Secretary of State Clinton Says US Is "Turning the Page" With Pakistan… Misrepresents Bush Years

Shops burn following a deadly car bomb blast in Peshawar which ripped through a packed Pakistani market, slaughtering at least 86 people and underscoring the blood-drenched scale of the extremist threat as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visits. (AFP/A Majeed)

Hillary Clinton continued to bash Bush today in Pakistan telling officials that the US is ready to “turn the page” from the previous administration’s security agenda.
My Way reported:

On her first visit to Pakistan as secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday sought to chip away at anti-Americanism in this predominantly Muslim nation, while applauding the government for taking on violent extremist forces.

She also said the Obama administration intends to do more to support Pakistan on a wide range of issues, including economic development, energy generation, education and the environment. She suggested that the administration of former President George W. Bush had focused too narrowly on Pakistan’s value as an ally in the war on terrorism, neglecting other aspects of the relationship.

“We are turning the page on what has been for the past several years primarily a security, anti-terrorist agenda,” she told reporters on the flight from Washington. Anti-terrorism “remains a very high priority, but we also recognize that it’s imperative that we broaden our engagement with Pakistan.”

Democrats must have been living under a rock the last 9 years.
While pushing President Obama’s kissie-kissie foreign policy Hillary misrepresented the Bush Administration’s Pakistan strategy.

As far back as 2002, President Bush offered $200 million atop of the $600 million in U.S. aid already offered to Pakistan. The money was used to erase $1 billion in Pakistan debt. In 2006 Bush said the United States will continue to pursue increased economic ties aimed at opening up additional commercial opportunities.
President Bush reaffirmed the United States commitment to assist Pakistan’s economic development last year while also citing Washington’s bipartisan support in this respect.

Of course, President Bush assisted Pakistan with its economic concerns. The fact that the Obama administration continues to ignore this is both arrogant and dishonest.

#1 October 28, 2009 at 9:07 am
Brooklyn commented:

There remains something deeply insecure and dishonest about the Democratic Partisan offering.

Hillary Clinton is such a liar, dodging sniper fire all the time.

But their obsession with slandering the political opposition in hopes for personal gain, has become more than comical.

The ugly desperation is vivid. Hillary Clinton not only flopped with gaining Russian aid with Iran, embarrassed all with her display of utter ignorance in front of one of the World’s famous religious Icons in Mexico, declared ‘human rights’ will not be a priority while visiting China, even bragged at how easy it will be to deal with North Korea, etc.

Hillary Clinton is a disaster, and an emblem of the mindless, unethical, deceitful Obama Administration.
#2 October 28, 2009 at 9:09 am
Steve commented:

What is the matter with you? Don’t your realize we have Hope and Change!
COMMON CENTS
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
#3 October 28, 2009 at 9:16 am
your winnings, sir commented:

I’m shocked, shocked to find a Democrat lying.
#4 October 28, 2009 at 9:16 am
Matthew commented:

Jim,

You are correct that Clinton’s rhetoric is mere partisan hackery. But you also do this on a daily basis. Afghanistan has been a mess for centuries. It is also surrounded by various countries (Iran, Pakistan, India, Russia) who wish to use it to expand their sphere of influence. Alot of brilliant minds went into the intial invasion and conflict. But there are no miracle workers. Under President Bush, the Afghan conflict did slip, this is undeniable. It is also a joke for those who say we were distracted or that somehow that the deteroation of Afghanistan in 2006-present was somehow beacuse of Bush’s poor leadership. Wars are never, ever perfect. There are factors outside our control. Our military is able to handle any conflict in any terrain. But there will always be casualties. For you to continue this partisan attack is also despicable.
#5 October 28, 2009 at 9:42 am
Zipity commented:

Huh, Democrats are lying scumbags….who knew? STOP THE PRESSES…!
#6 October 28, 2009 at 9:43 am
Andreas K. commented:

“broaden our engagement with Pakistan” means what exactly?

I want to hear facts, ideas, not pointless dribble.

