON: But take the example of the story that wouldn’t die, that we were on this complex somewhere building a secret barracks for a thousand Marines. Untrue. Totally untrue. We have a contingent of Marines at this Embassy like we have at every embassy in the world that is a small group of Marines who provide front line defense at our Embassy. And we kept saying it’s not true. But it was the story that wouldn’t die. That’s frustrating for us, because when we have legitimate disagreements, as we do over what the meaning of this legislation is, not with the motivation or the intent is, but how it’s being interpreted, that’s perfectly legitimate.
And as you know, Senator Kerry and Congressman Berman gave a clarifying statement, put information into the Congressional Record to try to make clear what this meant. So we have really tried to understand and respond to the concerns that have been expressed. That’s a legitimate debate, and you have every right to say, “Well, what does this mean and how does it affect us and will it impinge on our sovereignty.” And we say, “Not under our law and not under our attention.”
But the thousand Marine story, that’s just – that is the kind of thing that sort of poisons the well.
MR. PIRZADA: If I could just interject --
QUESTION: I just want to follow up.
MR. PIRZADA: Very quickly, (inaudible).
QUESTION: If I may allow to – may I just follow up?
MR. PIRZADA: Just quickly, quickly, (inaudible) waiting for the – the Secretary waiting --
SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Just very quickly, very quickly, just very – just very quickly, yeah.
MR. PIRZADA: We have less time.
QUESTION: Yes, just very quickly. Secretary of State, Pakistan’s concerns on Baluchistan and, you know, Afghanistan plus India, and the issues that have been raised time and again by Pakistan – security concerns – when you talk of security concerns of India, you talk of security concerns of Afghanistan. We do not hear from Washington an acknowledgment of the genuine security concerns of Pakistan.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I am very sorry, because I cannot tell you how many times that has been discussed both publicly and privately. We put together a trilateral commission of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We’ve had two meetings in Washington where General Kayani came, where General Pasha came, where we spent enormous amounts of time going over the security concerns of Pakistan, pointing at the Afghans, pointing at ourselves, and saying what are we going to do to help Pakistan. All this money that you referred to that we’ve given over the last eight years, it was predominantly for security. It was military equipment. It was other kinds of technology that would assist you in defending yourselves.
So that’s why I’m here, because I want to clear the air. And I really appreciate all of you raising the questions that are kind of on the back of everybody’s mind. Because we’re not going to agree on everything, but I don’t want us to have any misunderstanding about where we do agree.
QUESTION: Yes.
SECRETARY CLINTON: We are committed to Pakistan’s security. We have spent an enormous amount of money helping you with your security, and we stand ready to do even more. But we’re not going to impose ourselves. It is up to the people and Government of Pakistan to ask what they need from us, and then we try, where we can, to respond.
MR. PIRZADA: Secretary, thanks. Anwar, please go ahead.
QUESTION: We thank you very much for (inaudible) time and welcome to Pakistan.
SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.) Thank you.
QUESTION: I represent Pakistan Television. You’re talking about security issues. And as you know, Pakistan is fighting a full-fledged war --
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.
QUESTION: -- against Taliban and terrorist networks on its own soil. South Waziristan operation is a case in point.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.
QUESTION: And we are bearing its cost as well. More than 250 people have died in this month, as we speak, because of suicide bombings in our towns and cities. Peshawar blast you must have heard today.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.
QUESTION: The question which arises in my mind, and actually it agitates most of the Pakistani people mind, that we hear disturbing reports that on Pak-Afghan border which is adjacent to South Waziristan, several NATO checkposts, they have been vacated. People ask why. Because America has always been demanding from Pakistan to do more to stop cross-border movement from Pakistan side to Afghanistan side. Pakistan should fence its border, but now what we are seeing, that, you know, the NATO forces which are on the one border side, they have vacated post, and they’re not checking – I think so – the cross-border movement.
So why there is so – why there’s inaction on part of NATO? Why don’t the NATO forces seal the border, because then it will hamper Operation Rah-e-Nijaat? And last year, I was reading the statement of chief of army staff. He once said that Pakistan is linking the success in Operation Rah-e-Nijaat with its effort to curb militancy and terrorism in Pakistan.
And the second question is that on 24 April, you were testifying before the congressional committee. You said that U.S. was partly responsible for the present mess, as it virtually abandoned Pakistan after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. So the question is (inaudible) realization and we welcome it that you have said in your opening statement that U.S. want to turn a new page in Pakistan-U.S. relations. When there is realization, why there’s a lack of action? Why don’t you give Pakistan – you know, provide financial and military assistance without any conditions?
MR. PIRZADA: Anwar, thanks. Yes, Secretary Clinton.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first of all, you’re right. I did say that, because I’m trying to be as clear and accurate as I can. And the United States, in my opinion, bears some of the responsibility for the difficulties that you are now confronting. And we have a commitment to assist in trying to root out the groups that both the United States and Pakistan created, funded, and used to drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. We were partners in that. We were successful. Unfortunately, the aftermath is something that you have been having to deal with, and that’s why we want to be more helpful and assist you in being successful.
We have given billions and billions of dollars in aid where there is no misinterpretation, with no conditions. I mean, go back and look at the record over the last years of the amount of money that we have been providing to Pakistan, primarily for security, as you know. And it was important for us to do that because you were on the front lines, and we saw a common threat and wanted to respond.
The civilian side – I don’t know about your parliament, but in our Congress, it’s much easier to get money for military weapons than it is for schools. And so we’ve given billions of dollars with no conditions for military materiel, and we were very willing to do that to help you. And you can explain that to a constituent, and you can say we’re supporting the Pakistani military and the Pakistani Government in their fight against terrorism, and most people will say “Fine.”
But when you say, oh, by the way, we also want to help strengthen Pakistan’s democracy, and we want to help the people of Pakistan have the kind of lives that a democracy should deliver, so we want to build schools and health clinics and infrastructure and energy plants and tube wells so that farmers can get more irrigation, that’s a harder sell, because the average person sitting in America will say, well, I need a new school. My hospital’s run down.
So what we have historically done – and this is not about Pakistan, this is about the civilian side of aid – is to say we will make sure that the money is being put to good use. That’s what I think we (inaudible).
MR. PIRZADA: Great. Madame Secretary, there is only --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) checkposts, checkposts.
SECRETARY CLINTON: And the checkposts. I’m glad you asked that, because I was asked that question when I did two interviews for Dawn and Geo before I came, that I think are running today.
QUESTION: Yeah.
SECRETARY CLINTON: The fact is we are actually putting more troops on the borders, but we are closing some of the isolated checkposts that were indefensible. We have lost a number of our soldiers and Marines over the last year because they were in border outposts that were overrun. So we’re trying to consolidate them. We’re trying to have a different surveillance effort along the border, working with the Pakistani military.
This is an evolving strategy. I don’t know that anyone can close that border. That may be the most difficult border in the world to control or close. But we’re trying to use new technology and new counterinsurgency methods, along with the Pakistani military, to actually do a better job. And we’re actually putting more troops, not fewer, on the border.
QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, let me first – very shortly --
QUESTION: I have a question of --
QUESTION: Wait --
QUESTION: Before we go for the second round, because we have very little time, I just wanted to pick up on the seams and ask a question. When you talk of perceptions --
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.
QUESTION: -- it’s not only Pakistan which has the negative perception in terms of the media. The U.S. media has a very negative perception and stereotypes for Pakistan. Now in terms of solutions, can the State Department – because, you see, the Pentagon and State Department do not issue negative statements about Pakistan. It is the U.S. media (inaudible).
QUESTION: They (inaudible).
(Cross-talk.)
QUESTION: They leak them?
QUESTION: They – yeah, they leak them. It’s (inaudible).
QUESTION: Can anything be done to improve the relationship --
QUESTION: Sometimes it’s leaked by the State Department and the Defense Department.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, and sometimes it’s just the media.
QUESTION: Let me just add one --
QUESTION: No, media doesn’t (inaudible)
QUESTION: (Inaudible) on that, you see --
SECRETARY CLINTON: The media’s never wrong. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: No, they don’t --
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, I think it’ll be unfair to judge the caliber of this debate with regard to one story that refuses to go away, because I can quote you 20 bad stories that are cast that appears in the American media about Pakistan, but – now, if you were to use that as a measure of the substance of Pakistan-U.S. ties and the debate around that, it’ll be very unfair. So let’s just leave that one story that refuses to go away, though there are question marks over that as well and we don’t have answers to that. Some of the questions Hamid has already raised.
You have thrown up some numbers at us, and let me just tell you that, one, I’m really confused about the U.S. policy. You know, for 10 years, you’ve a dictator, then you have an election, then you come back and tell Pakistani people now you want to build schools. So Pakistani public is very confused that, you know, a year ago, this very country was supporting and even rolling out the red carpet for a dictator that this entire civil society was backing against. And now suddenly, the U.S. comes to us because there’s a new administration and elections and some democracy. I guess there is that larger perspective about the way U.S. looks at Pakistan.
But let me give you numbers. You talked about the civilian aid and the military aid. Your one base in Kyrgyzstan – you know how much Kyrgyzstan charges you? Seven hundred million U.S. dollars.
SECRETARY CLINTON: That is wrong.
QUESTION: Seven hundred --
SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s wrong. We negotiated the contract. I’m sorry, that is not right.
QUESTION: You negotiated it down.
SECRETARY CLINTON: No.
QUESTION: They are charging you 700 million U.S. dollars. Give us a figure on that.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Fifty million dollars.
QUESTION: Fifty million dollars per month?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Fifty million dollars – no, no. I’m sorry. No --
QUESTION: Just one airbase. Do you know how many airbases U.S. uses in Pakistan?
SECRETARY CLINTON: And do you know how many billions --
QUESTION: Six --
SECRETARY CLINTON: -- of dollars we’ve provided to Pakistan?
QUESTION: All of that went under Musharraf into the (inaudible).
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, okay, but let me just stop you here. The United States did not install Musharraf.
QUESTION: You backed him, you --
SECRETARY CLINTON: That was the people --
QUESTION: You backed him. You supported him.
SECRETARY CLINTON: You know what? I’m --
QUESTION: George W. Bush lionized him.
SECRETARY CLINTON: No. Well, George Bush is not my president right now.
QUESTION: But he did it with the U.S.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Both Musharraf and --
QUESTION: We all did (inaudible).
SECRETARY CLINTON: Musharraf and Bush are gone. I’m very happy about Bush being gone. You’re apparently happy about --
QUESTION: But he’s lecturing around in your country --
SECRETARY CLINTON: -- Musharraf being gone.
QUESTION: -- about democracy.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, so is Musharraf. He’s in our country and he’s in Europe..
QUESTION: No, I was talking about Musharraf.
MR. PIRZADA: Okay, let’s --
SECRETARY CLINTON: But no, I think this is an important issue. Look, we can either argue about the past – which is always fun to do, but can’t be changed – or we can decide we’re going to shape a different future. Now, I vote that we shape a different future. And I cannot take responsibility for everything that was done in your country, just like you can’t take responsibility for everything that’s done in our country. But we can certainly try to chart a different course.
Now again, this is because I really believe it’s the right thing to do. I think it is in our interest to do it. I think that Pakistan has an enormous potential. I personally was very pleased when democracy returned to Pakistan, and I want very much to support democracy because democracy in the long run is a more stable basis for governing people than these dictators.
QUESTION: A very short one --
(Cross-talk.)
MR. PIRZADA: Just hold for a second (inaudible) because we have very little time. (Inaudible.) We have very little time.
QUESTION: Okay, but (inaudible) one question.
MR. PIRZADA: Shorten your questions to one and a half minutes. So a very short one.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. PIRZADA: So who’ll take – very short question, very short question.
QUESTION: Just very short. I just wanted –
(Cross-talk.)
MR. PIRZADA: Quickly.
QUESTION: One and a half minutes.
MR. PIRZADA: No, one minute only.
QUESTION: You were talking about democracy, which is a very good thing. Now, the parliament of Pakistan, the new parliament of Pakistan, which came into being after 18th of February 2008, this parliament adopted unanimous resolution against U.S. drone attacks, but the U.S. drone attacks have increased a lot. So I am forced to believe that you are not ready to listen to the true voice of democracy in Pakistan which is coming through the elected parliament.
MR. PIRZADA: You made the point --
QUESTION: You don’t respect our parliament.
MR. PIRZADA: Yes, you made the point. Okay, go ahead.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that on all of these issues, there has to be a recognition of the fact that we are in the middle of a war, number one, which colors everything, and we have to maintain democracy, which is essential. And that is our goal. We want to win the war and we want to support democracy.
QUESTION: Just on democracy, in the bill, there’s this mention of how the military is going to be held accountable on many fronts. And specifically, then you talk about Pakistani army not interfering in democracy and not getting involved in the judicial process, et cetera. A clause like that doesn't strengthen democracy. It basically, in a situation where the military-civilian equation is moving towards a constitutional balance in this country, you know, a statement – a clause like that in the bill essentially creates problems and destabilizes.
MR. PIRZADA: Thank you, thank you.
QUESTION: And if you want to improve the image of America in this country, why do you remain silent on Kashmir, where Ambassador Holbrooke wanted to do something about that? He stood back because of Indian pressure. So why is there silence on that?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we are very supportive, very supportive, of India and Pakistan resuming a dialogue over resolving these longstanding issues. We believe that at the end of this process it has to be a decision by Pakistan and India that anybody on the outside is not going to be able to push or prod, and shouldn’t. It is up to you and to your counterparts in India. So we are very supportive of that. So we hope that there will be a resumption of a dialogue and it will lead to a resolution.
QUESTION: The answer to the other question --
MR. PIRZADA: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: The answer to the other question --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: But I have --
MR. PIRZADA: As you see, we have only five minutes left --
SECRETARY CLINTON: I have to say that it’s very common to point out that in a democracy that is so young, we want to send a message to all the constituent parts of society, support that democracy. I find that very much in keeping.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) two questions --
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, I’m extremely happy you’ve talked about sending a message, because here’s a message that I do not understand, and hopefully you’ll be able to communicate that to me and everyone over here. You see, you were talking about spending on military and you gave an analogy between the schools and the military and how this works over there. When you go into Afghanistan and you, I mean, fight a war over there, trust me, you are in foreign territory and everybody that comes under fire or in the line of fire is a foreigner. And – but when our army goes into Swat or Buner or Waziristan, the chances are that they are fighting in their own territory and killing their own people at the same time.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.
QUESTION: Now, when I listen to the U.S. Administration, they are very open about, you know, establishing contacts with the Taliban shura and, you know, trying to identify the soft elements over there and, you know, making inroads and bridges over there. But when Government of Pakistan and elected Government of Pakistan does a similar peace agreement in Swat over here with the people who are actually demanding something that is their right to have – I mean, if they have a majority in the first place – why is there a sudden reaction? And then you clump Pakistan and Afghanistan together and you have a different set of policies for them.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, let me answer that.
MR. PIRZADA: Should we clump the second question together with it.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Okay, as long as I can remember the first one. Remind me. (Laughter.)
MR. PIRZADA: Yeah, it’s okay.
QUESTION: A quick question. We are talking about the past history, talking about the present and future. President Obama and you yourself, you guys have said on television that you understand Pakistan well, you have interest in Pakistan, and you also know that there’s a predominant anti-American sentiment prevailing in Pakistan. What practical steps Obama Administration can take in addressing those sentiments and turning them into pro-American?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, let me try to answer two very important and complex questions as quickly as I can. On the question about the Taliban, first, as I understand what the Government of Pakistan did, they attempted to reach some kind of agreement with elements of the Taliban in Swat. And they thought that they had reached an agreement that would create stability and that there would not be any further aggressive action by those Taliban members. Next thing your government knew, those very people they thought they’d agreed with had pushed into Buner.
And so I think it was right for the Pakistan Government to try, but you also have to give the government credit for saying the agreement was one-sided. It wasn’t abided by. So we cannot allow those elements to pretend that they’re going to participate in society when they still are attempting to undermine our society. So I give the government credit for trying and I give the government even greater credit for doing the evaluation which led them to conclude that there was a very aggressive cancer that was eating away at Pakistan that has to be rooted out, because clearly the people with whom they were dealing were not willing to cease their attacks on the society.
With respect to the Taliban in Afghanistan, it is our evidence that there are many young men who are recruited into the Taliban who are not ideologically committed to the extremist agenda of the Taliban leadership. Some of them do it because there’s a kind of draft that goes on, and the Taliban intimidates families and communities and demands that these young men be basically turned over to them, some because they actually get paid. So these are not the hardcore people who your government is trying to kill or capture. These are young men who get caught up in it. I think they should be given a chance to be reintegrated into society, whether it’s on this side of the border or the other. The leaders have a very different agenda. They are out to destabilize this state. They are out to take over Afghanistan. They are in league with al-Qaida and therefore they pose a threat far beyond the borders, which, unfortunately, is something that we all have to pay attention to.
Now, with your question, just very quickly, I don’t expect this to happen overnight. I think that the spirited conversation we’ve had here today shows how much work there is to do.
QUESTION: Yes.
SECRETARY CLINTON: But it is very helpful to me. I have to tell you, before the reaction to the Kerry-Lugar bill occurred, I don’t think it was on my list of worries that I would have because I saw it so differently. So now we’ve been sensitized. And I don’t think that we have very many people in our own country who read legislation as closely as all of you have read it. So we’re just going to have to take a look and scrub this down and be more aware of the perceptions which turn into the reality, because if we’re going to have a relationship, I want it to be as honest as this conversation has been. Nobody has minced words. I have told you what is on my mind. That’s what true friends and partners do. We could pretend. You could pretend. You could say, well, Mrs. Clinton, how has your visit been, and we could have a nice little conversation.
QUESTION: It wouldn't be me. (Laughter.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: It wouldn't be you and it wouldn't be me.
QUESTION: Okay.
SECRETARY CLINTON: And it’s not the kind of relationship we should be working to achieve. I believe we have so much in common. And what both President Obama and I feel – I had friends from Pakistan in college, he had friends from Pakistan in college. We have been in each other’s homes. I have so many very positive feelings about this country. But I know we have work to do. So I’m going to work at it.
QUESTION: One short one, Secretary. A short one.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: No, no, just very --
MR. PIRZADA: Very short, very short.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. PIRZADA: Very short question.
QUESTION: My short question is that you said that we must be honest with each other.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.
QUESTION: So the Kerry-Lugar bill have introduced the philosophy of civilian control on the security establishment of Pakistan. Do you want a civilian to head ISI? I need a very honest answer from you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: I want the best person to head it.
QUESTION: Do you want a civilian to head ISI?
SECRETARY CLINTON: That – first of all, it’s not my decision. But let me tell you, the CIA has been headed by both military and civilians. It should be the person, not the position. And so if there is a military person who is the best person, that’s who it should be. If there’s a civilian who’s the best person, that’s who it should be.
MR. PIRZADA: Last question (inaudible) quick (inaudible).
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: But the larger question is in a democracy, at least as democracies have developed over time, it’s civilian control over the entire enterprise, not necessarily – I don’t want a civilian being the commander of our forces in Afghanistan or of Central Command, because that’s a very different job. Intelligence is different in our country. But whoever holds those positions, the principle of civilian control I think is important for democracy.
QUESTION: That is part of our constitution as well. Okay, just one last question. You talked about setting up a trilateral commission – India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the United States. But Secretary of State, as a result of that, we haven’t seen the substantive move that we needed to see from Afghanistan and the U.S. side of the Afghan border because your forces are there and the Afghans are there, and still what we have are just 98 or 95 border posts on the Afghan side, while Pakistan has close to a thousand. So please explain why this (inaudible).
MR. PIRZADA: (Inaudible) yes, quick, this must be the last question.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first of all, as you know, the challenge of Afghanistan governmentally is far different than Pakistan. Pakistan has many more resources, assets, expertise in its government, in its military. It is our hope that we will be able to work with Afghanistan to build a professional military – something which they have not had. And so we’re looking to Pakistan to provide assistance as well as our NATO allies. So I don’t think it’s a fair comparison. The reason Pakistan has done so well in putting forces along the border is because you have a very professional, highly expert military. That doesn't exist on the other side.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, when do you intend to have – finally have --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: When do you intend to have the final version of your final strategy?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, when the President said we would --
QUESTION: That was in March.
SECRETARY CLINTON: He said – well, he adopted the strategy. And the goals are not going to change. We are still committed to a campaign against al-Qaida and their extremist allies, and to assisting the Afghans --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) yes, will we have a --
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, but remember when the President announced it in March, he said we will reevaluate where we are after the Afghan election. The Afghan election is not over yet.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: As soon as the Afghan election is over, you will see that.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: Secretary Clinton --
QUESTION: After (inaudible)?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Before that. Before that. I hope the election’s over before that.
MR. PIRZADA: I wish we could have time (inaudible) it’s a pressure on your time. Thank you, all of you, for joining in this discussion, Secretary Clinton.
SECRETARY CLINTON: I’ll tell you one thing, no one could doubt the free press in Pakistan. That’s a very good sign.
MR. PIRZADA: I wish you could actually tell us something to improve Pakistan’s impression of the U.S. press, the U.S. media.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we have to work on that, too. And we need more exchanges like this. I mean, I wish --
QUESTION: You will send U.S. journalists to the Pakistani travel area so that they can see the (inaudible).
QUESTION: Pakistan (inaudible).
SECRETARY CLINTON: And we need you, though, to come to the United States more and to do forums and to do question and answer like this. It would be very helpful, and we’ll try to set some of that up if you have – I mean, after I listened to Moeed introduce you all, you all apparently work 24/7.
QUESTION: You are welcome to write us. You are welcome to write us, all of six (inaudible).
SECRETARY CLINTON: Good. Well, we will. We’ll figure out a way to do that.
QUESTION: There’s more than six, by the way, in Pakistan. (Laughter.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh no, another misperception. (Laughter.)
MR. PIRZADA: Thank you. Thank you so much.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much.
MR. PIRZADA: Thank you so much for joining us.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.
MR. PIRZADA: Thank you to all of you. The time is almost over. Thank you.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Islamabad, Pakistan
October 28, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MR. PIRZADA: Today, this is an entrusting, an entrusting new chapter and entrusting new opening in U.S.-Pakistan relationship. And in evidence of the emphasis the new Obama Administration places on people-to-people contact, that I’m joined here by United States Secretary of State Ms. Hillary Clinton for an open and direct dialogue with the select opinion-makers of Pakistani media.
In this country, we do not know Secretary Clinton only as the United States Secretary of State. We also know her as a formidable politician, an astute politician, a very powerful ex-presidential candidate, a former First Lady. But I would also like to remind you that Secretary Clinton, even before she came into the political limelight, she was counted among the top hundred most influential lawyers that helped change the social and legal agenda within the United States.
Secretary Clinton is no stranger to Pakistan. She has been visiting this country since early ‘90s as the First Lady, and this is her fifth trip. Secretary Clinton, on behalf of my channel and all participating television channels and on behalf of the people of Pakistan, I extend to you a warm welcome into this discussion.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, and I feel warmly welcomed. It is a great personal pleasure for me to be back in Pakistan, as you say, for my fifth trip. And it is also a high honor to be representing the Obama Administration and the United States.
But I’m here not just to do the official diplomacy. I have already met with the foreign minister and the prime minister. I’ll be meeting with the president. I’ll meet with the opposition. I’ll meet with parliamentarians. And that’s very important. But it is especially critical that we do more of what you’re doing today with your colleagues so that I have a chance to answer the questions that are on the minds of the people of Pakistan, so that we can have more people-to-people diplomacy. Because we need to build stronger bonds of connection, of trust, of cooperation and partnership between our two countries, and that’s what I hope today will be able to help us do – turn the page and look for an even better future.
MR. PIRZADA: Thank you, Secretary Clinton. Now with your permission, let me introduce to you all of us. My name is Moeed Pirzada. I am director and editor of world affairs for Dunya News. I also present my own current affairs program, Dunya Today, and I also write for Dawn and for Khaleej Times.
To your right, the first person is Mr. Talat Husain. He is the director of news and current affairs for AAJ Television. Before joining the electronic media, he has been the editor of The News in Islamabad. And Talat presents one popular program, Live With Talat, and given his robust opinions and very strong positions, we often refer to him as the agenda-setting anchor in Pakistan.
SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Thank you very much.
MR. PIRZADA: Next to Talat is Mubashir Luqman. Mubashir is the lead anchor for Express News and the news network. He presents his own very hard-hitting political program called Point Blank. And Mubashir is also a columnist, and few people know that Mubashir is also a filmmaker.
Next to Mubashir is Anwar ul-Hassan. He is the lead anchor for Straight Broadcast of PTV, Pakistan television. He is also the diplomatic correspondent and Kabul is the diplomatic assignment. And he has the credit of running – of presenting the longest-running current affair programs and Straight Broadcast of PTV for the last seven years.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. PIRZADA: Here to my left is Ms. Nasim Zehra. She’s director of current affairs with Dunya News. She presents her own program, a popular political affairs program, Policy Matters. Nasim has been a columnist, a very prominent columnist, with the news and also Khaleej Times for almost 15 years now. And she has extensively covered the U.S.-Pakistan relationship.
Next to Nasim is Hamid Mir, and I must emphasize that Hamid Mir is a quintessential household name in Pakistan, and he is currently the editor at Geo News in Islamabad. He presents a very popular program, Capital Talk, took a very leading role in the loyalists’ movement, civil society movement against General Musharraf. He is also a columnist with the newspapers Jang and (inaudible).
Next to Hamid Mir is Naveen Naqvi. Naveen has been part of the launch team of the Dawn News, Pakistan’s first English television channel. Naveen is a senior anchorperson. She presents a morning news program as well.
And this is it, and we’ll just say charity begins at home.
SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.)
MR. PIRZADA: Let me ask the first overall question to you, that this is your exclusive trip to Pakistan, three-day exclusive --
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.
MR. PIRZADA: -- trip to Pakistan. And this is coming at the – almost just after a raging controversy around the Kerry-Lugar legislation in this country. That’s one aspect. So we would like to know how do you see yourself, the significance of your visit? What is on your plate in terms of the agenda?
Also, the second thing is just before coming here on Monday, you attended the sixth Situation Room meeting with President Obama on national security --
SECRETARY CLINTON: Mm-hmm, mm-hmm.
MR. PIRZADA: -- and on Afghanistan. And we would like to know what is the short-term and long-term vision of your Administration, the Obama Administration’s view on Afghanistan?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Moeed, I hope that my trip will send a very strong signal to the people of Pakistan of the sincerity and seriousness of our commitment to a long-term, durable relationship between our two countries. When I say I want to turn the page, I mean that our relationship should be much deeper and broader than our shared concern and fight against terrorism. I’m very impressed and admiring of the efforts that the government and the military are taking to root out the sources of so much anxiety and anguish and tragedy as those who attack innocents and attack the very institutions of the Pakistani Government.
We do share that very strong commitment to ending the reign of terror that has not just in Pakistan, but in many places in the world caused so much difficulty. But we also want to work together on economic development. Today, I was privileged to announce a big commitment worked out with the Pakistani Government between our experts on how we can assist in improving the energy sector toward more reliable, predictable energy, especially electricity. We want to work on education and healthcare. I announced, along with Foreign Minister Qureshi, the resumption of our strategic dialogue where we will consult and try to produce results that will benefit the people of our two countries.
So I am here hoping that I can speak directly to as many people as possible through the medium of the press, through town halls, through meetings with civil society. I’ll be doing that in both Lahore and Islamabad. And it would be presumptuous to say what will come out of a three-day trip, except I’ll have a wonderful time and get to see people that I’ve known for years as well as meet new people. But I hope it’s the start of this turning the page on our relationship.
As to your second question, the President is working very hard to determine the best way forward to achieve our strategic objectives. The objectives have not changed. We are determined to root out al-Qaida – which poses a threat to us, to you, to so many others around the world – their extremist allies, many of whom you are now fighting because they have thrown their lot in with al-Qaida, and to work to try to stabilize Afghanistan so that the people of Afghanistan have a better future and you don’t have threats coming to Pakistan or threats coming to the United States from Afghanistan’s territory.
And it is important for us to have a combined civilian and military strategy in Afghanistan, because so many of the problems that are feeding the presence of the Taliban are rooted in people not feeling secure, not feeling that they have a solid future for themselves and their children, the government not being able to really provide the kind of control and support that people expect. So this is an area where Pakistan and the United States have a lot in common. Our military-to-military relations are growing all the time. The Pakistani military has been very helpful in advising the American military of the best way forward in Pakistan.
So the President will be making an announcement when he’s ready, which will be most likely after the Afghan election. Last spring, he said that we would review our strategy after the Afghan election, but the Afghan election isn’t over yet. So it’s taking a little longer than perhaps we might have expected. But our strategic goals remain the same. We just want to be sure that we’re operationalizing them, that our tactics are the best for us to pursue.
MR. PIRZADA: Thank you, Secretary Clinton.
I think, Talat, you want to raise a question?
QUESTION: Yes. Thank you very much. Well, we welcome you here, but at the same time, we have to state the facts as we see them. You speak about turning the page. That’s a laudable goal. But you would agree that words do not turn the page; policies do. Words could have done the same job if words were drafted carefully, and that brings me to the Kerry-Lugar bill. I think the debate inside Pakistan probably would have been less ferocious if the drafting of the bill could have conveyed a different kind of an intent altogether.
The drafting left a lot of phrases that were humiliating – that’s how they were seen here – conditionalities that were very (inaudible), were described in a manner that spoke of arrogance. And on top of it, what really cut most of us to the quick in the mainstream media was the way this whole debate was characterized by somebody like Mr. Holbrooke, who is a responsible representative of the Obama Administration. And let me just quote what he said in his recent press conference, that the Kerry-Lugar bill, in his opinion, didn’t spark anything; it was just an excuse for a certain group of people who were looking for an excuse to take a great piece of legislation, then rub it to the ground.
I’m just trying to understand, when you talk about turning the page and then you look at the language of the Kerry-Lugar bill, the intent through the drafting and the language doesn’t come through as that. So either we have not been able to read the genius that is in the drafting of the Kerry-Lugar bill, or, frankly, we are looking at a public policy that is so fundamentally different from your actual policy towards Pakistan.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’m glad you raised that, because this is one of the examples of where we are not communicating well, and I think that’s a two-way problem, not just a one-way problem. The Kerry-Lugar bill has been in our Congress for a number of years. In fact, it started off as the Biden-Lugar bill before the Vice President was elevated from the Senate. And there has been a lot of coverage of it. There has been, certainly, a lot of attention paid to it. And I believe that the intent and the motivation was to do as stated by the United States, which was to have a visible, tangible commitment over a number of years to demonstrate that our concerns and our willingness and hopefulness about working with Pakistan was not some kind of one-off commitment, but instead a long-term commitment.
And yet on the other hand, apparently much of what was written, which to members of Congress – I used to be one – was very common language. That’s the kind of language we have in so many of our aid packages. It’s not at all specific to Pakistan. And that the conditions, if that’s the way to describe them, really apply to the United States. I mean, we know that we’re going to be held accountable, the Government of the United States, to our taxpayers.
So we want to make a very big commitment in the middle of a global recession totaling $7.5 billion to another country, and we’ve got somebody sitting in Columbus, Ohio who says, “I’m unemployed. Why is my money going to Pakistan?” And we want to say we want an important relationship with a very critical ally, and yes, we’re going to commit this money and then your government – namely, me and the Secretary of Defense and others – we will report to you. We will report to the Congress as to how the money’s being spent.
It had nothing to do, in our view, with the sovereignty of Pakistan. It imposed no conditions on Pakistan. And it was, as I said, very much in line with other aid packages. However, the fact is, as you point out, that was not the message that was coming across. So we clearly did not do our homework in trying to explain what it is we were trying to accomplish. And frankly, I think one of the problems is we did not have a program to reach out to the Pakistani press. That will never happen again, because if we’re going to have this partnership, then we need to be communicating through the mechanisms that the people in each of our countries will hear and listen to. So --
QUESTION: Well, let me interject here with your permission.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: There’s a follow-up as well. It’s not just the language itself. It’s not that you will have, you know, 10 programs done in favor of Kerry-Lugar bill and the nature of the bill is going to change. I mean, surely, Pakistani people do see it as a slight to their intelligence when somebody says that, “Well, you’re not exactly reading the real intent of the bill.” You’ve got 12 conditionalities related to security put into a bill that deals with economic aid and social sector development.
So clearly, there’s something happening through the bill that the U.S. is unwilling to acknowledge. I think your PR and charm offensive is fine, explaining your position is fine. But somewhere down the line, one has to examine the bill, and it has been examined in great detail in Pakistan by people who have some expert in these matters. And you know, we believe that the bill had a sort of, you know, a hidden agenda.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, you know what, I am very sorry you believe that, because that was not the intention. Nor, as someone who served in the Senate for eight years, would I read it that way. But I think your question raises the larger concern that when the United States – this is how we see it – when the United States says we want to try to remedy some of the problems of the past, which I have admitted, I have given speeches about that I don’t think that our relationship was always as constructive and solid as it needed to be.
So we say we want to remedy it, and we’re going to try to do that through an aid package which we think could be extremely beneficial to the people of Pakistan, but that as a matter of course, when we do aid legislation – you can read – the aid that goes to Israel, the aid that goes to Egypt – when we have big packages of aid, I think it is absolutely understandable that there would be a desire on the part of our members of Congress to have some accountability. That doesn’t affect your sovereignty; that’s accountability on us. We have to – I’m the one that has to go before the Congress and say, well, we think we’re making progress or not, we think the money is being used as we intended it or not.
Pakistan doesn’t have to take this money. Let me be very clear: You do not have to take this money. You do not have to take any aid from us. But we believe that we can turn the page. And what is regrettable is this misunderstanding, from my perspective, as to both the intent in the motivation of the legislation and the way that we draft legislation. So we’ll certainly do better. We’ll certainly try to explain better. But this is just an authorizing piece of legislation. The money has not been appropriated. And if Pakistan doesn’t want the money, we’re not going to impose it on you.
QUESTION: Let me just quickly ask, really quick. There is an impression in this country that once the President has authorized and the money starts to roll towards Pakistan, the Pakistani Government, either the ministry of finance or foreign affairs or the prime minister’s office, will have to sign a parallel instrument that will mention – that will automatically impose the conditions of Kerry-Lugar legislation and bill, which you say is on the U.S. executive upon the Government of Pakistan. Is something like that going to happen?
SECRETARY CLINTON: No. I mean, what happens usually – as I say, this is what we call authorizing legislation. So the President can sign this, but that doesn’t mean any money will flow. You have to go back to the Congress to get the money appropriated. So it’s a two-step process. And when the money is appropriated, we can take a hard look at what, if any, conditions will be expressed – again, I would just reiterate these are conditions on the United States Government – and then move forward with the money being appropriated.
But I want to make very clear, we believe that our relationship with Pakistan is in both of our interests. We believe that it is important for the United States, but we believe equally it’s important for Pakistan. We believe that the kind of assistance that we could provide to fulfill the needs that are identified by the people and Government of Pakistan could be useful.
QUESTION: But Pakistanis also have to believe that.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I agree with you.
QUESTION: It’s not enough for you to believe that.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, no, no, no. I agree with – I agree with you.
MR. PIRZADA: I think we have to move.
SECRETARY CLINTON: No, but I think – we’ll move on, but I think you don’t have to believe it. We don’t have to give you the money. I mean, this is like – this is not – nobody is saying you must take this money so that we can help you rebuild your energy sector or put more kids in school or provide better maternal and child health. You don’t have to take the money.
QUESTION: But there is another side to that.
MR. PIRZADA: Let’s move ahead. Are you going to raise the question, or should we?
QUESTION: Yes, yes.
MR. PIRZADA: Okay. You go ahead.
QUESTION: If you’ll allow me.
MR. PIRZADA: Okay.
QUESTION: Okay. Because – thank you very much and welcome to Pakistan. And we also believe that the United States and Pakistan, they need each other and we need friendship. But there are some questions in the mind of common people. I will start my question with Kerry-Lugar bill.
Our rule of law have been mentioned many times in Kerry-Lugar bill, which is a very good thing. But my question is about those U.S. officials who are breaking Pakistani law, again and again, in this federal capital of Pakistan, which is called Islamabad. And they have been caught many times by our police. They were carrying illegal weapons. Just last morning – in the morning of the 27th of October, four U.S. Marines were caught at three o’clock in the morning in Islamabad. They were arrested, and within one hour they were released.
So the common man is asking this question that why the U.S. officials are free to break Pakistani law, and who have ordered them to patrol on the streets of Islamabad? And will you allow Pakistani soldiers to patrol like this, carrying illegal weapons in their hands in the streets of Washington?
MR. PIRZADA: Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t have any of the specifics about that particular question. I can only say that there are rules which govern all countries. Diplomatic immunity applies in every country. So certain things that a Pakistani official in our capital of Washington might do would be diplomatically immune from arrest or from any kind of action. I have no idea whether that is what we’re talking about.
QUESTION: But no diplomat come on the road at three o’clock in the morning?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, yes. I mean, we have diplomats and people assigned to embassies in our country who have car accidents, who get into fights, who have all kinds of problems. And there are international rules about how to deal with that. I will certainly look into it to see whether what you’re talking about is within that kind of framework or there’s something else going on.
MR. PIRZADA: Secretary, again, thanks, but let me move ahead.
Mubashir.
QUESTION: I just have one thing at the outset. When a perception is reality, you may be very sincere and very serious in your endeavors to provide aid to Pakistan. But if the people of Pakistan do not perceive it as an aid, then there is a serious issue and one has to look beyond that.
Now, the fact of the matter is we – all of us, and I speak for every one of us – we have our hands on the pulse of the people. We talk to people on the roads, we talk to people on the streets, we talk to people who have invested over here. And they all ask one question, and I can’t answer that. When President George Bush made a statement, either you are with us or against us in Pakistan, at that time, the Government of Pakistan at that time choose to be an ally of the United States, without any conditions put anywhere, you know, with just one phone call. How come now, when Pakistan is in need of aid, the Government of the United States or the congressmen or the Secretary of State has to come up with certain conditions?
Now, I’ll dovetail this so that we can move on as well. If the United States Government is so sincere in helping Pakistan go through its problems, why is it that you are constantly using drone attacks inside Pakistan? Why not transfer that technology to the Pakistan military that you have praised yourself just now?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first let me say that one of the pages I’m turning is on the Bush Administration, because I think being for us or against was not the best way to build common purpose among other nations with our own. And we are grateful for the support that Pakistan has given in the fight against terrorism. It’s a mutual concern, and we have a common enemy. And I am very admiring of the sacrifice that the Pakistani people have had to endure in order to undertake this fight.
But I think that it is a different – I think the difference that we’re talking about here is not as great as it is perceived on the part of the people that you are referring to. But I will admit that clearly there is a lot of misperception, and perception is a reality, so therefore, it is up to us to try to set that straight. And we will certainly try to do a better job than we just haven’t apparently done, because it hasn’t been convincing to those of you who represent the media. But it’s not for any bad intent. It’s just, apparently, we were not as sensitive as we should have been in terms of presenting the legislation that was passed by the Congress.
And with respect to your second question, I don’t really talk about that. I think that’s something that the military-to-military relationship has to deal with.
QUESTION: But is there a possibility for that in the near future?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I’m not going to speculate on that.
QUESTION: If I may --
QUESTION: Let me – I want –
QUESTION: -- the Shura council hat has been coming up – sorry, if I may. And we’re talking about an expansion of drone strikes towards Balochistan. That’s been in the news as well. So how does that fit in with all of this?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t think that the discussions between our militaries and our intelligence agencies, which are in constant consultation, are really appropriate to be discussed. Those are something that goes to the very difficult decisions that your military has to make. And I think we should give them the support that they need in trying to root out the people who are our common enemies.
MR. PIRZADA: Both Nasim and Anwar are waiting for their questions. Nasim, you go ahead quickly and then Anwar.
QUESTION: Well, I would like to welcome you to Pakistan and say that I think it’s a very important point at which you’ve come, just for the reasons that you have mentioned – you yourself mentioned. When I hear you speak, Secretary of State, it again seems to be a situation where you think the issue is about lack of communication. I think the fact that you want to turn a page through more aggressive communication and the speech that you gave at USIP recently, where talked of needing to be more dealing with propaganda, disinformation, and misinformation in Pakistan.
I wonder how will we make the breakthrough, because while this bill is very crucial, very important and, I mean, we know this relationship is equally important for you as it is for us. And when you talk about take the money or don’t take the money, I think that we are obviously dealing with a more complex situation. Pakistan is an ally in war on terror, as far as the United States is concerned. And without Pakistan, you cannot move forward on that. There’s no doubt about it. Those are the facts. So obviously you need Pakistan. And for us, this relationship is important. But there is, as you’ve heard everybody talk just now, there is a fundamental issue of divergence in terms of policies also. Just the bill itself – it’s not a question of intent. You know, one of the portions in the bill, it talks about a comprehensive regional security strategy, where the President will develop an interagency regional strategy to eliminate terrorist threats and close safe havens in Pakistan, including by working with the Government of Pakistan and other relevant governments and organizations in the region, and as well as appropriate to best implement effective counterinsurgency and counterterrorism efforts in and near the border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, including FATA, NWFP, parts of Baluchistan, and parts of Punjab.
When I read this bill, it seems that the policy really is of the United States that Pakistan is really the hub of the problem. Although when you look at the issue of terrorism, and if the United States is serious about the problem, then there are issues inside Afghanistan beyond just the border. There are issues inside India, which your own president during his election campaign referred to. But when you actually moved towards policy, it’s like, you know, tightening the screws on Pakistan just looking at – it’s Pakistan specific. And when, you talk of the president talking of two countries, two governments in the region, certainly, we’re not talking of Colombia or Bolivia, we are talking of India and Afghanistan.
So the question is: To what extent does the government in the United States – Obama Administration – understand the issues of security that Pakistan is facing? I think this whole emphasis on what Pakistan can do and where Pakistan’s ISI is involved or not involved – do you see what’s happening in our own country? Today, we’ve had 70 people who’ve died. So I think that you need to really look at some of the policy issues that are involved. And when I hear you speak, it seems like just issues of perception.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, I am deeply sorry for the losses yet again today in the bombing and regret that the terrorists continue to target innocent people.
But I have to go back to this point, and I think this will probably require a much longer discussion than we have on this program. But in what you just read, it is also the policy of Pakistan, as it has been explained to us going back eight years now, that you, too, are worried about what’s happening on your border. You, too, are worried about what’s going on in Afghanistan.
But the bill only has money for Pakistan, so it’s – you see what I mean? That’s where the confusion, I think, lies. I mean, this is not a bill to provide civilian aid to offer services to a bunch of countries. This is a bill just for Pakistan. And when we gave money to Colombia, you would see the same kind of language when we give money to other countries.
So I regret that what we thought, and this has been going on for years – I mean, the Pakistani press has covered this before, we have worked on this for years, we’ve had consultation for years – and I regret that somehow in all that time, these problems were not recognized by any of us, because that was certainly not the intent.
With respect to what I said about the media, which, in a democracy, those of us in public office, it’s – we get to criticize you and you get to criticize us. That’s part of how it works.
QUESTION: Sure. Yeah, fair enough.
SECRETARY CLINTON: But take the example of the story that wouldn’t die, that we were on this complex somewhere building a secret barracks for a thousand Marines. Untrue. Totally untrue. We have a contingent of Marines at this Embassy like we have at every embassy in the world that is a small group of Marines who provide front line defense at our Embassy. And we kept saying it’s not true. But it was the story that wouldn’t die. That’s frustrating for us, because when we have legitimate disagreements, as we do over what the meaning of this legislation is, not with the motivation or the intent is, but how it’s being interpreted, that’s perfectly legitimate.
And as you know, Senator Kerry and Congressman Berman gave a clarifying statement, put information into the Congressional Record to try to make clear what this meant. So we have really tried to understand and respond to the concerns that have been expressed. That’s a legitimate debate, and you have every right to say, “Well, what does this mean and how does it affect us and will it impinge on our sovereignty.” And we say, “Not under our law and not under our attention.”
But the thousand Marine story, that’s just – that is the kind of thing that sort of poisons the well.
MR. PIRZADA: If I could just interject --
QUESTION: I just want to follow up.
MR. PIRZADA: Very quickly, (inaudible).
QUESTION: If I may allow to – may I just follow up?
MR. PIRZADA: Just quickly, quickly, (inaudible) waiting for the – the Secretary waiting --
SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Just very quickly, very quickly, just very – just very quickly, yeah.
MR. PIRZADA: We have less time.
QUESTION: Yes, just very quickly. Secretary of State, Pakistan’s concerns on Baluchistan and, you know, Afghanistan plus India, and the issues that have been raised time and again by Pakistan – security concerns – when you talk of security concerns of India, you talk of security concerns of Afghanistan. We do not hear from Washington an acknowledgment of the genuine security concerns of Pakistan.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I am very sorry, because I cannot tell you how many times that has been discussed both publicly and privately. We put together a trilateral commission of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We’ve had two meetings in Washington where General Kayani came, where General Pasha came, where we spent enormous amounts of time going over the security concerns of Pakistan, pointing at the Afghans, pointing at ourselves, and saying what are we going to do to help Pakistan. All this money that you referred to that we’ve given over the last eight years, it was predominantly for security. It was military equipment. It was other kinds of technology that would assist you in defending yourselves.
So that’s why I’m here, because I want to clear the air. And I really appreciate all of you raising the questions that are kind of on the back of everybody’s mind. Because we’re not going to agree on everything, but I don’t want us to have any misunderstanding about where we do agree.
