One thing is for sure, Hillary Clinton sounds incredibly relieved to be the Secretary of State where the Clinton reputation is solid because she has the capability to stay beyond the fray of what has really become trivial politics. One can only imagine what political opponents of Mrs. Clinton would throw at her if she had won the Presidency. Both in tone and in content, you could sense during today interview that the Madam Secretary has had enough of the finger-pointing politik. When Mr. Gregory asked the sophomoric question as to how she felt about the mid-term election, the Secretary could laughingly decline to answer.
She stated, in response to Mr. Gregory's inquiry about Republicans lead by Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) blocking that ratification of the S.T.A.R.T. Treaty, that their questions deserved to be answered and that everyone in the Administration is ready to answer them. She went on to say that once those questions are answered that she feels there will be the two-thirds majority in the Senate to ratify the treaty.
Mr. Gregory mentioned the possibility of simply political posturing by the Republicans, to which Mrs. Clinton reminded us of the famous Ronald Reagan quote, "Trust but verify." She obviously concluded that there is no verification without the treaty.
We agree with all that she said in as much as if there are questions, they should be answered, but again what is disappointing is that whether it was the Republicans themselves or the Press, the connotation is that it is a stall tactic to make political points. We sincerely hope this is not the case. There used to be a mentality in this country particularly in the Reagan era that no matter what the problems and differences were at home, we spoke with a unified voice on the international stage. We can't even get that together now, and you would think that since all the American people want is some compromise to get things done, international relations would be a good place start. We believe that ultimately we will and the treaty will be ratified by the Senate.
Conscientiously, Mr. Gregory discussed Afghanistan with Secretary Clinton and she said that 'hopefully' we'll be able to transition to Afghan lead security by 2014. What that says to us is that we're there in some capacity until at least 2020, and that's being hopeful, but we have no illusions that our involvement in Afghanistan is nothing but long term. Mrs. Clinton also said that permanent bases haven't even been considered yet, so let's do a little considering.
Having a permanent base there means a sustained military presence after all the major combat operations have left the country, so 2,000 troops...less? The military would advise to have such a base and it's understandable. From their point of view, the Taliban orchestrated by Al Qaeda is a grave threat to security in Afghanistan. It's the closest continually touch point that the Pentagon and the C.I.A. would have to this lawless region.
However, unlike any other base we have, even the ones we have in Iraq, permanent bases in Afghanistan should also be considered a continual streaming of the fighting there. Those bases will be under constant torment from the Taliban and assorted others. So what to do?
Well, we first have to concede that we're going to be there long term in a significant capacity, but by 2030 we should have no permanent base there at all. By that time, either Kabul has pulled the country up and there are signs of progress to enter the world community or it will remain destitute and corrupt. Either way, this is one place we should not stay permanently, like South Korea. No way.
But what's funny is that as silly as it seems, if we were able to kill or capture the Al Qaeda leadership, that would give The United States the political cover to get the hell out of there sooner, but it's not a priority.
Speaking of priorities, we're still trying to figure out where Governor Bobby Jindal's reside. What really bothered us about today's interview is that Governor Jindal (R-LA) came off as though he studied for it. It goes back to that disastrous Republican rebuttal to President Obama's first State of the Union address. He didn't articulate any point or message. By contrast, his answers we clearer and more concise. Believable or reassuring is another story. Mr. Jindal because of that one stumble is on the outside looking in when it comes to political relevance in the Republican party hierarchy.
However, it's not for lack of trying. Where Secretary Clinton deferred, Governor Jindal declared. Are the airport security measures excessive? Yes. Administration incompetent during the BP oil spill disaster? Absolutely. But let's wait one second...
Among these more-than-sure-of-himself statements, he said that this Administration has been lucky we haven't been hit with a major terrorist act from overseas, as if lucky has been the sole factor. Also, when he says that the Administration is more concerned about the Miranda rights of terrorists than American citizens' rights, who's he talking to? There is a limited amount of time during the interview, why waste our time with statements like that? Also, Mr. Gregory and Mr. Jindal sparred about whether sand berms worked, who did or didn't do what, but they never got to talking about what the current state of affairs is with the damage and the clean-up.
Lastly, Mr. Jindal reiterated the current Republican mantra, that they've learned from their mistakes and they deserve to be the majority party again... Really?
No comments:
Post a Comment