Stand United with Bhutto, Aung San Suu Kyi and Hillary Clinton.

As many of you are aware that ex Pakistan PM Benazir Bhutto has just escaped a narrow assassination attempt. What a courageous woman!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21344367/


Two explosions went off Thursday night near a truck carrying former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto on her celebratory return to Pakistan after eight years in exile. Police said she was unhurt, but hospital officials and witnesses said at least 108 others were killed and more than 150 wounded.

An initial small explosion was followed by a huge blast just feet from the front of the truck carrying Bhutto during a procession through Karachi. The blast shattered windows in her vehicle. Neither Bhutto nor any of the others riding on the truck was hurt, police officer Hasib Beg said.

Karachi police chief Azhar Farooqi told Dawn News that Bhutto was rushed from the area under emergency plans prepared ahead of her return.

"She was evacuated very safely and is now in Bilawal House," Farooqi told Dawn News television, referring to Bhutto's residence in Karachi.

Police suspected one of the blasts was caused by a suicide attack, a senior government official said. A senior Pakistani official told NBC News' Bob Windrem that the attack was "definitely suicide bombing."


The truck carrying Bhutto was designed to withstand an attack.

Bhutto had stood in plain view on top of the vehicle, ignoring police advice to stay behind its protective glass, as the vehicle edged through crowds. More than 150,000 jubilant supporters had surrounded the convoy carrying Bhutto amid massive security in Karachi.

It was the second time Bhutto escaped an assassination attempt. The first attempt was by al-Qaida in 1993. There have been at least three unsuccessful attempts on the lives of Pakistani leaders since 2003.

Ms. Bhutton is a very strong woman, she's well aware of such risks, but she's not afraid at all.


Authorities had urged her to travel in Karachi by helicopter to reduce the risk of attack. But Bhutto, hated by radical Islamists because she supports the U.S.-led war on terrorism, brushed off the concerns.

"I am not scared. I am thinking of my mission," she had told reporters on the plane. "This is a movement for democracy because we are under threat from extremists and militants."

Bhutto recently courted controversy in Pakistan by saying that she would cooperate with the American military in targeting Osama bin Laden, and authorities warned that Islamic militants could launch suicide attacks and roadside bombings against her.

Asked about such threats on Wednesday in Dubai, Bhutto said Islam forbids suicide bombings and attacks on her. "Muslims know if they attack a woman they will burn in hell," she said.

She is steadfast in cooperating with international community in fighting terrorists. This woman is so strong, it almost makes me puke to think about the boneheaded declaration regarding Pakistan uttered by Obama several months ago.


"I counted the hours, I counted the minutes and the seconds, just to see this land, to see the grass, to see the sky. I feel so emotionally overwhelmed," said Bhutto, who wore a white headscarf and clutched prayer beads in her right hand. "And I hope that I can live up to the great expectations which people here have."

She said she was fighting for democracy and to help this nuclear-armed country of 160 million people defeat the extremism that gave it the reputation as a hotbed of international terrorism.

"That's not the real image of Pakistan," She said. "The people that you see outside are the real image of Pakistan. These are the decent and hardworking middle-classes and working classes of Pakistan who want to be empowered so they can build a moderate, modern nation,"

http://www.newsweek.com/id/56740
Terrorists have not been able to deter Bhutto's return, and I am pretty sure it will not deter her from winning a landslide victory in the upcoming election!


Bhutto herself is a tireless campaigner, and her party is the only one with a true grass-roots organization. That's a formidable combination. "She's the popular leader of a popular party," says Amir. "She knows how to work the hustings, and no one can match her charisma on the campaign trail." As she rode atop a custom built RV, waving at the lively crowds of bearded men, workers, merchants, lawyers and even society women lining her route in Karachi today, it was clear her prime ministerial campaign was underway.

This is a dangerous world, and I'm so proud we have such strong women politicans such as Bhutto, Aung San Suu Kyi and Hillary Clinton fighting for their people everyday.

Let's pray for the health and safety of these courageous women leaders. Let's pray for a peaceful Pakistan under Bhutto's leadership, let's pray for Hillary's history-making victory next year and let's hope Aung San Suu Kyi will finally lead Burma to democracy!

The burden is upon these strong women's shoulders, and I'm sure they will not disappoint us.

Bhutto.