QUESTION: Yes.
SECRETARY CLINTON: We are committed to Pakistan’s security. We have spent an enormous amount of money helping you with your security, and we stand ready to do even more. But we’re not going to impose ourselves. It is up to the people and Government of Pakistan to ask what they need from us, and then we try, where we can, to respond.
MR. PIRZADA: Secretary, thanks. Anwar, please go ahead.
QUESTION: We thank you very much for (inaudible) time and welcome to Pakistan.
SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.) Thank you.
QUESTION: I represent Pakistan Television. You’re talking about security issues. And as you know, Pakistan is fighting a full-fledged war --
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.
QUESTION: -- against Taliban and terrorist networks on its own soil. South Waziristan operation is a case in point.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.
QUESTION: And we are bearing its cost as well. More than 250 people have died in this month, as we speak, because of suicide bombings in our towns and cities. Peshawar blast you must have heard today.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.
QUESTION: The question which arises in my mind, and actually it agitates most of the Pakistani people mind, that we hear disturbing reports that on Pak-Afghan border which is adjacent to South Waziristan, several NATO checkposts, they have been vacated. People ask why. Because America has always been demanding from Pakistan to do more to stop cross-border movement from Pakistan side to Afghanistan side. Pakistan should fence its border, but now what we are seeing, that, you know, the NATO forces which are on the one border side, they have vacated post, and they’re not checking – I think so – the cross-border movement.
So why there is so – why there’s inaction on part of NATO? Why don’t the NATO forces seal the border, because then it will hamper Operation Rah-e-Nijaat? And last year, I was reading the statement of chief of army staff. He once said that Pakistan is linking the success in Operation Rah-e-Nijaat with its effort to curb militancy and terrorism in Pakistan.
And the second question is that on 24 April, you were testifying before the congressional committee. You said that U.S. was partly responsible for the present mess, as it virtually abandoned Pakistan after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. So the question is (inaudible) realization and we welcome it that you have said in your opening statement that U.S. want to turn a new page in Pakistan-U.S. relations. When there is realization, why there’s a lack of action? Why don’t you give Pakistan – you know, provide financial and military assistance without any conditions?
MR. PIRZADA: Anwar, thanks. Yes, Secretary Clinton.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first of all, you’re right. I did say that, because I’m trying to be as clear and accurate as I can. And the United States, in my opinion, bears some of the responsibility for the difficulties that you are now confronting. And we have a commitment to assist in trying to root out the groups that both the United States and Pakistan created, funded, and used to drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. We were partners in that. We were successful. Unfortunately, the aftermath is something that you have been having to deal with, and that’s why we want to be more helpful and assist you in being successful.
We have given billions and billions of dollars in aid where there is no misinterpretation, with no conditions. I mean, go back and look at the record over the last years of the amount of money that we have been providing to Pakistan, primarily for security, as you know. And it was important for us to do that because you were on the front lines, and we saw a common threat and wanted to respond.
The civilian side – I don’t know about your parliament, but in our Congress, it’s much easier to get money for military weapons than it is for schools. And so we’ve given billions of dollars with no conditions for military materiel, and we were very willing to do that to help you. And you can explain that to a constituent, and you can say we’re supporting the Pakistani military and the Pakistani Government in their fight against terrorism, and most people will say “Fine.”
But when you say, oh, by the way, we also want to help strengthen Pakistan’s democracy, and we want to help the people of Pakistan have the kind of lives that a democracy should deliver, so we want to build schools and health clinics and infrastructure and energy plants and tube wells so that farmers can get more irrigation, that’s a harder sell, because the average person sitting in America will say, well, I need a new school. My hospital’s run down.
So what we have historically done – and this is not about Pakistan, this is about the civilian side of aid – is to say we will make sure that the money is being put to good use. That’s what I think we (inaudible).
MR. PIRZADA: Great. Madame Secretary, there is only --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) checkposts, checkposts.
SECRETARY CLINTON: And the checkposts. I’m glad you asked that, because I was asked that question when I did two interviews for Dawn and Geo before I came, that I think are running today.
QUESTION: Yeah.
SECRETARY CLINTON: The fact is we are actually putting more troops on the borders, but we are closing some of the isolated checkposts that were indefensible. We have lost a number of our soldiers and Marines over the last year because they were in border outposts that were overrun. So we’re trying to consolidate them. We’re trying to have a different surveillance effort along the border, working with the Pakistani military.
This is an evolving strategy. I don’t know that anyone can close that border. That may be the most difficult border in the world to control or close. But we’re trying to use new technology and new counterinsurgency methods, along with the Pakistani military, to actually do a better job. And we’re actually putting more troops, not fewer, on the border.
QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, let me first – very shortly --
QUESTION: I have a question of --
QUESTION: Wait --
QUESTION: Before we go for the second round, because we have very little time, I just wanted to pick up on the seams and ask a question. When you talk of perceptions --
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.
QUESTION: -- it’s not only Pakistan which has the negative perception in terms of the media. The U.S. media has a very negative perception and stereotypes for Pakistan. Now in terms of solutions, can the State Department – because, you see, the Pentagon and State Department do not issue negative statements about Pakistan. It is the U.S. media (inaudible).
QUESTION: They (inaudible).
(Cross-talk.)
QUESTION: They leak them?
QUESTION: They – yeah, they leak them. It’s (inaudible).
QUESTION: Can anything be done to improve the relationship --
QUESTION: Sometimes it’s leaked by the State Department and the Defense Department.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, and sometimes it’s just the media.
QUESTION: Let me just add one --
QUESTION: No, media doesn’t (inaudible)
QUESTION: (Inaudible) on that, you see --
SECRETARY CLINTON: The media’s never wrong. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: No, they don’t --
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, I think it’ll be unfair to judge the caliber of this debate with regard to one story that refuses to go away, because I can quote you 20 bad stories that are cast that appears in the American media about Pakistan, but – now, if you were to use that as a measure of the substance of Pakistan-U.S. ties and the debate around that, it’ll be very unfair. So let’s just leave that one story that refuses to go away, though there are question marks over that as well and we don’t have answers to that. Some of the questions Hamid has already raised.
You have thrown up some numbers at us, and let me just tell you that, one, I’m really confused about the U.S. policy. You know, for 10 years, you’ve a dictator, then you have an election, then you come back and tell Pakistani people now you want to build schools. So Pakistani public is very confused that, you know, a year ago, this very country was supporting and even rolling out the red carpet for a dictator that this entire civil society was backing against. And now suddenly, the U.S. comes to us because there’s a new administration and elections and some democracy. I guess there is that larger perspective about the way U.S. looks at Pakistan.
But let me give you numbers. You talked about the civilian aid and the military aid. Your one base in Kyrgyzstan – you know how much Kyrgyzstan charges you? Seven hundred million U.S. dollars.
SECRETARY CLINTON: That is wrong.
QUESTION: Seven hundred --
SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s wrong. We negotiated the contract. I’m sorry, that is not right.
QUESTION: You negotiated it down.
SECRETARY CLINTON: No.
QUESTION: They are charging you 700 million U.S. dollars. Give us a figure on that.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Fifty million dollars.
QUESTION: Fifty million dollars per month?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Fifty million dollars – no, no. I’m sorry. No --
QUESTION: Just one airbase. Do you know how many airbases U.S. uses in Pakistan?
SECRETARY CLINTON: And do you know how many billions --
QUESTION: Six --
SECRETARY CLINTON: -- of dollars we’ve provided to Pakistan?
QUESTION: All of that went under Musharraf into the (inaudible).
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, okay, but let me just stop you here. The United States did not install Musharraf.
QUESTION: You backed him, you --
SECRETARY CLINTON: That was the people --
QUESTION: You backed him. You supported him.
SECRETARY CLINTON: You know what? I’m --
QUESTION: George W. Bush lionized him.
SECRETARY CLINTON: No. Well, George Bush is not my president right now.
QUESTION: But he did it with the U.S.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Both Musharraf and --
QUESTION: We all did (inaudible).
SECRETARY CLINTON: Musharraf and Bush are gone. I’m very happy about Bush being gone. You’re apparently happy about --
QUESTION: But he’s lecturing around in your country --
SECRETARY CLINTON: -- Musharraf being gone.
QUESTION: -- about democracy.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, so is Musharraf. He’s in our country and he’s in Europe..
QUESTION: No, I was talking about Musharraf.
MR. PIRZADA: Okay, let’s --
SECRETARY CLINTON: But no, I think this is an important issue. Look, we can either argue about the past – which is always fun to do, but can’t be changed – or we can decide we’re going to shape a different future. Now, I vote that we shape a different future. And I cannot take responsibility for everything that was done in your country, just like you can’t take responsibility for everything that’s done in our country. But we can certainly try to chart a different course.
Now again, this is because I really believe it’s the right thing to do. I think it is in our interest to do it. I think that Pakistan has an enormous potential. I personally was very pleased when democracy returned to Pakistan, and I want very much to support democracy because democracy in the long run is a more stable basis for governing people than these dictators.
QUESTION: A very short one --
(Cross-talk.)
MR. PIRZADA: Just hold for a second (inaudible) because we have very little time. (Inaudible.) We have very little time.
QUESTION: Okay, but (inaudible) one question.
MR. PIRZADA: Shorten your questions to one and a half minutes. So a very short one.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. PIRZADA: So who’ll take – very short question, very short question.
QUESTION: Just very short. I just wanted –
(Cross-talk.)
MR. PIRZADA: Quickly.
QUESTION: One and a half minutes.
MR. PIRZADA: No, one minute only.
QUESTION: You were talking about democracy, which is a very good thing. Now, the parliament of Pakistan, the new parliament of Pakistan, which came into being after 18th of February 2008, this parliament adopted unanimous resolution against U.S. drone attacks, but the U.S. drone attacks have increased a lot. So I am forced to believe that you are not ready to listen to the true voice of democracy in Pakistan which is coming through the elected parliament.
MR. PIRZADA: You made the point --
QUESTION: You don’t respect our parliament.
MR. PIRZADA: Yes, you made the point. Okay, go ahead.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that on all of these issues, there has to be a recognition of the fact that we are in the middle of a war, number one, which colors everything, and we have to maintain democracy, which is essential. And that is our goal. We want to win the war and we want to support democracy.
QUESTION: Just on democracy, in the bill, there’s this mention of how the military is going to be held accountable on many fronts. And specifically, then you talk about Pakistani army not interfering in democracy and not getting involved in the judicial process, et cetera. A clause like that doesn't strengthen democracy. It basically, in a situation where the military-civilian equation is moving towards a constitutional balance in this country, you know, a statement – a clause like that in the bill essentially creates problems and destabilizes.
MR. PIRZADA: Thank you, thank you.
QUESTION: And if you want to improve the image of America in this country, why do you remain silent on Kashmir, where Ambassador Holbrooke wanted to do something about that? He stood back because of Indian pressure. So why is there silence on that?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we are very supportive, very supportive, of India and Pakistan resuming a dialogue over resolving these longstanding issues. We believe that at the end of this process it has to be a decision by Pakistan and India that anybody on the outside is not going to be able to push or prod, and shouldn’t. It is up to you and to your counterparts in India. So we are very supportive of that. So we hope that there will be a resumption of a dialogue and it will lead to a resolution.
QUESTION: The answer to the other question --
MR. PIRZADA: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: The answer to the other question --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: But I have --
MR. PIRZADA: As you see, we have only five minutes left --
SECRETARY CLINTON: I have to say that it’s very common to point out that in a democracy that is so young, we want to send a message to all the constituent parts of society, support that democracy. I find that very much in keeping.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) two questions --
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, I’m extremely happy you’ve talked about sending a message, because here’s a message that I do not understand, and hopefully you’ll be able to communicate that to me and everyone over here. You see, you were talking about spending on military and you gave an analogy between the schools and the military and how this works over there. When you go into Afghanistan and you, I mean, fight a war over there, trust me, you are in foreign territory and everybody that comes under fire or in the line of fire is a foreigner. And – but when our army goes into Swat or Buner or Waziristan, the chances are that they are fighting in their own territory and killing their own people at the same time.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.
QUESTION: Now, when I listen to the U.S. Administration, they are very open about, you know, establishing contacts with the Taliban shura and, you know, trying to identify the soft elements over there and, you know, making inroads and bridges over there. But when Government of Pakistan and elected Government of Pakistan does a similar peace agreement in Swat over here with the people who are actually demanding something that is their right to have – I mean, if they have a majority in the first place – why is there a sudden reaction? And then you clump Pakistan and Afghanistan together and you have a different set of policies for them.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, let me answer that.
MR. PIRZADA: Should we clump the second question together with it.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Okay, as long as I can remember the first one. Remind me. (Laughter.)
MR. PIRZADA: Yeah, it’s okay.
QUESTION: A quick question. We are talking about the past history, talking about the present and future. President Obama and you yourself, you guys have said on television that you understand Pakistan well, you have interest in Pakistan, and you also know that there’s a predominant anti-American sentiment prevailing in Pakistan. What practical steps Obama Administration can take in addressing those sentiments and turning them into pro-American?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, let me try to answer two very important and complex questions as quickly as I can. On the question about the Taliban, first, as I understand what the Government of Pakistan did, they attempted to reach some kind of agreement with elements of the Taliban in Swat. And they thought that they had reached an agreement that would create stability and that there would not be any further aggressive action by those Taliban members. Next thing your government knew, those very people they thought they’d agreed with had pushed into Buner.
And so I think it was right for the Pakistan Government to try, but you also have to give the government credit for saying the agreement was one-sided. It wasn’t abided by. So we cannot allow those elements to pretend that they’re going to participate in society when they still are attempting to undermine our society. So I give the government credit for trying and I give the government even greater credit for doing the evaluation which led them to conclude that there was a very aggressive cancer that was eating away at Pakistan that has to be rooted out, because clearly the people with whom they were dealing were not willing to cease their attacks on the society.
With respect to the Taliban in Afghanistan, it is our evidence that there are many young men who are recruited into the Taliban who are not ideologically committed to the extremist agenda of the Taliban leadership. Some of them do it because there’s a kind of draft that goes on, and the Taliban intimidates families and communities and demands that these young men be basically turned over to them, some because they actually get paid. So these are not the hardcore people who your government is trying to kill or capture. These are young men who get caught up in it. I think they should be given a chance to be reintegrated into society, whether it’s on this side of the border or the other. The leaders have a very different agenda. They are out to destabilize this state. They are out to take over Afghanistan. They are in league with al-Qaida and therefore they pose a threat far beyond the borders, which, unfortunately, is something that we all have to pay attention to.
Now, with your question, just very quickly, I don’t expect this to happen overnight. I think that the spirited conversation we’ve had here today shows how much work there is to do.
QUESTION: Yes.
SECRETARY CLINTON: But it is very helpful to me. I have to tell you, before the reaction to the Kerry-Lugar bill occurred, I don’t think it was on my list of worries that I would have because I saw it so differently. So now we’ve been sensitized. And I don’t think that we have very many people in our own country who read legislation as closely as all of you have read it. So we’re just going to have to take a look and scrub this down and be more aware of the perceptions which turn into the reality, because if we’re going to have a relationship, I want it to be as honest as this conversation has been. Nobody has minced words. I have told you what is on my mind. That’s what true friends and partners do. We could pretend. You could pretend. You could say, well, Mrs. Clinton, how has your visit been, and we could have a nice little conversation.
QUESTION: It wouldn't be me. (Laughter.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: It wouldn't be you and it wouldn't be me.
QUESTION: Okay.
SECRETARY CLINTON: And it’s not the kind of relationship we should be working to achieve. I believe we have so much in common. And what both President Obama and I feel – I had friends from Pakistan in college, he had friends from Pakistan in college. We have been in each other’s homes. I have so many very positive feelings about this country. But I know we have work to do. So I’m going to work at it.
QUESTION: One short one, Secretary. A short one.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: No, no, just very --
MR. PIRZADA: Very short, very short.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. PIRZADA: Very short question.
QUESTION: My short question is that you said that we must be honest with each other.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.
QUESTION: So the Kerry-Lugar bill have introduced the philosophy of civilian control on the security establishment of Pakistan. Do you want a civilian to head ISI? I need a very honest answer from you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: I want the best person to head it.
QUESTION: Do you want a civilian to head ISI?
SECRETARY CLINTON: That – first of all, it’s not my decision. But let me tell you, the CIA has been headed by both military and civilians. It should be the person, not the position. And so if there is a military person who is the best person, that’s who it should be. If there’s a civilian who’s the best person, that’s who it should be.
MR. PIRZADA: Last question (inaudible) quick (inaudible).
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: But the larger question is in a democracy, at least as democracies have developed over time, it’s civilian control over the entire enterprise, not necessarily – I don’t want a civilian being the commander of our forces in Afghanistan or of Central Command, because that’s a very different job. Intelligence is different in our country. But whoever holds those positions, the principle of civilian control I think is important for democracy.
QUESTION: That is part of our constitution as well. Okay, just one last question. You talked about setting up a trilateral commission – India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the United States. But Secretary of State, as a result of that, we haven’t seen the substantive move that we needed to see from Afghanistan and the U.S. side of the Afghan border because your forces are there and the Afghans are there, and still what we have are just 98 or 95 border posts on the Afghan side, while Pakistan has close to a thousand. So please explain why this (inaudible).
MR. PIRZADA: (Inaudible) yes, quick, this must be the last question.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first of all, as you know, the challenge of Afghanistan governmentally is far different than Pakistan. Pakistan has many more resources, assets, expertise in its government, in its military. It is our hope that we will be able to work with Afghanistan to build a professional military – something which they have not had. And so we’re looking to Pakistan to provide assistance as well as our NATO allies. So I don’t think it’s a fair comparison. The reason Pakistan has done so well in putting forces along the border is because you have a very professional, highly expert military. That doesn't exist on the other side.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, when do you intend to have – finally have --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: When do you intend to have the final version of your final strategy?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, when the President said we would --
QUESTION: That was in March.
SECRETARY CLINTON: He said – well, he adopted the strategy. And the goals are not going to change. We are still committed to a campaign against al-Qaida and their extremist allies, and to assisting the Afghans --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) yes, will we have a --
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, but remember when the President announced it in March, he said we will reevaluate where we are after the Afghan election. The Afghan election is not over yet.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: As soon as the Afghan election is over, you will see that.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: Secretary Clinton --
QUESTION: After (inaudible)?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Before that. Before that. I hope the election’s over before that.
MR. PIRZADA: I wish we could have time (inaudible) it’s a pressure on your time. Thank you, all of you, for joining in this discussion, Secretary Clinton.
SECRETARY CLINTON: I’ll tell you one thing, no one could doubt the free press in Pakistan. That’s a very good sign.
MR. PIRZADA: I wish you could actually tell us something to improve Pakistan’s impression of the U.S. press, the U.S. media.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we have to work on that, too. And we need more exchanges like this. I mean, I wish --
QUESTION: You will send U.S. journalists to the Pakistani travel area so that they can see the (inaudible).
QUESTION: Pakistan (inaudible).
SECRETARY CLINTON: And we need you, though, to come to the United States more and to do forums and to do question and answer like this. It would be very helpful, and we’ll try to set some of that up if you have – I mean, after I listened to Moeed introduce you all, you all apparently work 24/7.
QUESTION: You are welcome to write us. You are welcome to write us, all of six (inaudible).
SECRETARY CLINTON: Good. Well, we will. We’ll figure out a way to do that.
QUESTION: There’s more than six, by the way, in Pakistan. (Laughter.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh no, another misperception. (Laughter.)
MR. PIRZADA: Thank you. Thank you so much.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much.
MR. PIRZADA: Thank you so much for joining us.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.
MR. PIRZADA: Thank you to all of you. The time is almost over. Thank you.
YES, WE SURE ARE WATCHING A FAILED PRESIDENCY!!!
Are We Watching a Failed Presidency?
FOX NATION
November 20, 2009
For the past couple of months I have worried about the risks of a failed presidency. No one should want this, regardless of party affiliation. It is harmful and dangerous to our economy and country. However, it appears obvious to me that the royal regime known as Obama has ended.
Seth Leibsohn writing in the National Review summarized it this way:
"This is reminiscent of the Jimmy Carter years - the last time the U.S. was seen as weak - unable to move and coax other countries, unable to reassure dependent allies, unable to have the respect of the world and, of course, unable to move the mullocracy of Iran."
Even the liberal media are beginning to question the effectiveness of the President. The media, in full Camelot mode, are slow to react and often lag what the populace started to recognize months ago.
*****************************************************************
PUMAS SAY, "WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!"
*****************************************************************
FOX NATION
November 20, 2009
For the past couple of months I have worried about the risks of a failed presidency. No one should want this, regardless of party affiliation. It is harmful and dangerous to our economy and country. However, it appears obvious to me that the royal regime known as Obama has ended.
Seth Leibsohn writing in the National Review summarized it this way:
"This is reminiscent of the Jimmy Carter years - the last time the U.S. was seen as weak - unable to move and coax other countries, unable to reassure dependent allies, unable to have the respect of the world and, of course, unable to move the mullocracy of Iran."
Even the liberal media are beginning to question the effectiveness of the President. The media, in full Camelot mode, are slow to react and often lag what the populace started to recognize months ago.
*****************************************************************
PUMAS SAY, "WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!"
*****************************************************************
FOREIGN POLICY TESTS OBAMA-CLINTON BOND
Foreign policy tests Obama-Clinton bond
By Daniel Dombey in Washington
FT.COM
November 20 2009
It sounds like a story with a happy ending. Eighteen months ago Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were at each other’s throats as they battled for the White House. Then, after Mr Obama’s inspired selection of his old rival for the top US foreign policy post, the two turned into a team, with Mrs Clinton becoming the most formidable asset of the administration.
There is only one catch to the tale. There is no guarantee that it will finish on an upbeat note.
Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama are now deluged by foreign policy problems and the secretary of state has to contend with an overbearing White House and her own tendency to voice inconvenient truths.
That said, things have gone more smoothly than anyone would have imagined after the two Democrats’ bad-tempered primary fight.
Not too long ago Mrs Clinton was seen as a divisive figure whom many Americans simply could not stand. Today, her tough, indefatigable style and ability to master a brief have made her popular and highly rated. In a poll this week, 67 per cent of Americans said Mrs Clinton was qualified to be president, even as she was treated to an adoring profile in Vogue magazine.
No wonder she was in Afghanistan this week, sent by Mr Obama to put pressure on Hamid Karzai as he begins his second term as president.
And yet the mere word “Afghanistan” highlights the challenges that the Clinton-Obama partnership has to confront. It is also far from the only foreign policy problem that gives the impression of overwhelming the administration. Washington’s push for Arab-Israeli peace talks seems to be back at square one. And a deal with Iran, described by some diplomats as a sign that Mr Obama’s signature policy of “engagement” was finally paying off, has effectively collapsed.
So with such a formidable team in place, why isn’t US foreign policy faring better?
One complicating factor is Mrs Clinton’s penchant for gaffes. She outraged Arabs last month when she labelled an Israeli offer to stop building some settlements as “unprecedented” – even though she had vigorously demanded all such building work cease. That came just after Mrs Clinton said in Pakistan she found it hard to believe no one in the country’s government knew where al-Qaeda leaders were hiding – during a visit to bolster relations with Islamabad.
She has made similarly blunt statements on many of her frequent foreign trips – and while her style often appears bracing in comparison with her ultra-cautious predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, there is a downside. Diplomacy often consists of allowing yourself as much wiggle room as possible and being frank in private. And as one diplomat recently observed: “With Condi, if she said something you knew it was policy: with Hillary, you’re not so sure.” Although she brings political assets that few previous secretaries of state have had, Mrs Clinton is still a relative beginner at the job.
But that is not the full picture. Many problems with the administration’s message – including its inconsistent policy on Israel-Palestine – can be traced back to the White House, which under Rahm Emanuel, chief of staff, keeps a firm grip on foreign policy. Some ex-diplomats say they have never seen power so centralised.
Mrs Clinton’s own deputy, Jim Steinberg, is widely perceived as a White House enforcer, who polices even relatively minor policy statements. That often leaves state department spokesmen mouthing near meaningless talking points even as Mrs Clinton leaves message discipline by the wayside.
The relationship with Mr Obama is even more important. Perhaps the most successful secretary of state of the past 20 years was James Baker, who was the closest to the president he served, George H. W. Bush. A bond between president and the secretary of state helps when it comes to executing foreign policy. While Mrs Clinton’s relationship with Mr Obama is cordial, one would be hard-pressed to call them buddies.
The conclusion to the Clinton-Obama story hasn’t been written.
Whether their team of rivals can work as a smoothly functioning machine will help decide how the story ends.
By Daniel Dombey in Washington
FT.COM
November 20 2009
It sounds like a story with a happy ending. Eighteen months ago Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were at each other’s throats as they battled for the White House. Then, after Mr Obama’s inspired selection of his old rival for the top US foreign policy post, the two turned into a team, with Mrs Clinton becoming the most formidable asset of the administration.
There is only one catch to the tale. There is no guarantee that it will finish on an upbeat note.
Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama are now deluged by foreign policy problems and the secretary of state has to contend with an overbearing White House and her own tendency to voice inconvenient truths.
That said, things have gone more smoothly than anyone would have imagined after the two Democrats’ bad-tempered primary fight.
Not too long ago Mrs Clinton was seen as a divisive figure whom many Americans simply could not stand. Today, her tough, indefatigable style and ability to master a brief have made her popular and highly rated. In a poll this week, 67 per cent of Americans said Mrs Clinton was qualified to be president, even as she was treated to an adoring profile in Vogue magazine.
No wonder she was in Afghanistan this week, sent by Mr Obama to put pressure on Hamid Karzai as he begins his second term as president.
And yet the mere word “Afghanistan” highlights the challenges that the Clinton-Obama partnership has to confront. It is also far from the only foreign policy problem that gives the impression of overwhelming the administration. Washington’s push for Arab-Israeli peace talks seems to be back at square one. And a deal with Iran, described by some diplomats as a sign that Mr Obama’s signature policy of “engagement” was finally paying off, has effectively collapsed.
So with such a formidable team in place, why isn’t US foreign policy faring better?
One complicating factor is Mrs Clinton’s penchant for gaffes. She outraged Arabs last month when she labelled an Israeli offer to stop building some settlements as “unprecedented” – even though she had vigorously demanded all such building work cease. That came just after Mrs Clinton said in Pakistan she found it hard to believe no one in the country’s government knew where al-Qaeda leaders were hiding – during a visit to bolster relations with Islamabad.
She has made similarly blunt statements on many of her frequent foreign trips – and while her style often appears bracing in comparison with her ultra-cautious predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, there is a downside. Diplomacy often consists of allowing yourself as much wiggle room as possible and being frank in private. And as one diplomat recently observed: “With Condi, if she said something you knew it was policy: with Hillary, you’re not so sure.” Although she brings political assets that few previous secretaries of state have had, Mrs Clinton is still a relative beginner at the job.
But that is not the full picture. Many problems with the administration’s message – including its inconsistent policy on Israel-Palestine – can be traced back to the White House, which under Rahm Emanuel, chief of staff, keeps a firm grip on foreign policy. Some ex-diplomats say they have never seen power so centralised.
Mrs Clinton’s own deputy, Jim Steinberg, is widely perceived as a White House enforcer, who polices even relatively minor policy statements. That often leaves state department spokesmen mouthing near meaningless talking points even as Mrs Clinton leaves message discipline by the wayside.
The relationship with Mr Obama is even more important. Perhaps the most successful secretary of state of the past 20 years was James Baker, who was the closest to the president he served, George H. W. Bush. A bond between president and the secretary of state helps when it comes to executing foreign policy. While Mrs Clinton’s relationship with Mr Obama is cordial, one would be hard-pressed to call them buddies.
The conclusion to the Clinton-Obama story hasn’t been written.
Whether their team of rivals can work as a smoothly functioning machine will help decide how the story ends.
ACORN WARNING TO AG ERIC HOLDER!!!!!
Breitbart to AG Holder: Investigate ACORN or We’ll Release More Tapes Just Before 2010 Election
by Publius
BIG GOVERNMENT
Earlier tonight Andrew Breitbart, James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles discussed the final chapter of the ACORN L.A. saga on “Hannity,” but more interestingly, Breitbart disclosed where the story goes from here.
Breitbart: There’s a lot of hypocrisy and the dust has settled for ACORN and at the end of the day they’ve recognized that Eric Holder, the Attorney General, has not initiated an investigation into ACORN after we now have seven tapes. There were five initially that came out, ACORN was defunded by the Senate, was defunded by the House, lost it’s link to the Census; while all that damage occurred, Congress didn’t come in to investigate them, obviously not the Attorney General’s office, and they’ve now realized let’s get back into business because they realized that the dust settled and they were not being investigated, it was Hannah, James, and me who were being investigated, that’s why we’ve been forced to offer this latest tape.
Hannity: Are you saying, Andrew, that there are more tapes?
Breitbart: Oh my goodness there are! Not only are there more tapes, it’s not just ACORN. And this message is to Attorney General Holder: I want you to know that we have more tapes, it’s not just ACORN, and we’re going to hold out until the next election cycle, or else if you want to do a clean investigation, we will give you the rest of what we have, we will comply with you, we will give you the documentation we have from countless ACORN whistleblowers who want to come forward but are fearful of this organization and the retribution that they fear that this is a dangerous organization. So if you get into an investigation, we will give you the tapes; if you don’t give us the tapes, we will revisit these tapes come election time.
Hannity: This is a blockbuster, what you’re saying here. You guys have more tapes, you’ll release them before the election, that could have a big impact on the election, obviously…
by Publius
BIG GOVERNMENT
Earlier tonight Andrew Breitbart, James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles discussed the final chapter of the ACORN L.A. saga on “Hannity,” but more interestingly, Breitbart disclosed where the story goes from here.
Breitbart: There’s a lot of hypocrisy and the dust has settled for ACORN and at the end of the day they’ve recognized that Eric Holder, the Attorney General, has not initiated an investigation into ACORN after we now have seven tapes. There were five initially that came out, ACORN was defunded by the Senate, was defunded by the House, lost it’s link to the Census; while all that damage occurred, Congress didn’t come in to investigate them, obviously not the Attorney General’s office, and they’ve now realized let’s get back into business because they realized that the dust settled and they were not being investigated, it was Hannah, James, and me who were being investigated, that’s why we’ve been forced to offer this latest tape.
Hannity: Are you saying, Andrew, that there are more tapes?
Breitbart: Oh my goodness there are! Not only are there more tapes, it’s not just ACORN. And this message is to Attorney General Holder: I want you to know that we have more tapes, it’s not just ACORN, and we’re going to hold out until the next election cycle, or else if you want to do a clean investigation, we will give you the rest of what we have, we will comply with you, we will give you the documentation we have from countless ACORN whistleblowers who want to come forward but are fearful of this organization and the retribution that they fear that this is a dangerous organization. So if you get into an investigation, we will give you the tapes; if you don’t give us the tapes, we will revisit these tapes come election time.
Hannity: This is a blockbuster, what you’re saying here. You guys have more tapes, you’ll release them before the election, that could have a big impact on the election, obviously…
HILLARY'S INTERVIEW WITH BLOOMBERG RADIO
Interview With Indira Lakshmanan of Bloomberg Radio
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
U.S. Embassy
Kabul, Afghanistan
November 19, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION: So, since you’re here in Afghanistan, I wanted to start off by asking you about how U.S. relations with Afghan President Hamid Karzai have been strained for years by concerns about corruption, drug trafficking, and the government’s inability to deliver services and security nationwide. What have you heard during this trip that makes you think this second term is going to be different?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’ve heard a lot, and I’m encouraged. I had a long dinner meeting with a number of the ministers in the government, and they described in depth their plans and their accomplishments, which verified my own belief that a lot of good things have happened in Afghanistan in the last seven years that don’t really get a lot of attention.
It’s the hard, boring work of governing. It’s getting 7 million kids in school, including 40 percent girls, when there were only a million and they were all boys when you took office, or getting wheat seed out to farmers so that they can have a bumper harvest, and yet at the same time, putting aside money in the budget to buy wheat so there’s a strategic reserve.
It’s the sort of day-to-day governing that changes the lives of people on the ground that is happening, which we do need to continue to support. One of my favorite stories was the finance minister describing to me how changing the process for getting a driver’s – getting a car license was not only going to cut out corruption because it cut the number of hands that the money went through, but also put millions more dollars into the government’s revenues.
So I think that there’s a good group of ministers who are well trained and professional. They have a lot of outside experience that they’re bringing to the government. And I had a very long and fruitful conversation with President Karzai where we went over a lot of the concerns. But I also listened to his concerns, because it’s not only a one-way street. I think that there have been some mixed messages sent by the U.S. Government in the prior administration as well.
And his speech today was a visionary outline of what he’d like to see happen by the time he finishes his second term, combined with very specific ideas about everything from the security forces to the anticorruption efforts. It was a good transitional comment that we can take some credit for in the way that we’ve tried to encourage the government to think hard about what they’re doing and what kind of legacy they’re going to leave. But it’s really a window of opportunity for not just President Karzai, but the people of Afghanistan and the international community.
QUESTION: One of the things that President Karzai mentioned in his inaugural speech was this pledge that Afghan security forces should be able to take the lead in providing security from international forces within five years. Is that realistic?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I think that we intend to do everything we can, along with our international allies, to support the recruitment, retention, training, and equipping of the Afghan national security forces, both the army and the police. I spoke with General McChrystal about that last night. He thinks it is achievable. I spoke with Minister Wardak, the defense minister here in Afghanistan. He thinks it is achievable. And we intend to put the time, attention, and effort into making it an achievement of both the Karzai government and the international community.
QUESTION: You’ve said that U.S. civilian aid coming to Afghanistan is going to depend on anticorruption measures. Now, President Karzai said he wants half of all foreign aid within two years to go directly to his government. So what specifics has he given you about his anti-graft plan, and what benchmarks have you given him to say this is what we need from you specifically?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we actually started this earlier in the year. Our Special Representative Ambassador Holbrooke and I decided that we wanted to do two things. We wanted to create a certification process where we would evaluate ministries, determine their capacity, their honesty, the results that they’re able to achieve, and begin to increase the aid that we give to the Afghan Government following that certification. So that we wouldn’t be doing this for the entire government; we would be doing it for those ministries that we think, number one, are most critical, but, number two, really meet our standards. And we’ve been pleased by the results so far. And when we look at the positive actions that have been taken in education, in finance, in agriculture, there is a lot that demonstrates the capacity in those ministries that needs to be further developed.
So today, I spoke with my international colleagues about how we’re going to better coordinate our aid programs, because everybody has a bilateral program, we go through multilateral programs. But at some point, we need to be coordinated so we’re not replicating. We use similar standards so that we don’t have some countries refusing to aid certain programs or ministries and other countries coming in and doing it, when that would undercut our message. So we have to do more on our side to be better prepared to support the capacity of this government.
QUESTION: What about on the military assistance side? Now, experts say that having a counterinsurgency strategy depends on having a capable partner. Will the number of troops that the Obama Administration is willing to bring in here in Afghanistan depend on whether Karzai’s government is seen as a clean and competent partner?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think it’s one of the many factors that we’ve been examining and that the President has been testing as an assumption about how we can be effective. There’s no doubt that if we can move more expeditiously on standing up a well-trained Afghan military that can begin to take more control over their country, that’s a big plus. That is something that, down the road, gives a lot of credence to our belief that one of our tasks is to get them to the point where they can do this for themselves.
QUESTION: Now, you’ve said that the main U.S. goal in Afghanistan needs to be dismantling al-Qaida and making sure it doesn’t again find safe haven here. So are the 20,000 to 30,000 troops that are most recently being talked about, is that the right number to get the U.S. to that approach? And how long would any additional U.S. forces need to stay here to make that happen?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, again, I don’t want to speak either for the President or preempt him from making the announcement that he intends to make soon. But I would say that this has been a very thoroughly examined decision. And there’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that the chances for success on any aspect of our mission, including disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al-Qaida, providing the Afghan Government and people with the training and support they need to defend themselves with a military that is under their government’s control – all of that depends upon having good partners. And it’s not only good partners at the national level; it’s good partners at the local level, it’s good partners in the military and police institutions, it’s good partners in society.
There’s no doubt that the people of Afghanistan do not want to see the return of the Taliban; that is an absolutely agreed-upon conclusion by everyone who knows this country. But it’s also true that if you’re living in an isolated village somewhere and you don’t feel connected to your government and there is no presence of an Afghan military force and the Taliban raid your village every night and intimidate your boys to join, you’re going to hedge your bets. How could you not? You’ve got to survive.
And what we hear over and over again from Afghans is: We want you to help us defend ourselves. That’s what we are looking for. That goes hand-in-hand with our desire to capture or kill al-Qaida.
QUESTION: Just quickly on neighboring Pakistan, where we were recently, and – you said that it was hard to imagine that some officials there don’t know where al-Qaida is hiding. If our intelligence shows that they are there, then what leverage does the U.S. have with our Pakistani partners? What can we do to finally capture Usama bin Ladin and his top lieutenants?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I think we have, over the last 10 months, developed a much higher degree of cooperation and communication between our governments, between our militaries, between our intelligence services, which was just missing. It didn’t have the necessary trust that you have to have in order to listen to the other side and say, okay, I agree with you and I’m going forward. We still have a long way to go, but the cooperation between our militaries, the personal relationships that have been established between, for example, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen and chief of the army in Pakistan General Kiyani, are incredibly important in helping to break down barriers.
So when we said at the beginning of this Administration that we were disappointed that the Pakistani Government was not going after the Taliban – because we saw them as a direct threat to the Pakistani Government – and that then the Pakistanis themselves reached a consensus they had to do that, we thought there was a very significant change in attitude.
QUESTION: Going to the other neighbor of Afghanistan, Iran, the foreign minister has said that they will not ship out their uranium for use in the medical reactor. And I’m wondering if you take the foreign minister’s statement as the last word, or is the U.S. waiting for Iran to make a formal declaration to the IAEA? And what options do we have if this is the end of that road?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t take it as the final word, because there is a process here that we are respecting. Our representative to the P-5+1 discussions about Iran’s nuclear program, Under Secretary Bill Burns, will be meeting with his counterparts in Brussels on Friday. And we have an IAEA Board of Governors meeting next week, and we are continuing to press the Iranians. I even talked with some of my colleagues today, who have relations with Iran, to continue to press them to follow through on the agreement they accepted in principle some months ago.
We’ll see. I mean, they are the ones who need to demonstrate a recognition that they’ve violated international rules. They have an opportunity to begin to reverse the perception that many have of their nuclear program by sending out the low-enriched uranium. It’s up to them. They have to make the decision. But there are consequences to their failure and refusal to participate.
QUESTION: So what are those consequences specifically? And how much time does the international community have before Iran, on this track, is going to be able to produce a nuclear weapon?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that the agreement that was reached by the foreign ministers, including myself in New York, about the Iranian nuclear program was very clear that we’re going to pursue a two-track approach. One track would be negotiation and diplomacy, and we have been faithful to that commitment. That is part of President Obama’s larger outreach to not only the Muslim world, but the broader family of nations, even those that we don’t agree with.
But in that very same agreement, we said this is a dual-track strategy, that in the absence of cooperation by the Iranians, there will be consequences. And we have held off having the kind of in-depth discussions that would be necessary to trigger those consequences, but we’re going to proceed with them if the answer from Iran is no.
QUESTION: Now, together with the death sentence that’s been announced on the five protestors involved in the election protest in Iran, does this mark the end of the Obama Administration’s efforts to peacefully engage the Iranian regime?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it sure doesn’t help it, does it? This has been a series of actions by the Government of Iran ever since their disputed elections that raise serious questions about their behavior, and we often engage with countries with whom we have serious disagreements. But it is really regrettable that Iran would be imposing death sentences on demonstrators who have every right to express their opinions. But again, we’re going to wait to see what the response is on the Tehran research reactor. And depending upon what it is, we will proceed to the next set of deliberations and actions.
QUESTION: Just on one other issue, North Korea, the President today said that the U.S. and South Korea are going to work together to try to break the pattern of North Korea using negotiation and then defiance. Now, you’ve said yourself many times, we’re not going to buy this horse three times. So tell me, what specifically can the U.S. do to change their behavior?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we will be sending Ambassador Bosworth to Pyongyang in early December. I think the President announced the date at the summit in South Korea. And we are going to go with a very clear message that there are significant benefits to North Korea if they recommit to the verifiable, irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
On behalf of the United States, we would explore some of the issues which they have raised continually with us over the years; namely, normalization of relations, a peace treaty instead of an armistice, economic development assistance. All of that would be open for discussion. But the North Koreans have to commit to denuclearization. And we also think it’s important to do so within the context of the Six-Party Talks.
QUESTION: All right, last question since we’re leaving Afghanistan today: This is your fourth visit since 2003. Tell me what have you seen this time that has been the most positive change and the most negative change from your previous visit?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, on the positive side, I think the quality of people, the capacity of the people in the government, the amount of economic activity that’s taking place in most of the small business arena, the creativity of a lot of the people of Afghanistan in making a better life for themselves is immensely not only positive, but really inspiring.
On the negative side, the security situation is very dangerous. Unfortunately, some of the tactics used in Iraq and elsewhere have been imported into Afghanistan with all kinds of suicide bombs and improvised explosive devices that just put people in an insecure position. But life goes on, and there seems to be a lot of energy and a renewal of optimism following this inauguration that we’re going to work hard to help translate into reality.
QUESTION: Thank you so much for your time, Secretary Clinton. I really appreciate it.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. Good to talk to you.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
U.S. Embassy
Kabul, Afghanistan
November 19, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION: So, since you’re here in Afghanistan, I wanted to start off by asking you about how U.S. relations with Afghan President Hamid Karzai have been strained for years by concerns about corruption, drug trafficking, and the government’s inability to deliver services and security nationwide. What have you heard during this trip that makes you think this second term is going to be different?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’ve heard a lot, and I’m encouraged. I had a long dinner meeting with a number of the ministers in the government, and they described in depth their plans and their accomplishments, which verified my own belief that a lot of good things have happened in Afghanistan in the last seven years that don’t really get a lot of attention.
It’s the hard, boring work of governing. It’s getting 7 million kids in school, including 40 percent girls, when there were only a million and they were all boys when you took office, or getting wheat seed out to farmers so that they can have a bumper harvest, and yet at the same time, putting aside money in the budget to buy wheat so there’s a strategic reserve.
It’s the sort of day-to-day governing that changes the lives of people on the ground that is happening, which we do need to continue to support. One of my favorite stories was the finance minister describing to me how changing the process for getting a driver’s – getting a car license was not only going to cut out corruption because it cut the number of hands that the money went through, but also put millions more dollars into the government’s revenues.
So I think that there’s a good group of ministers who are well trained and professional. They have a lot of outside experience that they’re bringing to the government. And I had a very long and fruitful conversation with President Karzai where we went over a lot of the concerns. But I also listened to his concerns, because it’s not only a one-way street. I think that there have been some mixed messages sent by the U.S. Government in the prior administration as well.
And his speech today was a visionary outline of what he’d like to see happen by the time he finishes his second term, combined with very specific ideas about everything from the security forces to the anticorruption efforts. It was a good transitional comment that we can take some credit for in the way that we’ve tried to encourage the government to think hard about what they’re doing and what kind of legacy they’re going to leave. But it’s really a window of opportunity for not just President Karzai, but the people of Afghanistan and the international community.
QUESTION: One of the things that President Karzai mentioned in his inaugural speech was this pledge that Afghan security forces should be able to take the lead in providing security from international forces within five years. Is that realistic?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I think that we intend to do everything we can, along with our international allies, to support the recruitment, retention, training, and equipping of the Afghan national security forces, both the army and the police. I spoke with General McChrystal about that last night. He thinks it is achievable. I spoke with Minister Wardak, the defense minister here in Afghanistan. He thinks it is achievable. And we intend to put the time, attention, and effort into making it an achievement of both the Karzai government and the international community.
QUESTION: You’ve said that U.S. civilian aid coming to Afghanistan is going to depend on anticorruption measures. Now, President Karzai said he wants half of all foreign aid within two years to go directly to his government. So what specifics has he given you about his anti-graft plan, and what benchmarks have you given him to say this is what we need from you specifically?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we actually started this earlier in the year. Our Special Representative Ambassador Holbrooke and I decided that we wanted to do two things. We wanted to create a certification process where we would evaluate ministries, determine their capacity, their honesty, the results that they’re able to achieve, and begin to increase the aid that we give to the Afghan Government following that certification. So that we wouldn’t be doing this for the entire government; we would be doing it for those ministries that we think, number one, are most critical, but, number two, really meet our standards. And we’ve been pleased by the results so far. And when we look at the positive actions that have been taken in education, in finance, in agriculture, there is a lot that demonstrates the capacity in those ministries that needs to be further developed.
So today, I spoke with my international colleagues about how we’re going to better coordinate our aid programs, because everybody has a bilateral program, we go through multilateral programs. But at some point, we need to be coordinated so we’re not replicating. We use similar standards so that we don’t have some countries refusing to aid certain programs or ministries and other countries coming in and doing it, when that would undercut our message. So we have to do more on our side to be better prepared to support the capacity of this government.
QUESTION: What about on the military assistance side? Now, experts say that having a counterinsurgency strategy depends on having a capable partner. Will the number of troops that the Obama Administration is willing to bring in here in Afghanistan depend on whether Karzai’s government is seen as a clean and competent partner?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think it’s one of the many factors that we’ve been examining and that the President has been testing as an assumption about how we can be effective. There’s no doubt that if we can move more expeditiously on standing up a well-trained Afghan military that can begin to take more control over their country, that’s a big plus. That is something that, down the road, gives a lot of credence to our belief that one of our tasks is to get them to the point where they can do this for themselves.
