Have Rolled-Back Sanctions
Rolled-Back Iran's Rogue Policy?
AMB. YORAM ETTINGER (8.5MN READ)
The July 2015 nuclear agreement with the Ayatollahs of Iran is perceived by the USA as a binding, strategic agreement of peaceful coexistence with Iran. In contrast, the Ayatollahs view it as a tenuous, tactical agreement, advancing an offensive strategy against "the arrogant, infidel American Great Satan," to be abrogated as is the fate of agreements with "infidels" according to the Quran and the legacy of Muhammad. The Ayatollahs consider the agreement a phase in the removal of "the modern day infidel American crusader" from the Persian Gulf and the India Ocean, in order to advance Iran's 2,500-year-old historic goal of dominating the Persian Gulf, the Middle East and the globe. Moreover, the Ayatollahs consider the agreement a reaffirmation of Western vacillation and retreat, thus intensifying their rogue conduct, as documented by their domestic, regional and global track record and school textbooks. The latter are the most authentic reflection of the strategy, tactics, character, worldview and general direction of rogue regimes, such as the Ayatollahs, effectively producing cadres of "martyrs" (terrorists and suicide bombers). Reaching a constructive agreement with the Ayatollahs requires a dramatic transformation of their school textbooks, strategy and tactics. On the other hand, reaching an agreement with the Ayatollahs, while the current school textbooks, strategy and tactics are in place, could start the countdown to the first ever nuclear war.
An Empirical Analysis of Racial
Differences in Police Use of Force
PROF. ROLAND G. FRYER, JR. (63 PAGE HARVARD STUDY IN PDF FORM)
From “Bloody Sunday” on the Edmund Pettus Bridge to the public beatings of Rodney King, Bryant Allen, and Freddie Helms, the relationship between African-Americans and police has an unlovely history. The images of law enforcement clad in Ku Klux Klan regalia or those peaceful protesters being attacked by canines, high pressure water hoses, and tear gas are an indelible part of American history. For much of the 20th century, law enforcement chose to brazenly enforce the status quo of overt discrimination, rather than protect and serve all citizens. The raw memories of these injustices have been resurrected by several high profile incidents of questionable uses of force. Michael Brown, unarmed, was shot twelve times by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, after Brown fit the description of a robbery suspect of a nearby store. Eric Garner, unarmed, was approached because officers believed he was selling single cigarettes from packs without tax stamps and in the process of arresting him an officer choked him and he died...Zachary Hammond, unarmed, was driving away from a drug deal sting operation when he was shot to death by a Seneca, South Carolina, police officer. He was white. And so are 44% of police shooting subjects. These incidents, some captured on video and viewed widely, have generated protests in Ferguson, New York City, Washington, Chicago, Oakland, and several other cities and a national movement (Black Lives Matter) and a much needed national discourse about race, law enforcement, and policy...However, for all the eerie similarities between the current spate of police interactions with African Americans and the historical injustices which remain unhealed, the current debate is virtually data free. Understanding the extent to which there are racial differences in police use of force and (if any) whether those differences might be due to discrimination by police or explained by other factors at the time of the incident is a question of tremendous social importance, and the subject of this paper.
The Narrative v. The Facts in Charlotte
ROBERT N. DRISCOLL (6.5MN READ)
In Charlotte, a black man is shot and killed by police (specifically, by a black officer, who works under a black chief of police, but don't let that slow down your "systematic racism" roll). Soon the protests start. The politicians talk. The protests turn violent. The National Guard is called in. Before you can blink, Charlotte is added to the litany of cities cited by the Black Lives Matter movement as examples of "killing of unarmed black men." If you hear Ferguson, Staten Island, Baltimore, and Cleveland read together, what pops to mind? That the police were cleared in each case? Probably not. Add Charlotte to the list, because the narrative matters more than the facts. It is apparently of little significance to anyone that Keith Lamont Scott's death in Charlotte has not been investigated, or that, in the end, the officer's use of deadly force might well have been justified (Scott was armed, according to some reports). As I pointed out within a week of the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, federal civil-rights prosecutions are exceedingly rare, and the greater risk is raising community expectations of a prosecution, rather than encouraging the patience to wait for the facts to come out. Unfortunately, when it comes to police-involved shootings, some view the narrative (that structural racism leads to scores of innocent black men being gunned down in the streets by police with impunity) as more important than waiting to see whether a given case actually fits into that narrative.
Hillary's Health: A Political Minefield
PAUL R. HOLLRAH (12.5MN READ)
As one of the top two candidates vying to become the 45th president of the United States, Hillary Clinton's short term and long term health prognosis is not just a personal concern for her, it is a major concern for all of us. Hillary Clinton is sixty-eight years old and it becomes more and more obvious with each passing day that she is not a healthy woman, unlikely to withstand the rigors of campaigning and unlikely to withstand the rigors of the presidency, should she be elected in November. Clinton has a long history of falling. On June 18, 2009, it was announced that the then-secretary of state would require surgery to repair a fractured right elbow, suffered in a fall. In January 2011, while boarding her plane in Yemen, then-secretary Clinton waved to the crowd, turned, tripped over the main hatch sill, and fell to the floor. A flight attendant extinguished the cabin lights so that cameras could not record her being helped to her feet. In December 2012, Mrs. Clinton fell and struck her head, causing a concussion. Some two weeks later, a statement from her doctors explained, "In the course of a routine follow-up MRI on Sunday, the scan revealed that a right transverse sinus venous thrombosis had formed. This is a clot in the vein that is situated in the space between the brain and the skull behind the right ear." Later, as Mrs. Clinton testified before the House Benghazi Committee, viewers noted that she was wearing eyeglasses with unusually thick lenses. Attached to each lens was a Fresnel prism designed to correct the double vision resulting from the concussion and blood clot.
The Hillary Clinton Protection
Racket at WaPo Is Alive and Well
MICHAEL GOODWIN (3.5MN READ)
In singling out the New York Times for its biased political coverage, I have slighted the Hillary Clinton Protection Racket at the Washington Post. I hereby atone. Clinton hacked and hacked so much into the microphone Monday as she tried to give a Labor Day speech in Cleveland that her coughing was the news. But not at the Washington Post, which ran to rescue its candidate. Its lead political blogger, Chris Cillizza, wrote a scathing piece to debunk the idea that Clinton is hiding a serious health issue. “This is a totally ridiculous issue — for lots of reasons,” Cillizza declared. “The simple fact is that there is zero evidence that anything is seriously wrong with Clinton.” He went on to offer Donald Trump unsolicited, and almost certainly insincere, advice, saying the issue “is a surefire loser in the fall.” Instantly, Cillizza became the target of Post readers online, with most of the 3,000 comments attacking him and the paper as shills for Clinton. A number mentioned the nearly 40 times she told the FBI she couldn’t remember or didn’t recall things, citing her fall and concussion in 2012. Others recalled that the Post had no trouble challenging Republican candidates over health and age issues, from Ronald Reagan to John McCain.
How to Stop Colleges from Brainwashing Students to Become Democrats
A COLLEGE PROFESSOR (6MN READ)
Republican donations to colleges are used to brainwash millions of college students to embrace Democrat Party ideology. Why do Republicans give any money to colleges? Higher Education is a one party state, and the party begins with a D. Why do Republicans voluntarily agree to fund this brainwashing? Bernie Sanders was not a surprising phenomenon; he is the logical progression of fifty years of relentless left wing education in classrooms, freshman orientations, and dorm life programming at America's colleges. Ideological balance could be restored if Republicans hit colleges in the only two places they care about more than liberal ideology: money and rankings. First, stop giving to colleges and articulate strings when asked for donations: "I can't donate to my college until you can prove that your faculty has at least 25% Republican professors. Until then, I have to decline supporting my college because the faculty is too one-sided." The mischief higher education causes in the modern world takes a lot of money. Republican donors to higher education are funding much of the biased research that gives intellectual cover to the propaganda of the other party.
Our Political Predicament
DR. THOMAS SOWELL (5MN READ)
There is no point denying or sugar-coating the plain fact that the voters this election year face a choice between two of the worst candidates in living memory. A professor at Morgan State University summarized the situation by saying that the upcoming debates may enable voters to decide which is the "less insufferable" candidate to be President of the United States. My own take on this election is that the voter is in a situation much like that of an American fighter pilot in World War II, whose plane has been hit by enemy fire out over the Pacific Ocean and is beginning to burst into flames. If he bails out, there is no guarantee that his parachute will open. But even if he lands safely in the ocean, he may be eaten by sharks. If he comes down on land, he may be captured by the Japanese and tortured and/or killed. In other words, there are huge and potentially fatal risks. But, if he remains in the plane, he is doomed for certain. To me, Donald Trump represents multiple and potentially fatal risks. But Hillary Clinton is a certainty of disaster. Her vaunted "experience" is an experience of having repeatedly made decisions that turned out to be not merely wrong but catastrophic.
Trump the Shape Shifter
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER (6MN READ)
If you are the status quo candidate in a change election in which the national mood is sour and two-thirds of the electorate think the country is on the wrong track, what do you do? Attack. Relentlessly. Paint your opponent as extremist, volatile, clueless, unfit, dangerous. Indeed, Hillary Clinton's latest national ad, featuring major Republican politicians echoing that indictment of Donald Trump, ends thus: "Unfit. Dangerous. Even for Republicans." That was the theme of Clinton's famous "alt-right" speech and of much of her $100 million worth of ads. Problem is, it's not working. Over the last month, Trump's new team, led by Kellyanne Conway, has worked single-mindedly to blunt that line of attack on the theory that if he can just cross the threshold of acceptability, he wins. In an act of brazen rebranding, they set out to endow him with stature and empathy. Stature was acquired in Mexico, whose president inexplicably gave Trump the opportunity to stand on the world stage with a national leader and more than hold his own. It's the same stature booster Senator Barack Obama pulled off when he stood with the French president at a news conference in Paris in 2008. That was part one: Trump the statesman. Part two: the kinder, gentler Trump. Nervy. Can you really repackage the boasting, bullying, bombastic, insulting, insensitive Trump into a mellow and caring version? With two months to go? In a digital age in which every past outrage is preserved on imperishable video? Turns out, yes.
The Two Clinton Nuclear Bombs
DANIEL GREENFIELD (9MN READ)
The two nuclear bombs dropped on Japan were known as "Little Boy" and "Fat Man." The world today has two new nuclear bombs. One is named "Fat Bill." The other is named "Little Hillary." The "Bill Clinton" bomb is the one getting the most headlines as North Korea continues testing its nuclear weapons. The Communist dictatorship is on its fifth test already and achieved an explosion almost at the level of "Little Boy" which was dropped on Hiroshima. North Korea has let it be known that this test has allowed it to produce standardized nuclear warheads "able to be mounted on strategic ballistic rockets" so that it can "produce at will and as many as it wants a variety of smaller, lighter and diversified nuclear warheads of higher strike power." Kim doesn't just want a nuke. He wants a lot of nukes. And at the rate he's going, he will have them. And the man to thank for all that is Bill Clinton. In the fall of '94, Clinton told the American people that his deal with North Korea would help bring "an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula. He lied.
The Legacies of Barack Obama
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON (6MN READ)
On his recent Asian tour, President Obama characterized his fellow Americans (the most productive workers in the world) as "lazy." In fact, he went on to deride Americans for a list of supposed transgressions ranging from the Vietnam War to environmental desecration to the 19th century treatment of Native Americans. "If you're in the United States," the president said, "sometimes you can feel lazy and think we're so big we don't have to really know anything about other people." The attack on supposedly insular Americans was somewhat bizarre, given that Obama himself knows no foreign languages. He often seems confused about even basic world geography. (His birthplace of Hawaii is not "Asia," Austrians do not speak "Austrian," and the Falkland Islands are not the Maldives). Obama's sense of history is equally weak. Contrary to his past remarks, the Islamic world did not spark either the Western Renaissance or the Enlightenment. Cordoba was not, as he once suggested, an Islamic center of "tolerance" during the Spanish Inquisition; in fact, its Muslim population had been expelled during the early Reconquista over two centuries earlier.
How Chicago Violence Feels Like a War
IAN PANNELL (5.5MN READ)
People live with a threat or elements of danger, and although the degree is completely different, that's similar for civilian populations in both environments. So what you see is, externally you can go into war zones and on days when things aren't happening, it can look very normal. What always amazes me - you see this in Chicago and you see this in places like Syria - is people, they'll be out on the street, they'll be doing the shopping, but they know the rules. As soon as trouble starts to happen, they will immediately withdraw. Suddenly everybody disappears. Someone in Chicago was telling me, "the mailman knows." The mailman or mailwoman will not go down some of those streets on the days when they know there's an active beef going on. And it's the same in war zones - people learn to adapt, but that has psychological consequences. People won't give up. But they live with levels of trauma and danger and stress that aren't normal, and you can't live with that much threat and that much danger on a regular basis and it not affect you. I've never seen so many weapons in civilian hands outside of a traditional war zone as I did in parts of Chicago. I've never seen a readiness to use firearms outside of a traditional war zone like I've seen in areas of the city. So many people have guns and the threshold beyond which you are prepared to use a weapon is incredibly low. In a war zone you would expect people to be armed, you're ready to use it and there's a high chance you're going to be in a situation where you have to use it. In Chicago, you have kids who are empowered by weapons, who are empowered by shooting, given a kind of status that otherwise they don't have.
Hillary's Risky KKK Gambit
PAUL R. HOLLRAH (13MN READ)
At an August 25 rally in Reno, Nevada, Hillary Clinton made what was a feeble attempt at blunting Donald Trump's outreach to African American voters. In her remarks she referred to recent news reports in which former Klansman David Duke is said to have endorsed Trump's candidacy. Attempting to cast doubt on Trump's sincerity, she said, "Trump refused to disavow the support of David Duke, a notorious former leader of the Ku Klux Klan." It was a major unforced error. Coming from a woman who has reportedly received $20,000 in contributions from KKK members in recent months, her attempt to tie Trump to the Klan can only serve to discredit her and to draw attention to the Democrat Party's sordid racial history. When asked by reporters about his reaction to the Duke endorsement, Trump replied, "I didn't even know he endorsed me. David Duke endorsed me? Okay, all right. I disavow, okay?" His response was a far cry from Hillary Clinton's warm embrace of the late Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd (D-WV) upon his death on June 10, 2010. On that occasion, Clinton heaped praise on the former Grand Kleagle of the West Virginia KKK, saying, "Senator Byrd was a man of surpassing eloquence and nobility... It is almost impossible to imagine the United States Senate without Robert Byrd. He was not just its longest-serving member; he was its heart and soul.
Absolute, Categorical Lies
STEPHEN F. HAYES (6.5MN READ)
On March 10, 2015, Hillary Clinton told reporters at a rare press conference that she had "absolute confidence that everything that could be in any way connected to work is now in the possession of the State Department." No parsing required. Absolute confidence, she said. In any way connected to work. On August 8, 2015, Clinton submitted a signed declaration to the US District Court in Washington, DC, swearing "under penalty of perjury" that she'd directed all emails that "were or potentially were" work-related be turned over to the State Department. Emphatic. Were or potentially were related to her time as secretary of state. Then on October 22, 2015, Clinton testified under oath before the House Select Committee on Benghazi. "I provided the department, which has been providing you, with all of my work-related emails—all that I had." Unqualified, absolute. All that I had. In May of this year, Clinton told ABC News: "I have provided all of my work-related emails, and I've asked that they be made public, and I think that demonstrates that I wanted to make sure that this information was part of the official records." Categorical. All of my work-related emails. Clinton used such unequivocal language on purpose, of course. It was meant to convey certitude about her disclosure of work-related emails, to signal to voters (and reporters) that she was unafraid of being contradicted and, most important, that she had nothing at all to hide. We know now that her claims were false.
Corrupt Academics & The Media
WALTER E. WILLIAMS (5MN READ)
Some are puzzled by the dishonesty, lack of character and sheer stupidity of many people in the media. But seeing as most of them are college graduates, they don't bear the full blame. They are taught by dishonest and irresponsible academics. Let's look at it. "A Clash of Police Policies," a column written by Dr. Thomas Sowell, presents some readily available statistics: "Homicide rates among black males went down by 18 percent in the 1940s and by 22 percent in the 1950s. It was in the 1960s, when the ideas of Chief Justice (Earl) Warren and others triumphed, that this long decline in homicide rates among black males reversed and skyrocketed by 89 percent, wiping out all the progress of the previous 20 years." Academics and the media blame poverty and discrimination for today's crime. No one bothers to ask why crime was falling in the 1930s, '40s and '50s, when blacks faced far greater poverty and discrimination. The 1960s riots were blamed on poverty and discrimination. Poverty and discrimination were worse in the South than in the rest of the country, but riots were not nearly so common there. Detroit's deadliest riot occurred at a time when the median income of black families in Detroit was 95 percent of their white counterparts, plus the black unemployment rate was 3.4 percent and black homeownership was higher than in other major cities. Academics teach that the breakdown of the black family is the legacy of slavery and discrimination. They ignore the following facts...
