Meanwhile .... I am not sure Kerry's trip to Pakistan went so well.

[beachmom]

I am not going to link to any articles, because the MSM ones give very little info, and the Pakistani press is, well .... ridiculous and suspect. They are supposedly pissed off about the Kerry/Lugar aid bill, but it is really just a power struggle within their own country. The military wants to one up the President. The opposition wants to one up the President so he can get power. And the press is horrible. This is the same press that seemed to praise Kerry; now they are making comments about how he talks and so forth. Frankly, the Pakistanis (and I think these press sites are mostly partisan so that is where the bias is coming from) come off as really sleazy. Yes, they are OUTRAGED that we don't want OUR MONEY being embezzled by corrupt officials like the last time and the time before that, etc. They were also VERY SUSPICIOUS of why Kerry had to go back to Afghanistan. Do they not have Google there?

One outlet said Kerry was "disappointed". Then I read on another that a reporter asked him if he was disappointed, and he said no, just "concerned". So they are just lying and distorting.

So, I don't know what to think, and am eager to get more info from a reputable source that actually does some work to get real news.

Edit: here is an example. Copy and paste, and add http://

thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=204382

It might bring up a print function, but I just X'd that out.

Okay, this one is more professional.

dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C10%5C20%5Cstory_20-10-2009_pg1_1

“As of today, it seems to me that the Pakistani leadership, civil and military”, is on the same page, said Senator John Kerry in a select briefing in Islamabad with six senior journalists. He was asked whether the Kerry-Lugar Bill and its subsequent clarification had found acceptance in the power centres of Pakistan.

Senator Kerry was on a brief visit to Pakistan because he was “concerned that a straight forward effort has been misinterpreted”. He said that the US’ statement of clarification on the KLB “could not be clearer”. He cautioned that “we should not play to cheap galleries here”. He aslo said, “if you don’t want the money, say so. We’re not forcing you to take it”.

Senator Kerry said that his meetings with civilian and military leaders had been “very positive”.

The senator was returning to the US embassy from a “brief lunch” with Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) Nawaz Sharif. Senator Kerry said that Mr Sharif had asked for “further clarification” on some points but that the senator did not see that as a problem and the meeting was “very positive”.

Actually, Kerry does sound a little contentious there. Hey, you don't want the money. FINE. Don't take it, already, and stop complaining.

And this:

Senator Kerry’s body language was weary and disappointed, although he was careful not to use such negative words. He simply said that he was in Pakistan to clarify his intention to help Pakistanis and he was “concerned” that those not be misconstrued.

He finished on a light note by saying that he had “never had so much difficulty in trying to give away $ 7.5 billion”. The unsaid subtext of Senator Kerry’s presentation was: take it or leave it.

Actually, they may have misread the body language. As in, he was weary because he had been pulling all nighters talking to Karzai, and at that point, it wasn't going well.

I'm wondering if he will need to go back to Pakistan again, since he was not able to do everything he had planned to do there due to the crisis in Afghanistan.

[karynnj]

1. I agree with you, though it is hard to figure out the vested interests

when I know little of the parties. It looks like there are several factors here -

- the military is not happy with the goal that they be subservient to the government
- the other parties may be jumping on jingoistic energy for their own gain - it also may be that some of their leaders see themselves as the person (puppet) the military could unite behind.

But, in many articles, there is a view of the world that is as Pakistan centric as we are US centric. One that I read made the case that Pakistan since the 1970s has been cleaning up messes the US creates and we owe them far more than the aid. Just as some US histories that show the US as a continual force of good, this does that with the history of that last 40 years. (No mention of AQ Khan here.)

But, the reality is that with a report that showed that less than 20% of money was used for the purpose it sent for from 2001 to 2007, there was no way not to have the provision on oversight. All of us have called for oversight. The other provisions are things they had officially committed to do. The point though was that we wanted to state that if those things changed, we could change our commitment too.