Aung San Suu Kyi

Hillary Clinton:



Display:


Re: Stand United with Bhutto!! (none / 0)

btw, i'll take those strong women politicians over those male whimps any time.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:36:51 PM EST

Re: Stand United with Bhutto!! (2.00 / 1)

You really don't understand anything going on outside of the borders of the US do you?  Benazir Bhutto's position on Waziristan and Musharraf's acquiescence in her return with that platform actually reinforces the position which Obama took on the subject, she sees the tribal areas as a threat to Pakistan's stability as well as a base of operations for al-Qaeda.  She's got a point.  But Bhutto is a player, though a democratic populist, and was an early supporter of the Taliban in Afghanistan, though apparently for altruistic geopolitical motives.

Her return is a turning point for Pakistan and Musharraf, to be sure, and these historical enemies are now confronting a mutual threat to Pakistan's existence from Islamists.  That these two would be drawn together at this time is an indication of just how serious the situation has become.  Osama bin Laden has recently declared jihad in Pakistan and it has always been the end-game for al-Qaeda.  We will be watching events there very closely in coming months.  I am grateful she has survived this first attempt on her life but suggest it is just as likely to have originated within the Pakistani military establishment as outside of it.


by Shaun Appleby on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:04:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stand United with Bhutto!! (none / 0)

I've heard some people suggest that the attacks might have come from within the ISI as opposed to al-Qaeda, but really, as far as some elements of the ISI are concerned, there's not much difference at all.  One radical jihadist is as good as another.

Recall that Anwar Sadat was assassinated by members of his own military, but in fact, some of those individuals are the same folks we call al-Qaeda today.  Very hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys in that part of the world, with all the factions and sectarian divisions.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:13:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stand United with Bhutto!! (none / 0)

Well, that's right, and just for the record:


In January 1993, the United States placed Pakistan on the watch list of such countries which were suspected of sponsoring international terrorism. This decision was made in part because the current head of the ISI in 1993, Lt. Gen. Nasir, had become a stumbling block in American efforts to buy back hundreds of shoulder-fired, surface-to-air FIM-92 Stinger missiles from the Afghan Mujahideen and was assisting organizations such as Harkat ul-Ansar, which had been branded as a terrorist organization by the US. Once Nasir's tenure as ISI chief ended, the US removed Pakistan from the terrorism watch list. The ISI is also suspected to have been involved with the hijackers of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, having paid the ringleader Mohammad Atta. After 9/11, ISI was purged of members who did not support President Pervez Musharraf's stance towards the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Wikipedia - Inter-Services Intelligence

Food for thought there, eh?  The power shifts and allegiances within the ISI are crucial and a slender thread is holding Pakistan together at the moment.  It is probably the nation which potentially poses a significantly greater threat to us than Iran.


by Shaun Appleby on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:24:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stand United with Bhutto!! (none / 0)

I wouldn't be surprised that the attack came from within. But I do support Bhutto. I think she is a woman of courage and vision and the best chance Pakistan has to turn things around.


If it's good enough for Joey it's good enough for Hillary! Like two peas in a pod.
by Hillary Lieberman on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 09:00:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stand United with Bhutto!! (none / 0)

I think we all support Bhutto in this.  And Musharraf too, for that matter, as he is the only one who can keep the military from deposing her yet again if elected.  There is still a Constitutional problem with her serving another term but I wonder if that will be an obstacle.  First prize is that she stays alive for now.


by Shaun Appleby on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 09:18:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stand United with Bhutto!! (none / 0)

Recall that Anwar Sadat was assassinated by members of his own military, but in fact, some of those individuals are the same folks we call al-Qaeda today.

Not just some folks, but the mastermind of Al Qaeda -- Zawahiri, who got his start in the assassination of Sadat.


by hwc on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 10:40:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stand United with Bhutto!! (1.00 / 1)

It is nice that you don't even try to hide your sexism. It is good that everyone know that avid supporters of Hillary Clinton are sexist pigs.


If it's good enough for Joey it's good enough for Hillary! Like two peas in a pod.
by Hillary Lieberman on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:58:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

sick (none / 0)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/18 /154541/44

Reading dailykos' diary on Bhutto makes me sick to death. They bash Bhutto to death and make all sorts of excuses for terrorists. This is exactly what's wrong with these extremists.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 07:47:46 PM EST

Re: sick (2.00 / 1)

I had to fact check you, since you've acquired such a reputation for making things up.