Election Year Books
DR. THOMAS SOWELL (5MN READ)
Election year politics generates much rhetoric and confusion. And the media often adds its spin. But, fortunately, there are some books around that deal with reality and can cut through the nonsense. Most of these books were not written during this election year, but what they presented can be very eye-opening on the issues raised by politicians this year. If you are concerned about issues involved when some people want to expand the welfare state and others want to contract it, then one of the most relevant and insightful books is "Life at the Bottom" by Theodore Dalrymple. It was not written this year and is not even about the United States, much less our current presidential or other candidates. What makes "Life at the Bottom" especially relevant and valuable is that it is about the actual consequences of the welfare state in England — which are remarkably similar to the consequences in the United States. Many Americans may find it easier to think straight about what happens, when it is in a country where the welfare recipients are overwhelmingly whites, so that their behavior cannot be explained away by "a legacy of slavery" or "institutional racism," or other such evasions of facts in the United States. As Dr. Dalrymple says: "It will come as a surprise to American readers, perhaps, to learn that the majority of the British underclass is white, and that it demonstrates all the same social pathology as the black underclass in America — for very similar reasons, of course." That reason is the welfare state, and the attitudes and behavior it promotes and subsidizes.
Engraved in Stone
TABITHA KOROL (8.5MN READ)
The Children of Abraham of the Southern Tier, an interfaith organization in Johnson City, has taken offense at the 9/11 memorial raised in the nearby Town of Owego, New York. This association of misguided multiculturalists and Muslim moderates allege that identifying the perpetrators of the worst individual act of aggression on American soil would encourage Muslim hatred, never once excoriating the very act that resulted in the death and injury to more than 3,000 American victims and 453 responders and boundless grief for their families and for all Americans. Did the moderates ever attempt to apologize for the horrific crime that forced people to jump to their death rather than be burned alive? Did they express their sorrow for the victims and heroic rescue workers, or atone in a way to benefit the families that suffered such tragic loss? Do they even acknowledge that Islamic terrorists continue their march of evil, putting America and Europe on high alert for 9/11, or that this was part of Islam’s perpetual holy war against every living being on the planet. No. And the city manager’s overtures were also snubbed. The Muslim residents of Johnson City may be moderates who never take up a lethal weapon for Allah, but they are engaging in a subtle act of civilizational or settlement jihad. Such people are comparatively discreet in Western society, going about their lives inconspicuously, but effecting regime changes in gradual increments. By their refusal to acknowledge the obvious links between Islam and 9/11, they shield those who spew hatred against America, Israel and democracy.
Incident in Hangzhou
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER (5.5MN READ)
The president of the United States lands with all the majesty of Air Force One, waiting to exit the front door and stride down the rolling staircase to the red-carpeted tarmac. Except that there is no rolling staircase. He is forced to exit — as one China expert put it rather undiplomatically — through "the ass" of the plane. This happened Saturday at Hangzhou airport. Yes, in China. If the Chinese didn't invent diplomatic protocol, they surely are its most venerable and experienced practitioners. They've been at it for 4,000 years. They are the masters of every tributary gesture, every nuance of hierarchical ritual. In a land so exquisitely sensitive to protocol, rolling staircases don't just disappear at arrival ceremonies. Indeed, not one of the other G-20 world leaders was left stranded on his plane upon arrival. Did President Xi Jinping directly order airport personnel and diplomatic functionaries to deny Barack Obama a proper welcome? Who knows? But the message, whether intentional or not, wasn't very subtle. The authorities expressed no regret, no remorse, and certainly no apology. On the contrary, they scolded the press for even reporting the snub. No surprise. China's ostentatious rudeness was perfectly reflective of the world's general disdain for President Obama. His high-minded lectures about global norms and demands that others live up to their "international obligations" are no longer amusing. They're irritating.
