“Women are not the weak, frail little flowers that they are advertised. There has never been anything invented yet, including war, that a man would enter into, that a woman wouldn’t, too.” –Will Rogers

Long before great women such as Alice Paul and Lucy Burns fought for the right for women to vote, women were fighting in wars. The fight wasn’t about equal rights or even voting rights, it was about protecting our children and homes. The fight was about defending our country.

There were many women that made a difference in the revolutionary war. From nursing our soldiers to spying on the English, women left their mark and even fought beside men. It wasn’t easy. Females were not allowed on the front line. So a disguise was required.

There are many stories of women dressing as men and joining the regiments, none as famous as Deborah Samson from Massachusetts. In 1778 Deborah disguised herself as a young man, named Robert Shirtliffe and presented herself to the American Army and served undetected for a year and a half. Deborah was wounded twice before she was discharged.

This trend continued into the Civil War. Francis Day briefly served as Sgt. Frank Mayne. In the spring of 1863 Sgt. Mayne was grievously wounded and her identity was revealed. She died from her wounds.

One of the more touching stories was of a woman known only as Emily. At the age of 19 Emily ran away from home and joined the drum corps of a Michigan Regiment. The regiment was sent to Tennessee and during the struggle for Chatanooga, Emily was shot in the side. Her wound was fatal and her sex was disclosed. As Emily lay dying she dictated a telegram to her father in Brooklyn.

“Forgive your dying daughter. I have but a few moments to live. My native soil drinks my blood. I expected to deliver my country but the fates would not have it so. I am content to die. Pray forgive me.” — Emily

In World War I over 30,000 women served in the Army, Navy, Navy Nurse Corps, the Marines, and the Coast Guard. At least 359 servicewomen died and none of these women yet had the right to vote.

During World War II the first class of Woman Air Force Service Pilots (WASP) graduated on December 17, 1943. The women had to pay their own way through the training program in Texas. A total of 1074 women graduated the program over the next few years and all at their own expense. These women flew over 60 million miles in operations. Thirty-eight WASP died in training or in the line of duty. A total of 543 World War II servicewomen gave their lives.

Over 265,000 women served in the armed forces during the Vietnam War. Approximately 10,000 served in uniform “in country” during the conflict. All were volunteers as women were not subject to the draft. Eight women’s names appear at the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial. Lieutenant Colonel Annie Graham is one of those names. Lieutenant Colonel Graham was a veteran of World War II and The Korean War.

Eleanor Ardel Vietti, a civilian surgeon and missionary was captured by Vietcong forces in Ban Me Thuot on May 30, 1962. Her remains have never been found. Eleanor is still listed as missing in action. Betty Ann Olsen was captured in 1968 during the Tet Offensive. She died and was buried along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Her body was never recovered.

More than sixty civilian women gave their lives during the Vietnam War. Due to the type of gorilla warfare tactics prevalent in the war, women were not just on the front lines they were often times surrounded by the enemy.

Operation Desert Shield and Storm saw the largest deployment of military women in U.S. history. Over 40,000 women were called to duty in Iraq. Sixteen women died and two were captured as prisoners of war.

Updated since my speech in 2007

Currently in Afghanistan and Iraq over 130 U.S. military servicewomen have given their lives for our country. Women make up 16% of our U.S. armed forces. Like Vietnam, there are no definitive front lines and women are in the middle of the conflicts even if delivering supplies. These women have one thing in common with their fellow male counterparts; they carry weapons and know how to use them.

This year six female police officers have given their lives in the line of duty. The first Law Enforcement death of the year was Deputy Sheriff Suzanne Hopper. Deputy Hopper was 40-years-old and had served twelve years with her department. There are currently over 110,000 female Police Officers serving in the U.S. and over 9,700 women Firefighters.

While researching my Independence Day speech I searched for quotes to exemplify the role of women in service to our country. I found very few though two struck me as needing to be mentioned.

“To tell a woman everything she may not do is to tell her what she can do.” –Spanish Proverb

“War is not women’s history.” –Virginia Woolf

I leave you with my rebuttal to this last quote.

“Where ever there is war, there are women. We mend the wounded, mourn the dead and tend the home fires of both the winners and the losers. Even when we are a part of the fight we are all but forgotten. War is women’s history. Women are just the part not told.” –Suzie Ivy

Yes, it is all anyone can talk about these days. While in Tampa to take in some Yankees’ Spring Training games, the number of men wearing NCAA t-shirts is telling. Heck, even President Obama, with all the major issues going on in the world today was not too busy to pick his NCAA brackets and play some golf, or diss his Secretary of State for being hardworking while he plays around at parties and dinners. Oh, it is March Madness all right.

But, as Christine Brennan of USA Today highlights, they aren’t the only ones, Psst, Women Have Hoops Tourney, Too. Oh, huh – yeah, I guess they do.

Brennan nails it when she writes:

If you had a dollar for every time someone has referred to “the tournament” this week, you’d be a millionaire.

It’s all people can talk about in sports: the tournament. Catch the national news on radio or TV. Check out any number of sports websites. Listen to your local sportscaster. Listen to yourself. The language is the same: it’s the tournament, singular, as if there’s only one.

But there’s a rumor going around that there is in fact another college basketball tournament taking place at the same time. Perhaps you’ve heard this rumor? That women’s basketball players are competing for a national title too? When people hear about this and want to check it out, they end up having a difficult time proving it in the mainstream news media, especially radio and TV, so they often end up wondering if they just dreamed it.

This is the fate of “the other tournament,” the NCAA women’s college basketball tournament, which runs concurrently with the men’s, forever to be known as “the tournament.”