QUESTION: Now, you’ve said that the main U.S. goal in Afghanistan needs to be dismantling al-Qaida and making sure it doesn’t again find safe haven here. So are the 20,000 to 30,000 troops that are most recently being talked about, is that the right number to get the U.S. to that approach? And how long would any additional U.S. forces need to stay here to make that happen?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, again, I don’t want to speak either for the President or preempt him from making the announcement that he intends to make soon. But I would say that this has been a very thoroughly examined decision. And there’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that the chances for success on any aspect of our mission, including disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al-Qaida, providing the Afghan Government and people with the training and support they need to defend themselves with a military that is under their government’s control – all of that depends upon having good partners. And it’s not only good partners at the national level; it’s good partners at the local level, it’s good partners in the military and police institutions, it’s good partners in society.
There’s no doubt that the people of Afghanistan do not want to see the return of the Taliban; that is an absolutely agreed-upon conclusion by everyone who knows this country. But it’s also true that if you’re living in an isolated village somewhere and you don’t feel connected to your government and there is no presence of an Afghan military force and the Taliban raid your village every night and intimidate your boys to join, you’re going to hedge your bets. How could you not? You’ve got to survive.
And what we hear over and over again from Afghans is: We want you to help us defend ourselves. That’s what we are looking for. That goes hand-in-hand with our desire to capture or kill al-Qaida.
QUESTION: Just quickly on neighboring Pakistan, where we were recently, and – you said that it was hard to imagine that some officials there don’t know where al-Qaida is hiding. If our intelligence shows that they are there, then what leverage does the U.S. have with our Pakistani partners? What can we do to finally capture Usama bin Ladin and his top lieutenants?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I think we have, over the last 10 months, developed a much higher degree of cooperation and communication between our governments, between our militaries, between our intelligence services, which was just missing. It didn’t have the necessary trust that you have to have in order to listen to the other side and say, okay, I agree with you and I’m going forward. We still have a long way to go, but the cooperation between our militaries, the personal relationships that have been established between, for example, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen and chief of the army in Pakistan General Kiyani, are incredibly important in helping to break down barriers.
So when we said at the beginning of this Administration that we were disappointed that the Pakistani Government was not going after the Taliban – because we saw them as a direct threat to the Pakistani Government – and that then the Pakistanis themselves reached a consensus they had to do that, we thought there was a very significant change in attitude.
QUESTION: Going to the other neighbor of Afghanistan, Iran, the foreign minister has said that they will not ship out their uranium for use in the medical reactor. And I’m wondering if you take the foreign minister’s statement as the last word, or is the U.S. waiting for Iran to make a formal declaration to the IAEA? And what options do we have if this is the end of that road?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t take it as the final word, because there is a process here that we are respecting. Our representative to the P-5+1 discussions about Iran’s nuclear program, Under Secretary Bill Burns, will be meeting with his counterparts in Brussels on Friday. And we have an IAEA Board of Governors meeting next week, and we are continuing to press the Iranians. I even talked with some of my colleagues today, who have relations with Iran, to continue to press them to follow through on the agreement they accepted in principle some months ago.
We’ll see. I mean, they are the ones who need to demonstrate a recognition that they’ve violated international rules. They have an opportunity to begin to reverse the perception that many have of their nuclear program by sending out the low-enriched uranium. It’s up to them. They have to make the decision. But there are consequences to their failure and refusal to participate.
QUESTION: So what are those consequences specifically? And how much time does the international community have before Iran, on this track, is going to be able to produce a nuclear weapon?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that the agreement that was reached by the foreign ministers, including myself in New York, about the Iranian nuclear program was very clear that we’re going to pursue a two-track approach. One track would be negotiation and diplomacy, and we have been faithful to that commitment. That is part of President Obama’s larger outreach to not only the Muslim world, but the broader family of nations, even those that we don’t agree with.
But in that very same agreement, we said this is a dual-track strategy, that in the absence of cooperation by the Iranians, there will be consequences. And we have held off having the kind of in-depth discussions that would be necessary to trigger those consequences, but we’re going to proceed with them if the answer from Iran is no.
QUESTION: Now, together with the death sentence that’s been announced on the five protestors involved in the election protest in Iran, does this mark the end of the Obama Administration’s efforts to peacefully engage the Iranian regime?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it sure doesn’t help it, does it? This has been a series of actions by the Government of Iran ever since their disputed elections that raise serious questions about their behavior, and we often engage with countries with whom we have serious disagreements. But it is really regrettable that Iran would be imposing death sentences on demonstrators who have every right to express their opinions. But again, we’re going to wait to see what the response is on the Tehran research reactor. And depending upon what it is, we will proceed to the next set of deliberations and actions.
QUESTION: Just on one other issue, North Korea, the President today said that the U.S. and South Korea are going to work together to try to break the pattern of North Korea using negotiation and then defiance. Now, you’ve said yourself many times, we’re not going to buy this horse three times. So tell me, what specifically can the U.S. do to change their behavior?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we will be sending Ambassador Bosworth to Pyongyang in early December. I think the President announced the date at the summit in South Korea. And we are going to go with a very clear message that there are significant benefits to North Korea if they recommit to the verifiable, irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
On behalf of the United States, we would explore some of the issues which they have raised continually with us over the years; namely, normalization of relations, a peace treaty instead of an armistice, economic development assistance. All of that would be open for discussion. But the North Koreans have to commit to denuclearization. And we also think it’s important to do so within the context of the Six-Party Talks.
QUESTION: All right, last question since we’re leaving Afghanistan today: This is your fourth visit since 2003. Tell me what have you seen this time that has been the most positive change and the most negative change from your previous visit?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, on the positive side, I think the quality of people, the capacity of the people in the government, the amount of economic activity that’s taking place in most of the small business arena, the creativity of a lot of the people of Afghanistan in making a better life for themselves is immensely not only positive, but really inspiring.
On the negative side, the security situation is very dangerous. Unfortunately, some of the tactics used in Iraq and elsewhere have been imported into Afghanistan with all kinds of suicide bombs and improvised explosive devices that just put people in an insecure position. But life goes on, and there seems to be a lot of energy and a renewal of optimism following this inauguration that we’re going to work hard to help translate into reality.
QUESTION: Thank you so much for your time, Secretary Clinton. I really appreciate it.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. Good to talk to you.
COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGN
Combined Federal Campaign
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
November 20, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello every one. As the Honorary Chair of the Combined Federal Campaign, I am delighted to invite all of you to take part in this year’s annual giving drive. Since 1961 federal employees have raised over $6 billion through this campaign to support thousands of worthy charities throughout the country and around the world. In my prior work as First Lady and as senator and now as secretary of state, I have seen communities on every continent bound by poverty, crippled by hunger, plagued by treatable illnesses, but by making a contribution to the CFC you’re giving charitable organizations the resources they need to help make lasting progress against these and other challenges.
If you’ve contributed in the past you know how rewarding this program is. And if you’ve never contributed before, now is a great time to start. In this tough economic climate charities are working harder than ever even as their own budgets are shrinking. So help us meet the growing needs. You can support them through a one-time contribution or a payroll deduction by visiting your local CFC website. Each and every day the men and women of the federal government work to make a lasting difference in people’s lives. So, I’m counting on your compassion and generosity to help others who are working to do the same. Thank you very much.
OBAMA'S APPROVAL INDEX RATING -14 THIRD STRAIGHT DAY!!!
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Friday, November 20, 2009
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14.
Today’s results match the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President and it’s the third straight day at -14. Prior to these three days, Obama’s ratings had fallen to -14 on only one day since taking office.
-snip-
Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) now disapprove.
Friday, November 20, 2009
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14.
Today’s results match the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President and it’s the third straight day at -14. Prior to these three days, Obama’s ratings had fallen to -14 on only one day since taking office.
-snip-
Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) now disapprove.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
HILLARY'S INTERVIEW WITH RADIO AZADI
Interview With Mujahid Jawad of Radio Azadi
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Embassy Kabul
Kabul, Afganistan
November 19, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION: Your Excellency Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State, first thank you very much for giving time to Radio Azadi. My first question is: The international community, especially the United States, urges Hamid Karzai not to include warlords in Afghan Government. But on the other hand, you are meanwhile supporting the peace talks with Taliban, who are also armed militants.
Don’t you think the international community rejects one type of warlords and accept another kind of warlords?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think what was important about today was President Karzai’s speech outlining a vision for Afghanistan in the future, where he’d like to see the country at the end of his second term. But it was also very specific about what needed to be done for the people of Afghanistan.
I had the opportunity to meet with a number of your ministers. I met with four last night who gave me very detailed accounts of what they’re doing in agriculture and education and finance and intelligence. And I think that the quality of the people in the government is really quite positive. And I know that there are all kinds of international commentary about who’s in the government and who is not in the government.
We’ve made it clear that we want to see capable people. We want to see people devoted to the people of Afghanistan who can improve their lives. So I think that if the president continues to utilize the talents of the kind of people that I met with last night, I think we will be able to work together very effectively.
With respect to the question about any political resolution regarding the Taliban, that’s really up to the people of Afghanistan. But I think it is important to make sure that anyone who would be invited back into society gives up violence. There should be the end of any kind of armed capacity outside the military and the police, which is why we are committed to helping build a professional, disciplined army and police force for your country.
QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. But just – I want to have a short follow-up. If there is a wide infusion of warlords in the new cabinet, so will the United States support still the new government?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, there are warlords and there are warlords. There are people who are called back who fought on behalf of the people of Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, who fought against al-Qaida and the Taliban and their allies. And there are people who had very serious breaches of human rights and mistreatment of people during war, which is always difficult to look back on and figure out how to judge.
So I have made it clear, as have others, that we would far prefer that the president have people in the cabinet with professional skills, with experience and expertise who can actually do the work that is required. And I think he understands that and he is certainly giving me the strong impression that that’s what he intends to do.
QUESTION: Thank you. And one of the main concern during Hamid Karzai’s previous term was the wide range of civilian casualties. There are American forces in Afghanistan, and this, in fact, caused it to have a negative impact on Karzai’s government credibility among Afghans. Will America put any new measures to prevent from these casualties in Karzai’s – this new term?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes. In fact, we’ve already begun to do that. I share the concern and regret about civilian casualties. And under the new rules of engagement that General McChrystal has put into place, not only the United States, but all of the allies plus the Afghan military will do everything they possibly can to avoid civilian casualties. It is not always possible. There are unfortunate, tragic circumstances. But I think in the last months, under General McChrystal’s leadership, there has been a decrease, a notable decrease.
QUESTION: Thank you. President Obama gave Hamid Karzai the deadline of six months to eradicate corruption, but many Afghan experts believe that it would be difficult for Karzai to meet the deadline. So if Karzai failed, what will be your country’s reaction?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I was pleased to hear what President Karzai said today about corruption, and in fact, it produced spontaneous applause in the audience when he made such a strong statement against corruption and impunity, when he set forth some of the steps that he intends to take requiring government officials to list all of their assets, creating a major crimes tribunal, reinvigorating the anticorruption commission. These are all very positive steps.
I think that that demonstrates good faith on President Karzai’s part, and so he’s taking those actions and I think that is exactly what President Obama wanted to see.
QUESTION: Thank you. Your Administration has been reportedly pressing the Pakistani military to move against the Mullah Omar-led Taliban and the Quetta Shura and the Hakani network in North Waziristan. Do you now see the Pakistani military moving against these networks after it is claiming victory against the Taliban in South Waziristan tribal region?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I know that the Pakistani military is working very hard in South Waziristan, and they do have to have priorities as to how they will spend their resources and their troops. But we will continue to press them to go after all of the extremists in Pakistan, some of whom target Pakistan, some of whom, as you know, target Afghanistan. And we think there has to be an effort to root out the extremists in Pakistan who threaten Afghanistan.
So that is the message that I took to Pakistan when I was there a few weeks ago. It’s the message that I continue to stress with our friends in Pakistan. Because we know that there is a cross-border fertilization of extremism and terrorism. Afghanistan cannot get control over its territory and defeat the Taliban if they can go across the border into Pakistan as a safe haven. And similarly, Pakistan cannot root out the people that threaten them and their government if they can seek refuge across the border in Afghanistan.
So that’s why we look at Afghanistan and Pakistan together when it comes to this fight against terrorism.
QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. And my last question: There are reports in the media that U.S. is negotiating specific benchmarks with Afghanistan and Pakistan to pave the way for the withdrawal of international troops from Afghanistan. Can you speculate on these benchmarks?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t think that they’re benchmarks that are as you describe them. I think what we’re trying to do is create some measurements that can determine whether we’re succeeding. I had a long discussion with the minister of defense, Minister Wardak. He’s very pleased at how much better integrated the Afghan military is with ISAF and the troops under the ISAF command. There’s more sharing of intelligence. There are more joint missions, more joint training.
That’s a good benchmark. That’s the kind of benchmark we’re looking at, because what we want to see is how can we determine that we’re making progress on the path that President Karzai outlined today, where your military will have what it needs to begin to take responsibility for much of the country moving toward the primary responsibility for all of the country.
Now, the United States wants to have a long-term relationship with Afghanistan. But we don’t see it as always primarily a military relationship, where we are putting our troops in to do combat. We see over time the professionalization of the Afghan military so that we would provide advice and training, certain kinds of support that you might not have on your own. But we also have a big civilian commitment. We have tripled the number of civilians who are doing development work, who are working with your government to build capacity within in your government.
That, to us, is equally important, and we want to be there for the long term to help Afghanistan increase the educational system, improve the healthcare system, see agriculture resume the rightful place that it used to have in Afghanistan where so many people know that it was the garden district of Central Asia with the orchards and the exports. And there’s a lot of good promise that we see in Afghanistan, and we want to be a good friend and a partner to help you achieve that.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. Yeah.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. It’s great to talk to you.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. It was very nice meeting you.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Embassy Kabul
Kabul, Afganistan
November 19, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION: Your Excellency Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State, first thank you very much for giving time to Radio Azadi. My first question is: The international community, especially the United States, urges Hamid Karzai not to include warlords in Afghan Government. But on the other hand, you are meanwhile supporting the peace talks with Taliban, who are also armed militants.
Don’t you think the international community rejects one type of warlords and accept another kind of warlords?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think what was important about today was President Karzai’s speech outlining a vision for Afghanistan in the future, where he’d like to see the country at the end of his second term. But it was also very specific about what needed to be done for the people of Afghanistan.
I had the opportunity to meet with a number of your ministers. I met with four last night who gave me very detailed accounts of what they’re doing in agriculture and education and finance and intelligence. And I think that the quality of the people in the government is really quite positive. And I know that there are all kinds of international commentary about who’s in the government and who is not in the government.
We’ve made it clear that we want to see capable people. We want to see people devoted to the people of Afghanistan who can improve their lives. So I think that if the president continues to utilize the talents of the kind of people that I met with last night, I think we will be able to work together very effectively.
With respect to the question about any political resolution regarding the Taliban, that’s really up to the people of Afghanistan. But I think it is important to make sure that anyone who would be invited back into society gives up violence. There should be the end of any kind of armed capacity outside the military and the police, which is why we are committed to helping build a professional, disciplined army and police force for your country.
QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. But just – I want to have a short follow-up. If there is a wide infusion of warlords in the new cabinet, so will the United States support still the new government?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, there are warlords and there are warlords. There are people who are called back who fought on behalf of the people of Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, who fought against al-Qaida and the Taliban and their allies. And there are people who had very serious breaches of human rights and mistreatment of people during war, which is always difficult to look back on and figure out how to judge.
So I have made it clear, as have others, that we would far prefer that the president have people in the cabinet with professional skills, with experience and expertise who can actually do the work that is required. And I think he understands that and he is certainly giving me the strong impression that that’s what he intends to do.
QUESTION: Thank you. And one of the main concern during Hamid Karzai’s previous term was the wide range of civilian casualties. There are American forces in Afghanistan, and this, in fact, caused it to have a negative impact on Karzai’s government credibility among Afghans. Will America put any new measures to prevent from these casualties in Karzai’s – this new term?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes. In fact, we’ve already begun to do that. I share the concern and regret about civilian casualties. And under the new rules of engagement that General McChrystal has put into place, not only the United States, but all of the allies plus the Afghan military will do everything they possibly can to avoid civilian casualties. It is not always possible. There are unfortunate, tragic circumstances. But I think in the last months, under General McChrystal’s leadership, there has been a decrease, a notable decrease.
QUESTION: Thank you. President Obama gave Hamid Karzai the deadline of six months to eradicate corruption, but many Afghan experts believe that it would be difficult for Karzai to meet the deadline. So if Karzai failed, what will be your country’s reaction?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I was pleased to hear what President Karzai said today about corruption, and in fact, it produced spontaneous applause in the audience when he made such a strong statement against corruption and impunity, when he set forth some of the steps that he intends to take requiring government officials to list all of their assets, creating a major crimes tribunal, reinvigorating the anticorruption commission. These are all very positive steps.
I think that that demonstrates good faith on President Karzai’s part, and so he’s taking those actions and I think that is exactly what President Obama wanted to see.
QUESTION: Thank you. Your Administration has been reportedly pressing the Pakistani military to move against the Mullah Omar-led Taliban and the Quetta Shura and the Hakani network in North Waziristan. Do you now see the Pakistani military moving against these networks after it is claiming victory against the Taliban in South Waziristan tribal region?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I know that the Pakistani military is working very hard in South Waziristan, and they do have to have priorities as to how they will spend their resources and their troops. But we will continue to press them to go after all of the extremists in Pakistan, some of whom target Pakistan, some of whom, as you know, target Afghanistan. And we think there has to be an effort to root out the extremists in Pakistan who threaten Afghanistan.
So that is the message that I took to Pakistan when I was there a few weeks ago. It’s the message that I continue to stress with our friends in Pakistan. Because we know that there is a cross-border fertilization of extremism and terrorism. Afghanistan cannot get control over its territory and defeat the Taliban if they can go across the border into Pakistan as a safe haven. And similarly, Pakistan cannot root out the people that threaten them and their government if they can seek refuge across the border in Afghanistan.
So that’s why we look at Afghanistan and Pakistan together when it comes to this fight against terrorism.
QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. And my last question: There are reports in the media that U.S. is negotiating specific benchmarks with Afghanistan and Pakistan to pave the way for the withdrawal of international troops from Afghanistan. Can you speculate on these benchmarks?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t think that they’re benchmarks that are as you describe them. I think what we’re trying to do is create some measurements that can determine whether we’re succeeding. I had a long discussion with the minister of defense, Minister Wardak. He’s very pleased at how much better integrated the Afghan military is with ISAF and the troops under the ISAF command. There’s more sharing of intelligence. There are more joint missions, more joint training.
That’s a good benchmark. That’s the kind of benchmark we’re looking at, because what we want to see is how can we determine that we’re making progress on the path that President Karzai outlined today, where your military will have what it needs to begin to take responsibility for much of the country moving toward the primary responsibility for all of the country.
Now, the United States wants to have a long-term relationship with Afghanistan. But we don’t see it as always primarily a military relationship, where we are putting our troops in to do combat. We see over time the professionalization of the Afghan military so that we would provide advice and training, certain kinds of support that you might not have on your own. But we also have a big civilian commitment. We have tripled the number of civilians who are doing development work, who are working with your government to build capacity within in your government.
That, to us, is equally important, and we want to be there for the long term to help Afghanistan increase the educational system, improve the healthcare system, see agriculture resume the rightful place that it used to have in Afghanistan where so many people know that it was the garden district of Central Asia with the orchards and the exports. And there’s a lot of good promise that we see in Afghanistan, and we want to be a good friend and a partner to help you achieve that.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. Yeah.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. It’s great to talk to you.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. It was very nice meeting you.
HILLARY'S INTERVIEW WITH KIM GHATTAS OF BBC
Interview With Kim Ghattas of BBC
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
U.S. Embassy Kabul
Kabul, Afghanistan
November 19, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, you’ve just attended the inauguration of President Hamid Karzai for his second term. Now, you and your allies, including the British, have made very clear that you didn’t want to see cronies, you didn’t want to see warlords in the government, and yet, there they were sitting in the front row.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think what was significant about today is the speech that President Karzai gave outlining the way forward for his government and for his people. It was both visionary in the sense that it painted a picture of what he’d like to see in Afghanistan by the end of his second term, and it was very specific about how he was going to tackle corruption, how they were going to build up their military forces and begin to defend their own country. I thought it was a very positive, comprehensive path forward. And I think the ministers who I have been meeting with over the last day are very impressive.
I’ve had briefings from the ministers of agriculture and education and finance and intelligence. And the picture in Afghanistan is much more positive than we often give it credit for. A lot of good things are happening. Seven million children, including 40 percent girls, are in school. When President Karzai took office, there were a million and they were all boys. So there’s a lot that has been accomplished. Are there still problems, challenges? As in any society, particularly one that went through 30 years of such dreadful warfare, of course. But I think that today was a very positive transition moment, and there’s a window of opportunity for the Karzai administration.
QUESTION: You mentioned a few ministers who impressed you. Are you suggesting that perhaps your approach could be to work with the ministers that you like and try to ignore those that you have a problem with?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that there are a lot of ministers who are very professional and have a clear set of objectives that they are attempting to achieve. They’re the majority; they are the ones that we do work with mostly. We will continue to do so. We are working with our international allies to build up those ministries that we think have the most direct impact on both the security and the well-being of the people of Afghanistan. And there are a lot of opportunities here for us to pursue. So I am coming away from my meetings yesterday, the events today, more meetings, and the inaugural speech, encouraged, very realistic about the challenges ahead, but nevertheless, I think that we have an opportunity here to work well together.
QUESTION: You have made clear to Hamid Karzai and his government that they need to, in essence, clean up their act. But what if they don’t? I mean, is it a you should do this or else? I mean, what sort of leverage do you have? I mean, he knows that American troops aren’t simply going to pack up and leave because you and President Barack Obama have said the fight that American soldiers are fighting here are in America’s national interest.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Kim, I think that we are going to work hard to make progress together. There’s always consequences. We know that. They know that. We have impressed that upon them. But given the attitude of the people in the government with whom I met, the resolution and determination that they exhibited, let’s try to make progress together. And I don’t want to predict anything not succeeding. I’d rather work as hard as I can, along with others, to make it to succeed.
QUESTION: Well, what sort of consequences would those be? You’ve mentioned for the first time a few days ago that aid would not continue to flow to Afghanistan if there wasn’t an accountable government. Is that a realistic approach? I mean, withholding aid would undermine your dual strategy here, civilian and military.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we hope it never comes to that. But from the beginning of this Administration, I worked with our Special Representative Ambassador Holbrooke to do two things: create a certification process where we could certify those agencies of the government that we thought were functioning well and could do even better with the appropriate support and resources; and over time, to begin increasing our financial aid for them, so that we are really empowering and creating the capacity that the government needs to deliver services. And we’ve made real progress there. We’ve gone from 10 percent of the aid being directed to the agencies of government to 20 percent. We’re on a path to 40 percent, something that President Karzai mentioned in his speech. But it’s through a very rigorous analysis of who we can really count on to spend that money the way we intend it to be spent.
QUESTION: There’s some suggestion that you would consider working more with partners at the local level in districts, provincial governors, to make sure that the cash doesn’t flow into the hands of corrupt ministers, for example. Is that something that you are considering?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, in fact, I discussed that with President Karzai last night, that we believe that in a country such as Afghanistan, power does need to be decentralized, that much of what happens in people’s daily lives happens not from the central government in Kabul, but from their local district leader, their local tribal elder or chief. So yes, we are going to work with our allies, with the Karzai government, to try to increase the capacity of local governance as well.
But we think that’s a reinforcing strategy. Because just as we have decentralized power in the United States, where certain responsibilities are expected from the local government compared to the national government, when President Karzai talked about the emphasis that will be placed on building up the national security force, both the military and the police, that is a responsibility here in Kabul. But when the agriculture minister spoke to me yesterday about enhancing agricultural productivity, that’s going to be carried out at the local level. So I think it’s that kind of analysis that will lead us to better direct the aid that we send.
QUESTION: I know you don’t want to discuss troop numbers, but I think one thing that everybody can agree on is that there will be more troops sent to Afghanistan. Do you feel comfortable after the conversations you’ve had here over the last two days, your meetings with President Karzai, do you feel comfortable sending more American troops to Afghanistan? Do you think it’s worth it?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t want to preempt the President and what he will announce when he announces his decision. But I do believe that, as I said before, we have a national security interest in going after the syndicate of terror that al-Qaida has helped to pull together, which includes elements of the Afghan and Pakistan Taliban. It is a direct threat to the United States, to our allies, our interests, our values. And we are determined to defeat al-Qaida.
Yet at the same time, we know we will be more successful in that effort if we help to build up the capacity of the Afghan Government and people to defend themselves. So it’s a not an either/or, it is a both/and. We are in Afghanistan originally, and still today, because of our being attacked on 9/11. But we want to have a long-term relationship with Afghanistan that is not solely defined by our military commitment. Because the more democratic, more stable, more prosperous Afghanistan becomes, the less likely it would ever again be a haven for terrorism. So this is a complicated calculation, but I think it’s the right one to look at.
QUESTION: What does success look like in Afghanistan in your eyes?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think the realization of the promise put forth in President Karzai’s speech today: a country able to defend itself; a country with economic opportunities where children are being educated, where the main industry in the country, namely agriculture, is more productive and creating greater incomes for people.
It was clear today in the speech that the president has a vision of where he wants to lead the country, and it was reassuring to people. It was exciting because it was such a statement of resolve. But the proof is in the pudding. Now we’ve got to work and make it happen. He knows that. His ministers know that. We’ve been meeting and talking with our counterparts from the other countries that supply troops and supply economic assistance of all kinds to say, look, how are we going to do a better job? It’s not just what we’re demanding of the Afghan Government and leadership. How do we better coordinate the donors? How do we really get everybody integrated into the military and defense and security strategy? How do we avoid duplication of efforts? There’s a lot of questions we have to be better at answering, and we’re going to take on that effort.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) one of the grievances that is often aired both here in Afghanistan and in Pakistan is that the U.S. has not always been exactly the most reliable of allies.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, as I said in Pakistan and I would repeat it here in Afghanistan, there is some truth to that concern that people have expressed to me in both countries. And I’m sure if I were in their shoes, I would feel the same way. That’s why I think it’s important that we define our relationship with Afghanistan on a long-term basis that is not primarily or exclusively military. Yes, we have a troop commitment. The President increased it last spring. He is looking at how he can best go forward now. And we want to make sure that any young man or woman from our country who we send to Afghanistan has the maximum chance of succeeding at the mission that we ask. But we’re also dramatically increasing our civilian presence. I just greeted some of the civilians who had lost their colleagues in a terrible incident about two weeks ago. And there are so many people who have come to Afghanistan as part of our civilian efforts in tripling the numbers this year.
So we want to have as clear an understanding of the civilian-military integrated strategy that we’re pursuing that we believe dovetails with the needs that the people and Government of Afghanistan have.
QUESTION: Karzai – President Karzai has been in and out of favor in Washington. He’s had stormy exchanges with some American officials. You seem to have a very good rapport with him. What has it been like to sit down with him over dinner? You had a very long conversation one-on-one with him as well. Are you appealing to him to think of his legacy? I mean, what are you discussing?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we’re discussing the challenges that he faces as the president of Afghanistan. I’ve known him for about seven years, a little over seven years, I guess. I’ve met with him numerous times here in Afghanistan, in the United States, at international conferences. I’ve always tried to listen to him to hear what’s really on his mind, his concerns, the way he views the problems that he faces, and then to be responsive but also to offer a perspective that perhaps is useful.
I think it’s clear that he really has turned his attention in a very focused way to what his legacy will be. He and his family have given 300 years of service to Afghanistan. He comes from a position of honor within the Pashtun culture in Kandahar. And he’s a real patriot, and he wants to be the leader who has ushered Afghanistan into the modern age, into a secure, democratic future.
Sometimes it’s easier to say that than to do it, and I understand that. I’m sympathetic, maybe because I’ve been in politics. It doesn't look as easy as it might from the outside as an expert or an academic or a diplomat or a bureaucrat might see it. There are so many tradeoffs in politics. I mean, you – in order to get things done, you often have to make compromises that are not very pleasant. And yet, you keep in mind always the larger goal. And I think President Karzai has a very large vision indeed of what he wants to see happen in Afghanistan in the next five years, and the really strong foundation he wants to lay for the future.
QUESTION: I want to finish with just one more question about the regional approach to stabilizing Afghanistan, because it is – the solution here is regional, and it involves Pakistan and it involves India. And there’s been a lot of talk about Pakistan, but not so much anymore recently about India. Are you looking at tackling the Kashmir problem to try to help Pakistan really move its focus to the border with Afghanistan?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we’ve encouraged both countries to resume a dialogue that they were engaged in which came to a halt and yet holds a lot of promise. They had made progress, I’m told, in sorting through some of the longstanding difficulties they face, and most particularly the status of Kashmir. But it’s clear that any solution has to come from the two countries themselves.
QUESTION: You’re not pushing?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we are encouraging them to get back into dialogue. We think that is important. But with respect to any resolution, that’s up to them.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, thank you very much for your time.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Nice to talk to you, as always.
QUESTION: Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
U.S. Embassy Kabul
Kabul, Afghanistan
November 19, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, you’ve just attended the inauguration of President Hamid Karzai for his second term. Now, you and your allies, including the British, have made very clear that you didn’t want to see cronies, you didn’t want to see warlords in the government, and yet, there they were sitting in the front row.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think what was significant about today is the speech that President Karzai gave outlining the way forward for his government and for his people. It was both visionary in the sense that it painted a picture of what he’d like to see in Afghanistan by the end of his second term, and it was very specific about how he was going to tackle corruption, how they were going to build up their military forces and begin to defend their own country. I thought it was a very positive, comprehensive path forward. And I think the ministers who I have been meeting with over the last day are very impressive.
I’ve had briefings from the ministers of agriculture and education and finance and intelligence. And the picture in Afghanistan is much more positive than we often give it credit for. A lot of good things are happening. Seven million children, including 40 percent girls, are in school. When President Karzai took office, there were a million and they were all boys. So there’s a lot that has been accomplished. Are there still problems, challenges? As in any society, particularly one that went through 30 years of such dreadful warfare, of course. But I think that today was a very positive transition moment, and there’s a window of opportunity for the Karzai administration.
QUESTION: You mentioned a few ministers who impressed you. Are you suggesting that perhaps your approach could be to work with the ministers that you like and try to ignore those that you have a problem with?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that there are a lot of ministers who are very professional and have a clear set of objectives that they are attempting to achieve. They’re the majority; they are the ones that we do work with mostly. We will continue to do so. We are working with our international allies to build up those ministries that we think have the most direct impact on both the security and the well-being of the people of Afghanistan. And there are a lot of opportunities here for us to pursue. So I am coming away from my meetings yesterday, the events today, more meetings, and the inaugural speech, encouraged, very realistic about the challenges ahead, but nevertheless, I think that we have an opportunity here to work well together.
QUESTION: You have made clear to Hamid Karzai and his government that they need to, in essence, clean up their act. But what if they don’t? I mean, is it a you should do this or else? I mean, what sort of leverage do you have? I mean, he knows that American troops aren’t simply going to pack up and leave because you and President Barack Obama have said the fight that American soldiers are fighting here are in America’s national interest.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Kim, I think that we are going to work hard to make progress together. There’s always consequences. We know that. They know that. We have impressed that upon them. But given the attitude of the people in the government with whom I met, the resolution and determination that they exhibited, let’s try to make progress together. And I don’t want to predict anything not succeeding. I’d rather work as hard as I can, along with others, to make it to succeed.
QUESTION: Well, what sort of consequences would those be? You’ve mentioned for the first time a few days ago that aid would not continue to flow to Afghanistan if there wasn’t an accountable government. Is that a realistic approach? I mean, withholding aid would undermine your dual strategy here, civilian and military.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we hope it never comes to that. But from the beginning of this Administration, I worked with our Special Representative Ambassador Holbrooke to do two things: create a certification process where we could certify those agencies of the government that we thought were functioning well and could do even better with the appropriate support and resources; and over time, to begin increasing our financial aid for them, so that we are really empowering and creating the capacity that the government needs to deliver services. And we’ve made real progress there. We’ve gone from 10 percent of the aid being directed to the agencies of government to 20 percent. We’re on a path to 40 percent, something that President Karzai mentioned in his speech. But it’s through a very rigorous analysis of who we can really count on to spend that money the way we intend it to be spent.
QUESTION: There’s some suggestion that you would consider working more with partners at the local level in districts, provincial governors, to make sure that the cash doesn’t flow into the hands of corrupt ministers, for example. Is that something that you are considering?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, in fact, I discussed that with President Karzai last night, that we believe that in a country such as Afghanistan, power does need to be decentralized, that much of what happens in people’s daily lives happens not from the central government in Kabul, but from their local district leader, their local tribal elder or chief. So yes, we are going to work with our allies, with the Karzai government, to try to increase the capacity of local governance as well.
But we think that’s a reinforcing strategy. Because just as we have decentralized power in the United States, where certain responsibilities are expected from the local government compared to the national government, when President Karzai talked about the emphasis that will be placed on building up the national security force, both the military and the police, that is a responsibility here in Kabul. But when the agriculture minister spoke to me yesterday about enhancing agricultural productivity, that’s going to be carried out at the local level. So I think it’s that kind of analysis that will lead us to better direct the aid that we send.
QUESTION: I know you don’t want to discuss troop numbers, but I think one thing that everybody can agree on is that there will be more troops sent to Afghanistan. Do you feel comfortable after the conversations you’ve had here over the last two days, your meetings with President Karzai, do you feel comfortable sending more American troops to Afghanistan? Do you think it’s worth it?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t want to preempt the President and what he will announce when he announces his decision. But I do believe that, as I said before, we have a national security interest in going after the syndicate of terror that al-Qaida has helped to pull together, which includes elements of the Afghan and Pakistan Taliban. It is a direct threat to the United States, to our allies, our interests, our values. And we are determined to defeat al-Qaida.
Yet at the same time, we know we will be more successful in that effort if we help to build up the capacity of the Afghan Government and people to defend themselves. So it’s a not an either/or, it is a both/and. We are in Afghanistan originally, and still today, because of our being attacked on 9/11. But we want to have a long-term relationship with Afghanistan that is not solely defined by our military commitment. Because the more democratic, more stable, more prosperous Afghanistan becomes, the less likely it would ever again be a haven for terrorism. So this is a complicated calculation, but I think it’s the right one to look at.
QUESTION: What does success look like in Afghanistan in your eyes?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think the realization of the promise put forth in President Karzai’s speech today: a country able to defend itself; a country with economic opportunities where children are being educated, where the main industry in the country, namely agriculture, is more productive and creating greater incomes for people.
It was clear today in the speech that the president has a vision of where he wants to lead the country, and it was reassuring to people. It was exciting because it was such a statement of resolve. But the proof is in the pudding. Now we’ve got to work and make it happen. He knows that. His ministers know that. We’ve been meeting and talking with our counterparts from the other countries that supply troops and supply economic assistance of all kinds to say, look, how are we going to do a better job? It’s not just what we’re demanding of the Afghan Government and leadership. How do we better coordinate the donors? How do we really get everybody integrated into the military and defense and security strategy? How do we avoid duplication of efforts? There’s a lot of questions we have to be better at answering, and we’re going to take on that effort.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) one of the grievances that is often aired both here in Afghanistan and in Pakistan is that the U.S. has not always been exactly the most reliable of allies.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, as I said in Pakistan and I would repeat it here in Afghanistan, there is some truth to that concern that people have expressed to me in both countries. And I’m sure if I were in their shoes, I would feel the same way. That’s why I think it’s important that we define our relationship with Afghanistan on a long-term basis that is not primarily or exclusively military. Yes, we have a troop commitment. The President increased it last spring. He is looking at how he can best go forward now. And we want to make sure that any young man or woman from our country who we send to Afghanistan has the maximum chance of succeeding at the mission that we ask. But we’re also dramatically increasing our civilian presence. I just greeted some of the civilians who had lost their colleagues in a terrible incident about two weeks ago. And there are so many people who have come to Afghanistan as part of our civilian efforts in tripling the numbers this year.
So we want to have as clear an understanding of the civilian-military integrated strategy that we’re pursuing that we believe dovetails with the needs that the people and Government of Afghanistan have.
QUESTION: Karzai – President Karzai has been in and out of favor in Washington. He’s had stormy exchanges with some American officials. You seem to have a very good rapport with him. What has it been like to sit down with him over dinner? You had a very long conversation one-on-one with him as well. Are you appealing to him to think of his legacy? I mean, what are you discussing?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we’re discussing the challenges that he faces as the president of Afghanistan. I’ve known him for about seven years, a little over seven years, I guess. I’ve met with him numerous times here in Afghanistan, in the United States, at international conferences. I’ve always tried to listen to him to hear what’s really on his mind, his concerns, the way he views the problems that he faces, and then to be responsive but also to offer a perspective that perhaps is useful.
I think it’s clear that he really has turned his attention in a very focused way to what his legacy will be. He and his family have given 300 years of service to Afghanistan. He comes from a position of honor within the Pashtun culture in Kandahar. And he’s a real patriot, and he wants to be the leader who has ushered Afghanistan into the modern age, into a secure, democratic future.
Sometimes it’s easier to say that than to do it, and I understand that. I’m sympathetic, maybe because I’ve been in politics. It doesn't look as easy as it might from the outside as an expert or an academic or a diplomat or a bureaucrat might see it. There are so many tradeoffs in politics. I mean, you – in order to get things done, you often have to make compromises that are not very pleasant. And yet, you keep in mind always the larger goal. And I think President Karzai has a very large vision indeed of what he wants to see happen in Afghanistan in the next five years, and the really strong foundation he wants to lay for the future.
QUESTION: I want to finish with just one more question about the regional approach to stabilizing Afghanistan, because it is – the solution here is regional, and it involves Pakistan and it involves India. And there’s been a lot of talk about Pakistan, but not so much anymore recently about India. Are you looking at tackling the Kashmir problem to try to help Pakistan really move its focus to the border with Afghanistan?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we’ve encouraged both countries to resume a dialogue that they were engaged in which came to a halt and yet holds a lot of promise. They had made progress, I’m told, in sorting through some of the longstanding difficulties they face, and most particularly the status of Kashmir. But it’s clear that any solution has to come from the two countries themselves.
QUESTION: You’re not pushing?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we are encouraging them to get back into dialogue. We think that is important. But with respect to any resolution, that’s up to them.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, thank you very much for your time.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Nice to talk to you, as always.
QUESTION: Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.
HILLARY'S PRESS CONFERENCE AT U.S. EMBASSY KABUL
Press Conference at U.S. Embassy Kabul
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Kabul, Afghanistan
November 19, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you all very much for being here. I want to start by thanking Ambassador Eikenberry and General McChrystal and all of the dedicated men and women of the U.S. and NATO ISAF missions here in Afghanistan. The work that Ambassador Eikenberry and General McChrystal are doing together, both their personal collaboration and the joint efforts of their teams, is a model for civilian-military cooperation and a source of confidence that we will make progress toward our objectives.
I also want to thank Ambassador Holbrooke and his team in Washington, who have provided vision and leadership to our efforts in this region.
This is an important moment. Today’s inauguration opens a real window of opportunity for a new compact between the Afghan Government and its people, and for a new chapter in the partnership between Afghanistan and the international community. And we must seize this moment. For the United States and Afghanistan, this means a renewed partnership based on mutual responsibility, where we each do our part to deliver for the Afghan people and to advance our common fight against our common enemy.
President Karzai’s inaugural address provides an important new starting point, and we intend to build on it. The speech laid out Afghanistan’s commitment to take responsibility for the security of its own country by speeding efforts to stand up a capable and effective Afghan national security force that can replace international forces over time. The United States shares this same objective, and we welcome this strong commitment.
Of course, our civilian effort will remain long after our security effort has concluded, and it will be just as decisive to Afghanistan’s future and our interests. So I was pleased that the inaugural speech also outlined the steps the Afghan Government will take to improve its efforts to deliver for its citizens, to bring them basic services, access to justice, and the educational and economic opportunities they deserve.
It’s an effort that will require steady progress on government capacity, transparency, and accountability. It will also require us to pursue a broader and deeper partnership with capable Afghan ministries responsible for carrying out their own programs. Last night, I met with the education and agriculture and finance ministers, and received detailed briefings on past progress and future plans.
Through their work and our support, we are starting to see results. Farmers are beginning to switch from poppies to pomegranates, girls are attending schools – many taught by newly trained teachers, families are visiting new health clinics and driving on freshly paved roads. Thousands of new civil servants, trained through a partnership with USAID, are helping build democratic institutions from the ground up.
Moving forward as we work with President Karzai and his government in Kabul and leaders at the local, district, and provincial levels, we will keep in mind that our most critical partnership is with the people of Afghanistan. We will use clear benchmarks and measures to ensure that our efforts are delivering results for them. We will also coordinate with our international partners to ensure we are engaged in a common and effective effort in service of their needs as well as our common interests. I had a series of extremely productive discussions with my counterparts here, with the foreign ministers from troop-contributing countries, donor countries, and those who have a stake in the future of Afghanistan.
Now, as we call for accountability from others, we will hold ourselves accountable as well. That’s why we are working to ensure that development funds are tracked, accounted for, and used as intended; that our detention facilities and procedures are consistent with our security and our values; that we do everything we can to minimize civilian casualties.
I am here in Afghanistan and so many brave Americans are serving here because we believe that we can make progress. Now, we are under no illusions about the difficulty of this mission. The road ahead is fraught with challenges and imperfect choices. Setbacks are inevitable, and we have to be realistic about what we can accomplish. But we are also clear-eyed about the stakes. For the Afghan people, it is about a better future. For the United States, it is about protecting our people, our allies, and our interests. That is why we are working so hard to renew this partnership and why it is so vital that we seize this moment, this crucial window of opportunity.
Again, I want to thank everyone serving here and really express, on behalf of not only President Obama and the Obama Administration but our country as well, our gratitude for the service of the men and women who serve the United States of America. Thank you all very much.
MODERATOR: The first question is going to be (inaudible) TV.
QUESTION: (Via interpreter) First of all, let me thank you and – for coming here to Afghanistan and the inauguration ceremony. My first question is that whether President Karzai has not bring any reforms in his new cabinet, and the second is that if there is a six-month deadline as you’ve given to President Karzai to bring reforms? And the third is that – the question of whether the U.S. – Mr. Ambassador Eikenberry has said that more forces should not be sent to Afghanistan, in contrast to the request that was made by General McChrystal.
So in those cases, the first few cases, whether the United States will leave Afghanistan or will work with the new government if President Karzai does not make any changes or if that deadline is not achieved in six months time?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, I thought that the inaugural speech that President Karzai gave today set forth an agenda for change and reform. He was particularly strong on the steps that he intends to take regarding corruption, the idea that government officials will have to register their assets so that any money or other influence can be more easily tracked is a very bold proposal.
So we are heartened by what we see as the agenda for change and reform that was outlined by President Karzai. We think that the issue now is to ensure that it is implemented, that we see results. I had a number of conversations with President Karzai, and I know that he has every intention of moving on these reform measures to stand against corruption and to make the Government of Afghanistan even more effective.
Also, I think what you have seen in the debate in the United States is a very serious effort to try to analyze all the different aspects of the decision that has to be made. And I’m very proud that we have a country and we have a President who really encourages people to express themselves, so that we don’t leave any questions. We try to answer all the questions. And I think when President Obama makes his announcement, he will be very well prepared to express the significance of his decision because he will have asked, and asked many others to contribute to the debate.
I want to make something very clear: Our relationship with Afghanistan is not exclusively military. Obviously, we have troops here along with our allies to try to assist the people of Afghanistan in defeating the terrorist threat. But we also are committed to a long-term relationship with Afghanistan to assist the people of this country in having a better future, having the education and healthcare opportunities, ensuring that the farmers can be productive and have a good income going forward, helping with infrastructure that will enhance the economy of Afghanistan.
So we see our relationship as very broad and deep, and our approach now is to focus on security so that the people of Afghanistan can feel that they are free from intimidation and threats from our common enemy, but it is much more than that as well.
MODERATOR: The next question is Chris Lawrence of CNN.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, Iran now says that it will not export its uranium for further processing, and its courts have now decided to give the death sentence to two – or five, I should say – of its election protestors. How do these two developments affect your efforts to engage Iran in the process?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think it’s clear that the President and our Administration have made a good-faith effort to reach out to the Iranian leadership. The effort to engage Iran through the P-5+1 process with the offer (inaudible) to Iran, or to ship out its low-enriched uranium in order for it to be reprocessed outside of Iran, had the unified support of the international community. And according to press reports, Iran may well be prepared to reject that offer at the IAEA Board of Governors meeting next week.
And it is important to remember that our approach to Iran was always a dual-track one. On the one hand, we said we would reach out to see whether or not there could be any common discussions about their nuclear program, other problems that we and many countries in the region have with Iran. But we also said that there was a second track, and that track was to work toward consequences for Iran if engagement did not work. As recently as the United Nations meeting in New York in September, I joined with the foreign ministers of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China, as well as the EU in signing a document which said basically that. So we will proceed accordingly.