Fighting Caliphate with Chaos
DANIEL GREENFIELD (10MN READ)
Sum up our failed Middle East policy in a nine-letter word starting with an S. Stability. Stability is the heart and soul of nation-building. It's the burden that responsible governments bear for the more irresponsible parts of the world. First you send experts to figure out what is destabilizing some hellhole whose prime exports are malaria, overpriced tourist knickknacks and beheadings. You teach the locals about democracy, tolerance and storing severed heads in Tupperware containers. Then if that doesn't work, you send in the military advisers to teach the local warlords-in-waiting how to better fight the local guerrillas and how to overthrow their own government in a military coup. Finally, you send in the military. But this gets bloody, messy and expensive very fast. So most of the time we dispatch sociologists to write reports to our diplomats explaining why people are killing each other in a region where they have been killing each other since time immemorial, and why it's all our fault. Then we try to figure out how we can make them stop by being nicer to them. The central assumption here is stability. We assume that stability is achievable and that it is good. The former is completely unproven and even the latter remains a somewhat shaky thesis.
The Art of the Steal
JOAN SWIRSKY (25MN READ)
We're a little more than two months from the November 8th election and everyone knows that all Democrats, a good number of Republicans and conservatives, and almost the entire media have been agonizing over and militating against the fact that billionaire businessman Donald Trump is the last man standing in a contest that pits him against Crooked Hillary for the presidency of the United States. But why are no professional political commentators – on TV, radio, or in print – explaining exactly why Mr. Trump is such a mortal threat? After all, he has proven himself to be an upright citizen, a wildly successful businessman, the bestselling author of over a dozen books, a philanthropist, the father of five respectful and loving children the eldest of whom are also impressively contributory members of society, the representative of every value Republicans and conservatives traditionally stand for – low taxes, fewer regulations, secure borders, a strong military, strict conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, et al – and significantly a person who has never been accused of being complicit in the deaths of US servicemen, under the ominous investigation of the FBI, or operating an international money-laundering slush fund that compromises the national security of the United States. Here is the answer: It's all about the deal!
American Journalism Is
Collapsing Before Our Eyes
MICHAEL GOODWIN (6MN READ)
Donald Trump may or may not fix his campaign, and Hillary Clinton may or may not become the first female president. But something else happening before our eyes is almost as important: the complete collapse of American journalism as we know it. The frenzy to bury Trump is not limited to the Clinton campaign and the Obama White House. They are working hand in hand with what was considered the cream of the nation's news organizations. The shameful display of naked partisanship by the elite media is unlike anything seen in modern America. The largest broadcast networks — CBS, NBC and ABC — and major newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post have jettisoned all pretense of fair play. Their fierce determination to keep Trump out of the Oval Office has no precedent. Indeed, no foreign enemy, no terror group, no native criminal gang suffers the daily beating that Trump does. The mad mullahs of Iran, who call America the Great Satan and vow to wipe Israel off the map, are treated gently by comparison. By torching its remaining credibility in service of Clinton, the mainstream media's reputations will likely never recover, nor will the standards. No future producer, editor, reporter or anchor can be expected to meet a test of fairness when that standard has been trashed in such willful and blatant fashion. Liberal bias in journalism is often baked into the cake.
Aiding & Abedin
STEPHEN F. HAYES (14.5MN READ)
As Bill Clinton entered the final year of his presidency, his aides put together a legacy-building trip to South Asia—the first visit to the region by a U.S. president since Jimmy Carter's in 1978. Early drafts of the itinerary featured a notable exclusion: The president would visit India, an emerging ally, but had no plans to stop in neighboring Pakistan. There were good reasons for this. Pervez Musharraf had seized power there in a military coup six months earlier. His regime was regarded as tolerant of Islamic radicals, perhaps even complicit in their attacks, and unhelpful on nuclear talks with India. Whatever the potential benefits to regional stability, a visit would be seen as legitimizing a troublemaker. Clinton had the support of many in the foreign policy establishment and his decision was popular among liberals in his party. In an editorial published February 18, 2000, the New York Times noted, "Pakistan has been lobbying hard in Washington"; the paper urged Clinton to stand firm, absent a return to civilian rule in the country and "concrete progress" on nukes and terror. Four days later, Hillary Clinton weighed in. At a gathering in a private home on Staten Island, Clinton said she hoped her husband would be able to find time to visit Pakistan on his trip. That she spoke up on a matter of public controversy was interesting; where she did it was noteworthy.