I saw very few negative comments in the diary.  A handful made reference to the allegations of corruption from her previous tenure in Pakistan.  Perhaps this was the most pointed:

What's the alternative though?

Corrupt, incompetent "democratically elected" politicians who rob the country and religious fundamentalists who pretty much want to make anything that could possibly fun illegal.

I hate that we're a dictatorship, but I've lived under the alternatives, and this is the most stable I've seen my country. My city was a battleground during the Bhutto years, with sectarian and ethnic violence tearing it apart. And after she and her husband ran away with half the country's treasury, Sharif came into power and tried to impose some strict Islamic laws in the country and almost started another war with India.

Oh and now the REAL religious fundamentalists want to ban music, dancing, immodesty, immorality, women in the public sphere and anything remotely connected to the West... oh and they support the Taliban, which should make for "stable" foreign policy.

Presumably this comment comes from a Pakistani who has a right to express an opinion regarding her own country.

As for comments "making all sorts of excuses for terrorists"... admit it.  You completely made that up out of nowhere.

As to the point of this diary, I doubt Hillary would deem herself nearly as brave as those two women, and I would agree with her.  You can't compare anything a politician goes through in this country with those two situations, not even close.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:09:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

New leaders (none / 0)

I would like to see Aung San Suu Kyi instated as the Prime Minister of Myanmar, hopefully peacfully (maybe a non-violent coup).

As for Bhutto, Pakistan is already on thin ice. Giving Bhutto a third term as Prime Minister, which is still unconstitutional, will give Al Qaida all the more reason to overthrow the country. I really don't want to see terrorist with a nuclear arsenal. If she does become Prime Minister, better hope she has as much luck as Musharraf, he has survived four assassination attempts?


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:13:35 PM EST

Re: New leaders (none / 0)

Bhutto has also survived two assassination attempts. There will be an election soon, and Bhutton is almost a shoo-in. She's hated by Al-Quaida. She said in public she would welcome U.S. to go into Pakistan to go after terrorists, which is one reason the tension is so high. Remember OXXX's ridiculous rebuke of Musharraf in public several months ago. How can anybody take this Oxxx seriously. I'm livid thinking about this courageous woman, thinking about that empty suit sitting in a comfortable couch making all sorts of ridiculous comments to stir up the trouble in that country.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:20:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New leaders (none / 0)

Don't you get it that Bhutto's position is a vindication of Senator Obama's comments?  That the power sharing deal with Musharraf is an acknowledgement that al-Qaeda is operating from Waziristan and that it is a threat to Pakistan's stability?  That Musharraf and Bhutto are agreeing, in essence, with Obama's position, in spite of the sovereignty issue?  Sheesh.  Stick to women's figure skating.


by Shaun Appleby on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:30:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New leaders (none / 0)

Your candidate has no clue whatsoever. Pakistan is always an extreme unstable place. It's extremely irresponsible for Oxxxx to pour fuel into the fire in order to score some political points and show his 'macho'.

This guy is a terrible empty suit and a whimp.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:43:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

asdf (2.00 / 1)

"This guy is a terrible empty suit and a whimp."

Hillary is an opportunistic war-monger


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:47:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New leaders (2.00 / 2)

I don't think you see that he was actually speaking reality to the situation.  Musharraf, who has been playing politics within the Pakistani military establishment for years had reached the end of the road.  The Pakistani army was unwilling or unable to make any effective impact on the ability of al-Qaeda to establish a base of operations in Waziristan and regroup.  The notion that we were effectively fighting our true enemies in Iraq, or even Afghanistan, while turning a blind eye to Waziristan in deference to a less-then-credible ally wanted addressing and Obama addressed it.  His position was immediately and quietly adopted by Democrats and Republicans alike, including Bush.  The Emperor was not wearing any clothes.  And you missed it.

I think Obama demonstrated he can see through the very fictional rhetoric intended for public consumption and identify the real issues affecting our current predicament.  Perhaps you should to.


by Shaun Appleby on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:51:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New leaders (none / 0)

Theres a slight difference though Shaun --

Bhutto would work with the US in Pakistan, and the US wont have to go in UNILATERALLY.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 03:33:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New leaders (none / 0)

Yes, the best of all possible outcomes, assuming she survives to do so.  Instead we just unilaterally told Musharraf his survival depended on a power-sharing arrangement with her.  Much better.  But it was still Obama's statement, out of the blue, which drew our national attention to the situation in Wazirastan and the mockery it made of our 'Global War on Terrorism,' our sworn opponents harboured and regrouping under the sovereign protection of one of our foremost allies.  With this controversial comment, which you will note everyone quickly echoed, including Bush, Obama has already had a small impact on our foreign policy, as a candidate.  I look forward to more of the same.

