Hillary Clinton put in Hot Seat by Pakistani Media

[Solomon2]

Americans also have to make a choice -

Of course. Does that let Pakistanis off the hook?

 

[Abu Basit]

If many Pakistanis truly believe that and don't wish to explore for the truth, then Pakistan is much worse off than I thought. No wonder Hillary felt compelled to speak undiplomatically!

she thought it will be flowers all around but that didn't happened. She came to hear us and i hope she heard well. this ignorant woman had no answers to the questions and only made herself look stupid..

 

[Solomon2]

she thought it will be flowers all around but that didn't happened. She came to hear us and i hope she heard well. this ignorant woman had no answers to the questions and only made herself look stupid..

That doesn't sound like the Hillary Clinton most Americans know. Do you have a link to a video of such an exchange with Pakistanis?

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Its all a ploy like they do it in the game of CHESS . Good one though .

PPP will break off if it accepted this bill , wont going to come on power for decades for making such a huge blunder . It knows the public opinion .

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Clinton Ends Visit as the Focus of Pakistani Barbs

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, in blue, at a round-table discussion with Pakistani tribesmen on Friday.

By MARK LANDLER and JACK HEALY
Published: October 30, 2009

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — As Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton wrapped up a three-day visit here, she faced yet another round of skepticism and sharpened questions as Pakistani audiences vented their anger over American policies in the region.

An interview with several women who are prominent Pakistani television anchors, broadcast live, turned into a pointed, sometimes raucous back-and-forth, as her questioners cut each other off and shouted to be heard as they parried with Mrs. Clinton. They criticized American drone strikes in Pakistan, said the military presence was stirring unrest and expressed their doubts about whether the United States had a long-term commitment to Pakistan.

One of the women said that Pakistanis were experiencing “daily 9/11’s,” and an audience member asked Mrs. Clinton whether the drone strikes amounted to acts of terrorism.

Mrs. Clinton was also challenged in a meeting with Pakistani tribal residents who live near the border with Afghanistan, a focal point of the fight with Taliban insurgents.

“Your presence in the region is not good for peace,” one of the men in attendance told Mrs. Clinton, according to The Associated Press, “because it gives rise to frustration and irritation among the people of this region.”

Throughout the three days of her visit here, Mrs. Clinton would not comment on the drone attacks — a classified C.I.A. program — but said that the United States hoped to act as a partner with Pakistan on military and domestic issues.

Mrs. Clinton’s parade of meetings with television, radio and print journalists was an effort to improve public portrayals of the United States in Pakistan’s vibrant, influential, but sometimes rumor-driven press.

But a car bomb struck a market in the border city of Peshawar within hours of her arrival, killing more than 100 people; a United Nations guest house was attacked in Kabul, leaving 11 dead; and Mrs. Clinton has met with unremitting skepticism. All of that has underscored the precarious security situation and highlighted the diplomatic struggles facing the United States as it tries to rout terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan and support democracies in both.

A gathering on Thursday at Government College University in Lahore was particularly hostile. Rarely in her travels as secretary of state has Mrs. Clinton encountered an audience so uniformly suspicious and immune to her star power as the polite, but unsmiling, university students who challenged her there.

One after another, they lined up to grill Mrs. Clinton about what they see as the dysfunctional relationship between Pakistan and the United States. They described a litany of slights, betrayals and misunderstandings that add up to a national narrative of grievance, against which she did her best to push back.

Why did the United States abandon Pakistan after the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, they asked. Why did the Bush administration support the previous military government of Gen. Pervez Musharraf? What about reports in the Pakistani news media that American contractors illegally carried weapons in Islamabad? Even her fans have come armed with spears. A young woman, a medical student, thanked Mrs. Clinton for being an inspiration to women, then asked how the United States could justify ordering Predator strikes on targets in Pakistan without sharing intelligence with its military.

Mrs. Clinton said only, “The war that your government and your military are waging right now is an important one for the country.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/world/asia/31clinton.html?hp

 

[WarProfessor]

Mrs. Clinton said only, “The war that your government and your military are waging right now is an important one for the country.”

 

[Elmo]

Hi Agnostic, as much as one would want to ride high on patriotism and be on the defensive, ground facts don't change.

Correct - this war was brought into our land by your nation, your nation that chose to not negotiate with the Taliban over handing over wanted men to mutually acceptable nations for trial.

Seriously?

How about our government letting all the insurgents come in? or supporting the Taliban regime? or supporting the mujahideen?

Your nation brought this violence and hatred on our shores, much as it did in Iraq.

!!!!!!

