In an interview on CNN's Situation Room, Wulf Blitzer asked Clinton, "Do you trust the Pakistani government to conduct a fair investigation?" Clinton answered, " I don't think the Pakstani government under President Musharaf has any credibility anymore.... The elites in Pakistan act as though they can destabilize Pakistan and retain their privilege their positions of privilege and authority." This was unacceptable. The position that she stated was that the present Pakistani government was illegitimate and that she was committed to supporting the Pakistanis to move to democracy.
Here is a U-Tube excerpt from the interview which gives the gist of her remarks with one exception. In a part of the interview not recorded here she prefaced a further statement along the same lines, saying "we will ...." not " I will", referencing a situation in which she is elected President. Presumably "we" referred to Bill Clinton.
Clinton has many excuses to offer on her votes supporting Bush's war policy. Here she has gone a step further. Her position is to call for an escalation of Bush's military intervention in Iraq to threaten military intevention in Pakistan unless Musraraf accepts the jurisdiction of an international tribunal in Pakistan, which by the way is has a significant nuclear capability. She is not merely supporting Bush but stating that it is her policy to force Musharaf out of power, without regard to the risk of destabilizing should his government fall. By doing this she is setting the stage to create the justification for stage two of the Iraq war.
No longer would the war be "Bush's" war but it would be a fully bi-partisan policy, should Clinton win the primary.
It is well to remember that the Korean and Vietnam wars were started under Democratic Administrations. The policy that she is promoting is at least as dangerous as that of Bush and Cheney. If she campaigns on the necessity of the US to intervene militarily to "stabilize" Pakistan and to ensure a "democratic" government in that country, then she opens the door to military action against Iran.
For those who follow how elections are conducted in the United States these days, for instance the situation with voting machines in Ohio, exactly what is the credibility of the US government when it comes to democratic elections?
Some fears that keep me up at night.
If Clinton wins the Democratic primary this country will she not in fact become George W. Bush's greatest political ally? Just as Bill Clinton assumed the Republican mantle of austerity politics and out-of-control globalization, is the Hillary/Bill poistioning itself to not only support W's war policies but to advocate an extension of the Iraq war to Pakistan and Iran?
If Clinton looses the primary then we do we need to worrt about the formation of a bi-partisan third party option which brings together the Clintons, McCain and Lieberman? Is there perhaps the danger of the occurrence of a "war-emergency situation" that is used to justify the postponenment of the 2008 election and the formation of a bi-partisan interim government for the duration of "the war" with George W Bush and Cheney remaining in place?