But I do think it is a very unfortunate, distressing development to see these sentences handed down in Iran, imposing the death penalty on people who participated in expressing their opposition to the government in demonstrating in the streets, and it underscores the approach that this government in Iran takes for their own people. So we will proceed on our international track and we will continue to stand up for the rights of the people of Iran to speak for themselves, to have their votes counted, to be given the opportunity to have the measure of freedom and rights that any person deserves to have.
MODERATOR: Okay. The next question is BBC (inaudible).
QUESTION: (Via interpreter) My question, please, Secretary Clinton, is that today in the inauguration ceremony, we saw the two warlords standing on each side of President Karzai. So if people like this remain in the future government, what will be the reaction of the United States Government in the future?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we understand the concerns that have been expressed about this. We have certainly conveyed those concerns ourselves. What we are looking for in the second term of President Karzai is an effective government that respects the rights of the people of Afghanistan, delivers services to them, responds in a transparent and accountable way to the concerns of the people. Anyone who’s in the government should agree with that kind approach that President Karzai outlined today.
And we expect that the government he is putting together will abide by the directions that his inaugural speech set. And we want to work with a government that is ready to meet the needs of the people of this country, and that is our priority and that’s what we’re going to expect from the government.
MODERATOR: Final question is to Nick Kralev of Washington Times.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, I wanted to ask you about two issues that the president mentioned in his speech. And the first was his goal that in five years Afghan troops will take responsibility for the security of the entire country and the foreign troops out. Is that goal too ambitious? Do you think it’s doable? And what’s the link between that goal and to what might happen to the American troops?
And the second question on corruption. He wasn’t very specific in what he said. He was very general and vague. In your private meetings with him and his ministers, were they any more specific about the measures they have in mind to prove to you that they have really resolved to fight corruption?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, as to the first question, I was personally pleased to see the president set an ambitious goal for the training of the Afghan national security forces. It is a goal that he believes can be met. We want to assist him and the military and police leadership in Afghanistan to move as quickly as they can to stand up and deploy a professional, motivated, effective force on behalf of the people of this country.
And I think that both the analysis that General McChrystal has made and the analysis that’s been made within the Afghan Government is that we can do more, we can provide greater support to assist them in doing that. And we intend to follow through. It is clearly one of the highest priorities, both for the government and people of Afghanistan, as well, as for our NATO ISAF leadership here, because the goal is to create conditions of security that will be able to be transferred and maintained by the Afghan security forces. And we are – we’re going to work with the president to try to move toward the goal that he set.
Secondly, I had a somewhat different reaction. I’ve sat through a lot of inaugural speeches, and they often don’t get down to specifics at all. As I recall, the president talked about the registration of assets, which is a very tangible demand that will be placed on government officials, the major crimes tribunal, the end of a culture of impunity. I thought that the commitment that we heard today from President Karzai gives us all a very strong base on which to measure the actions taken by his government. He could have been very vague and talked about how we’re all against it and we all want to end it, but he got much more specific. And we’re going to – along with the people of Afghanistan – watch very carefully as to how that’s implemented.
So thank you all very much. It’s been wonderful being back here, and I really appreciate the chance to participate in this historic day here in Afghanistan. Thank you.
INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT KARSAI'S SECOND TERM
Meet and Greet at Embassy Kabul with Employees and Their Families
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Karl W. Eikenberry
Ambassador to Afghanistan, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs
Embassy Kabul
Kabul, Afghanistan
November 18, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMBASSADOR EIKENBERRY: Well, good evening, members of this very great United States civilian and military and Afghan team. We’re deeply honored and very pleased to have with us today the 67th Secretary of State of the United States of America, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Today, Afghanistan is at the forefront of American diplomatic and national security policy, a welcome and essential change after years during which this mission was under-resourced and unable to fully tackle the many challenges our country and the international community have faced here.
But with the President’s new strategy in March came very distinct emphasis on a joint civilian-military effort, a new clarity about our mission and the resources we have so long needed. And we’re blessed to have a Secretary of State who has provided us with the vision, the funds, the personnel, and the leadership to transform this Embassy into a powerhouse unlike any other embassy in the world today.
She’s given us all in this extraordinary team the tools that we need to be successful. Madame Secretary, it’s a very distinct honor to introduce you to the members of the greatest U.S. mission anywhere in the world. (Laughter.)
Ladies and gentlemen, the Secretary of State of the United States of America, Hillary Rodham Clinton. (Applause.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much. It is absolutely wonderful to see you and to have a chance to be here to thank you – thank you for your service, thank you for your dedication, your commitment, your professionalism. I am absolutely delighted and honored to have a chance to greet you on my fourth trip to Afghanistan and to have a briefing and a greater understanding of what challenges you’re facing, what opportunities you are pursuing. So I thank you so very much.
And I have to tell you that most ambassadors say I want to introduce you to the greatest American mission in the world, but I do think that Ambassador Eikenberry did not overstate. And so therefore, thank you so much. (Applause.)
And I want to thank Ambassador Eikenberry, who continues his life of service to this country that he has loved and protected and defended and represented, and I especially want to thank his wife, Ching, for making so many people feel so welcome as they come here and want to know more about what we are doing. We have a plethora of ambassadors here – (laughter) – and I want to thank Frank and his wife, Marie, and Tony and everybody, because we beefed up this Embassy because we knew that we needed to have all hands on deck, that we were going to be asking a lot of you, that we were redefining and deepening our partnership with the people and Government of Afghanistan, so we brought in a lot of extraordinary talent.
We also have an operation in Washington that Ambassador Holbrooke leads as the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, because of course, one of the conclusions we reached in the spring with President Obama’s review of the situation that was in place when he became President was the need to integrate our civilian and military strategy, to look at Afghanistan and Pakistan and the entire region as a whole, to understand the courage and the bravery, the commitment, and the hope of the people of Afghanistan. Because after all, this is their country and this is what we hope that they will be able to take leadership over, defend, and protect, now and into the future. So I could not be prouder to be here.
This Embassy, as you know, was protected during the hardest times by locally employed staff. The American flag flew here for 12 years while we were not present. And to me, that says more than any speech could about the true connection between the American people and the people of Afghanistan. So I want to personally thank all of our locally employed staff. Let’s give a round of applause to you. (Applause.)
I bring greetings from President Obama, whom I just left in China. He is deeply grateful, as we all are, for your service. And we know the sacrifices that you and your families have made to be here and to be part of this mission. It is a great tribute to your optimism as well as your expertise that you see what we see; that we can meet these challenges and we can provide the support that the government and the people deserve to have.
We stand at a critical moment on the eve of the inauguration of President Karzai’s second term. There is now a clear window of opportunity for President Karzai and his government to make a new compact with the people of Afghanistan to demonstrate clearly that we’re going to have accountability and tangible results that will improve the lives of the people who live throughout this magnificent country.
We want to be a strong partner with the government and the people of Afghanistan. And I always say both because it’s not either/or. It has to be both. And I will look forward to the conversations that I will be having with the president and others. We have engaged in a very careful and thoughtful review. When the President asked us to make this review, we wanted to question every assumption, we wanted to look at every possible decision. Because we know that this is a turning point that we all face together.
And I’m very impressed that we’ve had so much assistance from so many of you in providing ideas about the best way forward. Many of you were, as you know, chosen to come here. You were chosen not only by State and USAID, of course, but by Defense, by Justice, Treasury, Agriculture, FBI, DEA, or some other alphabet agency of our government. Because you were thought to have particular skills and savvy to be able to deliver what we need to do together with the government and people of Afghanistan. And we need your help. We need your help to guide our thinking and strategy in Washington. We need your feedback about what works and what doesn't work. We need your honest assessment.
When I became Secretary of State, I said that I wanted us to be using smart power. And that was a combination of what too often has been divided between our incredible military assets, so-called hard power, and our diplomacy and our development, so-called soft power. But in effect, we have done a disservice to both by separating them out and labeling them, instead of looking at what they could represent in the furtherance of our values and our interests around the world.
So smart power requires smart people, and that’s what each and every one of you represent. I think it’s fair to say that nobody knows better than our military commanders that troops alone cannot meet our goals of defeating al-Qaida, of helping the Afghans to get the capacity to defend themselves and provide governance that will result in positive changes for the people of this country.
The military has performed brilliantly time and time again in confronting terrorists and protecting civilians and training security forces and defending borders. But this has got to be a common joint strategy that we have to look at in that way from the beginning, not as an afterthought. And that’s what we are trying to demonstrate, and you are on the front lines of doing that.
We are on track to having close to a thousand American civilians here by the end of the year, tripling the number that we inherited back on January 20th. Whether you are a civil service officer or a foreign service officer, or a locally engaged staff, or an eligible family member, you are all integral to our strategic efforts here in Afghanistan.
And a lot of the work that we’re asking you to do is work that we think has long-term payoff. It may not be immediately apparent, like those of you working in agriculture to support food security and agribusiness, or those of you who are partnering with local governors to expand opportunities for modern banking and private enterprise, launching a “cash-for-work project” to clean water from the Kabul River, or supporting the first Afghan-led elections after 30 years of war, you are helping to create the conditions that will, we believe, assist in achieving the core objectives, not just by the international community or the Americans, but by the people and Government of Afghanistan.
And I want to note the excellent work of our Provincial Reconstruction Teams, all the PRTs who lead our development efforts in some of the most difficult and dangerous regions of the country.
There is one Embassy staff member in particular, a foreign service officer who has gone above and beyond the call of duty that I just wanted to mention, because to a great extent, he represents all of you. Last May, Matt Sherman was on a mission with military colleagues when the lead convoy vehicle struck an IED and flipped. Matt raced from the safety of his vehicle to assist the wounded soldiers. And in recognition of his courageous and selfless actions, the troops of Task Force Spartan, Third Brigade Command Team, 10th Mountain Division, from upstate New York, nominated him – let’s give a round of applause for Fort Drum, okay?[1](Applause.) The 10th Mountain Division were the first American soldiers to come to Afghanistan after 9/11. I had the honor, when I was a senator from New York, escorting President Karzai to Fort Drum to thank the 10th Mountain Division and to recognize their sacrifice.
Well, the Task Force and the Brigade Command Team and the 10th Mountain Division have nominated Matt Sherman for the Department of State Award for Heroism. And Matt – where’s Matt? Matt, come up here. Matt, please. (Applause.)
Well, Matt, we have approved – big surprise – we have approved – (laughter) – this award in appreciation for your outstanding service. As I said, there are a lot of people who have performed just extraordinary and admirable service on behalf of the United States.
The President and I know this is hard work in a hard place. I’m not coming here to give you happy talk and just say onward and upward. I’m coming to tell you how important what you do is, how absolutely essential your service and commitment has to be to whatever can be achieved here.
We know that the security and logistical challenges you face are considerable. I’m working with Ambassador Eikenberry to improve the quality of life here at post – although I have to tell you, it looks a lot better than it did when I was here in ’03 – to address some of the overcrowding. We are moving forward with efforts to de-mine the multi-acre lot nearby and expand the Embassy compound to provide a more comfortable and safe work environment.
We ask a lot of you, but we do it because we really believe in you, and you believe in our mission. So I want to thank each and every one of you. I’m so grateful for the opportunity to be here with you.
I want to take a few minutes to say hello to you. I know some of the locally engaged staff want to get home, and I appreciate that. So I’ll try to see as many of you, and then please leave so you can get home to your families. But I’m very, very grateful. God bless you, and God bless America. (Applause.)
HILLARY'S ADDRESS TO U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN
Address to U.S. and International Troops in Afghanistan
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Kabul, Afghanistan
November 19, 2009
Thanks a lot. Thank you. Well, I am delighted to have this chance to come by and thank you in person for what you’re all doing. I’m very grateful to the leadership that both General McChrystal and General Rodriguez are giving to NATO-ISAF and to our American team. But I know that the work that’s done every single day is done by all of you in every aspect of this mission. I know we’ve got some of our allied partners here, and I want to thank all of them for representing their countries and being part of this extraordinary international effort.
I just want to make three quick points. First, we are here for a purpose, and this is a mission that is important to the United States and to those who have joined us in it. It’s a mission that partners with the people and Government of Afghanistan against a common enemy that poses a threat not only to people here, but people back at home, wherever you may be from. And that’s why I really express on behalf of certainly our country – President Obama and our Administration and the American people – our gratitude for your willingness to serve.
Secondly, we have to do everything we can to create the capacity of the Afghan Government and the Afghan people to protect themselves. And I was very pleased to hear today when President Karzai said that he hopes that within three years, the Afghan security forces will have the lead in important areas, and within five years – which is an ambitious goal, but he stated it – the Afghan security forces would have the lead throughout the country.
Now, there would probably be the necessity for continuing partnering, advising, training, but to take the lead and to take the fight to the enemy is what he said he wanted to see happen. And the only way that could happen is by the work that you do – the training, the mentoring, the support that you give to your Afghan counterparts. And we’re going to be giving you the kind of encouragement that you need to be able to help deliver on this goal that President Karzai set for Afghanistan.
Thirdly, I know that serving here is challenging. There are a lot of sacrifices, most particularly not being able to see your family and friends for long periods of time, and that many of you have been here not just once, but twice, three times, and I met somebody today who is on his fourth tour. So I really appreciate your willingness to serve, but I also know that for everybody who serves, there’s a family that serves as well, that’s trying to take care of everything and hold it together back wherever home is. And I hope if you email or you call or you write, you’ll let them know that I’m grateful for their service as well. Because we couldn’t have, in the United States, the superb, all-volunteer service we have if it wasn’t a family commitment. Parents, spouses, kids, everybody knows that when you sign up, there’s no predictability about where you’re going to be and how often they’re going to get to see you. And I guess as a mom, I’d say be sure you write home and email and all of that. (Laughter.)
But finally, especially for our Americans, we have our national holiday coming up next week. I spent Thanksgiving of 2003 in Afghanistan and I’ve never eaten so much in my life. (Laughter.) I had one meal in Kabul and another meal in Bagram and I had a third meal at Kandahar. So I have no worries that you’re not going to be well-fed come next Thursday. But I do know that that is a special time in a lot of people’s lives and particularly in a lot of people’s families, so it kind of maybe exacerbates a little bit the missing of those rituals and that kind of camaraderie and family time, from the football games that you watch on the couch instead of staying up late to see them.
But I want to especially wish you a Happy Thanksgiving. Now there are a lot of things that I’m grateful for and that the American people are grateful for, and at the top of my list is all of you. I’ve had the great privilege of working with, meeting, supporting our troops for a long time. And I served for six years on the Senate Armed Services Committee and got a firsthand view of a lot of the challenges, but also the extraordinary sense of meeting and purpose that your service provides.
So let me thank you again and let me wish you all a very Happy Thanksgiving, and God bless you and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Kabul, Afghanistan
November 19, 2009
Thanks a lot. Thank you. Well, I am delighted to have this chance to come by and thank you in person for what you’re all doing. I’m very grateful to the leadership that both General McChrystal and General Rodriguez are giving to NATO-ISAF and to our American team. But I know that the work that’s done every single day is done by all of you in every aspect of this mission. I know we’ve got some of our allied partners here, and I want to thank all of them for representing their countries and being part of this extraordinary international effort.
I just want to make three quick points. First, we are here for a purpose, and this is a mission that is important to the United States and to those who have joined us in it. It’s a mission that partners with the people and Government of Afghanistan against a common enemy that poses a threat not only to people here, but people back at home, wherever you may be from. And that’s why I really express on behalf of certainly our country – President Obama and our Administration and the American people – our gratitude for your willingness to serve.
Secondly, we have to do everything we can to create the capacity of the Afghan Government and the Afghan people to protect themselves. And I was very pleased to hear today when President Karzai said that he hopes that within three years, the Afghan security forces will have the lead in important areas, and within five years – which is an ambitious goal, but he stated it – the Afghan security forces would have the lead throughout the country.
Now, there would probably be the necessity for continuing partnering, advising, training, but to take the lead and to take the fight to the enemy is what he said he wanted to see happen. And the only way that could happen is by the work that you do – the training, the mentoring, the support that you give to your Afghan counterparts. And we’re going to be giving you the kind of encouragement that you need to be able to help deliver on this goal that President Karzai set for Afghanistan.
Thirdly, I know that serving here is challenging. There are a lot of sacrifices, most particularly not being able to see your family and friends for long periods of time, and that many of you have been here not just once, but twice, three times, and I met somebody today who is on his fourth tour. So I really appreciate your willingness to serve, but I also know that for everybody who serves, there’s a family that serves as well, that’s trying to take care of everything and hold it together back wherever home is. And I hope if you email or you call or you write, you’ll let them know that I’m grateful for their service as well. Because we couldn’t have, in the United States, the superb, all-volunteer service we have if it wasn’t a family commitment. Parents, spouses, kids, everybody knows that when you sign up, there’s no predictability about where you’re going to be and how often they’re going to get to see you. And I guess as a mom, I’d say be sure you write home and email and all of that. (Laughter.)
But finally, especially for our Americans, we have our national holiday coming up next week. I spent Thanksgiving of 2003 in Afghanistan and I’ve never eaten so much in my life. (Laughter.) I had one meal in Kabul and another meal in Bagram and I had a third meal at Kandahar. So I have no worries that you’re not going to be well-fed come next Thursday. But I do know that that is a special time in a lot of people’s lives and particularly in a lot of people’s families, so it kind of maybe exacerbates a little bit the missing of those rituals and that kind of camaraderie and family time, from the football games that you watch on the couch instead of staying up late to see them.
But I want to especially wish you a Happy Thanksgiving. Now there are a lot of things that I’m grateful for and that the American people are grateful for, and at the top of my list is all of you. I’ve had the great privilege of working with, meeting, supporting our troops for a long time. And I served for six years on the Senate Armed Services Committee and got a firsthand view of a lot of the challenges, but also the extraordinary sense of meeting and purpose that your service provides.
So let me thank you again and let me wish you all a very Happy Thanksgiving, and God bless you and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
LOWEST APPROVAL RATING YET FOR OBAMA!!!!
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14. That matches the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President.
By a 3-to-1 margin, voters believe that tax cuts will create more jobs than additional government stimulus spending. Most also believe that canceling the rest of the stimulus spending will create more jobs than spending the money that’s been approved. On both topics, the Political Class disagrees.
-snip-
Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) now disapprove.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14. That matches the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President.
By a 3-to-1 margin, voters believe that tax cuts will create more jobs than additional government stimulus spending. Most also believe that canceling the rest of the stimulus spending will create more jobs than spending the money that’s been approved. On both topics, the Political Class disagrees.
-snip-
Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) now disapprove.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
PRESIDENT CLINTON BACK HOME FOR PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY'S 5TH ANNIVERSARY
Bill Clinton Back Home for Center Anniversary
Reported by: KARK 4 News
Wednesday, Nov 18, 2009
Little Rock's Clinton Presidential Center is now five years old.
Former President Bill Clinton was back home today to mark the occasion.
He joined a crowd of about 1,000 for an anniversary celebration luncheon that was set up under a large tent on the center's grounds.
Stepping up to the podium, Clinton compared the goal of the center with how it operates today.
"I wanted to build this library so people would come through here and leave and say, you know, I never voted for that guy, I didn't even necessarily agree with what he did but I tell you what, there really are consequences to elections," he said. "There really are consequences in government and it really matters who does what."
"We did a pretty good job of telling the story," he said. "We did a pretty good job of building a bridge to the 21st Century."
"The purpose of the library's history part," Clinton said, "is to show the power of the people to select elected officials who can do good things that enable us all to go forward together. The purpose of the Clinton School, of the work we've done, of all the work I do with AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, with the Clinton Global Initiative, is to show the power of private citizens to do public good, and both are important."
The Clinton Center is located on the banks of the Arkansas River on the city's east side. The now familiar landmark is home to the William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum, the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service, and the Little Rock offices of the Clinton Foundation.
In its first five years more than 1-and-a-half-million people have visited the library. More than 100-thousand students have participated in school tours. Ninety-thousand artifacts and 80-million pages of documents are housed there, and the library has created 2-billion-dollars in economic development for Downtown Little Rock.
To celebrate the anniversary, the library has been giving back to the community for the past five days.
"Five Days of Giving" Fast Facts:
* About 1,900 people visited the Center on Saturday and enjoyed free admission to the Library.
* More than 1,200 coats were donated through Tuesday as part of the Center’s coat drive. The coat drive ends tomorrow.
* 100 volunteers took part of a community service day on Tuesday. Volunteers from the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton School of Public Service, City Year Little Rock/North Little Rock and Bank of America participated in a renovation of Oak Forest Community Garden.
Reported by: KARK 4 News
Wednesday, Nov 18, 2009
Little Rock's Clinton Presidential Center is now five years old.
Former President Bill Clinton was back home today to mark the occasion.
He joined a crowd of about 1,000 for an anniversary celebration luncheon that was set up under a large tent on the center's grounds.
Stepping up to the podium, Clinton compared the goal of the center with how it operates today.
"I wanted to build this library so people would come through here and leave and say, you know, I never voted for that guy, I didn't even necessarily agree with what he did but I tell you what, there really are consequences to elections," he said. "There really are consequences in government and it really matters who does what."
"We did a pretty good job of telling the story," he said. "We did a pretty good job of building a bridge to the 21st Century."
"The purpose of the library's history part," Clinton said, "is to show the power of the people to select elected officials who can do good things that enable us all to go forward together. The purpose of the Clinton School, of the work we've done, of all the work I do with AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, with the Clinton Global Initiative, is to show the power of private citizens to do public good, and both are important."
The Clinton Center is located on the banks of the Arkansas River on the city's east side. The now familiar landmark is home to the William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum, the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service, and the Little Rock offices of the Clinton Foundation.
In its first five years more than 1-and-a-half-million people have visited the library. More than 100-thousand students have participated in school tours. Ninety-thousand artifacts and 80-million pages of documents are housed there, and the library has created 2-billion-dollars in economic development for Downtown Little Rock.
To celebrate the anniversary, the library has been giving back to the community for the past five days.
"Five Days of Giving" Fast Facts:
* About 1,900 people visited the Center on Saturday and enjoyed free admission to the Library.
* More than 1,200 coats were donated through Tuesday as part of the Center’s coat drive. The coat drive ends tomorrow.
* 100 volunteers took part of a community service day on Tuesday. Volunteers from the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton School of Public Service, City Year Little Rock/North Little Rock and Bank of America participated in a renovation of Oak Forest Community Garden.
HEALTH CARE "RATIONING"/"DEATH PANELS" HAVE ALREADY BEGUN!!!
Updated November 18, 2009
White House Takes Aim at Critics of New Breast Cancer Guidelines
by Cristina Corbin
, FOXNews.com
In a blog posted to the Obama administration's Web site late Tuesday, White House Deputy Communications Director Daniel Pfeiffer blasted critics of new guidelines that recommend against annual screening for breast cancer for women under 50, and took particular aim at an article posted on FoxNews.com.
The White House went on defense Wednesday about new government findings that advise against routine mammograms for women under 50, saying the guidelines are merely a recommendation and that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that produced the report out this week has "no power" to deny health care coverage.
But while the task force doesn't dictate coverage, critics say findings from the group could influence federal policy as Congress considers plans to overhaul the health care system.
"This is the way rationing, which my colleagues and I have warned about, will begin to enter the market place -- slowly, imperceptibly and lethally," Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn said in an e-mail to FoxNews.com.
Blackburn, of Tennessee, joined other Republican women in Congress on Wednesday to speak out in opposition to guidelines that recommend changing when and how women should be tested for the No. 2 cancer killer in women.
White House Deputy Communications Director Daniel Pfeiffer blasted critics of the guidelines in a blog posted to the administration's Web site late Tuesday, taking particular aim at an article posted on FoxNews.com.
"One of the hallmark tactics from opponents of health insurance reform has been to grab onto any convenient piece of information and twist it into some misguided attack on reform -- no matter how unrelated it may actually be," wrote Pfeiffer. "Today they're going back to that playbook again, and Fox News obliges them."
In a Q&A developed for the Web site, Pfeiffer wrote that under the health insurance reform being considered in Congress, the USPTF does not have the power to deny insurance coverage but "their recommendations would be used in health reform to identify effective clinical preventive services."
"While the bills are still being drafted and debated in Congress, health insurance reform legislation generally calls for the task force's recommendations to help determine the types of preventive services that must be provided for little or no cost. The recommendations alone cannot be used to deny treatment," he wrote.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius added Wednesday she does not believe the recommendations by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force would alter insurance coverage.
"The U.S. Preventive Service Task Force is an outside independent panel of doctors and scientists who make recommendations. They do not set federal policy and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government," she said.
The USPSTF, which reports to the Department of Health and Human Services, released its updated 2009 guidelines on Monday. It recommended against routine screening of women aged 40 to 49 years -- despite acknowledging evidence in the report that mammograms have reduced the mortality rate in younger women.
The task force advises that women aged 50 to 74 receive mammograms every other year and recommends against teaching breast self-examinations. The task force recommended in 2002 that all women over 40 should undergo a mammography every one to two years.
The panel says the recommendations apply to women 40 years or older "who are not at increased risk for breast cancer by virtue of a known underlying genetic mutation or a history of chest radiation."
In response, the American Cancer Society issued a statement Tuesday saying it still recommends annual mammograms for women 40 and over.
"Our experts make this recommendation having reviewed virtually all the same data reviewed by the USPSTF, but also additional data that the USPSTF did not consider," ACS said. "The USPSTF says that screening 1,339 women in their 50s to save one life makes screening worthwhile in that age group. Yet USPSTF also says screening 1,904 women ages 40 to 49 in order to save one life is not worthwhile. ... With its new recommendations, the USPSTF is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives; just not enough of them."
But Dr. Cathleen London, a family physician and clinical instructor at Boston University and Tufts School of Medicine, said routine screening of low risk women under 50 is unnecessary -- and often leads to false-positives. London said breast tissue is more dense in women in their 40s who have not yet undergone menopause.
"Let's be clear: We are talking about routine screening -- we're not talking a woman who comes in with a lump," she said.
The independent government panel of doctors and scientists has insisted that the cost of such preventive testing was not a factor in its assessment of breast cancer screening.
"These recommendations have nothing to do with any kind of analysis that addressed cost effectiveness," Dr. Diana Petitti, vice chairwoman of the panel, told CBS News in an interview Tuesday.
"Cost effectiveness was not a part of the discussion. Cost was not uttered in the room," she said.
But costs were referenced at least three times in the panel's report when assessing common types of breast cancer screenings, including clinical breast examinations, film and digital mammographies, and magnetic resonance imaging -- or MRIs.
"Digital mammography is more expensive than film mammography," the guidelines note, while MRIs are "much more expensive" than either film or digital mammography.
"They [the White House] want to say that you can't connect those dots," said Rep. Phillip Gingrey, R-Ga., a practicing obstetrician and gynecologist for 26 years. "We clearly can connect them."
Gingrey and others say they fear insurance companies will seize upon the guidelines to deny coverage to women under 50 who do not have an increased risk for harmful genetic mutations -- like BRCA1 or BRCA2, genes that when mutated have been linked to breast cancer.
"The White House can deny all day long but eventually the denial will be for patient care and this is known as rationing," he said.
"Mammograms and other preventive screenings should be provided on demand and in consultation with a doctor, not doled out on the recommendation of a distant panel in Washington," added Blackburn.
Sebelius said she recommends women continuing doing what they are doing -- consulting their doctors on what's best for them. She added that the task force "has presented some new evidence for consideration but our policies remain unchanged."
"I would be very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage decisions as a result of this action," she added.
In supporting its argument against routine mammograms for women under 50, the task force notes "potential harms" of mammography testing, including anxiety, distress and additional "invasive procedures" like biopsies or fine-needle aspirations that may come as a result of false-positives.
"False positives are common with mammography and can cause anxiety," the report states.
Rep. Phillip Roe, R-Tenn., a retired obstetrician and gynecologist, said the benefits of mammograms far outweigh potential "burdens" or "harms" that may come as a result of the screening.
"No one ever died of extreme anxiety. People die of breast cancer," he said.
But advocates of the new recommendations say they hope they will lead to more efficient testing methods.
Dr. Eric Braverman, a clinical assistant professor of integrative medicine at Cornell Weill Medical College in New York says mammograms are not nearly as effective in detection as some other tests, like MRIs and ultrasounds.
"I'm not impressed by mammograms in general," said Braverman, who called manual examinations a "total failure."
"I support the new guidelines because I think it will lead to better testing. [The ultrasound] is a better screening procedure that's safer and easier and picks up things fast," he said, adding that he thinks women should receive ultrasounds as part of their routine medical exams, beginning at an early age.
*********************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
Does Obama really think the American people are that stupid? Is it just a "coincidence" that these new findings against yearly mammograms coincides with his obsessive determination to ram through any kind of piece of shit health care plan? The very second I heard this on the news, the very first thing that came to my mind is "oh, it's starting already. They're getting ready to ration health care. They don't even have the FUCKING plan yet but they are already deciding on how they are going to make cutbacks. I have never lived through a presidency where every fucking day is yet another DISASTROUS DECISION by this administration!!
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! GOD SAVE US ALL!!!
PUMAS SAY, "WE TOLD YOU SO!!!"
White House Takes Aim at Critics of New Breast Cancer Guidelines
by Cristina Corbin
, FOXNews.com
In a blog posted to the Obama administration's Web site late Tuesday, White House Deputy Communications Director Daniel Pfeiffer blasted critics of new guidelines that recommend against annual screening for breast cancer for women under 50, and took particular aim at an article posted on FoxNews.com.
The White House went on defense Wednesday about new government findings that advise against routine mammograms for women under 50, saying the guidelines are merely a recommendation and that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that produced the report out this week has "no power" to deny health care coverage.
But while the task force doesn't dictate coverage, critics say findings from the group could influence federal policy as Congress considers plans to overhaul the health care system.
"This is the way rationing, which my colleagues and I have warned about, will begin to enter the market place -- slowly, imperceptibly and lethally," Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn said in an e-mail to FoxNews.com.
Blackburn, of Tennessee, joined other Republican women in Congress on Wednesday to speak out in opposition to guidelines that recommend changing when and how women should be tested for the No. 2 cancer killer in women.
White House Deputy Communications Director Daniel Pfeiffer blasted critics of the guidelines in a blog posted to the administration's Web site late Tuesday, taking particular aim at an article posted on FoxNews.com.
"One of the hallmark tactics from opponents of health insurance reform has been to grab onto any convenient piece of information and twist it into some misguided attack on reform -- no matter how unrelated it may actually be," wrote Pfeiffer. "Today they're going back to that playbook again, and Fox News obliges them."
In a Q&A developed for the Web site, Pfeiffer wrote that under the health insurance reform being considered in Congress, the USPTF does not have the power to deny insurance coverage but "their recommendations would be used in health reform to identify effective clinical preventive services."
"While the bills are still being drafted and debated in Congress, health insurance reform legislation generally calls for the task force's recommendations to help determine the types of preventive services that must be provided for little or no cost. The recommendations alone cannot be used to deny treatment," he wrote.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius added Wednesday she does not believe the recommendations by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force would alter insurance coverage.
"The U.S. Preventive Service Task Force is an outside independent panel of doctors and scientists who make recommendations. They do not set federal policy and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government," she said.
The USPSTF, which reports to the Department of Health and Human Services, released its updated 2009 guidelines on Monday. It recommended against routine screening of women aged 40 to 49 years -- despite acknowledging evidence in the report that mammograms have reduced the mortality rate in younger women.
The task force advises that women aged 50 to 74 receive mammograms every other year and recommends against teaching breast self-examinations. The task force recommended in 2002 that all women over 40 should undergo a mammography every one to two years.
The panel says the recommendations apply to women 40 years or older "who are not at increased risk for breast cancer by virtue of a known underlying genetic mutation or a history of chest radiation."
In response, the American Cancer Society issued a statement Tuesday saying it still recommends annual mammograms for women 40 and over.
"Our experts make this recommendation having reviewed virtually all the same data reviewed by the USPSTF, but also additional data that the USPSTF did not consider," ACS said. "The USPSTF says that screening 1,339 women in their 50s to save one life makes screening worthwhile in that age group. Yet USPSTF also says screening 1,904 women ages 40 to 49 in order to save one life is not worthwhile. ... With its new recommendations, the USPSTF is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives; just not enough of them."
But Dr. Cathleen London, a family physician and clinical instructor at Boston University and Tufts School of Medicine, said routine screening of low risk women under 50 is unnecessary -- and often leads to false-positives. London said breast tissue is more dense in women in their 40s who have not yet undergone menopause.
"Let's be clear: We are talking about routine screening -- we're not talking a woman who comes in with a lump," she said.
The independent government panel of doctors and scientists has insisted that the cost of such preventive testing was not a factor in its assessment of breast cancer screening.
"These recommendations have nothing to do with any kind of analysis that addressed cost effectiveness," Dr. Diana Petitti, vice chairwoman of the panel, told CBS News in an interview Tuesday.
"Cost effectiveness was not a part of the discussion. Cost was not uttered in the room," she said.
But costs were referenced at least three times in the panel's report when assessing common types of breast cancer screenings, including clinical breast examinations, film and digital mammographies, and magnetic resonance imaging -- or MRIs.
"Digital mammography is more expensive than film mammography," the guidelines note, while MRIs are "much more expensive" than either film or digital mammography.
"They [the White House] want to say that you can't connect those dots," said Rep. Phillip Gingrey, R-Ga., a practicing obstetrician and gynecologist for 26 years. "We clearly can connect them."
Gingrey and others say they fear insurance companies will seize upon the guidelines to deny coverage to women under 50 who do not have an increased risk for harmful genetic mutations -- like BRCA1 or BRCA2, genes that when mutated have been linked to breast cancer.
"The White House can deny all day long but eventually the denial will be for patient care and this is known as rationing," he said.
"Mammograms and other preventive screenings should be provided on demand and in consultation with a doctor, not doled out on the recommendation of a distant panel in Washington," added Blackburn.
Sebelius said she recommends women continuing doing what they are doing -- consulting their doctors on what's best for them. She added that the task force "has presented some new evidence for consideration but our policies remain unchanged."
"I would be very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage decisions as a result of this action," she added.
In supporting its argument against routine mammograms for women under 50, the task force notes "potential harms" of mammography testing, including anxiety, distress and additional "invasive procedures" like biopsies or fine-needle aspirations that may come as a result of false-positives.
"False positives are common with mammography and can cause anxiety," the report states.
Rep. Phillip Roe, R-Tenn., a retired obstetrician and gynecologist, said the benefits of mammograms far outweigh potential "burdens" or "harms" that may come as a result of the screening.
"No one ever died of extreme anxiety. People die of breast cancer," he said.
But advocates of the new recommendations say they hope they will lead to more efficient testing methods.
Dr. Eric Braverman, a clinical assistant professor of integrative medicine at Cornell Weill Medical College in New York says mammograms are not nearly as effective in detection as some other tests, like MRIs and ultrasounds.
"I'm not impressed by mammograms in general," said Braverman, who called manual examinations a "total failure."
"I support the new guidelines because I think it will lead to better testing. [The ultrasound] is a better screening procedure that's safer and easier and picks up things fast," he said, adding that he thinks women should receive ultrasounds as part of their routine medical exams, beginning at an early age.
*********************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
Does Obama really think the American people are that stupid? Is it just a "coincidence" that these new findings against yearly mammograms coincides with his obsessive determination to ram through any kind of piece of shit health care plan? The very second I heard this on the news, the very first thing that came to my mind is "oh, it's starting already. They're getting ready to ration health care. They don't even have the FUCKING plan yet but they are already deciding on how they are going to make cutbacks. I have never lived through a presidency where every fucking day is yet another DISASTROUS DECISION by this administration!!
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! GOD SAVE US ALL!!!
PUMAS SAY, "WE TOLD YOU SO!!!"
HILLARY THE MOST POPULAR RISING STAR!!!!
It only took her being cheated out of the presidency and taking the position as Secretary of State for Hillary to FINALLY get the credit she has deserved all along!! And this guy spent three whole weeks with her. You can't "act" or "put on a show" for that long. I am really happy that Hillary seems to be so content and relaxed now. Put this video with the below article and wouldn't it be wonderful if we could FINALLY have PRESIDENT HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON IN 2012???
IF YOU BELIEVE THIS, I HAVE A BRIDGE I COULD SELL YA..........
Obama says it: There's a chance he won't run in 2012
KANSAS CITY STAR
November 18, 2009
In an interview with CNN in China, President Obama opened the possibility to not running for re-election in 2012 -- something that no president has done since Lyndon Johnson.
Here's what he said:
"You know, if - if I feel like I've made the very best decisions for the American people and three years from now I look at it and, you know, my poll numbers are in the tank and because we've gone through these wrenching changes, you know, politically, I'm in a tough spot, I'll - I'll feel all right about myself," Obama told CNN's Ed Henry.
"I said to myself very early on, even when I started running for office, I don't want to be making decisions based on getting re-elected, because I think the challenges that America faces right now are so significant," the president also said.
"Obviously, if I make those decisions and I think that I'm moving the country on the right direction economically, in terms of our security interests, our foreign policy, I'd like to think that those policies are continued because they're not going to bear fruit just in four years."
But in the next breath the president quickly sounded like someone who would relish taking his case to the American people in 2012, saying he's tackling big issues like health care and Iran that he's confident will bear fruit in the future.
How far-fetched is this. The quick answer: pretty.
But consider that Obama was the most reluctant presidential candidate in modern times and that he has a young family.
So, yea, there's a slim possibility that he's a no-go next time.
Oh, Obama said he doesn't have time to read Sarah Palin's new book.
*********************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
I have one word for this article: BULLSHIT!!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!
***********************************************************************
KANSAS CITY STAR
November 18, 2009
In an interview with CNN in China, President Obama opened the possibility to not running for re-election in 2012 -- something that no president has done since Lyndon Johnson.
Here's what he said:
"You know, if - if I feel like I've made the very best decisions for the American people and three years from now I look at it and, you know, my poll numbers are in the tank and because we've gone through these wrenching changes, you know, politically, I'm in a tough spot, I'll - I'll feel all right about myself," Obama told CNN's Ed Henry.
"I said to myself very early on, even when I started running for office, I don't want to be making decisions based on getting re-elected, because I think the challenges that America faces right now are so significant," the president also said.
"Obviously, if I make those decisions and I think that I'm moving the country on the right direction economically, in terms of our security interests, our foreign policy, I'd like to think that those policies are continued because they're not going to bear fruit just in four years."
But in the next breath the president quickly sounded like someone who would relish taking his case to the American people in 2012, saying he's tackling big issues like health care and Iran that he's confident will bear fruit in the future.
How far-fetched is this. The quick answer: pretty.
But consider that Obama was the most reluctant presidential candidate in modern times and that he has a young family.
So, yea, there's a slim possibility that he's a no-go next time.
Oh, Obama said he doesn't have time to read Sarah Palin's new book.
*********************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
I have one word for this article: BULLSHIT!!!!! BULLSHIT!!!! BULLSHIT!!!!
***********************************************************************
REP. JOHN BOEHNER'S FIVE COMMON SENSE STEPS TO CHANGE A BROKEN CONGRESS
Five Common-Sense Steps to Change a Broken Congress
by Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)
The American people have had it with “business as usual” in Congress. They are fed up with practices such as tucking special-interest provisions into bills behind closed doors, secretly changing bills without a vote, and passing bills no one has read. This has happened for far too long, but never before has the need for reform been more apparent than in the past year under Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and her Democratic majority.
Americans are demanding change in the way Congress works. Recognizing this, I and other reform-minded congressional Republicans this week will put forth a new transparency initiative – a series of common-sense congressional reforms aimed at bringing some much-needed openness and accountability to the House.
In just 10 months, with help from the Obama White House, Speaker Pelosi’s Congress has taken business-as-usual to a devastating new extreme. The American people have watched Congress rush through a massive “stimulus” spending bill no one read; a massive $410 billion omnibus spending bill loaded with thousands of un-scrutinized earmarks; and a new “cap and trade” national energy tax loaded with special-interest giveaways unveiled at 3:00 am on the morning before a vote.
Now the White House is pushing for a final year-end bill – which will be written in secret by the majority behind closed doors – to replace the current health care system with government-run care, and transform about one-sixth of our nation’s economy. The bill will be hammered out in a private, partisan House-Senate conference committee with no public access or scrutiny, in direct contradiction of President Obama’s pledge that such talks would be televised on C-SPAN.
These are the actions of a Democratic majority that has forgotten it’s the American people who are really in charge. These are actions designed to shut the American people out while politicians go about the business of limiting their freedom. And in an era of 10.2 percent unemployment, mounting debt, seemingly endless bailouts, and rapidly expanding government, these abuses are the last straw for the American people, who’ve clearly had enough.
Republicans have had enough, too. The House GOP congressional transparency initiative includes common-sense changes such as “read the bill” reform that would require all bills to be posted online for a minimum of 72 hours before they are brought to a vote. We also believe:
Members’ committee votes should be posted online within 48 hours so the American people can see how their representatives voted.
Committees should be required to post the text of adopted bills online within 24 hours of adoption to end the practice of “phantom amendments” being added to bills secretly after they pass at the committee level.
Major negotiations on sweeping bills that would dramatically expand the reach of the federal government – such as the current government takeover of health care – should be open to the public and subject to a full and honest debate when bills reach the floor.
Cameras should be allowed in the secretive House Rules Committee, the panel that decides which bills and amendments come to a vote.
Our transparency initiative calls for immediate implementation of all of these reforms. We’re calling on Speaker Pelosi to bring all of them to an immediate vote. If she won’t do it, a Republican majority will. You can read more about the House GOP congressional transparency initiative online, at http://gopleader.gov/readthebill.
Did Republicans miss an opportunity to enact common-sense changes like these when we were in the majority? Yes — and we won’t make the mistake again. With this initiative, we’re taking some common-sense steps to renew the drive for an open and accountable Congress. We recognize restoring the bonds of trust between the American people and their elected leaders starts with changing Congress itself. We hope Speaker Pelosi will join us, and allow these common-sense reforms to go forward.
by Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)
The American people have had it with “business as usual” in Congress. They are fed up with practices such as tucking special-interest provisions into bills behind closed doors, secretly changing bills without a vote, and passing bills no one has read. This has happened for far too long, but never before has the need for reform been more apparent than in the past year under Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and her Democratic majority.
Americans are demanding change in the way Congress works. Recognizing this, I and other reform-minded congressional Republicans this week will put forth a new transparency initiative – a series of common-sense congressional reforms aimed at bringing some much-needed openness and accountability to the House.
In just 10 months, with help from the Obama White House, Speaker Pelosi’s Congress has taken business-as-usual to a devastating new extreme. The American people have watched Congress rush through a massive “stimulus” spending bill no one read; a massive $410 billion omnibus spending bill loaded with thousands of un-scrutinized earmarks; and a new “cap and trade” national energy tax loaded with special-interest giveaways unveiled at 3:00 am on the morning before a vote.
Now the White House is pushing for a final year-end bill – which will be written in secret by the majority behind closed doors – to replace the current health care system with government-run care, and transform about one-sixth of our nation’s economy. The bill will be hammered out in a private, partisan House-Senate conference committee with no public access or scrutiny, in direct contradiction of President Obama’s pledge that such talks would be televised on C-SPAN.
These are the actions of a Democratic majority that has forgotten it’s the American people who are really in charge. These are actions designed to shut the American people out while politicians go about the business of limiting their freedom. And in an era of 10.2 percent unemployment, mounting debt, seemingly endless bailouts, and rapidly expanding government, these abuses are the last straw for the American people, who’ve clearly had enough.
Republicans have had enough, too. The House GOP congressional transparency initiative includes common-sense changes such as “read the bill” reform that would require all bills to be posted online for a minimum of 72 hours before they are brought to a vote. We also believe:
Members’ committee votes should be posted online within 48 hours so the American people can see how their representatives voted.
Committees should be required to post the text of adopted bills online within 24 hours of adoption to end the practice of “phantom amendments” being added to bills secretly after they pass at the committee level.
Major negotiations on sweeping bills that would dramatically expand the reach of the federal government – such as the current government takeover of health care – should be open to the public and subject to a full and honest debate when bills reach the floor.
Cameras should be allowed in the secretive House Rules Committee, the panel that decides which bills and amendments come to a vote.
Our transparency initiative calls for immediate implementation of all of these reforms. We’re calling on Speaker Pelosi to bring all of them to an immediate vote. If she won’t do it, a Republican majority will. You can read more about the House GOP congressional transparency initiative online, at http://gopleader.gov/readthebill.
Did Republicans miss an opportunity to enact common-sense changes like these when we were in the majority? Yes — and we won’t make the mistake again. With this initiative, we’re taking some common-sense steps to renew the drive for an open and accountable Congress. We recognize restoring the bonds of trust between the American people and their elected leaders starts with changing Congress itself. We hope Speaker Pelosi will join us, and allow these common-sense reforms to go forward.
NO ONE EVER FACT-CHECKS ANYTHING ON OBAMA!!!
November 18, 2009
Fact-Check This, Associated Press!
AMERICAN THINKER
By Jack Cashill
"I think Obama's in a league with TR," observes historian and presidential biographer Douglas Brinkley. "He created his political reputation through the written word."
To be sure, no one has ever accused Sarah Palin, a defeated vice presidential candidate, of creating her reputation thusly. One has to wonder, then, why her book, Going Rogue, would merit a fact-check by no fewer than eleven Associated Press reporters when neither the AP nor any other mainstream outlet has spent a moment vetting the books of the "author in chief," as President Barack Obama was anointed in a November GQ article, "Barack Obama's Work in Progress" by Tom Draper.
In an observant piece called the Road to Bali, blogger Tom Maguire addresses the implicit media balance. He does so by calling attention to just one relevant question that the media might have profitably asked our president: did you take new bride Michelle to Bali with you in 1993?
