No Means No. Maybe!

While there may be no longer any combat troops in Afghanistan after 2011, this does not mean that no troops will be there. There could very well be still quite a few non-combat troops devoted to training etc. and these troops could very well be involved in combat in self defense. The article makes no mention of this issue nor of course did Prime Minister Harper. This is from the Globe and Mail.

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 9:48 AM
No means no, PM tells Clinton
Jane Taber

Prime Minister Stephen Harper told U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this morning that Canada’s combat mission in Afghanistan ends in 2011.

Mrs. Clinton did not ask that Canada keep troops in Afghanistan past the 2011 deadline, a Harper official told The Globe. Rather, the issue came up as the two were speaking about issues in Iran and Afghanistan.
“In the discussion on Iran and Afghanistan the Prime Minister reiterated [Canada’s position],” a senior Harper official said.
Mrs. Clinton made headlines across the country yesterday when she said in an interview with CTV that the United States wanted Canada’s military to stay beyond its deadline.

Pakistanis confront Clinton over drone attacks

As with many other US officials Clinton seems completely insensitive to the anti-Americanism that is rife in Pakistan. Quite the contrary she pours more fuel on the flames. Of course it is standard for US spokespeople to say nothing about the drone attacks. They never even officially admit to their existence it would seem. They are like Israeli nuclear weapons except in the case of the drones they are regularly used. In some cases they are even claimed to have eliminated militant leaders although they also no doubt kill innocents. The questioner is probably c0rrect. However it is not possible to state action to be terrorist at least if it is by the good guys! Terrorism is by definition an epithet applicable only to bad people especially bad people who lack weapons of mass destruction.

Pakistanis confront Clinton over drone attacks

Clinton confronted by Pakistanis over Predator drone attacks _ 'executions without trial'

ROBERT BURNS
AP News

Oct 30, 2009 18:46 EST

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton faced sharp rebukes from Pakistani audiences Friday, including one woman who accused the U.S. of conducting "executions without trial" in aerial drone strikes. Slapping back, Clinton questioned Pakistan's commitment to fighting terrorists.

"Somebody, somewhere in Pakistan must know where these people are," Clinton said in an exchange almost as blunt as her exasperated comments a day earlier that Pakistani officials lacked the will to target al-Qaida.

Her stormy three-day visit, rocked at the start by a terrorist blast in Peshawar that killed 105 Pakistanis, revealed clear signs of strain between the two nations despite months of public insistence that they were on the same wavelength in the war on terror.

By speaking bluntly about the Pakistanis' failure to find and eliminate top al-Qaida leaders — eight years after they were run out of Afghanistan — Clinton appeared to be trying to prod the Pakistanis to go beyond their current military campaign against internal militants in South Waziristan.

Pakistan's army recently launched a major offensive in the border area to clear out Pakistani Taliban elements from hideouts there. But two earlier army efforts made little progress there — leaving questions about the military's resolve to tackle al-Qaida head-on.

Clinton's tough talk on Pakistan's apparent inability to root out al-Qaida also appeared to be aimed at reminding the country's civilian and military leaders that the assault on Pakistani Taliban elements in South Waziristan would not be finished unless al-Qaida too was targeted. She noted explicitly that the Taliban militants there are "in league with" the terror group that fomented the Sept. 11 attacks.

"After South Waziristan is finished, the Pakistanis will have to go on to try to root out other terrorist groups, or we're going to be back facing the same threats," she warned.

During the visit and talks with Pakistani leaders, Clinton found herself repeatedly on the defensive from ordinary Pakistanis brimming with resentment toward U.S. foreign policy.

During a live broadcast of an interview before a predominantly female audience of several hundred, Clinton struggled to avoid describing the classified U.S. effort to target terrorists, and still try to explain the efforts of American foreign policy.

One woman asked Clinton how she would define terrorism.

"Is it the killing of people in drone attacks?" the woman asked. Then she asked if Clinton considered both the U.S. missile strikes and militant bombings like the one that killed more than 100 civilians in the city of Peshawar earlier in the week as acts of terrorism.

"No, I do not," Clinton replied.

Another man said bluntly: "Please forgive me, but I would like to say we've been fighting your war."

But she was also on an offensive of her own, coiled with pent-up frustration about Pakistan's incremental handling of terrorists. The sentiment was quickly echoed by other U.S. officials, including on Friday in Washington by White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.

As she sparred with Pakistani citizens and journalists, Clinton faced sharp questions about the secret U.S. program that uses unmanned aircraft to launch missiles to kill terrorists along the porous, ungoverned border with Afghanistan.

But she refused to go into detail about the classified strikes that have killed both key terror leaders and bystanders, long a source of outrage among Pakistan's population despite an equally deadly campaign of militant-spawned bombings.

Asked repeatedly about the drones, a subject that involves highly classified CIA operations, Clinton said only that "there is a war going on." She added that the Obama administration is committed to helping Pakistan defeat the insurgents.

