How credible is Hillary Clinton on Pakistan?

[hist2004]

How credible is Hillary Clinton on Pakistan?

December 31, 2007

Last weekend after returning to my office from the television studios of a major network where I had done a brief segment on the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, I turned on CNN to watch their coverage of the Bhutto assassination's aftermath.

Sen. Hillary Clinton was telling Wolf Blitzer that she didn't think "the Pakistani government at this time under President Musharraf has any credibility at all."

She then said something that betrayed a serious lack of knowledge about Pakistan and called her own credibility on the subject into serious question.

"If President Musharraf wishes to stand for election," she told Blitzer, "then he should abide by the same rules that every other candidate will have to follow."

My immediate reaction was: "Did I hear that correctly?"

As a Pakistan analyst, I know for a fact that Pervez Musharraf doesn't wish to stand for election any time soon.

The upcoming elections are for the next parliament. Musharraf was just elected president of Pakistan, overwhelmingly, by popularly elected electors on Oct. 6. He's just begun his five-year term as the president of the country. Why would he ever want to run for one seat in parliament? It wouldn't make sense.

However, I checked the transcript of the interview later. That's exactly what she said.

My next reaction was: "Maybe she misspoke. Candidates do a lot of interviews. Not every sentence comes out the way they want it to."

After all, Sen. Clinton is a candidate who is running claiming big-time foreign policy knowledge and experience that she says her closest opponents in the Democratic Primary don't have.

Pakistan? A nuclear power? A front-line ally in the war on terror? A country that's been in the news an awful lot in the past few months? "C'mon," I told myself. "A candidate with all of those advisors has got to know at least the basics about Pakistan's political system."

No such luck.

Sunday morning, ABC's This Week ran an interview George Stephanopoulos had done with Sen. Clinton on Friday.

The interview produced this gem:

Referring to a possible delay in the elections, Sen. Clinton said: "I think it will be very difficult to have a real election. You know, Nawaz Sharif (leader of the PML-N, an opposition party) has said he's not going to compete. The PPP is in disarray with Benazir's assassination. He (President Pervez Musharraf) could be the only person on the ballot. I don't think that's a real election."

And then it hit me:

Sen. Clinton really didn't know that the upcoming elections were for individual seats in Pakistan's parliament. She actually believed that Bhutto, Nawaz and Musharraf would be facing off as individual candidates for leadership of the country in the upcoming elections.

Sen. Clinton didn't know that Nawaz Sharif isn't allowed to run for office in Pakistan because of a felony conviction. She didn't know that President Musharraf won't be on the ballot because he's already been elected.

Sen. Clinton, a candidate for the leadership of the free world, apparently doesn't know the first thing about the country referred to by some as "the most dangerous place on earth."

Thomas Houlahan is the director of the Military Assessment Program at the Center for Security and Science.

Link (http://www.metimes.com/Opinion/2007/12/31/op-ed_thomas_houlahan/4473/)

[wotsnext]

At least she knows who the leader of Pakistan is...p-)

[I can't think of a name]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRJTbDvuKZs

"Smartest Woman in the World" ?????


That was terrible. The elections are for Parliament, Musharraf is not on the ballot, he got elected to a 5 year term for PRESIDENT in October. So Bhutto only could of become Prime Minister. Nawaz Sharif is a convicted felon he cannot run. Bhutto is too but Musharraf PARDONED her.

Also the PPP is a hereditary Party. Bhutto listed in her will who is the successor. So it already has it leader. There is no one to find.

If Bush said this stuff the media would have crucified him. But Hillary gets a free pass because she supports Socialized medicine or something.

[I can't think of a name]

At least she knows who the leader of Pakistan is...p-)
Not really, watch the video, she thought Musharraf was the PM of Pakistan when in fact he in President. She also thought that Bhutto was running for President when in fact she was running for PM. So much for her "Experience"

[budgie]

I'll just come out with it shall I? Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Thompson, Giuliani, (possibly) Bllomberg, Paul, Romney andd Huckabee: none of the future possible leaders of the free world will be as foolhardy, belligerant, ignorant and willfully stubborn in matters of international relations as the present one.

So pour crap over whoever you want but can we make it clear who they're being compared to? Is it one-another or Bush? Experience means nothing if you don't learn from it.

[Dasein]

How many Americans know differently to call Hillary or any other candidate on these things?