In the only video (NECN) I saw, which was the meeting with Zadari, I think the second day - Kerry was smiling and friendly and seemed .. like Kerry, which is more animated than many other leaders. I would guess that he might have been exhausted and he is planning to have a second hip operation due to chronic pain. I assume he was disappointed that he could not get more people to understand the motivation behind the bill, but even here, they say his words did not show the disappointment. I also did see some comments that they were happy that he came to speak to them to explain it. (If some of the problem is hurt pride, just going helped.)

[Inuca]

2. Interesting stuff

One more in a long list of THANKS beachmom. The "Senator Kerry’s body language was weary and disappointed, although he was careful not to use such negative words" quote sounds like one the pearls that cound have been produced by our lovely home-grown MSM, implying things he did not say just because the man probably looked bone tired. The Pakistanis are one prickly bunch, and for Kerry to say that he “never had so much difficulty in trying to give away $ 7.5 billion” is... out of character?

[wisteria]

3. I saw them, read a little and them dismissed them. It is obvious they are trying to create turmoil.

I think, but don't know for a fact, that these papers are opposition papers, who want to outset the current government or at the very least, see the government fail.

[blm]

4. as if distorting Kerry's presence will somehow give them the upperhand....

I see this more as cover for officials who want to appear tougher than they are in public while knowing full well they will comply with our policy because we are the ones standing between them and the extremists intent on taking over control of that country.

[karynnj]

7. I wouldn't dismiss them, even though they are siding with the oppisition party and the millitary

The government does support the package and has strongly defended it.

The fact is that this aid will help the people of Pakistan and that would likely be credited by many to the existing government. I suspect that the opposition parties do not want to lose the aid, but might have been hoping that the US would remove the constraints due to their opposition. They then would have a "victory" that they defended Pakistan's honor - when the government wouldn't. That would have undercut the government.

One of the articles spoke of an upcoming summit, that HRC will have chair later this month. As, some papers commented that they were happy that someone as influential as Kerry went there. I would guess that the continued attention of the US, in the person of the high profile Secretary of State, will likely further assuage their hurt pride, which was drummed up in about the same way that faux outrage is in the US.

In addition, it is very likely that Obama (and very likely Clinton) will likely commend Pakistan, if there is a case to do so on their actions to regain control of the country from extremists. In addition, in the longer term. as the projects start, they will increase the popularity of the bill.

One interesting thing I read is that an US AID officials strongly criticized the provision that projects not use beltway contractors on the project, requiring them to use local resources. In 2005 (I think at Rice's confirmation), Kerry in the SFRC criticized the reconstruction administrators because they were hiring everything from construction people to truck drivers from US contractors. Not only does this enormously increase costs, it insults the local people and there is a lost opportunity of giving Pakistanis good jobs, which will immediately help the Pakistanis. Their argument was that there is a conflict between wanting to do this fast and doing it this way rather than with the way they typically do things. This article shows me that Kerry (or Biden or Holbrooke) were willing to challenge vested interests here. I hope they have sufficient oversight that will make sure the state department does not waive this. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/1009/Dissent_Memo_USAID_official_charges_Holbrooke_Pakistan_aid_plan_flawed.html )

[beachmom]

5. Okay, now it is getting weird.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/1009/Pakistani_Foreign_Ministers_son_was_Kerry_intern.html#

Pakistani newspapers are buzzing with reports that the son of Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi works for Sen. John Kerry, man of the hour in helping resolve Afghanistan's elections dispute.

A spokesman for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee told POLITICO that Zain H. Qureshi has served as an intern in Kerry's personal Senate office. He said it was his understanding that the internship has concluded. He didn't immediately know the duration of Qureshi's work in Kerry's office.

...

Pakistani media are portraying the association between the Pakistani envoy's son and the Senate Foreign Relations committee chair as problematic, and fodder for ongoing Pakistani suspicion about recently passed U.S. legislation that provides for $7.5 billion in US assistance to Pakistan over the next five years. Pakistani military leaders have criticized the "Kerry-Lugar-Berman" bill as attempting to infringe on the South Asian nation's sovereignty. Domestic critics have also portrayed Pakistani civilian leaders including Foreign Minister Qureshi and Ambassador Husain Haqqani as complicit in giving the nod to the legislation.

