INTERVIEW: Hillary Clinton on 60 Minutes!

I haven'te even seen this interview yet but I know it's out there and I want to share it! It looks UH-MAZING and a few of my friends that saw it (who aren't even Hillary fans) said it was really, really great. Can't wait to watch! Let me know your thoughts, guys!

Full Interview Scott Pelley follows Hillary Rodham Clinton as she performs her duties as secretary of state and questions her on the latest developments in foreign policy and the recent terror scare in New York's Times Square.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Extra: Terror & Citizenship Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the bill in Congress that would strip U.S. citizenship from terrorists.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Extra: Pakistan & Terror In The U.S. In the aftermath of the attempted Times Square bombing, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discusses the United States' relationship with Pakistan.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Extra: Hillary's Future How long does Secretary of State Hillary Clinton plan on staying in her job as the nation's top diplomat? And, is there another run for the White House in her future?

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Extra: Inside Secretary Clinton's Office Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gives Scott Pelley a behind the scenes look at her private office.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Extra: Critiquing Secretary Clinton What's it like working on international issues with Secretary of State Clinton? Scott Pelley gets a frank assessment from French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and British Foreign Secretary David Miliband.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Extra: Secretary Clinton's Goals & Fears What Secretary of State Clinton hopes to accomplish and what she fears the most.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Extra: Hillary On Daughter Chelsea's Wedding Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talks about her daughter Chelsea's upcoming wedding.

Watch CBS News Videos Online Read entire post

Clinton interviewed by CNN's Candy Crowley

Sunday Secretary Clinton sat down with CNN's Candy Crowley and took part in a really great, long interview.

Topics discussed ranged from, of course, Haiti, including Bill's role, Afghanistan and Pakistan, North Korea and Iran, all the way to the Super Bowl and Chelsea's Wedding dress.

Here is all is below taken from a fellow Hillary fan's YouTube page. Worth the watch!!

Click below to read the FULL transcript:

QUESTION: First of all, thank you so much. It's an honor to have you on this first show. I wanted to talk to you first about the past month. We have seen a would-be terrorist frighten a lot of people on a plane over Detroit, we have gotten Usama bin Ladin's tape, and we have now been warned by the U.S. Government that it is certain that there will be an attempted attack on the U.S. or on Americans in the next one to six months. Is there a reason Americans should not look at that and think the risk factor is up?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Candy, first of all, congratulations on your new show. I really wish you well. You have a lot to contribute to Sunday morning television.

I think what's fair for Americans to think is that we have had a continuing threat from al-Qaida and related terrorist organizations over many years now. It hasn't gone away. We have contained it. We've worked very hard to do so. But over the last six months, we have seen attacks foiled, people arrested and charged, so that you have to be constantly vigilant. And that's what everybody working in this government at all levels attempts to do.

In the last month, because of the high-profile attempt on the airplane, people's attention became very focused. But a bin Ladin tape is nothing new; it comes and goes depending upon when he decides to do it. But I think it's really important for people to just go along with their daily lives. I mean, you can't be deterred or discouraged or fearful about what's happening, and we just have to do everything we can to keep America safe.

QUESTION: Can you give me a feel for is the risk higher, is al-Qaida stronger now than a year ago?

SECRETARY CLINTON: It's very difficult to make that kind of assessment because they've always been plotting against us. I was a senator from New York on 9/11. I was honored to serve the people of New York until I took this job. I thought about it every day. I got intelligence every day, somebody was thinking about that or we picked up information about a plot there. So to me, who has followed this very closely since 9/11, I don't see them as stronger, but I see that they are more creative, more flexible, more agile. They evolve. They are, unfortunately, a very committed, clever, diabolical group of terrorists who are always looking for weaknesses and openings, and we just have to stay alert.

QUESTION: If they're more agile and more clever, are there more of them? And doesn't that sort of add up to more risk?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I don't know if there are more of them. We have certainly degraded their capacity in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We know that. As the President said the other night, we have killed and captured a significant number of al-Qaida's top leadership as well as people in the Taliban organizations in Afghanistan and Pakistan who cooperate with them.

We see some new areas of threat emanating from Somalia and Yemen. But whether that's now in the cumulative greater, or whether because the numbers in Afghanistan and Pakistan have decreased, it's about the same but with the unfortunate fact that they are committed to killing and destroying innocent people in their own countries as well as around the world, including the United States.

QUESTION: While we're in that region, let me ask you about Afghanistan. U.S. troops cannot get out of there unless there is a stable Afghan Government. Hamid Karzai, as of this point, does not have a full cabinet. They are now trying to bring in not just foot soldiers, bring them back into the fold, not just Taliban foot soldiers, but some higher-ups. Do you have any doubt in your mind that Hamid Karzai can get his act together and put together a stable government?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think that the strategy that the United States and more than 44 countries are pursuing in Afghanistan obviously requires that we have a good partner in President Karzai and the Afghan Government. That doesn't mean that we'll always do what he wants or he will always do what we want, but we do expect to see a level of competency and capacity.

QUESTION: Have you seen it?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, actually, there are areas of very positive cooperation. He may not have a full cabinet, but the cabinet members he has are people who many of us view as honest and effective, productive. We work with them on a daily basis - the defense minister, the finance minster - people who are really producing results for Afghanistan.

I've spent a lot of time with President Karzai, most recently about a 90-minute one-on-one conversation in London. I think he has really stepped up since his second inaugural address. He laid out a roadmap there. He is trying to follow that roadmap. But I always remind myself that, what, five or six years into a new nation that has no history of democracy, let's be realistic about the kind of support that this new government and the president needs. So I think we have to put this into a more balanced perspective. It's neither as bad or as good, just like most of life and most of the situations I deal with around the world. And I think we have developed a much stronger understanding and partnership in the last year going forward.

QUESTION: So no doubts that Karzai is the man to pull this together?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, he is the president of the country and I very much respect the authority that he has. He has asked for help, most recently at the London conference, but he also has his own ideas, as do the Afghan people. So in any relationship with any country, think of some of our oldest allies like France or England, you're not always going to get 100 percent agreement, but you work with the leaders and you work with the people. We're not yet turning the corner, but we are sort of inching our way forward to being able to do so. So I think, on balance, we are in this with people and countries who are committed to the same outcome.

QUESTION: Shall we leave the Karzai doubt question on the table?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I mean, I don't agree with any other single leader in the world. I mean, I don't - I mean, obviously, we have a lot -

QUESTION: I just think that's a little different from are you a little worried that he's not going to be able to pull this off. And I pursue it only because that's the only way U.S. troops are going to get pulled out.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, but see, I think that we have looked at President Karzai through a lens that is not rooted in reality. I mean, we do business with leaders all the time, some of whom are great American allies, that have a lot of questions raised about them. But we do an assessment: What's in the best interest of America? What's in our national security? What advances our interests and our values? What keeps Americans safe?