In the course of asking that question, not terribly significant in and of itself, Maguire sheds light on a more substantive question: why have the media paid so little attention to how Barack Obama came to write the book that would make his reputation -- his acclaimed 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father?
As source, Maguire turns to Draper, who has spent time with Michelle and Barack and written the most detailed account to date of the genesis of Dreams. Blinded by Obama's light, however, Draper fails to see the gaping holes in his own storyline.
As Draper tells it, a February 1990 New York Times article telling how Harvard has elected Obama president of the Harvard Law Review attracted the attention of a young agent named Jane Dystel. Draper implies that Obama's "irresistible" writing skills netted him the position, which is not at all true.
In fact, the election was a popularity contest held in racially charged environment. The culturally ambiguous Obama won on his race-healing talents, not his literary ones. He would contribute only one leaden, unsigned case note to the HLR and has not written another legal article since.
According to Draper, on November 28, 1990, Poseidon Press, a Simon & Schuster imprint, issued "a six-figure contract" to Obama for a book tentatively titled Journeys in Black and White. In his recent book, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of An American Marriage, Christopher Andersen specifies the amount at $150,000.
In the hope of recruiting Obama, the University of Chicago Law School offered him an office to use for finishing the book, and there he spent 1991 and 1992. Nearly two years passed, and Obama could not produce. Draper quotes an Obama confession to confidante Valerie Jarrett in 1992: "I just can't get it down on paper. ... I'd much rather hang out with Michelle than focus on this."
Although Draper would never say so, this represented a failure of character as much as it did a failure of talent. Obama had pocketed $75,000 of that advance in exchange for the promise of a manuscript by June 15, 1992. He had more than eighteen months to complete a memoir, the easiest of all genres. It required minimal research, no footnotes, and a narrative that needed not be factual as long as it was plausible.
As a point of comparison, I was offered a contract in April 2005 to write a memoir with a deadline of September 1, 2005. In other words, I had four months to do what Obama could not do in eighteen. To complicate matters, my memoir was to be a story about growing up in the age of Muhammad Ali. So in addition to writing, I read roughly 30-40 books on boxing and related subjects during that period and watched scores of fight films and documentaries.
I set as a goal a thousand words a day, and I made the September 1 deadline. It would have helped a lot if I had ever learned to type, but to me, missing the deadline was unthinkable if for no other reason than that I, like Obama, had signed a contract and accepted an advance. Although Sucker Punch was my fourth published book, I can assure you that my advance was considerably less than that of the untested Obama.
In any case, the June 15, 1992 deadline came and went without a manuscript from Obama. As Draper blithely notes, Obama had other things on his mind, namely his impending October 3rd marriage to Michelle. On October 20, 1992, according to Draper, Poseidon terminated Obama's contract.
Andersen adds a detail that mythmaker Draper chooses to omit. Obama feared that Simon & Schuster would demand the $75,000 already advanced. Writes Andersen, "But when Barack informed them that he had spent the money -- and that he and his wife were still chipping away at their massive student loan debt -- the publisher agreed not to press the issue." In other words, Obama asked for and received an undeserved bailout. A pattern was developing here.
The tenacious agent Jane Dystel managed to find another publisher, Times Books, and secured a smaller advance of $40,000. Draper tells us that Obama used the advance "to fulfill his outstanding financial obligation to Poseidon." Andersen's take sounds more credible.
"Now he's got to produce," writes Draper. "But how?" Although the sanctuary at the University of Chicago and a previous retreat to a friend's Wisconsin farm had done no good, Obama hit upon the idea of going to Bali to unblock. (For Sucker Punch, I went to my cabin on Lake Erie).
As blogger Maguire notes, the pre-election myth, advanced by the New York Times and others, is that Michelle accompanied him. Wrote the Times on May 18, 2008, Obama "eventually retreated to Bali for several months with his wife, Michelle."
A more recent and less romantic version, advanced by Draper and by the Times as well, is that Obama went by himself. "For a month," writes Draper, "he is a lone figure pacing on the white sand and hammering on his laptop."
Andersen describes the Obamas as "drowning in debt" during this period. How either Barack or Michelle could have afforded to go to Bali during this period, for one month or three, remains something of a mystery. Mysterious too is how the media could leave unresolved such glaring contradictions in the biography of the world's most famous man.
Maguire highlights still another hole in the Draper narrative. Incredibly, in a 5,000-word article on Obama's development as a writer, Draper says nothing about what happened between early 1993, when Obama returned from Bali, to June 1995, when Dreams was published. Draper leaves the impression that the month-long Bali high was just what Obama needed to fire his synapses.
Andersen is much more credible here. As he tells it, Bali proved no more helpful than any other retreat. At Michelle's urging, the "hopelessly blocked" Obama finally turned to "friend and Hyde Park neighbor" Bill Ayers to help him.
Andersen's details are specific. The Obamas were convinced of "Ayers's proven abilities as a writer." Barack particularly liked the novelistic style of To Teach, a 1993 book by Ayers. The key sentence in Andersen's account is this: "[The Obama family] oral histories, along with his partial manuscript and a trunkload of notes were given to Ayers."
Adds Andersen, "Thanks to help from veteran writer Ayers, Barack would be able to submit a manuscript to his editors at Times Books." Based on my own research, I would argue that Ayers actually wrote the book's best sections. Obama's previous published efforts show not a wisp of the skill on display in Dreams. Not surprisingly, Draper overlooks those early efforts.
With his man-crush trumping his critical insights, Draper chooses not to relate the fate of plucky agent Dystel. That story was hard to miss. The proudly liberal but seriously disgusted publisher Peter Osnos went public three years ago. According to Osnos, Obama dumped his devoted long-time agent after Dreams took off and then signed a seven-figure deal with Crown, using only a by-the-hour attorney.
Obama pulled off the deal after his 2004 election to the U.S. Senate but before being sworn in as Senator, thus avoiding the disclosure and reporting requirements applicable to members of Congress. Osnos publicly scolded Obama for his "ruthlessness" and "his questionable judgment about using public service as a personal payday."
But that was in 2006, when Obama was a mere mortal. Today, Obama is a literary god, however false, and challenging the gods is apparently above the AP's pay grade.
Fact-Check This, Associated Press!
AMERICAN THINKER
By Jack Cashill
"I think Obama's in a league with TR," observes historian and presidential biographer Douglas Brinkley. "He created his political reputation through the written word."
To be sure, no one has ever accused Sarah Palin, a defeated vice presidential candidate, of creating her reputation thusly. One has to wonder, then, why her book, Going Rogue, would merit a fact-check by no fewer than eleven Associated Press reporters when neither the AP nor any other mainstream outlet has spent a moment vetting the books of the "author in chief," as President Barack Obama was anointed in a November GQ article, "Barack Obama's Work in Progress" by Tom Draper.
In an observant piece called the Road to Bali, blogger Tom Maguire addresses the implicit media balance. He does so by calling attention to just one relevant question that the media might have profitably asked our president: did you take new bride Michelle to Bali with you in 1993?
In the course of asking that question, not terribly significant in and of itself, Maguire sheds light on a more substantive question: why have the media paid so little attention to how Barack Obama came to write the book that would make his reputation -- his acclaimed 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father?
As source, Maguire turns to Draper, who has spent time with Michelle and Barack and written the most detailed account to date of the genesis of Dreams. Blinded by Obama's light, however, Draper fails to see the gaping holes in his own storyline.
As Draper tells it, a February 1990 New York Times article telling how Harvard has elected Obama president of the Harvard Law Review attracted the attention of a young agent named Jane Dystel. Draper implies that Obama's "irresistible" writing skills netted him the position, which is not at all true.
In fact, the election was a popularity contest held in racially charged environment. The culturally ambiguous Obama won on his race-healing talents, not his literary ones. He would contribute only one leaden, unsigned case note to the HLR and has not written another legal article since.
According to Draper, on November 28, 1990, Poseidon Press, a Simon & Schuster imprint, issued "a six-figure contract" to Obama for a book tentatively titled Journeys in Black and White. In his recent book, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of An American Marriage, Christopher Andersen specifies the amount at $150,000.
In the hope of recruiting Obama, the University of Chicago Law School offered him an office to use for finishing the book, and there he spent 1991 and 1992. Nearly two years passed, and Obama could not produce. Draper quotes an Obama confession to confidante Valerie Jarrett in 1992: "I just can't get it down on paper. ... I'd much rather hang out with Michelle than focus on this."
Although Draper would never say so, this represented a failure of character as much as it did a failure of talent. Obama had pocketed $75,000 of that advance in exchange for the promise of a manuscript by June 15, 1992. He had more than eighteen months to complete a memoir, the easiest of all genres. It required minimal research, no footnotes, and a narrative that needed not be factual as long as it was plausible.
As a point of comparison, I was offered a contract in April 2005 to write a memoir with a deadline of September 1, 2005. In other words, I had four months to do what Obama could not do in eighteen. To complicate matters, my memoir was to be a story about growing up in the age of Muhammad Ali. So in addition to writing, I read roughly 30-40 books on boxing and related subjects during that period and watched scores of fight films and documentaries.
I set as a goal a thousand words a day, and I made the September 1 deadline. It would have helped a lot if I had ever learned to type, but to me, missing the deadline was unthinkable if for no other reason than that I, like Obama, had signed a contract and accepted an advance. Although Sucker Punch was my fourth published book, I can assure you that my advance was considerably less than that of the untested Obama.
In any case, the June 15, 1992 deadline came and went without a manuscript from Obama. As Draper blithely notes, Obama had other things on his mind, namely his impending October 3rd marriage to Michelle. On October 20, 1992, according to Draper, Poseidon terminated Obama's contract.
Andersen adds a detail that mythmaker Draper chooses to omit. Obama feared that Simon & Schuster would demand the $75,000 already advanced. Writes Andersen, "But when Barack informed them that he had spent the money -- and that he and his wife were still chipping away at their massive student loan debt -- the publisher agreed not to press the issue." In other words, Obama asked for and received an undeserved bailout. A pattern was developing here.
The tenacious agent Jane Dystel managed to find another publisher, Times Books, and secured a smaller advance of $40,000. Draper tells us that Obama used the advance "to fulfill his outstanding financial obligation to Poseidon." Andersen's take sounds more credible.
"Now he's got to produce," writes Draper. "But how?" Although the sanctuary at the University of Chicago and a previous retreat to a friend's Wisconsin farm had done no good, Obama hit upon the idea of going to Bali to unblock. (For Sucker Punch, I went to my cabin on Lake Erie).
As blogger Maguire notes, the pre-election myth, advanced by the New York Times and others, is that Michelle accompanied him. Wrote the Times on May 18, 2008, Obama "eventually retreated to Bali for several months with his wife, Michelle."
A more recent and less romantic version, advanced by Draper and by the Times as well, is that Obama went by himself. "For a month," writes Draper, "he is a lone figure pacing on the white sand and hammering on his laptop."
Andersen describes the Obamas as "drowning in debt" during this period. How either Barack or Michelle could have afforded to go to Bali during this period, for one month or three, remains something of a mystery. Mysterious too is how the media could leave unresolved such glaring contradictions in the biography of the world's most famous man.
Maguire highlights still another hole in the Draper narrative. Incredibly, in a 5,000-word article on Obama's development as a writer, Draper says nothing about what happened between early 1993, when Obama returned from Bali, to June 1995, when Dreams was published. Draper leaves the impression that the month-long Bali high was just what Obama needed to fire his synapses.
Andersen is much more credible here. As he tells it, Bali proved no more helpful than any other retreat. At Michelle's urging, the "hopelessly blocked" Obama finally turned to "friend and Hyde Park neighbor" Bill Ayers to help him.
Andersen's details are specific. The Obamas were convinced of "Ayers's proven abilities as a writer." Barack particularly liked the novelistic style of To Teach, a 1993 book by Ayers. The key sentence in Andersen's account is this: "[The Obama family] oral histories, along with his partial manuscript and a trunkload of notes were given to Ayers."
Adds Andersen, "Thanks to help from veteran writer Ayers, Barack would be able to submit a manuscript to his editors at Times Books." Based on my own research, I would argue that Ayers actually wrote the book's best sections. Obama's previous published efforts show not a wisp of the skill on display in Dreams. Not surprisingly, Draper overlooks those early efforts.
With his man-crush trumping his critical insights, Draper chooses not to relate the fate of plucky agent Dystel. That story was hard to miss. The proudly liberal but seriously disgusted publisher Peter Osnos went public three years ago. According to Osnos, Obama dumped his devoted long-time agent after Dreams took off and then signed a seven-figure deal with Crown, using only a by-the-hour attorney.
Obama pulled off the deal after his 2004 election to the U.S. Senate but before being sworn in as Senator, thus avoiding the disclosure and reporting requirements applicable to members of Congress. Osnos publicly scolded Obama for his "ruthlessness" and "his questionable judgment about using public service as a personal payday."
But that was in 2006, when Obama was a mere mortal. Today, Obama is a literary god, however false, and challenging the gods is apparently above the AP's pay grade.
HILLARY GUSHES OVER 'CRUSH' ON BRITISM FM
Hillary Clinton gushes over 'crush' on British FM
(AFP) – 1 hour ago
NEW YORK — Talk about Washington and London's special relationship. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has admitted she has a "crush" on Britain's youthful-looking, 44-year-old foreign minister David Miliband, according to an interview published in US Vogue magazine.
"Oh my God!" she was quoted as telling a Vogue journalist in the December issue. "If you saw him it would be a big crush."
Clinton, who is married to former US president Bill Clinton, described Miliband as "vibrant, vital, attractive, smart. He's a really good guy -- and he is so young!"
According to Britain's Sun daily, Miliband reciprocated the gushing feelings, calling Clinton, 62, "delightful" and a "tease."
*****************************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
I wish I had a dollar for how many different articles I've come across regarding this so-called "crush" Hillary supposedly has on David Milband, the British Foreign Secretary. The guy is cute. The typical "tall, dark, and handsome." I don't blame Hillary for having a crush on him. I am sure it is harmless. Also it adds a little spice to the continuous traveling Hillary has to do as Secretary of State.
(AFP) – 1 hour ago
NEW YORK — Talk about Washington and London's special relationship. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has admitted she has a "crush" on Britain's youthful-looking, 44-year-old foreign minister David Miliband, according to an interview published in US Vogue magazine.
"Oh my God!" she was quoted as telling a Vogue journalist in the December issue. "If you saw him it would be a big crush."
Clinton, who is married to former US president Bill Clinton, described Miliband as "vibrant, vital, attractive, smart. He's a really good guy -- and he is so young!"
According to Britain's Sun daily, Miliband reciprocated the gushing feelings, calling Clinton, 62, "delightful" and a "tease."
*****************************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
I wish I had a dollar for how many different articles I've come across regarding this so-called "crush" Hillary supposedly has on David Milband, the British Foreign Secretary. The guy is cute. The typical "tall, dark, and handsome." I don't blame Hillary for having a crush on him. I am sure it is harmless. Also it adds a little spice to the continuous traveling Hillary has to do as Secretary of State.
HILLARY'S BRIEFING EN ROUTE KABUL, AFGHANISTAN
Briefing En Route Kabul, Afghanistan
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
En Route Kabul, Afghanistan
November 18, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECRETARY CLINTON: How are you?
QUESTION: Good. How are you? Did you get some rest?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I got a little bit. How about you guys?
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: Not enough.
QUESTION: Could I start off?
STAFF: Yes.
QUESTION: I guess maybe I’ll ask a general question. What message are you going to bring to President Karzai, both over dinner tonight and in any other meetings? Is there anything specifically the President has asked you to relay to him?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this is a specific opportunity for everyone to take stock of where we are and to determine how we’re going forward together. And I will be both talking and listening a lot to President Karzai and others with whom I’ll meet to make sure that they understand our concerns and we understand their concerns.
QUESTION: There’s been quite a bit – obviously, you’ve addressed some of this in the Sunday shows – of concern about the president really tackling corruption and being serious about it. Beyond the general admonition of “We hope you crack down on corruption,” is there anything specifically you’ll ask him to do in terms of benchmarks or things you really want to see in a measurable way?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we are asking that they follow through on much of what they have previously said, including putting together a credible anticorruption governmental entity – a commission, an agency, something that truly can deliver on the concerns that we and the people of Afghanistan have about corruption. They’ve done some work on that, but in our view, not nearly enough to demonstrate a seriousness of purpose to tackle corruption. And it is going to be one of the principled requests that we make. But it is reflective of what members of the government and others tell us they want to see happen as well.
QUESTION: But what if it doesn’t happen? Then what?
SECRETARY CLINTON: We are concerned about corruption and we obviously think it has an impact on the quality and capacity of governing. So we’re going to be persistent, asking for the kinds of outcomes that we think reflect that they are serious about this. But I can’t predict what will or won’t happen at this point.
QUESTION: But you --
QUESTION: Sorry. He’s appointed already a vice president that has had some allegations of corruption surrounding him. He’s made alliances during the campaign and with General Dostum. That doesn’t bode very well.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think it certainly raises questions, and whether those two problems are dealt with directly or whether there are other approaches that create confidence in the government’s commitment to not only fight corruption, because that’s only part of the equation, but to actually deliver results that work to stand up the Afghan national security force, to recognize the necessity for a new compact with the people of Afghanistan, and the recognition of the commitment that the international community is willing to make if we can see clear and effective results. We just have to continue to press for that and to try to achieve it.
But we do need to listen to what’s on their minds. It has to be a better two-way communication in order to be able to produce the kinds of results we’re seeking.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, you just --
QUESTION: Hold on for a moment just on that. Can I just follow on that? Beyond – vis-à-vis on the corruption issue, do you think he has the vision for Afghanistan and for governing Afghanistan in a way that is responsible and that not only you, but the international community would approve of?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, look, I think he has demonstrated vision and commitment. There’s no doubt of his passion and patriotism about what he would like to see happen in Afghanistan. But we also have been operating on a relatively short historical frame.
Eight years is a lot in our minds. It is not a lot in the minds of a lot of other countries and societies and individuals. And I’m always reminded by people who have a broader view that positive changes have happened in the last eight years, and we don’t really talk about those very much. I mean, if you are looking at social indicators, well-being of people, opportunities for women, it’s not all a one-sided negative story. It’s much more balanced than that.
And I think if President Karzai were sitting here, he would say, do you know how hard it’s been to do what I have done over the last eight years? And I think if we don’t recognize the progress that they believe has occurred, then we lose credibility, in their eyes, in understanding the challenges they face in trying to move forward.
QUESTION: Can I just ask you – can I just ask – in your Sunday interviews, you talked about how we don’t have a long-term stake in Afghanistan; we don’t want to stay there. Can you just explain a little bit more? Because that seems to go against this notion of having a counterinsurgency that would protect the people and get all of the things --
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t think so. I know we’re landing, but – and they want us to sit down – but let me say quickly, we don’t have a long-term military stake. We’re not seeking to occupy Afghanistan for the undetermined future. We don’t want bases in Afghanistan. And I think that’s an important message.
We do want to help the Afghan Government and people build up their own capacity so that they can defend themselves. I mean, the most common statement that we hear all the time from people in the country is, look, we want you to stay, we want your help, you need to give us the tools to be able to defend ourselves, and then we want you to leave. That’s a military context.
Would they want our help going forward on schools and healthcare and agriculture? Of course. But everybody is rightly focused on what is the military commitment and is this some kind of nose in the – camel’s nose in the tent that the United States is engaged in. No, it’s not.
QUESTION: And yet the Karzai government would like that. They have said repeatedly they would like more of these troops.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, they – but they would like a security understanding the way we have with many countries, but not necessarily troops stationed in their countries in large numbers.
STAFF: Thank you. See you guys on the ground.
QUESTION: Thank you.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
En Route Kabul, Afghanistan
November 18, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECRETARY CLINTON: How are you?
QUESTION: Good. How are you? Did you get some rest?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I got a little bit. How about you guys?
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: Not enough.
QUESTION: Could I start off?
STAFF: Yes.
QUESTION: I guess maybe I’ll ask a general question. What message are you going to bring to President Karzai, both over dinner tonight and in any other meetings? Is there anything specifically the President has asked you to relay to him?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this is a specific opportunity for everyone to take stock of where we are and to determine how we’re going forward together. And I will be both talking and listening a lot to President Karzai and others with whom I’ll meet to make sure that they understand our concerns and we understand their concerns.
QUESTION: There’s been quite a bit – obviously, you’ve addressed some of this in the Sunday shows – of concern about the president really tackling corruption and being serious about it. Beyond the general admonition of “We hope you crack down on corruption,” is there anything specifically you’ll ask him to do in terms of benchmarks or things you really want to see in a measurable way?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we are asking that they follow through on much of what they have previously said, including putting together a credible anticorruption governmental entity – a commission, an agency, something that truly can deliver on the concerns that we and the people of Afghanistan have about corruption. They’ve done some work on that, but in our view, not nearly enough to demonstrate a seriousness of purpose to tackle corruption. And it is going to be one of the principled requests that we make. But it is reflective of what members of the government and others tell us they want to see happen as well.
QUESTION: But what if it doesn’t happen? Then what?
SECRETARY CLINTON: We are concerned about corruption and we obviously think it has an impact on the quality and capacity of governing. So we’re going to be persistent, asking for the kinds of outcomes that we think reflect that they are serious about this. But I can’t predict what will or won’t happen at this point.
QUESTION: But you --
QUESTION: Sorry. He’s appointed already a vice president that has had some allegations of corruption surrounding him. He’s made alliances during the campaign and with General Dostum. That doesn’t bode very well.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think it certainly raises questions, and whether those two problems are dealt with directly or whether there are other approaches that create confidence in the government’s commitment to not only fight corruption, because that’s only part of the equation, but to actually deliver results that work to stand up the Afghan national security force, to recognize the necessity for a new compact with the people of Afghanistan, and the recognition of the commitment that the international community is willing to make if we can see clear and effective results. We just have to continue to press for that and to try to achieve it.
But we do need to listen to what’s on their minds. It has to be a better two-way communication in order to be able to produce the kinds of results we’re seeking.
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, you just --
QUESTION: Hold on for a moment just on that. Can I just follow on that? Beyond – vis-à-vis on the corruption issue, do you think he has the vision for Afghanistan and for governing Afghanistan in a way that is responsible and that not only you, but the international community would approve of?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, look, I think he has demonstrated vision and commitment. There’s no doubt of his passion and patriotism about what he would like to see happen in Afghanistan. But we also have been operating on a relatively short historical frame.
Eight years is a lot in our minds. It is not a lot in the minds of a lot of other countries and societies and individuals. And I’m always reminded by people who have a broader view that positive changes have happened in the last eight years, and we don’t really talk about those very much. I mean, if you are looking at social indicators, well-being of people, opportunities for women, it’s not all a one-sided negative story. It’s much more balanced than that.
And I think if President Karzai were sitting here, he would say, do you know how hard it’s been to do what I have done over the last eight years? And I think if we don’t recognize the progress that they believe has occurred, then we lose credibility, in their eyes, in understanding the challenges they face in trying to move forward.
QUESTION: Can I just ask you – can I just ask – in your Sunday interviews, you talked about how we don’t have a long-term stake in Afghanistan; we don’t want to stay there. Can you just explain a little bit more? Because that seems to go against this notion of having a counterinsurgency that would protect the people and get all of the things --
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t think so. I know we’re landing, but – and they want us to sit down – but let me say quickly, we don’t have a long-term military stake. We’re not seeking to occupy Afghanistan for the undetermined future. We don’t want bases in Afghanistan. And I think that’s an important message.
We do want to help the Afghan Government and people build up their own capacity so that they can defend themselves. I mean, the most common statement that we hear all the time from people in the country is, look, we want you to stay, we want your help, you need to give us the tools to be able to defend ourselves, and then we want you to leave. That’s a military context.
Would they want our help going forward on schools and healthcare and agriculture? Of course. But everybody is rightly focused on what is the military commitment and is this some kind of nose in the – camel’s nose in the tent that the United States is engaged in. No, it’s not.
QUESTION: And yet the Karzai government would like that. They have said repeatedly they would like more of these troops.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, they – but they would like a security understanding the way we have with many countries, but not necessarily troops stationed in their countries in large numbers.
STAFF: Thank you. See you guys on the ground.
QUESTION: Thank you.
HILLARY'S MEET AND GREET AT EMBASSY KABUL
Meet and Greet at Embassy Kabul with Employees and Their Families
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Karl W. Eikenberry
Ambassador to Afghanistan, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs
Embassy Kabul
Kabul, Afghanistan
November 18, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMBASSADOR EIKENBERRY: Well, good evening, members of this very great United States civilian and military and Afghan team. We’re deeply honored and very pleased to have with us today the 67th Secretary of State of the United States of America, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Today, Afghanistan is at the forefront of American diplomatic and national security policy, a welcome and essential change after years during which this mission was under-resourced and unable to fully tackle the many challenges our country and the international community have faced here.
But with the President’s new strategy in March came very distinct emphasis on a joint civilian-military effort, a new clarity about our mission and the resources we have so long needed. And we’re blessed to have a Secretary of State who has provided us with the vision, the funds, the personnel, and the leadership to transform this Embassy into a powerhouse unlike any other embassy in the world today.
She’s given us all in this extraordinary team the tools that we need to be successful. Madame Secretary, it’s a very distinct honor to introduce you to the members of the greatest U.S. mission anywhere in the world. (Laughter.)
Ladies and gentlemen, the Secretary of State of the United States of America, Hillary Rodham Clinton. (Applause.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much. It is absolutely wonderful to see you and to have a chance to be here to thank you – thank you for your service, thank you for your dedication, your commitment, your professionalism. I am absolutely delighted and honored to have a chance to greet you on my fourth trip to Afghanistan and to have a briefing and a greater understanding of what challenges you’re facing, what opportunities you are pursuing. So I thank you so very much.
And I have to tell you that most ambassadors say I want to introduce you to the greatest American mission in the world, but I do think that Ambassador Eikenberry did not overstate. And so therefore, thank you so much. (Applause.)
And I want to thank Ambassador Eikenberry, who continues his life of service to this country that he has loved and protected and defended and represented, and I especially want to thank his wife, Ching, for making so many people feel so welcome as they come here and want to know more about what we are doing. We have a plethora of ambassadors here – (laughter) – and I want to thank Frank and his wife, Marie, and Tony and everybody, because we beefed up this Embassy because we knew that we needed to have all hands on deck, that we were going to be asking a lot of you, that we were redefining and deepening our partnership with the people and Government of Afghanistan, so we brought in a lot of extraordinary talent.
We also have an operation in Washington that Ambassador Holbrooke leads as the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, because of course, one of the conclusions we reached in the spring with President Obama’s review of the situation that was in place when he became President was the need to integrate our civilian and military strategy, to look at Afghanistan and Pakistan and the entire region as a whole, to understand the courage and the bravery, the commitment, and the hope of the people of Afghanistan. Because after all, this is their country and this is what we hope that they will be able to take leadership over, defend, and protect, now and into the future. So I could not be prouder to be here.
This Embassy, as you know, was protected during the hardest times by locally employed staff. The American flag flew here for 12 years while we were not present. And to me, that says more than any speech could about the true connection between the American people and the people of Afghanistan. So I want to personally thank all of our locally employed staff. Let’s give a round of applause to you. (Applause.)
I bring greetings from President Obama, whom I just left in China. He is deeply grateful, as we all are, for your service. And we know the sacrifices that you and your families have made to be here and to be part of this mission. It is a great tribute to your optimism as well as your expertise that you see what we see; that we can meet these challenges and we can provide the support that the government and the people deserve to have.
We stand at a critical moment on the eve of the inauguration of President Karzai’s second term. There is now a clear window of opportunity for President Karzai and his government to make a new compact with the people of Afghanistan to demonstrate clearly that we’re going to have accountability and tangible results that will improve the lives of the people who live throughout this magnificent country.
We want to be a strong partner with the government and the people of Afghanistan. And I always say both because it’s not either/or. It has to be both. And I will look forward to the conversations that I will be having with the president and others. We have engaged in a very careful and thoughtful review. When the President asked us to make this review, we wanted to question every assumption, we wanted to look at every possible decision. Because we know that this is a turning point that we all face together.
And I’m very impressed that we’ve had so much assistance from so many of you in providing ideas about the best way forward. Many of you were, as you know, chosen to come here. You were chosen not only by State and USAID, of course, but by Defense, by Justice, Treasury, Agriculture, FBI, DEA, or some other alphabet agency of our government. Because you were thought to have particular skills and savvy to be able to deliver what we need to do together with the government and people of Afghanistan. And we need your help. We need your help to guide our thinking and strategy in Washington. We need your feedback about what works and what doesn't work. We need your honest assessment.
When I became Secretary of State, I said that I wanted us to be using smart power. And that was a combination of what too often has been divided between our incredible military assets, so-called hard power, and our diplomacy and our development, so-called soft power. But in effect, we have done a disservice to both by separating them out and labeling them, instead of looking at what they could represent in the furtherance of our values and our interests around the world.
So smart power requires smart people, and that’s what each and every one of you represent. I think it’s fair to say that nobody knows better than our military commanders that troops alone cannot meet our goals of defeating al-Qaida, of helping the Afghans to get the capacity to defend themselves and provide governance that will result in positive changes for the people of this country.
The military has performed brilliantly time and time again in confronting terrorists and protecting civilians and training security forces and defending borders. But this has got to be a common joint strategy that we have to look at in that way from the beginning, not as an afterthought. And that’s what we are trying to demonstrate, and you are on the front lines of doing that.
We are on track to having close to a thousand American civilians here by the end of the year, tripling the number that we inherited back on January 20th. Whether you are a civil service officer or a foreign service officer, or a locally engaged staff, or an eligible family member, you are all integral to our strategic efforts here in Afghanistan.
And a lot of the work that we’re asking you to do is work that we think has long-term payoff. It may not be immediately apparent, like those of you working in agriculture to support food security and agribusiness, or those of you who are partnering with local governors to expand opportunities for modern banking and private enterprise, launching a “cash-for-work project” to clean water from the Kabul River, or supporting the first Afghan-led elections after 30 years of war, you are helping to create the conditions that will, we believe, assist in achieving the core objectives, not just by the international community or the Americans, but by the people and Government of Afghanistan.
And I want to note the excellent work of our Provincial Reconstruction Teams, all the PRTs who lead our development efforts in some of the most difficult and dangerous regions of the country.
There is one Embassy staff member in particular, a foreign service officer who has gone above and beyond the call of duty that I just wanted to mention, because to a great extent, he represents all of you. Last May, Matt Sherman was on a mission with military colleagues when the lead convoy vehicle struck an IED and flipped. Matt raced from the safety of his vehicle to assist the wounded soldiers. And in recognition of his courageous and selfless actions, the troops of Task Force Spartan, Third Brigade Command Team, 10th Mountain Division, from upstate New York, nominated him – let’s give a round of applause for Fort Drum, okay?[1](Applause.) The 10th Mountain Division were the first American soldiers to come to Afghanistan after 9/11. I had the honor, when I was a senator from New York, escorting President Karzai to Fort Drum to thank the 10th Mountain Division and to recognize their sacrifice.
Well, the Task Force and the Brigade Command Team and the 10th Mountain Division have nominated Matt Sherman for the Department of State Award for Heroism. And Matt – where’s Matt? Matt, come up here. Matt, please. (Applause.)
Well, Matt, we have approved – big surprise – we have approved – (laughter) – this award in appreciation for your outstanding service. As I said, there are a lot of people who have performed just extraordinary and admirable service on behalf of the United States.
The President and I know this is hard work in a hard place. I’m not coming here to give you happy talk and just say onward and upward. I’m coming to tell you how important what you do is, how absolutely essential your service and commitment has to be to whatever can be achieved here.
We know that the security and logistical challenges you face are considerable. I’m working with Ambassador Eikenberry to improve the quality of life here at post – although I have to tell you, it looks a lot better than it did when I was here in ’03 – to address some of the overcrowding. We are moving forward with efforts to de-mine the multi-acre lot nearby and expand the Embassy compound to provide a more comfortable and safe work environment.
We ask a lot of you, but we do it because we really believe in you, and you believe in our mission. So I want to thank each and every one of you. I’m so grateful for the opportunity to be here with you.
I want to take a few minutes to say hello to you. I know some of the locally engaged staff want to get home, and I appreciate that. So I’ll try to see as many of you, and then please leave so you can get home to your families. But I’m very, very grateful. God bless you, and God bless America. (Applause.)
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Karl W. Eikenberry
Ambassador to Afghanistan, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs
Embassy Kabul
Kabul, Afghanistan
November 18, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMBASSADOR EIKENBERRY: Well, good evening, members of this very great United States civilian and military and Afghan team. We’re deeply honored and very pleased to have with us today the 67th Secretary of State of the United States of America, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Today, Afghanistan is at the forefront of American diplomatic and national security policy, a welcome and essential change after years during which this mission was under-resourced and unable to fully tackle the many challenges our country and the international community have faced here.
But with the President’s new strategy in March came very distinct emphasis on a joint civilian-military effort, a new clarity about our mission and the resources we have so long needed. And we’re blessed to have a Secretary of State who has provided us with the vision, the funds, the personnel, and the leadership to transform this Embassy into a powerhouse unlike any other embassy in the world today.
She’s given us all in this extraordinary team the tools that we need to be successful. Madame Secretary, it’s a very distinct honor to introduce you to the members of the greatest U.S. mission anywhere in the world. (Laughter.)
Ladies and gentlemen, the Secretary of State of the United States of America, Hillary Rodham Clinton. (Applause.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much. It is absolutely wonderful to see you and to have a chance to be here to thank you – thank you for your service, thank you for your dedication, your commitment, your professionalism. I am absolutely delighted and honored to have a chance to greet you on my fourth trip to Afghanistan and to have a briefing and a greater understanding of what challenges you’re facing, what opportunities you are pursuing. So I thank you so very much.
And I have to tell you that most ambassadors say I want to introduce you to the greatest American mission in the world, but I do think that Ambassador Eikenberry did not overstate. And so therefore, thank you so much. (Applause.)
And I want to thank Ambassador Eikenberry, who continues his life of service to this country that he has loved and protected and defended and represented, and I especially want to thank his wife, Ching, for making so many people feel so welcome as they come here and want to know more about what we are doing. We have a plethora of ambassadors here – (laughter) – and I want to thank Frank and his wife, Marie, and Tony and everybody, because we beefed up this Embassy because we knew that we needed to have all hands on deck, that we were going to be asking a lot of you, that we were redefining and deepening our partnership with the people and Government of Afghanistan, so we brought in a lot of extraordinary talent.
We also have an operation in Washington that Ambassador Holbrooke leads as the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, because of course, one of the conclusions we reached in the spring with President Obama’s review of the situation that was in place when he became President was the need to integrate our civilian and military strategy, to look at Afghanistan and Pakistan and the entire region as a whole, to understand the courage and the bravery, the commitment, and the hope of the people of Afghanistan. Because after all, this is their country and this is what we hope that they will be able to take leadership over, defend, and protect, now and into the future. So I could not be prouder to be here.
This Embassy, as you know, was protected during the hardest times by locally employed staff. The American flag flew here for 12 years while we were not present. And to me, that says more than any speech could about the true connection between the American people and the people of Afghanistan. So I want to personally thank all of our locally employed staff. Let’s give a round of applause to you. (Applause.)
I bring greetings from President Obama, whom I just left in China. He is deeply grateful, as we all are, for your service. And we know the sacrifices that you and your families have made to be here and to be part of this mission. It is a great tribute to your optimism as well as your expertise that you see what we see; that we can meet these challenges and we can provide the support that the government and the people deserve to have.
We stand at a critical moment on the eve of the inauguration of President Karzai’s second term. There is now a clear window of opportunity for President Karzai and his government to make a new compact with the people of Afghanistan to demonstrate clearly that we’re going to have accountability and tangible results that will improve the lives of the people who live throughout this magnificent country.
We want to be a strong partner with the government and the people of Afghanistan. And I always say both because it’s not either/or. It has to be both. And I will look forward to the conversations that I will be having with the president and others. We have engaged in a very careful and thoughtful review. When the President asked us to make this review, we wanted to question every assumption, we wanted to look at every possible decision. Because we know that this is a turning point that we all face together.
And I’m very impressed that we’ve had so much assistance from so many of you in providing ideas about the best way forward. Many of you were, as you know, chosen to come here. You were chosen not only by State and USAID, of course, but by Defense, by Justice, Treasury, Agriculture, FBI, DEA, or some other alphabet agency of our government. Because you were thought to have particular skills and savvy to be able to deliver what we need to do together with the government and people of Afghanistan. And we need your help. We need your help to guide our thinking and strategy in Washington. We need your feedback about what works and what doesn't work. We need your honest assessment.
When I became Secretary of State, I said that I wanted us to be using smart power. And that was a combination of what too often has been divided between our incredible military assets, so-called hard power, and our diplomacy and our development, so-called soft power. But in effect, we have done a disservice to both by separating them out and labeling them, instead of looking at what they could represent in the furtherance of our values and our interests around the world.
So smart power requires smart people, and that’s what each and every one of you represent. I think it’s fair to say that nobody knows better than our military commanders that troops alone cannot meet our goals of defeating al-Qaida, of helping the Afghans to get the capacity to defend themselves and provide governance that will result in positive changes for the people of this country.
The military has performed brilliantly time and time again in confronting terrorists and protecting civilians and training security forces and defending borders. But this has got to be a common joint strategy that we have to look at in that way from the beginning, not as an afterthought. And that’s what we are trying to demonstrate, and you are on the front lines of doing that.
We are on track to having close to a thousand American civilians here by the end of the year, tripling the number that we inherited back on January 20th. Whether you are a civil service officer or a foreign service officer, or a locally engaged staff, or an eligible family member, you are all integral to our strategic efforts here in Afghanistan.
And a lot of the work that we’re asking you to do is work that we think has long-term payoff. It may not be immediately apparent, like those of you working in agriculture to support food security and agribusiness, or those of you who are partnering with local governors to expand opportunities for modern banking and private enterprise, launching a “cash-for-work project” to clean water from the Kabul River, or supporting the first Afghan-led elections after 30 years of war, you are helping to create the conditions that will, we believe, assist in achieving the core objectives, not just by the international community or the Americans, but by the people and Government of Afghanistan.
And I want to note the excellent work of our Provincial Reconstruction Teams, all the PRTs who lead our development efforts in some of the most difficult and dangerous regions of the country.
There is one Embassy staff member in particular, a foreign service officer who has gone above and beyond the call of duty that I just wanted to mention, because to a great extent, he represents all of you. Last May, Matt Sherman was on a mission with military colleagues when the lead convoy vehicle struck an IED and flipped. Matt raced from the safety of his vehicle to assist the wounded soldiers. And in recognition of his courageous and selfless actions, the troops of Task Force Spartan, Third Brigade Command Team, 10th Mountain Division, from upstate New York, nominated him – let’s give a round of applause for Fort Drum, okay?[1](Applause.) The 10th Mountain Division were the first American soldiers to come to Afghanistan after 9/11. I had the honor, when I was a senator from New York, escorting President Karzai to Fort Drum to thank the 10th Mountain Division and to recognize their sacrifice.
Well, the Task Force and the Brigade Command Team and the 10th Mountain Division have nominated Matt Sherman for the Department of State Award for Heroism. And Matt – where’s Matt? Matt, come up here. Matt, please. (Applause.)
Well, Matt, we have approved – big surprise – we have approved – (laughter) – this award in appreciation for your outstanding service. As I said, there are a lot of people who have performed just extraordinary and admirable service on behalf of the United States.
The President and I know this is hard work in a hard place. I’m not coming here to give you happy talk and just say onward and upward. I’m coming to tell you how important what you do is, how absolutely essential your service and commitment has to be to whatever can be achieved here.
We know that the security and logistical challenges you face are considerable. I’m working with Ambassador Eikenberry to improve the quality of life here at post – although I have to tell you, it looks a lot better than it did when I was here in ’03 – to address some of the overcrowding. We are moving forward with efforts to de-mine the multi-acre lot nearby and expand the Embassy compound to provide a more comfortable and safe work environment.
We ask a lot of you, but we do it because we really believe in you, and you believe in our mission. So I want to thank each and every one of you. I’m so grateful for the opportunity to be here with you.
I want to take a few minutes to say hello to you. I know some of the locally engaged staff want to get home, and I appreciate that. So I’ll try to see as many of you, and then please leave so you can get home to your families. But I’m very, very grateful. God bless you, and God bless America. (Applause.)
OBAMA APPROVAL INDEX - MINUS (-14)
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14. That matches the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President.
Over the past month, the number who Strongly Approve of the President’s performance has generally stayed between 27% and 30% (with one exception in each direction). Today’s drop to 26% matches the lowest level of strong approval yet recorded.
The number who Strongly Disapprove has stayed between 37% and 41% every day for over a month. The only previous time that Obama’s Approval Index rating was this low came on August 23. It remains to be seen whether the current low is just statistical noise or if it is something more lasting.
Just 47% of Democrats now Strongly Approve of the President’s performance. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Republicans Strongly Disapprove, as do 43% of those not affiliated with either major political party. These numbers reflect the concern some Democratic analysts are voicing about an enthusiasm gap heading into the 2010 mid-term elections.
-snip-
Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That figure includes 40% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Overall, among all voters, 52% now disapprove.
Republicans continue to hold a six-percentage point lead on the Generic Congressional Ballot.
Just 29% agree with the decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and five other terrorists suspects in a New York city courtroom. Only 14% believe terrorist suspects should receive the same legal rights in court as U.S. citizens.
************************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
Looks like more and more Americans are WAKING UP, huh? PUMAS SAY "WE TOLD YOU SO!!!" But that is one "I told you so" that brings me no satisfaction whatsoever. Because even I could never have imagined Obama would have been THIS BAD A PRESIDENT!!! Now I haven't even been to college, but I think even I could do a better job than he is doing. And I am NOT patting myself on the back here. It just goes to show you just HOW BAD Obama is as president. GOD HELP US ALL!!! GOD, BLESS AMERICA!!!
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14. That matches the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President.
Over the past month, the number who Strongly Approve of the President’s performance has generally stayed between 27% and 30% (with one exception in each direction). Today’s drop to 26% matches the lowest level of strong approval yet recorded.
The number who Strongly Disapprove has stayed between 37% and 41% every day for over a month. The only previous time that Obama’s Approval Index rating was this low came on August 23. It remains to be seen whether the current low is just statistical noise or if it is something more lasting.
Just 47% of Democrats now Strongly Approve of the President’s performance. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Republicans Strongly Disapprove, as do 43% of those not affiliated with either major political party. These numbers reflect the concern some Democratic analysts are voicing about an enthusiasm gap heading into the 2010 mid-term elections.
-snip-
Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That figure includes 40% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Overall, among all voters, 52% now disapprove.
Republicans continue to hold a six-percentage point lead on the Generic Congressional Ballot.
Just 29% agree with the decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and five other terrorists suspects in a New York city courtroom. Only 14% believe terrorist suspects should receive the same legal rights in court as U.S. citizens.
************************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
Looks like more and more Americans are WAKING UP, huh? PUMAS SAY "WE TOLD YOU SO!!!" But that is one "I told you so" that brings me no satisfaction whatsoever. Because even I could never have imagined Obama would have been THIS BAD A PRESIDENT!!! Now I haven't even been to college, but I think even I could do a better job than he is doing. And I am NOT patting myself on the back here. It just goes to show you just HOW BAD Obama is as president. GOD HELP US ALL!!! GOD, BLESS AMERICA!!!
HILLARY'S KEYNOTE ADDRESS AT OSAC 24TH ANNUAL BRIEFING
Keynote Address at the Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) 24th Annual Briefing
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Dean Acheson Auditorium
Washington, DC
November 18, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Via Video Message
I am pleased to address you this morning at the Overseas Security Advisory Council’s 24th annual briefing.
OSAC plays a major role in protecting the U.S. private sector overseas against terrorism and other threats by sharing information, providing guidance, and promoting best practices. Their worldwide network helps to identify, track, and alert members to critical emerging issues and to provide risk management guidance.
These practices are driven entirely by you, people from the private sector and NGOs. And I urge you to take advantage of all OSAC has to offer, including the conference and events it hosts every year to provide guidance on travel safety and risk assessment, which are essential to keeping our citizens safe abroad.
I am delighted that such a close, flourishing relationship between our nation’s governments and businesses has lasted all these years. And I hope you will join me and OSAC as partners as we work to protect and strengthen America’s public and private sectors in the years to come.
Thank you for all you do and best wishes for a productive briefing.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Dean Acheson Auditorium
Washington, DC
November 18, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Via Video Message
I am pleased to address you this morning at the Overseas Security Advisory Council’s 24th annual briefing.
OSAC plays a major role in protecting the U.S. private sector overseas against terrorism and other threats by sharing information, providing guidance, and promoting best practices. Their worldwide network helps to identify, track, and alert members to critical emerging issues and to provide risk management guidance.
These practices are driven entirely by you, people from the private sector and NGOs. And I urge you to take advantage of all OSAC has to offer, including the conference and events it hosts every year to provide guidance on travel safety and risk assessment, which are essential to keeping our citizens safe abroad.
I am delighted that such a close, flourishing relationship between our nation’s governments and businesses has lasted all these years. And I hope you will join me and OSAC as partners as we work to protect and strengthen America’s public and private sectors in the years to come.