C'mon, how much attention was this issue getting before his remarks?  And he is still criticised for it?  Most people had never even heard of Waziristan.


by Shaun Appleby on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 06:43:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New leaders (2.00 / 1)

It is one thing to read some of the nonsense that sprouts from your fingers but it is UNBEARABLE when you can't even spell the words correctly when you make your ridiculous statements.

The word is spelled WIMP.


If it's good enough for Joey it's good enough for Hillary! Like two peas in a pod.
by Hillary Lieberman on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 09:08:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New leaders (none / 0)

Maybe you should understand the history of the word "wimp" and "whimp" before you insult people.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 11:19:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New leaders (none / 0)

wimp  (n.) 1920 (but not attested again until 1960), perhaps a clipped form of whimper (cf whimp, 1549), perhaps influenced by J. Wellington Wimpy, comparatively unaggressive character in "Popeye" comics. Wimpy (adj.) is from 1967.


by Shaun Appleby on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 11:36:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

subtlety (none / 0)

For someone so attuned to the subtle jabs from Putin you seem remarkably ham-handed when it comes to the "If ... Musharraf will not act, we will" quote. Such a statement would damage Bhutto's position in Pakistan as much as it did Musharraf's, it was just a dumb thing to say. No U.S. politician disputes the veracity of Obama's charge that Al Qaeda is in tribal areas of Pakistan, the problem is that it makes it more difficult for our allies in Pakistan, Musharraf or Bhutto, to work with us. If Hillary said it you would say it was stupid and demonstrated her hawkish tendencies.


by souvarine on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 12:36:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: subtlety (none / 0)

Not so.  And Bhutto's stated position advocating, or at least supporting, US military action in Waziristan is almost exactly aligned with Obama's remarks.  Read his speech in full again.  Obama's remarks were timely, almost prescient.  He took a risk, but not of toppling Musharraf.  Obama sent him a reminder notice that his account was overdrawn.  The Bush administration was asleep at the wheel.


by Shaun Appleby on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 06:31:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: subtlety (none / 0)

You're still missing the difference between:

"But if there was evidence, my first reference would be to go in myself and if ... there was a difficulty on that I would like to co-operate with the Americans."

and

"If ... Bhutto will not act, we will"

A statement like Obama's from us would rightly outrage Bhutto and Pakistan and would eliminate any chance of co-operation. It is not fundamentally different from Bush's demand that Saddam eliminate his WMD or we would invade. It's an ultimatum that makes it almost impossible for the target to comply with.


by souvarine on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 02:33:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: subtlety (none / 0)

It would today.  But the point is Senatore Obama was speaking in a situation where the Bush administration had been talking up Pakistan as an ally and soft-peddling the overwhelming evidence that al-Qaeda was regrouping.  The NIE which asserted this was the trigger.  The abandoned Pakistani 'offensive' into Waziristan was followed by a diplomatic stance by Musharraf that is hard to describe as anything but 'live-and-let-live.'  This is the environment Musharraf had created and it is hard not to imagine he was caving to internal pressures within his own military and intelligence establishment.  Obama called him on this, and rightly so.  The Bush administration was getting nervous, especially after the NIE summary was made public, but they weren't doing anything about it.  But the die was cast with the storming of the Red Mosque, Musharraf knew he was on borrowed time.

Musharraf was already walking a tightrope, sure, but that is not a good enough reason to put up with his duplicity.  Having Bhutto aboard is his best chance of survival.  And he can keep the army from deposing her, it could work.  And the statement she made earlier this month, thanks for the link, was just part of the deal, wasn't it?  Senator Obama's remarks were certainly timely and correctly premised, he may even have nudged things along a bit for having made them.


by Shaun Appleby on Sat Oct 20, 2007 at 03:58:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Aung San Suu Kyi: Peace angel. Hillary/Bhutto: Not (none / 0)


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 08:44:42 PM EST

We need Hillary (none / 0)


This horrible attack again tells us we need Hillary badly for the nominee. Just imagine a terror attack next year and democrats nominate either Edwards or Obama. These guys will likely destroyed by GOP machine since they look so weak.