I mean wow. They are full scale going after Kerry and the government in Pakistan. It reminds me of the right wing in this country. Now I don't know how smart it was to allow this kid to intern. OTOH, interns have 0% influence on a Congressional office. They are peons.

[blm]

6. I would bet it's AMERICAN sources planting these stories. The spin is heavy against Kerry

and hyped up for pure bullshit reasons. We've seen that before.

Wanna bet it's some of the same 'workhorse not showhorse' at State PR people who are always angling to distort the truth?

Just don't believe in coincidences of the last few weeks - starting with Cillizza's 'poll' and the continuing use of the words 'workhorse not a showhorse' in several recent portrayals of a certain cabinet member.

[Luftmensch067]

8. I'm curious about something

Speaking purely in the mode of believing that there are active forces working to smear JK, do you think the DLC/Clintonista and/or LW fringe Deaniac types have now overtaken the Swift Liar/Nixon Era types or are they neck and neck? I'm asking you, blm, because I think you have researched a lot of this and paid attention, but I would be interested in any thoughts anyone else has, too.

[blm]

9. Establishment DC has vested interest in diminishing Kerry because it keeps his real work off the

radar for most Americans. BCCI was the most serious matter this nation faced and much of its concerns and its consequences are still effecting this nation and still finding backlash all over the world.

Isn't it surprising how LITTLE many Democrats even know about what Kerry has done over his senate career? That cannot be just happenstance. And the left doesn't have the clout with corporate media that establishment DC has, though they do manage to repeat the spin, don't they?

Some on the left are just useful idiots to the real powerplayers who know they can easily plant a story against Kerry to whip up the left's distrust because many of them are as underinformed about his actual record as the rest of America.

[YvonneCa]

13. Exactly. n/t

[Luftmensch067]

14. Thanks, I appreciate your perspective

If I understand you: in the same way there was a bipartisan effort to stop JK's BCCI work because it threatened to expose wrongdoing at all levels and on both sides of the aisle, there may a bipartisan effort to discredit JK on the same lines now. Not something organized, with both sides working together, but efforts that are effective in tandem. "Establishment" Washington being people and institutions from both parties who have a lot to lose. And I agree that there are those on both the left and the right who are used, in their ignorance or out of their own wish for attention and celebrity, to amplify the message, as Nixon used O'Neill. I suppose the MSM are also used, sometimes with their eager participation, sometimes because they haven't bothered to do the research.

[karynnj]

10. I would be interested to here BLM's response

My take is that the attacks are very different and only most of the RW and some elements of the far left deserve the word "smear".

The DLC/Clinton people mainly pushed things that are subjective - thus can be said to be inaccurate, rather than blatant lies, much less smears. In addition, they are not attacks on his character or morality. The main things I would list from them are:

- that Kerry has few legislative accomplishments and related things like the comments that his skills to be Secretary of State were weak. (The latter was blown away this week and the former never was true but likely will be blown away this year as well)

- Kerry is boring, uninteresting (Gail Collins should admit that Kharzi did not dislike talking to Kerry)

- Kerry's 2004 campaign was weak and he didn't fight the SBVT as well as the Clintons would have.

The Deaniacs seem less of a problem over time, though there are still some who never will forgive him for beating Dean. Like the Clinton people, the vast majority of them do not attack his character, intelligence (other than on politics - which is strange as he soundly beat Dean) or morality. Their attacks tend to be:

- He was for the war or that he voted for the IWR
- He joined the others in the 527 ad against Dean - even though it was never proven that he had anything to do with it and it was not likely at the time it would have been planned that he would benefit - Gephardt, the favorite of the unions who paid for most of it, was.
- Kerry's 2004 campaign was weak and he didn't fight the SBVT as well as Dean would have. (because telling Karl Rove that you did not want to be a pin cushion would have really worked)