[Buckeye67]

I'll just come out with it shall I? Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Thompson, Giuliani, (possibly) Bllomberg, Paul, Romney andd Huckabee: none of the future possible leaders of the free world will be as foolhardy, belligerant, ignorant and willfully stubborn in matters of international relations as the present one.

So pour crap over whoever you want but can we make it clear who they're being compared to? Is it one-another or Bush? Experience means nothing if you don't learn from it.


How many Americans know differently to call Hillary or any other candidate on these things?

You just can't make this stuff up folks.

[I can't think of a name]

How many Americans know differently to call Hillary or any other candidate on these things?

Or how many Major media corporations are smart enough to call her out on it?

Just a bunch of bloggers in their Pajamas spotted this one.

[I can't think of a name]

I'll just come out with it shall I? Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Thompson, Giuliani, (possibly) Bllomberg, Paul, Romney andd Huckabee: none of the future possible leaders of the free world will be as foolhardy, belligerant, ignorant and willfully stubborn in matters of international relations as the present one.

So pour crap over whoever you want but can we make it clear who they're being compared to? Is it one-another or Bush? Experience means nothing if you don't learn from it.


rofl Weak response, remember Hillary has all her 8 years of "Experience" to fall back on. the current Pakistan unfolded under her "Watch".

So who is not learning from their experience? Looks like Hillary learned NOTHING.

"Smartest Woman in the World"

[Schfor]

Senator Hillary Clinton should have known that while Nawaz Sharif isn't a candidate for the prime minister, his PML-N party is definitely contesting and is one of the two major parties, the other being Benazir's PPP.

She should have also known that if Benazir's PPP wins the election by gaining a simple majority, it would be someone else from her party who will contest for the Prime Minister, even if the tragedy of Dec 27th didnt happen, as Pakistan's constitution restricts everyone to two terms only (contrary to the wrong belief in western media). If someone wants to be a 3rd time PM, as was expected of Benazir, he/she needs to amend the constitution, which requires a two-thirds majority in the parliament to do so, which either Nawaz Sharif or Benazir's PPP are not expected to achieve. It was Mr Amin Fahim who was expected to be the PM in case PPP won, and he still is their candidate for the post after BB's assassination, regardless of whoever became the new chairman. (Probably he will be the new leader in Pakistan in 10 days as his party is now expected to get heaps of "sympathy votes" to honor the memory of Benazir. Now hee will be the point of contact with regards to GWOT from now on. The previous PM was a banker and left GWOT largely to Musharraf but PPP wont be so soft on Musharraf. Sen. Clinton should order her staff to get her a picture of the man, just in case).


And she should definitely have known, as pointed out by hist2004, that Musharraf is already President till 2012, his role in the coming election will be to welcome the new PM and help him an all possible ways (in strictly legal sense).

This reminds me of the "60 Seconds" with Bush in 1999 when he was asked the names of four world leaders who were in the headlines very recently, and Bush couldn't name one.

[wotsnext]

This reminds me of the "60 Seconds" with Bush in 1999 when he was asked the names of four world leaders who were in the headlines very recently, and Bush couldn't name one.[/quote]
"You could not make this stuff up.....":)

[MG 3]

Ask her wether we have a Prime Minister or a President.

[budgie]

rofl Weak response, remember Hillary has all her 8 years of "Experience" to fall back on. the current Pakistan unfolded under her "Watch".

So who is not learning from their experience? Looks like Hillary learned NOTHING.

"Smartest Woman in the World"

I know it's a little OT but I'll stand by what I said. I don't believe Clinton is 'the smartest woman in the world' but she does know $#it from shinola. So what if she mixed up President and PM? Maybe it was just a gaffe. After all Bush didn't know where half the countries in the world were located as he came to power, nor who many of the major leaders were.

And we could write volumes on what he and Cheney don't seem to know about the differences between their own two offices - that of POTUS and VP.

[gaijinsamurai]

x2. Well said, Budgie. I'm no fan of Hillary, but in comparison to Bush's knowledge of global issues, she's a genius. (which isn't really saying much).

[HR24]

I know it's a little OT but I'll stand by what I said. I don't believe Clinton is 'the smartest woman in the world' but she does know $#it from shinola. So what if she mixed up President and PM? Maybe it was just a gaffe. After all Bush didn't know where half the countries in the world were located as he came to power, nor who many of the major leaders were.