Thank you for all you do and best wishes for a productive briefing.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
"OUR BANKER" IS ASKING OBAMA QUESTIONS
November 16th, 2009
China questions costs of U.S. healthcare reform
by: James Pethokoukis
REUTERS
Guess what? It turns out the Chinese are kind of curious about how President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform plans would impact America’s huge fiscal deficit. Government officials are using his Asian trip as an opportunity to ask the White House questions. Detailed questions.
Boilerplate assurances that America won’t default on its debt or inflate the shortfall away are apparently not cutting it. Nor should they, when one owns nearly $2 trillion in assets denominated in the currency of a country about to double its national debt over the next decade.
Nothing happening in Washington today should give Beijing any comfort or confidence about what may happen tomorrow. Healthcare reform was originally promoted as a way to “bend the curve” on escalating entitlement costs, the major part of which is financing Medicare and Medicaid. That is looking more and more like an overpromised deliverable.
For instance, a new study from the U.S. government’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services finds that the healthcare reform bill recently passed in the House of Representatives would increase healthcare spending to 21.3 percent of GDP by 2019 compared with 20.8 percent under current law. That’s bending the curve the wrong way. The study also questions the “long-term viability” of the $500 billion in Medicare cuts meant to help pay for expanded insurance coverage.
In addition, the CMS study gives a clearer cost estimate than the one provided by the Congressional Budget Office. According to the CBO, the 10-year cost of PelosiCare is $894 billion. But that analysis includes early years with little government spending, According to the CMS, the House approach would cost $1 trillion from 2013-2019, or some $140 billion a year when fully put into effect.
Few realists in Washington think any of the current reform plans make a significant dent in the long-term healthcare cost to government. Indeed, the Senate Budget Committee recently held hearing about creating a bipartisan commission to find solutions to America’s entitlements problems.
If healthcare reform really bent the curve, there would be a no need for such a commission to do Healthcare Reform 2.0.
The Chinese might want to keep up the questioning.
China questions costs of U.S. healthcare reform
by: James Pethokoukis
REUTERS
Guess what? It turns out the Chinese are kind of curious about how President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform plans would impact America’s huge fiscal deficit. Government officials are using his Asian trip as an opportunity to ask the White House questions. Detailed questions.
Boilerplate assurances that America won’t default on its debt or inflate the shortfall away are apparently not cutting it. Nor should they, when one owns nearly $2 trillion in assets denominated in the currency of a country about to double its national debt over the next decade.
Nothing happening in Washington today should give Beijing any comfort or confidence about what may happen tomorrow. Healthcare reform was originally promoted as a way to “bend the curve” on escalating entitlement costs, the major part of which is financing Medicare and Medicaid. That is looking more and more like an overpromised deliverable.
For instance, a new study from the U.S. government’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services finds that the healthcare reform bill recently passed in the House of Representatives would increase healthcare spending to 21.3 percent of GDP by 2019 compared with 20.8 percent under current law. That’s bending the curve the wrong way. The study also questions the “long-term viability” of the $500 billion in Medicare cuts meant to help pay for expanded insurance coverage.
In addition, the CMS study gives a clearer cost estimate than the one provided by the Congressional Budget Office. According to the CBO, the 10-year cost of PelosiCare is $894 billion. But that analysis includes early years with little government spending, According to the CMS, the House approach would cost $1 trillion from 2013-2019, or some $140 billion a year when fully put into effect.
Few realists in Washington think any of the current reform plans make a significant dent in the long-term healthcare cost to government. Indeed, the Senate Budget Committee recently held hearing about creating a bipartisan commission to find solutions to America’s entitlements problems.
If healthcare reform really bent the curve, there would be a no need for such a commission to do Healthcare Reform 2.0.
The Chinese might want to keep up the questioning.
EVERYTHING ABOUT OBAMA IS A BULLSHIT LIE!!!
Exclusive: Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist
By JONATHAN KARL
ABC
Nov. 16, 2009
Here's a stimulus success story: In Arizona's 15th congressional district, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending. At least that's what the Web site set up by the Obama administration to track the $787 billion stimulus says.
Discrepancies on government web site call into question stimulus spending.There's one problem, though: There is no 15th congressional district in Arizona; the state has only eight districts.
And ABC News has found many more entries for projects like this in places that are incorrectly identified.
Late Monday, officials with the Recovery Board created to track the stimulus spending, said the mistakes in crediting nonexistent congressional districts were caused by human error.
"We report what the recipients submit to us," said Ed Pound, Communications Director for the Board.
Pound told ABC News the board receives declarations from the recipients - state governments, federal agencies and universities - of stimulus money about what program is being funded.
"Some recipients clearly don't know what congressional district they live in, so they appear to be just throwing in any number. We expected all along that recipients would make mistakes on their congressional districts, on jobs numbers, on award amounts, and so on. Human beings make mistakes," Pound said.
The issue has raised hackles on Capitol Hill.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wisc, who chairs the powerful House appropriations Committee, issued a paper statement demanding that the recovery.gov Web site be updated.
"The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous and the Administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes."
For example, recovery.gov says $34 million in stimulus money has been spent in Arizona's 86th congressional district in a project for the Navajo Housing authority, which is actually located in the 1st congressional district.
The reporting problems are not limited to Arizona, ABC News found.
In Oklahoma, recovery.gov lists more than $19 million in spending -- and 15 jobs created -- in yet more congressional districts that don't exist.
In Iowa, it shows $10.6 million spent – and 39 jobs created -- in nonexistent districts.
In Connecticut's 42nd district (which also does not exist), the Web site claims 25 jobs created with zero stimulus dollars.
The list of spending and job creation in fictional congressional districts extends to U.S. territories as well.
$68.3 million spent and 72.2 million spent in the 1st congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
$8.4 million spent and 40.3 jobs created in the 99th congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
$1.5 million spent and .3 jobs created in the 69th district and $35 million for 142 jobs in the 99th district of the Northern Mariana Islands.
$47.7 million spent and 291 jobs created in Puerto Rico's 99th congressional district.
The recovery.gov Web site was established as part of the stimulus bill "to foster greater accountability and transparency" in the use of the money spent through the stimulus program. The site is a well-funded enterprise; the General Services Administration updated it earlier this year with an $18 million grant.
ABC News' Zach Wolf contributed to this report.
By JONATHAN KARL
ABC
Nov. 16, 2009
Here's a stimulus success story: In Arizona's 15th congressional district, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending. At least that's what the Web site set up by the Obama administration to track the $787 billion stimulus says.
Discrepancies on government web site call into question stimulus spending.There's one problem, though: There is no 15th congressional district in Arizona; the state has only eight districts.
And ABC News has found many more entries for projects like this in places that are incorrectly identified.
Late Monday, officials with the Recovery Board created to track the stimulus spending, said the mistakes in crediting nonexistent congressional districts were caused by human error.
"We report what the recipients submit to us," said Ed Pound, Communications Director for the Board.
Pound told ABC News the board receives declarations from the recipients - state governments, federal agencies and universities - of stimulus money about what program is being funded.
"Some recipients clearly don't know what congressional district they live in, so they appear to be just throwing in any number. We expected all along that recipients would make mistakes on their congressional districts, on jobs numbers, on award amounts, and so on. Human beings make mistakes," Pound said.
The issue has raised hackles on Capitol Hill.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wisc, who chairs the powerful House appropriations Committee, issued a paper statement demanding that the recovery.gov Web site be updated.
"The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous and the Administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes."
For example, recovery.gov says $34 million in stimulus money has been spent in Arizona's 86th congressional district in a project for the Navajo Housing authority, which is actually located in the 1st congressional district.
The reporting problems are not limited to Arizona, ABC News found.
In Oklahoma, recovery.gov lists more than $19 million in spending -- and 15 jobs created -- in yet more congressional districts that don't exist.
In Iowa, it shows $10.6 million spent – and 39 jobs created -- in nonexistent districts.
In Connecticut's 42nd district (which also does not exist), the Web site claims 25 jobs created with zero stimulus dollars.
The list of spending and job creation in fictional congressional districts extends to U.S. territories as well.
$68.3 million spent and 72.2 million spent in the 1st congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
$8.4 million spent and 40.3 jobs created in the 99th congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
$1.5 million spent and .3 jobs created in the 69th district and $35 million for 142 jobs in the 99th district of the Northern Mariana Islands.
$47.7 million spent and 291 jobs created in Puerto Rico's 99th congressional district.
The recovery.gov Web site was established as part of the stimulus bill "to foster greater accountability and transparency" in the use of the money spent through the stimulus program. The site is a well-funded enterprise; the General Services Administration updated it earlier this year with an $18 million grant.
ABC News' Zach Wolf contributed to this report.
51% OPPOSE DECISION TO TRY TERRORISTS IN NEW YORK CITY
51% Oppose Decision To Try Terrorists in New York City
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Fifty-one percent (51%) of U.S. voters oppose the Obama administration’s decision to try the confessed chief planner of the 9/11 attacks and other suspected terrorists in a civilian court in New York City.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 29% of voters favor the president’s decision not to try the suspects by military tribunal at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba where they are now imprisoned. Nineteen percent (19%) are not sure whether it was the right decision or not.
Only 30% of Americans said suspected terrorists should have access to U.S. courts, while 54% favored military tribunals in July 2008, as the first such tribunal got under way at Guantanamo.
Still, 58% of voters now are at least somewhat confident that New York City will be safe and secure while the trials are going on. Yet only 20% are very confident of that fact. Thirty-eight percent (38%) are not very or not at all confident that New York will be safe during this period.
Most voters have consistently opposed moving any of the Guantanamo prisoners to prisons in the United States out of safety concerns.
Voters continue to overwhelmingly oppose giving the terrorist suspects the same legal rights in court as U.S. citizens. Only 14% say the suspects should be given the rights of citizens, but 76% disagree.
The decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and five other suspects in a Lower Manhattan courtroom near the site of the World Trade Center is part of the administration’s plan to shut down the
Guantanamo terrorist prison camp by January. Fifty-five percent (55%) of voters oppose closing that facility, and 48% think it is unlikely it will be closed by January as President Obama has pledged.
When the president announced his decision to close the Guantanamo prison camp just after taking office in January, voters were evenly divided, but public support has been trending away from closing ever since.
While the president believes the prison camp established by his predecessor, George W. Bush, weakened national security, only 30% of Americans agree.
Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans and 56% of voters not affiliated with either major political party oppose trying the terrorist detainees in a civilian court. Democrats are more closely divided, with a plurality (46%) in favor of the administration’s decision to treat the cases as criminal matters for trial in a civilian court.
Sixty percent (60%) of the Political Class think the terrorists suspects should be tried in a civilian court, while the identical number (60%) of Mainstream Americans disagree.
The Political Class Index is based on three questions. Political Class voters tend to trust political leaders more than the public at large and are far less skeptical about government. Mainstream voters are skeptical of both big government and big business.
Democrats and unaffiliated voters are much more confident than Republicans that New York City will be safe and secure during the trial of the suspected terrorists.
Seventy-five percent (75%) of all voters say they have followed news stories about the decision to try the suspected terrorists in a civilian court at least somewhat closely. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say they have been following very closely. Only six percent (6%) are not following the news about the decision at all.
Thirty-six percent (36%) of voters agree with Attorney General Eric Holder’s naming of a veteran prosecutor to probe the CIA’s handling of terrorists during the Bush administration, but 49% are opposed to such an investigation.
Voter confidence in America’s conduct of the War on Terror has fallen to its lowest level since the first week of January in 2007. Largely unchanged for months is the view by 45% that America is safer today than before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Thirty-six percent (36%) disagree and say the country is not safer.
Sixty percent (60%) of voters nationwide say the recent massacre at Fort Hood, Texas should be investigated by military authorities as a terrorist act rather than by civilian authorities as a criminal act.
Seventy-three percent (73%) of Texas voters say Major Nadal Malik Hasan should receive the death penalty if he is convicted of the shootings at Fort Hood.
Only 16% of voters nationwide say America’s relationship with the Muslim world will be better one year from now, despite the president’s outreach to the global Islamic community. That's the lowest level measured all year.
*******************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
I wonder WHY Rasmussen did not ask NEW YORKERS what they thought? As a New Yorker, I am 1000% AGAINST this awful decision, one of a long, long string of horrible decisions made by this ILLEGITIMATE president!!
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Fifty-one percent (51%) of U.S. voters oppose the Obama administration’s decision to try the confessed chief planner of the 9/11 attacks and other suspected terrorists in a civilian court in New York City.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 29% of voters favor the president’s decision not to try the suspects by military tribunal at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba where they are now imprisoned. Nineteen percent (19%) are not sure whether it was the right decision or not.
Only 30% of Americans said suspected terrorists should have access to U.S. courts, while 54% favored military tribunals in July 2008, as the first such tribunal got under way at Guantanamo.
Still, 58% of voters now are at least somewhat confident that New York City will be safe and secure while the trials are going on. Yet only 20% are very confident of that fact. Thirty-eight percent (38%) are not very or not at all confident that New York will be safe during this period.
Most voters have consistently opposed moving any of the Guantanamo prisoners to prisons in the United States out of safety concerns.
Voters continue to overwhelmingly oppose giving the terrorist suspects the same legal rights in court as U.S. citizens. Only 14% say the suspects should be given the rights of citizens, but 76% disagree.
The decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and five other suspects in a Lower Manhattan courtroom near the site of the World Trade Center is part of the administration’s plan to shut down the
Guantanamo terrorist prison camp by January. Fifty-five percent (55%) of voters oppose closing that facility, and 48% think it is unlikely it will be closed by January as President Obama has pledged.
When the president announced his decision to close the Guantanamo prison camp just after taking office in January, voters were evenly divided, but public support has been trending away from closing ever since.
While the president believes the prison camp established by his predecessor, George W. Bush, weakened national security, only 30% of Americans agree.
Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans and 56% of voters not affiliated with either major political party oppose trying the terrorist detainees in a civilian court. Democrats are more closely divided, with a plurality (46%) in favor of the administration’s decision to treat the cases as criminal matters for trial in a civilian court.
Sixty percent (60%) of the Political Class think the terrorists suspects should be tried in a civilian court, while the identical number (60%) of Mainstream Americans disagree.
The Political Class Index is based on three questions. Political Class voters tend to trust political leaders more than the public at large and are far less skeptical about government. Mainstream voters are skeptical of both big government and big business.
Democrats and unaffiliated voters are much more confident than Republicans that New York City will be safe and secure during the trial of the suspected terrorists.
Seventy-five percent (75%) of all voters say they have followed news stories about the decision to try the suspected terrorists in a civilian court at least somewhat closely. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say they have been following very closely. Only six percent (6%) are not following the news about the decision at all.
Thirty-six percent (36%) of voters agree with Attorney General Eric Holder’s naming of a veteran prosecutor to probe the CIA’s handling of terrorists during the Bush administration, but 49% are opposed to such an investigation.
Voter confidence in America’s conduct of the War on Terror has fallen to its lowest level since the first week of January in 2007. Largely unchanged for months is the view by 45% that America is safer today than before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Thirty-six percent (36%) disagree and say the country is not safer.
Sixty percent (60%) of voters nationwide say the recent massacre at Fort Hood, Texas should be investigated by military authorities as a terrorist act rather than by civilian authorities as a criminal act.
Seventy-three percent (73%) of Texas voters say Major Nadal Malik Hasan should receive the death penalty if he is convicted of the shootings at Fort Hood.
Only 16% of voters nationwide say America’s relationship with the Muslim world will be better one year from now, despite the president’s outreach to the global Islamic community. That's the lowest level measured all year.
*******************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
I wonder WHY Rasmussen did not ask NEW YORKERS what they thought? As a New Yorker, I am 1000% AGAINST this awful decision, one of a long, long string of horrible decisions made by this ILLEGITIMATE president!!
Monday, November 16, 2009
OBAMA GIVES TERRORISTS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS HE TAKES AMERICANS' RIGHTS AWAY!!! WHAT A FUCKED UP PRESIDENT!!!
Nov. 16, 2009
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
EDITORIAL: Terrorism on trial
Live from New York .... !
So, dangerous foreign terrorists who seek to destroy the United States now get the same constitutional protections afforded American citizens?
"We have a president who doesn't know we're at war," Debra Burlingame, whose brother was the pilot of the hijacked jetliner that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11, said Friday after the Obama administration announced it would try the mastermind of the worst attacks on U.S. soil in a civilian federal court in New York.
Four other terror suspects thought to be involved in planning 9/11 will also be put on trial in that federal court.
The government will seek the death penalty.
The decision isn't particularly surprising, given the Obama administration's promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, where the men are now imprisoned. But it is fraught with risk and raises questions about how this administration intends to fight the war on terror.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced the decision by saying, "For over 200 years our nation has relied upon a faithful adherence to the rule of law.
Once again, we will ask our legal system in two venues to answer that call."
But since when have we ever tried prisoners of war, enemy combatants or whatever you want to call Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his ilk in a civilian court under protection of the Bill of Rights? What will we do with Osama bin Laden if we find him? Read him his Miranda rights?
"By trying them in our federal courts, we demonstrate to the world that the most powerful nation on Earth also trusts its judicial system," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat.
So this is actually more about securing the approval of the French?
The dangers here are obvious. The courthouse -- and all of Manhattan -- will become a potential terror target once again.
Judicial discovery may lead to important classified information falling into the hands of al-Qaida terrorists. The trials could easily degenerate into circuses.
The Obama administration has made the wrong move. These men should be tried in a military setting.
But Americans will now cross their fingers and hope all goes well in New York.
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
EDITORIAL: Terrorism on trial
Live from New York .... !
So, dangerous foreign terrorists who seek to destroy the United States now get the same constitutional protections afforded American citizens?
"We have a president who doesn't know we're at war," Debra Burlingame, whose brother was the pilot of the hijacked jetliner that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11, said Friday after the Obama administration announced it would try the mastermind of the worst attacks on U.S. soil in a civilian federal court in New York.
Four other terror suspects thought to be involved in planning 9/11 will also be put on trial in that federal court.
The government will seek the death penalty.
The decision isn't particularly surprising, given the Obama administration's promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, where the men are now imprisoned. But it is fraught with risk and raises questions about how this administration intends to fight the war on terror.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced the decision by saying, "For over 200 years our nation has relied upon a faithful adherence to the rule of law.
Once again, we will ask our legal system in two venues to answer that call."
But since when have we ever tried prisoners of war, enemy combatants or whatever you want to call Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his ilk in a civilian court under protection of the Bill of Rights? What will we do with Osama bin Laden if we find him? Read him his Miranda rights?
"By trying them in our federal courts, we demonstrate to the world that the most powerful nation on Earth also trusts its judicial system," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat.
So this is actually more about securing the approval of the French?
The dangers here are obvious. The courthouse -- and all of Manhattan -- will become a potential terror target once again.
Judicial discovery may lead to important classified information falling into the hands of al-Qaida terrorists. The trials could easily degenerate into circuses.
The Obama administration has made the wrong move. These men should be tried in a military setting.
But Americans will now cross their fingers and hope all goes well in New York.
HOUSE HEALTH CARE BILL INCREASES COSTS BY $289 BILLION!!!!
Report: House Health Care Bill INCREASES Costs By $289 Billion
by Andrew Moylan
BIG GOVERNMENT.COM
The Politico ran a story this weekend pointing out a very inconvenient truth for proponents of the House version of big government health reform legislation: contrary to its goal of “bending the cost curve downward” over time, the bill would actually INCREASE health care costs by $289 billion.
The report issued by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimated that the “Affordable Health Care for America Act” would increase health care costs from the current level of 20.8 percent of GDP up to 21.1 percent a decade from now. It also adds yet another voice to the chorus now showing that preventive care and wellness programs do NOT decrease long-term costs.
In a fascinating development, the White House has now actually admitted, apparently for the first time, that the House bill would increase health care burdens despite President Obama’s repeated assertion that he seeks a health care bill that would reduce costs. In response to the CMS study, Obama aide Nancy-Ann DeParle said, “the good news was that, despite extending coverage to 36 million people, health care spending would rise by only by 0.8 percent.”
The CMS findings could make it very difficult for Congressional Democrats and other proponents to follow through on what might be the central argument for their plan of massive tax hikes, subsidies, and regulations: that it would reduce crippling health care costs. Several Members, particularly those facing tough re-election fights, have committed themselves to only voting for a plan that would cut long-term health care costs.
Perhaps more importantly, this report adds yet more evidence to the case that the House health care bill does little, if anything, to address the fundamental problems in health care and is actually counterproductive in many respects. Our employer-based health care system creates problems with transitional lack of insurance due to job changes or layoffs and hides the cost of health care services behind massive walls of bureaucracy. Instead of addressing these issues or injecting real competition by allowing for insurance purchases across state lines, the Democrats’ bill resorts to a predictable package of over $700 billion in tax hikes, coupled with huge new government subsidies and strict regulations.
In addition, it adds a so-called “public option” government insurance program, ostensibly to provide “competition” to major health insurance companies. But the logic of creating a government-run plan for insurance is tenuous at best, as the National Taxpayers Union pointed out in a recent letter to MoveOn.org, asking “Why not a public option in everything?”
The onus is now on the Senate, where debate on their version of a health care bill is expected in the next few weeks. The sharp divisions witnessed in the House are sure to be even sharper in the Senate in light of recent developments.
by Andrew Moylan
BIG GOVERNMENT.COM
The Politico ran a story this weekend pointing out a very inconvenient truth for proponents of the House version of big government health reform legislation: contrary to its goal of “bending the cost curve downward” over time, the bill would actually INCREASE health care costs by $289 billion.
The report issued by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimated that the “Affordable Health Care for America Act” would increase health care costs from the current level of 20.8 percent of GDP up to 21.1 percent a decade from now. It also adds yet another voice to the chorus now showing that preventive care and wellness programs do NOT decrease long-term costs.
In a fascinating development, the White House has now actually admitted, apparently for the first time, that the House bill would increase health care burdens despite President Obama’s repeated assertion that he seeks a health care bill that would reduce costs. In response to the CMS study, Obama aide Nancy-Ann DeParle said, “the good news was that, despite extending coverage to 36 million people, health care spending would rise by only by 0.8 percent.”
The CMS findings could make it very difficult for Congressional Democrats and other proponents to follow through on what might be the central argument for their plan of massive tax hikes, subsidies, and regulations: that it would reduce crippling health care costs. Several Members, particularly those facing tough re-election fights, have committed themselves to only voting for a plan that would cut long-term health care costs.
Perhaps more importantly, this report adds yet more evidence to the case that the House health care bill does little, if anything, to address the fundamental problems in health care and is actually counterproductive in many respects. Our employer-based health care system creates problems with transitional lack of insurance due to job changes or layoffs and hides the cost of health care services behind massive walls of bureaucracy. Instead of addressing these issues or injecting real competition by allowing for insurance purchases across state lines, the Democrats’ bill resorts to a predictable package of over $700 billion in tax hikes, coupled with huge new government subsidies and strict regulations.
In addition, it adds a so-called “public option” government insurance program, ostensibly to provide “competition” to major health insurance companies. But the logic of creating a government-run plan for insurance is tenuous at best, as the National Taxpayers Union pointed out in a recent letter to MoveOn.org, asking “Why not a public option in everything?”
The onus is now on the Senate, where debate on their version of a health care bill is expected in the next few weeks. The sharp divisions witnessed in the House are sure to be even sharper in the Senate in light of recent developments.
HILLARY'S REMARKS AT USA PAVILION AT SHANGHAI EXPO
Remarks at USA Pavilion at Shanghai Expo
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Shanghai, China
November 16, 2009
Thank you. Thank you so much. Well, good morning, and let me tell you how pleased I am to be here with all of you in the rain, which means good fortune. (Laughter.) I thank the vice mayor for his very kind words. And to all of our Chinese friends who are here today, we are very grateful for your support of this pavilion.
I want to thank Ken Jarrett and the USA Pavilion Board of Directors. I wish to thank Mr. Yang Xiong, our executive vice mayor. I want to thank Ms. Zhong Yanqun, vice chair. Mr. Hong Hao, director general, Ms. Wu, deputy director general, and our friend who is the Chinese ambassador to the United States, Ambassador Zhou Wenzhong. Thanks also to U.S. Commissioner General Jose Villarreal, to our Consul General Beatrice Camp, to Ambassador Elizabeth Bagley and Kris Balderston from our Global Partnerships in the State Department, and to Ellen Eliasoph and the U.S. Pavilion team. Thanks to all of you.
And there are a number of corporate representatives here who I would like to acknowledge, because without your financial support, this magnificent USA Pavilion behind me would not be possible. Our global sponsors, PepsiCo, General Electric Corporation, and Chevron; our newest sponsors, Proctor and Gamble, Yum! Brands, Honeywell, Intel, Pfizer, and Qualcomm, and I want to note a special sponsor, Boeing, which has just agreed to double its contribution to $2 million to support this effort. We’re grateful for your generosity and your steadfast belief in the importance of the expo, the American role here, and what this USA Pavilion can do to strengthen cooperation and partnership between the American people and the people of China.
It is very fitting that this expo will be here in Shanghai, one of the most dynamic and cosmopolitan cities in the world. I’m pleased to be here with President Obama and to be back in China after my first trip here as Secretary of State earlier this year. This USA Pavilion will showcase American innovation, it will demonstrate the kind of values that America holds dear – freedom, diversity, teamwork, creativity – and it will be built around the theme “Better Cities and Better Lives.”
I understand there will even be a story told in 4-D. I know there are some in the audience who are still contemplating sponsorship or who may be in negotiations with the USA Pavilion team. Now is the time to join this effort. We want to assemble the strongest team of partners possible. I look forward to returning next summer to see for myself what our pavilion looks like and to tour the magnificent Expo grounds.
There’s a famous American movie called Field of Dreams. And in it, the hero, played by Kevin Costner, builds a baseball field at his remote farm. A lot of people tell him what he’s doing doesn’t make any sense, they think it’s a big risk, but he loves baseball, and he has faith that he can build something that will be meaningful. And during his project which so many people criticize, he keeps hearing “If you build it, they will come.”
Well, ladies and gentlemen, we believe the same. We are building it, and we believe that when the Expo opens in 166 days, 70 million people will come. And with this rain today, maybe 100 million people, with even greater good fortune, will come. Thank you all very much. (Applause.) Thank you.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Shanghai, China
November 16, 2009
Thank you. Thank you so much. Well, good morning, and let me tell you how pleased I am to be here with all of you in the rain, which means good fortune. (Laughter.) I thank the vice mayor for his very kind words. And to all of our Chinese friends who are here today, we are very grateful for your support of this pavilion.
I want to thank Ken Jarrett and the USA Pavilion Board of Directors. I wish to thank Mr. Yang Xiong, our executive vice mayor. I want to thank Ms. Zhong Yanqun, vice chair. Mr. Hong Hao, director general, Ms. Wu, deputy director general, and our friend who is the Chinese ambassador to the United States, Ambassador Zhou Wenzhong. Thanks also to U.S. Commissioner General Jose Villarreal, to our Consul General Beatrice Camp, to Ambassador Elizabeth Bagley and Kris Balderston from our Global Partnerships in the State Department, and to Ellen Eliasoph and the U.S. Pavilion team. Thanks to all of you.
And there are a number of corporate representatives here who I would like to acknowledge, because without your financial support, this magnificent USA Pavilion behind me would not be possible. Our global sponsors, PepsiCo, General Electric Corporation, and Chevron; our newest sponsors, Proctor and Gamble, Yum! Brands, Honeywell, Intel, Pfizer, and Qualcomm, and I want to note a special sponsor, Boeing, which has just agreed to double its contribution to $2 million to support this effort. We’re grateful for your generosity and your steadfast belief in the importance of the expo, the American role here, and what this USA Pavilion can do to strengthen cooperation and partnership between the American people and the people of China.
It is very fitting that this expo will be here in Shanghai, one of the most dynamic and cosmopolitan cities in the world. I’m pleased to be here with President Obama and to be back in China after my first trip here as Secretary of State earlier this year. This USA Pavilion will showcase American innovation, it will demonstrate the kind of values that America holds dear – freedom, diversity, teamwork, creativity – and it will be built around the theme “Better Cities and Better Lives.”
I understand there will even be a story told in 4-D. I know there are some in the audience who are still contemplating sponsorship or who may be in negotiations with the USA Pavilion team. Now is the time to join this effort. We want to assemble the strongest team of partners possible. I look forward to returning next summer to see for myself what our pavilion looks like and to tour the magnificent Expo grounds.
There’s a famous American movie called Field of Dreams. And in it, the hero, played by Kevin Costner, builds a baseball field at his remote farm. A lot of people tell him what he’s doing doesn’t make any sense, they think it’s a big risk, but he loves baseball, and he has faith that he can build something that will be meaningful. And during his project which so many people criticize, he keeps hearing “If you build it, they will come.”
Well, ladies and gentlemen, we believe the same. We are building it, and we believe that when the Expo opens in 166 days, 70 million people will come. And with this rain today, maybe 100 million people, with even greater good fortune, will come. Thank you all very much. (Applause.) Thank you.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH HILLARY
11/15/2009
SPIEGEL Interview with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
'Our Goal Is to Defeat Al-Qaida and Its Extremist Allies'
AFP
US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke to SPIEGEL about her hopes for Afghanistan, her fears about al-Qaida's safe haven in Pakistan and her finite patience with Iran.
SPIEGEL: Madam Secretary, your government is considering sending more troops into Afghanistan. What for? Is it your goal to build a Western-style civil society there? Or is it just to prevent the establishment of new bases of terrorism?
Hillary Rodham Clinton : President Obama has not made any final decision. He has conducted a very deliberative process which has explored every assumption underlying every action. I think that this process alone has been quite productive. But I think it is fair to say that in the course of our examination, our goal is to defeat al-Qaida and its extremist allies.
SPIEGEL: And what does this mean for the Afghan population, for their daily life?
Clinton : We are hopeful for the future of the people of Afghanistan to have a better life, to have political, social, economic development. But we are in Afghanistan because we cannot permit the return of a staging platform for terrorists. We think that al-Qaida and the other extremists are part of a syndicate of terror, with al-Qaida still being an inspiration, a funder, a trainer, an equipper and director of a lot what goes on. Two months ago we have arrested a gentleman who was plotting, it's alleged, against the subway system in New York who went to a training camp of al-Qaida.
SPIEGEL: There are terrorist attacks in Afghanistan on a daily basis. Therefore a lot of people in Germany ask: Do we really have to defend our freedom there? Should our troops die for a corrupt government?
Clinton : I don't think they are fighting and sacrificing for the Afghan government -- they do this for all of us. The soldiers in the Afghan army are willing to fight as well and they are often dying alongside our soldiers. It is very clear that the people in Afghanistan do not want the Taliban back. In every single survey that we have ever seen, they reject the extremism that they lived with from the Taliban. In order to accomplish the goal we set of having a country that is able to stand up and defend itself, there has to be an effort for more accountability; the rule of law; security. Our chances of success in this struggle are enhanced by a government in Afghanistan that can be a partner that can help to train and deploy a bigger and more effective security force. We have to try to better organize our efforts and try to demand more from the Afghan government itself.
SPIEGEL: After the election fraud in favor of President Hamid Karzai -- shouldn't you insist on a government of national unity, including his challenger Abdullah Abdullah?
Clinton : Well, I think that what we are interested in is an effective government. Who the personalities are is not as big a concern as having competent, effective, honest members of the government. But we are not only looking at the government in Kabul, we are also looking at the government throughout the country. Because very often, it is local governance, as it has historically been in Afghanistan, that delivers services, that provides security. So we think more has to be done with the local government structures.
SPIEGEL: Do we understand you correctly: The US government is thinking about naming local governors or at least influencing their nomination?
Clinton : I think that a number of us -- not just the United States but a number of NATO members, too -- agree with what Prime Minister Brown said last week: That there has to be more accountability. We do see this as in our national security interest, but part of being successful and protecting our interest is having a better partner in Afghanistan. And we will be making our views known and we will have certain measurements of accountability that we expect.
SPIEGEL: President Karzai has already made clear that he refuses to tolerate interference.
Clinton : We do not think that is interference. The most common kind of formulation that I and others have learned from the Afghans themselves is: We need your help to get us in a position where we can defend ourselves against the threats of the Taliban and al-Qaida-terrorists - and then we need you to go. Well, that pretty much summarizes what we want to do as well. We have no intention of staying or occupying territory. But we want to leave a stable enough situation behind that the Afghans can defend themselves.
Part 2: 'Is Hamid Karzai the Right Partner?'
SPIEGEL: Do you still consider Hamid Karzai as the right partner in this process?
Clinton : Well, he is the elected president. And I think once he decided to stand for the second round...
SPIEGEL: ...which became necessary after no candidate could reach the necessary 50 percent margin in the first round...
Clinton : ...he legitimized the outcome of the election. Dr. Abdullah decided not to pursue, which has happened in other places. It's happened in my own country when somebody looks at a run-off election and doesn't think he has much of a winning chance. So there is no doubt that he is the duly elected president of Afghanistan. But it should not be that he just holds the title in name only. He has to perform for his people and he has to demonstrate a commitment to the wellbeing of the people in Afghanistan. I'm not underestimating the dangers he faces and the threats, as we saw with the terrible attack on the UN headquarters. But he has to show the leadership that we should expect from him.
SPIEGEL: Instead, in the words of British Prime Minister Brown "sadly, the government of Afghanistan has become a byword for corruption." He added that, if Karzai doesn't improve his administration of office, he will "have forfeited its right to international support." And you are obviously not happy with the way Karzai is fighting corruption either.
Clinton : Well, I think there are several aspects to this. One, we need a formalized mechanism to be investigating corruption inside Afghanistan that is independent of the existing power structure. Two, we also have to be more careful about what the West, NATO, other donors do, because a lot of the corruption is fueled by the amount of money we put in and don't have appropriate measures of accountability ourselves. We have to be tougher. But at the end of the day, what we need to do is measure results on the ground. We need to set standards about where money should be going and what the results should be. And monitor those and hold the people accountable.
SPIEGEL: The situation in Pakistan is at least as dangerous as the situation in Afghanistan. Pakistan owns nuclear weapons...
Clinton : ... the nuclear arsenal that Pakistan has, I believe is secure. I think the government and the military have taken adequate steps to protect that...
SPIEGEL: ... and on top of that Pakistan gives shelter to terrorists, and possibly they are protected by elements within the government in Islamabad. During your recent visit to the country you were quoted as saying: "It is hard to believe that members of the Pakistani government did not know the hiding places of al-Qaida and could not get at them if they really wanted to." What exactly did you mean by that?
Clinton : The safe haven that al-Qaida has found in Pakistan is very troubling. These terrorists are still actively engaged with the elements of the Pakistani Taliban that are threatening the state of Pakistan. And it was only recently that Pakistan, through its civilian leadership and its military leadership, actually made the decision that this was a threat to them. They are committed to going after those who have attacked their army headquarters, administration buildings, universities, mosques -- so many targets that really exemplify the authority of the state and the culture of society. My point really was to say: It is a very high priority for my government to capture or kill the al-Qaida leadership. And we need more help from you in order to be able to achieve that.
SPIEGEL: It is well known that Mullah Omar, the top-terrorist and leader of the Afghan Taliban, has his headquarters near the Pakistani town Quetta close to the border. Do you believe that leading members of the Pakistani secret service are still helping the extremists?
Clinton : Not at the highest levels. I am convinced that at the highest levels, we have a good working relationship. But we have tens of thousands of people in our government in sensitive positions. Every so often, we uncover somebody who is a traitor giving away classified information. So I know that it takes constant vigilance to try to root out those who might not share the values of a society. I would like to see a real effort made on the part of the top leadership to make sure that no one down the ranks is giving any kind of support to the Qaida leadership.
SPIEGEL: In the conflict with Iran there is hardly any progress to be seen. The government in Teheran seems determined not to accept the recent offer of negotiations as based on a proposal of the American president.
Clinton : Well, we don't have a formal response from Iran yet.
Part 3: 'We Know There Is a Lot of Turmoil in the Iranian Political System'
SPIEGEL: The reason for that is probably that the Iranians would like to renegotiate the deal using their well-known delaying tactics. Is your patience endless?
Clinton : We do not intend to renegotiate. We have been willing to give them more time to work through their internal political debate, because we know there is a lot of turmoil in the Iranian political system. But our patience is not unlimited. We continue to urge them to show good faith, as they had said they would adopt this agreement "in principle." It would provide an opening for us to discuss not just the nuclear program, but other matters as well. We are still hopeful.
SPIEGEL: Iranian politicians keep on saying that they have not seen any real sign of willingness to compromise by the new US government. Why don't you take the military option off the table, the threat of bombing Iranian nuclear installations? Nobody believes that this is a realistic option anyway.
Clinton : We do not take any options off the table. I don't think that strategically it is smart to begin cutting your options when the other side does not move at all. Let's see some good faith from Iran; let's see some action on their part. President Obama has reached out to them, both publicly and privately. But that's not a one-way street, we have to see some reciprocity coming back from Iran.
SPIEGEL: In the Arab world you are accused of having "betrayed" the Palestinians during your recent visit to Israel. Indeed you seemed to have given up previous US positions in Jerusalem. Why did you capitulate in front of the hard line government of Benjamin Netanyahu, even calling his willingness to make small concessions "unprecedented"?
Clinton : It has to be seen in the context. In negotiations you often ask for a maximalist position. We are very much in favor of ending settlement activity of all kinds by the Israelis -- our position is that settlement activity is not legitimate. But the Israeli government made a fair point, which is that in their legal system they have already permitted the start of construction on certain units. But they were willing to do something no Israeli government had ever done, which was to say no new settlement activity, period. This was a positive step. I have praised it as I have praised the Palestinians for positive steps they have taken on security. Steps by the way, the Israelis did not think were enough.
SPIEGEL: US President Obama was talking about a "total freeze," which undoubtedly includes the so-called natural growth of the settlements, the building of the new units the Israelis decided upon. It was not only in the Arab world thate your words were understood as a change in American policy.
Clinton : It was absolutely not a change in policy. From the Israeli perspective, they thought it was a big concession. From the Palestinian perspective it is not sufficient. We don't think it's enough. It doesn't correspond with what we want to see eventually. But I think it is only fair to say that the Israelis went further than anyone has before.
SPIEGEL: And you think that should be good enough for the Palestinians to start a new round of peace negotiations?
Clinton : Well, the parties have to get into the negotiation, we are only the facilitator. It is important, so that we can discuss what the borders of a new state would be -- and that would moot all of this discussion of settlements.
SPIEGEL: You are really optimistic about Middle East peace talks?
Clinton : Well, at least I was very pleased when I was in Egypt last week -- that the Egyptians said they would be more than happy to host the Israelis and the Palestinians.
SPIEGEL: Madam Secretary, we thank you for this interview.
Interview conducted by Mathias Müller von Blumencron and Erich Follath
SPIEGEL Interview with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
'Our Goal Is to Defeat Al-Qaida and Its Extremist Allies'
AFP
US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke to SPIEGEL about her hopes for Afghanistan, her fears about al-Qaida's safe haven in Pakistan and her finite patience with Iran.
SPIEGEL: Madam Secretary, your government is considering sending more troops into Afghanistan. What for? Is it your goal to build a Western-style civil society there? Or is it just to prevent the establishment of new bases of terrorism?
Hillary Rodham Clinton : President Obama has not made any final decision. He has conducted a very deliberative process which has explored every assumption underlying every action. I think that this process alone has been quite productive. But I think it is fair to say that in the course of our examination, our goal is to defeat al-Qaida and its extremist allies.
SPIEGEL: And what does this mean for the Afghan population, for their daily life?
Clinton : We are hopeful for the future of the people of Afghanistan to have a better life, to have political, social, economic development. But we are in Afghanistan because we cannot permit the return of a staging platform for terrorists. We think that al-Qaida and the other extremists are part of a syndicate of terror, with al-Qaida still being an inspiration, a funder, a trainer, an equipper and director of a lot what goes on. Two months ago we have arrested a gentleman who was plotting, it's alleged, against the subway system in New York who went to a training camp of al-Qaida.
SPIEGEL: There are terrorist attacks in Afghanistan on a daily basis. Therefore a lot of people in Germany ask: Do we really have to defend our freedom there? Should our troops die for a corrupt government?
Clinton : I don't think they are fighting and sacrificing for the Afghan government -- they do this for all of us. The soldiers in the Afghan army are willing to fight as well and they are often dying alongside our soldiers. It is very clear that the people in Afghanistan do not want the Taliban back. In every single survey that we have ever seen, they reject the extremism that they lived with from the Taliban. In order to accomplish the goal we set of having a country that is able to stand up and defend itself, there has to be an effort for more accountability; the rule of law; security. Our chances of success in this struggle are enhanced by a government in Afghanistan that can be a partner that can help to train and deploy a bigger and more effective security force. We have to try to better organize our efforts and try to demand more from the Afghan government itself.
SPIEGEL: After the election fraud in favor of President Hamid Karzai -- shouldn't you insist on a government of national unity, including his challenger Abdullah Abdullah?
Clinton : Well, I think that what we are interested in is an effective government. Who the personalities are is not as big a concern as having competent, effective, honest members of the government. But we are not only looking at the government in Kabul, we are also looking at the government throughout the country. Because very often, it is local governance, as it has historically been in Afghanistan, that delivers services, that provides security. So we think more has to be done with the local government structures.
SPIEGEL: Do we understand you correctly: The US government is thinking about naming local governors or at least influencing their nomination?
Clinton : I think that a number of us -- not just the United States but a number of NATO members, too -- agree with what Prime Minister Brown said last week: That there has to be more accountability. We do see this as in our national security interest, but part of being successful and protecting our interest is having a better partner in Afghanistan. And we will be making our views known and we will have certain measurements of accountability that we expect.
SPIEGEL: President Karzai has already made clear that he refuses to tolerate interference.
Clinton : We do not think that is interference. The most common kind of formulation that I and others have learned from the Afghans themselves is: We need your help to get us in a position where we can defend ourselves against the threats of the Taliban and al-Qaida-terrorists - and then we need you to go. Well, that pretty much summarizes what we want to do as well. We have no intention of staying or occupying territory. But we want to leave a stable enough situation behind that the Afghans can defend themselves.
Part 2: 'Is Hamid Karzai the Right Partner?'
SPIEGEL: Do you still consider Hamid Karzai as the right partner in this process?
Clinton : Well, he is the elected president. And I think once he decided to stand for the second round...
SPIEGEL: ...which became necessary after no candidate could reach the necessary 50 percent margin in the first round...
Clinton : ...he legitimized the outcome of the election. Dr. Abdullah decided not to pursue, which has happened in other places. It's happened in my own country when somebody looks at a run-off election and doesn't think he has much of a winning chance. So there is no doubt that he is the duly elected president of Afghanistan. But it should not be that he just holds the title in name only. He has to perform for his people and he has to demonstrate a commitment to the wellbeing of the people in Afghanistan. I'm not underestimating the dangers he faces and the threats, as we saw with the terrible attack on the UN headquarters. But he has to show the leadership that we should expect from him.
SPIEGEL: Instead, in the words of British Prime Minister Brown "sadly, the government of Afghanistan has become a byword for corruption." He added that, if Karzai doesn't improve his administration of office, he will "have forfeited its right to international support." And you are obviously not happy with the way Karzai is fighting corruption either.
Clinton : Well, I think there are several aspects to this. One, we need a formalized mechanism to be investigating corruption inside Afghanistan that is independent of the existing power structure. Two, we also have to be more careful about what the West, NATO, other donors do, because a lot of the corruption is fueled by the amount of money we put in and don't have appropriate measures of accountability ourselves. We have to be tougher. But at the end of the day, what we need to do is measure results on the ground. We need to set standards about where money should be going and what the results should be. And monitor those and hold the people accountable.
SPIEGEL: The situation in Pakistan is at least as dangerous as the situation in Afghanistan. Pakistan owns nuclear weapons...
Clinton : ... the nuclear arsenal that Pakistan has, I believe is secure. I think the government and the military have taken adequate steps to protect that...
SPIEGEL: ... and on top of that Pakistan gives shelter to terrorists, and possibly they are protected by elements within the government in Islamabad. During your recent visit to the country you were quoted as saying: "It is hard to believe that members of the Pakistani government did not know the hiding places of al-Qaida and could not get at them if they really wanted to." What exactly did you mean by that?
Clinton : The safe haven that al-Qaida has found in Pakistan is very troubling. These terrorists are still actively engaged with the elements of the Pakistani Taliban that are threatening the state of Pakistan. And it was only recently that Pakistan, through its civilian leadership and its military leadership, actually made the decision that this was a threat to them. They are committed to going after those who have attacked their army headquarters, administration buildings, universities, mosques -- so many targets that really exemplify the authority of the state and the culture of society. My point really was to say: It is a very high priority for my government to capture or kill the al-Qaida leadership. And we need more help from you in order to be able to achieve that.
SPIEGEL: It is well known that Mullah Omar, the top-terrorist and leader of the Afghan Taliban, has his headquarters near the Pakistani town Quetta close to the border. Do you believe that leading members of the Pakistani secret service are still helping the extremists?
Clinton : Not at the highest levels. I am convinced that at the highest levels, we have a good working relationship. But we have tens of thousands of people in our government in sensitive positions. Every so often, we uncover somebody who is a traitor giving away classified information. So I know that it takes constant vigilance to try to root out those who might not share the values of a society. I would like to see a real effort made on the part of the top leadership to make sure that no one down the ranks is giving any kind of support to the Qaida leadership.
SPIEGEL: In the conflict with Iran there is hardly any progress to be seen. The government in Teheran seems determined not to accept the recent offer of negotiations as based on a proposal of the American president.