And so why should we take one leader out and put him apart from all the other leaders we deal with and raise all those doubts, instead of saying, look, we've got work to do and we're doing it. We are doing it day by day and I think we are making progress.

QUESTION: I wanted to bring your attention to something that President Obama said in his inaugural a little more than a year ago: "We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." Has Iran unclenched its fist?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No.

QUESTION: How about North Korea?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, not to the extent we would like to see them. But I think that's - that is not all to the story. Engagement has brought us a lot in the last year. Let's take North Korea first and then we'll go to Iran.

In North Korea, when we said that we were willing to work with North Korea if they were serious about returning to the Six-Party Talks and about denuclearizing in an irreversible way, they basically did not respond in the first instance. But because we were willing to engage, we ended up getting a very strong sanctions regime against North Korea that China signed onto and Russia signed onto and right now is being enforced around the world.

QUESTION: Did the extended hand of the U.S. help in any way that you can point to?

SECRETARY CLINTON: It did. Because we extended it, a neighbor like China knew we were going the extra mile and all of a sudden said you're not just standing there hurling insults at them, you've said all right, fine, we're willing to work with them. They haven't responded, so we're going to sign on to these very tough measures.

Similarly, in Iran, I don't know what the outcome would have been if the Iranian Government hadn't made the decision it made following the elections to become so repressive. But the fact is, because we engaged, the rest of the world has really begun to see Iran the way we see it. When we started last year talking about the threats that Iran's nuclear program posed, Russia and other countries said, well, we don't see it that way. But through very slow and steady diplomacy, plus the fact that we had a two-track process - yes, we reached out on engagement to Iran, but we always had the second track, which is that we would have to try to get the world community to take stronger measures if they didn't respond on the engagement front.

QUESTION: I want to turn to Haiti for a minute. We're in there with a lot of people. They're doing a lot of talking, and what they're finding is Haitians saying we wish the American Government would come in here and take over because they don't think their government is capable in the post-rescue period of rebuilding Haiti. What's wrong with that idea?

SECRETARY CLINTON:Candy, I'm very proud of what not only our country has done, both our military and particularly our civilians and our new USAID Administrator Raj Shah - everybody has just stepped up and performed admirably. So have other countries. This has been a global response. But the fact is there is a legitimate government with authority in Haiti despite the -

QUESTION:A really weak government.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, the fact is that we were working with them before the earthquake. One of my goals as Secretary of State, which the President agreed with, was for us to work with that government and try to help them implement a national development plan. And we had spent a lot of time on that. In fact, what's so tragically ironic is that, literally, the night before the earthquake, on PBS there was a - the NewsHour had a long segment about the progress that was being made in Haiti under this very same government. Unfortunately, all of that was upended by the earthquake.

What we're doing along with our international partners is to work with the Haitian Government so that there is a mechanism for coordination. They have to be part of it because they have the legal authorities. Unless a government or a bunch of governments is going to occupy Haiti, which would have all kinds of very unfortunate implications, we have to help support the Haitian people and their government. There's a lot of talk going on, a lot of conference calls flying back and forth, the trip that I made to Montreal for the conference, and I'm confident we're going to come up with a system.

QUESTION: UN envoy to Haiti, you may know, is Bill Clinton.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I do know.

QUESTION: I'm just curious how that works exactly. Does he give you reports? Does he call up and say, "Hello, Secretary of State?" (Laughter.) And really, who's the boss here?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, he was appointed, again, months and months ago and was working on the private sector. He had brought hundreds of business people from around the world to sign contracts to employ people in Haiti. And now he's been asked by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to continue and enhance his role because of the earthquake.

He talks to the people who I work with. He doesn't - it's not me. It's Raj Shah and Cheryl Mills and all the other teams.

QUESTION:He doesn't say, "Give me the big Kahuna here?"

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, I mean, he talks to people who are really working on this 24 hours a day. Obviously, we talk about it, too. We have a special place in our heart for Haiti, having gone there during our honeymoon many years ago. And it's a place that is captivating. The people are so resilient and they deserve so much better than what they've gotten over their history. And I think Bill is committed, as I am, to doing everything we can.

QUESTION: If you were to say to the American people this country is the most dangerous to Americans and to the U.S., where is that country?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Candy, in terms of a country, obviously, a nuclear-armed country like North Korea or Iran pose both a real or a potential threat.

QUESTION:And you're convinced Iran has nuclear -

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, no, no. But we believe that their behavior certainly is evidence of their intentions. And how close they are may be the subject of some debate, but the failure to disclose the facility at Qom, the failure to accept what was a very reasonable offer by Russia, France, and the U.S. through the IAEA to take their uranium, their low-enriched uranium and return it for their research reactor. I mean, there's just - it's like an old saying that if you see a turtle on a fencepost in the middle of the woods, he didn't get there by accident, right? Somebody put him there. And so you draw conclusions from what you see Iran doing.

But I think that most of us believe the greater threats are the transnational non-state networks, primarily the extremists, the fundamentalist Islamic extremists who are connected - al-Qaida in the Arab Peninsula, al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, al-Qaida in the Maghreb. I mean, the kind of connectivity that exists. And they continue to try to increase the sophistication of their capacity, the attacks that they're going to make. And the biggest nightmare that any of us have is that one of these terrorist member organizations within this syndicate of terror will get their hands on a weapon of mass destruction. So that's really the most threatening prospect we see.

QUESTION: When you look at the biggest success in the past year for the open hand, where is your - I mean, the Middle East is still pretty much a mess despite some really bright minds over there trying to work it out. We've talked about Iran and North Korea and others. Where is there success of specifically engagement?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Again, I would say that this has been a very successful year for the following reasons. First, it's almost hard to remember how poorly much of the world viewed the United States when President Obama came into office. And both his election and his persona, combined with the approach we took of seeking to find the basis for engagement on mutual respect and mutual interest, has really created a much more open, receptive atmosphere. We are working in many difficult situations in every continent, but I think we're being received in a positive way, which gives us a better chance to find common ground.