We will deal with it, and hopefully end it, but the catalytic effect of US actions on this violence and instability is clear, and humility and supplication for the bled and treasure shed by Pakistan because of the US is definitely in order.

Fair enough.

No more than your nations' government acting on your poisonous rants about how to deal with the region. It's not my choice is it? The Zardari Government knows public opinion on this count, and is still going the route it prefers.

Because we need the money. I am not a supporter of the bills attaching strings to aid but we cannot afford to halt our economy. Far-fetched but here's an analogy: people keep talking about load-shedding in the country. when the RPPs were set up, there was a lot of hue and cry but you know what the RPPs may be expensive in the short term but they let your industries function. So you get them for simple practical reasons... you cannot put a spanner in your economy.

It's not about letting go of the aid. May be delivering as far as the non-military aspect of the aid is concerned (bare minimum... they are pumping money, they will hold us accountable) and negotiating with the US on terms of the bills would have helped a lot. Things aren't etched in stone. The Pakistani ambassador in the US should have lobbied for lesser strings/no strings rather than running back home and making a fuss about exposing the government's secrets. If he does a shoddy job, we can't blame the US law-makers. It's pretty simple for them: "take it or leave it."

 

[absarahmedkhan]

Sana Bucha of Geo TV during the live broadcast interview with Hillary Clinton said: It is your war. You had one 9/11. We are having daily 9/11s in Pakistan. And she drew a burst of applause when she said this.

I must say, at least our media acted as stiff and rigorous at times without any pressure under a fact that they're talking to high US diplomat. My commendation to those senior journalists and anchors. Our leaders should also be like that

 

[Developereo]

Zionist Fascism = Evangelist Fascism = TTP

All of them stand as equals and are equally lamentable.

They are not the same.
TTP does not have the media clout to hide their barbarity and present a nice PR image.

When anyone else engages in ethnic cleansing, they are condemned by the world; when Zionists do it in Palestine they are portrayed as victims.

When TTP engages in wholesale slaughter of people, they are branded as animals; when Evangelical Christians, Zionists or neocons advocate invasion of a country, they are hailed as liberators acting in the cause of Freedumb.

That doesn't sound like the Hillary Clinton most Americans know.

How Americans View Hillary: Popular but Polarizing - TIME

Hillary is one of the worst possible choices for the top diplomat job. She has never been noted for her diplomacy or likeability. She has been riding Bill's coattails throughout her political career and her emotional outbursts, whether in Ghana or New Hampshire make her the laughingstock of the US political scene.

Pakistan’s vibrant, influential, but sometimes rumor-driven press.

This coming from the NYT?
Priceless!

 

[Solomon2]

She has been riding Bill's coattails throughout her political career and her emotional outbursts, whether in Ghana or New Hampshire make her the laughingstock of the US political scene.

I am aware of the pro-Democratic Party bent of our mainstream media. That's why I asked for a link to a Pakistani source - to seek a possible correction.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Hi Agnostic, as much as one would want to ride high on patriotism and be on the defensive, ground facts don't change.

Seriously?

How about our government letting all the insurgents come in? or supporting the Taliban regime? or supporting the mujahideen?

Oh come now - you know better than to parrot S-2's line about 'allowed the Taliban Army to enter FATA'. The Afghan Taliban returned to their homes and villages in Afghanistan - what came to Pakistan were the Pakistanis who had gone to support them and some of the foreigners. And Pakistan did deploy tens of thousands of troops along the Durand, how many did the US deploy? Where was the US cooperation in interdicting cross-border militant movement, especially coordination in border areas where US offensives were taking place?

And beyond all of that, has the Durand all of a sudden become a police-able border? Because AFAIK, the cross-border movement of the Pashtun Tribes and the mountainous terrain still make for a formidable frontier that is close to impossible to completely police. So please, let the canard about this fictional 'Taliban Army marching into FATA and setting up camp', all with the GoP doing nothing, die already. It would be an extremely difficult task even in the best of times.

And yes, we supported the Mujahideen, and so did the US and other states. We supported the Taliban, and so did other states, even the US indirectly as it lobbied to have US business interests win contracts for pipelines transiting through Afghanistan. The Taliban regime pre-US invasion at least provided some semblance of 'structure' - a unified command and control that exercised authority across 90% of Afghanistan and could be dealt with, though it was frustratingly stubborn and inflexible on various issues.

FATA did not go up in flames of hatred and Islamic extremism until the US invasion, which allowed for a molding of ethnic, religious and tribal solidarity expressed for those occupied in Afghanistan under the Taliban banner and gave the Pakistani Taliban the authority and strength they needed to expand.