Pakistan is fighting, has been fighting for a while. So… what are Hillarious Hillary and Team O going to do?

And Matthew, you should check how the British dealt with A-stan. The old tale that armies go to A-stan to die is bullshit. The British steamrolled resistance there on a regular basis. Of course. Highlanders and Gurkhas take down anything.

Nobody is attacking the US military. It’s your friends, Matt, who sent these men and women into battle lacking equipment, etc. GIs have to buy some of their stuff themselves. Same with the British army. They’re underequipped (I’m not going into the stories I heard from Tommies when it comes to the SA80), sent into battle like this by SOCIALISTS, by the same people who rant about “moderate” Taliban.

You want to blame someone Matt, blame the left.
#7 October 28, 2009 at 9:47 am
Tim commented:

Go to Dick Durbin’s website. He is running a survey to see if citizens support the public option and is going to use it to help ‘whip’ members. GO VOTE!
#8 October 28, 2009 at 9:49 am
vet66 commented:

Afghanistan may be living somewhere in the 6th century but it now shares a nebulous border with Pakistan. The difference between then and now is that the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and “progressive” muslims are threatening to take Pakistan’s nukes. It is suicidal to assume that the next 9/11 would not be a nuclear attack on a U.S. and/or other western city. I prefer not to take chances with my safety based on a dreamy hope concerning the proclivities of a tribal goat herder in the Kush.
#9 October 28, 2009 at 9:53 am
Robert commented:

Obama was elected almost a year ago. Only after getting pressure, including a formal request for troops two months ago, is he now getting around to maybe making a half-assed decision sometime sooner or later.

Despicable performance as commander-in-chief.

Doesn’t deserve the title at all.
#10 October 28, 2009 at 9:58 am
joe buzz commented:

“smart power, reset(sp?), turning the page, Bush’s fault” all great diplomatic phrases. Right along the lines of voting “present”. Who needs substance in leadership?
#11 October 28, 2009 at 10:01 am
Baxter Greene commented:

Apparently Hillary has forgotten that it was democrats who complained for years that we should not be giving Pakistan money and threatened to try and cut out the aid several times.
Much the same way that the Obama administration cut off funding the millions of people fighting for their freedom in Iran.

Has Hillary even researched why anti-Americanism is high in Pakistan?
One of the big reasons is the drone strikes.
Is Hillary going to stop the use of these strikes that Bush started and have been so effective?

Another big reason is the appearance that the Pakistan government is nothing but a pawn of the Americans.
The government accepting so much money from the Obama administration has been used against them pretty successfully in propaganda campaigns by the Taliban.
Is Hillary going to cut off funding Pakistan now?

The main reason there is anit-Americanism in Pakistan is because we are working with the government in striking at the Taliban./al-qaeda terrorist leaders and their camps(combined with decades of being taught to “hate the great satan” in Islamic circles).
All of Hillary’s empty rhetoric,funding for art shows,and blaming Bush is not going to change that.

How in the world can any international leader take seriously an administration that continues to blame other people and whine like 5 year olds.
They are almost a year into Obama’s Presidency,if they are to weak and immature to take responsibility for their own administration and it’s policies, then step aside and let us elect some real leadership.
This will start in 2010 and probably end for the “hope and change” administrations long list of failures in 2012.
#12 October 28, 2009 at 10:13 am
Baxter Greene commented:

When Hillary is “turning the page” (I guess she is out of reset buttons),does it involve explaining why the US and Pakistan government are now considered war criminals according to the UN.

UN calls missile strikes “summary executions”
posted at 8:48 am on October 28, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/28/un-calls-missile-strikes-summary-executions

As it happens, the US is not the only entity turning towards a law-enforcement model in the war on terror. The UN has taken that approach as well, perhaps to a reductio ad absurdum that nonetheless will test Barack Obama’s decision on whether to pursue counterinsurgency strategy and his commitment to multilateralism at Turtle Bay. In a report to the General Assembly, the top UN investigator accused the US of breaking international law by killing terrorists through missile strikes:

So what is it Hillary.Go against your all important UN or go with the policy that is actually working in combating terrorism?