Now, I am fairly realistic about foreign policy, and countries don't just give up what they view as their interests in order to make nice with you. It takes a lot of effort. But I really feel that the engagement was the first stage. We had to change the mindset of not just leaders but of their populations. We are moving toward a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia, something that has been a high priority with us. We have reset our relationship. The Russians have been very positive in discussions about sanctions on Iran and on many other important matters. I'm not sure that would have been predicted a year ago. We do have a very comprehensive engagement with India, with China, with other big countries, from South Africa to Turkey to Brazil, and we are working together on areas of mutual interest or where the United States can be a facilitator.

So I think that when I look back on this past year, I see a lot of positive trends. Now, this year, 2010, has to be a year of implementing and building on the positive foundation that we've built.

QUESTION: A quick question on healthcare, which seems to be stalled, which - and that's probably the best we can say about it. Are you getting a little deja vu watching this? (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it's really hard. It is a complex issue that touches everybody about which both people and interests have really strong feelings. But I haven't given up yet and I know the White House hasn't given up and I don't think a lot of the members of Congress have given up, so I'm not sure that this last chapter has been written.

QUESTION: Have you called anybody on the Hill or have you talked to the White House? Are you dispensing the wisdom of your time trying to figure this out?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, when I'm asked, I am very happy to respond. I mean, it's not anything I have direct responsibility for, but I've had a number of conversations and both in the White House and on the Hill and with others who are playing a constructive role. And I, like I think many Americans, hope that there can be a positive outcome.

QUESTION:So I want to do a quick lightning round with you. First of all, Colts or the Saints?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, I don't answer football questions because, to be honest, I don't follow it. Now, if my husband were sitting here, he would give you a very long exegesis as to why one team was better than the other, but I'll just leave it to see what happens at the Super Bowl.

QUESTION: In between talking about Haiti, he doesn't say I need you to root for -

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, no, because neither of them are our teams. I mean, there's not a New York team. I mean, so we're just interested observers.

*QUESTION:* Who are watching the game with or are you on the phone with foreign leaders?

SECRETARY CLINTON:Well, if they call me, I'm on the phone with them. Otherwise, it'll be my family.

QUESTION:And finally, just as the mother - recently the mother of a groom, as the mother of the bride, have you found that dress yet?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, if you don't tell anybody, Candy, we're still looking. Yeah, and it's a new status for me being an MOTB, but I'm very proud to have that status.

QUESTION:Good luck on the search. That's all I have to say. As you know, it's -

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. But your son - you didn't have to go buy a dress, so that's good. That was not part of -

QUESTION: Exactly. So no Chelsea dress either.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't have a dress yet, no, and Chelsea doesn't either. But we're working on it.

QUESTION: Well, good luck. And do you think it's - which is harder, Middle East peace or negotiating this wedding? (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON:Well, I'd probably call it a draw about now. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, good luck with both, actually.

SECRETARY CLINTON:Thank you.

QUESTION: I really appreciate your being here.

SECRETARY CLINTON: And good luck to you.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

SECRETARY CLINTON: You're welcome. Read entire post

The Interview Issue: Hillary Clinton and Henry Kissinger chat with Newsweek

Don't forget to grab a copy of this week's Newsweek Magazine. It is The Interview Issue and has a great interview with Hillary Clinton and Henry Kissinger, as well as a nice long interview with Bill Clinton. Here is the online clip from the magazine.

A Meeting of the Diplomats: Hillary Clinton and Henry Kissinger talk about presidents, priorities­--and the difficulty of winding down wars

Meacham: What has surprised you most since becoming secretary of state?

Clinton: Well, probably the intensity of the work. It's just a 24/7 job. It sounds almost banal to say, [but] it's a really big world out there, and the United States has responsibilities practically everywhere. And the nature of the challenges we're facing are not only bilateral and multilateral, but they are transnational. One of the biggest challenges for me personally is to keep trying to present an affirmative agenda, not a reactive one, because you could end up being kind of an inbox secretary of state. You are never off duty. Because you land, you begin to work, and you go the next place and you land and begin to work. When you come back, your inbox is a foot high.

Kissinger: That is very comparable to my experience. I had been national-security adviser before I became secretary of state. So I saw the issues that reach the White House and the issues that reach the secretary. The issues that reach the White House are most frequently strategic, while as secretary of state, as Hillary has pointed out, there are as many constituencies as there are countries with which we have relationships. So at the end of every day you almost have to make a decision—whom are you going to insult by not dealing with his or her problems? [Clinton laughs.] Because there's no possible way you could get through. It's a job that requires 24-hour attention.

One of the problems of government is to separate the urgent from the important and make sure you're dealing with the important and don't let the urgent drive out the important. Another challenge one has as secretary is that I think it's the best staff in town, but it's also the most individualistic staff …

Clinton: Mm-hmm.

Kissinger: … in town. With so many constituencies, to get them to work toward a coherent goal is a huge assignment for the secretary.

Clinton: It is.

Kissinger: Even though I had been in the White House for four years before, I didn't realize the magnitude of it until I actually got to the seventh floor [of the State Department].

Clinton: I would add to what Henry said that in addition to the urgent and the important, you try to keep your eye on the long-term trend lines because what is neither urgent nor important today might become one or the other by next year or the year after. And that's a whole different set of skills that is required. I'm always reaching down into the building and saying, "What are we doing on energy security and independence? What are we doing to work with Europe so that they will come up with a common policy through the EU on their own energy needs? What are we doing on food security?" There were riots last year. You look at changing climate patterns, migration patterns. Food is going to become more and more of an issue. What are we doing on pandemic disease with the H1N1 danger, with the problems that global health presents? An area that we're beginning to pay attention to, which is not in the headlines, is the Arctic. With the melting of the ice, with sea lanes opening that were never there before, or only-seasonal lanes becoming more all-weather, with five countries ringing the Arctic, which is an ocean, not a land mass like Antarctica. With Russia saying that they are going to have an expedition next year to plant their flag on the North Pole. With Canada saying, "No, you'd better not." This is an area that we have to pay real attention to, but it's not an area that I get called about by reporters or have to answer questions about at the White House yet.

So there's a matrix of issues. It is exactly how I think about it: the urgent, the important, and then the long term.

How important is the relationship between the secretary and the president?

Clinton: Oh, I think it's critically important. First of all, it's critical to the formulation of policy and the giving of advice and having the perspective of diplomacy and development at the table when decisions of moment are made. Speaking for myself and I think other secretaries with whom I've spoken, including Henry, it is such a key relationship that you really have to invest time and effort in it. I work closely with not only [national-security adviser] Jim Jones but also [Defense Secretary] Bob Gates. But at the end of the day, it's that sort of funnel; the tough decisions end up in the Oval Office. And you can't just walk in and say to the president, "Here's what I think you should do." It takes a lot of thought and effort. I meet with the president one-on-one once a week. I'm in other meetings with him with the national-security team. It's a constant conversation.