And I do mean forever. No matter how much better and more interesting the women’s game has become, its tournament will always be seen as an add-on. And it’s not just because the men started theirs in 1939 and the women in 1982. Ironically, the stronger the women’s tournament gets, the more the men’s tournament leaves it in the dust. It’s illogical, but true. While the women’s tournament is all about sports, the men’s is about so much more. It has become a way of life, a part of our culture. How can the women compete with that? [snip]

Good question. How indeed, when the men have 55 years on the women with this top basketball tournament? Brennan addresses that, too:

[snip]There is a school of thought that says the women are getting far more than they used to in terms of coverage and interest, and that they should be happy with that. We’ll call this the “table scraps” theory.

Then there’s the 21st-century concept of actually trying to give women’s sports every opportunity to shine in their own right. This school of thought says that the current system, running the two tournaments at the same time, is failing because the men’s tournament simply blocks out too much of the sun.

In less than three weeks, the NCAA could be hosting the greatest women’s Final Four in history. If top seeds Connecticut, Tennessee, Stanford and Baylor all make it to Indianapolis, it could be a terrific Sunday of college basketball: UConn would play Tennessee, renewing the high-wire rivalry between Geno Auriemma and Pat Summitt; and Stanford, the team that ended UConn’s historic NCAA winning streak in December, would play Baylor, led by towering, 6-8 center Brittney Griner.

You gotta admit, that does sound pretty exciting (though I have no love lost for Pat Summit, sorry all of my Tennessee friends!). And for those who do not know, U-Conn had a record streak going of 90 wins until Stanford broke it the end of December. You can see how there could be some major fireworks if the Final Four ends up as Brennan thinks it might. Holy moley, that would be some good basketball, wouldn’t it? Brennan thinks so, too:

This glorious prospect has to be one of the best-kept secrets in sports. To be sure, national outlets that take their responsibility to cover all sports seriously are busy telling the story of the women’s game.

But do the vast majority of people putting the finishing touches on their bracket (that would be singular) have any clue about this possibility? Of course not. They are too busy worrying about their pick in Thursday’s Cincinnati-Missouri men’s matchup.

[...]

People will come up with excuses forever, but this year shows us as well as any that it’s time for the NCAA to give the women a place of their own on the sports calendar.

Today, there is more talent, skill and athleticism in women’s college basketball than at any other time in the history of the game. To do nothing is to guarantee that these fine athletes who are so deserving of widespread national attention will never get it. (Click here to read the rest.)

Indeed, these women work just as hard as their male counterparts, play a great game of hoops, and deserve more attention than they are getting. If the Final Four shapes up as predicted, it will be one helluva end to this tournament. It isn’t just men playing basketball on a national scale any more, and it is far past time for that to sink into the public consciousness. If nothing else, watching the women play is a great way to wind up Women’s History Month, don’t you think?

* One more thing about Japan. Unfortunately for the Japanese, people take their stoicism, calm, civility, and community spirit as evidence that they do not need help on the same level as other countries hit by natural occurrences of this magnitude. Add to that the perception that Japan, as a first level industrialized nation, has it altogether so it doesn’t need as much help. That spells Japan receiving just $49 million in donations the first week after the earthquake, aftershocks, and tsunami hit. Compare that to Haiti, which received $296 million, and those affected by the Indian Ocean tsunami at $250 million. The issues they face with the nuclear reactors, as well as whole areas wiped out from the tsunami, are massive on a huge scale. Yes, they are an industrialized nation, but they are our allies, and they are people in need. If you are able, and so inclined, they can use your help. Charity Navigator lists and ranks organizations doing relief work in Japan. Or if you have a favorite, like the Red Cross, you can designate funds for Japan there as well.

**UPDATED** – Sandra Bullock has donated $1 million to Japan’s relief effort. She continues to impress with her generosity and compassion.

While Obama is be-bopping about (getting out of Dodge after the Mid-term Election), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been on her own trip. First, she went to New Zealand, where the Prime Minister referred to her as “President Clinton.” Secretary of State Clinton also made a visit to Papua, New Guinea, a ‘filip” for that country. In Cambodia, she was in the midst of a group hug of young women who were human trafficking victims.

And Secretary Clinton visited Australia, where she discussed a number of important issues, highlighting the US-Australia alliance over China. But the highlight has to be this interview with comedians Hamish and Andy:

That is the Hillary we know and love, the Hillary we so needed to take the reins of this country, especially in these difficult times.

Unbelievably, Chris Matthews who shoved Obama down our throats on MSNBC(O), and constantly belittled and demeaned Hillary Clinton throughout the primaries said this about her appearance with Hamish and Andy: “Had you seen this Hillary Clinton in 2008, she might be president.” Spare me, Mr. Matthews. You, personally, did so much to tarnish Hillary Clinton during the primaries that even Media Matters came after you for it. WE knew this is who we would get, but you and your network were hellbent on pushing Obama on us despite his thin resume. Just freakin’ spare me already.

Instead, we got Obama (thanks, Chris), much to the dismay of many of us, including SC State Senator, Robert Ford. Turns out, back in 2007, State Senator Ford, an African American, took some heat for his prophetic (as it turns out) statement that if Obama was elected, he would pull down the entire Democratic Party. Huh. Well, whaddya know. He was right, as the Mid-Terms have made abundantly clear.

And no, Obama, it isn’t your “failure to communicate“:

Um, no, it was your policies.

But Mr. Ford is not done with his projections, no sirree, as this Post and Courier article indicates:

[snip] Ford, a Charleston Democrat, said U.S. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat, should step out of a leadership role next year, or the whole party will go down in defeat. Ford said the same goes for U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat.

Clyburn and Pelosi have offered themselves for leadership positions in next year’s Congress, when the Democrats fall back to the minority party. Clyburn will run for House minority whip and Pelosi will run for the role as minority leader.

