This video grab shows visiting US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (2nd r.) during an interview with several prominent female TV anchors, before a predominantly female audience of several hundred, in Islamabad on Friday.
(Geo TV/AP)Photos (1 of 1)
In Pakistan, Clinton fails to charm professional women
When US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Pakistani women Friday afternoon, many left the meeting feeling frustrated that their concerns – particularly on security issues – had not been heard or addressed.
By Huma Yusuf | Correspondent 10.30.09
ISLAMABAD – Addressing a roomful of Pakistani women Friday afternoon at the National Art Gallery here, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made every effort to connect with her audience. But after enduring multiple security checks and waiting over four hours for the secretary to arrive, most women left unimpressed.
“Frankly, it was a waste of my time,” said one assistant professor from the Fatima Jinnah Women’s University (FJWU) in Rawalpindi, who asked not to be named. “[Clinton] wasn’t interested in hearing the about the layman’s problems or the reality of our daily lives.”
That caused many, such as Shazia Marri, the information minister of the Sindh province, to leave the meeting frustrated that their concerns were not heard. “Emancipated women in Pakistan have a clear point of view that did not come across,” she said.
The local media has described Mrs. Clinton’s three-day visit to Pakistan as a “charm offensive.” Her town-hall meeting with female activists, lawyers, journalists, parliamentarians, and businesswomen from across the country was meant to conclude the trip on a high note, particularly in the wake of Wednesday’s car bomb attack on a Peshawar market that killed 117 – mostly women.
In her interactions with Pakistani women, Clinton tried to engage in personal-level diplomacy. Explaining how the US would support democracy in Pakistan, Clinton discussed the importance of “habits of the heart,” such as tolerance and compromise, which could be ingrained within families and by teachers in schools. Addressing concerns about aid delivery, she described how the US government organized a team of female Pakistani-American doctors to treat internally displaced women. And in a rare digression, she reminisced about an exchange of family photographs with the late former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.
Clinton attempted a relaxed manner, with an aside about having a Pakistani roommate. But her jokes about visiting Pakistan and not discussing security for once failed to win over the crowd. Pakistani women – much like the country’s youth and professionals, whom Clinton met in similar meetings in Lahore on Thursday – seemed more keen on discussing security issues. The questions that met with most applause from the audience were on US drone attacks, alleged American designs on Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, and whether the US intended to pressure India to settle the long-standing Kashmir conflict.
Several audience members said Clinton’s answers did little to allay their concerns or skepticism. “The responses were as expected,” added Ameena Saiyid, the managing director of Oxford University Press.
Many women, including Zainab Azmat, a resident of the South Waziristan tribal agency, currently lecturing at Peshawar’s Institute of Management Sciences (IMS), complained that Clinton’s answers were too “reserved.” Ms. Azmat added that the intention of the meeting was unclear. “Why were we here? What did they want us to ask? What did they want to convey to us?” she asked.
It didn’t help that many women objected to the format of the discussion, which was moderated by five female news anchors. Before Clinton arrived, one State Department representative explained that the format aimed to imitate the popular talk show, ‘The View.’
But it seems the women were not all convinced that the show is what the meeting most closely mirrored. “This meeting was as micromanaged as our country’s internal affairs,” quipped the FJWU professor. “[The Americans] were trying to retain the upper-hand in the conversation.”
Fariel Salahiddin, a financial consultant with Ministry of Information, still found the visit valuable, however. It is “admirable that Clinton is making this effort to reach out,” she said.
<< Los Tigres del Norte sing of censorship, bail on Mexican award | MainComments
2. Dave in Olympia | 10.30.09
I feel for the women of Pakistan but it certainly isnt fair to judge Secretary Clinton. Security in Pakistan is a Pakistani government problem. I applaud other countries for looking to the United States for leadership and assistance but they have no real right to demand that we somehow fix thier problems. Secretary Clinton I am confident is doing everything within her ability and restrictions to help solve Pakistani problems.
3. Joan M. | 10.30.09
It seems as if Mrs. Clinton’s “handlers” didn’t do their homework. They should have tried to find out what would be best for the audience not what might play well back home. It is a pity that she wasn’t briefed with the information that the professional women wanted to have THEIR voices to be heard.
Also if she was sent off with the message from home not to say anything about the overwhelming problems facing Pakistan or about our country’s position on this, she was done a disservice by the White House.
All in all she was walking a thin line and probably did remarkably well as anything she said would be bound to offend someone in the audience. Finally, there is the fact that we women tend to be our own severest critics as the the responses by some of the women attending the meeting seem to indicate.
5. Rajesh | 10.30.09
I am very dissapointed with the Pakistani ladies. A guest comes to your house. She had laready and repeatedly talked about security issues with the administration, media and the intellectuals of your country. Visits you not as a secstate but as a woman. To get to know you. Not about the security situation of your coutry but the condition of women is your country. And all you want to do is ask her the same questions as if the answers will be different?? Cant you ladies relax for half an hour with another lady who is an idol for millions of women around the world. Do you ladies really think that you show patriotism towards your country by asking these questions and complaining. I am dissapointed. The civil society of Pakistan has been effected.
6. Dr. Barbara Smith | 10.30.09
The headline to this story is appalling. The sexism made my jaw hit the floor. Why would anyone assume it is Ms. Clinton’s duty as Secretary of State to “charm” anyone? Did Colin Powell fail to charm people? How about Warren Christopher? I am so sorry to see a respected and respectable news source such as the Monitor promote such ignorant, blatant sexism.
7. Apple | 10.30.09
These women were watching helplessly and cheer leading the anti Americanism with their countrymen. Women in Pakistan talking about freedom and issues? First they should deal with Mullahs and hypocrite Pakistani men. Women in Pakistan are NOT even allowed to participate in any discussion, including these so called educated women.
8. terri | 10.30.09
Jeeze, with all your rules about comments, this is as controlled as Clinton’s “press show”.
9. Frank | 10.30.09
I obviously was not at the meetings, but I sure wish I had attended.
Mrs. Clinton seems to have very good intentions for the United States and the rest of the world. If the majority of women feel like the meeting was a waste of their time, and their questions were not answered or topics not discussed, my guess would be that Mrs. Clinton will head back out there again for another meeting to get the talks started again.
Simple as that. Everything can’t always happen the first time and make everyone happy. That rarely happens in life, but give the talks some more time.
10. Jessica | 10.30.09
It is interesting that in an effort to connect with women in Pakistan that Clinton seemed to have failed to realize that women, like men, are concerned with their security and with politics. It is almost ironic that a female secretary of state seemingly talked ‘down’ to her own gender. Unfortunately, this discouse seems to illustrate the US’s understanding of Pakistan, which seems to be limited and pre-determined.
11. Steve Real | 10.30.09
Pakistan has a long historical narrative of victumhood.
They started with blaming the British for their own perceived problems, then Indians, then USSR and now it’s America.
When are the Pakistani politikal class ever going to mature as a peoples?
12. Tariq Shah | 10.30.09
I thank her for trying, there is a segement in Pakistani politics that has brainwashed people to believe that a hidden US hand is behind everything bad in their lives, this is done by the jihadi element but there are also many who see the US as a guiding light and a model to emulate. We thank her for trying and coming to Pakistan, for offering help and assistance in these difficult times.
13. Peter Kapelmeister | 10.30.09
This appears to be more of an American political photo op and damage control from our drone attacks and mismanagement of the Pakistan war than a true fact-finding mission by Madame Clinton. “Habits of the heart?” My goodness, this sounds more like the thesis of a laboratory experiment in clinical psychology than anything approaching true empathy. No wonder Clinton’s meeting fell flat with the women of Pakistan. As an elder and liberal American I am frankly disgusted by American politicians’ transparent and self-serving posturing. I think our country needs a clean sweep of all politicos regardless of party.
14. dan gudahl | 10.30.09
Crossed ankles…visibility of the bottom of her shoe…She needed more cultural briefing…
Dan G
15. dron | 10.30.09
While I have never been a Hillary fan, I do find myself feeling compassion for the woman lately. Kissinger was SOS when I was young. Too young to really remember just how much backlash he received. But I’m guessing that since it wasn’t the internet era, he wasn’t instantly critiqued. My gosh I don’t know why anyone would want to be in politics anymore. No matter what you do or say, you are instantly skewered.