Kissinger: I fundamentally agree—the relationship of the president and the secretary is absolutely key. The State Department has a tendency to insist on its prerogative that it is exclusively entitled to conduct foreign policy. My view is that when you assert your prerogatives you've already lost the bureaucratic battle. I saw the president every day when we were both in town because I felt it was absolutely essential that we thought along the same lines. I was lucky. I had extraordinarily close relationships with the two presidents I served. In fact, if one looks at the history of the secretaries of state, it's rare. If they don't have a close relationship, they don't last.

Clinton: What I have found hardest to balance is the amount of travel that is expected today. One would think that in an era where communication is instantaneous, you would not have to get on an airplane and go sit in a meeting. But, in fact, it's almost as though people are more desirous of seeing someone in person.

Kissinger: Because they have to have explained to them what is really being thought, which you can't put through cables.

Clinton:You can't. And because press coverage, with all due respect, often raises fears and anxieties that are not rooted in any decision process. People sit around in capitals all over the world reading tea leaves, trying to make sense of what we're doing. We have to go and meet and talk and listen, and it is a challenge to manage all of the relationships you have to manage when you're on an airplane as much as I am these days. But that's why having the trust and confidence of the president means that you can do the travel, check back in, report back in without worrying that you're not on the same page because you've talked at length about where you're headed before you go.

I think that, of course, countries make decisions based on their own assessment of their national interests. But part of what you can attempt to do when you've developed a relationship is to offer different ways of looking at that national interest, to try to find more common ground. And it's going to be a more likely convergence if the person with whom you're talking feels that they've already developed a personal understanding of you and a personal connection with you. And I've spent, as Henry has, an enormous amount of time just building those relationships. Because it is all about having enough trust between leaders and countries so that misunderstandings don't occur, but also on the margins, there can be a greater appreciation of the other's point of view.

Kissinger: The difficulty here is in the relations between countries. Very often there arises a gray area where the national interest is not self-evident or [is] disputed, where there is sort of a 2 percent margin of uncertainty. It's very important to establish relationships before you need anything, so that there is a measure of respect in negotiations once they occur or when a crisis develops. When you travel as secretary, one problem you have is that the press comes with you and wants an immediate result because it justifies their trip. And sometimes the best result is that you don't try to get a result but try to get an understanding for the next time you go to them. I don't know whether that would be your experience.

Clinton: It is exactly my experience. What is the role of theory and doctrine when you are behind the desk or on the plane?

Clinton: Well, Henry's the expert on theory and doctrine. I'm someone who thinks that it could help provide a framework and direction and lessons from history. There are patterns that can be discerned, but the ingredients for every single challenge that you face are not cookie-cutter. You have to be able to be creative and agile and responsive and have enough instincts to recognize the opportunities when they arise and then retrospectively fit it into a doctrine is what I would probably say [laughs].

Kissinger: Because I started life as a professor, I was concerned with doctrines and theory. But professors have a hell of a time getting their concepts relevant to a contemporary situation. They don't always understand that as a professor, you have all the time in the world to write your book. As a professor, you could come up with absolute solutions. As a secretary of state, there is almost no solution that you could achieve in one blow. You could only achieve it in a series of steps.

You are both wartime secretaries of state. You have nothing to compare it to, but what complications do you think warfare adds to diplomacy?

Clinton: Well, I can only speak from the experience we've had this past year where President Obama inherited two wars and had to make some early fast decisions that were waiting for him, not of his making. I give him high marks for taking the time and putting in place a process for us to examine the assumptions and ask the hard questions. Because the war in Iraq is winding down, but as the war winds down and our military troops leave, the State Department and USAID [United States Agency for International Development] are expected to assume even more responsibility. I'll give you one example: the military has been doing the police training in Iraq. They have a lot of resources to do these jobs. Not only tens of thousands of bodies but all kinds of equipment and flexibility in funding streams that are not part of the experience of the State Department or USAID, and I'm having to accept the responsibility, which is going to be handed off. That's a very daunting undertaking.

In Afghanistan, we were all part of the lengthy analysis to determine the way forward. And on both the military and the civilian side there was a conclusion reached that military force alone would not be successful. Perhaps it's an obvious conclusion, but it is one that raises a lot of questions that then State and USAID have to answer. It is so much easier to get resources when you are in the Defense Department than it is when you are in the State Department and USAID. So a huge part of your budget becomes Iraq, Afghanistan, and then the civilian assistance going into Pakistan. In a time of budget constraint like we're facing now, it's just much more difficult for us to get the resources that we're expected to have, but the responsibilities still remain. So, it's the tension of the stress that comes with any kind of wartime situation, because when our young men and women in uniform are put in harm's way, increasingly so are our civilians because they are expected to go right out there with the military. If we say we're going to work on agriculture in Afghanistan, the agronomist is there the next day after the fighting stops. So it adds to the complexity and the sense of responsibility.

Kissinger: I would say the special experience of American wartime policy in the last 40 years, from Vietnam on, is that the war itself became controversial in the country and that the most important thing we need in the current situation is, whatever disagreements there may be on tactics, that the legitimacy of the war itself does not become a subject of controversy. We have to start with the assumption, obviously, that whatever administration is conducting a war wants to end it.

Clinton: Right.

Kissinger: Nobody has more at stake than the administration in office. But if you look at the debates we had on Vietnam, Iraq, and so forth, ending the war became defined as the withdrawal of forces and as the primary if not the exclusive exit strategy. But in fact the best exit strategy is victory. Another is diplomacy. Another is the war just dying out. But if you identify exit with withdrawal of American forces, you neglect the political objective. In such circumstances you trap yourself in a position in which the administration in office gets assaulted for insufficient dedication to ending the war, [and] it has to do things that can be against its better judgment. We often found ourselves there.

This is my attitude toward the administration on the war, whether I agree with every last detail or not. The second point that Hillary made is about the civilian side of it, and there is a third element, which is the war will have to find, at some point, a diplomatic outcome. There has to be something that recognizes what the outcome is, in the name of which it can be defended. The disaster after Vietnam was that we would not support what had been negotiated. Whatever emerges in Afghanistan has to be supported, and it needs a legal framework internationally, and that couldn't exist yet. I would think that it's a big challenge that the secretary faces. But the debate ought to be in that framework and not "Do we want to end the war? How quickly can we end the war?" I take it for granted that the administration wants to end it as quickly as is at all possible. Why would they not?