Before flying Friday to the United Arab Emirates for consultations with Palestinian leaders on Mideast peace prospects, Clinton appeared to slightly temper her earlier comments that some Pakistani officials knew where al-Qaida's upper echelon has been hiding and had done little to target them.

....A top Pakistan official insisted Friday that his country is fighting back against militants. "We have decided to fight back," said Interior Minister Rehman Malik, who joined Clinton at a police training center.

American voters to have say on NAFTA

It certainly is a great idea to open NAFTA. Open it and throw it in the garbage. NAFTA is not a free trade agreement so much as an agreement that Canada will supply oil and natural resources on sweetheart terms to the U.S. and an agreement that we must share those resources with the U.S. It also challenges our ability to have an independent economic policy that might go counter to corporate interests. The dispute mechanism almost always shafts us with the softwood lumber conflict. No doubt the Americans haven't a clue about all this. The forces that want further integration of the North American market are not about to jettison NAFTA. This is pure rhetoric. Seems to me that at one time the Liberals were going to renegotiate NAFTA! This is from the National Post.

Thursday, February 28, 2008
American voters to have say on NAFTA
Job Losses Mount
Janet Whitman, National Post, With Files From News Services Published: Thursday, February 28, 2008
NEW YORK - Blaming free trade for an exodus of good jobs, about a dozen activists gathered outside Hillary Clinton's senate office here on Tuesday before some were carted off by police.
Similar feelings about free trade are running high across the United States amid a growing belief among many Americans that trade with other countries is hurting the economy.
The sentiment has made free trade -- in particular the nearly 15-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico -- a front-burner issue for U.S. presidential candidates such as Ms. Clinton.
The New York Senator and rival presidential contender Barack Obama ratcheted up their anti-NAFTA rhetoric during a televised debate on Tuesday night in Cleveland, which has been hit hard by the loss of manufacturing jobs. Each candidate pledged to pull out of the trade agreement unless changes are made to the deal.
Economists interviewed yesterday said they don't believe the Democratic candidates are simply pandering to voters, including blue-collar workers in the Midwest where manufacturing job losses have taken a big toll.
Instead, with the increasing cries against it here, NAFTA will probably end up back on the bargaining table if either Democratic candidate is elected president, economists predicted.
"If you ask who won or lost across North America, it is obvious that NAFTA encouraged and accelerated the redistribution of wealth upward in all three countries," said Jeff Faux, founder of the Economic Policy Institute, a labour-oriented think-tank in Washington, D.C. "How much so is open to debate. But I think most people--even those who think it was a good idea -- acknowledge that NAFTA was oversold."
Beyond agreeing they would like to see tougher labour and environmental safeguards, Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama have been vague on details about what changes they would seek.
Besides rejigging NAFTA, the two presidential hopefuls have called for a time out in the negotiation of new free trade pacts. Neither candidate is believed to be interested in encircling the country with protectionist walls.
Once in office, they could take the action to "opt out" of NAFTA within six months if Canada and Mexico refuse to strengthen labour and environmental provisions and change an aspect of the agreement that favours corporate interests too much.
The candidates' apparent focus on labour and environmental standards suggests Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama are mainly concerned about Mexico.
But opening NAFTA up to renegotiation could end up putting any issue on the table.
In Ottawa yesterday, federal Trade Minister David Emerson hinted at that possibility, saying Canada could seek its own list of concessions -- including on the topic of oil.
As part of NAFTA, Canada is forbidden from rationing oil exports to the United States in the event of a supply disruption or global shortage, unless the same cutbacks are forced on Canadians.
"Knowledgeable observers would have to take note of the fact that we are the largest supplier of energy to the U.S. and NAFTA has been the foundation for integrating the North American energy market," Mr. Emerson told reporters.
"When people get below the rhetoric and pick away at the details, they are going to find it's not such a slam-dunk proposition."
Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty suggested in comments to reporters yesterday morning that Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama may not be completely up to speed on the trade agreement.
"NAFTA is of tremendous benefits to Americans, and perhaps the nominees have not had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the benefits to Americans and the American economy," Mr. Flaherty said in Toronto.
"There's a tendency to say it favours Mexico, or it favours Canada, rather than to recognize the mutual benefits that come out of free trade."
Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama, once strong supporters of free trade, have changed their views on NAFTA in recent years.
Ms. Clinton, who helped her husband, Bill Clinton, lobby for the ratification of NAFTA while he was president, said she became a critic when she ran for the U.S. Senate in 2000.
Mr. Obama acknowledged that during his Senate campaign in 2004, he had said that NAFTA brought huge benefits to his state of Illinois.
As they started campaigning for president, their rhetoric about NAFTA has become increasingly harsh.
Mr. Obama now says, "I don't think NAFTA has been good for Americans, and I never have."
Ms. Clinton says, "You know, I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning. I didn't have a public position on it because I was part of the [Clinton] administration."
Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks