Via Memeorandum, I note that after Sen. Hillary Clinton finally got called on her ignorance about the upcoming election in Pakistan by Sen. Joe Biden (because the media could not be bothered), she unleashed yip-dog Howard Wolfson on — among others — ABCNews:
“Well, his party is on the ballot,†said communications director Howard Wolfson, in an interview at Clinton headquarters in Des Moines, Tuesday, suggesting that the senator knew the difference between the man and the party being up for election, but was using shorthand. “And I don’t think anybody questions that Sen. Clinton has a vast and deep knowledge about foreign policy.â€Â
The first problem with that response is that Clinton made the error twice — on CNN as well as “This Week with Former Clintonoid George Stephanopoulos.”  And the interview with Wolf Blitzer makes clear that it is indeed an error, not “shorthand”:
I believe, again, some kind of international support for free and fair elections in a timely manner would be incredibly important. If President Musharraf wishes to stand for election, then he should abide by the same rules that every other candidate will have to follow. (Emphases added.)
The second problem is that her other comments in these interviews give every reason to question Clinton’s purportedly “vast and deep knowledge.”
In both interviews, Clinton comments on the state of unrest in Pakistan. At CNN she said:
You know, this is an odd situation, Wolf. The people in the streets are wearing suits and ties. They are lawyers. They are professionals. They are the middle class of Pakistan, which really offers the very best hope for a stable, democratic country. And that is in America’s interests.
On ABC, she sounded the same theme:
We know that there is a very strong, pro-democracy, anti-Musharraf movement.
You know, when you have people demonstrating in the streets who are wearing coats and ties, you know, those are the people we should be standing with, the civil society, the middle class of Pakistan…
However, as I have previously noted, the ostensibly liberal, secular, middle-class Pakistani opposition outside the Sharif and Bhutto-led blocs has been small and splintered. Moreover, as noted earlier, some of that opposition is not at all sympathetic to US foreign policy. Indeed, public opinion in Pakistan generally is at least as supportive of Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban and other extremist groups as it is of Musharraf or the war on terror.
Someone with a vast and deep knowledge about foreign policy would know these things.
– The Clintonestas are scrambling trying to force feed RoboBitch a crash diet of political factoids, but its coming out of her more like verbal hemroids. The only thing she has vast and deep ecprience at is taking it in the ass while her philandering hubby molests his way through life. What the fuck any of that has to do with being president I have no clue, but the fawning mindless support gushing from the Liberal mediots makes you want to hurl. Hopefully she’ll win the nomination, and if the fumbling Reps avoid nominating some walking desaster like Paul, she should be even more beatable than sKerry, if thats possible.
Hopefully she’ll win the nomination
Please please please let me get what I want…
Anybody other than me watch the footage from Pakistan? I did not notice many suits, or coats and ties, in the mobs. Maybe I missed something. But stampeding hordes of attorneys would have merited some serious attention. That would be scary.
On the NPR this morning the Hillary! soundbite… was it just me or was that an Iowa accent Hill was trying to sport?
I question if she has a vast or deep knowledge of foreign policy. Her husband didn’t, and to date, she has shown no evidence of same.
So, count Wolfson amongst the tediously dishonest. Or just stupid.
And yes, happyfeet, HRC has a magical ability to attempt to mimic, albeit poorly, the stereotypical accent of her audience. In this case, the children of the corn.
JD,
Here you go.
I think the guy who shot Bhutto was wearing a suit and tie. Was he one of those protesting?
Also this shows the tendency on the left to conflate the “party” with the “head of the party”. You know “cult of personality” and all that. Nothing happens unless the big boss in charge tells everyone exactly what to do.
Lost one link.
The Pakistani middle class is relatively small but could be an important lever for change. As this [WARNING: PDF] IRI poll shows:
66% feel that religious extremism is a serious problem
63% feel that “[t]he Taliban and Al Qaida operating in Pakistan is a serious problem”
62% support “lawyers, members of civil society, journalists, and opposition parties [who] have been protesting in the streets”
Of course, it should also be noted that 82% don’t feel that Pakistan should cooperate with the US in the WOT, and a majority (67%) feel that Musharraf should resign. Somehow providing support for those who want change and are anti-terrorist without making them appear to be US stooges would be nice. Easy, I know.
One more try: Lawyer protest photo link. IRI survey [PDF] link.
Hubris – I was referring to the rioting after the assassination of Bhutto. The Clinton quotes were from 12/28, so I assumed that she was referring to the time period following the splodeydopes as well.
The first link in my 9:19 comment is to a pic captioned “Pakistani lawyers participate in a protest rally against the killing of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.”
“Also this shows the tendency on the left to conflate the “party†with the “head of the partyâ€Â. You know “cult of personality†and all that”
Its not so wrong to do that in Pakistan. Here, party leadership doesn’t get passed down in the will of the party leader. In Bhutto’s case, it did. I can’t think of a better argument for a dynastic cult of personality than that. Well, besides actual royalty.
Hubris – The ABC news link was to a photo taken on 12/14 about lawyers protesting Musharref. At least it was when I clicked on it.
Regardless, Clinton was wrong.
“I question if she has a vast or deep knowledge of foreign policy. Her husband didn’t, and to date, she has shown no evidence of same.”
She should really just accept jesus christ as her savior.
Step away from the bottle, andy.
Well, when I listen to either Clinton talk, I do indeed think “vast and deep.” But not knowledge.
If we define a puddle as being “vast and deep”, then yeah, maybe she does.