In the popular mind, I think there's sometimes a sense that there's diplomacy and then there's military force. There's a hawk-dove simplicity. What would be the message you would want voters and Americans to have in their heads as they are evaluating Afghanistan, Iraq, the negotiations with Iran going forward? Clinton: I want people to know we may be sending more troops [to Afghanistan], but we're also intensifying our diplomatic and political efforts and doing what we can alongside the people of Afghanistan to deliver results in terms of better services for them, all of which are part of our strategic view of how you reverse the momentum of the Taliban. So it's all connected. It's not either/or any longer.

Kissinger: Whenever one creates a diplomatic forum, one has to understand that there has to be a combination of rewards and penalties and that the other side will make its conclusions on the basis of benefits and risks. One has to be able to construct that, and one should never put a poor negotiator in the room and say, now you will start making compromises. Create the impression of endless willingness to compromise and you almost invite deadlines. That's the challenge we now have in North Korea and have had in North Korea for 10 years. In this sense, diplomacy and foreign policy and other elements of political activity have to be closely linked and have to be understood by the negotiators. That's why Hillary has the most exciting job in the government.

Clinton: But it's also more like a conductor than a soloist.

Read entire post

Hillary Hits the Sunday News Spin to talk Afghanistan

This Sunday, Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates were hitting up all the big Sunday Morning news shows to discuss the new Afghanistan Strategy. They hit up ABS, CBS, and NBC.

Watch the full interview on Meet the Press below or read the full transcript here:

Secretary Clinton was also interviewed on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Watch the full interview below or read the transcript here:

Secretary Clinton was also on CBS's Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer. You can watch that full interview below or read the transcript here:

Read entire post

Hillary and Fabian Sittin in a Tree...

So while ATHC was out of commission, there was a lot of Hillary action we missed out on. So, here's a little bit of catching up.

While speaking at a college in the Philippines on Friday, November 13th, Secretary Clinton was asked this pressing question:

"If you had a crush, aside from Bill Clinton, who would it be?"

Hillary mentioned one name. Fabian. Her crush as a schoolgirl in the fifties and sixties. She said:

"Many, many, many, many years ago, when I was young, there was a singer in the United States whose name was Fabian. Some of you who are my age remember. And I was president of the Fabian fan club. And there were, like, three of us in it, but we took it very seriously."

Well, I am sure everyone was hoping for a different answer... but we got what we got so oh well. But NY Magazine did some digging as asked Fabian — who still performs with other acts of his era like Bobby Vee and the Chiffons — to see if the feeling was mutual.

Apparently Fabian was impressed, first and foremost, with how Hillary dodged the question asked of her to begin with. He said:

"It was fucking incredible... You know what I mean? I mean, I thought that was just fucking brilliant. I thought it was beautiful — being a politician, she got herself out of that one pretty good... The reason why I’m really a fan of hers is that with all she has been through [laughs], she comes out great... I mean, she came through Bill Clinton, she came through Obama, and she’s making the best with what she has."

I think we can all agree with that! He continued, "I mean, she’s an incredible woman. You know, she’s got bigger balls than most men out there." That's an incredible woman, indeed.

Read entire post

Interviews, Interviews, Interviews... Oh My!

The best thing, well one of the best things, about Secretary Clinton's extensive travelling abroad is the copious amount of interviews, both from the American press, and the foreign press, that surface around the web.

Here is a collection of videos I gathered from her time in Pakistan. If anyone out there sees anything else add your link and I will post!

Hillary Clinton's interview with Margaret Warner from NewsHour:

Interview with Jim Sciutto from Good Morning America:

Interview with from the BBC:

On the Record with Greta Van Susteren from FoxNews:

Find more videos like this on www.truveo.com.

CNN interview with Jill Dougherty:

Find more videos like this on www.truveo.com.

Interview with Andrew Mitchell from MSNBC:

Breaking sports news video. MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL highlights and more.

Read entire post

VIDEO: Hillary Clinton's Interview with Dunya TV

Yesterday, Secretary Clinton participated in a few TV interviews in Islamabad. Here are the 6 parts to one of her interviews from Dunya News TV.

Click here to watch Part One! The rest of the interview is split into videos below:

Part Two:

Part Three:

Part Four:

Part Five:

Part Six:

Read entire post

CNN Video: Hillary Clinton on Bush, Afghanistan and Healthcare

On Friday, Secretary Clinton spoke to CNN expressing that President Bush's administration was "unrealistic" in its dealings with the war in Afghanistan.

She told CNN the Bush administration was unrealistic both in terms of the number of U.S. soldiers it committed to the conflict and in its relationship with certain Afghan political leaders. The war was "under resourced" since its start in 2001, she said, and she indicated the Bush administration's attention was improperly shifted to Iraq.

Clinton also said Friday that she is "very optimistic" a decent health care reform package will be enacted. She refused, however, to offer any opinion regarding the specifics of what should go into such a package.


"I have a different role now" than she did when she took the lead in attempting to craft a health care plan during her husband President Clinton's administration, she told CNN. "I'm going to cheer from the sidelines."




Watch this clip from CNN below:


Read entire post

Ann Curry reeeally wants Hillary Clinton to feel "marginalized"

While Secretary Hillary Clinton was in Zurich, she found time to sit down with Ann Curry of ABC for an interview. However, in my own opinion, instead of asking worthwhile questions, Curry brings up a stupid op-ed written in the Washington Post about the "marginalization of Hillary Clinton". Haven't we gone over this here, and here and here, many, many times before??

Can someone please tell me WHO wrote these questions for our Secretary? ALL of them completely irrelevant to ANYTHING that she is embarking on. Get ready, I'm stepping up on my soapbox... How about instead of asking the "highest ranking women in the United States" how she feels about being "marginalized", you ask her about the plight of all women across the nation and the world? Or how about asking what she is planning to do in Europe and Russia in the upcoming days? Hmmm, didn't uh cross your mind there?? No? What about asking about the marginalization of women in Afghanistan and what Hillary thinks about that? If you really want to know what she thinks, and create some headlines in the meantime, you can at least ask her about health care!

Let me know if I am freaking out over nothing here. I did enjoy the interview simply because I love how Hillary just gives this look like "are you kidding me?" It's pretty great, worth the watch!

Oh yea, and she also said she wouldn't run for President again... I'm just pretending that I didn't hear that part. Ignorance is bliss sometimes. La, la, la, la, laaaa...

Read her full remarks here or watch the video below:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Read entire post

Hillary Clinton interview with CBS Katie Couric: Afghanistand and the Road Ahead

Tuesday, October 6th, Katie Couric interviewed Secretary of State Clinton about Afghanistan and the road ahead.