I guess we are all war criminals now.

Bush and Cheney have got to be laughing there a$$’s off watching these clowns and their “smart power” looking like idiots on a regular basis.
#13 October 28, 2009 at 10:26 am
Matthew commented:

Andreas,

My friends? Because I don’t like to see partisan games played with the conflict, I am now what… a lefty? This is a tired way of debating. Partisans always insult the party in power for cheap political points. The Left/Democrats did it with Bush/Rummsfeld in Iraq and now the right is doing it now. Remember the quote “You go to war with the army you have” by Secretary Rummsfeld? He took so much crticism over it, but he is/was right. There will always be challeneges or events you didn’t foresee and you adjust. Again, lots of intelligent people disagree with what is best to do moving forward in Afganistan. There were similar disagreements with Iraq. With Iraq some of the controversial elements and decisons that had the most internal debate was the disbanding of Iraqi army, smaller intial troops presence, failure to predict a large insurgency,ect. But again, while the left was running around blaming Rummsfeld and Bush, the adults were adapting to the challenges and moving forward. Because decisons may have turned out bad, doesn’t mean that Rummsfeld, Obama, Bush need to have their motives attacked. For years, both parties have added pork onto military spending bills… this to me is disgraceful. But my problem, is that there were so many people silent when the Republicans were in power. I will always be crtical of both sides if they are messing up during times of conflict…it is very personal to me. (Now if you want to attack Obama’s domestic agenda…this I can get on board with

Andreas (cont.), The Bristish example is picture perfect of counter-insurgency.

As for pakistan, The Obama administartion has continued the correct Bush policy of drone attacks and has actually increased them. The Pakistani governemnt is also now becoming much more active in confronting their terrorists within their tribal areas. Much of this has to do with great diplomacy started under President Bush but also continued under President Obama. President Bush had an uphill task from the get-go, because our State Departemnt was absolutely horrible or ineffective in dealing with enemy propoganda. America was painted as an army set out on a crusade against Islam. It was not very popular to side with Americans during post 9-11. But President Bush, did a good job staying the course and eventually Al-Queda and Pakistani Taliban showed their true murderous colors and have become increasingly unpopular throught the Muslim world. Obama needs to continue the succesful Bush policies and also adhere to McChrystal and Petreus reccomendations.
#14 October 28, 2009 at 10:27 am
gus commented:

Matthew, do us a favor, tell us what Opie and Thunder thighs Clintons policies on Afghan and Pakistan are?
You can’t? Then shut the f^^^ up.
#15 October 28, 2009 at 10:38 am
gus commented:

This is a tap in.
Obama will not make any decision on Afghanistan until the health care issue is either sh!tcanned or rammed through.
Obama is a loser, so is Rodham, neither of them have accomplished anything in their pathetic lives, except running their mouths.
Can anyone tell me of ANY accomplishment of either Rodham or Obama.
Just one.l
#16 October 28, 2009 at 10:49 am
Brooklyn commented:

Matthew,
You make some good points.

Agreed, “Obama needs to continue the succesful Bush policies and also adhere to McChrystal and Petreus recommendations.”

But the idea the Bush Administration let Afghanistan slip is a Partisan myth.

If we played the pathetic Obama – Clinton – Democrat game in the opposite: Bush inherited far worse, not only a true recession, but an Afghanistan with the Taliban governing, with Al Qaeda using Afghanistan freely as a base to wage Global Terrorism.

The Bush Administration has given Mr. Obama and his team great opportunity with a Free Iraq and a Free Afghanistan.

Remember, as you probably do already, GW Bush and his Team, led the World with many Allies to not only free Kabul and most of Afghanistan.

They helped the free Afghani Millions write a positive constitution, form – elect a Free Government, build an Army – Law Enforcement, etc. The current Government, being debased by Democrats and the UN as an excuse, is far from perfect, but believes in the freedom of speech, religion, and especially women’s liberty. This is a dramatic improvement.