“If they elect Nancy Pelosi or Jim Clyburn to leadership, the Democratic Party will be taken off life support,” Ford said. “That will be the end of the Democratic Party. They’re bad news right now.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy moley. Tell us how you really feel, Senator Ford! Well, you know, he was right once about Obama, and my bet is he’ll be right again should Pelosi and Clyburn prevail (Clyburn is now in a race with Steny Hoyer as the two battle for the Minority whip position).

Should it come to be that for Pelosi and Clyburn to keep leadership positions does take down the Democratic Party as Senator Ford fears, then Secretary Clinton may feel free to embrace other opportunities. Like a move to Australia, for instance. Hey, if she gets wind that the people of Australia would appreciate and welcome her leadership, she just might take them up on it.

And if that happens, I’m outta here. Australia, here I come, to the land of koala bears, kangaroos, and didgeridoos. Hey, I’m all set. Check it out: “Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oi, Oi, Oi!” Here, we can all practice together:

Remember back in April when Obama traveled to the G-20 and bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia? If not, here it is:

Actually, that doesn’t look as much like a bow as it does a genuflect. Not, true, says Obama’s Spokes Weasel, Robert Gibbs. Oh, no – it is just because Obama is tall, and “bending over.” I am not kidding you – that’s what he claimed. So, don’t believe what you actually SAW, just believe Spokes Weasel that it’s not what it looked like it was.

Well, it would seem Obama learned nothing from that experience when he traveled to Japan and met the Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko of Japan:

Sigh. I know it is customary to bow in Japan, but this is a bit over the top for anyone, much less a US president, or another world leader. You will notice that, while the Emperor or Empress bows in return, it is slight, almost imperceptible. Nice to see that SOME people understand decorum and protocol, even if Obama doesn’t. They were modeling the appropriate level for him, and he missed it. I might add, Obama doesn’t bow just once, he does it over and over and over again (though not as low) like a frikkin’ bobblehead. His hosts, however, are not recirpocating.

Wow. So much for the President of the United States bowing to no one. What an amateur. Respect is one thing. Subordination is another. This appears to be a case of the latter, IMHO.

Yep, the second bow heard around the world. Oh, and the topic of discussion? Green tea ice cream. I’m not making this up, people, that’s what Obama discussed with the Emperor and Empress.

Perhaps Obama could take a few lessons from Secretary of State Clinton on how one meets with other world leaders, particularly in Japan, as this video from February, 2000 demonstrates (pay special attention around the 5:10 mark when the Empress and Clinton greet each other):

You’ll notice Clinton did not bow to the Empress. Though I have to say, the looks exchanged between the two women were quite lovely. They seem to really like each other (and who doesn’t like our Hillary??). Other than that, not a bow in sight. Oh, sure, she nodded her head a few times in recognition when someone bowed to her, but a real bow? Uh, yeah, NO. Didn’t see a one.

Once again, our Amateur in Chief is on display for all the world to see, and believe you me, they all saw it, too. Seriously, he needs to get some real protocol officers instead of asking one of his frat boys from their video games (“No, really, dude – I’m pretty sure they bow to each other in Japan. At least that’s what my Samurai warriors just did to each other on my X Box…”).

How I wish I could say I was surprised at Obama’s breach of protocol after his “teachable moment” in April with the King of Saudi Arabia. But when you have a president who gives a “shout out” and CALLS it a “shout out” after finding out about a devastating attack on one of our military bases before even acknowledging the attack, this is just par for the course. It just leaves me shaking my head…

Here is a good recap of what has happened during the past week from the American Red Cross:

It is hard to put into words the depth of destruction that has occurred in these areas. Below are a few videos to give you an idea of what has happened in these countries. These are not easy to watch, and tragically, many lives have been lost. But it is important for us to know what has happened, and how we can help.

A brief report from the AP on American Samoa and Samoa follows here:

A major earthquake hit Sumatra:

And this is a glimpse into what has happened in the Philippines:

There are many, many more videos available online at Youtube.com, if you wish to see more.

If you want to help, donations can be made to the American Red Cross Donations are also being accepted by Oxfam America, and other worthy organizations.

My thoughts and prayers go out to all those in these areas, for their safety, for those who have been lost, and those who are missing. My prayers also go to all of those brave souls who rush in to help in these situations. Truly, they are heroes…

[...]

Here’s some Feith fun from Pat Lang:

Patrick Lang told a hilarious story the other night, for example, about a job interview he had with Douglas Feith, a key architect of the invasion of Iraq.

It was at the beginning of the first Bush term. Lang had been in charge of the Middle East, South Asia and terrorism for the Defense Intelligence Agency in the 1990s. Later he ran the Pentagon’s worldwide spying operations.

In early 2001, his name was put forward as somebody who would be good at running the Pentagon’s office of special operations and low-intensity warfare, i.e., counterinsurgency. Lang had also been a Green Beret, with three tours in South Vietnam.

One of the people he had to impress was Feith, the Defense Department’s number three official and a leading player in the clique of neoconservatives who had taken over the government’s national security apparatus.

Lang went to see him, he recalled during a May 7 panel discussion at the University of the District of Columbia.

“He was sitting there munching a sandwich while he was talking to me,” Lang recalled, “which I thought was remarkable in itself, but he also had these briefing papers — they always had briefing papers, you know — about me.

“He’s looking at this stuff, and he says, ‘I’ve heard of you. I heard of you.’

“He says, ‘Is it really true that you really know the Arabs this well, and that you speak Arabic this well? Is that really true? Is that really true?’

“And I said, ‘Yeah, that’s really true.’

“That’s too bad,” Feith said.

The audience howled.