Clinton : Well, we don't have a formal response from Iran yet.
Part 3: 'We Know There Is a Lot of Turmoil in the Iranian Political System'
SPIEGEL: The reason for that is probably that the Iranians would like to renegotiate the deal using their well-known delaying tactics. Is your patience endless?
Clinton : We do not intend to renegotiate. We have been willing to give them more time to work through their internal political debate, because we know there is a lot of turmoil in the Iranian political system. But our patience is not unlimited. We continue to urge them to show good faith, as they had said they would adopt this agreement "in principle." It would provide an opening for us to discuss not just the nuclear program, but other matters as well. We are still hopeful.
SPIEGEL: Iranian politicians keep on saying that they have not seen any real sign of willingness to compromise by the new US government. Why don't you take the military option off the table, the threat of bombing Iranian nuclear installations? Nobody believes that this is a realistic option anyway.
Clinton : We do not take any options off the table. I don't think that strategically it is smart to begin cutting your options when the other side does not move at all. Let's see some good faith from Iran; let's see some action on their part. President Obama has reached out to them, both publicly and privately. But that's not a one-way street, we have to see some reciprocity coming back from Iran.
SPIEGEL: In the Arab world you are accused of having "betrayed" the Palestinians during your recent visit to Israel. Indeed you seemed to have given up previous US positions in Jerusalem. Why did you capitulate in front of the hard line government of Benjamin Netanyahu, even calling his willingness to make small concessions "unprecedented"?
Clinton : It has to be seen in the context. In negotiations you often ask for a maximalist position. We are very much in favor of ending settlement activity of all kinds by the Israelis -- our position is that settlement activity is not legitimate. But the Israeli government made a fair point, which is that in their legal system they have already permitted the start of construction on certain units. But they were willing to do something no Israeli government had ever done, which was to say no new settlement activity, period. This was a positive step. I have praised it as I have praised the Palestinians for positive steps they have taken on security. Steps by the way, the Israelis did not think were enough.
SPIEGEL: US President Obama was talking about a "total freeze," which undoubtedly includes the so-called natural growth of the settlements, the building of the new units the Israelis decided upon. It was not only in the Arab world thate your words were understood as a change in American policy.
Clinton : It was absolutely not a change in policy. From the Israeli perspective, they thought it was a big concession. From the Palestinian perspective it is not sufficient. We don't think it's enough. It doesn't correspond with what we want to see eventually. But I think it is only fair to say that the Israelis went further than anyone has before.
SPIEGEL: And you think that should be good enough for the Palestinians to start a new round of peace negotiations?
Clinton : Well, the parties have to get into the negotiation, we are only the facilitator. It is important, so that we can discuss what the borders of a new state would be -- and that would moot all of this discussion of settlements.
SPIEGEL: You are really optimistic about Middle East peace talks?
Clinton : Well, at least I was very pleased when I was in Egypt last week -- that the Egyptians said they would be more than happy to host the Israelis and the Palestinians.
SPIEGEL: Madam Secretary, we thank you for this interview.
Interview conducted by Mathias Müller von Blumencron and Erich Follath
HILLARY WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO SARAH OVER COFFEE!!!
Clinton: Would look forward to coffee with Palin
by The Associated Press
WASHINGTON November 15, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says she would be happy to talk to Sarah Palin over coffee.
In an interview for broadcast Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Clinton says she's never met the one-time GOP vice presidential hopeful and former Alaska governor and thinks it would be very interesting to sit down and talk with her.
Clinton was responding to a question about a passage in Palin's new book. Palin writes that if she and Clinton ever meet for coffee, "I know that we would fundamentally disagree on many issues." But Palin says, "my hat is off to her hard work on the 2008 campaign trail."
Clinton, in Singapore for a meeting of world leaders, says she's ready to have a cup of coffee and maybe she could make a case on some of the issues on which the two women disagree.
by The Associated Press
WASHINGTON November 15, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says she would be happy to talk to Sarah Palin over coffee.
In an interview for broadcast Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Clinton says she's never met the one-time GOP vice presidential hopeful and former Alaska governor and thinks it would be very interesting to sit down and talk with her.
Clinton was responding to a question about a passage in Palin's new book. Palin writes that if she and Clinton ever meet for coffee, "I know that we would fundamentally disagree on many issues." But Palin says, "my hat is off to her hard work on the 2008 campaign trail."
Clinton, in Singapore for a meeting of world leaders, says she's ready to have a cup of coffee and maybe she could make a case on some of the issues on which the two women disagree.
HILLARY'S INTERVIEW WITH DAVID GREGORY OF NBC'S MEET THE PRESS
Interview With David Gregory of NBC's Meet the Press
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Singapore
November 15, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, welcome back to Meet the Press.
SECRETARY CLINTON: It’s great to talk with you from Singapore, David. Thank you.
QUESTION: Let me begin by something that’s very controversial back home, as you well know, the decision by the Attorney General to transfer some of the high-profile prisoners from Guantanamo Bay from the prison there. The self-proclaimed perpetrators of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and make them stand trial in New York.
As you know, the reaction has been fierce on Capitol Hill among mostly Republicans, but some Democrats too, saying that there’s no reason to give these prisoners the rights of the common criminal. On the other side, you have Mayor Bloomberg of New York saying that it’s the right thing to do, to make them stand trial just a few blocks away from where the World Trade Center stood.
Where do you stand on this?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, David, this was a very comprehensively examined decision that the Attorney General and the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense reached in who would be tried in federal court, who would be in the military commission system that the Obama Administration has revised. And I’m not going to second-guess any decision that the Attorney General made, but I think it’s important that Mayor Bloomberg, that our law enforcement officials in New York, all believe that New York City not only can handle this, but that it is appropriate to go forward in the very area where these people launched this horrific attack against us.
I was a senator from New York, and I want to see them brought to justice. The most important thing for me is that they pay the ultimate price for what they did to us on 9/11. And if the Attorney General and veteran prosecutors think this is the best way to achieve that outcome, then I think that they should be given the right to move forward as they see appropriate.
QUESTION: Do you agree with those who say that this exposes New York City to unnecessary risks of terrorism?
SECRETARY CLINTON: No, and I think Mayor Bloomberg, the Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, these are people who put the interests of New York above all else. And they clearly believe that this can be handled in New York. I have the greatest confidence in the law enforcement personnel and leadership in New York City.
Obviously, it’s a very painful experience for families to have to go through. That is something that pains me. But we are a nation of laws, and we have two different venues for holding these people accountable, the military commissions and our federal courts. And the individual decisions that the Justice Department and the Defense Department have made, along with the advice of veteran prosecutors, I think should be respected.
QUESTION: When is a realistic deadline now for Americans to expect the prison at Guantanamo Bay to be shut down?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think as soon as possible. But obviously, there are some challenges. I think that every American should understand that closing Guantanamo was a commitment that President Obama made. It was very well received around the world because Guantanamo had come to represent not the America that we all believe in and that we hold dear – our values and the way we behave. And so closing it is a commitment that the President made that he will follow through on. The timing is kind of dependent upon how we answer all these other issues.
QUESTION: Let me move on to another big issue, and that’s Afghanistan. When are we going to hear the President’s decision about whether to send more troops?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I mean, the President is going to be making that decision when he is ready to announce it. I think he stopped at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska on his way to Asia, and I know that he told the troops there that he’s going to make a decision that will give them the support they need for the mission that he asks them to fulfill, and that he’s also going to make the case to the American public both to support the mission and, as always, to support our troops.
QUESTION: But let me zero in on a key issue here, and that, of course, is the issue of how many troops. We know General McChrystal is requesting 40,000 troops or perhaps more. General Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, weighed in on this topic and it was reported on this week, as you well know. This is what The Washington Post said on Thursday, and I’ll read it for you:
“The U.S. ambassador in Kabul sent two classified cables to Washington in the past week expressing deep concerns about sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan until President Karzai’s government demonstrates that it is willing to tackle the corruption and mismanagement that has fueled the Taliban’s rise. The ambassador also has worried that sending tens of thousands of additional American troops would increase the Afghan Government’s dependence on U.S. support at a time when its own security forces should be taking on more responsibility for fighting.”
QUESTION: It’s been reported that you actually support as many as 30,000 additional troops being sent to Afghanistan. Obviously, Ambassador Eikenberry reports up to you. What is your response to those cables and to that point of view?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, David, of course, I’m not going to discuss any of the confidential advice that anyone has provided me or the President during this process. But I think what you obviously know is that there are many different views about how best to work with the Afghan Government. And one of the points that we are stressing is that our goal is to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida. That’s why we’re in Afghanistan. It’s about our national security. We do want to see the Afghans be able to defend themselves, which means being able to stand up a security force that is capable of fighting the Taliban, which is a part of the syndicate of terror that was basically inspired, funded, and directed by al-Qaida. But we’re going to expect more from the Afghan Government going forward, and we’ve got some very specific asks that we will be making.
QUESTION: Do you believe that President Karzai is an effective partner, a reliable partner, and that sending more U.S. troops would actually be effective?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, again, I believe that he has his strengths and he has his weaknesses. Certainly, there are many improvements in Afghanistan over the last eight years, but there has not been the kind of open, transparent, accountable government that stood against corruption, that delivered services to people, that I think the people of Afghanistan are seeking and that we would all like to see for them. And particularly, we have some work to do to assist and mentor and train an Afghan security force.
What I hear all the time from people in Afghanistan and reports from others who are talking on a regular basis to people across the country is that the basic attitude in Afghanistan is they do not want to see a return of the Taliban. That was a horrible period that they remember all too well. They do want security. They want a government that can protect them and can deliver at least some services, whether it’s from the central government or the local district government. They also want to make sure that we help them create a security force that can then take over.
As one person memorably said, look, we want your help to enable us to defend ourselves, and then we want you to go. Well, that’s a pretty good summary of what want to do. We want to get al-Qaida. We want to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat those who attacked us. And we want to be able to give the Afghans the tools that they need to be able to defend themselves. We’re not interested in staying in Afghanistan. We’re not interested in any long-term presence there. We came to do a job, and unfortunately, it wasn’t done over the last eight years.
QUESTION: Define the exit strategy, if that’s the President’s view.
SECRETARY CLINTON: I’m not going to define the President’s view and I’m not going to define the exit strategy from a mission that he hasn’t even yet announced to the American public. And I guess I would just put this in a larger context with making these points, David.
Number one, I have traveled consistently for the last nine months. I think I’ve been in more than 40 countries. I’ve met with countless leaders. I’ve done a lot of public diplomacy, getting out there, listening to people. I don’t think I can overstate how damaged our country was in the eyes of people around the world when President Obama took office. And we’ve been working very hard to just get us back to a point where we can have the kind of open, candid conversations that lead to decisions being made that will benefit the United States and move us toward goals like more peaceful, prosperous outcomes for us and – on many parts of the world.
Secondly, I think it’s important to underscore that we see the fight against al-Qaida and the syndicate of terror in the security interests of the United States. I think that kind of got lost the last eight years with a lot of talk about how it wasn’t important to get bin Ladin, that we were there for some other reason. No, it’s critical to get those who attacked us. That is what we are there for. And what we are trying to do is to assess the best way forward so that we can go anywhere in the United States and anywhere in the world and say the same thing: You have to understand that we believe this syndicate of terror is a threat not just to the United States and our friends and allies, but to Pakistan, Afghanistan, and many others.
QUESTION: Let me turn to the issue of China, where you and the President head next. The lead of a New York Times story out this morning about the President’s visit there says this: “When President Obama visits China for the first time on Sunday, he will in many ways be assuming the role of profligate spender coming to pay his respects to his banker.” With that as the backdrop, with China holding so much U.S. debt, $2 trillion worth, what is your assessment of U.S.-China relations?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that our relations are on a positive, cooperative basis with a comprehensive agenda that we are exploring together. Secretary Geithner and I co-chair the Strategic and Economic Dialogue that we started this year, because we didn’t want to just have an economic dialogue, we wanted to have a much more comprehensive engagement. I think that there is evidence that there are some positive results already. The Chinese have stood with us in the sanctions against North Korea. The Chinese are part of the P-5+1 effort to try to engage Iran on its nuclear program. We are seeing signs of a cooperative relationship.
Now let me go to the premise of your question. When I ran for president, I started saying all the time that, in effect, we were ceding our fiscal sovereignty and that China was our banker. So it’s not news that that’s going to be in the papers on the eve of our visit to China. We have to get back to fiscal responsibility. It breaks my heart, David, that in 2001 we had a balanced budget and a surplus, and if we had stayed on that path we were heading toward eliminating our debt. Well, here we are eight years later, thanks to wars that weren’t paid for, thanks to financial collapses and so many other crises that we inherited. But the President understands clearly that we have to get back some control over time of our fiscal sovereignty.
QUESTION: Can I ask you something different about China, which is in light of the fact that China has a robust espionage policy against the United States, that they are cooperating with Iran in international affairs. Are they hurting our national security interests?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, look, we are well aware of not just one country but many countries that try to gain advantage, not just politically and strategically, but commercially vis-à-vis our own country. And we are also well aware that many countries have relationships with those with whom we do not. But I think it’s more significant that China signed on to our P-5+1 statement in New York, China has been at the table as we have been pushing Iran to fulfill what they agreed to in principle to send out their low-enriched uranium so that it can be reprocessed elsewhere.
So I think it’s a much more complicated and mixed story. But I travel on behalf of our country and I meet with leaders from all over the world every day, and I have no illusions going in to any meeting that anybody stands for America’s interest besides me. The task is to look for where we can find common ground and common interests. It is significant that China signed on to the toughest sanctions ever against North Korea, because we worked very hard to make the case that those sanctions were not just something that America or South Korea or Japan wanted, but they were in the interest of China.
Similarly, in my conversations with Chinese leaders, I make it very clear that a nuclear-armed Iran will destabilizes the region that produces the oil and the gas that China desperately needs and for which they have contracts. So why wouldn't we try to stabilize the region by preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons in the first place?
So that’s what diplomacy is about. I mean, you don’t – you start from the premise of what are your security interests, what is it that you wish to present, and how do you make the case that what you’re seeking is also in the interests of your counterpart?
QUESTION: Before I let you go, you know whenever I get a chance to talk to you, I like to ask you about a little bit of politics. And I know you’re over there in Singapore and you may not have heard --
SECRETARY CLINTON: I’m out of politics.
QUESTION: You may not have heard, but Sarah Palin has a new book out. And in, it she writes this: “Should Secretary Clinton and I ever sit down over a cup of coffee, I know that we would fundamentally disagree on many issues. But my hat is off to her hard work on the 2008 campaign trail.”
Is this somebody you’d like to sit and have coffee with, and do you plan to read the book?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I absolutely would look forward to having coffee. I’ve never met her, and I think it would be very interesting to sit down and talk with her. And I’ve got more than I can say grace over to read. But obviously, in the next week, there’s going to be a lot of attention paid to her book, and I’m sure that I’ll see excerpts printed and snippets of interviews as I channel surf in Singapore and in Shanghai and in Beijing. But I’m ready to have a cup of coffee. Maybe I can make a case on some of the issues that we disagree on. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: So maybe there’s a summit meeting here. What do you think her brand of conservatism – how does that impact the Republican party?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I truly am out of commenting on politics. That is something that is not appropriate for the Secretary of State. But I am an active observer. And obviously, these are questions that you and others are going to be asking, and I look forward to hearing what people answer.
QUESTION: It was worth a shot. Secretary Clinton, thank you very much.
SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.) Thanks, David. Good to talk to you.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Singapore
November 15, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, welcome back to Meet the Press.
SECRETARY CLINTON: It’s great to talk with you from Singapore, David. Thank you.
QUESTION: Let me begin by something that’s very controversial back home, as you well know, the decision by the Attorney General to transfer some of the high-profile prisoners from Guantanamo Bay from the prison there. The self-proclaimed perpetrators of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and make them stand trial in New York.
As you know, the reaction has been fierce on Capitol Hill among mostly Republicans, but some Democrats too, saying that there’s no reason to give these prisoners the rights of the common criminal. On the other side, you have Mayor Bloomberg of New York saying that it’s the right thing to do, to make them stand trial just a few blocks away from where the World Trade Center stood.
Where do you stand on this?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, David, this was a very comprehensively examined decision that the Attorney General and the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense reached in who would be tried in federal court, who would be in the military commission system that the Obama Administration has revised. And I’m not going to second-guess any decision that the Attorney General made, but I think it’s important that Mayor Bloomberg, that our law enforcement officials in New York, all believe that New York City not only can handle this, but that it is appropriate to go forward in the very area where these people launched this horrific attack against us.
I was a senator from New York, and I want to see them brought to justice. The most important thing for me is that they pay the ultimate price for what they did to us on 9/11. And if the Attorney General and veteran prosecutors think this is the best way to achieve that outcome, then I think that they should be given the right to move forward as they see appropriate.
QUESTION: Do you agree with those who say that this exposes New York City to unnecessary risks of terrorism?
SECRETARY CLINTON: No, and I think Mayor Bloomberg, the Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, these are people who put the interests of New York above all else. And they clearly believe that this can be handled in New York. I have the greatest confidence in the law enforcement personnel and leadership in New York City.
Obviously, it’s a very painful experience for families to have to go through. That is something that pains me. But we are a nation of laws, and we have two different venues for holding these people accountable, the military commissions and our federal courts. And the individual decisions that the Justice Department and the Defense Department have made, along with the advice of veteran prosecutors, I think should be respected.
QUESTION: When is a realistic deadline now for Americans to expect the prison at Guantanamo Bay to be shut down?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think as soon as possible. But obviously, there are some challenges. I think that every American should understand that closing Guantanamo was a commitment that President Obama made. It was very well received around the world because Guantanamo had come to represent not the America that we all believe in and that we hold dear – our values and the way we behave. And so closing it is a commitment that the President made that he will follow through on. The timing is kind of dependent upon how we answer all these other issues.
QUESTION: Let me move on to another big issue, and that’s Afghanistan. When are we going to hear the President’s decision about whether to send more troops?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I mean, the President is going to be making that decision when he is ready to announce it. I think he stopped at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska on his way to Asia, and I know that he told the troops there that he’s going to make a decision that will give them the support they need for the mission that he asks them to fulfill, and that he’s also going to make the case to the American public both to support the mission and, as always, to support our troops.
QUESTION: But let me zero in on a key issue here, and that, of course, is the issue of how many troops. We know General McChrystal is requesting 40,000 troops or perhaps more. General Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, weighed in on this topic and it was reported on this week, as you well know. This is what The Washington Post said on Thursday, and I’ll read it for you:
“The U.S. ambassador in Kabul sent two classified cables to Washington in the past week expressing deep concerns about sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan until President Karzai’s government demonstrates that it is willing to tackle the corruption and mismanagement that has fueled the Taliban’s rise. The ambassador also has worried that sending tens of thousands of additional American troops would increase the Afghan Government’s dependence on U.S. support at a time when its own security forces should be taking on more responsibility for fighting.”
QUESTION: It’s been reported that you actually support as many as 30,000 additional troops being sent to Afghanistan. Obviously, Ambassador Eikenberry reports up to you. What is your response to those cables and to that point of view?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, David, of course, I’m not going to discuss any of the confidential advice that anyone has provided me or the President during this process. But I think what you obviously know is that there are many different views about how best to work with the Afghan Government. And one of the points that we are stressing is that our goal is to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida. That’s why we’re in Afghanistan. It’s about our national security. We do want to see the Afghans be able to defend themselves, which means being able to stand up a security force that is capable of fighting the Taliban, which is a part of the syndicate of terror that was basically inspired, funded, and directed by al-Qaida. But we’re going to expect more from the Afghan Government going forward, and we’ve got some very specific asks that we will be making.
QUESTION: Do you believe that President Karzai is an effective partner, a reliable partner, and that sending more U.S. troops would actually be effective?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, again, I believe that he has his strengths and he has his weaknesses. Certainly, there are many improvements in Afghanistan over the last eight years, but there has not been the kind of open, transparent, accountable government that stood against corruption, that delivered services to people, that I think the people of Afghanistan are seeking and that we would all like to see for them. And particularly, we have some work to do to assist and mentor and train an Afghan security force.
What I hear all the time from people in Afghanistan and reports from others who are talking on a regular basis to people across the country is that the basic attitude in Afghanistan is they do not want to see a return of the Taliban. That was a horrible period that they remember all too well. They do want security. They want a government that can protect them and can deliver at least some services, whether it’s from the central government or the local district government. They also want to make sure that we help them create a security force that can then take over.
As one person memorably said, look, we want your help to enable us to defend ourselves, and then we want you to go. Well, that’s a pretty good summary of what want to do. We want to get al-Qaida. We want to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat those who attacked us. And we want to be able to give the Afghans the tools that they need to be able to defend themselves. We’re not interested in staying in Afghanistan. We’re not interested in any long-term presence there. We came to do a job, and unfortunately, it wasn’t done over the last eight years.
QUESTION: Define the exit strategy, if that’s the President’s view.
SECRETARY CLINTON: I’m not going to define the President’s view and I’m not going to define the exit strategy from a mission that he hasn’t even yet announced to the American public. And I guess I would just put this in a larger context with making these points, David.
Number one, I have traveled consistently for the last nine months. I think I’ve been in more than 40 countries. I’ve met with countless leaders. I’ve done a lot of public diplomacy, getting out there, listening to people. I don’t think I can overstate how damaged our country was in the eyes of people around the world when President Obama took office. And we’ve been working very hard to just get us back to a point where we can have the kind of open, candid conversations that lead to decisions being made that will benefit the United States and move us toward goals like more peaceful, prosperous outcomes for us and – on many parts of the world.
Secondly, I think it’s important to underscore that we see the fight against al-Qaida and the syndicate of terror in the security interests of the United States. I think that kind of got lost the last eight years with a lot of talk about how it wasn’t important to get bin Ladin, that we were there for some other reason. No, it’s critical to get those who attacked us. That is what we are there for. And what we are trying to do is to assess the best way forward so that we can go anywhere in the United States and anywhere in the world and say the same thing: You have to understand that we believe this syndicate of terror is a threat not just to the United States and our friends and allies, but to Pakistan, Afghanistan, and many others.
QUESTION: Let me turn to the issue of China, where you and the President head next. The lead of a New York Times story out this morning about the President’s visit there says this: “When President Obama visits China for the first time on Sunday, he will in many ways be assuming the role of profligate spender coming to pay his respects to his banker.” With that as the backdrop, with China holding so much U.S. debt, $2 trillion worth, what is your assessment of U.S.-China relations?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that our relations are on a positive, cooperative basis with a comprehensive agenda that we are exploring together. Secretary Geithner and I co-chair the Strategic and Economic Dialogue that we started this year, because we didn’t want to just have an economic dialogue, we wanted to have a much more comprehensive engagement. I think that there is evidence that there are some positive results already. The Chinese have stood with us in the sanctions against North Korea. The Chinese are part of the P-5+1 effort to try to engage Iran on its nuclear program. We are seeing signs of a cooperative relationship.
Now let me go to the premise of your question. When I ran for president, I started saying all the time that, in effect, we were ceding our fiscal sovereignty and that China was our banker. So it’s not news that that’s going to be in the papers on the eve of our visit to China. We have to get back to fiscal responsibility. It breaks my heart, David, that in 2001 we had a balanced budget and a surplus, and if we had stayed on that path we were heading toward eliminating our debt. Well, here we are eight years later, thanks to wars that weren’t paid for, thanks to financial collapses and so many other crises that we inherited. But the President understands clearly that we have to get back some control over time of our fiscal sovereignty.
QUESTION: Can I ask you something different about China, which is in light of the fact that China has a robust espionage policy against the United States, that they are cooperating with Iran in international affairs. Are they hurting our national security interests?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, look, we are well aware of not just one country but many countries that try to gain advantage, not just politically and strategically, but commercially vis-à-vis our own country. And we are also well aware that many countries have relationships with those with whom we do not. But I think it’s more significant that China signed on to our P-5+1 statement in New York, China has been at the table as we have been pushing Iran to fulfill what they agreed to in principle to send out their low-enriched uranium so that it can be reprocessed elsewhere.
So I think it’s a much more complicated and mixed story. But I travel on behalf of our country and I meet with leaders from all over the world every day, and I have no illusions going in to any meeting that anybody stands for America’s interest besides me. The task is to look for where we can find common ground and common interests. It is significant that China signed on to the toughest sanctions ever against North Korea, because we worked very hard to make the case that those sanctions were not just something that America or South Korea or Japan wanted, but they were in the interest of China.
Similarly, in my conversations with Chinese leaders, I make it very clear that a nuclear-armed Iran will destabilizes the region that produces the oil and the gas that China desperately needs and for which they have contracts. So why wouldn't we try to stabilize the region by preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons in the first place?
So that’s what diplomacy is about. I mean, you don’t – you start from the premise of what are your security interests, what is it that you wish to present, and how do you make the case that what you’re seeking is also in the interests of your counterpart?
QUESTION: Before I let you go, you know whenever I get a chance to talk to you, I like to ask you about a little bit of politics. And I know you’re over there in Singapore and you may not have heard --
SECRETARY CLINTON: I’m out of politics.
QUESTION: You may not have heard, but Sarah Palin has a new book out. And in, it she writes this: “Should Secretary Clinton and I ever sit down over a cup of coffee, I know that we would fundamentally disagree on many issues. But my hat is off to her hard work on the 2008 campaign trail.”
Is this somebody you’d like to sit and have coffee with, and do you plan to read the book?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I absolutely would look forward to having coffee. I’ve never met her, and I think it would be very interesting to sit down and talk with her. And I’ve got more than I can say grace over to read. But obviously, in the next week, there’s going to be a lot of attention paid to her book, and I’m sure that I’ll see excerpts printed and snippets of interviews as I channel surf in Singapore and in Shanghai and in Beijing. But I’m ready to have a cup of coffee. Maybe I can make a case on some of the issues that we disagree on. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: So maybe there’s a summit meeting here. What do you think her brand of conservatism – how does that impact the Republican party?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I truly am out of commenting on politics. That is something that is not appropriate for the Secretary of State. But I am an active observer. And obviously, these are questions that you and others are going to be asking, and I look forward to hearing what people answer.
QUESTION: It was worth a shot. Secretary Clinton, thank you very much.
SECRETARY CLINTON: (Laughter.) Thanks, David. Good to talk to you.
HILLARY'S INTERVIEW WITH GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS OF ABC'S THIS WEEK
Interview With George Stephanopoulos of ABC's This Week
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Singapore
November 15, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION: And we begin today with the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Thanks for spending time with us this morning.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, it’s a pleasure to talk with you from Singapore, George.
QUESTION: Well, and as you’re in Singapore, you and the President are facing, really, his toughest decision yet on Afghanistan. And on his way over when he stopped at Elmendorf Air Force Base, President Obama made this commitment to the troops and the country. Listen:
“We will give you the strategy and the clear mission you deserve. We will give you the equipment and support that you need to get the job done. And that includes public support back home. That is a promise that I make to you.”
QUESTION: Now, that is a tough promise to keep. History shows that the public won't support a war for very long, if they're not convinced that the goal is worthy, but also, and probably more important, that the war can be won. How can you convince the country that this war can be won?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think the President said it very well, in talking to some of the brave young men and women in uniform when he stopped at Elmendorf. What he's been doing in the last weeks is testing every single assumption, asking for evidence, asking for dissenting opinions. I mean, he has conducted an extraordinary effort to make sure that the decision he makes is rooted in his best judgement, as to what is in the national security interest of the United States. And I believe that is a case that can be made to the American people. I have no doubt about that.
Now, look, I understand that there will be people who are maybe critical or unconvinced or not persuaded. But I think the majority of Americans will know that this President has gone the extra mile -- in fact, more than that -- to make sure that whatever decision he makes is in the best interest of our country, that it is aimed at making our country more secure, and supporting our men and women in uniform, as they fulfill the mission.
QUESTION: Well, one of those dissenting voices right now is reported to be our ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry. He is also the former commanding general of U.S. forces there. And he has sent cables to Washington warning that President Karzai is not a worthy partner, and that sending more troops to Afghanistan now could actually make it more difficult for the Afghan Government, President Karzai, the Afghan army, to do what they need to defend their country on their own.
And I know you can't comment on any classified cables, but what do you think of this sentiment that President Karzai has not shown that he is a credible partner yet, and that sending more troops now will actually make the Afghan army too dependent on U.S. forces?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, George, you're right; I can't and wouldn't comment on the confidential advice that anyone has provided to the President during his deliberations. But the argument that you have just described is one that a number of people have made in the press and in arguments that have certainly been made known to me, to the President, and others.
We agree that our goal here is to defeat al-Qaida. That has been a clear goal and a mission from the President ever since he made his commitment of additional troops back in the spring. And we understand that the Afghans themselves need help in order to defend themselves against the Taliban. Those are mutually reinforcing missions.
But our highest obligation is the American people. It is to do everything we can to make sure that America is secure, that our allies, our interests around the world, are protected. And that is what we are focused on.
Now, we believe that President Karzai and his government can do better. We have delivered that message. Now that the election is finally over, we are looking to see tangible evidence that the government, led by the president, but going all the way down to the local level, will be more responsive to the needs of the people, will deliver the services that the people of Afghanistan want – who do not want a return of the Taliban, but they want a government that actually can function on their behalf – and that, together, we and our allies in the international community will help them to build a security force that can take care of their security going forward.
QUESTION: But President Karzai does seem to be ignoring some of our concerns. He is surrounded by a Vice President Marshal Fahim, who’s been accused of corruption. He is allied with General Dostum, a warlord, who has been accused of massacres in the past.
What kind of concrete steps must President Karzai take to prove that sending more troops is not a waste of American lives and American money?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I have made it clear that we are not going to be providing any civilian aid to Afghanistan unless we have a certification that, if it goes into the Afghan Government in any form, that we are going to have ministries that we can hold accountable.
We are expecting there to be a major crimes tribunal, an anti-corruption commission established and functioning, because there does have to be action by the Government of Afghanistan against those who have taken advantage of the money that has poured into Afghanistan in the last eight years, so that we can better track it, and we can have actions taken that demonstrate there is no impunity for those who are corrupt.
So, we are going to be doing what we can to create an atmosphere in which the blood and treasure that the United States has committed to Afghanistan can be justified and can produce the kind of results that we're looking for.
But we have no illusions. This is not the prior days when people would come on your show and talk about how we were going to help the Afghans build a modern democracy and build a more functioning state, and do all these wonderful things. That could happen. But our primary focus is on the security of the United States of America. How do we protect and defend against future attacks? We do not want to see Afghanistan return to being a safe haven and a staging platform for terrorism, as it was before. That is what is driving the President to make the best decision he can make.
QUESTION: The word of the week in Washington appears to be "off-ramps." That's what the President is pushing for, off-ramps out of Afghanistan. What is the off-ramp out of Afghanistan?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think we want to get al-Qaida, George, and we're very clear about that. And we see it as part of our integrated strategy, looking at Afghanistan and Pakistan as a theater in which we have to operate.
We have made it clear to the Pakistanis, as well as to the Afghans and others, that we want to do everything we can to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida. And when we talk about on-ramps, off-ramps, whatever the terminology of the day might be, that's a kind of shorthand. What we are trying to figure out is what is the best decision the President can make to achieve our primary core objective.
We’re not interested in staying in Afghanistan. We have no long-term stake there. We want that to be made very clear. We came to do a mission. Unfortunately, it was not achieved in the last eight years. In fact, the mission was changed because it could not be achieved or no longer was the primary goal that was expressed in the prior administration.
Well, our goal is very clear. We want to get the people who attacked us. And we want to prevent them and their syndicate of terrorism from posing a threat to us, our allies, and our interests.
QUESTION: While you are there, the Attorney General announced that he was going to be prosecuting al-Qaida members in U.S. criminal courts in Manhattan, in New York City, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four of his alleged accomplices. And that’s come under some fire, including from the former mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, who is our next guest. Here is what the mayor had to say about that decision:
“This was an act of war and an act of terror. They should be prosecuted. They should be prosecuted in a military tribunal. We would not have tried the people who attacked Pearl Harbor in a civilian court in Hawaii for what they did.”
QUESTION: Now it is true that during World War II we tried Nazis who crossed our borders in military courts, in military tribunals. Why is it so important to have these trials in federal criminal courts?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, of course, George, this is a decision that the Attorney General, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Defense have made after extensive, exhaustive review. Look, I was a senator for eight years. I was a senator on 9/11. My goal is to make sure that the masterminds and the other implementers and designers of this horrific attack on us pay the ultimate penalty for what they did to the United States and to a lot of people who I know and who I had the honor of representing.
The Attorney General is determined, after consulting with veteran prosecutors, that this is a case that appropriately can be brought in our federal courts. Other cases will be brought in the military commissions. I'm not going to second-guess the Attorney General.
QUESTION: The State Department has the job of trying to find homes for the 90 or so prisoners at Guantanamo who have been cleared for release, but there is no country that will take them. How long will it take to find places for those 90 detainees? And will that delay -- how much further will that delay the closing of Guantanamo?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, actually, George, we have been making progress. I think when we started, there were way more than 100. I don't remember the exact number. We have a dedicated group, led by Ambassador Dan Fried, who have literally traveled the world making arrangements for detainees to be transferred to countries willing to accept them. And we are making progress. There is a large group of detainees from Yemen that pose some specific security issues that have to be addressed, but we are making progress.
QUESTION: While you have been gone, Sarah Palin is making quite a splash back here in the United States. Her book, "Going Rogue," is about to be released, but there are already excerpts out. And she has some kind words for you in the book. She says she was wrong to criticize you last year for whining, and now she says that she realized the media was biased when talking about your candidacy.
And she goes on to say this, to write this: "Should Secretary Clinton and I ever sit down over a cup of coffee, I know that we will fundamentally disagree on many issues. But my hat is off to her hard work on the 2008 campaign trail. A lot of her supporters think she proved what Margaret Thatcher proclaimed, 'If you want something said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman.'"
It sounds like she's fishing for a coffee date. Is it going to happen?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, you know, I have never met her. And look, I’d look forward to sit down and talk with her. Obviously, we are going to hear a lot more from her in the upcoming weeks, with her book coming out. And I would look forward to having a chance to actually get to meet her.
QUESTION: Was the media fair to her?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, George, I will leave that for my book, if I ever write another one. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Okay. Well, I only have one final question. As you know, Mayor Giuliani is following you in just a minute. And he's been talking to a lot of people in New York about running for governor next year. And a lot of governors think you are doing exactly the same thing. Are they right?
SECRETARY CLINTON: What, that I am talking about --
QUESTION: Talking to people about running for governor.
SECRETARY CLINTON: -- Mayor Giuliani running for governor?
QUESTION: No, talking about running for governor yourself next year.
SECRETARY CLINTON: No, no, no. That's another one of those stories that never will die, and I hope maybe we can put it to rest today. No, I am committed to the job that I have. It is an extraordinarily important time to be the Secretary of State of my country and to work with President Obama in trying to pursue our interests and advance our values around the world. And that's what I am going to continue doing.
QUESTION: So that rumor is dead. You're not running.
SECRETARY CLINTON: That rumor is dead. And if you could please, you know, like put it in a little box and send it off somewhere, I would appreciate it.
QUESTION: It is done. Madame Secretary, thanks very much for your time today.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thanks, George. Good to talk to you.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Singapore
November 15, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION: And we begin today with the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Thanks for spending time with us this morning.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, it’s a pleasure to talk with you from Singapore, George.
QUESTION: Well, and as you’re in Singapore, you and the President are facing, really, his toughest decision yet on Afghanistan. And on his way over when he stopped at Elmendorf Air Force Base, President Obama made this commitment to the troops and the country. Listen:
“We will give you the strategy and the clear mission you deserve. We will give you the equipment and support that you need to get the job done. And that includes public support back home. That is a promise that I make to you.”
QUESTION: Now, that is a tough promise to keep. History shows that the public won't support a war for very long, if they're not convinced that the goal is worthy, but also, and probably more important, that the war can be won. How can you convince the country that this war can be won?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think the President said it very well, in talking to some of the brave young men and women in uniform when he stopped at Elmendorf. What he's been doing in the last weeks is testing every single assumption, asking for evidence, asking for dissenting opinions. I mean, he has conducted an extraordinary effort to make sure that the decision he makes is rooted in his best judgement, as to what is in the national security interest of the United States. And I believe that is a case that can be made to the American people. I have no doubt about that.
Now, look, I understand that there will be people who are maybe critical or unconvinced or not persuaded. But I think the majority of Americans will know that this President has gone the extra mile -- in fact, more than that -- to make sure that whatever decision he makes is in the best interest of our country, that it is aimed at making our country more secure, and supporting our men and women in uniform, as they fulfill the mission.
QUESTION: Well, one of those dissenting voices right now is reported to be our ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry. He is also the former commanding general of U.S. forces there. And he has sent cables to Washington warning that President Karzai is not a worthy partner, and that sending more troops to Afghanistan now could actually make it more difficult for the Afghan Government, President Karzai, the Afghan army, to do what they need to defend their country on their own.
And I know you can't comment on any classified cables, but what do you think of this sentiment that President Karzai has not shown that he is a credible partner yet, and that sending more troops now will actually make the Afghan army too dependent on U.S. forces?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, George, you're right; I can't and wouldn't comment on the confidential advice that anyone has provided to the President during his deliberations. But the argument that you have just described is one that a number of people have made in the press and in arguments that have certainly been made known to me, to the President, and others.
We agree that our goal here is to defeat al-Qaida. That has been a clear goal and a mission from the President ever since he made his commitment of additional troops back in the spring. And we understand that the Afghans themselves need help in order to defend themselves against the Taliban. Those are mutually reinforcing missions.
But our highest obligation is the American people. It is to do everything we can to make sure that America is secure, that our allies, our interests around the world, are protected. And that is what we are focused on.
Now, we believe that President Karzai and his government can do better. We have delivered that message. Now that the election is finally over, we are looking to see tangible evidence that the government, led by the president, but going all the way down to the local level, will be more responsive to the needs of the people, will deliver the services that the people of Afghanistan want – who do not want a return of the Taliban, but they want a government that actually can function on their behalf – and that, together, we and our allies in the international community will help them to build a security force that can take care of their security going forward.
QUESTION: But President Karzai does seem to be ignoring some of our concerns. He is surrounded by a Vice President Marshal Fahim, who’s been accused of corruption. He is allied with General Dostum, a warlord, who has been accused of massacres in the past.
What kind of concrete steps must President Karzai take to prove that sending more troops is not a waste of American lives and American money?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I have made it clear that we are not going to be providing any civilian aid to Afghanistan unless we have a certification that, if it goes into the Afghan Government in any form, that we are going to have ministries that we can hold accountable.
We are expecting there to be a major crimes tribunal, an anti-corruption commission established and functioning, because there does have to be action by the Government of Afghanistan against those who have taken advantage of the money that has poured into Afghanistan in the last eight years, so that we can better track it, and we can have actions taken that demonstrate there is no impunity for those who are corrupt.
So, we are going to be doing what we can to create an atmosphere in which the blood and treasure that the United States has committed to Afghanistan can be justified and can produce the kind of results that we're looking for.
But we have no illusions. This is not the prior days when people would come on your show and talk about how we were going to help the Afghans build a modern democracy and build a more functioning state, and do all these wonderful things. That could happen. But our primary focus is on the security of the United States of America. How do we protect and defend against future attacks? We do not want to see Afghanistan return to being a safe haven and a staging platform for terrorism, as it was before. That is what is driving the President to make the best decision he can make.
QUESTION: The word of the week in Washington appears to be "off-ramps." That's what the President is pushing for, off-ramps out of Afghanistan. What is the off-ramp out of Afghanistan?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think we want to get al-Qaida, George, and we're very clear about that. And we see it as part of our integrated strategy, looking at Afghanistan and Pakistan as a theater in which we have to operate.
We have made it clear to the Pakistanis, as well as to the Afghans and others, that we want to do everything we can to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida. And when we talk about on-ramps, off-ramps, whatever the terminology of the day might be, that's a kind of shorthand. What we are trying to figure out is what is the best decision the President can make to achieve our primary core objective.
We’re not interested in staying in Afghanistan. We have no long-term stake there. We want that to be made very clear. We came to do a mission. Unfortunately, it was not achieved in the last eight years. In fact, the mission was changed because it could not be achieved or no longer was the primary goal that was expressed in the prior administration.
Well, our goal is very clear. We want to get the people who attacked us. And we want to prevent them and their syndicate of terrorism from posing a threat to us, our allies, and our interests.
QUESTION: While you are there, the Attorney General announced that he was going to be prosecuting al-Qaida members in U.S. criminal courts in Manhattan, in New York City, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four of his alleged accomplices. And that’s come under some fire, including from the former mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, who is our next guest. Here is what the mayor had to say about that decision:
“This was an act of war and an act of terror. They should be prosecuted. They should be prosecuted in a military tribunal. We would not have tried the people who attacked Pearl Harbor in a civilian court in Hawaii for what they did.”
QUESTION: Now it is true that during World War II we tried Nazis who crossed our borders in military courts, in military tribunals. Why is it so important to have these trials in federal criminal courts?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, of course, George, this is a decision that the Attorney General, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Defense have made after extensive, exhaustive review. Look, I was a senator for eight years. I was a senator on 9/11. My goal is to make sure that the masterminds and the other implementers and designers of this horrific attack on us pay the ultimate penalty for what they did to the United States and to a lot of people who I know and who I had the honor of representing.
The Attorney General is determined, after consulting with veteran prosecutors, that this is a case that appropriately can be brought in our federal courts. Other cases will be brought in the military commissions. I'm not going to second-guess the Attorney General.
QUESTION: The State Department has the job of trying to find homes for the 90 or so prisoners at Guantanamo who have been cleared for release, but there is no country that will take them. How long will it take to find places for those 90 detainees? And will that delay -- how much further will that delay the closing of Guantanamo?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, actually, George, we have been making progress. I think when we started, there were way more than 100. I don't remember the exact number. We have a dedicated group, led by Ambassador Dan Fried, who have literally traveled the world making arrangements for detainees to be transferred to countries willing to accept them. And we are making progress. There is a large group of detainees from Yemen that pose some specific security issues that have to be addressed, but we are making progress.
QUESTION: While you have been gone, Sarah Palin is making quite a splash back here in the United States. Her book, "Going Rogue," is about to be released, but there are already excerpts out. And she has some kind words for you in the book. She says she was wrong to criticize you last year for whining, and now she says that she realized the media was biased when talking about your candidacy.
And she goes on to say this, to write this: "Should Secretary Clinton and I ever sit down over a cup of coffee, I know that we will fundamentally disagree on many issues. But my hat is off to her hard work on the 2008 campaign trail. A lot of her supporters think she proved what Margaret Thatcher proclaimed, 'If you want something said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman.'"
It sounds like she's fishing for a coffee date. Is it going to happen?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, you know, I have never met her. And look, I’d look forward to sit down and talk with her. Obviously, we are going to hear a lot more from her in the upcoming weeks, with her book coming out. And I would look forward to having a chance to actually get to meet her.
QUESTION: Was the media fair to her?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, George, I will leave that for my book, if I ever write another one. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Okay. Well, I only have one final question. As you know, Mayor Giuliani is following you in just a minute. And he's been talking to a lot of people in New York about running for governor next year. And a lot of governors think you are doing exactly the same thing. Are they right?
SECRETARY CLINTON: What, that I am talking about --
QUESTION: Talking to people about running for governor.
SECRETARY CLINTON: -- Mayor Giuliani running for governor?
QUESTION: No, talking about running for governor yourself next year.
SECRETARY CLINTON: No, no, no. That's another one of those stories that never will die, and I hope maybe we can put it to rest today. No, I am committed to the job that I have. It is an extraordinarily important time to be the Secretary of State of my country and to work with President Obama in trying to pursue our interests and advance our values around the world. And that's what I am going to continue doing.
QUESTION: So that rumor is dead. You're not running.
SECRETARY CLINTON: That rumor is dead. And if you could please, you know, like put it in a little box and send it off somewhere, I would appreciate it.
QUESTION: It is done. Madame Secretary, thanks very much for your time today.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thanks, George. Good to talk to you.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
OBAMA'S NUMBERS IN ALL AREAS ARE IN THE BASEMENT!!!!!
Obama Is Losing Independent Voters
By SCOTT RASMUSSEN AND DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN
WALL STREET JOURNAL
The announcement a week ago of 10.2% unemployment is a significant political event for President Barack Obama. It could well usher in a particularly serious crisis for his political standing, influence and ability to advance his agenda.
Double-digit unemployment drove Ronald Reagan's disapproval ratings in October 1982 up to a record high 54%. It was only when unemployment dropped to 7.3%, roughly two years later, that he was able to win a landslide victory over Democratic challenger Walter Mondale in the 1984 presidential election.
Similarly, Franklin Roosevelt's success in the 1930s in reducing the 25% unemployment rate he inherited down to the mid-teens was almost certainly responsible for his success in the 1934 midterm elections and in the 1936 presidential elections.
Mr. Obama faces a similar challenge. A detailed look at the available survey data suggests that the difficulties may be more substantial than those suggested by the recent off-year elections.
Mr. Obama's approval among likely voters has dropped to the low-50s in most polls, and the most recent Rasmussen Reports poll of likely voters shows him slightly below the 50% mark. This is a relatively low rating for new presidents. Mr. Obama's approval rating began to slide in a serious way in early July, triggered by a bad unemployment report.
A look at more detailed data shows why Mr. Obama's ratings are likely to drop even further.
A CNN poll released Nov. 6 found that 47% of Americans believe the top issue facing the country is the economy, while only 17% say its health care. However, the bulk of the president's efforts over the past six months have been not on the economy but on health care, an issue in which he continues to draw negative ratings.
In a Rasmussen Reports poll taken after the House of Representatives passed health-care reform by the narrowest of margins last Saturday night, 54% of likely voters say they are opposed to the plan with only 45% in favor. Furthermore, in the all-important category of unaffiliated voters, 58% oppose the bill. That's one of the reasons why so many moderate Democratic House members opposed it.
The CNN poll also shows that in addition to health care, a majority of Americans disapprove of how Mr. Obama is handling the economy, Afghanistan, Iraq, unemployment, illegal immigration and the federal budget deficit. Put simply, there isn't a critical problem facing the country on which the president has positive ratings.
An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll conducted from Oct. 22-25 found that the president's personal ratings have suffered a similar decline. His rating for being honest and straightforward has fallen eight points from January to 33% and his rating for being firm and decisive has fallen 10 points to 27%.
Even more fundamentally, a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted from Oct. 15-18 shows that the president has now reached a point where less than a majority of Americans believe he will make the right decisions for the country.
A Rasmussen Reports poll released Oct. 26 shows that only one-third of likely voters believe the stimulus package has helped the economy. And two separate Rasmussen Reports polls from earlier this month showed that less than half of likely voters approve of the health-care initiative, while a majority (55%) expect politics to become even more partisan in the coming year. Meanwhile, almost half of respondents told Rasmussen Reports that since Mr. Obama has been in office they are doing worse economically. Respondents by a 62%-27% majority respondents say they trust themselves over the president to make economic decisions facing the nation.
Until recently, Mr. Obama has been able to blame George W. Bush for the country's economic problems. October's NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that while this is still a credible argument, it is less persuasive as the president's time in office increases.
The percentage of respondents who believe that Mr. Obama "inherited" the economic situation has dropped steadily over the year from a high of 84% in February down to 63% in this latest poll. This week's Rasmussen Reports poll shows an even bigger drop, with 49% of respondents blaming Mr. Bush and 45% blaming Mr. Obama. This is the first time in Rasmussen Reports' polls that less than 55% blame Mr. Bush for the country's economic problems. It is fair to conclude that by the beginning of next year, the problems of America will be Mr. Obama's problems, and references to his predecessor will increasingly fall on deaf ears.
What then, is Mr. Obama to do?
He has found himself in a false and arguably artificial conundrum on health care, with the two alternatives being his bill with a public option and a trillion-dollar price tag, or no bill at all. While the failure to pass a health-care bill could be devastating for his administration, polling suggests that ramming through an expensive bill with a public option (potentially using procedural techniques in the Senate) could divide America and not improve his standing with the public.
Voters would like to see compromises on key elements of health care to reduce costs, while the Democrats' plan has appeared to focus largely on expanding coverage. According to a poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports from Oct. 2-3, 61% of likely voters want Congress to act this year but only 45% favor the current plan. There is a clear, bipartisan majority who favor a less costly bill that incrementally increases coverage, provides insurance reform involving pre-existing conditions, and experiments with tort reform and competition across state lines.
Deficit reduction and reining in spending are critically important priorities for the vast majority of the electorate. Indeed, according to a Rasmussen Reports Poll conducted at the end of last month, voters say deficit reduction is most important and health care is a distant second.
Moreover, according to a poll released by the Kaufman Foundation in September, a plurality of voters (32%) think the federal government should cut tax rates on payrolls and businesses to stimulate employment, particularly at a time when unemployment is at double-digits. Mr. Obama campaigned on tax cuts for 95% of the American people, but according to a Rasmussen Reports poll released in mid-August, just 6% of likely voters expect to get a tax cut. Over 40% of respondents believe that they will get a tax increase.
The off-year elections in New Jersey and Virginia were indeed a warning sign to Mr. Obama. While the presidents ratings aren't likely to dip much further by year's end—given the size and support of his base—by focusing exclusively on his base he could create lasting political problems that plague the remainder of his term.
Unless Mr. Obama changes his approach and starts governing in a more fiscally conservative, bipartisan manner, the independents that provided his margin of victory in 2008 and gave the Democrats control of Congress will likely swing back to the Republicans, putting Democratic control of Congress in real jeopardy.
Mr. Rasmussen is president of Rasmussen Reports, an independent national polling company. Mr. Schoen, formerly a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is the author of "Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two Party System" (Random House, 2008).
******************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
PUMAS SAY, "WE TOLD YOU SO!" And even we could not have fathomed just how HORRIBLE a president Obama would be! Wait until poll numbers come out since Obama's decision to try the 9/11 mastermind here in New York!! Many people think Obama is so intelligent. I just don't see it. And I have not seen or heard anything to prove this is true. The only thing Obama is good at is CHEATING, STEALING, LYING, ETC.
By SCOTT RASMUSSEN AND DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN
WALL STREET JOURNAL
The announcement a week ago of 10.2% unemployment is a significant political event for President Barack Obama. It could well usher in a particularly serious crisis for his political standing, influence and ability to advance his agenda.
Double-digit unemployment drove Ronald Reagan's disapproval ratings in October 1982 up to a record high 54%. It was only when unemployment dropped to 7.3%, roughly two years later, that he was able to win a landslide victory over Democratic challenger Walter Mondale in the 1984 presidential election.
Similarly, Franklin Roosevelt's success in the 1930s in reducing the 25% unemployment rate he inherited down to the mid-teens was almost certainly responsible for his success in the 1934 midterm elections and in the 1936 presidential elections.
Mr. Obama faces a similar challenge. A detailed look at the available survey data suggests that the difficulties may be more substantial than those suggested by the recent off-year elections.
Mr. Obama's approval among likely voters has dropped to the low-50s in most polls, and the most recent Rasmussen Reports poll of likely voters shows him slightly below the 50% mark. This is a relatively low rating for new presidents. Mr. Obama's approval rating began to slide in a serious way in early July, triggered by a bad unemployment report.
A look at more detailed data shows why Mr. Obama's ratings are likely to drop even further.
A CNN poll released Nov. 6 found that 47% of Americans believe the top issue facing the country is the economy, while only 17% say its health care. However, the bulk of the president's efforts over the past six months have been not on the economy but on health care, an issue in which he continues to draw negative ratings.
In a Rasmussen Reports poll taken after the House of Representatives passed health-care reform by the narrowest of margins last Saturday night, 54% of likely voters say they are opposed to the plan with only 45% in favor. Furthermore, in the all-important category of unaffiliated voters, 58% oppose the bill. That's one of the reasons why so many moderate Democratic House members opposed it.
The CNN poll also shows that in addition to health care, a majority of Americans disapprove of how Mr. Obama is handling the economy, Afghanistan, Iraq, unemployment, illegal immigration and the federal budget deficit. Put simply, there isn't a critical problem facing the country on which the president has positive ratings.
An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll conducted from Oct. 22-25 found that the president's personal ratings have suffered a similar decline. His rating for being honest and straightforward has fallen eight points from January to 33% and his rating for being firm and decisive has fallen 10 points to 27%.
Even more fundamentally, a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted from Oct. 15-18 shows that the president has now reached a point where less than a majority of Americans believe he will make the right decisions for the country.
A Rasmussen Reports poll released Oct. 26 shows that only one-third of likely voters believe the stimulus package has helped the economy. And two separate Rasmussen Reports polls from earlier this month showed that less than half of likely voters approve of the health-care initiative, while a majority (55%) expect politics to become even more partisan in the coming year. Meanwhile, almost half of respondents told Rasmussen Reports that since Mr. Obama has been in office they are doing worse economically. Respondents by a 62%-27% majority respondents say they trust themselves over the president to make economic decisions facing the nation.
Until recently, Mr. Obama has been able to blame George W. Bush for the country's economic problems. October's NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that while this is still a credible argument, it is less persuasive as the president's time in office increases.
The percentage of respondents who believe that Mr. Obama "inherited" the economic situation has dropped steadily over the year from a high of 84% in February down to 63% in this latest poll. This week's Rasmussen Reports poll shows an even bigger drop, with 49% of respondents blaming Mr. Bush and 45% blaming Mr. Obama. This is the first time in Rasmussen Reports' polls that less than 55% blame Mr. Bush for the country's economic problems. It is fair to conclude that by the beginning of next year, the problems of America will be Mr. Obama's problems, and references to his predecessor will increasingly fall on deaf ears.
What then, is Mr. Obama to do?
He has found himself in a false and arguably artificial conundrum on health care, with the two alternatives being his bill with a public option and a trillion-dollar price tag, or no bill at all. While the failure to pass a health-care bill could be devastating for his administration, polling suggests that ramming through an expensive bill with a public option (potentially using procedural techniques in the Senate) could divide America and not improve his standing with the public.
Voters would like to see compromises on key elements of health care to reduce costs, while the Democrats' plan has appeared to focus largely on expanding coverage. According to a poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports from Oct. 2-3, 61% of likely voters want Congress to act this year but only 45% favor the current plan. There is a clear, bipartisan majority who favor a less costly bill that incrementally increases coverage, provides insurance reform involving pre-existing conditions, and experiments with tort reform and competition across state lines.
Deficit reduction and reining in spending are critically important priorities for the vast majority of the electorate. Indeed, according to a Rasmussen Reports Poll conducted at the end of last month, voters say deficit reduction is most important and health care is a distant second.
Moreover, according to a poll released by the Kaufman Foundation in September, a plurality of voters (32%) think the federal government should cut tax rates on payrolls and businesses to stimulate employment, particularly at a time when unemployment is at double-digits. Mr. Obama campaigned on tax cuts for 95% of the American people, but according to a Rasmussen Reports poll released in mid-August, just 6% of likely voters expect to get a tax cut. Over 40% of respondents believe that they will get a tax increase.
The off-year elections in New Jersey and Virginia were indeed a warning sign to Mr. Obama. While the presidents ratings aren't likely to dip much further by year's end—given the size and support of his base—by focusing exclusively on his base he could create lasting political problems that plague the remainder of his term.
Unless Mr. Obama changes his approach and starts governing in a more fiscally conservative, bipartisan manner, the independents that provided his margin of victory in 2008 and gave the Democrats control of Congress will likely swing back to the Republicans, putting Democratic control of Congress in real jeopardy.
Mr. Rasmussen is president of Rasmussen Reports, an independent national polling company. Mr. Schoen, formerly a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is the author of "Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two Party System" (Random House, 2008).
******************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
PUMAS SAY, "WE TOLD YOU SO!" And even we could not have fathomed just how HORRIBLE a president Obama would be! Wait until poll numbers come out since Obama's decision to try the 9/11 mastermind here in New York!! Many people think Obama is so intelligent. I just don't see it. And I have not seen or heard anything to prove this is true. The only thing Obama is good at is CHEATING, STEALING, LYING, ETC.
THE MOST ARROGANT, NARCISSISTIC AND CONCEITED PRESIDENT EVER (OH, AND ALSO THE WORST!!!!)
Obama’s swelling ego
By Jeff Jacoby
BOSTON GLOBE
November 14, 2009
PRESIDENT OBAMA was too busy to attend the celebrations in Germany this week marking the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago. But he did appear by video, delivering a few brief and bloodless remarks about how the wall was “a painful barrier between family and friends’’ that symbolized “a system that denied people the freedoms that should be the right of every human being.’’ He referred to “tyranny,’’ but never identified the tyrants - he never uttered the words “Soviet Union’’ or “communism,’’ for example. He said nothing about the men and women who died trying to cross the wall. Nor did he mention Harry Truman or Ronald Reagan - or even Mikhail Gorbachev.
He did, however, talk about Barack Obama.
“Few would have foreseen,’’ declared the president, “that a united Germany would be led by a woman from [the former East German state of] Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent. But human destiny is what human beings make of it.’’
As presidential rhetoric goes, this was hardly a match for “Ich bin ein Berliner,’’ still less another “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.’’ But as a specimen of presidential narcissism, it is hard to beat. Obama couldn’t be troubled to visit Berlin to commemorate a momentous milestone in the history of human liberty. But he was glad to explain to those who were there why reflections on that milestone should inspire appreciation for the self-made “destiny’’ of his own rise to power.
Was there ever a president as deeply enamored of himself as Barack Obama?
The first President Bush, taught from childhood to shun what his mother called “The Great I Am,’’ regularly instructed his speechwriters not to include too many “I’s’’ in his prepared remarks. Reagan maintained that there was no limit to what someone could achieve if he didn’t mind who got the credit. George Washington, one of the most accomplished men of his day, said with characteristic modesty on becoming president that he was “peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies.’’
Obama, on the other hand, positively revels in The Great I Am.
“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,’’ he told campaign aides when he was running for the White House. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that . . . I’m a better political director than my political director.’’
At the start of his presidency, Obama seemed to content himself with the royal “we’’ - “We will build the roads and bridges. . . . We will restore science to its rightful place. . . . We will harness the sun and winds,’’ he declaimed at his inauguration.
But as the literary theorist Stanley Fish points out, “By the time of the address to the Congress on Feb. 24, the royal we [had] flowered into the naked ‘I’: ‘As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress.’ ‘I called for action.’ ‘I pushed for quick action.’ ‘I have told each of my Cabinet.’ ‘I’ve appointed a proven and aggressive inspector general.’ ’I refuse to let that happen.’ ’’ In his speech on the federal takeover of General Motors, Obama likewise found it necessary to use the first-person singular pronoun 34 times. (“Congress’’ he mentioned just once.)
At this rate, it won’t be long before the president’s ego is so inflated that it will require a ZIP code of its own.
Then again, how modest would any of us be if we were as magnificent as Obama? “I am well aware,’’ he told the UN General Assembly in September, “of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world.’’
In 1860, writes Doris Kearns Goodwin in her celebrated biography “Team of Rivals,’’ an author wishing to dedicate his forthcoming work to Abraham Lincoln received this answer: “I give the leave, begging only that the inscription may be in modest terms, not representing me as a man of great learning, or a very extraordinary one in any respect.’’
Obama has often claimed Lincoln as a role model, but it only goes so far.
****************************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
I had to post this article. Boy does this guy have Obama's number, huh? Now there are so many words I can think of to describe this egotistic man, but the very first word I discovered to be totally appropriate was "ARROGANT." The more I got to know Obama, the more words I could think of to describe him. The list would be too long to go into here. I think anyone who reads this blog KNOWS by now how much I DESPISE this FRAUD and what I think of him in general.
For a change of pace, here are just a few words that CANNOT be used to describe Obama:
experienced, qualified, capable, tough (unless used in a "thug" sense), handsome, charismatic, likeable, presidential, patriotic, christian, modest, camera-shy, accomplished, American-born, honest, manly, truthful, etc. I know there are many more words that do NOT apply to this horrible person, but non that come to my mind now. I would be able to add a whole lot more if I wrote the words that DO APPLY to him.
By Jeff Jacoby
BOSTON GLOBE
November 14, 2009
PRESIDENT OBAMA was too busy to attend the celebrations in Germany this week marking the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago. But he did appear by video, delivering a few brief and bloodless remarks about how the wall was “a painful barrier between family and friends’’ that symbolized “a system that denied people the freedoms that should be the right of every human being.’’ He referred to “tyranny,’’ but never identified the tyrants - he never uttered the words “Soviet Union’’ or “communism,’’ for example. He said nothing about the men and women who died trying to cross the wall. Nor did he mention Harry Truman or Ronald Reagan - or even Mikhail Gorbachev.
He did, however, talk about Barack Obama.
“Few would have foreseen,’’ declared the president, “that a united Germany would be led by a woman from [the former East German state of] Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent. But human destiny is what human beings make of it.’’
As presidential rhetoric goes, this was hardly a match for “Ich bin ein Berliner,’’ still less another “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.’’ But as a specimen of presidential narcissism, it is hard to beat. Obama couldn’t be troubled to visit Berlin to commemorate a momentous milestone in the history of human liberty. But he was glad to explain to those who were there why reflections on that milestone should inspire appreciation for the self-made “destiny’’ of his own rise to power.
Was there ever a president as deeply enamored of himself as Barack Obama?
The first President Bush, taught from childhood to shun what his mother called “The Great I Am,’’ regularly instructed his speechwriters not to include too many “I’s’’ in his prepared remarks. Reagan maintained that there was no limit to what someone could achieve if he didn’t mind who got the credit. George Washington, one of the most accomplished men of his day, said with characteristic modesty on becoming president that he was “peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies.’’
Obama, on the other hand, positively revels in The Great I Am.
“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,’’ he told campaign aides when he was running for the White House. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that . . . I’m a better political director than my political director.’’
At the start of his presidency, Obama seemed to content himself with the royal “we’’ - “We will build the roads and bridges. . . . We will restore science to its rightful place. . . . We will harness the sun and winds,’’ he declaimed at his inauguration.
But as the literary theorist Stanley Fish points out, “By the time of the address to the Congress on Feb. 24, the royal we [had] flowered into the naked ‘I’: ‘As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress.’ ‘I called for action.’ ‘I pushed for quick action.’ ‘I have told each of my Cabinet.’ ‘I’ve appointed a proven and aggressive inspector general.’ ’I refuse to let that happen.’ ’’ In his speech on the federal takeover of General Motors, Obama likewise found it necessary to use the first-person singular pronoun 34 times. (“Congress’’ he mentioned just once.)
At this rate, it won’t be long before the president’s ego is so inflated that it will require a ZIP code of its own.
Then again, how modest would any of us be if we were as magnificent as Obama? “I am well aware,’’ he told the UN General Assembly in September, “of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world.’’
In 1860, writes Doris Kearns Goodwin in her celebrated biography “Team of Rivals,’’ an author wishing to dedicate his forthcoming work to Abraham Lincoln received this answer: “I give the leave, begging only that the inscription may be in modest terms, not representing me as a man of great learning, or a very extraordinary one in any respect.’’
Obama has often claimed Lincoln as a role model, but it only goes so far.
****************************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
I had to post this article. Boy does this guy have Obama's number, huh? Now there are so many words I can think of to describe this egotistic man, but the very first word I discovered to be totally appropriate was "ARROGANT." The more I got to know Obama, the more words I could think of to describe him. The list would be too long to go into here. I think anyone who reads this blog KNOWS by now how much I DESPISE this FRAUD and what I think of him in general.
For a change of pace, here are just a few words that CANNOT be used to describe Obama:
experienced, qualified, capable, tough (unless used in a "thug" sense), handsome, charismatic, likeable, presidential, patriotic, christian, modest, camera-shy, accomplished, American-born, honest, manly, truthful, etc. I know there are many more words that do NOT apply to this horrible person, but non that come to my mind now. I would be able to add a whole lot more if I wrote the words that DO APPLY to him.
Friday, November 13, 2009
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S ATROCIOUS DECISION - BY SARAH PALIN
Obama Administration's Atrocious Decision
November 13, 2009
Horrible decision, absolutely horrible. It is devastating for so many of us to hear that the Obama Administration decided that the 9/11 terrorist mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be given a criminal trial in New York. This is an atrocious decision.
Mohammed and his terrorist co-conspirators are responsible for the deaths of more than 3,000 Americans. Thousands of American families have suffered through the loss of loved ones because of the disgusting attacks launched against the United States, and now this trial venue adds insult to injury, in addition to compromising our efforts in the War on Terror. Heaven forbid our allies see this decision as a reason to become less likely to support our efforts in the future.
Criminal defense attorneys will now enter into delaying tactics and other methods in the hope of securing some kind of win for their “clients.” The trial will afford Mohammed the opportunity to grandstand and make use of his time in front of the world media to rally his disgusting terrorist cohorts. It will also be an insult to the victims of 9/11, as Mohammed will no doubt use the opportunity to spew his hateful rhetoric in the same neighborhood in which he ruthlessly cut down the lives of so many Americans.
It is crucially important that Americans be made aware that the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks may walk away from this trial without receiving just punishment because of a “hung jury” or from any variety of court room technicalities. If we are stuck with this terrible Obama Administration decision, I like most Americans, hope that Mohammed and his co-conspirators are convicted. Hang ‘em high.
I wholeheartedly support the survivors and the families of the victims in their appeal to the president regarding this matter. You can read more about it here.
- Sarah Palin
************************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
Ordinarily I would just post Sarah Palin's Facebook entries on my Sarah blog (www.sarahpalinvpwoman.blogspot.com), but since this is something I wholeheartedly agree with, I thought it was just as valid to post it on Hillary's blog.
It's unfreakingbelievable how many horrible decisions Obama has made in less than a year in office!! He has made more disastrous decisions/mistakes in 10 months than most presidents could possibly make during their entire presidencies!! But THIS DECISION may just have to go to the top of the list!! First of all these terrorists are at Guantanamo. Why can't they stay there? These people have admitted they are GUILTY already. WHY DO THEY NEED A TRIAL??? If a person admits they are guilty, there is no need for a trial. But it has been said that now that they are being afforded Constitutional rights, they are not going to plead guilty.
Even IF all goes as well as possible and all these terrorists are found guilty and get the death penalty, it would STILL be a horrible decision. But as Sarah said, the chances of all the things that could go wrong that might possibly result in the WORST happening and they are set free, is beyond an atrocity!!
November 13, 2009
Horrible decision, absolutely horrible. It is devastating for so many of us to hear that the Obama Administration decided that the 9/11 terrorist mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be given a criminal trial in New York. This is an atrocious decision.
Mohammed and his terrorist co-conspirators are responsible for the deaths of more than 3,000 Americans. Thousands of American families have suffered through the loss of loved ones because of the disgusting attacks launched against the United States, and now this trial venue adds insult to injury, in addition to compromising our efforts in the War on Terror. Heaven forbid our allies see this decision as a reason to become less likely to support our efforts in the future.
Criminal defense attorneys will now enter into delaying tactics and other methods in the hope of securing some kind of win for their “clients.” The trial will afford Mohammed the opportunity to grandstand and make use of his time in front of the world media to rally his disgusting terrorist cohorts. It will also be an insult to the victims of 9/11, as Mohammed will no doubt use the opportunity to spew his hateful rhetoric in the same neighborhood in which he ruthlessly cut down the lives of so many Americans.
It is crucially important that Americans be made aware that the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks may walk away from this trial without receiving just punishment because of a “hung jury” or from any variety of court room technicalities. If we are stuck with this terrible Obama Administration decision, I like most Americans, hope that Mohammed and his co-conspirators are convicted. Hang ‘em high.
I wholeheartedly support the survivors and the families of the victims in their appeal to the president regarding this matter. You can read more about it here.
- Sarah Palin
************************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
Ordinarily I would just post Sarah Palin's Facebook entries on my Sarah blog (www.sarahpalinvpwoman.blogspot.com), but since this is something I wholeheartedly agree with, I thought it was just as valid to post it on Hillary's blog.
It's unfreakingbelievable how many horrible decisions Obama has made in less than a year in office!! He has made more disastrous decisions/mistakes in 10 months than most presidents could possibly make during their entire presidencies!! But THIS DECISION may just have to go to the top of the list!! First of all these terrorists are at Guantanamo. Why can't they stay there? These people have admitted they are GUILTY already. WHY DO THEY NEED A TRIAL??? If a person admits they are guilty, there is no need for a trial. But it has been said that now that they are being afforded Constitutional rights, they are not going to plead guilty.
Even IF all goes as well as possible and all these terrorists are found guilty and get the death penalty, it would STILL be a horrible decision. But as Sarah said, the chances of all the things that could go wrong that might possibly result in the WORST happening and they are set free, is beyond an atrocity!!
HILLARY'S REMARKS WITH MANILA RADIO HOST MO TWISTER
Remarks With Manila Radio Host Mo Twister
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
University of St. Tomas
Manila, Philippines
November 13, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION: We have a huge election coming up in May, and it’s supposed to be – it’s kind of as exciting for us, as it was for you guys in your last election. We have 47 million registered voters – that’s well over 50 percent, we have 3 million newly registered voters – a lot of that the youth. So can you give us advice on say, some voting tips? Especially for the young people who are going to be voting for the first time, you know, this is kind of like an exciting moment. What key qualities should we be looking for in a president to help us turn this country around from, you know, something that you might be noticing?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that the importance of the electoral process here in the Philippines cannot be overstated. You have a democracy. It is a democracy that is critical to any progress that you want to make. So the more people who participate, the more likely that the outcome will reflect the needs of the people. And I think young people in particular should be excited about this. This is an opportunity for change. Obviously, President Obama campaigned successfully on a slogan of change, and I think that there’s a tremendous chance now for the people in the Philippines, particularly the young people, to demand the kind of change that you’re looking for. That’s what elections should be about. It shouldn’t just be a ritual. It should be a real contest, a real debate.
And I hope that you use modern technology. I know this is a very texting nation. And you can do a lot with the new technology to get people involved, to have the kind of meetings and events that bring people together, trying to get town halls where you get to question the candidates – everything you can think of that you believe works in other places.
And then finally, I know you’re going to be moving toward automated voting, and people could really use help in learning how to use this new voting form. And young people, particularly at a university like where we are today, can be helping to mentor and guide voters in how to make sure that they understand the new technology.
QUESTION: Now, you brought up that we are at the university. We’re at the University of Santo Tomas, which is considered probably one of the best, or if not the best, medical learning institution in our country. The thing is though, Secretary, many of our graduates in the medical field, they head to the U.S. and other first world nations to practice. Now, you’ve probably seen this in the large population of Filipino nurses in the hospitals. My question is: Do you think the United States and countries alike should be – I don’t know if the right term is obliged, but to give support to our education system, for scholarships, infrastructure, for nursing schools, since it directly benefits the American public?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that’s a really interesting question, Mo. I would like to see Filipino doctors and nurses be able to stay here in the Philippines and contribute to the health and well-being of the people here. There are some ways that we can assist, and we have in the past with the education system with institution building, and I will look into that.
But ultimately, what we should hope for is that you don’t export so many of your people.
QUESTION: Yeah.
SECRETARY CLINTON: The biggest export out of the Philippines are the people of the Philippines. And everywhere they go, they are successful. They are not only successful doctors and nurses, but business people and serving in every kind of job in every walk of life. And I think it’s important to look for ways that you can be sure that the people you train and educate here stay here.
QUESTION: Right. What do you think the world would be like if the United States took a less proactive role in world affairs? I mean, if you isolated yourself a little bit, do you think it would be a lot more dangerous out there?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I do. I do. I think it’s a challenging question because certainly we have a lot of challenges at home that we need to address, particularly the economic ones. But it seems that the United States, if we are not involved, people want us involved; and if we’re involved, they say, oh, well, you shouldn’t be involved, except if we aren’t, then they want us back. So I think there’s an expectation that we will be involved in political activities around the world, and I think we’re going to do our best to try to be helpful.
QUESTION: Do you feel though sometimes you guys are underappreciated for that?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we’re not looking for any pats on the back or appreciation. We like to solve problems. We like to see results. We want to help people help themselves. I do think that oftentimes people are – they view the United States as an easy target. They can criticize us, but then behind the scenes they’re saying but don’t stop your aid, don’t stop your --
QUESTION: Right, right.
SECRETARY CLINTON: -- military cooperation, don’t stop helping us in natural disasters. But then they go out in public again and criticize us. So I understand how that plays.
QUESTION: I got you. Just one last question here about the job. How difficult is it to concentrate on one world problem to another? I mean, is it like Monday Middle East, Tuesday China, Wednesday North Korea, Thursday Russia, and Friday something else, Africa maybe? That must keep your head spinning.
SECRETARY CLINTON: It is pretty overwhelming. There is – it’s a big world out there. And as you were just talking, there seems to be an expectation that the United States is going to be involved everywhere. And we’re doing the best we can. I think it’s fair to say we inherited a lot of problems that we’re trying to untangle, and the challenge of doing that is a 24/7 job. But it’s exciting and it’s an incredible honor to be representing the United States and the Obama Administration.
QUESTION: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the show here. Mrs. Clinton, even if most of us will never completely understand the ins and outs of your job, we do appreciate the empowerment and the hope that you and President Obama bring to the world. And it’s my personal opinion, but I’m sure I’m not alone in saying that, and thank you for caring beyond your borders. Appreciate it very much.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, thank you, Mo. And I really wish you well. I mean, you’re a very impressive young man with an excellent interview technique. And I just think that the young people of the Philippines are really the future, and I encourage and urge you to be involved in the political process, to get active in this next election, act as though your future really depended on it, because it does.
QUESTION: Thank you. We appreciate it very much.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
University of St. Tomas
Manila, Philippines
November 13, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION: We have a huge election coming up in May, and it’s supposed to be – it’s kind of as exciting for us, as it was for you guys in your last election. We have 47 million registered voters – that’s well over 50 percent, we have 3 million newly registered voters – a lot of that the youth. So can you give us advice on say, some voting tips? Especially for the young people who are going to be voting for the first time, you know, this is kind of like an exciting moment. What key qualities should we be looking for in a president to help us turn this country around from, you know, something that you might be noticing?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that the importance of the electoral process here in the Philippines cannot be overstated. You have a democracy. It is a democracy that is critical to any progress that you want to make. So the more people who participate, the more likely that the outcome will reflect the needs of the people. And I think young people in particular should be excited about this. This is an opportunity for change. Obviously, President Obama campaigned successfully on a slogan of change, and I think that there’s a tremendous chance now for the people in the Philippines, particularly the young people, to demand the kind of change that you’re looking for. That’s what elections should be about. It shouldn’t just be a ritual. It should be a real contest, a real debate.
And I hope that you use modern technology. I know this is a very texting nation. And you can do a lot with the new technology to get people involved, to have the kind of meetings and events that bring people together, trying to get town halls where you get to question the candidates – everything you can think of that you believe works in other places.
And then finally, I know you’re going to be moving toward automated voting, and people could really use help in learning how to use this new voting form. And young people, particularly at a university like where we are today, can be helping to mentor and guide voters in how to make sure that they understand the new technology.
QUESTION: Now, you brought up that we are at the university. We’re at the University of Santo Tomas, which is considered probably one of the best, or if not the best, medical learning institution in our country. The thing is though, Secretary, many of our graduates in the medical field, they head to the U.S. and other first world nations to practice. Now, you’ve probably seen this in the large population of Filipino nurses in the hospitals. My question is: Do you think the United States and countries alike should be – I don’t know if the right term is obliged, but to give support to our education system, for scholarships, infrastructure, for nursing schools, since it directly benefits the American public?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that’s a really interesting question, Mo. I would like to see Filipino doctors and nurses be able to stay here in the Philippines and contribute to the health and well-being of the people here. There are some ways that we can assist, and we have in the past with the education system with institution building, and I will look into that.
But ultimately, what we should hope for is that you don’t export so many of your people.
QUESTION: Yeah.
SECRETARY CLINTON: The biggest export out of the Philippines are the people of the Philippines. And everywhere they go, they are successful. They are not only successful doctors and nurses, but business people and serving in every kind of job in every walk of life. And I think it’s important to look for ways that you can be sure that the people you train and educate here stay here.
QUESTION: Right. What do you think the world would be like if the United States took a less proactive role in world affairs? I mean, if you isolated yourself a little bit, do you think it would be a lot more dangerous out there?
SECRETARY CLINTON: I do. I do. I think it’s a challenging question because certainly we have a lot of challenges at home that we need to address, particularly the economic ones. But it seems that the United States, if we are not involved, people want us involved; and if we’re involved, they say, oh, well, you shouldn’t be involved, except if we aren’t, then they want us back. So I think there’s an expectation that we will be involved in political activities around the world, and I think we’re going to do our best to try to be helpful.
QUESTION: Do you feel though sometimes you guys are underappreciated for that?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we’re not looking for any pats on the back or appreciation. We like to solve problems. We like to see results. We want to help people help themselves. I do think that oftentimes people are – they view the United States as an easy target. They can criticize us, but then behind the scenes they’re saying but don’t stop your aid, don’t stop your --
QUESTION: Right, right.
SECRETARY CLINTON: -- military cooperation, don’t stop helping us in natural disasters. But then they go out in public again and criticize us. So I understand how that plays.
QUESTION: I got you. Just one last question here about the job. How difficult is it to concentrate on one world problem to another? I mean, is it like Monday Middle East, Tuesday China, Wednesday North Korea, Thursday Russia, and Friday something else, Africa maybe? That must keep your head spinning.
SECRETARY CLINTON: It is pretty overwhelming. There is – it’s a big world out there. And as you were just talking, there seems to be an expectation that the United States is going to be involved everywhere. And we’re doing the best we can. I think it’s fair to say we inherited a lot of problems that we’re trying to untangle, and the challenge of doing that is a 24/7 job. But it’s exciting and it’s an incredible honor to be representing the United States and the Obama Administration.
QUESTION: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the show here. Mrs. Clinton, even if most of us will never completely understand the ins and outs of your job, we do appreciate the empowerment and the hope that you and President Obama bring to the world. And it’s my personal opinion, but I’m sure I’m not alone in saying that, and thank you for caring beyond your borders. Appreciate it very much.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, thank you, Mo. And I really wish you well. I mean, you’re a very impressive young man with an excellent interview technique. And I just think that the young people of the Philippines are really the future, and I encourage and urge you to be involved in the political process, to get active in this next election, act as though your future really depended on it, because it does.
QUESTION: Thank you. We appreciate it very much.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.
TOWNTERVIEW WITH MARIA RESSA, RICKY CARANDANG AND PINKY WEBB OF ABS-CBN
Townterview with Maria Ressa, Ricky Carandang and Pinky Webb of ABS-CBN
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
University of St. Tomas
Manila, Philippines
November 13, 2009
MODERATOR: Coming in is U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Everyone, please, let’s give her a round of applause. (Applause.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.
MODERATOR: Well, you said how exciting. We’re certainly excited to have this chance to talk to you, Secretary Clinton. Welcome to the Philippines and please have a seat.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. Well, it’s wonderful being back at this great university, which I just learned has a total of 44,000 students, the director told me. It’s amazing. So I’m thrilled to be here. Thank you so much for doing this.
MODERATOR: Well, thank you for coming, and I know since we have you for such a short period of time, we’ve got all of Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao waiting for your words. So let me just quickly toss the first question at you, which is you – we’ve been talking about you, your – all of the highs and lows of your life, what a fantastic life, jam-packed, full of firsts; the first woman this, first woman partner in your – female partner in your law firm, first woman senator from New York, first woman to run for president, and now perhaps the most powerful and perhaps most popular with – the most popular U.S. diplomat.
So given all of this, for the women here and the young students, what advice would you give women who are moving from how to deal with disappointments, going from the lows to get to those highs?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, Maria. Well, let me say first that I think every person has the opportunity to make the most of their own lives. But what I have learned over time is that talent is universal, but opportunity may not be. And part of what is happening at this university is helping to equip young people – young men and young women – with the tools that you can use for your own lives. But every life faces challenges. There is no life that I know of, having lived as long as I have now, that doesn’t.
But with faith and with perseverance and persistence and a sense of mission and purpose in your life, you can keep going and make a contribution. And service is what has been at the center of my life. I never really thought when I was your age that I would be in politics or that I would ever be the Secretary of State of the United States. But I always wanted to make a contribution, particularly to children, because I think children deserve all of the support that we can give them. Their families deserve support so they can do a better job for their children.
So this has been a remarkable honor for me to have had the chance to serve, and I really hope that there will be a lot of young people here who are students who take advantage of this wonderful education to find ways to serve as well. The Philippines needs you. One of the great exports of this country is your people, and everywhere I go in the world, I meet Filipinos who are doing everything, every kind of job, making every kind of contribution. We’re so proud to have millions of Filipino Americans. But I think this country also needs your educated approach and your commitment.
So that’s what I’ve enjoyed doing and what I feel strongly about, and I’m just happy to be here with all of you.
MODERATOR: Thank you.
MODERATOR: All right. (Applause.) Secretary Clinton, you talked about talent. Let me introduce you to one of Ateneo de Manila’s top basketball players.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, good.
MODERATOR: His name is Chris Tiu.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.
MODERATOR: He has a question for you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, Chris.
QUESTION: Good morning, Madame Secretary.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Good morning.
QUESTION: How are you doing?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Very well, thank you. What position do you play?
QUESTION: I play shooting guard.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, good.
QUESTION: Yes.
SECRETARY CLINTON: How high is your vertical jump? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Oh, not very high. I can touch the rim, though.
I have two questions for you if you don’t mind. Here’s my first question. My good friend, Ambassador Kristie Kenney, told me that you’re appalled by the poverty situation here in the country. So my question for you is: How do you think the youth can best get engaged in reducing poverty in our country?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, let me say that the Philippines has been making progress. The income level has risen, which is very significant, but you know, because you live here, that there’s a lot of work still to be done. I think education is one of the most important ways of fighting poverty, I think providing healthcare so that young people are able to take advantage of their hard work and they have a really positive future, I think that having a good partnership between your government and your people to tackle the problems of poverty is absolutely critical.
The United States wants to be a good partner. We are trying to look at ways that we can provide more assistance to the Philippines to tackle poverty. Infrastructure is important, namely roads, and as you saw with these terrible recent storms, trying to fix some of the flooding conditions, some of the sanitation conditions. There’s a lot of work to be done, but I’ve been impressed at how the government has been working on this, but we need to do even more.
And ultimately, people themselves have to take responsibility and organize themselves. There are lots of ways that community groups can be organized to work for better services, to have a voice in the political system, to make sure that the needs of the poor are not marginalized or overlooked. So there’s a lot that can be done, and I really encourage the young people here to think creatively about that. I mean, what could you do as an individual, what could you do as part of a group here at the university that would tackle some of this?
And the final thing I would say is that there are big, big issues that can only be addressed by big solutions. But there’s an individual approach that could always work; mentoring a poor child, making sure that a poor child has somebody to look up to, somebody that you can be there in his or her life to encourage that child to stay in school, to really help that child get over the challenges and the bumps that happen in any life. Those kind of mentoring programs, those Big Brother/Big Sister programs, it’s one life at a time that I think is also an important part of an overall attempt to try to alleviate poverty.
QUESTION: Thank you very much, ma’am. On a lighter note, I’d just like to ask, since most of us Filipinos here are sports fanatics, particularly basketball and boxing, I would like to know if you follow any sport in particular? Do you have a favorite NBA team? And lastly, I’m sure all of us here would like to know what do you think will be the result this Sunday between Manny Pacquiao and Miguel Cotto? (Applause.) Let’s see how much of a diplomat Secretary Clinton is.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I have heard that basketball and boxing are pretty big here in the Philippines, right? And so for basketball, I have followed two teams. I’m originally from Chicago. That’s where I was born and raised. And so I followed the Chicago Bulls, particularly when Michael Jordan was there. (Applause.) And then I was a senator from New York, so I have followed the Knicks, but that’s kind of discouraging. (Laughter.)
So I have – I kind of – I follow it, but it’s hard to get as enthusiastic as I would like to. Now, the Knicks are trying maybe to get LeBron James. Now, that would make it very exciting in New York. So I’ll watch that. I’m not sure exactly what will happen. And of course the Pacman’s going to win. I mean, is there any doubt? (Applause.)
QUESTION: All right. One of our questions for today’s forum was sent through the video-sharing website YouTube. Here’s that question, Secretary, from (inaudible).
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, (inaudible) network. Happy – the chance to talk with you, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. I just want to clarify some questions regarding your State Department reports on the issues on human rights violations by the Philippine Government and by the armed forces in the Philippines. What is your position regarding these issues? And what are your concrete proposals or concrete actions to end the conflict here in our country? Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, thank you, and I’m delighted to know that this forum here at the university is connected up to so many places around the country, and maybe
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
University of St. Tomas
Manila, Philippines
November 13, 2009
MODERATOR: Coming in is U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Everyone, please, let’s give her a round of applause. (Applause.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.
MODERATOR: Well, you said how exciting. We’re certainly excited to have this chance to talk to you, Secretary Clinton. Welcome to the Philippines and please have a seat.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. Well, it’s wonderful being back at this great university, which I just learned has a total of 44,000 students, the director told me. It’s amazing. So I’m thrilled to be here. Thank you so much for doing this.
MODERATOR: Well, thank you for coming, and I know since we have you for such a short period of time, we’ve got all of Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao waiting for your words. So let me just quickly toss the first question at you, which is you – we’ve been talking about you, your – all of the highs and lows of your life, what a fantastic life, jam-packed, full of firsts; the first woman this, first woman partner in your – female partner in your law firm, first woman senator from New York, first woman to run for president, and now perhaps the most powerful and perhaps most popular with – the most popular U.S. diplomat.
So given all of this, for the women here and the young students, what advice would you give women who are moving from how to deal with disappointments, going from the lows to get to those highs?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, Maria. Well, let me say first that I think every person has the opportunity to make the most of their own lives. But what I have learned over time is that talent is universal, but opportunity may not be. And part of what is happening at this university is helping to equip young people – young men and young women – with the tools that you can use for your own lives. But every life faces challenges. There is no life that I know of, having lived as long as I have now, that doesn’t.
But with faith and with perseverance and persistence and a sense of mission and purpose in your life, you can keep going and make a contribution. And service is what has been at the center of my life. I never really thought when I was your age that I would be in politics or that I would ever be the Secretary of State of the United States. But I always wanted to make a contribution, particularly to children, because I think children deserve all of the support that we can give them. Their families deserve support so they can do a better job for their children.
So this has been a remarkable honor for me to have had the chance to serve, and I really hope that there will be a lot of young people here who are students who take advantage of this wonderful education to find ways to serve as well. The Philippines needs you. One of the great exports of this country is your people, and everywhere I go in the world, I meet Filipinos who are doing everything, every kind of job, making every kind of contribution. We’re so proud to have millions of Filipino Americans. But I think this country also needs your educated approach and your commitment.
So that’s what I’ve enjoyed doing and what I feel strongly about, and I’m just happy to be here with all of you.
MODERATOR: Thank you.
MODERATOR: All right. (Applause.) Secretary Clinton, you talked about talent. Let me introduce you to one of Ateneo de Manila’s top basketball players.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, good.
MODERATOR: His name is Chris Tiu.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.
MODERATOR: He has a question for you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you, Chris.
QUESTION: Good morning, Madame Secretary.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Good morning.
QUESTION: How are you doing?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Very well, thank you. What position do you play?
QUESTION: I play shooting guard.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, good.
QUESTION: Yes.
SECRETARY CLINTON: How high is your vertical jump? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Oh, not very high. I can touch the rim, though.
I have two questions for you if you don’t mind. Here’s my first question. My good friend, Ambassador Kristie Kenney, told me that you’re appalled by the poverty situation here in the country. So my question for you is: How do you think the youth can best get engaged in reducing poverty in our country?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, let me say that the Philippines has been making progress. The income level has risen, which is very significant, but you know, because you live here, that there’s a lot of work still to be done. I think education is one of the most important ways of fighting poverty, I think providing healthcare so that young people are able to take advantage of their hard work and they have a really positive future, I think that having a good partnership between your government and your people to tackle the problems of poverty is absolutely critical.
The United States wants to be a good partner. We are trying to look at ways that we can provide more assistance to the Philippines to tackle poverty. Infrastructure is important, namely roads, and as you saw with these terrible recent storms, trying to fix some of the flooding conditions, some of the sanitation conditions. There’s a lot of work to be done, but I’ve been impressed at how the government has been working on this, but we need to do even more.
And ultimately, people themselves have to take responsibility and organize themselves. There are lots of ways that community groups can be organized to work for better services, to have a voice in the political system, to make sure that the needs of the poor are not marginalized or overlooked. So there’s a lot that can be done, and I really encourage the young people here to think creatively about that. I mean, what could you do as an individual, what could you do as part of a group here at the university that would tackle some of this?
And the final thing I would say is that there are big, big issues that can only be addressed by big solutions. But there’s an individual approach that could always work; mentoring a poor child, making sure that a poor child has somebody to look up to, somebody that you can be there in his or her life to encourage that child to stay in school, to really help that child get over the challenges and the bumps that happen in any life. Those kind of mentoring programs, those Big Brother/Big Sister programs, it’s one life at a time that I think is also an important part of an overall attempt to try to alleviate poverty.
QUESTION: Thank you very much, ma’am. On a lighter note, I’d just like to ask, since most of us Filipinos here are sports fanatics, particularly basketball and boxing, I would like to know if you follow any sport in particular? Do you have a favorite NBA team? And lastly, I’m sure all of us here would like to know what do you think will be the result this Sunday between Manny Pacquiao and Miguel Cotto? (Applause.) Let’s see how much of a diplomat Secretary Clinton is.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I have heard that basketball and boxing are pretty big here in the Philippines, right? And so for basketball, I have followed two teams. I’m originally from Chicago. That’s where I was born and raised. And so I followed the Chicago Bulls, particularly when Michael Jordan was there. (Applause.) And then I was a senator from New York, so I have followed the Knicks, but that’s kind of discouraging. (Laughter.)
So I have – I kind of – I follow it, but it’s hard to get as enthusiastic as I would like to. Now, the Knicks are trying maybe to get LeBron James. Now, that would make it very exciting in New York. So I’ll watch that. I’m not sure exactly what will happen. And of course the Pacman’s going to win. I mean, is there any doubt? (Applause.)
QUESTION: All right. One of our questions for today’s forum was sent through the video-sharing website YouTube. Here’s that question, Secretary, from (inaudible).
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, (inaudible) network. Happy – the chance to talk with you, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. I just want to clarify some questions regarding your State Department reports on the issues on human rights violations by the Philippine Government and by the armed forces in the Philippines. What is your position regarding these issues? And what are your concrete proposals or concrete actions to end the conflict here in our country? Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, thank you, and I’m delighted to know that this forum here at the university is connected up to so many places around the country, and maybe