The Taliban has grown in a threatening position, ironically after the likes of Al Qaeda was crushed in Iraq. It is no wonder, these forces are regrouping where they still have been able to hide, in remote arenas along the Pakistani border. As you state, every military conflict is truly difficult, especially the enormous challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan in the troubled Middle East.

What Obama and his team are doing, is simply pathetic. Obama suggests he will not put anyone in harm’s way, unless he contemplates carefully (trying to imply the Bush Administration did not think at all), but in reality, he remains responsible for those in harm’s way today. He took responsibility the day he was sworn into the Office. Mr. Obama also repeatedly voted to undermine the US Military while in harm’s way as a Senator.

The irony grows to the absurd. Biden, Kerry, Clinton, etc., all voted for the use of force in Iraq. Biden and Kerry have been wrong repeatedly, about the first Gulf War, the Cold War, the Surge, etc. Obama has never managed anything in his entire life, that is serious in comparison to the Presidency.

The reason the support for the fight in the GWOT is truly declining, is simply because those who are fighting it in Uniform, don’t believe the Democrats will do the right thing. The Democrats have no credibility, and their childish attempt to distract from their incompetent handling of foreign and domestic policy failures, by blaming the former Administration, only lowers confidence in their folly.

It is regretful.

But it remains a product of today’s modern DNC swindle.

Obama simply lied about everything, earmarks, lobbyists, signing statements, bows to kings, GITMO, Iraq, etc.

He lied about his ‘essential war’ in Afghanistan.

It was a con, simply to make him less vulnerable as weak appeaser, to defend against the “run away” image.

And now we have a ‘no clue’ President, as the US Armed Services are in harm’s way.

Hope and Change is a joke.
#17 October 28, 2009 at 10:52 am
Sasja commented:

gus, go take your meds.
#18 October 28, 2009 at 11:02 am
Matthew commented:

Gus,

Are you serious? Obama’s policies on pakistan are the exact same as the Bush administration. And thank God for that. If it was just Obama making decisons I probally would have a knee-jerk reaction like you, but i have more faith in our CIA and military commanders. i think our covert operations are having a nice effect of stirring up trouble for those who will threaten our interests:

11 Iranians arrested in Pakistan (sources claim were Revolutionary Guards) :

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan_iran

Earlier : Bomb attack in Iran kills high up Iranian military officials

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/world/middleeast/19iran.html

Pakistan Army takes more initiative in tribal areas

http://pakistaniat.com/2009/10/19/gen-kayanis-message-to-mehsuds/

See Gus, like you I don’t have much faith in Obama himself to understand military strategy. But I do have faith in Sectretry Gates, Petreus, and McChrystal. I would much rather have the Pakistani army kill the Taliban. Can we 100% trust them? Hell no!! But if they start slipping up we have other ways to coerce them. Like I have said 1 million times….. If Obama completely ignores all the reccomendations of McChrystal the I will have a huge, huge problem. But just as i was willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, i am also willing to give our President Obama this as well.
#19 October 28, 2009 at 11:13 am
Matthew commented:

Brooklyn,

I agree with almost everything you stated. My only point being that I trust the military more than I do President Obama. And i was not trying to blame Bush for the backsliding in Afghanistan, but I do feel it happened before Al-queda was crushed in Iraq. Michael Yon has been writing about the deterorating situation there for years. But I do agree with you about the absolute absurdity concerning the Democratic leaders. I still to this day will not be able to respect those who voted for force, but then when the going got tough started attacking the Bush Administration. Wars do get tough and I have faith in our military leadership. If we start hearing more leaks or concerns about Obama coming from people with boots on the ground, then i will be the first one to raise hell. But I do think sometimes what goes on behind the scenes is alot more important. I am still giving the president (on this issue, and this issue alone) the benfit of the doubt. Now, I am willing to listen to why my opinion may be incorrect

Brooklyn – great post by the way
#20 October 28, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Joanne commented:

I wonder what colour of pant suit Hillary is wearing today in Pakistan and if it matches her hijab. I’m sure all the men are taking notice.
#21 October 28, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Neo commented:

So where is Obama et al when we have a coup in slow motion ?