“That was the end of the interview,” Lang said. “I’m not quite sure what he meant, but you can work it out.”

Feith, of course, like the administration’s other Israel-connected hawks, didn’t want “Arabists” like Lang muddying the road to Baghdad, from where — according to the Bush administration theory — overthrowing Saddam Hussein would ignite mass demands for Western-style, pro-U.S. democracies across the entire Middle East.

And some Lang on Wolfowitz:

“I remember talking to [Paul] Wolfowitz, in his office, in the Pentagon, and telling him — this was after the propaganda build up had started, before the war. I said, ‘You know, these guys are not going to welcome you.’

“He said, ‘Why?’ I said, ‘For one thing, these guys detest foreigners, and the few who really like you are the least representative of the various breeds of people there. They’re going to fight you, then, if you occupy the place there’s going to be a massive insurgency.’”

“He said, ‘No, no, they’ll be glad to see us,’” Lang continued. “This will start the process of revolution around the Middle East that will transform everything.’

No, Lang told Wolfowitz, “that’s not gonna happen. It’s just an impossibility. They’re not like that. They don’t want to be us.”

Not everyone agrees with all of Lang’s views about the Arab world, but on this issue he was prescient, of course, as were almost all experts on the region outside of the neocon faithful.

How come we learned so much of this dispute only after the war?

And Lawrence Wilkerson on Tenet and “Curveball”:

Wilkerson provides a damning clue.

In February 2003, Powell’s top aide relates, he “spent five of the most intimate days of my life, and five nights, without sleeping, as did my team, staring into . . . the face” of George Tenet, Tenet’s deputy John McLaughlin, and other top CIA officials working on Iraq, at the agency’s headquarters at Langley.

It was the eve of Powell’s now infamous speech at the United Nations detailing Iraq’s alleged biological, chemical and nuclear programs.

“One of the things Secretary Powell and I told Mr. Tenet and Mr. McLaughlin at the outset of our frenetic five or six days, trying to get ready for the U.N., was ‘multiple sources.’ We will not take anything and put it in this presentation, unless there are multiple, independently corroborated sources for the items we’re putting in the testimony,” Wilkerson said.

“That was the going-in position.”

Subsequently, he learned that there was but “a single source for the mobile biological laboratories; that his code name was Curveball; and that there were several very key dissents as to this individual’s testimony, during or before the preparation of the secretary of State.”

Curveball, an Iraqi refugee, turned out to be a liar.

“None of that, ladies and gentlemen, none of that was revealed to the secretary of State, or to me, or to any member of my team, by either John McLaughlin or George Tenet,” Wilkerson said.

Tenet says in his memoir that he never heard of any serious questions about Curveball.

As readers of this column know , however, Tenet’s chief of European operations, Tyler Drumheller, insists he sent a flurry of warnings about Curveball to Tenet’s deputies.

Both can’t be right.

“Either George Tenet is lying through his teeth, or Tyler Drumheller is lying through his teeth,” Wilkerson says, “with regard to one of the most important pillars of Secretary Powell’s presentation at the United Nations: the mobile biological laboratories.”

We’re waiting now for a third CIA official to come forth with an answer.

Lots of people are dying because of the errors and idiocy perpetrated by Feith, Wolfowitz and yes, Tenet too.

– Steve Clemons

BELOW, MORE HILLARY on Obama’s friendliness towards Hugo Chavez, the case of former FBI agent Robert Levinson, Turkey and Armenia, and Indonesia and the U.S. — even our policy on “hurricane hunters”!

“Clinton: Imperative to Stop Iran on Nukes”
“Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is an imperative for the United States, which is taking a more active role in pursuing that goal. (April 22)”

“Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) raises three issues to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a House Foreign Affairs Committee – missing constituent Robert Levinson, who disappeared in Iran in 2007; the normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia; and the importance of fostering a strong relationship between the United States and Indonesia.”

“Congressman Mike Pence questioned Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about the recent summit in Latin America where President Obama was photographed shaking hands and warmly greeting Hugo Chavez. This exchange took place during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing.”

“Congressman Ron Klein discusses the international issue of hurricane hunters with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.”

This is an especially IMPORTANT video, as will be more we’ll post for you from Fareed Zakaria’s Sunday CNN program, a riveting hour. Really! (I stopped working on the blog, and listened! That’s rare!) We’ve differed with Zakaria’s views, but I admire his persistence in bringing world news to Americans, who often ignore international news, despite our gathering closeness. Right? I plead guilty and wish I knew more about the rest of the world. That’s why I make myself watch Zakaria’s program and PBS’s WorldFocus. So I honor Zakaria’s success in bringing this program to CNN. I imagine it wasn’t easy to sell an essentially American news network to devote a Sunday morning hour to world news!

FAREED ZAKARIA: “… Secretary Clinton’s trip to Asia, critiqued by some of the region’s best minds.” (The full transcript is below the fold.)

I’ve also included a fascinating remark that Zakaria used to open his program this morning on CNN in praise of the statements of Secretary Clinton about the besieged people of Burma – and ALL of the countries that we are affecting with our economic sanctions:

FIRST, before what Zakaria said about Hillary’s remarks on Burma and all of the economic sanctions we impose around the world thre are these reports from the BBC News and the New York Times:

New York Times, United States – Feb 18, 2009
“Clearly, the path we have taken in imposing sanctions hasn’t influenced the Burmese junta,” Mrs. Clinton said to reporters after meeting with Indonesia’s …

TRANSCRIPT 1, Zakaria’s opening remarks that refer to Secretary Clinton’s progressive view on economic sanctions in re Burma:

FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST: This is GPS, the GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I’m Fareed Zakaria.

It’s been a week full of news — the housing bailout, more troops for Afghanistan — and we’ll get to all of it.

But I noticed something I thought was significant. On her trip through Asia, Hillary Clinton acknowledged that our policy of economic sanctions against Burma — Myanmar — has not worked.

The reason I think this is significant is that I’m hoping it is the beginning of a rethinking. There’s a standard U.S. policy toward any regime that we don’t like. There’s not much we can do about it, and we can’t change the regime’s policies. But we decide we can’t just sit there, so we slap sanctions on the country.

Now, look at the effects. In Cuba, 50 years of sanctions have allowed Fidel Castro and his brother to wrap themselves in the mantle of Cuban nationalism and stay in power.

In Iraq, sanctions destroyed the middle class, leaving a civil society composed of criminals and religious zealots.

In Pakistan, which we sanctioned for their nuclear tests in 1990, two generations of army officers were deprived of any contact with the U.S. and grew to be anti-American — and in many cases, pro-Taliban.

In Iran today, sanctions have allowed the regime to claim that they are heroically battling efforts by Washington to strangle the nation and its aspirations.

So, how much more evidence, in the form of misery for the people and power for the dictators, do we need before we conclude that economic sanctions are a feel-good policy that have had only bad effects on the ground?

[...]

Stay with us.

TRANSCRIPT 2, Zakaria’s panel on Secretary Clintons’ trip to Asia:

ZAKARIA: The secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, has just wrapped up her first foreign tour to East Asia. Significantly, 1961 was the last time that a secretary of state chose that region for a first visit.

Joining me now, three experts on Asia, two of them from Asia, to talk about what that trip accomplished.

From Singapore, Kishore Mahbubani, the dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School and author of “The New Asian Hemisphere.” From New Delhi, Shekhar Gupta, the editor-in-chief of “The Indian Express.” And here in New York, the China scholar Minxin Pei of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace.

Welcome, gentlemen.

Kishore, what do you make of the fact that Hillary chose East Asia as her first region?

KISHORE MAHBUBANI, AUTHOR, “THE NEW ASIAN HEMISPHERE”: Well, I think it’s a clear indication, frankly, of how power is shifting to Asia.

And frankly, at a time when you’re facing the greatest financial crisis in several decades, to put Asia on top of the list of priorities is also a clear signal that, if you want to have a solution to this massive financial crisis, you have to work with Asia, because this is where all the reserves are.

Hillary is coming at a time when she is essentially representing — you know, in the past, secretaries of state represented symbols of power. Now, there is the sense that the United States is a wounded animal, a deeply wounded animal coming to some extent to Asia for assistance.

So I think they’re looking for a signal to see, is the United States now ready to deal in a position of equality with the Asian countries and say, can we work together to get out of this mess?

ZAKARIA: Shekhar, the one thing that Indians have worried about the Obama administration is that it is going to be a little — how shall I put it — softer on the war on terror, that it might be a little bit more willing to accommodate itself to certain forces, whether they are, you know, militant — forces of militant Islam. And one of the problems Hillary Clinton will probably face in private conversations in Japan is their concern that both Bush and, now, Obama will be too soft on the North Korean issue.

Is there a fear that the United States is kind of losing its muscle in Asia?

SHEKHAR GUPTA, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, “THE INDIAN EXPRESS”: Well, I think there is a fear that the United States may be distracted. They’ve got so many problems back home that they may become more inward-looking.

Because we believe that many of the problems we face in our region, particularly that India faces in terms of terrorism, that the U.S. can’t walk away from them, because they were largely responsible for creating them — the creation of the Taliban, before that the mujahedeen. You know, there is no need to go into the entire history.

So you can’t create all of that, and then walk away. We’ve got a nuclear weapons power sitting next door to us.

On the other hand, many of us here believe that Obama, because there was some expectation that he might be soft on terror, he will in fact go out of his way to show that he has focus in that area. And frankly, what we have seen so far from Richard Holbrooke’s visit in the region suggests that that is true, that he is focused on the terror issue.

But the other big concern in these parts about the Obama administration, which I think is a more real concern, is this whole protectionism. And I think that, to me, is a bigger concern right now.

ZAKARIA: Kishore, let’s pick up on something Shekhar Gupta talked about with regard to protectionism.

We’re all in this crisis together, and yet, all the governments of the world are busy protecting all their banks, their inefficient industries. They’re raising tariffs everywhere.

The U.S. has this “buy America” provision in the fiscal stimulus. But frankly, so do almost all countries in one way or the other.

Is this the end of the kind of world trade system that Asia grew prosperous in?

MAHBUBANI: I completely agree with Shekhar that we should be very deeply, deeply worried about the rise of protectionism and of us backtracking away from the system of the past.

But I think the big difference in Asia is that the Asians have not lost their faith in globalization.

And what’s interesting is that, you know, when you watch — I was listening to your program earlier on, the American economists talking about the American reaction to this crisis. You know, there’s an old expression: never waste a crisis.

And the sense I have is that, if you look at the Chinese, for example, the Chinese government is not wasting this crisis. It is actually using this crisis, using this stimulus plan, to focus on the long-term investment and doing the right things.

And the Chinese, by the way, have become the biggest believers in globalization, because they know that they and India are going to become the biggest beneficiaries of globalization. So there is no intellectual retreat from globalization in the Chinese and Indian elites in the way that you see in Europe or America.

ZAKARIA: Minxin, what do you think the Chinese want from America? What do you think they conveyed to Hillary Clinton privately?

MINXIN PEI, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: First of all, keep your rhetoric down, don’t raise expectations. Second, I think, on the…

ZAKARIA: On issues like?

PEI: … on protectionism, of course, they do want Obama — and, of course, Secretary Clinton — to take their stand and draw a line in the sand, because the initial noises from Congress are not very reassuring.

But I want to say something. Right now, it’s very hard actually to make protectionism work, because of globalization. Half of China’s exports are made by American companies and other multinationals. So, half of Chinese exports to the U.S.

If you want to stop Chinese exports, you are actually penalizing American companies. So, not many congressmen actually get this. Once they look deeper into this, they will find that the task is almost impossible for them.

ZAKARIA: Shekhar, what do you think the Japanese have been pressing? Because there is sometimes talk about how the rise of China means that India and Japan are kind of moving closer together, and the U.S. is encouraging this kind of anti-Chinese — or perhaps not anti- Chinese, but a hedge strategy against China.

Do you think Hillary Clinton’s trip has in some ways as a backdrop this idea?

GUPTA: Well, I don’t think there is any juice in this idea in India. I don’t think there’s any section of Indian society, Indian politics, Indian elites, which wants to join any kind of a bulwark against China.

At the same time, India understands that unless it gets its act together, unless it takes the process of reform forward, it’s going to get left so far behind China. That’s why India is going to be watching both China and America very carefully.

ZAKARIA: And we will be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAKARIA: And we are back Kishore Mahbubani from Singapore, Shekhar Gupta from India, of New Delhi, and Minxin Pei of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Kishore, what is being described, in a sense, is an Asia that is, I wouldn’t say optimistic, but seems fairly comfortable, forward- looking, even though this crisis has devastated Asia economies. I mean, the news this week was that Taiwan’s economy shrunk by 8 percent. Singapore is in very bad shape.

Why is this not producing massive social turmoil, pessimism, things like that?

MAHBUBANI: Well, I’m glad that you have confirmed the thesis of my book, that Asia is the most optimistic place in the world. And I think it’s important to emphasize the difference between short-term and long-term perspectives.

This year will be very bad. Singapore will shrink minus 5 percent, Taiwan is shrinking, Japan is shrinking. But, you know, most Asians actually — you know, we had just gone through the Asian financial crisis only about 10, 12 years ago — which was massive, you know.

But we went through it, and came out of it stronger. And the one reason why the Asians are in some ways more relaxed about this crisis, they say, “Hey, we’ve been through this once before. And we’ve actually accumulated the reserves that we needed for this crisis. So we are ready for it.”

And in some ways, this crisis may create wonderful opportunities for the region.

And one of the points I completely agree with Shekhar about is that the Indians no longer see the world as a zero-sum game, that China’s rise is not necessarily bad for India, and nor is India’s rise bad for China. In fact, the region actually wants to see both China and India succeed and be the two new engines of economic growth to drive the region up.

So, frankly, when I talk to people in the region, yes, they’re worried about the next 12 months or so. But they’re absolutely confident that, when this crisis is over, Asia will bounce back faster than any other part of the world.

ZAKARIA: Minxin, a lot of people wonder whether this economic crisis has rattled the Chinese elite, rattled the Communist Party, you know, that they will not actually be that outward-looking, because they’re going to face internal protest, turmoil.

What is your sense of the impact of this economic crisis on the Chinese leadership? PEI: Well, indeed, they have been deeply, deeply rattled. Initially they were not prepared for this. They did not understand the depths and the potential risks of this crisis. And now, I think they’re caught in a downward spiral, because the deceleration of growth in China has exceeded all the worst forecasts.

And now with unemployment looming in China, and then a leadership succession coming up in three to four years, the Communist Party’s leaders are now, of course, much more focused on domestic affairs.

So, this trip may do some very nice door-opening or getting-to- know-you. There are substantive issues I’m not so sure that the Chinese leaders are ready to talk or engage on a really substantive level.

ZAKARIA: Kishore, do you think that the Chinese are in the mood to be very cooperative with the U.S.? Or are they — is there some feeling that they have been swindled by the Americans, that they have made massive investments in America from Treasury bills to private equity firms, all of these investments are doing badly, and there is a sense that maybe they need to turn away from the United States?

MAHBUBANI: I think it’s important to emphasize one thing. You know, when the Chinese look at these things, they always take a long- term perspective and not a short-term perspective. I mean, yes, they may lose some money from U.S. Treasury bills, but there are much larger long-term considerations.

And I was trying to see what I think would be going on in Chinese minds as they receive Hillary Clinton. I see the combination of two or three factors. One, of course, they are very happy that she is coming to send a signal — hey, Asia matters, China matters. And they welcome that.

And the other point that is also critical in Chinese minds is that they realize that we are all in the same boat. We have to get out of this big crisis. And the only way we get out of this is to work together.

And if that’s the attitude of the United States, China will say, yes, we will cooperate with you to fix this.

ZAKARIA: Minxin, finally, Hillary Clinton comes back from Asia. Do you think that this, you know, that her trip will have in some way laid the groundwork for some shift in policy that the Obama people will put in place?

PEI: No, no. This is a symbolic trip, no substance attached to it. Well, if anything that will come out of this trip where China is concerned, I think is climate change, because she brought with her the top person on climate change, Todd Stern.

And if Obama wants to accomplish something in his first term that will be of truly historic proportion, an agreement with China on climate change will be it.

ZAKARIA: And on that note, Minxin Pei, Shekhar Gupta from New Delhi, Kishore Mahbubani from Singapore, thank you very much.

WAIT! THERE IS MORE TO COME! STAY TUNED!!!

Later today, stay tuned for more fascinating offerings from Fareed Zakaria on Pakistan.

You will NOT want to miss it, I promise you.

But first, I must share with you some fun news from China via a longtime friend of mine, Lisa, who has a great blog, The Paper Tiger. Lisa reports, “Hillary seems to be popular here – I’ve seen (positive) biographies and a couple posters of her (can’t remember what those were for).” Because of her father’s profession, Lisa spent childhood years in China and remains fascinated by the country. In Los Angeles, she rose early every Saturday to take Chinese language courses at UCLA, and she makes frequent visits to practice her Chinese and to see the many friends she’s made. On one recent tour, she espied this sign in a Kunming women’s bathroom [PHOTO LEFT] — FLUSH!!!. NOW, CNN’s REPORT on HILLARY IN CHINA:

BELOW, ALL ABOUT HILLARY IN INDONESIA:

“There is so much excitement in the air here,” she told an enthusiastic studio audience on the MTV-style “Dahsyat” show, which translates in English to “Awesome.” She said she had just spoken with Obama who wished them all well, drawing cheers.

Much of her appearance was lighthearted banter about her favorite music — the Beatles and Rolling Stones — and her poor singing abilities, but she also made clear that Washington wants to address Muslim concerns about U.S. policy in the Middle East and elsewhere.

— From “Clinton: U.S. fears N. Korea leadership crisis,” MSNBC news article

How great it is when we can receive the sage wisdom of a neighbor, a retired executive, a former coach, or on the international level a true statesman. While we may find it difficult to hear and deal with a tough message, ultimately the greatest form of “tough love” is simple truth and honesty.

A good friend of mine was gracious enough to share some video clips of a recent interview with Paul Keating, former Prime Minister and Treasurer of Australia. Mr. Keating speaks from experience and does not sugar coat the current economic turmoil.

While the three video clips (listed below) run approximately 20 minutes in total length, please allow me to provide a bullet point overview of some of the highlights. When you do have some spare time, I strongly encourage you to view these clips and gain the benefits of his wisdom. I do not think you will be disappointed, although you may be a bit dismayed as to his blunt honesty. In the meantime, here’s a brief overview:

– Australia had only 1 of the top 50 global banks prior to this crisis. It now has 4 of the top 15.

– the top 200 global financial institutions have had an average loss of 74% of market value.

– the current global economic turmoil is worse than it appears…

– the United States can not reflate the world…

– inflation is coming…

– the G-7 and International Monetary Fund (IMF) are no longer viable entities as structured, and the international economic community needs to formulate new bodies. In the process, we will see a significant shift in power and influence toward surplus nations (primarily China) from debtor nations (primarily United States).

– the Obama administration’s greatest challenge is its engagement of China. It must embrace China and not attempt to dictate to the Chinese along the lines of Treasury Secretary Geithner’s comment about China manipulating its currency.

– Keating strongly castigates the U.S. rating agencies, regulatory bodies, and banks for their neglect and incompetence in risk management.

– a “Bad Bank” may be necessary and has worked previously in other global financial crises

– the global economy needs to work towards debtor nations (U.S. and Europe) saving more, and surplus nations (China and Japan) spending and consuming more

– Keating views himself as neither a fiscal liberal nor conservative, but rather a fiscal pragmatist

– the United States needs to appreciate that it is in for a long and deep recession that will likely last 6 to 7 years!!!
(While I believe Keating is unduly pessimistic in this assessment, I also believe that those who believe the economy will start to turn around in the next 12 to 18 months are unduly optimistic)

No pandering, no nonsense. Mr Keating delivered a simple direct message that I, for one, appreciated. Tough love.

Now let’s go to the videos:

– LD

No freakin’ WONDER they are doing so poorly. When this Representative says they have done everything they need to do, well, that clearly not. If they HAD, they would not be in this shape. It is insane for them to offer so many options. That is just poor, poor management on the part of GM. And WE are paying for their poor management. Even now, they are locked into discussions with the UAW again. Once again, they want OUR money to pay for their employees.

Here’s the thing. My retirement fund is CRAP now with the stock market the way it is. My partner’s retirement fund is CRAP now because of the stock market. We are having to COMPLETELY rework our retirement plans as a result, including when my partner can retire, as a result. That is the real world consequence. Yet, the auto companies want to pass those real world consequences onto US. They want to make US pay for them, so their employees DON’T have to face the consequences of making products people don’t want to buy, and offering an obscene number of “options” that increase the costs of making the cars. It is absurd!! But here they are, back at the trough, wanting more and more of OUR money. Of course, we all knew this was going to happen, despite assurances to the contrary. Big surprise – not.

As for going abroad, yesterday I saw Secretary of State Clinton arriving at the Imperial Palace in Japan to engage in a tea ceremony with Empress Michiko. When they met, you could see how much affection these two women have for each other:

And you can see part of the ceremony here, as well as a brief report of her visit to Japan.

Clinton is now in Indonesia:

The U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said here Wednesday on the second leg of her Asian trip that the United States and Indonesia would form a comprehensive partnership.

She said at a joint press conference after meeting with the Indonesian Minister of Foreign Affairs Hassan Wirayuda that the United States had recognized the importance of Indonesia, which shares not only common interests but also common values with it.

Specifically, she was referring to democratic values.

It gives me some hope to have Hillary Clinton speaking for us around the world. It should be HER policies she is espousing and not Obama’s, but still – her presence, her abilities, her knowledge all make her uniquely qualified to engage with other nations. She makes me proud.

And now, CLASS: Please compare, and contrast, these two examples of television journalism:

Yes, well. Actually, there was some news in there.

And, Rachel, I’d flat-out kill for Hillary’s coat BUT it is NOT your lead, Rachel. So not your lead! (North Korea, for example

Hillary, you rock. Rachel? You not so much.

And why oh god why Rachel do you over-enunciate and over-emote every single word that comes out of your mouth in a very much too-high-pitched way?

Breathe, Rachel.

Take it from an old former French horn player: Use your diaphragm.

You’re supposed to be engaging, not grating!

Oh, that second example? That’s from the new PBS world news program that I’m very fond of, WorldFocus. Besides the above video, there’s this “blog” report:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Tokyo on Monday night on her first trip as the nation’s chief diplomat.

“I have come to Asia as my first trip as secretary of state to convey that America’s relationships across the Pacific are indispensable to addressing the challenges and seizing the opportunities of the twenty-first century,” Clinton said to a crowd in Tokyo.

Sheila A. Smith, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, joins Martin Savidge to discuss how Clinton will approach North Korea, Japan and how the Japanese view China’s growing economic and military power.

Read what a Worldfocus contributing blogger had to say about Clinton’s stop in Japan and what her visit means for internal Japanese politics: Clinton plans for a rare meeting with Japan’s opposition.

Check out MORE at WorldFocus.

P.S. Last night’s program included a quite disturbing if fascinating examination of the fascination with and admiration for Joseph Stalin that today’s Russians have: “Stalin Makes a Comeback With Russia’s Youth.”

• Hillary Clinton will bypass Europe and travel to Asia on her maiden voyage overseas
• U.S. Secretary of State Clinton to visit Japan, China, South Korea and Indonesia
• Trip illustrates Obama administration’s desire for a broader partnership with Asia
• Trip also highlights commitment to resolving the North Korean nuclear issue

BELOW THE FOLD: “CNN’s Kristie Lu Stout talks with David Lampton of John Hopkins University about Hillary Clinton’s trip to Asia” … This is a great backgrounder video on all the historic and current issues and crises that Secretary Clinton will be covering in this trip that covers an array of complex matters, including her historic 1995 speech in Beijing on women’s rights … as well as snippets from the longer CNN news article …

FROM the CNN news article:

ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE, Alaska (CNN) — Hillary Clinton says her first overseas trip to Asia as U.S. secretary of state is aimed at creating a “network of partners” to tackle problems that no nation can deal with alone, including the global economic crisis.

Hillary Clinton seeks improved relations with China, where she said the U.S. would renew military contacts.

En route to Asia on Sunday, Clinton told reporters that the economy would serve as the backdrop of her trip, and she intends to explain steps the United States is taking with its $787 billion stimulus bill. She said she will be “seeking cooperation on ways that we are going to work through these very difficult economic times.”

Clinton is slated to travel to Japan, China, South Korea and Indonesia to discuss a range of issues, including mutual economic recovery, trade, the prevention of nuclear weapons proliferation and reversing the global warming trend.

The trip represents a departure from a diplomatic tradition under which the first overseas trip by the secretary of state in a new administration is to Europe.

Speaking at the New York-based Asia Society last week, Clinton said the Obama administration wants to “develop a broader and deeper” relationship with Asia, a region that has felt overlooked by the United States despite its growing global importance.

“It demonstrates clearly that our new administration wants to focus a lot of time and energy in working with Asian partners and all the nations in the Pacific region,” she said, “because we know that so much of our future depends upon our relationships there.” Watch David Lampton of John Hopkins University discuss Clinton’s trip »

On Sunday, she addressed North Korea’s nuclear program, which she’s called “the most acute challenge to stability in northeast Asia.” Clinton said the Obama administration is prepared to seek a permanent, stable peace with Pyongyang as long as its regime pursues disarmament and does not engage in aggression against neighboring South Korea. The United States has a “great openness and willingness to working with them,” she said. … [READ ALL.]

The suit filed by Mr. McCain’s campaign against elections officials states Mr. McCain could lose votes from military members overseas who support the Vietnam War hero.

“There are many military service members and overseas voters who support Senator John McCain for president in the upcoming election and whose right to vote will be denied without relief from this court,” stated the complaint, also filed in U.S. District Court in Richmond.

The complaint states some Virginia localities did not send absentee ballots to overseas voters at least 45 days before the election, as recommended in 2004 by a congressionally created commission.

Wow. That is just a tad problematic, don’t you think? It is 2008 – surely 4 years is sufficient lead time to make sure that everything is squared away in order to fulfill this recommendation. Just sayin’.

This lawsuit was sparked by one case – see? Making your voice heard DOES matter! Hopefully, anyway. THe article continues:

The complaint cites the specific case of a Marine stationed in Iraq who did not receive his absentee ballot from Arlington County until Oct. 29. It asks that the court order absentee ballots for federal offices sent by Nov. 4 from qualified voters and received by Nov. 14 in the state to be counted.

“The McCain-Palin campaign believes without exception that the servicemen and women on the front line protecting our freedoms deserve every opportunity to make sure their vote counts,” McCain spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said.

It was not clear last night when the suit would be heard in court.

“Of course we want to make sure that all the absentee ballots that are coming in from overseas are counted,” Miss Skinner said. “We’ll comply with whatever order the judge gives on that.”

I dunno – I don’t think 10 days is all that long to wait, all things considered, do you? Whether one agrees with the Iraq War (I don’t), the reality is that these people are putting their lives on the line, their lives at home on hold, making sacrifices the enormity of which many of us cannot fathom, including, sadly, the ultimate sacrifice for some. I think the least we can do is allow them to VOTE. THis goes for ALL of our military serving abroad, whether it be Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Germany – wherever it is, our citizens deserve to execute their right in a democracy to cast their vote. Anything less is unacceptable, especially when they are in harm’s way. And especially when people like these two get to vote unimpeded:

Isn’t it weird seeing people go up and hug them? Like they are just anybody else in the neighborhood, not two unrepentant domestic terrorists who want to teach their children?? I wonder – was it from them that Obama learned to be a con man? Ahem.

So, yeah – I don’t think 10 days is too much to ask to allow late absentee ballots from our military, through no fault of their own, to come back in, do you?