16. Todd S. | 10.30.09
Have we lost Pakistan like we have Afghanistan? I would appreciate if Pakistanis would answer this question. (I hope the answer is no.) Isn’t there anyone better equipped to serve as prime minister than the current one?
Thanks.
17. debbie d | 10.30.09
Hillary should resign. President Obama speaks words of peace while Hillary receives criticism for her harsh words against Pakistan for their lackluster performance on terrorism. You don’t criticize your allies especially when you need their help. Her position has gone to her head and she has become a loose cannon.
18. Pete R. | 10.30.09
It seems that the Pakistani Women feel the same way many of us American citizens feel… there’s a whole lot of empty talk going on with the American government but they seem to have totally lost touch with reality. A large portion of the American people have (finally) reached a point where we have had enough of the BS and are working toward actual constructive change which will be evidenced by the replacement of all the self serving, dishonest, double talking stooges that have made our Government the joke it is today…
19. Paul | 10.30.09
What are we talking about here?
Security means Taliban?
US offered to go in and resolve the Taliban problems in the tribal areas and the Pakistani government denied access. what do they want us to do now? Am I missing something here?
20. Rebekah | 10.30.09
Reducing “womens” meetings to this kind of touchy feely non-sense that doesn’t resolve or address anything is one of the most exasperating fads in American society. Cheers to the women of Pakistan for calling BS on Clinton’s calculated attempt to gloss over their real concerns.
21. Jason | 10.30.09
Basically Clinton failed to create an impression with the common man ( or woman ) in Pakistan. Yes, she may have discussed things with administration but people in Pakistan don’t trust their Govt and America as well. They think the people in Govt are selling their country to Americans to stay in power and in dollars. After all we know reputation of Mr. Zardari. That being said Clinton should have been able to satisfy women from different walks of life but it’s too bad that she did not.
22. Hazel | 10.30.09
America is and will always be in a lose - lose situation where Islamic countries are concerned. When the U.S. does intervene it is accused of interfering, when it doesn’t intervene it is accused of apathy toward these countries. Secretary Clinton did not come with an agenda to ameliorate the securities issues of Pakistan. That is what the Pakistani government was elected to do. Pakistan needs to put aside its attitude of entitlement and stand on its own fee.
23. Dev | 10.30.09
The Pakistani womens’ reactions are predictable. They want Secretary Clinton to address their security concerns. Well, that’s barking up the wrong tree. They should confront their government, the mullahs, the Army, and the ISI. But instead they want an outsider to solve their problem. It’s ridiculous to even expect answers to security questions from a foreigner. If I were Secretary Clinton I would tell the Pakistani ladies to ask why the government turned a blind eye to the ISI, its funding of terrorists, and its molly coddling of radical mullahs. Extremist and intolerant parties and individuals are very much a part of Pakistani society. The entire culture not only tolerates but condones violence and intolerance towards non-Muslims. Now that these vipers are starting to attack ordinary Pakistanis, the blame is placed on America, India, Israel, etc. It’s laughable. This is the same society that has released a convicted terrorist hijacker of an Indian Airlines plane, the same society that has produced the Mumbai terrorists that have killed innocent people mercilessly. Well, I say to that society, you reap what you sow. You are all responsible for what is happening to Pakistan today.
24. williamd | 10.30.09
Those attending should now know, like we in the US, that when dealing with the current administration and their public appearances we are all guests for their photo op and their agenda. They are not interested in our issues, only in telling us what they will do for us or to us. For the women of Pakistan who are concerned about their country, their security, their families, with a deaf ear from the administration, welcome to our world…
25. Dev | 10.30.09
American diplomacy is self-centered and arrogant, without any respect for genuine concerns for others (nations/people). Decades past, for uprooting the Russian enfluence, American establishments helped fanatics, rogue states, thougs, mercinaries and dictators to exploit nations and its helpless citizens. Believe it or not, the corrupt systems and rulers are in power now.