This interview comes during CBS's three day in-depth look at the war in Afghanistan. For three straight days, beginning on Monday, October 5th, Katie Couric essentially tossed aside the typical format of the CBS Evening News and devote the bulk of each night's minutes to explaining where America's war in Afghanistan is headed eight years in.

According to CBS this is an important initiative. At first they wanted to do an extensive series on healthcare. But in the end, Afghanistan won. "All the research shows that when you do stories on wars, normally, that doesn't spike the ratings," said Mr. McManus, president of CBS News. "We just think it's important, as a news organization, to do this."

Secretary Clinton discussed the immediate ramifications and long-term effects of President Obama's decisions for Afghanistan with Couric. They also spoke about President Karzai's impact on Afghanistan, the timetable of the current war and the mindset of the Afghan people.

Here is a short video clip of Hillary on new stragegies:
Watch CBS News Videos Online

Watch the FULL interview below:
Watch CBS News Videos Online

Here is the COMPLETE transcript:

Katie Couric: Secretary Clinton, let me ask you about the decision that President Obama facing. He has a critical decision to make about the road ahead in Afghanistan. How important is this in terms of not only the immediate ramifications, but for U.S. policy long term, U.S. foreign policy.

Hillary Clinton: Katie, that's, I think, one of the best ways to pose this. Because, you're right, the President is going through a very deliberative process, as he said he would. Back in Spring, when we took the policy that we inherited and-- tried to stabilize. He changed commanders. He-- agreed to add more troops. But he said, "We want to get through the Afghan election, and then we will take stock of where we are." Which is what we're doing. And I think it's an important process-- for him to be able to make the ultimate decision. But you can't look at it-- as a standalone-- assessment. It has to be put into the regional context and the historical context. There isn't any doubt, in my mind, that-- this region of the world, what is often referred to as the Afghanistan/Pakistan region, but of course, it's embedded in a region that includes Iran, a number of countries-- to the north. Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, of course, India. Is one of the most critical areas for our long term security.

Clinton: Many people view what is happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan as having ramicat-- ramifications-- far beyond-- what this initial decision might-- suggest. And I think the President is right to say, let's look at how we got to where we are historically. What we can do to-- help stabilize Afghanistan. Accomplish our core goal of-- disrupting, dismantling-- and defeating Al Qaeda. Take-- a very close look at what we need to do to deal with the Taliban, which is-- indigenous phenomenon, as well as associated with Al Qaeda. And work with a Pakistanis who are now in a fight against those who threaten them.

Clinton: While at the same time realizing that there's a lot of other moving parts to this. And the United States, to some extent, has to acknowledge, being among the creators of the problem we are now dealing with. It seemed like a great idea, back in the '80s to-- embolden-- and train and equip-- Taliban, mujahidin, jihadists against the Soviet Union, which had invaded Afghanistan. And with our help, and with the Pakistani support-- this group-- including, at that time, Bin Laden, defeated the Soviet Union. Drove them out of Afghanistan, eventually. Saw the fall of the government that they had installed. And the rest we know. They eventually took over. But when we accomplished our primary mission of seeing the Soviet Union thrown out of Afghanistan, we withdrew. And we left the problems of a well-equipped, fundamentalist, ideological and religious group that had been battle hardened to the Afghans and the Pakistanis.

So, I think it's understandable that people are saying, sort of, "Well, what's your real commitment? What are you trying to accomplish? Do you understand the historical context and the regional geostrategic context?" So, I think it's important to pose it as you do. Let's look at it in the broader question. It's not about do we put more troops in or not? Do we do this on economic development or not? You have to look at it in that broader context. Couric: Well, what are the long term ramifications for U.S. foreign policy?

Clinton: I think several. First of all-- Al Qaeda is degraded, to some extent, but it is still alive and well. We just saw that with the arrest last week of-- the terrorist plot where-- Zazi had been trained in a camp run by Al Qaeda, in Pakistan. Pakistan has now realized that their-- stability and some would argue survivability, but certainly stability-- in maintaining control over their territory, means they've got to take the fight to the Taliban. Some of whom are allied with Al Qaeda. We know that the Taliban is-- regrouping and showing momentum in Afghanistan. And what their ultimate goals are may not be clear, but certainly if they were able to control great swaths of Afghanistan or even eventually take Afghanistan back over, there is every reason to believe they would once again provide the support and the haven that jihadist terrorists are seeking-- and that Al Qaeda once had.

Clinton: We know Pakistan has nuclear weapons, which is-- a further complicating factor-- in this-- challenge. We know that-- Iran is on the border of those two countries, with interests of their own. So, we are trying to analyze what is in the best interest of the United States? That is our primary obligation. How do we prevent or disrupt attacks on us? How do we prevent attacks on our interests and our allies? How do we prevent Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for future attacks and other staging-of-- jihadist activities? And how do we work with the Pakistanis to support and stabilize their government. It's a big order.

Couric: Is part of the-- equation, Madam Secretary, what is within our power?

Clinton: Yes.

Couric: In terms of what we can actually achieve?

Clinton: Yes, it is.

Couric: It's humbling, isn't it? In a way.

Clinton: Well, it is humbling. And it's a necessary element of this analysis. Because-- I think that-- the prior administration's goals and views about what they could accomplish in Afghanistan-- were never matched by re-- resources and some might say reality. They were way out there on what they thought could come from our initial objective, which was to go after those who had attacked us. And I always bring it back to that. As you know, Katie, I was a Senator in New York when we were attacked on 9/11. You know, I want to see us get, kill or capture Bin Laden, Zawahiri. They attacked us. We cannot allow them to proceed with impunity. But that doesn't necessarily mean that we have to make a commitment to try to transform a society that may not want to be transformed. That, you know, may not be-- ready for or even wanting-- the kind of development and values that we represent.

Clinton: We need to make it clear to whoever is elected, and it looks increasingly like it's going to be Karzai again, that our assistance to him and to his government, you know, come with expectations that we're going to look to have implemented. Our-- the-- President Obama no longer has given a blank check to anyone about this. He wants to see results. And similarly, in Pakistan, I think it's fair for the Pakistanis to say, "We've been down this road with you before. You left us holding the bags on, you know, well-armed militants, on drug-trafficking that ravaged our country. And we have to figure out how to protect ourselves and are you gonna be there?"

Clinton: Well, if we're gonna be there, what form are we gonna be there with them? And we're looking at a much more comprehensive strategy to support-- the Pakistani government. But equally importantly, the Pakistani people, so that they understand that having a stable, secure Pakistan is in their economic and-- social future interests.

