Showing posts with label Zbigniew Brzezinski. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Zbigniew Brzezinski. Show all posts

Friday, December 20, 2013

Hillary, We've Got Your Back!

It is routine for news outlets that are less than objective to grasp at thoughtless remarks by centrists and loose canons on the other side of the political aisle.  That Newsmax swooped down on this ridiculous comment like a Spring robin on a worm is not surprising.  It is infuriating and reprehensible, however, that Zbigniew Brzezinski provided this fictional ammunition to those who are always at the ready to denigrate anything and everything Hillary Clinton does, has done,  or sets out to do.

Brzezinski: Hillary May Have Been Focused on 2016 as Sec. of State


Thursday, 19 Dec 2013 10:56 AM
By Wanda Carruthers
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have been too focused on a potential run for president in 2016 to have effectively negotiated the recent peace deal with Iran or other matters, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski suggested Thursday.
"You can't help but wonder, was she more cautious because she thought, would she have been comfortable negotiating the Iran deal going into 2016?" Brzezinski said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
"My point is, [if] she's being cautious because she's thinking of 2016, then she's thinking about the wrong things while being secretary of state," the former adviser to President Jimmy Carter added.

While there have been many times when it has been necessary to mount a defense here against right-wing and Tea Party operatives,  it is unusual to have to defend Hillary's record against someone supposedly on her side of the divide.  If this were coming from Jennifer Rubin (see refutation of her assessment of Hillary's legacy here), for example, I might have shrugged it off at this point since, like The Ancient Mariner, she continues repeating the same refrain ad nauseam.  It comes, however, from someone who should know better, has some credibility in some quarters, and therefore requires correction.

Hillary Clinton was never a shrinking violet on issues relating to Iran, not on their nuclear aspirations and not on their human rights record.  Here are some links that support this statement dating back to 2009.

Video: Secretary Clinton’s Remarks on Iran

September 24, 2009

Secretary Clinton: Further Remarks on Iran

September 26, 2009

Video: Secretary Clinton’s Remarks on Armenia, Iran, and Honduras

March 6, 2010

Three video shorts: Hillary Clinton in Estonia on Iran, Kyrgyzstan, and Syria

April 25, 2010

Videos: Hillary Clinton’s Remarks on North Korea and Iran

May 25, 2010

Secretary Clinton’s Remarks on the Anniversary of Iran’s Disputed Presidential Election

June 12, 2010

Secretary Clinton’s Statement on Passage of Iran Sanctions Legislation

June 25, 2010

Hillary Clinton Speaks Out For Sakineh, Gays, and Greens in Iran

August 10, 2010

Hillary Clinton Speaks Out Against Persecution of Religious Minorities in Iran

August 12, 2010

Secretary Clinton’s Statement on Deteriorating Human Rights Situation in Iran

February 24, 2011

Video: Secretary Clinton Announces Changes to Iranian Student Visa Validity

May 20, 2011

Secretary Clinton’s Statement: Repression in Iran and Syria

June 14, 2011

Secretaries Clinton & Geithner: Joint Statement on Iran Sanctions

June 23, 2011

Secretary Clinton Commends IAEA Resolution on Iran

November 20, 2011

Secretary Clinton: Measures to Increase Pressure on Iran **Video**

November 21, 2011

Hillary Clinton: Significant Reductions of Iranian Crude Oil Purchases

June 11, 2012

China and Singapore Earn Clinton Credit on Reducing Iranian Crude Imports

June 28, 2012

Hillary Clinton’s Statement on Iran

September 14, 2012
Clearly,  Hillary Clinton leaned hard on Iran throughout her tenure at the State Department.  To suggest that she was pussy-footing flies in the face of the record.  To say that as Secretary of State she calibrated her actions according to a distant future campaign that remains imaginary to this day badly insults her strong performance on many fronts, not just Iran.  That this comes from a voice perceived to be within her own camp and the party in power as she carried out these policies is treacherous and dangerous in that the audience receiving this message is inimical to the progress of the administration she represented in this position. 