And we could write volumes on what he and Cheney don't seem to know about the differences between their own two offices - that of POTUS and VP.

I wouldn't call it a mix up when she did it two times. Guess she and her "good friend" Bhutto didn't go over the current happenings in Pakistan too much.

But hey, "experience" is what counts, right?

[ronnieraygun]

http://www.drudgereport.com/hrcm.jpg
sry - it seems ad feminam but man did I chuckle.

On topic, she needs to fire her campaign staff. This gaffe is just the tip of the iceberg for how lousy it's going for her.

[AZRON]

As to Bush not knowing certain world leaders that is totally correct.

But he didn't brag about his experience in world affairs as is her lowness Queen Billary.

BTW , Joe Biden is also complaining about this gaffe just as he has Bush's.

[Ordie]

In fairness, I think most Americans including policymakers are unaware of Pakistan's Parlamentary system of governance. The columnist is correct in that point.

After we get past the primaries, I will be paying closer attention to the canidate's international relations platforms. Who ever wins the party nomination will be scrutinized by the press about international relations.

I think the Dems will have a strong team with Zinni, Clarke, Nye, Richardson, and yes Bill Clinton.

At this point I do not know what the Republican will offer in terms of international relations. Mny will associate the Republican's international relations to that of GW Bush and the Neo-cons.

If it were up to me, I would make Bill Richardson as Secretary of State, Bill Clinton as Ambassador to the People's Republic of China and Fareed Zakaria as Special Envoy for the Near East / South Asia.

Bill Richardson for his experience.
Bill Clinton because he would be the more popular in China than Hu Jintao and may mitigate the anti-US sentiments.
Fareed Zakaria for his intimate knowledge of the area.

[I can't think of a name]

This reminds me of the "60 Seconds" with Bush in 1999 when he was asked the names of four world leaders who were in the headlines very recently, and Bush couldn't name one.


Wrong again, he could not remember Musharrafs name thats it.

This does not change the flat that Hillary is not the expert she claims. Go spread your logical fallacies somewhere else. And learn to format a post too.

[I can't think of a name]

I know it's a little OT but I'll stand by what I said. I don't believe Clinton is 'the smartest woman in the world' but she does know $#it from shinola. So what if she mixed up President and PM? Maybe it was just a gaffe. After all Bush didn't know where half the countries in the world were located as he came to power, nor who many of the major leaders were.

And we could write volumes on what he and Cheney don't seem to know about the differences between their own two offices - that of POTUS and VP.

See, this is where you are totally dishonest. You are happy to perpetuate the myth that Bush did** not know where "Half the countries in the world are" while you and your types claim that Hillary is some sort of "Smartest Woman in the world (TM)" (google it). Show me that Bush did not know where half the countries are, back that up. I know you cannot but it is okay, in your mind, to exaggerate about Bush. But yet you say Hillary knows her "****". Congratulations, what "****" does that she know? She has demonstrated nothing intelligent on Pakistan's situation

You give her the benefit of the doubt when she spews utter BS and gets EVERY fact wrong on the situation. However this REALITY does not mesh with your world view that Republican Presidents are dumb and Hillary is a genius because she supports universal healthcare or something.

She spent 8 years in the White House and while Bush was a Governor, so what is her excuse? Musharraf came to power while she was in Washington.

[I can't think of a name]

x2. Well said, Budgie. I'm no fan of Hillary, but in comparison to Bush's knowledge of global issues, she's a genius. (which isn't really saying much).

WHAT are you basing this on? Did you watch that Youtube video?

The difference is that Bush did not pretend to be an expert back in 1999. Hillary is just spewing BS and you think it is smart or something.

What is "Bush's knowledge of global issues"? How do you quantify that?

[I can't think of a name]

Bill Clinton as Ambassador to the People's Republic of China a
Bill Clinton because he would be the more popular in China than Hu Jintao and may mitigate the anti-US sentiments.


:cantbeli:

Ordie you know better than that. Just review the relations between the Clinton's and the PRC. I would like to hear why you think that was positive for this country.

Keep in mind that large donations coming from Bus Boys in Chinese restaurants to the Clinton campaign this year and Norman Hsu.

