Pakistanis Harangue Clinton, Reveal U.S. Imperialism

When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Pakistan late last week for a three-day public relations tour, upon meeting with leaders of Pakistani society a general outburst of anger and incredulity became desperately apparent.

When pressed by one Pakistani whether a U.S. drone attacks violate the judicial process and qualify as terrorism, Clinton carefully paused and relayed, "No I do not." The Star Tribune reports a drone attack killed nearly 100 civilians in Peshawar earlier last week.

Another man respectfully remarked, that Pakistanis feel they are fighting America's war. Clinton could offer little sympathy after a Washington Post article intimated Obama very well may send an addition 15,000 U.S. troops to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region where Al-Qaeda terrorists are suspected of hiding.

Moreover, with the announcement yesterday of the pullout of Afghan presidential candidate Abdullah Abdullah of the Nov. 7 retrial "election" after massive vote-fraud perpetuated by President Hamid Karzai was discovered, public legitimacy of U.S. interference in the region is reaching an all-time low. Little hope the partisan-politique smash-up Mrs. Clinton could offer. Instead of attempting true diplomacy, her style of negotiation only offers ultimatums and forced partnerships as acceptable solutions in working with other nations.

Most notably, famed Pakistani journalist Sana Bucha of GEO-TV interviewed Secretary of State Clinton. The Star Tribune reports that she scolded Clinton, instructing er that, "It is not our war, it is your war [...] You had one 9/11, we are having daily 9/11s in Pakistan."

Sadly, western mainstream media marginalized Bucha's heroic stand by only vaguely identifying her as "a woman."

Clinton did not participate much better as conversation indicates. The Star Tribune noted she tersely replied to passionate concerns over extrajudicial U.S. surprise drone executions. Attempting to allay worries, Clinton could only remarked that, "there is a war going on."

These real concerns can no longer be marginalized as people around the globe are now screaming for state leaders to recognize and address these grave inequities. For a great nation who in the past aimed to take the moral high ground, that same concept, now in perverted form, is used to justify mass-executions of innocent bystanders. In some twisted sort of morality, even the unfathomably evil is fair game.

45,000 to Afghanistan

Yesterday, the BBC broke the story that United States President Barack Obama has already decided to send 45,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan according to an unidentified source of the British government. That would push U.S. presence in Afghanistan to well over 110,000 soldiers, an increase from the 10,000 who overthrew the Taliban in 2001, and an increase from the 40,000 who were stationed there in 2008.

While White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs denied this claim, this potential decision would put the number of U.S. troops occupying both Iraq and Afghanistan in 2010 at an astounding 260,000. At the height of troop levels under former President George W. Bush, there was a maximum of 180,000 soldiers in the two nations.

The jury has spoken, but where is the judge?