If Honduras manages to preserve its democracy despite U.S. pressure to abandon it, the tiny Central American country may wind up thanking Nicaragua’s Danny Ortega, of all people.

Last week, President Ortega inadvertently provided the best defense yet of the Honduran decision this summer to remove Manuel Zelaya from the presidency. Nicaragua has a one-term limit for presidents, and Mr. Ortega’s term expires in 2011. However, the Nicaraguan doesn’t want to leave, and so he asked the Sandinista-controlled Supreme Court to overturn the constitutional ban on his re-election.

Last week the court’s constitutional panel obliged him. The Nicaraguan press reported that the vote was held before three opposition judges could reach the chamber in time for the session. Three alternative judges, all Sandinistas, took their place and the court gave Mr. Ortega the green light. Mr. Ortega has decreed that the ruling cannot be appealed.
#22 October 28, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Hypogean commented:

Obama may be continuing the Bush policy of Pakistan, but he and Hillary have utterly destroyed the alliances Bush forged with India and France.

Bush is supposed to be a dummy, but he persuaded India to give up its nonaligned status, something no other president had been able to accomplish, and he brought us closer to France than we had been since World War II.

Now, both those alliances are gone, thanks to our idiot president and our idiot Secretary of State. They deliberately sabotaged the alliances in order to destroy Bush’s legacy.

Maybe an Obama supporter can defend that here.
#23 October 28, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Matthew commented:

Hypo,

Your opinion I respect greatly on these issues…
On India I agree entirely. The relationship with India grew closer than in any other time in US history and this should always be pointed out.

but unfortunately realists decided that the Indian relationship was less important than kissing up to the ISI. To me it was an amazing piece of diplomacy by President Bush to balance both alliances (Pakistan and India).

France I don’t agree with your assement. Under Sarkozy, yes France grew closer and talked tough against iran. But they still would not help fight Iran, were against the missle defense in Eastern Europe, and weren’t warm on an increased role in Afghanistan. And not to mention Dominque de Villipin back-stabbing Colin Powell and the Bush adminsitration at the UN before the Iraq war. France has a long history of looking out for only whats in the best interest of France.

Having said that…..Obama hasn’t really made any new friends and his diplomacy is severly lacking at the moment. He has gotten no one help carry the water on difficult issues. So far this is a clear failure of this administration and I am in agreement with you.
#24 October 28, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Hypogean commented:

Matthew
October 28th, 2009 | 1:42 pm | #23

France I don’t agree with your assement. Under Sarkozy, yes France grew closer and talked tough against iran. But they still would not help fight Iran, were against the missle defense in Eastern Europe, and weren’t warm on an increased role in Afghanistan.

Under Bush, the French and American navies integrated until they were considered one force. American aircraft carriers built special rooms so that French officers on board would have direct contact with Paris. French special-operations forces fought combat missions in Afghanistan that garnered no media attention. Video of some of those missions is on YouTube.

In 2002 the French and U.S. created Alliance Base, a joint intelligence center that provides information on terrorism to all the western powers. And Sarkozy has backed much more punitive measures against Iran than Obama.

You’re arguing that the French didn’t do enough; I’m arguing that they did much more than they were doing before, and they did it in cooperation with us. Now they’re going back to doing much less with us, and it’s entirely Obama’s fault.
#25 October 28, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Hypogean commented:

Here’s what Bush accomplished:

French Jets Land on U.S. Carrier

http://thevirtuousrepublic.com/?p=719
#26 October 28, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Matthew commented:

Hypo,

The French Special Ops and military willingness to work closely I agree with 100%. But it was the French politicians who grandstanded at the UN and to almost every international media outlet about not entering the Iraq conflict. I think you are more persuasive and I guess I am leaning towards your position, but I do remember the grandstanding of the Chiraq administration as well as them leaking stories into Le Monde.
#27 October 28, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Matthew commented:

Hyop…either way.. i think you are correct that Obama has not strengthened an alliances and has weakened others.