The Richard Clarke, Pakistan & Harvard connection

A man caught trying to take federal documents, Richard Clarke is conducting negotiations regarding 9/11. He was on CNN yesterday and also in the “Washington Post.” On CNN he argued for civil liberties for Pakistanis entering the United $tates.

The Democrats need to line up Pakistan to support Obama. Along these lines, Clarke tried to push for less restrictive entry policies against Pakistan and also CNN and Harvard beat the after-the-fact lynching drum against me, as part of a deal signaled through the television and print media for Kagan’s nomination.

You our readers are already aware that I started documenting the sending of females against me right on the streets of Harvard Square (restaurants, cafes) back when our original website was running.

The Clinton administration’s counter-terrorist Richard Clarke has recently been added at Harvard as an adjunct professor. He works at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government.(1)

Clarke has an obvious interest in protecting the image of the Clinton administration. His piece in the “Washington Post” says that mistakes should not be held against counter-terrorist workers like himself. The “Washington Post” is serving as a loyal Obamauton mouthpiece.

On May 5th, an ambassador from Pakistan spoke at the Kennedy School. In questions and answers, the ambassador said that local Senator John Kerry was a “hero” for the Kerry-Lugar bill giving aid to Pakistan in 2009.(2) On the other hand, in the new counterinsurgency strategy, the United $tates took anti-American questions and the ambassador Husain Haqqani(3) explored how many in Pakistan blame the Amerikans for dragging them through the Cold War period only to create the well-armed and organized Muslim organizations that the United $tates attacks Pakistan for today. The ambassador admitted that the wars the United $tates involved Pakistan in have cost it dearly and that confrontation with India is also costly.

Thus the strategy appears to be that Pakistan’s ambassador is allowed to defend himself in anti-Amerikan terms, just so long as he opposes “terrorism.” In 2009, despite Obama, Pakistan was one country where there was no huge overpaid petty-bourgeoisie to take up a neo-colonial lynching fad and only 16% approve of the United $tates according to Pew research.(4)

The fact is that I have approached several lawyers in the Boston area including Harvard Law professors including one former appointee of Bush and I have found none willing to assist me in multiple legal difficulties the Democratic Party has piled on my lap. In the diplomatic world, conspiracies and deals abound. I’d warn the international united front to continue its main offensive work at its own pace and not let various Aesopian overtures cloud the overall picture. The rulers here do know that they have engaged the international united front on multiple levels.

Husain Haqqani admitted that Pakistan is going through a demographic explosion. Of course he did not say that Pakistan is ripe for revolution and the United $tates is a blunt counterrevolutionary force.




%d bloggers like this: