Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

HRC: Don’t Know Much About Pakistan [Karl]

Memeorandum and PowerLine alert us that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton doesn’t know that the upcoming elections in Pakistan are for individual seats in the parliament, and that Bhutto, Nawaz and Musharraf are not on the ballot.

No doubt that Clintonoids will point out then-Gov. Bush’s inability to even name Gen. Musharraf when was running for president in 1999.  Of course, intervening events should have Pakistan more on a candidate’s radar now than in 1999.  Moreover, as one person close to the Clinton campaign said of Bush’s pop quiz at the time:

I think as a presidential candidate, for the main trouble spots of the world, he should and probably will pick up those (names) … But the most important thing is do you have a clear idea of what the world should look like and what America’s policies ought to be in those areas?

Knowing what sort of election is at the center of Pakistan’s current turmoil would be a good start on the latter.

Update:  Knowing when you went to Bosnia — and not exaggerating the danger of the trip — would also be helpful.  No wonder Clinton has stopped taking questions.

31 Replies to “HRC: Don’t Know Much About Pakistan [Karl]”

  1. happyfeet says:

    But Bhutto was wanting to be prime minister I know cause it said on the news and if I knew that and I’m ignant I don’t get how Hillary could be so blinkered. I guess maybe she’s not as savvy as the NPR tells me?

    This is troubling.

  2. cynn says:

    I’ll admit that I’m no better versed than HRC in the fine points of Pakistani politics. But the fact remains that recent events, while disquieting, were hardly surprising. Bhutto put herself out as reckless and even a martyr; it was a matter of time.

    But to see the candidates from both sides pontificating and spewing platitudes about the Middle East is ridiculous. Clearly, nobody knows what they’re talking about. A reminder to me that it’s another six months at least before I closely examine anyone’s position and look at the facts on the ground that support it.

  3. Karl says:

    I’ll admit that I’m no better versed than HRC in the fine points of Pakistani politics.

    …and not running for president as these events are unfolding. One hopes HRC (and Huckabee, and the rest) get their acts together before June.

  4. happyfeet says:

    That wasn’t a “fine point” though. Stupid woman is what that is.

  5. cynn says:

    I don’t know that it’s as much stupid as purposefully ignorant of what truly matters to the populace, whether they know it or not. I know that sounds smug, but do we really care about zealotry, bigotry, adultery or idolatry as much as we’re supposed to? Or if we do, don’t we get what we paid for? To my mind, so far this whole dog show is more about posture than stance, and that’s a big difference.

    The fate of Pakistan is more than some glib crap designed to scoop up the instant sentiment, like some kind of political baleen whale. These people have no substance, and it shows, at least to me.

  6. happyfeet says:

    Well sure I guess but that’s a perception that’s a function of the media more than anything else. John Edwards really does want to force you to buy health insurance. Fred Thompson really does want to augment state’s rights. Hillary for real wants to tax the crap out of your ass. The substancey stuff is all there if you look for it.

  7. happyfeet says:

    states’ rights I guess that should be. I done told you I was ignant.

  8. cynn says:

    I don’t think that media manufactures this nonsense. I picture the media as that dumb kid on the Simpsons with his finger jammed up his nose. The media just transmits the pap it’s fed, without even the courtesy of digestion.

  9. Huey says:

    It makes no difference. If elected, Hillary will appoint presidents in all of these countries.

  10. cynn says:

    I realize I’m treating “media” as a singular entity. Lazy of me.

  11. Karl says:

    To be fair, the generally lazy groupthink of the media encourages that generalizaton.

  12. cynn says:

    Huey, I’d be interested to know what the hell you’re talking about.

  13. McGehee says:

    Huey, I’d be interested to know what the hell you’re talking about.

    I think he’s being facetious about how Her Inevitableness will supposedly Make Everything Better™.

  14. JD says:

    Happy New Year to all !!!

    McGehee – It is always puppies, kittens, kites, and prosperity under a Dem. The exact same markers produce recession, erosion of rights, famine and pestilence under the Rethuglikkkans.

  15. daleyrocks says:

    The Hillary Pinocchio factor reared its ugly head again with her story about that trip to Bosnia. Right, word around the White House was if the trip was too dangerous for anyone else, send the First Lady. Sure Hillary, that’s why you took Chelsea along. How big a problem were snipers on a former Russian MIG base Hillary?

    Don’t the Clinton’s ever get embarrassed by peddling easily checked lies? Forget that, I guess it was a rhetorical question.

  16. McGehee says:

    Right, word around the White House was if the trip was too dangerous for anyone else, send the First Lady.

    That part I could believe…

  17. daleyrocks says:

    That part I could believe…

    Definitely. But sending Chelsea along didn’t make a whole lot of sense. Bill could still get his ham glazed with Chelsea in town.

  18. JD says:

    Yes, daleyrocks. Parents routinely take trips that are considered too dangerous. For spring break, we are planning on taking Kaitlin to Pakistan and will stop in Gaza on the way home.

    Why do they lie like that? Because they can, and they know they will never get called on it.

  19. daleyrocks says:

    JD – If you have time for a side trip, she might enjoy seeing how they attempt to treat ebola in the Congo. Just a thought. I’m here to help.

  20. BryanA says:

    Heh, Hillary and Sinbad team up as an unlikely duo in an action comedy. Someone wanna photoshop us a movie poster for that one?

  21. Scrapiron says:

    Don’t be too hard on HRC’s attempt to be a hero. She’s trying to grow a pair to go with her beard and mustache that shows up daily at 5PM.

  22. ajacksonian says:

    You know, for all the pre- and post-war carping from the Left on Iraq, I find it more than a bit humorous that what they were describing in the way of harsh sectarianism that would devolve into chaos aptly describes Pakistan. Of course they, like the rest of the Nation listening to State Dept. blather for decades, were caught unaware of the highly tribal nature of Iraq. Iraq is *easy* to think about compared to the mess that is Pakistan.

    Where else can you find folks willing to outwait a 100 year edict giving ‘breathing room’ to let folks find a better answer to who is and is not a Nation? Pakistan has got that along with Afghanistan – the Pashtuns have successfully outwaited one of the last edicts of the British Empire.

    Speaking of Pashtuns they aren’t the *only* ethnic group feeling slighted by Pakistan. No the Baluchs feel even more so in that they were promised autonomy after Pakistan stood up and now feel cheated. So do their cousins across the border in Iran. And they have 5 or 6 terrorist outfits to prove the point.

    Ah, terrorism! First State sponsored terrorism? Pakistan in the early 1960’s (perhaps even late 1950’s) in regards to Kashmir. Pakistan’s ISI has been running multiple terror operations there ever since 1965.

    Religious fundamentalism? Sunni, Shia, Ahmaddiya… that last variously attacked and repressed since the mid-1950’s under Jinnah and declared non-Muslim as they don’t believe the Prophet is the last to arrive.

    Then there is the entire standing up of Hekmatyar from the Bhutto and Haq administrations in Afghanistan, with that fine fellow taking ISI funding and training to fight in Afghanistan against the Soviets. He now runs a terror outfit stretching from Iran to China, actually has been trying to make nice with the Chinese for the few thousand he killed there… so far, no dice.

    What, we aren’t even up to the Taliban and al Qaeda yet? Still over a decade away for both….

    Benazir Bhutto, and I do admit she was a politician who did little to stop the ISI when in office and, in fact, supported a few groups (to say the least) learned that these organizations do not respect their paymasters. Did she have corruption in her administration? Yes. Is it any worse than under Sharif or Musharraf? By no means, with Musharraf doing his best to protect a friend and head of the ISI with deep links to al Qaeda and the Taliban. Sharif is even less of a winner there and his support for extremely radical groups and encouragement of same. Bhutto got killed because she was not going to play along and threatened the head of the ISI’s power base and… she was a woman.

    If HRC didn’t get *any* briefings on Pakistan during her galavanting around the globe on her First Lady World Tour of Bill Wanting Her Someplace Else, then what we get now is about what we can expect: clueless. Pretty much the worst of the field, although I would like to see Obama back up his earlier statements on Pakistan and give us how well *his* countdown to invasion is going along. Perhaps Mr. ‘Fresh Face from Mob Backed Chicago Machine’ should be asked about that. And the Huckabee guy and his weird ideas and the Ronulan Commander on how a British Imperial edict is ‘America’s Fault’ with ‘blowback’ added. Or Richardson and his grand idea of the US replacing a leader of another Nation, just like JFK did in S. Vietnam, no? Worked out well, did it?

    Because ‘lasting peace’ in Pakistan tends to last a few hours at best…

  23. happyfeet says:

    There’s lots in Pakistan what needs killing.

  24. Baron_Harkonnen says:

    There’s so much wrong here it’s stunning. Hillary can’t even be bothered to keep up with events in a potentially 1914-like situation, and she can’t even keep up with her own history.

    I’m not surprised she forgot about the Bosnian situation. That less-than-stellar performance is not quite what the Democratic base wants to hear.

    However, I will give one point to Mrs. Clinton: it ain’t easy stabilizing the area where World War I began, not by a long shot.

  25. BJTexs says:

    The above is just the sort of stumbles that bode ill for Hillary in the general election.

    When it comes right down to it, Hillary has staked her electoral life on being “smarter” and more “experienced” than the other candidates. This may allow her to sneak past a weak field in the Democratic primaries but will come back to smack her in the general election, assuming the Reps nominate someone who could actually take advantage.

    That remains to be seen.

  26. happyfeet says:

    It’s telling to contrast Hillary’s misapprehension of the situation with Huckabee’s immediately proposing a ban on sun-roofs so that tragedies like what happened with Benazir can never happen again. I know which one has my vote.

  27. BJTexs says:

    Sunroofs don’t kill people, Happy. Only people misusing sunroofs kill people.

    Oh, yea, and those stupid guns…

  28. JD says:

    Sunroofs kill people. And splodeydopes. Splodeydopes, they kill people too. And socialist societies. And, Kyoto.

  29. BJTexs says:

    Splodeydopes kill people, not the C-4. Halliburton kills everybody. And Blackwater but not kites.

Comments are closed.