The far lefties cover a huge range. Some of them are as virulent as the right wing (including all the S&B idiots) In addition to them, there are people, who buy the Nader views - and ignore that Nader himself thought better of Kerry than the other Democrats he ran against. Their attacks:
- Cave to corporate interests
- Bought by the corporations (with links to open secrets to prove he raised a lot of money)

Then you have the extreme anti-war people, who call everyone not for "out now" a war monger. The fact is there is a legitimate disagreement here - and Kerry is not for immediately leaving and his reason is pretty clear - he completely thinks it will be a catastrophe. Some accusations are smears.

Now, some of the anti-war and other lefties, actually are attacking, but as the same time wanting him to lead their cause - to get out of the wars or single payer.

[blm]

15. heyjohn, questioning Kerry's motives for filibustering Alito, backstabbing over a dropped pronoun

the Clinton booktour that defended Bush vigorously from the very criticisms Kerry as NOMINEE was making against Bush. Even the undermining of Ned Lamont to protect Lieberman.

I don't believe in coincidence because these people have their own roles in BCCI's coverups that need to stay hidden.

[karynnj]

16. Your right - I forgot all those more or less covert actions Thanks (nt)

[fedupinBushcountry]

11. I think you are right

Of course and it is Politico, which I have never trusted, lots of wannabe's in that organization. I mean Kerry was in Pakistan in April, where was this story then?

[wisteria]

17. I will say there has been a big PR push for this cabinet member the last 2 weeks.

But, this PR often appears before and after this cabinet member's appearances and interviews. I would also consider the suggestion by one news interviewer that it seemed this cabinet member was being marginalized may have set off some additional promotion of this said cabinet member.

[blm]

20. exactly the observations I've been making myself....sometimes quietly....

and sometimes not. ;)

[karynnj]

12. I am not sure that having the kid intern really is a problem

It did give a person likely to be in the ruling class at some point a real glimpse of the American government. We need people who understand us well enough to reject the demonizing that has been prevalent. It is harder to do that when you know real people as who they are. In addition, this was his private office - so I would imagine that the kid learned was constituent services. That is not a bad thing for a young man who may likely himself have returned to get a low level job in Pakistan's government.

In terms of influencing either Kerry's decisions or the kid's dad's, it seems far fetched. It likely did improve the Pakistans's trust of Kerry and the Democrats, which does help as we need Pakistanis who can vouch for our motives. (Kerry spoke of Kennedy saying politics was personal - here international relations are too. Without the mutual respect of Kerry and Kharzi, I doubt Kerry would have been given the hours of access to him.

I know I sound like the Edwards people claiming the press went after him because they feared him, but I would think that the main reason that bill is being attacked so hard is that the opposition and army see it as something that will strengthen the government - which means they lose some power. As to why Kerry is targeted over Lugar and Berman, it seems it is because he directly tried to answer the complaints before the trip and during it. However, the army and the opposition had no problem meeting with him and those meetings sounded cordial - which is better than their relations with Holbrooke.

[TayTay]

18. critical sentence here:

Pakistani military leaders have criticized the "Kerry-Lugar-Berman" bill as attempting to infringe on the South Asian nation's sovereignty.

Bingo, give that reporter a cigar. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!

The Pakistani military are the ones accused of being corrupt, being in league with the Taliban and using the crisis in Afghanistan as a hedge against India.

John Kerry's actions threaten that. Should the promised aid actually do some good in Pakistan, then that threatens the military and the ISI guys who have been accused of funding the Taliban and undermining the efforts to secure peace.

Pakistan is a country at war with itself. The military is not a military like the US has that is assumed to be subordinate to the civil and elected authorities. They need a populace in thrall to them and to have their own sources of funding, some of it drug money, in order to stay in power.

Now, how is this aid threatening that? Isn't that the friggin point of aid? No wonder the Pakistani press, depending on the side they are internally on in Pakistan, is squawking over Kerry. "Methinks the Lady doth protest too much," as some stray Bard once said.