About Pakistan: the Western Powers supported the creation of Pakistan from India in late Forties, based on religious fanaticism promoted by homegrown selfish individualism. Indians and Pakistanis are basically brothers and sisters born from the same mother’s womb. But after division, the military rulers tried to distract Pakistani citizens away from building a prosperous and respectful nation to islamic fundamentalist nation. Thus,depriving them human dignity, social justice and peace for all, not for some selected elites. These military rulers stayed in power and always played “AZAAD KASHMIR” card to suppress public unrest with promise to fight fight with India to capture the part of Kashmir from the Indian territory. Believe it or not, as the original country of India was partitioned into India and Pakistan, so was the state of Kashmir, against the wishes of the ruler of the independent state of Kashmir, who wished to join India after the independence. Now, after sixty years or so, Pakistani rulers keep on illusioning their citizen that they are going to capture the Indian part of Kashmir to join Pakistani territory. It is not going to happen, I am sure.
Now, “al-Qaidas,” and Talibans: the muslim religious fanatics appeared to have very narrow view of life. The notion of “Jihad” and control of “Zannat (heaven)” have become so important to the mullahs, preachers, and power mongers that they hardly see real suffering of masses beyond their own self interests. We Americans have provided these radicals ample supports financially, morally and militarily, in the past. When such support started diminishing, we became their enemy and were targetted for Jihad.
It is time for America to establish global partnership to enhance the dignity and fate of downtrodden masses everywhere, and forget about talking “Democracy,” and “Freedom,” without any real value to it.
26. Drew | 10.30.09
I am an American conservative and do not like Hillary Clinton but agree that she was trying to reach out and the say contrary is pointless. I think that many in Pakistan feel the U.S. is trying to “control” their country which is unfounded. I am sorry the Pakistani’s have lost over 2,400 civilians in 3 years but we lost OVER 3,000 in one day so to the lady who said, “We have 9/11’s everyday” I say, NO YOU DON’T. The reason we use drone strikes is not to offend your pride or to take power from your country but is because YOUR COUNTRY has failed to do anything about Al Qaeda and instead of being mean and invading your entire country to get Al Qaeda we are polite and use drones to kill Al Qaeda ourselves since your country does nothing about them.
The fact Pakistan does nothing about Al Qaeda is evidenced in the fact that the passport of a 9/11 conspirator was found in a village Pakistan recently liberated. I love Pakistan and check on and cheer for their progress daily but if I am to be frank here it is: NO WE DO NOT WANT TO CONTROL YOUR COUNTRY… YES we support your curret offensive and the reason why we use drone strikes is to kill Al Qaeda and to do what you have refused to do for over 8 years… go after Al Qaeda who not ONLY threatens your country by emboldening the Taliban but also goes after Europe and the U.S. So as one lady said, “This is your war not ours”. I recall Bush right after 9/11 “If you are not for us, you are against us”. You have not done anything about Al Qaeda so we have with drone strikes… quit whining.
27. Shyam | 10.30.09
Pakistani’s need to learn to take care of themselves. Instead of blaming their problems on the US and India, they need to do some serious self evaluation. They can barely manage what they have and they want Kashmir from India so they can mess it up as well.
28. TS | 10.30.09
That was a unlucky-but timing for Ms. Clinton right after a terrible bombing. But she should have talk to the Pakistani women from her heart in a dignified style. Not from a script finished up by her writer.
29. Azih | 10.30.09
The simple fact is that Mrs.Clinton was asked the same questions by the women that she was asked by university students and tribal leaders earlier. And they all received the same non answers.
There is an odd tendency by American politicians to address matters of policy by engaging in PR. No amount of marketing spin and happy speech is going to deflect a person with an issue as specific as drone attacks and condiditons on American aid money but that is exactly what Mrs.Clinton attempted.
As for whether the US has ‘lost’ Pakistan as it has lost Afghanistan. Well if you define lost as hearts and minds then the problem is that you cannot win Pakistani hearts and minds while conducting drone missile attacks on Pakistani soil. That’s the long and short of it.
30. Dave | 10.30.09
Everyone knows when someone is talking down to them. Clinton did it repeatedly. Pakistanis do not fit squarely in to a category. They are not going to be like the indians, the japanese or european. Clinton should have tried harder to understand them. Its unfortunate that she used her trip to show her anger against a country that is losing soldiers daily in the war against terror. She made no new friends and u attract more bees with honey afterall
31. richard potter | 10.30.09
The fact remains that women and children are the casualties in most modern day warfare. The voice for this group has been unheard.
