Clinton Downplays Karzai Comments
Thursday, October 27, 2011 at 4:14PMBy Lisa Kellman
During an appearance Thursday before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attempted to downplay Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s claim that his country would side with Pakistan if the neighboring nation was threatened by the U.S.
Amidst uproar from many congress members, Clinton assured that America and Afghanistan were on good terms.
President Karzai and I had a very productive meeting when I was in Kabul last week” said Clinton, “We are making progress on a lot of issues and we are coordinating closely on both fighting the insurgents and trying to test out this Afghan-lead reconciliation.”
After Clinton heard Karzai’s comment, she sent Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Afghanistan, to uncover the truth behind the statement. Karzai, he reported, was talking about the long history of cooperation between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
“It was not at all about a war that anyone was predicting and it was both taken out of context and misunderstood,” said Clinton.
Clinton informed the committee that during her recent visit to the middle east, she explained to Pakistan and Afghanistan the need to fight terrorists like the Haqqani Network and build capacity and opportunity for lasting stability and security.
Committee members, however, continued to voice concerns over America’s future relations with those in the region.
“Its hard to be optimistic” conceded Committee Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. “All the options on the table appear deeply unappetizing. All run the risk of being ineffectual, counterproductive, or both.”
“It was not at all about a war that anyone was predicting and it was both taken out of context and misunderstood,” said Clinton.
Clinton informed the committee that during her recent visit to the middle east, she explained to Pakistan and Afghanistan the need to fight terrorists like the Haqqani Network and build capacity and opportunity for lasting stability and security.
Committee members, however, raised concerns over America’s future relations with those in the region.
“Its hard to be optimistic” conceded Committee Chairman Ros-Lehtinen on the future of Americas relations with the middle east. “All the options on the table appear deeply unappetizing. All run the risk of being ineffectual, counterproductive, or both.”
Gaza War: Should the U.S. step in?
In a House Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs hearing today titled, "Gaza After the War: What Can Be Built on the Wreckage?" witnesses and officials expressed their concerns on the Gaza war and whether or not the U.S. should interfere and step in to help.
The war in Gaza escalated when Hamas, a Palestinian national-religious group succeeded in the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) elections in January 2006. The conflict in Gaza began because Hamas opposes a two state solution. In a report given by witness, Dr. Ziad J. Asali, President of the American Task Force on Palestine, it states, "The Palestinian Ministry of Health reported that between December 27, 2008 and January 31, 2009, 1,380 Palestinians had been killed, including 431 children and 112 women. A majority of those killed were reportedly civilians." There was also discussion about Iran and if the U.S. should urge them to stop providing Hamas with financial and military supplies as well as training.
Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CODEPINK said, "I feel so discouraged because in that hearing not only most of the witnesses but from the questions of the congress people, you continue to see a sense that Israel was justified... There was very little expression of sympathy for those who died and were injured. Thousands and thousands have lost their homes and their livelihoods. There was unanimous consent that we shouldn't talk to Hamas and I think we should always talk to our adversaries and I think that it was a very disappointing hearing."
Congressman Gary L. Ackerman (D-NY.) expressed his concerns about the U.S. getting involved and said, "Over the past six years there have been many plans and many envoys. And contrary to popular opinion, there hasn't been a deficit of attention, merely a deficit of performance. Commitments made to the United States, or between the parties, have often been honored only in the breach. The timing was never right. What was promised was not delivered. There was always a provocation, an incident, an upcoming election, a crisis, an attack. And so it is again today."