A last, and important factor that Brzezinski failed to address is the transfer of power within Iran since Hillary stepped down.  She was dealing with Ahmedinejad.   Secretary Kerry inherited the groundwork she laid with a hard line on sanctions (that worked) and a new, reform leader whose openness to a kind of glasnost was apparent from the beginning.

It is facile and pointless to compare the performances of these two secretaries of state.  It borders on slander to design a scenario wherein Hillary Clinton was operating not out of loyalty to her oath but rather out of a political ambition imagined by someone purportedly on her own side of the fence. 

Brzezinski is dead wrong on this.  He is wrong about the facts, and he is wrong to have invented a back story the intent of which only could have been to tarnish the record of a fine public servant who deserves our thanks for her very dedicated, selfless work for all of us.  These were graceless remarks.  He should retract them and apologize for misrepresenting Hillary Clinton based on no fact and no knowledge whatsoever.

Hillary!  We've got your back!

12-06-13-Z-21a

Sunday, January 24, 2010

The Supply Bottleneck: There is no magic wand

When I am home, I have been sticking to news channels. I watch local news in the evening and switch to CNN at prime time, and all day during the weekend. I keep hearing the same remarks from Sanjay, Anderson, Evan, etc. That the supplies are not flowing quickly enough. Over the past week, in the foreign press, I was seeing accusations of what I guess you might call "disaster imperialism" against the United States. Has it only been a week since Hillary Clinton flew down there to Port-au-Prince, met with President Preval, and formalized the Haitian-American agreement that the U.S. military would command the Toussaint L'Ouverture Airport? Yes, only a week.

The logistics involved in commanding this airport are staggering. It is a one-airstrip airport. Haiti was never the tourist attraction that Jamaica, Bahamas, Barbados have been. There was never before a NEED for more than one airstrip. But now, the entire global village of humanity is trying to send relief to Haiti on every kind of plane imaginable, which is admirable and heart-warming, but also problematic from a logistical standpoint. It seems certain types of bodies require certain types of off-loading equipment, and also certain wide-body planes present other kinds of problems for those running the airport. A post at Dipnote, Airfield Support in Haiti by Colonel Buck Elton, Commander of the Joint Special Operations in Haiti, goes a long way toward explaining the challenges involved in moving people and supplies, not to mention the air traffic of this enormous relief armada.

Here is some of what Colonel Elton has to say:


"We developed a ground plan and we made an offload plan to assist the Haitian material handling equipment personnel in offloading all the supplies that started coming in on Wednesday."

"We are operating out of an airfield that does not have electricity, phones or computers or anything other than what we brought in with us when we arrived that first day. I want to emphasize the point that we are still operating that way. We have combat controllers who work 12 hours shifts in the sun and the grass...."

"...this airfield is 10,000 feet long. It has one taxiway in the middle of the airfield. It’s a single in/single out operation. You cannot take off and land aircraft at the same time. It’s one and one."

"We have a ramp that is very small and it will only hold up to 12 aircraft of varying sizes. We can only handle one wide-body aircraft at a time. We’re limited primarily by our civilian material handling equipment that offloads the cargo. It takes up to five hours to offload a 747 or an AirBus 330 because we don’t have enough [equipment] to offload it.

"Approximately three medium sized aircraft, 737 type, and we have again, limited equipment to offload it. C-17 aircraft, although they’re a large category, their wing span is not quite as wide as some of the wide bodies, and they are specifically designed for rapid offload of cargo which we can use military equipment for."


This post, and I encourage you to read the whole thing, gives a very clear explanation of the challenges involved in moving this effort on a daily basis. Even as I am writing this, Zbigniew Brzezinski is talking to Fareed Zakaria as if we ARE the only country helping, and while denying it (sort of) somehow also implying that we are occupying Haiti.

How many times does it have to be said? We are commandeering the flow of air traffic in Port-au-Prince, not in Jacmel, by the way - I believe Canada is in charge there, and not in Cap Haitien. We are not, repeat NOT occupying Haiti. The Haitian government is in charge. Given the challenges of Toussaint L'Ouverture Airport, it's a thankless task that our guys and gals are doing with all their hearts. So let's all back off on this supply bottleneck complaint. There is no magic wand for this.