Events in FATA might never have gone that route had it not been for the US invasion. Tens of thousands might not have died had the US slowed down for one moment, and attempted to seriously engage with the Taliban and explore the offers of deportation and trial of the accused in a mutually acceptable third nation - the threat of war did not need to be lowered, that was the "Stick" that would have been brought to pressure the Taliban, while international development assistance and phased recognition (which the Taliban were extremely desperate for) in return for cooperation on a variety of issues would have been the carrot.

Now, has Pakistani policy since then been flawed? Absolutely, though it could be argued that the failed policies were a function of domestic political and ethnic constraints, complicated even further by the US once more abandoning Afghanistan to go wage war in Iraq. But my 'diatribe' here is primarily focused at the fact that the US had the opportunity to take the non-military route, and refused to do so, and the result has been tens of thousands of lives and a radicalization of the entire tribal belt.

Because we need the money.

We can actually survive without the aid money, Hillary herself alluded to how in her comments that I commended her for, and various Pakistanis have been arguing for years along those lines.

The problem in Pakistan is not entirely one of funds, it is primarily one of poor planning and even poorer execution. The 'aid' may in fact allow the GoP to brush over its poor planning and execution, by providing it with easy surplus cash that will go into projects that will be trumpeted by the incumbent regime to win the voters over - never mind showing us what our actual Taxes paid for.

The Pakistani ambassador in the US should have lobbied for lesser strings/no strings rather than running back home and making a fuss about exposing the government's secrets. If he does a shoddy job, we can't blame the US law-makers. It's pretty simple for them: "take it or leave it."

You will have likely noticed that Haqqani has come in for some of the most pointed criticism on this forum, and in some sections of the media - I don't think he has been absolved of his role in this.

But back to 'take it or leave it' - I was merely pointing out to S-2 that what a majority of Pakistanis, or Americans, think matters little in this context. The GoP and GoUS have decided to engage in this manner - through the vehicle of aid - and that is that. The clarifications from the US side on the KLL are satisfactory for me since they remove any potential 'excuses' the Zardari government might have brought up of 'we have to do XYZ because of the KLL agreement with the US'.

Now, any domestic policy changes will have to be pushed through parliament on their own merits, and get past all stakeholders, instead of shooting a gun laid across US shoulders.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Clinton faces Pakistani anger at Predator attacks​

Updated at: 2205 PST, Friday, October 30, 2009
ISLAMABAD: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton came face-to-face Friday with Pakistani anger over U.S. aerial drone attacks in tribal areas along the Afghan border, a strategy that U.S. officials say has succeeded in killing key terrorist leaders.

In a series of public appearances on the final day of a three-day visit marked by blunt talk, Clinton refused to discuss the subject, which involves highly classified CIA operations. She would say only that "there is a war going on," and the Obama administration is committed to helping Pakistan defeat the insurgents and terrorists who threaten the stability of a nuclear-armed nation.

Clinton said she could not comment on "any particular tactic or technology" used in the war against extremist groups in the area.

The use of Predator drone aircraft, armed with guided missiles, is credited by U.S. officials with eliminating a growing number of senior terrorist group leaders this year who had used the tribal lands of Pakistan as a haven beyond the reach of U.S. ground forces in Afghanistan.

During an interview broadcast live in Pakistan with several prominent female TV anchors, before a predominantly female audience of several hundred, one member of the audience said the Predator attacks amount to "executions without trial" for those killed.

Another asked Clinton how she would define terrorism.

"Is it the killing of people in drone attacks?" she asked. That woman then asked if Clinton considers drone attacks and bombings like the one that killed more than 100 civilians in the city of Peshawar earlier this week to both be acts of terrorism.

"No, I do not," Clinton replied.

Earlier, in a give-and-take with about a dozen residents of the tribal region, one man alluded obliquely to the drone attacks, saying he had heard that in the United States, aircraft are not allowed to take off after 11 p.m., to avoid irritating the population.

"That is the sort of peace we want for our people," he said through an interpreter.

The same man told Clinton that the Obama administration should rely more on wisdom and less on firepower to achieve its aims in Pakistan.

"Your presence in the region is not good for peace," he said, referring to the U.S. military, "because it gives rise to frustration and irritation among the people of this region." At another point he told Clinton, "Please forgive me, but I would like to say we've been fighting your war."

A similar point was made by Sana Bucha of Geo TV during the live broadcast interview.

"It is not our war," she told Clinton. "It is your war." She drew a burst of applause when she added, "You had one 9/11. We are having daily 9/11s in Pakistan."