32. Sam | 10.30.09
Just because we have people like Dev and Drew, thats why we Americans face hatred all around the globe. Let me ask you guys, would you like if some outsider come and occupy our country and we are going to through rose-petals on them. I am sure we are going to hate them till death. Thats what people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan are doing.
33. dd | 10.30.09
I think all of Ms Clinton’s events and all those planted questions were guided & supervised by the ISI. I suspect about 99% of Pakistani media & journalists are under Army’s control and most receive huge bribes. That is where some our aid in Billions which was meant for hospitals & schools actually goes. In Pakistan, the Army daily plans, controls & spreads the Anti-American news & opinions.
Pakistani (practically, it means Army General’s) foreign policy is in terms of controlling “necks” of their enemies. Once, then Dictator/President General Musharraf had called his #2 in Pakistan, during a visit to Beijing. Somehow his call was intercepted and published. In the transcript, he referred 2-3 times to how they are controlling their enemies by their necks. E.g. Afghanistan’s neck controlled via Taliban, India’s neck controlled by proxies sent to Kashmir, American neck via the Muslim Bomb(i.e. Pakistani Nuclear weapons), attacks on Mumbai, consulates in Afghanistan etc.
This Anti-American public opinion in Pakistan is another of Pakistani weapons to grab & control the American neck. By now the Pak Army through ISI are world experts in Media control, both in Pakistan and also abroad.
We absolutely need to ask the Pakistani Army to immediately cease & desist their anti-American propaganda inside Pakistan and elsewhere abroad. This condition could be added to the aid package requirements. We need to deal firmly when the generals say that they need to LIE to their own countrymen, for various excuses. Maintaining & fostering of the negative public opinion in Pakistan is one of Pakistan’s way of controlling ‘our neck’.
34. Fez | 10.30.09
Secretary Clinton definitely had good intentions and it’s great to see the US administration at least actively trying (if not successfully) to establish a dialogue with the Pakistani people as is the case here with her meeting with the Pakistani women. However her remark about the Pakistani government’s alleged complicity in hiding terrorists was rather outside the diplomatic norms and casts her visit more as a PR disaster than a ‘charm-offensive.’
35. Rakha Komat | 10.30.09
Mrs Clinton answering vaguely has become the norm. World is watching. When she visited India during Mr Clinton’s Presidency, the whole hindu women rebelled against her when she asked them to be more liberated and not be under the yolk of their religion. If a high dignitary act like a school teacher wherever she goes then there is going to be some discomfort.
37. anita turab | 10.31.09
I don’t think people were disappointed in Clinton’s visit…at least she managed to stay here for 3 days despite security threats…perhaps the article is not too accurate in depicting pakistani women’s emotions…we are scared and nervous and fear for the future of our children…like anyone else would under these circumstances…no one is blaming the americans for what is happening here…we don’t need to look beyond our own security agencies to identify the culprits
38. Elvira Johannesburg | 10.31.09
It is simply a damn cheek to sit there with all the charm of a robot amongst the women representing the very nation you are bombing into oblivion. Surely at some point it is going to sink in that there people watching helplessly and hating more and more with each passing moment what the US has come to represent.
39. Ashraf Chaudhry | 10.31.09
Very interesting article!
First of all, Ms. Clinton would have realized that like people in the corridors of power, pakistani nation does not economize on self-respect and dignity. For them, Ms. Clinton is male or female is immaterial. Pakistani women took Ms. Clinton as US SOS. That’s it. All these women are highly educated and have attended ivy league universities. So taking them lightly and facing them without proper briefing was first mistake that Hilary made.Secondly, she thought that she is US SOS, Pakistani women are destined to appreciate her charm (if any). They treated her as SOS and asked her those questions which are banging in the minds of common citizen.
Pakistan has paid enough price of being ally of US. Talibanization has roots to Afghan war or US—USSR war. It was never a pakistani issue but it was imposed on us.
Next time, Ms Clinton visits Pakistan, she must have meeting with girls students of any college. She must not take them for granted. They will give her toughest time. Pakistani nation, rest assured, has high sense of esteem.