Hillary is the only democrat who's tough enough to deal with such circumstances.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 10:10:43 PM EST

Re: We need Hillary (none / 0)

I honestly think you're trying to turn people off from supporting Hillary.  That's the only conclusion I can draw from this over the top diary and these offensive comments.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 10:39:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We need Hillary (none / 0)

Well make sure to let Henny Penny and Chicken Little know...  You don't seem to understand that Bhutto's arrival in Pakistan is the end-point of a successful move to counter the jihadist threat which was far more dangerous before this deal was cut with her.  That this is a vindication, not only for Obama, but for our recent policy along those lines seems obvious.  That the bombing occurred and that she survived it is, if anything, respectively evidence of the accuracy of our assessment and a confirmation of Musharraf's authority and loyalty to the power-sharing strategy.  I think you need to look more closely at this.  Keep your fingers crossed she survives the election and assumes her intended role.


by Shaun Appleby on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 10:43:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

clinton (none / 0)


"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, `What if? What if?' " Clinton, a New York Democrat, told a house party in Concord, according to the New York Post and The Associated Press and confirmed by her campaign.

"But, if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world."

Clinton added that if such a scenario occurred, she is the best Democratic presidential candidate "to deal with that."

Obama & Edwards are weak on defense, Iran, and fighting terror, voters will never trust any of them to deal with such situation.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 10:18:35 PM EST

Re: clinton (none / 0)

Well, if you say so.  I thought Obama's timely and, once again, prescient comments on Pakistan were pretty compelling evidence that he was not only cognisant of the threat at the time but willing to enter the arena of public debate to focus some attention on it.  Now Bhutto is publicly agreeing with him and coming home to do something about it.  How does this disqualify him, again?  And Hillary is somehow the heroine in all of this?

Really having trouble following you on this one.


by Shaun Appleby on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 10:49:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Have you no shame? (2.00 / 1)

What a surprise: only hours after a terrible tragedy some person is already trying to spin that tragedy into naked political advantage for an American presidential candidate. Have you no shame, areyouready?

Maybe I should write a diary with the title "Stand United With Bhutto, Aung San Suu Kyi and Barack Obama" and in that diary mount slanderous attacks on Hillary Clinton next to pictures of a courageous woman that was almost killed today, and insinuate that to support a candidate that is not Barack Obama is to support the assassination of world leaders.

But no, I think I am better than that.


by Korha on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 10:46:46 PM EST

Re: Have you no shame? (none / 0)

I think areyouready's diary, and rhetoric, is based on the assumption that his/her intended audience knows as little about the situation as he/she does, which is apparently next to nothing beyond that Hillary and Benazir Bhutto are women and a bomb went off.


by Shaun Appleby on Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 11:04:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bhutto, (none / 0)

Pakistan's former prime minister Benazir Bhutto is escorted from her truck after a bomb explosion in Karachi, Pakistan.

She appeared to be quite calm.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 12:22:16 AM EST

Bhutto (none / 0)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/world/ asia/19pakistan.html?pagewanted=1&_r =1&hp


Ms. Bhutto, who had spent eight hours on the roof of the truck behind a bulletproof shield waving to supporters, had climbed inside the armored vehicle 10 minutes before the blasts occurred just before midnight, said Rehman Malik, her security adviser and close associate.

She was immediately taken to Bilawal House, her home in Karachi. The parade through the city had been scheduled to end several miles away at the tomb of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan.

Ms. Bhutto's arrival at 2 p.m. had drawn huge crowds, perhaps 200,000 or more, who danced on top of buses and surged forward as she inched her way for hours through her home city.

The strong outpouring provided an emotional homecoming for Ms. Bhutto and political vindication of sorts for a woman twice turned out of office as prime minister, after being accused of corruption and mismanagement

In words that later seemed prescient, she spoke strongly about terrorism and the need to save Pakistan from extremism. "The time has come for democracy," she said. "If we want to save Pakistan, we have to have democracy."

She has been outspoken against militants and Al Qaeda and repeated the same comments as she flew in. "The terrorists are trying to take over my country and we have to stop them," she said.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 12:24:17 AM EST

Christina Fernandez (none / 0)

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner seems certain to win Argentina's presidential election on October 28th FYI


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Oct 19, 2007 at 03:44:19 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.