Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- This Is What Happens When You Rip a Hole in the Safety Net
- New Sanders Bill Would Break Up Big Banks
- The Day That TV News Died
- The '147 People' Destroying the US Economy
- So Your Groundwater's Poison and Your Tap Water's On Fire. Not to Worry: Fracking Chemicals Are Trade Secrets You Don't Need To Know About
Popular content
Today's Top News
Clinton Faces Pakistani Anger At Predator Drone Attacks
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.
Students protest against the visit of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, in Lahore, Pakistan, Thursday, Oct. 29, 2009. Clinton is on a three-day state visit to Pakistan. (AP Photo/K.M. Chaudary) 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.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
139 Comments so far
Show AllI'm not sure about this, but I assume that the children's game known as "tag" is universal-- at least in Amerika.
So: I wonder if it's the case that not only Obama and Hillary, but virtually ALL Elected Misrepresentatives-- and banksters too, for that matter, had this idiosyncracy in common as children: they were always happy to play "tag", on the condition that they were never required to be "it".
· Yr Obd't Servant
We must never forget it was the Bush Regime who spent 8 years of, Creating, Invading, and Killing, Before the Obama one.
Very true.
But aren't we supposed to be, uh, Looking Forward®? ;)
· Yr Obd't Servant
What "looking forward" really means - USA version is:
"Looking forward to the NEXT WAR by the USA".
Most excellent post, especially the ® symbol!
-TIA
"We must never forget it was the Bush Regime who spent 8 years of, Creating, Invading, and Killing, Before the Obama one."
Yes, and before him there was Clinton; and before him there was GHW Bush; and before him there was Reagan; and before him there was Carter ............. FDR openly declared he'd let loose "Dr Win the War," with the implication that "Dr New Deal" was to be seen no more. And so it has been exactly thus since 1943. Officially, since the 1947 National Security Act created the CIA.
You can watch the full interview of clinton by Pakistani women journalist with this link. just copy and paste.
http://pkpolitics.com/2009/10/30/hamari-awaz-30-october-2009/
A few years ago Alexander Cokburn challenged people to come up with defintions of "terrorism" that would somehow exclude the routine behavior of the US military. Cockburn thought this an impossible task: I think he is right on this score.
Of course the use of drones is terrorism. If a terrorist planted a bomb in a crowded street with the aim of killing an enemy politician who was due to pass by in a motorcade, and the bomb went off killing hundreds of civilians as well as the politician, we would not accept the terrorist's argument that some "collateral damage" is inevitable in pursuit of political/military goals. We would unequivocally say that the terrorist is guilty of murder (or even "crimes against humanity") and ought to be held accountable for his actions. Can any one make a meaningful distinction between the act of planting a bomb and the act of firing a predator drone? For both have the effect of arbitrarily killing innocent bystanders?
Hilary Clinton, like so many servants of the US empire, is a simple moral monster, who ought to be ashamed to come amongst decent people..
A few years ago Alexander Cokburn challenged people to come up with defintions of "terrorism" that would somehow exclude the routine behavior of the US military. Cockburn thought this an impossible task: I think he is right on this score.
Of course the use of drones is terrorism. If a terrorist planted a bomb in a crowded street with the aim of killing an enemy politician who was due to pass by in a motorcade, and the bomb went off killing hundreds of civilians as well as the politician, we would not accept the terrorist's argument that some "collateral damage" is inevitable in pursuit of political/military goals. We would unequivocally say that the terrorist is guilty of murder (or even "crimes against humanity") and ought to be held accountable for his actions. Can any one make a meaningful distinction between the act of planting a bomb and the act of firing a predator drone? For both have the effect of arbitrarily killing innocent bystanders?
Hilary Clinton, like so many servants of the US empire, is a simple moral monster, who ought to be ashamed to come amongst decent people..
How do you think she got to be in the position of running for President and appointed Secretary of State ?
You have a point.
It is categorically impossible for an American President or a Secretary of State to not be a fascist state terrorist; that would be a contradiction in terms and oxymoronic as well.
No one can be elected President in America if they were in adamant opposition to state terror. All that is known implacably in advance, making electing these people a crime –albeit, one step removed– so as to elide complicity. The other guy is always the terrorist, never the American.