Capturing a feeling that Clinton heard expressed numerous times during her visit, one woman in the audience said, "The whole world thinks we are terrorists." The woman said she was from the South Waziristan area where the Pakistani army is engaged in pitched battles with Taliban and affiliated extremist elements — and where U.S. drones have struck with deadly effect many times.

The Pakistani army said Friday its forces had killed 14 militants in 24 hours and were closing in on a prominent insurgent stronghold as its offensive in the remote region continued.

Clinton's main message on Friday was that the U.S. wants to be a partner with Pakistan, not just on the military front but also on trade, education, energy and other sectors. She stressed, however, that Pakistan needs to do its part in demonstrating a real commitment to democracy.

Clinton also was asked about her remark on Thursday that she found it hard to believe that Pakistani officials don't know where leaders of terrorist groups are hiding in Pakistan.

On Friday she took a bit of the edge off that comment, saying, "I don't know if anyone knows, but we in the United States would very much like to see the end of the al-Qaida leadership, and our best information is that they are somewhere in Pakistan."

In an interview broadcast Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America," Clinton was asked about the bluntness of her remarks.

"Trust is a two-way street. There is trust deficit," she said. "It will not be sufficient to achieve the level of security that Pakistanis deserve if we don't go after those who are still threatening not only Pakistan, but Afghanistan, and the rest of the world. And we wanted to put that on the table. And I think it was important that we did."

Asked if she thought Pakistan was harboring terrorists, Clinton replied, "I don't think they are. ... But I think it would be a missed opportunity and a lack of recognition of the full extent of the threat, if they did not realize that any safe haven anywhere for terrorists threatens them, threatens us, and has to be addressed."

Later Clinton was to fly to Abu Dhabi in the Persian Gulf for a meeting Saturday with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Clinton faces Pakistani anger at Predator attacks

=========

Kudos to the fairer sex by the way (on both sides) - no lack of spunk, nationalism and pride, and the ability and desire to convey that which they hold true in their hearts.

Ahem, "Asked if she thought Pakistan was harboring terrorists, Clinton replied, "I don't think they are."

I would still like to know whether she brought along any intelligence that Pakistan could use to nab these people the US is so certain are in Pakistan.

 

[ambidex]

The only thing i can see here is that there is too much uncertainty in the minds of normal patriotic Pakistanis.

H.Clinton was responding to media not GOP that you have choice not to accept it.

The whole fuss about this bill is created by Pakistani elite. Due to strings attached they will not be able to loot the money to their whim.

How this bill which is not the first bill of its kind to help Pakistan can effect the life of ordinary Pakistani and vice versa?

We all are recognising the fact here that Pakistan is sacrificing her brave sons for US war on terror? can anyone tell me why Pakistan is doing that?
The answer would decrease the all allergic reactions to Kerry Luger bill i think.

Why Pakistanis are getting carried away with this premature media drive that it will challenge our sovereignty. Don't you think Pakistanis are mixing every possible conspiracy theories available to this bill.

Why Pakistan can not trust his mighty friend USA? Why everyone is trying to be a foreign policy expert here?

Is army and elites trying to hide something from the world?
or Why Pakistan is loosing treasures and struggling fighting bunch of losers and by destroying few houses made of mud for US and demanding aid for that, when Pakistan claim parity with 4 times larger India in all aspects of her defence capabilities?

It was foreseen after 9/11 that they will come here at your doors chasing those who are wanted by Yanks. Why you were asked to choose sides after 9/11 and extensively bullied to be sent back to stone age?

A very wisdom in Punjabi is that if we make friendship with camel then we should knock down small doors of your house to assist him through. Nothing will happen to Pakistan with this bill, Pakistan is greater then anything else but when will learn to be resilient and patient.

Last but not least It all about greed of money my friends, nothing else.

 

[parihaka]

In a special televised interview session by prominent Pakistani journalists belonging to different channels, Hillary Clinton had to face a hail of tough questions, most of which she seemed to be uncomfortable with. Although Hillary did put up a smiling face, her body language did show signs of stress during the interview.

Some of the hardest questions thrown at her included perceived compromise to Pakistan's security through the Kerry Lugar Bill, recent arrests and release of some Americans carrying weapons in Islamabad, Clinton's criticism of the Pakistani media, drone attacks and Kashmir issue.

Read the rest at:
Wars of the World: Hilary Clinton Put in Hot Seat by Pakistani Media

LOL, in their dreams. She stared every single one of them down and put in a masterful performance. A mere woman too. I often wonder what would have happened if she'd become President...

 

[parihaka]

...........