by Mark Silva
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who caught some flak for suggesting during her tour of Pakistan that she found it hard to believe that the government doesn't know the whereabouts of al Qaeda leaders, says: "Alot of people back home want to know, you know well how come Al Qaeda has a safe haven in Pakistan?"
"I mean, we're very impressed by the campaign that the military here is running against the Pakistan Taliban in (the Swat valley) and South Waziristan,'' Clinton says in an interview with Greta Van Susteren that FOX News will show tonight. "But our point to our friends in Pakistan is that -- that is an important and necessary step for you to take, but remember that there is a terrorist syndicate with al Qaeda at the head...
"You can't just say your job is done because you've cleared out (Swat) you've cleared out South Waziristan, until we truly root out what is in my view the source of the syndicate and a lot of the problems that Pakistan, Afghanistan and the rest of us face."
Asked about U.S. responsibility for the uptick in violence in Pakistan, Clinton says in the interview with On the Record: "Clearly, al Qaeda left Afghanistan. And we let them out. You know we -- we should have taken them out when we had the chance back in 2001 and 2002 and they escaped. And they escaped into Pakistan...
"If we had done a better job going into Afghanistan and capture the people who had attacked us or killed them you know, we would be in a different position,'' she says.
And, asked about the extent to which the developing U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan "bleeds'' into Pakistan, Clinton says: "Absolutely. I mean when we first did our review upon taking office, we concluded that you had to look at Afghanistan and Pakistan together and in light of the war on terror that we had to wage....
"The stronger partnership we have with Pakistan, the stronger their efforts to root out terrorists in their own country, the better the situation is across the border in Afghanistan."
Comments
Hillary is right. For years now we've been giving Pakistan billions of dollars to go after Al-Qaeda within their borders and they've done squat with that money but spend it on themselves and their cronies.
Posted by: PennyRoyalty | November 2, 2009 5:06 PM
She's still calling it the 'War on Terror?' That's so GWB. Didn't Hillary get the memo?
Posted by: No Wonder They Hate Us | November 2, 2009 5:17 PM
Yo, Hillary, Queen B, we also had a few chanced to take out bin Laden in the late 90s. In fact, we had the tall guy zeroed in with a drone, but your hubby was too busy or too neglectful to give the order to shoot the darn thing.
Posted by: John D, still right, as usual | November 2, 2009 7:22 PM
Forgot this little gem from Hillary in Pakistan when describing tax policy in the U.S.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2009%5C10%5C30%5Cstory_30-10-2009_pg1_1
Posted by: Terry | November 2, 2009 7:56 PM
Yo, Hillary, Queen B, we also had a few chanced to take out bin Laden in the late 90s
Posted by: John D, still right, as usual | November 2, 2009 7:22 PM
******************************
Yeah Lil' Johnny Ducksnort, and when Bill Clinton went after Bin Laden you Wingnut droolers accused him of "wagging the dog".
Bush Jr and Darth had Bin Laden pinned down in Afghanistan and instead of taking him out they decided that it would be better to blow it off and start a phony war with Iraq.
Posted by: janet | November 2, 2009 8:15 PM
The crudity of these statements shows that USA is very lucky that she lost the presidential elections. Not so lucky that she is the secretary of State. She is also lucky that nobody asked her the period from 1989 to 2001 when the AL-Qaida that was propped up by the USA was left unhindered to grow and USA left them to build up the strength. Her husband was the President in that period as well, what did he do to take action against the Al-Qaida leadership? How many Al-Qaida members has USA captured since 2001 from Afghanistan? Why did USA move its forces from Afghanistan and concentrated in Iraq on fudged up CIA information in 2003 and left Afghanistan so that Al-Qaida could run to Pakistan?
So if you compare a poor country like Pakistan has done better arrested or killed 70 AL-Qaida members since 2001. Pakistan is fighting a proactive war and has lost 4,400 citizens more than USA lost in 9/11. Moreover are AL-Qaida members sitting in one place so that they may be caught easily. And USA has killed 600 civilians so if USA knows about these terrorists why do not they kill them by this illegal method as they do it regularly and have no compulsions because of powerless UN and a dependent poor country like Pakistan that has no options.