Voting for any American President confers the stain of terror on the voter as well as the terrorist war criminal he elects.
Politics is a business as serious as THEIR lives, but never OURS. Perhaps one day it will be.–(Jill Bains)
Hillary Clinton = TERRORIST
Well said, jrp
Is Hillary Clinton drop dead gorgeous and every mans dream?
Yes...according to Hillary Clinton.
Put Hillary at the other end of these drone attacks, and then ask her again, that is, if she's still alive.
Yes. I suspect that most of the world would have cheered had she never left Pakistan alive. I know I would have.
Can one even begin to imagine the security the murderous harpy must have had to protect her from assassination?
Pakistan is now all but another occupied American client state with a paid off oligarchy. It disgraces their sovereignty to even let her into the country.
Hillary Clinton remains an abyss of unconscionably depravity emblematic of America itself. –(Jill Bains)
Yes,robotic drones are state sponsored terrorism. peace
I agree with Hillary.
As long as you are at "war", you can target enemy high value targets with whatever means are at your disposal, and if civilians get killed in these operations, it is not "terrorism".
9/11 was brilliant tactical counterstrikes against an overwhelmingly militarily superior occupier, not "terrorism".
Herodotus,have you considered a career in politics?
Question:
"Madame Clinton - did your husband have an affair with that girl?"
Hillary: "NO, he has always been loyal to me".
"IS your husband's name BILL CLINTON?"
Hillary: "NO, my husband is George Bush".
"How do these "people" live with themselves?" –(Sioux Rose)
–Because we allow them to.
They are as American as the proverbial 'apple pie.'
That is why there are no politics in America.
"The dictatorship is necessary, because it is a case not of partial changes, but of the very EXISTENCE of the bourgeoisie."
–(Leon Trotsky)
I remember when I would write about the economic sanctions and continued bombing of Iraq that killed thousands of mostly children every month being terrorism. I was corrected and told that "it was Saddam's fault". I often wondered why Americans did not blame the Bush presidents and Bill Cliton when 9-11 happened? Hillary Clinton did not say that Obama is committed to helping Pakistan defeat the bad guys in the war that is going on. She said "defeat the insurgents and terrorist who threaten the stability of a nuclear armed nation". The troops use the term "bad guys" in the war on terror.Predator drones are used to assassinate the suspected insurgents and terrorists or the bad guys. How does a drown or a human being know who is truly guilty of being a bad guy deserving of being killed without a just trial? And are these so called bad guys worse than the corrupt government officials and even a relative who is paid by the CIA in Afghanistan? Nobody knows where the billions of dollars we have given to Pakistan have gone. Are we paying the government of Pakistan to allow us to fire missiles on the people of Pakistan? who are the bad guys, the insurgents and terrorist or the leaders of all nations involved? The U.S. slaughter of suspected terrorist and collateral damage victims are motivating the increase of insurgents, and the cycle of violence goes on and on. It will be easier for retaliation against the U.S. when the terrorist get their hands on predator drones. They won't need to commit suicide. and the cycle of violence will go on and on.
Ah, poor Hillary Clinton. We haven't had a public official face a tough question from the press since Madeline Albright declared the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children "worth it" in 2003.
Where are the defenders of Hillary on Common Dreams? They've told us that she's more liberal than Obama. It must be a real slap in their faces that she has to stump for I'll Bomb Ya's murderous policy - in Pakistan, of all places. After all, I'll Bomb Ya's very first act as President was to order ... (you guessed it) Predator drone attacks in Pakistan! It was something he promised to loyal Dem voters on the campaign trail, who lapped it up without a pause. It was change they could believe in, apparently.
Is Hillary just doing a job here for I'll Bomb Ya? I don't think so. She seems quite OK with repressive state violence - even murder - now and then. Abduct the elected leader of Honduras? No problem! President Zelaya was "reckless," she said. She stays silent about the human rights violations in Honduras; doesn't call it a coup.
Where are the liberal Dems? Come on now, defend your monsters! Remember, we're the irresponsible dreamers who vote for third parties and can't win, while you stand for progress and responsibility. Tell us that blowing people to bits with flying weapons of mass destruction is going to make the world safe for democracy, or whatever it is you think. Maybe we can agree that Hillary, being a woman, is held to some outrageous double-standard assumption of having to be a nurturer of life, while Obama is free to express his killer instinct, and that's not fair?
