Clinton Errs On Pakistan

Politico:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was praised in the wake of the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto for demonstrating her command of the players and the issues at stake in Pakistan, even as another candidate, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, was criticized for stumbling over details.

But in two confident television appearances, on CNN and ABC, Clinton made an elementary error about Pakistani politics: She described President Pervez Musharraf as a "candidate" who would be "on the ballot."

In fact, Musharraf was reelected to the presidency in October. The upcoming elections are for parliament, and while Musharraf's party will be facing off against opposition parties, the president himself is not a candidate.

Read the whole story: Politico

Comments

[midtown]

Another thing: the elections were for a seat in parliament, not the whole kit n' kaboodle.

[research]

Excuse me,

The president of Pakistan is elected in a secret ballot by the two chambers of the national parliament -- the National Assembly and Senate -- and the four provincial assemblies.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/10/06/pakistan.elections/index.html

I don't want HRC as the next president, but this is lame parsing.

She described President Pervez Musharraf as a "candidate" who would be "on the ballot."

No he not explicitly on the ballot, but the people who elect him ARE on the ballot, so Musharraf is implicitly but truly on the ballot functionally.

[midtown]

OK, let's try another analogy:

Tony Blair = General Musharaf [Prime Minster/President. Blair was PM because he supposedly answers to the Queen, which our Founding Father did away with; reason England doesn't have a Prez.]

Tony Blair was head of the Labour Party, on of many parties in parliamentary system. Other big one if the Tories.

Tories = Pakistan People's Party (PPP)

Bhutto returns and wants to be head of the Tories, and accuses Musharraf of rigging it so that she can't become head of the Tories in an upcoming party election. . . and furthur maintains that Musharrf will rig it so that the Tories, after that, can't team up with some of the other parties and force a new national election.

GET IT?

[Bulbul]

Another big deal made by Huffy over nothing. Nothing wrong if that is what she has said . Ariaayana come on, 2008, come off it and get real !

[lovethesinner]

The thing that bothered me was how quick Hillary was to jump into the discussion and to appear to be directing the course of the investigation. She was clearly trying to politicize the event for the upcoming primaries.

It's hard to imagine, but we could be looking back fondly at W's willful misguidance if we're put in the position of having to compare it with Hillay's hysterical ambition.

Hillay's political rashness may be even more deadly than Bush's methodical pandering to corporate cronies.

[caywen]

Biden would have gotten every detail right, because he actually CARES about the Pakistan situation and sees it as more than a political chess pawn. He actually *understands* the danger to the US and its allies, and to world stability.

We don't need another political socialite in office. We need a foreign affairs warrior, a domestic leader that is Joe Biden.

[Bobby]

What hasn't she erred on? She was wrong about Iraq. She has never shown remorse for her vote unlike Edwards, Kerry, Biden and Dodd. She is wrong about Iran, as she voted with the HAWKS on the Kyl/LIEberman bill. Now she's wrong the basic facts in Pakistan. She comes from the Nancy Pelosi school of being wrong. Embarrassingly wrong. Now Nader just gave his support to John Edwards. My support as an Independent was for Dennis Kucinich as a Dem (but he is unlikely a frontrunner), and perhaps Ron Paul (will never get the Repub nomination) as a Repub. Edwards (can be the candidate) is someone I am seriously considering to vote for. I like a lot of the things he has stood for. Hillary, meanwhile, is someone I will NEVER vote for. She has failed ALL of her REAL tests as a Senator with her voting record.

[cblcar]

And yet ANOTHER reason why I support Joe Biden for President. Come on, people. We're not joking around here. We're talking about electing the next Commander-In-Chief. The next leader of the free world. That is an awesome responsibility. Don't you want the most knowledgeable, experienced person at the helm in these precarious times? Foreign policy credentials are the whole enchilada right now and NOBODY has stronger foreign policy chops than Senator Biden. Every time I see a child I wonder, wow, will the world even be around when he/she grows up? I so want to believe that yes, with some intelligent leadership maybe we can pull ourselves out of this disasterous course Bush has set us upon. But Hillary aint' gonna do it, Obama (who has never even met Musharaff) ain't gonna do it, and who the hell knows what Edwards is up to. If you can look around at the world and truthfully say that you are not at least a little bit scared, then you're not paying attention. We need strong, experienced leadership. Biden's the guy. And he could kick Rudy's, Mitt's or McCain's butts around the block. He is not up against the other candidates. He is up against big-monied interests and a star-struck media. All he has to do is pull a strong 4th in Iowa and he's still in this thing. Please. Support Joe Biden. America needs this man.

[nunzia]

Oh! Oh! She's a woman and she made a mistake. Get her! Get her! A woman who's not perfect, absolutely without error, absolutely without defect, wants to be prez. No, we can't allow that. Get her. Nail her.

Go to hell.

She still has my vote, and my contributions.

[midtown]

So Madame Experience doesn't understand a parliamentary system? After eight years in the White House?

So that means she doesn't understand the system of government of our neighbors to the north, or England. ?!? Or India?

PRETTY FUCKING STUNNING; Even I know that, and I didn't spend eight years in the White House, or go on 89 Air Force One trips to visit heads of state.

N.B: The parliamentary system is the most prevalent system of government on the planet because the Brits introduced it, and the Commonwealth used it for centuries. Remember that habeus corpus that Bush ditched? And the Magna Carta shit? From the Brits.

Our Founding Fathers thought they were improving upon it when they first created the Articles of Confederation for the east coast strip mall known as the 13 Colonies; they pulled the Church part out of government and the monarchy and landed gentry.

[wmbear]

OH, PLEASE...

I'm no big fan of hers but that is nitpicking to the nth degree....

[snruB]

I'm ready to lead on day one, because I knew a foreign leader personally, but completely don't comprehend the workings of the foreign nation's government.

[bIgTeX]

Hey don't worry Hillary will be ready to lead from day one.. wtf does that mean. Everyone else will call in sick on day one..? I am so sick of Billary and the Democratic Robots.... the Independents will decide for you and we decide on Obama now get over it and praise him.. he is your Democratic Leader now, how soon you will forget Billary.. you will go for any Dem on the ballot..yo­u don't care who it is.

[BUSHsurvivor]

Oh geesh, HuffPo is nit-picking on words now. The election WILL BE on a referendum of Musharref. Kind of like when 2006 midterm elections were a referendum on Bush.

Get it, got it, good!

Now, shouldn't real news be at the top of the page!

[whimsicalpig]

All this proves to me is that hillary is the robot-candidate that just spews out data that would seem appropriate for the occasion.

On this occasion there was a "glitch" and the wrong spate of data came pouring out.

She's probably been on auto-pilot since the beginning of this very staged and choreographed campaign.

I will garauntee that Joe Biden could have spoken to this off his cuff and drwing from what is truthfully years of experience.

He wouldn't have to check with his handlers to see which response to cough out to appeal to the crowd at hand.

GO JOE