Couric: Are you concerned that this debate, some of it quite public, is perhaps sending a message to our allies and our enemies, that the U.S. is a bit wobbly on its commitment to the region?

Clinton: Well, I hope not. Because that is certainly-- not what is going on. What is going on is the deliberative process that the President said we would engage in after the elections. It's just that the elections have gone on way too long. And we've had to get going here. We can't sit around and-- and wait for events to unfold. We have to decide what we're going to do to influence them. I happen to think it's-- appropriate that with the respect to decisions that are as costly as these, both in terms of-- financial resources, but much more importantly in terms of, you know, humans lives, the young men and women that we send-- into our military theater. The-- the young civilians that we send to go out and work on agriculture or-- or education. That, you know, we do this in a careful thoughtful way. Because the President has to believe he's making the right decision. Has to be able to explain it, not only to the American people, but to the global audience. And then has to be able to-- to sustain it and defend it. And I-- I think that's the process he is engaged in.

Couric: Let me ask you a couple of questions about the situation there. Do you think the situation is deteriorating in Afghanistan?

Clinton: I think it's mixed. I think that-- certainly-- as we've now seen, General McChrystal's-- assessment was that it-- is deteriorating. That the Taliban have-- the momentum. That they are much more aggressive. They are better equipped. They are-- moving-- more broadly in the country than they had been before. At the same time, I think there are some positive-- developments that may not get the attention, because they're not in the headlines.

A lot has change in Afghanistan in the last eight years. Many more people, particularly children-- women, girls, are, you know, back in school. They get health care. There's a lot of positive developments, the university enrollment, including many, many young women students is up. Much of the country is controlled if not directly by the government in Kabul, by local forces, not the Taliban. So, it's a mixed picture. But I-- I don't-- doubt that left to their own devices, the Taliban forces supported and encouraged and to some extent empowered by the ideology-- of-- you know, standing against the foreign occupiers and-- and standing up for-- Islam would give the-- the Taliban a real-- burst of energy to go even further. And that's what we have to decide how to prevent.

Couric: It seems as if there's a bit of-- a disagreement within the Administration. Because General McChrystal, as you well know, said it was deteriorating. And the National Security Advisor, General Jim Jones seem to downplay the urgency of the sit--

Clinton: Well, but I-- I don't think--

Couric: And I don't foresee the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan is not in imminent danger of falling.

Clinton: Well, it's not imminent. And I-- I don't think there's a contradiction between the two. I think that that's that it's mixed. I think that it is-- not what it was-- in terms of-- control and-- and stability that we would like to see. We're not on the edge of a cliff that we're about to fall off. But that's what this process is designed to do. You know, what is the unvarnished assessment focus the facts on the ground? And it's not only General McChrystal returning to our two very able ambassadors-- in Islamabad and Kabul. We are looking at our intelligence community. We're looking broadly, even outside the government, to get the very best assessment we can. Richard Holbrook has compiled-- a whole government team-- that-- is-- very helpful in looking at what's happening in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. But at the end of the day, the President has to make the decisions about the way forward. So, are there some disagreements in perspective and recommendations? Yes. And thank goodness there really. I mean, I-- I would be worried if-- there was one voice and only one-- alternative presented to the President.

Couric: General McChrystal has asked for as many as 40,000 additional troops. Should he get them, in your view?

Clinton: Well, you know, I'm gonna save my advice for the President. But I think that-- that is one piece of the overall assessment. But it is premised on what-- can or might be done militarily. But that has to be married with the civilian development side, the larger political strategy, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the region. So, it's-- it's-- it's a data point, but it is not the answer. We have to look at everything.

Couric: When you came back from Iraq in 2007, you criticized President Bush. Saying that he needed to spend more time listening to commanders on the ground. The commander on the ground in Afghanistan says he needs more troops. So, why shouldn't he get them?

Clinton: Well, I think that what I-- what I believe is that the President is listening. He had a-- one on one meeting with-- General McChrystal. I anticipate-- and General McChrystal's on the video screen when we are in the situation room-- you know, no-- restraints on what he can or should say. Just open ended questions. So, I think that we're getting a lot of the feedback. But at the end of the day, the President is the commander in chief. And-- he has to decide based on every piece of information that is presented to him and all of the analysis what he thinks is in the best interest of the United States. And that's what the President is trying to do.

Couric: What do you think about ideas like Vice President Biden's plan to ostensibly make it-- a more narrow military strategy of using unmanned aircraft or drones and counterterrorism strikes against Al Qaeda. Kind of limiting our military involvement. Do you think that's a good idea?

Clinton: Well, I think, again, the Vice President has a very thoughtful analysis of what he thinks-- is working and-- will work. I'm not gonna, you know, go into his specific-- recommendation. But I think it's-- a very important-- role for all of us to play. You know, it's not just the Vice President who's sitting at the table saying, "Well, what about this? And wouldn't that work better?" All of us are coming to the table and saying, "Here's what we think we should do."

Couric: Can you just tell me how it strikes you? I mean, do you think that that's a possible alternative?

Clinton: Well, I'm-- I'm not gonna go there. Because I-- I think that-- ultimately, this is, as I've said, the President's decision. But that's what's so important about getting these different viewpoints. There may well be-- a perspective that one person brings to the table that needs to be melded with that of others. And it's not just all or nothing. It is, "Okay, everybody put on the table what you think are our real interests, the best way to achieve them, how we protect ourselves, our interests, and our allies, how we try to stabilize this very volatile region, and then I'm going to have the ultimate responsibility-- to figure out what best to do."

Couric: I want to ask you about the whole notion of the-- the more surgical strikes, if you will. Many people would say about that idea, Vice President Biden's idea, you know, that didn't work in Iraq. What worked in Iraq was a full blown counterinsurgency. And-- you know, a troop surge. And people credit that with the-- the reduction in violence.

Clinton: Well, what also worked in Iraq was-- a decision by many of the-- people in Anbar Province, the Sunnis to quit collaborating with Al Qaeda, because they were-- you know, far more violent and intrusive than anybody wanted to live with. And a decision to, you know, really partner with the Iraqis and to push the training of their security forces. A lot of-- a lot of things worked. But Iraq is not Afghanistan. You know, Iraq had a central government that was very dominant. It had a history of a-- strong, functioning military. That is not what the Taliban left, when they were driven out after the attacks of 9/11. And so, I-- I think that a lot of the analogies are-- are really not very apt. And so, from my perspective, we can be informed, in terms of what has and hasn't worked in many different settings. But we have to very careful to look at the situation we're dealing with now. You know, don't just automatically transplant ideas and try to graft them onto this body. Let's-- let's diagnose this body and figure out what it needs that we can help provide.