-TIA
According to Gore Vidal, and the various Hillary and Vidal defenders (on CD), she would have been a great president, simply because she's a woman, and history shows that women are good leaders when they get involved.
drone: (figurative) a person who does no useful work and lives off others.
Terrorism is what others do to innocent civilians, not what we do to them????
What would Hillary say if she were standing at the other end of that gun barrel?
peacekeepertwo: This Article leads me to believe that we have one political Party,that Party is The Wall Street Party. And if all Democrats feel the way I do, The Democrats will lose the next Election. Politician's need to Start telling the Truth no matter how difficult that may be.
In my opinion, drone attacks constitute terrorism. So do cruise missile attacks, high-altitude bombings, cluster bombs and other military actions which are known to kill large numbers of innocents. Hillary's answer to the woman's question was wrong.
But, notice the AP's emphasis here. The article never mentions that it's President Obama's policy, and not the Secretary of State's policy. The blame goes to Hillary, and the public buys into that. Including here in this forum.
Everyone who has posted has condemned Hillary, while only four posters have noted that it's Obama's policy.
petrkrop and berniewentboom note it's Obama's policy and condemn him for it, and rightly so.
Thoughts_Into_Action notes it's Obama's policy, but condemns Hillary because she "has to stump for" it.
mujeriego incorrectly puts the majority of the blame on Hillary, calling it "Clinton-Obama policy."
WTF suggests the person who created the policy is of little consequence; it's the public perception around the policy that matters. And public perception is that it's Hillary's policy. (So, is Obama the new Teflon president?)
Corporate media (and CD), have a long history of promoting Obama and trashing Hillary. In all of this, the truth is obscured.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
Let's remember that it was candidate Obama who was first out of the gate with the idea of escalating the war in Afghanistan and exporting it to Pakistan. In the first debate in New Hampshire (June 3, 2007) he fired a Dick Cheney-style warning-shot over the other candidates' bows, demagoging that the next president must make "absolutely certain" to "focus on the critical battle that we have in Afghanistan and rout out Al Qaida. If we do not do that, then WE'RE GOING TO POTENTIALLY SEE ANOTHER ATTACK HERE IN THE UNITED STATES."
In that same debate, CNN's oh-so-clever Wolf Blitzer tried to single-handledly knock out Dennis Kucinich with a hypothetical: If Kucinich knew that Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan, in a specific location, would he "take him out with a Hellfire missile," even if it would "kill some innocent civilians at the same time?"
Kucinich said, "I don't think that a president of the United States who believes in peace and who wants to create peace in the world is going to be using assassination as a tool. Because when you do that, it comes back at your country. And I think that Osama bin Laden, if he's still alive, ought to be held to account in an international court of law. And so should any other person who's been involved in a violation of international law which has resulted in the deaths of many people."
Obama disagreed (with his trademark double-talk), saying "Well, I think Dennis is right. I don't believe in assassinations, but Osama bin Laden has declared war on us, killed 3,000 people, and under existing law, including international law, when you've got a military target like bin Laden, you take him out."
Hillary was better informed than the others, and took a more measured approach, saying,
"We have been supporting Pakistan through President Musharraf now for a number of years. And it is clear that he has not moved toward democracy, but has solidified his rule and become quite anti-democratic, with his removal of the chief justice and many of the other moves that he's taken.
At the same time, we depend upon him to try to control the tribal areas out of which come the resurgent Taliban and Al Qaida fighters who cross the border into Afghanistan. Again, this is an area where I think the United States needs to be just focused, like the proverbial laser.
When I was in Pakistan and Afghanistan in January, I met with both President Karzai and President Musharraf. And I asked them if it would help to have a high-level presidential envoy working with both of them to try to figure out how we can move toward what are American interests and how we can keep Pakistan from undermining the war against the Taliban and Al Qaida. And unfortunately when I got back and I called the White House and I made this suggestion, it fell on deaf ears."
In a subsequent debate (New Hampshire, January 5, 2008), ABC's Charles Gibson asked Obama "[You] said in your foreign policy speech that you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after [bin Laden] whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Do you stand by that?" When Obama replied "I absolutely do stand by it," Gibson asked "[Isn't that] essentially the Bush doctrine: we can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis?"