Regards
Ashraf Chaudhry
Sales Trainer, Author of
The Craft of Selling “YOURSELF”
40. Shane | 10.31.09
Dave in Olympia writes:
“I applaud other countries for looking to the United States for leadership and assistance but they have no real right to demand that we somehow fix thier problems.”
But what if the United States helped to cause their problems in the first place? Look at the Global Terrorism Database from the University of Maryland:
http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?chart=target&search=pakistan
(For more data, type “Pakistan” into the search here: http://www.start.umd.edu/datarivers/vis/GtdExplorer.swf )
We see incidence of terrorist attacks in Pakistan from 1970 to 2007. Terrorist attacks peaked in 1995 (695 attacks). It then fell dramatically to a low of 30 in 2001. After 2003 (the year Iraq was invaded), terrorist attacks began to increase in number again, up to 246 attacks in 2007.
Without meaning to blame the US for the many failures by Pakistan’s governments, and for violence by Pakistani terrorist groups, I can understand why some Pakistanis would be sceptical about their alliance with the US. So far it has brought a rapid increase in internal terrorism.
41. M.Ibrahim Khan | 10.31.09
Hillary Clinton’s visit can be termed a cataclysm for the world. She got her fair share of criticism. What USA has done to Pakistan can never be forgotten and what Hillary got in the form of criticism can be termed a message to all Americans who love to see other people free.
42. Tehreem Mahmood | 10.31.09
Look, the world knows that we do not have a well governed country. In Pakistan, Zardari won just cause his wife, a popular leader was assassinated. People even say that it was Zardari who was behind the murder. But, it’s just the media which makes the stories. We both know who created Taliban and why were they created. U.S. provided money, weapons (as Pakistan could not do that, it’s surviving on several aids) and both U.S. and Pakistan provided the military trainers to the Mujahideens. Now, this was all to suppress Russia and kick it out of Afghanistan. Btw, here I would like to mention that Afghanistan, in 40’s,did not favor of creation of Pakistan. But, Pakistani govt. has always supported America, no matter it’s a Democratic govt. or a rule of some Dictator. Anyways, the end was achieved. But then Bin Laden turned against U.S. And you can read the whole long history of what happened and how Bush gave Pakistani’s a choice “either you are with us, or with the terrorists” We could never have selected the other option!!
Now, the role of media is very important. Mrs. Clinton was not asked too many new questions, so she could not communicate anything else. As far as this article is concerned, people please, it on paints things bitterly. There are always people who complain. Go search the news channels of Pakistan, they appreciated Clinton’s visit and her talks with everyone in Pakistan. I dont understand why dont our media and your media take an honest analysis of each other. Why don’t you guys get news where Pakistan favors U.S. and why don’t WE get to know when U.S. does something good about Pakistanis and Muslims living in U.S.??
Please try and look beyond these news items. There is a huge part of reality we often miss to see. This is for both people living in U.S. and here in Pakistan!!
43. Mubashir ur rehman | 10.31.09
I ‘m very pleased about the act of pakistani women… It’s a wonderful article.
44. ratee | 10.31.09
She is not doing a favor on visiting Pakistan. Pakistan has suffered because of USA’s wrong policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan is suffering the most because of USA last four Presidents wrong policies. Including her revered husband. Was it not USA’s CIA that airlifted from Arab countries and helped formed and trained Al-Qaida. Then from 1989 to 2001 USA left the region and made this region fall prey to the worst law and order situation.
In 2001 after its own 3,000 citizens were killed it realized the mistake and went after Al-Qaida. Hey but that was not enough and in 2003 Bush made another mistake they sent all their major troops to Iraq, that was a war based on lies so the Al-Qaida ran over to Pakistan.
Now tell us is it Pakistan`s fault that you let them run over to Pakistan and you could not do anything since 2001 in Afghanistan.
45. syed | 11.01.09
I am not shocked we have Indians here criticizing us and calling for an end to the military. In other words, they want a Palestine or an Afghanistan bordering them, well not its never going to happen.
Also the media here is very free. We have media constantly criticizing the government, just youtube “hum sa ummeed se hain” or read editorials of major pakistani newspapers, the dawn, nation, daily times, and etc. The pakistani women constantly participate in politics (current head of parliament) and in think tanks. Before you make criticism, learn.