[Ordie]

:cantbeli:

Ordie you know better than that. Just review the relations between the Clinton's and the PRC. I would like to hear why you think that was positive for this country.

1) It keeps Former President Bill Clinton out of DC.

2) Sending Former President Bill Clinton to China as Amassador sends a powerful message that China matters to the US.

3) The Chinese will always regard Former President Bill Clinton as a former head of state than amassador. Any summons or recall of a former head of state will be a very serious matter.

4) It would be an excellent PR move for the US. Something that has been lacking in Asia. Having Former President Bill Clinton on tour in China or any of its neighbors at speaking events in universities, trade shows, ribbon cuttings and state banquets will dominate the local press and the interests of the locals. Not to mention, it would promote US interests and policies in China.

5) Former President Bill Clinton will upstage any CCP / PRC public figure including Hu Jintao. Bill Clinton's (6'1") photo with Hu Jintao (?) would be akin to MacArthur's Photo with Hirohito. Bill Clinton will most likely win the hearts and minds of the Chinese more so than Hu Jinato.

6) When in China, he is able to have access to key locations and people more specifically in Hong Kong in regards to universal sufferage.

I know it sounds crazy, but give it some thought. What we need is a 'soft power' diplomatic offensive to reverse our global influence loss for the past 8 years. Former President Bill Clinton is one of the most popular former head of state in the world including China.

Let put him to work where it counts in China.

[gaijinsamurai]

Interesting. Perhaps not a bad idea.

[I can't think of a name]

Interesting Ordie, thanks.

I know his trip there int he 1990s was a HUGE DEAL. In Xian there were pictures of him at every major attractions when he visited it. There was also pictures of him at the Great wall etc. Our guide talked about it all the time. It was the biggest event in these peoples lifetimes who are not in Shanghai or Beijing.

Also every high end Jewelry store and restaurant I stopped at. He and his entourage had a good time while he was president. I know why he wants Hillary in, so he can fly around on Air Force 1 again and get treated like a King.

I agree that he is slick enough to get Chinese to like him. However I don't know if you noticed that China's growing hatred of Westerners is getting violent. I hae heard stories that if you walk out of Bars and clubs in Shanghai with Chinese woman Chinese men will jump you. This on on Tong Ren road in Shanghai. It is even worse in smaller cities.

This reminds me of the Boxer Rebellion. Missionaries and Businessmen who traveled the country warned governments about the growing violence and hatred of anything western. However they were ignored by arrogant officials. These are stories I am hearing are from Ex-pats and Ex-pat blogs. Chinese history repeats itself.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Bill Clinton because he would be the more popular in China than Hu Jintao and may mitigate the anti-US sentiments.


Slick Willie is popular in China all right - the phrase "bought and paid for" comes to mind. He'd be ideal for smoothing things over, using the lubricant of sweet, sweet money.

[stonecutter]

What is "Bush's knowledge of global issues"? How do you quantify that?

It is semi-quantifiable by the "dumb-a$s meter (DAM)", where scored points are weighted according to the sheer stupidity of the utterance of the party in question. Hillary confused as to whether Pakistan has a PM or a President? Pretty bad; maybe a 6 on the DAM. George W. Bush publicly stating that Nelson Mandela was killed by Saddam Hussein (google it, no sh!t)? Easily an 11 or a 12 (out of 10) on the DAM.

[budgie]

Show me that Bush did not know where half the countries are, back that up. I know you cannot but it is okay, in your mind, to exaggerate about Bush.

Hyperbole and exaggeration are two different things. I was alluding to the well known fact that Bush was unaware of/disinterested in the finer points of foreign relations when he came to power. Asking me to "back it up" (presumably naming every country Bush couldn't place making up half of the actual countries on the map) is plain childish.


while you and your types claim that Hillary is some sort of "Smartest Woman in the world (TM)" (google it).

Actually when it comes to situations like these I usually just repeat my exact words from earlier in the post. I believe this is what you are referring to:


I know it's a little OT but I'll stand by what I said. I don't believe Clinton is 'the smartest woman in the world' but she does know $#it from shinola.

Now, where exactly did I claim that she was the smartest woman in the world?

[9mmRifle]

x2. Well said, Budgie. I'm no fan of Hillary, but in comparison to Bush's knowledge of global issues, she's a genius. (which isn't really saying much).

Bush almost destroyed the Republican party