Obama again presented his best Dick Cheney impression, fear-mongering that "No, that -- that is not the same thing because here we have a situation where al Qaeda, a sworn enemy of the United States that killed 3,000 Americans AND IS CURRENTLY PLOTTING TO DO THE SAME, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that. And you know, THIS IS NOT SPECULATION."
In this debate, Hillary again took a more nuanced approach (but also signed off on using a missile to assassinate bin Laden inside Pakistan), saying, "We need more NATO troops and a faster effort to train the Afghan army so that we do have the personnel and the technology, including the Predators, to be able to be on the spot at the time to try to move as quickly as possible."
She added, "And just finally, I think that what we have to do with Musharraf [Pakistan] and Afghanistan is to repair the failed policies of the Bush administration, and that's going to require intensive effort in the region. And [Governor Richardson] is right that we should be engaged in that diplomacy right away."
Bottom line, it was candidate Obama who demagoged the issue for crass, political purposes, and it's President Obama who has now instituted the policy. By contrast, candidate Clinton emphasized diplomacy, and Secretary of State Clinton serves at the pleasure of the president.
Who are those now calling Hillary "bitch" and "monster?" The same ones who sold us Obama in the first place. The manipulation of public perception continues.
It's all in the hats.
How can we tell a bad guy? By his black hat. All bad guys must wear black hats. Everyone with a black hat is fair game for the good guys to kill at will. So all we have to do is demand that everyone who's a bad guy wears a black hat.
Drones, cruise missiles, cluster bombs, and uranium-tipped shells are merely the good guys' tools for doing what you're supposed to do in refined societies: kill all the bad guys.
Hillary and Barack cannot be bad guys. Can they? United States soldiers cannot be bad guys. Can they? You're either with us or against us, good or evil. Remember?
It's all in the hats. It's going to take a long while to get past the cowboy approach to revenge.
Hard call...
Were the German V-2 rocket attacks on London Terrorism??
Legally, such attacks would be considered terrorism today. I'm not a historian, but I believe that poison gas attacks were outlawed after WWI and attacks on civilians were outlawed after WWII. By any other measure, of course such attacks are terrorism.
Every time this bitch opens her piehole, I hate her a little more...
Why can't we just slap a burka on her and drop her in the the tribal areas on Afghanistan in the middle of the night already?
It's Obama's policy. Do you hate him?
Hate is an easy thing to do. He is in the pocket of very powerful people. If anyone is to be hated it is them I suppose. But the real issue is what are we doing about it. Everytime a drone flies it is with our dollars funding it. We let this happen. We as the citizens of the U.S. nedd to take responsibility and act against this.
No response from Trailing Begonia, but apparently sexism is still acceptable to some people.
Bitch? Piehole? Hate? You don't see such terms used to describe Obama, even though the Predator drone attacks are his policy, not hers.
The U.S. needs to stand up and take responsibility for it's actions. Using a set of rules as to what constitutes terrism is fine I guess, but they need to apply to everyone including ourselves as U.S. citizens. The World Court holds the U.S. as the #1 supporter of terrorism in the world. Torture, funds, and knowledge are filtered into the hands of terroists everyday. It's just a matter of which side you are on when the bomb goes off when you decide which side is the terrorist. As Noam Chomsky says, "the only way to stop terrorism is to stop participating in it". I can't speak for everyone nor would I want to try, but I think it's time "We The People" started taking responsibility for the actions our country takes. It's nice to hide behind your computer and blame those in charge. The only reason they are in charge is because we let them be. The finger points at us. We are to blame.
It's all in the hats.
How can we tell a bad guy? By his black hat. All bad guys must wear black hats. Everyone with a black hat is fair game for the good guys to kill at will. So all we have to do is demand that everyone who's a bad guy wears a black hat.
Drones, cruise missiles, cluster bombs, and uranium-tipped shells are merely the good guys' tools for doing what you're supposed to do in refined societies: kill all the bad guys.
Hillary and Barack cannot be bad guys. Can they? United States soldiers cannot be bad guys. Can they? You're either with us or against us, good or evil. Remember?
It's all in the hats. It's going to take a long while to get past the cowboy approach to revenge.