Letters to the Editor
-
Strikes in Pakistan
Strikes of that type have been part of American policy for a long time. I think it is silly to think that one strike against a known terrorist would magically send a nation into chaos. We've done it before without terrible thing happening and we've even done far worse things like blowing up a Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. Ironically Hillary's husband used just such strikes to try and kill Bin Laden.
I didn't say we couldn't do strikes in Pakistan, in fact, I pointed out that we currently do.
What we can't do is what Obama advocated, is doing it wholly unilaterally and acknowledging that we did so.
The very act of him saying on the campaign trail that we would do this, limits his ability to actually do it without devastating consquences.
Some countries you could strike at, they'd be upset, but there would be little military fallout.
That is not the case in Pakistan, we don't want a "Afganistan" with a 170 MILLION people and nuclear weapons.
-
Dipolmacy.
I'd be interesting in your source for such a belief. I've never been involved in international diplomacy, but I do know that security clearance is required for a lot of far less important tasks here at home. I'd be surprised if substantive foreign policy talks were being conducted by people who hadn't received briefings on the subject including the classified intelligence related the situation.
Most such meetings aren't about matters that involve a sitution in which classified matters are discussed.
You have to remember that unlike briefings at home, most of the ground work has been laid out before hand, the actual meetings and to finalise details, and are often dictated by such seemingly trivial matters as who sits where and in what order.
Then you have the whole question of translators. You'll have dozens of staff hovering around such meetings, some such as translators hearing every word, classified meetings are not the norm.
Large numbers of the diplomatic corps lack security clearance.
-
@Xanthro
I think you are wrong to think there would be terrible fallout from a strike in Pakistan. We've pissed of far bigger powers (USSR, Russia, China, etc.) without anything too terrible, so I don't know why Pakistan would be any different.
Most such meetings aren't about matters that involve a sitution in which classified matters are discussed.
I'd be curious as to your source for such a statement (not that I necessarily doubt that that is the case). I'd also note that just because you don't discuss classified information doesn't mean you don't benefit from knowing the information. The whole point of having intelligence in these cases is so you can know things about the other parties so you know if they are bluffing or are hiding something or whatever. You don't generally give your hand away by discussing the intelligence openly, but you need the intelligence to properly conduct the discussions.
You have to remember that unlike briefings at home, most of the ground work has been laid out before hand, the actual meetings and to finalise details, and are often dictated by such seemingly trivial matters as who sits where and in what order.
So your saying Hillary knows where to sit. That's great, let's get Obama a seating chart and call it even.
-
@luckykat
Yes, I have acquired knowledge over the years from listening to my husband. I can talk pretty intelligently to my own healthcare providers. However, when my mother was on a vent, I didn't try to manage her vent settings etc. I was in a better position to understand what her physicians were telling me and be able to translate that back to my sisters. However if I tried to suggest to the MDs that they should do x, y and z because I would listen in on my husband taking calls from the hospital, they would have (justifiably so) laughed there white coats off.
Knowing a little more than the average layperson still does not qualify me to practice medicine. It would be the height of arrogance and ego to think otherwise. Remember the silly commercial from the 80s (now I'm really dating myself and my level of "life experience") -- i'm not a doctor but I play one on TV -- like that makes him qualified to tell me what to do with my health!
If you come up to me and try to diagnose me based on what you think you know from your husband, I'm going to maintain (politely) that you are no more fit to to determine what is wrong with me than my dog. That is just fact. Perhaps you are offended by that and believe that others should give you "medical courtesy" just because you are married to a doctor. If you want to practice medicine, then you need to go to medical school yourself.
But some things (well -- most things actually) you have to do first hand to be proficient at them. So while I believe that Hillary is ready from day 1 to navigate her way from the personal quarters of the white house to the oval office and to know how to run the White House as a living space, hanging out with Sinbad and Sheryl Crow for a couple of hours in Bosnia does not a commander-in-chief make.
Does that mean I think Obama is more qualified? No. But as McCain has shown over the last couple of days, just because you have hung out on this planet a bit longer than your counterparts doesn't make you the best candidate for the job.
(anyone else think that McCain is starting to seem more senile? Its as if his handlers have let up now that he has secured the nomination. He is making Reagan -- who had alzheimers -- look positively sharp)
-
@ jebldmm and Xanthro
jebldmm:
My point was that large chunks of her 35 years experience don't necessarily warrant support, depending on the voter.
Xanthro:
For someone with top security clearance, I find it hard to swallow that you actually believe a handful of PR trips puts Clinton more in league with McCain than Obama in a debate over national security credentials -- even if I were to agree Obama has no experience.
And for someone with top security clearance, I'm sure you know that all sorts of intangibles are at play in international relations. In that regard, simply having a fresh face and a non-white one brings to the international table assets that outweigh a trip to Bosnia with Sindbad.
As others point out, and as I hinted at with jebldmm, experience, as Clinton presents it, is pretty one-dimensional in a multifaceted world. Her anti-war experience didn't lead to better judgment when she gave Bush permission to use force as he wished, despite a shitload of unclassified information that demonstrated pretty clearly that a) Bush could not be trusted in any way; and b) Hussein and Iraq had zip to do with 9/11 (or functioning WMD). And all of her experience with women and children didn't lead her to advance health care programs that didn't leave a big chunk of profit to insurance companies. And her experience being smeared by the right-wing only seems to have taught her how to imitate their tactics.
So I'll grant 35 years of experience. I'm not it doesn't cut both ways.