And Hillary Clinton deserved what she got. She comes here expecting flowers when our countrymen are dying and the world’s most POWERFUL NATION fails to control Afghanistan. ha! 75 percent of afghanistan is under taliban but at the end of the day its our,pakistani fault. Okay. go figure
46. syed | 11.01.09
Also we blame the USSR? United States?
Yea we do. Read history and learn that the reason USSR dismantled wasnt due to america’s diplomacy but through mujahadeens or taliban, who were praised back then and now ostracized. Us Pakistanis have always helped America out but we are left in the dust because we are not Israel. No one blames India (trust me, your human development is pretty similar to ours despite your 60 years of democracy) and the USSR–even the average American blames them for so much chaos.
47. msakel | 11.01.09
This is by no means a failure of Hillay Clinton. On the contrary her approach of openness and willingness to LISTEn is what gave rise to the erroneous conclusion of this hastily written piece about her not being successful. She was actually more successful than the verbose Biden or the “sweet talker” president of Hope and Change would have been in the situation which she had to face.
I’d like to see Biden and Obama attend and address these women’s thoughtful questions with Hillay’s knowledgeable patience and reserve. The two men would have not only have been total failures in communication but would not have allowed themselves to be exposed to the raw emotions of these intelligent women.
Bravo to HIllary for taking the listening tour where it was most needed…
48. mary | 11.01.09
The Sexism of this article and especially of its Headline is most unexpeced and unbecoming of this type of journal that I used to respect!
What exactly do you mean by SoS Clinton’s “Charm offensive”? Get a grip on your news reporting ’cause we are losing our patience with this neanderthal headerline hack writer you employ.
49. NarrowMinds | 11.09.09
This just proves to me that the american people no matter how nice and hospitable they are…they just don’t get it…as the article tried to say…the only reason that Hilary went over to pakistan was for a PR campaign for the american public and to try to make the pakistanis accept the kerry lugar bill(a surrender of independence in the average pakistani’s eyes, due to the wording). She didn’t go to Pakistan to listen to the average Pakistani’s concerns…in fact mainstream media is not actually mentioning the fact that by her going there and saying “Pakistan knows where Osama is etc etc” was deeply offensive, why because first and foremost this war was started in Afghanistan by America(with the execuse of capturing Osama Bin Laden) but “somehow” he managed to escape!!! Not only that but thanks to Bush and co they have caused chaos in Pakistan and as US sources indicate a Loss of $20bn ber annum to Pakistani Economy!!. not only that but they let India set up so called Consulates(where they are supplying mercenaries) to attack pakistan!!! Americans we need to wake up and realise that if the Russians were sponsoring terrosim sitting in mexico wouldn’t we be pi$$ed at the person that let them in.
50. Carl Drega | 11.09.09
I thought the article was fair and it sounds to me like the Pakistani women know how to call a spade a spade. Funny to read the feminist comments in defense of their beloved sacrosanct saint Hillary… Hillary Clinton should start a cult and follow the Jim Jones model…
Essentially the head diplomat of the (nearly bankrupt) US empire went to Pakistan (at considerable expense to the Amercan tax payer)to further (inadvertantly) undermine the precarious situation WE CREATED with our foolish military interventionism in the region. Sad that among the (American)commentary here, there is little accountability for what we have done, little consideration for the human cost to those in the region who will remain long after we have left in failure, after wasting billions of billions of BORROWED dollars. How many more enemies have been created needlessly by our violence and bullying?
FYI, 9/11 was not planned in Afganistan and much of what is broken in the region was broken by us or as an unintended consequence of obtuse US foriegn policy in the region. “We do not want to control Pakistan”? The hell “we” don’t. The “we” i.e., the U.S. government, would control everyone if it could.
51. spepper | 11.09.09
it must be put into perspective, on anything that Hillary Clinton does or says, publicly: she is building her resume’ for her campaign for president in 2012– everything must be interpreted for that purpose, and that purpose ALONE–
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
1. Twitter Trackbacks for In Pakistan, Clinton fails to charm professional women | csmonitor.com [csmonitor.com] on Topsy.com | 10.30.09
2. To The Victor Goes the Spoils And Poop Rolls Down Hill. « Dante's Inferno and Firing Range | 10.30.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. sajjad butt | 10.30.09
It’s a wonderful article.