These statements help divert attention from the main issue the failure of NATO inaction as the whole of Afghanistan has become a safe heaven. Its easy to blame other countries for the failure of leadership and bad decisions that US Presidents have taken over the years.
Posted by: ratee | November 2, 2009 8:56 PM
This drivel coming from a women who's husband, B.J. could of ended the whole thing by pulling the trigger on Binladen, but pulled the trigger on Monica instead for his own satisfaction, while 9/11 was being planned under his nose for three years that cost the lives of over 3000 Americans.
The Clinton's have no shame...
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | November 3, 2009 12:36 AM
Very strange. Did you notice all? Hillary Clinton representative of oldest democracy in the world, kept quite on involvement of India and Afghanistan in abetting terrorism in Pakistan.
If take the argument that terrorists have no fundamental rights and can be condemned unheard because they are enemies of humanity. Then sponsors and abettors of terrorism are the biggest enemies too.
The seizure of Indian made ammunition and weapons in large quantity in Terrorists' stronghold clearly proves that terrorists have backing of India -- another secular democracy. Does oldest democracy supports this, in the name of democracy or proves be true to its words as Champion of Democracy and Enemy of Terrorism?
Posted by: Aisha | November 3, 2009 1:41 AM
Looking at the past week, one can see how resilient Pakistanis have become. Suffering numerous suicide bomb attacks and wide-spread military action, we are here yet again, still standing. But how long can we sustain ourselves at this current rate of demolition? How many times will we resist smacking the hammer on our own foot? Nowadays we seem to have become the offspring of Glenn Beck and the Republican Party. With a constant denial of the harsh reality and a love for misconstruing and fabricating baseless facts that just aim to maim the United States, we seem to be struggling. And when we struggle, we play the role of a secluded, spoilt child.
http://ahraza.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/the-heart-desires-more/
Posted by: AHR | November 3, 2009 3:01 AM
SHe needs to resign......She is NO DIPLOMAT,all she Does is likes to take SMOKERS and Pitbulls and crucify them......SHe needs to take a HIKE
Posted by: DDS | November 3, 2009 9:10 AM
Oh Sweet!
I smell another 'Reset' button coming soon.
Posted by: Chris | November 3, 2009 9:47 AM
Bush Jr and Darth had Bin Laden pinned down in Afghanistan and instead of taking him out they decided that it would be better to blow it off and start a phony war with Iraq.
Posted by: janet | November 2, 2009 8:15 PM
**********************************
Let's jump into the "here and now" little girl. What say ye about TODAY?
Can't get out of the past and it's players? Let's hear about today's solutions? from the guy in charge NOW!
Blaming Bush & Chaney forever is not solving any of today's problems. Pick up the clue phone and lay down the Obamabong for a minute. The hopium has totally messed up your thought process and relegated you to living in the past for the sake of blaming others rather than addressing and resolving today's and yes, tomorrow's problems.
Bush & Chaney GONE!
Obama IN CHARGE! He WON! now he needs to do the leading instead of campaigning.
Posted by: springfieldd | November 3, 2009 11:36 AM
Bush Jr and Darth had Bin Laden pinned down in Afghanistan and instead of taking him out they decided that it would be better to blow it off and start a phony war with Iraq.
Posted by: janet | November 2, 2009 8:15 PM
**********************************
Let's jump into the "here and now" little girl. What say ye about TODAY?
Can't get out of the past and it's players? Let's hear about today's solutions? from the guy in charge NOW!
Blaming Bush & Chaney forever is not solving any of today's problems. Pick up the clue phone and lay down the Obamabong for a minute. The hopium has totally messed up your thought process and relegated you to living in the past for the sake of blaming others rather than addressing and resolving today's and yes, tomorrow's problems.
Bush & Chaney GONE!
Obama IN CHARGE! He WON! now he needs to do the leading instead of campaigning.
Posted by: springfieldd | November 3, 2009 11:36 AM
Interesting. So Bush ISN'T to blame because Obama is in control now and Janet gets your comment -- yet you have no similar words of shame for John D, never been right and never will be, when his point is that it's CLINTON'S fault? I see a pattern.
Posted by: Asbestos Slope | November 3, 2009 3:56 PM