[beachmom]

19. Thanks for your perspective, Tay. Also, don't forget the opposition

who are just trying to score political points, even though if they were in power they would take the $$ in a NY minute.

Still, I long for a good long article on this from a more reputable source in the next weeks. The Pakistani press did not impress me here.

[karynnj]

22. Tay, yours seems the shorter version of this WP article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102204396.html

[beachmom]

21. Oh, this is a GREAT twitter page:

http://twitter.com/AfPakChannel

From Foreign Policy mag.

[beachmom]

23. A couple of good articles on the FP site about the aid package:

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/09/whos_to_blame_for_the_pakistan_aid_bill_fiasco

"Who's to blame for the Pakistan aid bill fiasco?"

A lot of blame to go around, apparently, including Biden/Kerry/Lugar, the Pakistani embassy in DC, the press in Pakistan, and the Pakistani military.

Next one is about Kerry's trip and a new provision passed in the Senate while he was gone:

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/22/new_pakistan_aid_conditions_could_spark_fresh_tensions

Kerry was there to reassure Pakistanis that the U.S. was not infringing on their sovereignty after the botched rollout of the $7.5 billion Kerry-Lugar-Berman aid package angered many in Islamabad. Conditions on the relatively small proportion of military aid in that bill were not well received, and sparked a harsh reaction from both the Pakistani military and anti-American political elements there.

With that situation largely ameliorated, the Senate may have given Kerry a new headache today. There are several conditions on billions of dollars in U.S. aid to Pakistan found in the fiscal 2010 defense authorization bill that has just now gone to President Obama's desk for signing.

After giving details of the new provisions, the writer ends this way:

If I were Kerry, I wouldn't put away my travel toothbrush just yet...

You know what, guys? Not everything is a conspiracy theory. I think there is inherently going to be issues with restricting aid (especially since Pakistan was used to there being no restrictions), and I also think aside from the other parties involved who did not do all they could to have this go smoothly, Kerry could have done a better job as well predicting how the bill would play locally in Pakistan. This new provision, of course, is not his fault, but he will be stuck picking up the pieces for it.

[karynnj]

24. A different Pakistani take on KLB

The point that most catches my interest is the point that the things they objected to were in the House or Senate bill - and those bills were public (on Thomas even). IMO, if they really were as bothered by them, they could have lobbied in those 4 months before the final bill was created to eliminate them then.

The comment on signing statements is less annoying than it would have been in Kerry's case, as he has gotten his share of praise this week - but he and the others did work hard at this. One loss is that Obama would have highlighted that it represented a change in philosophy.


http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\10\23\story_23-10-2009_pg3_2

[karynnj]

25. Detailed description of the meeting with the Pakistani newsmen

http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=204382

[beachmom]

26. That's the one I partially linked to upthread. I don't like it one bit.

[karynnj]

27. Sorry - I must not have clicked on that one

I don't like it either. The fact is that Holbrooke and our Ambassador should have communicated that bill when it passed both houses. The fact that this blew up right before Obama had to sign it to have it done before the donor conference blindsided Obama. Kerry took some of the brunt of it because he was the one there and his name is on it. He seemed to handle a hostile press as well as could have been done.

That whole Pakistan trip had to be disappointing, especially given the motivation of Biden, Hagel and Kerry. It had to be tough that everyone there gave him grief for the bill.

What I don't like is that, at one point, before Kerry was there Ambassador Patterson blamed "the language" of the bill - at a point where it had already passed both Houses of Congress. Holbrooke also seems to be spinning his role in Afghanistan with his allies in the media. (Not surprising as he looks bad in all of this.) There was a Clinton statement today that they were going to work on getting Pakistan to understand the bill. Now, over a week ago Kerry gave the Pakistani media a myth/fact sheet - after this blew up - which was more than anyone else did. This really was something Hollbroke and Patterson should have learned earlier to protect HRC and Obama.