Hubris,
The IRI poll contains data less gloomy than the CNN poll, and I could have linked to other polls showing roughly the same sort of sentiment. The reason I did not do so is that it shows — at best — that Pakistan is more complex that HRC suggests, which still makes my point. Indeed, it is also more complex from the standpoint of US foreign policy because — as you suggest — US support for that small “civil society” bloc may well lessen domestic support for it. Yet that fairly important point is also nowhere in HRC’s analysis, either.
And all of that is before we reach issues like how much of that support for the judges and lawyers comes from Sharif’s relatively Islamist-friendly bloc. Sharif is one of those who has also been hitting Musharraf on the judiciary. That we in the US might agree with that point in the abstract should not blind us to the likelihood that people like those in Sharif’s bloc have a different agenda in mind when they raise the issue.
JD,
Was Clinton wrong about the standing for election thing? Yes. Was she wrong about the “strong, pro-democracy, anti-Musharraf movement” and “people demonstrating in the streets who are wearing coats and ties”? No.
Karl,
I would agree that it’s more complex than Clinton’s soundbits would suggest (and also more complex than the White House’s “close ally in the war on terror” rhetoric). As for Sharif–yes, a religious conservative and dangerous to US interests. However, the indications are that the underlying grassroots drivers for general opposition to Musharraf are not grounded in a swell of fundamentalism or support for terrorists.
Someone with a vast and deep knowledge about foreign policy would know these things.
You know, Karl, this assertion would be true if HRC wasn’t in the business of selling a fantasy. Actually, a whole Magic Busload of fantasies. Peace, love, understanding, a great economy, international respect. The Age of Aquarius: we had it all in the 90s, we can have it again.
The standing for election thing is far more important than suits and ties rioting in the streets, Hubris. The suits and ties were rioting before Bhutto was killed, and then again after. I admitted I made a mistake.
Let’s contrast the number of front page articles about Bush not knowing the leader of Pakistan’s name in 2000 in a “pop quiz” and the number of front page articles about Hillary showing a fundamental lack of understanding of the basic process in Pakistan. Which is worse?
Hubris,
As I noted in the inital post, the “civil society” bloc is small and not unified. The general attitudes expressed in polls like the IRI poll are nice, but have not translated into a political bloc with any clout. And some of the leadership in those parties is not pro-US by any stretch. US foreign policy has to take account of those realities.
Bush clearly exaggerates Pakistan’s role as an ally, but his exaggerations at least account for the reality that — while peppered with enemies — it’s the Pakistani military that has been the most stable and modernizing force in the country. In contrast, HRC’s comments demonstrate little understanding of this. While it would be nifty for some of the “civil society” bloc to gain power, there’s little sign it will or that US foreign policy can contribute to it happening.
JD,
The coverage of both candidates in the first election following the Clinton impeachment saga was very interesting. Check out The Daily Howler’s 2000 archives for examples of how it wasn’t all about attacking Bush.
It’s completely predictable that hillary would canonize the “suits and ties” far beyond their influence or usefulness. There is a reason that the military controls so much of that sorry country.
It’s called oodles of jihadists of many stripes.
Musharraf doen’t have the properly trained soldiers to deal with a large scale insurgency in the Wahziristan provinces and effectively ceeded them to the Taliban, al qaeda and the local supporting tribes. He did this because his troops were consistently getting their asses kicked by the irregulars. He needs troops to maintain order in the cities and surrounding countryside where thousands of Madrassa schools crank out splodeydopes wirh depressing regularity, a wonderful legacy from the economic and ethical disaster that was Benizer’s father.
I laugh when I hear people weeping about democratic institutions in Pakistan. Democracy will be limited as long as radicalized Islam is systemic, entrenched, institutionalized and dogged. Without the support of the Army the Pakistani Intellegence jihadists would be formenting far more chaos than exists now.
Hillary has no idea what she’s talking about when she tries to characterize Pakistan. With nuclear weapons, a jihadist enclave and entrenched radicals it just may be the most dangerous place on earth, a place where we should, when necessary, continue to hold our nose and support the largely sectarian army’s control.
As much as that sucks from a “democracy” perspective, the potential alternative is unthinkable.
I always thought Imran Khan to be a snappy dresser. I bet his suits are even really expensive. His sartorial magnificence didn’t stop him from provoking riots over the Newsweek Koran toilet story, though.
MayBee,
Good catch. I didn’t mention him in my post on the “civil society” bloc, but he does pop up in some of the underlying links.
I’m not prepared to ascertain its depth, but I think I can safely say that her foreign-policy knowledge is half-vast at best.
Heh! I am so stealing that.
I laugh when I hear people weeping about democratic institutions in Pakistan.
Really? I found similarly idealistic foreign policy sentiments to be inspiring previously…where did I read that, anyway? Ah, yes.
http://www.yoest.org/archives/brief_case_drill_team_johnltrussell.jpg
When Clinton sends out Wolfson, you know she knows she really stepped in it.
– The Clinton gang is in full spin bloom qith McCulough working the FOX cluster fuck hard. putting forth the “lowered expectastions” tango, as a counterpoint to the Pakistan gaffes. If the Dem candidates could just catch some of the political acuity of their handlers, they might even be able to win some elections. As it stands, the slick Willy/RoboBitch team wins awards for most excellant running of losing campaigns. What a fucking waste of time and money. I don’t know what this entire presidential election circus will have cost, beginning to end, but I have to wonder what that 750+ million could have done for the poor of America, a decidedly practical question you’ll never hear asked by the pols on either side of the aisle.
– But hey, its important for the ego of America, proving as it does, that we can spend 1000 times as much money as any other nation in the world, electing our dysfunctional leaders.
– Make that McCauliffe….