Couric: Let me ask you in a broader way, if I could, Secretary Clinton. Our stated objective in Afghanistan and Pakistan is to quote, "Disrupt, dismantle, and eventually defeat Al Qaeda and prevent their return to Afghanistan." Can that goal be accomplished without providing stability to the country, in the form of security and economic opportunity for the people of Afghanistan?

Clinton: You know, Katie, I think that-- there is no-- discussion going on about leaving Afghanistan. You know-- I think this-- this debate which is healthy for a democracy-- and important for the-- the President-- shouldn't be in any way characterized at, you know, it's either this or it's that. I think development aid-- rule of law, better governance from the-- from Kabul down to the-- local level, all of that is-- part of empowering the Afghans. But what will be most important is training up-- an effective Afghan security force, that will be able to defend the territory and protect the population. So, I think in everybody's recommendation, there's-- there's a very common thread running through. Which is how quickly can we help the Afghans really protect and take care of themselves. And there-- there's-- there's a multiple of-- you know, sort of-- ingredients in that recipe that we are-- examining.

Couric: But how can the U.S. stand behind a President who is so mistrusted by so many people in the country? Isn't that-- a bad partnership?

Clinton: You know, Katie-- we're gonna have to expect a lot more. And I-- you know, known and worked with-- President Karzai since 2003, I guess.

Couric: Are you terribly disappointed in him?

Clinton: Well, I-- I believe that some of what we're seeing is endemic. You know, we deal with a lot of countries where the governments either don't have the capacity or are plagued by corruption, cannot deliver for their people. And we know that-- we have to figure out how to better to work with them. And at the end of the day, the people of Afghanistan have to believe that they have a government that's on their side. Otherwise--

Couric: But they don't?

Clinton: Well, some do. And some don't. And what our-- our challenge will be in working-- for the future, and our-- and our ambassador, Ambassador Eikenberry, a former general on the ground-- in Afghanistan, which I think gives him a unique and very-- important perspective, has begun the conversations with-- President Karzai about, you know, what are you gonna deliver for your people? Who are the people you're gonna put around you? You've got to stamp out as much-- mistrust and corruption as possible. Given where you stand today. In order to have credibility. We're-- we're gonna go at that really hard. Because obviously, you can't expect people who are intimidated by and abused by-- the Taliban and their allies, some of whom are not even Afghan, but are foreign fighters-- and have this-- foreign ideology. This jihadist mentality kind of perpetrated on them. They don't think they have an alternative.

They've got to believe that they're gonna be protected. And in our conversations with people below the Presidential level, people working in the-- in the national government and people down in the local areas, the village elders, you know, they all say the same thing. Help us to be able to protect ourselves. And then leave. I mean, that's a pretty good summary for what we want to do. We want to help them be able to protect ourselves. Which includes having a government that will help protect them. Having a military force big enough well enough trained to be able to protect them. Having-- an alternative narrative to be able to rebuff the Taliban and the others who are still gonna be on their doorstep. But how you translate that into, you know, day-to-day operations is what we're-- considering inside-- the White House.

Couric: Because training the Afghan military is a huge undertaking and years away, isn't it?

Clinton: Well, it is. It is. But we've learned a lot of lessons about how to do that better. We didn't do it very well in Iraq in the beginning. And we learned how to do it better. We have seen successes in other parts of the world. But no, it's-- I'm not gonna-- I'm not gonna, you know, put a happy face on and say, "Oh, yeah, we'll-- we'll get that done in a year or two." This is hard work. And it requires having a government that has the trust, the confidence and the loyalty of the security forces. And so we're gonna, you know, try to put that together. Not because it's our objective to remake Afghanistan. But because that's in our national interest to make sure that no more attacks come out of Afghanistan. Just as working with the Pakistanis is in our interest. To end that, as well.

Couric: We want to give them the tools--

Clinton: That's right.

Couric: to remake the country themselves.

Clinton: That's right.

Couric: But it's a tough road ahead.

Clinton: It is. It is.

Read entire post

Secretary Hillary Clinton talks Afghanistan on CNN with Secretary Gates

Yesterday, Monday October 5th, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates joined CNN's Christiane Amanpour for an exclusive roundtable discussion.

Watch the exciting preview below!

Speaking at George Washington University for a program to be broadcast tonight, Tuesday October 6th, on CNN they two of them insisted that the president’s deliberate approach to set the right objectives and policies for Afghanistan was necessary and proper.

Secretary Gates told CNN that "Because of our inability and the inability, frankly, of our allies to put enough troops in Afghanistan, the Taliban do have the momentum right now." He added that an eventual Taliban victory would provide "added space" for al Qaeda to set up in the country and enhance recruiting and fundraising, bolstered by the perspective of a second victory over a superpower by Muslim forces after having driven out the Soviet Union in the 1980s.

The Secretaries were asked about the internal debate in Obama's administration over the call for more U.S. troops in Afghanistan by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in the country. Gates said, "We're not leaving Afghanistan... there should be no uncertainty in terms of our determination to remain in Afghanistan and to continue to build a relationship of partnership and trust with the Pakistanis. That's long term. That's a strategic objective of the United States."

Clinton said a regional approach supporting both Afghanistan and Pakistan would help achieve the U.S. goals of defeating terrorists and protecting America and its allies around the world. "We're going to come up with what we think is the best approach, but the goal remains the same," she said.

The two played down division in the administration over McChrystal's request to increase the 68,000 troops in Afghanistan by as many as 40,000 more, saying the process called for frank discussion to help Obama make the appropriate decision. Both said the advice to Obama should be private, in contrast to McChrystal's public comments and the leaking of his assessment to the news media.

Hillary was asked about the use of new media such as blogging in diplomacy. She said "people really have opened up to America again" since Obama succeeded Bush as president. "We're back to listening, we're back to engaging."

It is also important to note that the White House has scheduled meetings this week to discuss the Afghanistan-Pakistan policy that will include both Clinton and Gates. The meetings come at a time of enormous political pressure to decide whether to change U.S. strategy and raise troop levels after more deadly attacks. Gates said it will be one of the most important decisions of Obama's presidency. Here is a short video clip from the Daily Beast:

Here are some clips provided by CNN. Check back tonight for a FULL video!

Watch Gates and Clinton discuss U.S. strategy in Afghanistan »

Watch CNN's Christiane Amanpour discuss what Gates and Clinton had to say »

Career advice for young people

CNN's Christiane Amanpour and Frank Sesno ask Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates for some career advice for young people.

Read entire post